Of Arts and the Animal 7

 A Christian Essay in Aesthetic Value

There is a category of works that give every appearance of being figurative, and that is narrative and descriptive works – novels, opera, ballet and so on – the truth, however, is that no narrative with a serious artistic purpose, or any aesthetic merit, is truly concerned with its ostensible subject but always addresses itself to the abstract ideals I have already mentioned. The ‘weasel under the cocktail cabinet’, the moral beast exposing whited sepulchres, is found with the Lamb in the tabernacle. The subject itself is utterly trivial; who can care what happens to fictitious people if their story illustrates nothing beyond themselves; if they are to hold any interest at all, it can only be because the narrative is packed with incident and sensation. Thus we distinguish ‘quality’ literature from the penny dreadful or pornography, and ‘legitimate’ theatre from grand guignol.

We may also see that the soap opera is a peculiarly low form of narrative; whilst the creation of the series involves a measure of artistry, to write an open narrative, without artistic purpose or resolution, in which the parameters of the characters are given in advance, appears to thwart the purposes of art by excluding self-communication or moral expression. On the subject of pornography, I should note that the legitimacy of representations of sexual matters depends upon two things, their place within the totality of the artistic concept, and whether the chosen medium and form are such that the representation is liable to being received in a discrete manner to the detriment of that total artistic vision. Hence a sexual act intrinsic to the purpose of the narrative, illuminating some moral truth to a high degree when depicted in balanced prose or music becomes pornographic when represented naturalistically on film or on stage: the Tristan chord does not titillate. Narrative genre is irrelevant to the question of value or quality. Humorous works are often altogether ruled out of consideration as artworks, but who could discount The Merry Wives of Windsor or Albert Herring? P.G. Wodehouse (a distant relative of Cardinal Newman’s) was as important an exponent of modernism (the literary style rather than the heresy) as T.S. Eliot: the intellectual landscape through which Bertie Wooster so breezily strolls is very much a Waste Land of the remains of a forgotten faith, the ruins of classical civilisation, and the wreckage of English letters.

My final observation with respect to narrative forms concerns music. The final verdict in Richard Strauss’ last opera, Capriccio, is that no verdict is possible in judging whether words or music takes precedence, prima le parole dopo la musica or vice versa. If both are artists, both writer and composer have artistic concepts or visions of their own, complementary but separate; it is a different matter entirely when a composer merely illustrates the drama, and his or her work is carried out at the service of the director’s artistic vision in the same way as the work of a cinematographer, a make-up artist or a set designer – this is music as craft rather than art.

The religious nature of artistic practice is evident also in that it is a search for truth, which is a search always for God Himself Who, incarnate in Christ proclaims that He is “The way, and the truth, and the life” (Jn.XIV 6). This search for truth is inherent in the nature of the artistic act as an act of communication; meaning must be, if not grasped, at least grasped at if it is to be conveyed. Artists such as Piet Mondrian and Wassily Kandinsky have equated their portrayal of universals, the divine ideas to which I have referred, with ‘the spiritual in art’, and Henri Matisse affirmed “the act of pure painting is a search for the absolute”.

By Prayer Crusader St Philip Howard 

Of Arts and the Animal Part 6

 A Christian Essay in Aesthetic Value

Continued...

The final criterion is that the work should be judged as a communication about God. Because they are simply correlates of the purpose of art as an act of communication, secularists will accept the other two criteria if not all that I have said with respect to them; this third criterion, however, leaves even many religious people somewhat puzzled as they do not see how or why a work on a non-religious theme can or should be judged in these terms. I have already said that because the artist and any subject are creatures, and every creature is an act of divine self-communication, any communication concerning them is necessarily a communication about the Creator, but there is more to be said on the subject than that. Because the artistic act is an act of love it is a participation in that which is intrinsically divine as well as in the divine action: “Ubi caritas et amor est, ibi Deus est. Where charity and love is, there God is” (Maundy Thursday antiphon at the Mandatum). Furthermore, the nature of the artistic act is of a religious nature, and those who dedicate themselves to the practice of the arts are universally regarded as being engaged in an essentially spiritual occupation with something of a shamanic character to it in its search for inspiration in the inner vision of the underlying truth of things, of creatures and artefacts.   Richard M. Weaver took the position that poetry is always religious in character because poetry works by a system of metaphor and analogy relying upon an underlying level of reality in which the creation indicates the Creator by a universal analogy. He says that poetry on any assumption other than that of there being an immanent level of reality would be an anomaly. Quite so, but I would go further and say that any artistic practice in the absence of a living faith is anomalous because the artistic act amounts to an affirmation that that which is created is freighted with meaning indicative of the substance of its creator; how then can those who create from created elements deny that those elements are already endowed with meaning and significance by the Creator who creates ex nihilo? This might, perhaps, be an opportune moment to comment on the fact that, because all artists use that which already exists, there can be no legitimate basis for denigrating the use of ready-mades in the visual arts or musique concrète in composition. Writers use existing words and composers existing scales, indeed those in the performing arts generally work exclusively with ready-made material. We may judge the performing arts purely with respect to the depth of the passions displayed within the scope of the piece performed; even in the process of illuminating its shortcomings, a fine performance can transcend mediocre source material. We may judge the depth of our encounter with the artist and the subject matter in the work, and whether the mystery of the divine reflected in them is made palpable.

We may judge also how far the work preserves or obscures the meaning inherent in the substance whereof it is fashioned, and whether the meaning with which it is endowed by the artist is in accord with that which belongs to its essential nature. So far I have discussed the subject of the work only with respect to cases where that subject is another creature, and have mentioned non-figurative representation. There is a class of non-figurative works explicitly devoted to the exploration of the substances from which they are fashioned – the word, the sound, the paint, the canvas – and it is quite common for critics and theorists to discuss such works in explicitly religious terms because these works form a bridge between works addressing a creature as subject and works the subject of which is either an abstraction from some aspect of human or more broadly creaturely existence, or else some ideal such as balance, beauty, transcendence, truth, goodness, meaning or justice. Any work addressed to such an idea as subject is implicitly religious in its nature because these ideals are qualities through which the divine is made manifest to humanity, but the critics and ‘ordinary’ members of the audience are not wrong to perceive the wider class of non-figurative works as religious as every work that succeeds in presenting people with the depths of the artist’s being is an icon of the divine image whether or not it is figurative in nature. That is to say that every successful work is, ipso facto, endowed with a perceptibly religious or spiritual character; so there is no need to discuss works on religious themes as a particular case, other than, perhaps, to note that as the work or performance reflects the moral depths of the artists involved, it is best that they should be of an impeccable character, as St. Pius X demanded of Church musicians in Tra le sollecitudini , although biographical studies show this desideratum to have been honoured often in the breach. The only work whose religious nature sets it apart for special mention is the liturgy, which is both an art work in itself and the subject of music and the decorative arts. The authentic liturgies of East and West communicate to us the holiness of our forebears in faith in the age of saints, but later liturgies were consciously created to embody the ideological propositions of their authors and put forward their ideas rather than to reflect a faith already lived and a truth already possessed. When other arts are applied to the liturgy as their subject it is essential that the artist should grasp the dogmatic truths involved and the nature of the sacraments as sacred signs effecting that which is signified. In the liturgical arts the act of self-communication must be preceded by a radical self-alignment with the purpose of the liturgy, the sanctification of humanity through the redemptive action of Christ, if that purpose is to be achieved. The icon writer must first fast and be consecrated to the task by a priestly blessing. An artistic failure regarding the liturgy can thwart that purpose, and actively militates against the subjective reception of the graces objectively conveyed by the sacramental sign.

by Prayer Crusader St Philip Howard

The Media and the War - 23rd Crusade of Prayer

 The First World Woke War

The Western Main Stream Media and the cause of the war in the Ukraine

First let me say I am in no way supportive of the Russian invasion of the Ukraine, this can hardly be described as a just war. The destruction, the bombing, the killing are just appalling. However, who is to blame, is it just Russia? Have the west, or NATO, the EU or the media any guilt here? Well, all are to blame let us not mince our words; the western governments and in particular the western main stream media have been baiting Russia for years. Why? After all the Soviet block is long gone and the cruel communist ideology has been replaced by Orthodox Christianity; Russia’s leader Vladimir Putin (for whatever reasons) has been promoting and supporting the Church in Russia, and in many areas Russia has come to resemble a western Christian country, if not a democracy.

Well I believe there are many reasons why the west do not want this form of Russia to succeed. Russia is a very big country, it has enormous oil and gas supplies, a huge military and of course Nukes. But these are not the real reasons (or rather not the main reason) the west and in particular western main stream media hate Russian. Russian Christianity and its restrictions on the homosexual and LGBTQ+ promotion are an important factor in Western hatred if Russia. This and its conservatism in family matters. However, why has Russia invaded the Ukraine, a sovereign nation?

Recent history.

Some of the Ukraine's territory was given to it by the Soviet Union during the communist era; these are actually Russian speaking lands and include the Donbas and the Crimea. When the Soviet Union broke up in 1990 Ukraine declared independence and along with the Russian speaking areas formed modern Ukraine. Gorbachev agreed to a unified Germany being part of NATO provided the other former countries of the Soviet Block remained neutral or unaligned. This did not happen and most of the countries joined NATO, which Russia believes to be a direct threat.

In 2014 the pro-Russian PM Viktor Yanukovych was over thrown during the Orange Revolution (the Yanukovych election was pronounced to be fraudulent by later courts). The Orange Revolution has is claimed to have been fuelled by the CIA, Soros Foundations and the anti-Russian media, both in the Ukraine and abroad.

Vladimir Putin claimed that the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion were active in suppressing Russian speaking areas in Eastern Ukraine. They model themselves on the German SS of the Second World War. Therefore Russia moved into the Crimea and supported the Russian separatists in the Donbas. In 2021/2 Putin claimed the there was indiscriminate killing of ethnic Russians by the Azovs.

Therefore, Putin’s reasoning for the invasion of the Ukraine was that Ukraine was about to join NATO, and the oppression of native Russians particularly by neo-Nazis.

Again, let me say that although one can understand what Putin is saying, this still does not excuse Russia's invasion of the Ukraine. However, to listen to the media and the actions of western Governments one would think we are now at war with Russia.

We are not at war with Russia!

So when Russia invaded the Ukraine the west went into Russophobia craze mode, and Russian Blue cats were banned from cat shows, Russian music was taken off concert programmes, the owner of Chelsea football club was sanctioned, his club taken from him and his bank accounts frozen, and yet we are not at war with Russia! RT (Russia Today) has been blocked by most search engines and You Tube etc. Hardly supportive of free speech and looking at the situation from all sides.

Why is the west not promoting peace talks?

It is clear that the western media wants this war, the media made up of
numerous players such as Stephen Fry, Elton John and many leading homosexuals have been egging the Ukraine on. Where are the cries for peace talks on the BBC or CNN or numerous other western media outlets? Why is President Biden not calling for peace talks, or Boris Johnson? There is no talk of peace. Just macho rhetoric, Biden trying to look tough to compensate for his own failings. It is clear that NATO still sees Russia as the enemy.

War by proxy

Therefore, it is clear that given that there has been no attempt by western leaders to foster peace talks, western governments and the main stream media want the total humiliation of Putin and Russia, they do not want a peace agreement. The Woke Western entertainment industry want Russia as it is today destroyed. All the tactics of Critical Theory have employed:

·                     The west and the Ukraine are the good guys and have done nothing to foster the war. ~ Well as we have stated the west has been baiting Russia for decades

·                     Russia alone is guilty for this war ~ However, Putin's request for assurances that the Ukraine does not join NATO were ignored by Biden and other Western Governments. The invasion of Ukraine will be a disaster for Russia, the Ukraine and the world.

·                     Only Russia is the evil party ~ Then what about the Neo-Nazi Azov Battalion?

·                     We support the Ukraine because it aspires to freedom and "Western Values" ~ Richard Moore the head of the Woke MI6 recently tweeted "...we should remember the values and hard won freedoms that distinguish us from Putin, none more than LGBT+ rights. So let's resume our series of tweets to mark #LGBTHM2022. In recent years, Kiev has had LGBT "Pride" events with all the attendant lewdness and disgusting displays.

·                     Russia commits atrocities -  western media repeatedly say that the Russians are "targeting" civilians, schools, hospitals etc. but to do this is counterproductive and Russia claim that the massacre at Bucha was only reported four days after the Ukrainian army arrived; they are saying it was staged?

·                     The Ukraine has suffered small losses but the Russians are being devastated ~ the media is full of dead Russian tanks and endless videos of Russian helicopters being destroyed but this is not the full picture. This use of western equipment is certainly making arms manufactures rub their hands with glee -  but who will pay for it? Well we all will.

·                     All who doubt our propaganda are traitors ~ We are simply not allowed to look at what the other side are saying, there cannot be balance in war, but we are not at war!

This will not end well.

There seems to be a feeding frenzy of hate among the west's leaders and the media here are some examples... The extremely stupid British Foreign Secretary Liz Truss encourages Brits to go the Ukraine and fight and provokes Putin into reminding the west that he will use nuclear weapons if the west gets involved directly in the fighting and put Russia's nuclear deterrent on high alert. The British media has encouraged young men to fight in the Ukraine; they have little experience and are being thrust into the front line, little more than cannon fodder, many have been killed, little or no news reports.

All the indications are that this will not end well for Russia, the Ukraine, the west and even Africa who rely on Ukraine grain the feed themselves. No one wins during a war; civilisation takes a backward step. The western media really have shown themselves to be bloodthirsty in their reporting and have failed to encourage peaceful talks. We can only hope that peace will come despite all of it; perhaps the Pope's consecration of Russia, the Ukraine and humanity will have some effect, even if he did not do it as Our Lady of Fatima requested.

 

23rd Crusade of Prayer

We have decided to Stage our 23rd Crusade of Prayer for Peace in the Ukraine over the Easter period 2022, and that the Media will not cause a World War.