Daniel Mitsui at The Lion and the Cardinal has been having some interesting posts on the connection of the artist with their morality touched off by his post on Eric Gill.
I find this particular question uninteresting because the answer is obvious. It matters as much as the artist makes it matter.
And of course increasingly the artist is making it matter.
E Michael Jones did a number of essays on that topic in Fidelity and Culture Wars.
VERY interesting, knotty stuff.
I didn’t get to explore all of the link yet, but already many of my questions are answered. Ironically, as I was walking to the playground to pick up my son about an hour ago, I was considering the purpose and definition of art. What I came up with was that good art must tell a truth about man or God or both. Bad art either says nothing or lies (often by perverting beauty or goodness.)
I’m on my way to swim on that w/ my children. But I’ll be looking forward to the rest of that link when I get the chance.
The first link is facsinating, as much as I could stand at least.
I deeply fear that the author is very much correct and a look into the minds of those described has all the charm of skinny-dipping in a cesspool.
Whoa. I would suggest that anyone reading about Gill take the biographers’ word for his perversity. Following the links will make you ill before you’ve waded through even half the sewage!
Comments are closed.