In the past year or so there have been a couple of articles on the America Magazine site touching on art and religion:
I asked an AI art generator to draw the communion of saints. I don’t love what it revealed about the Catholic Church. | America Magazine: "The images were always set either in some medieval-seeming past or a fantasy-like setting, including one from Nightcafe’s artistic portrait filter that seemed like a scene from the next season of “Lord of the Rings: Rings of Power.” Halos also appear often."
and this one: I asked an AI art generator to draw Catholicism in 20 different ways. Here’s what I learned. | America Magazine: "It’s easy enough to recognize the constituent parts and mash them together in a way that makes sense. What happens, however, if I put in an abstract concept? What does the algorithm have to say about capitalism? What does it have to offer for justice? What about love?"
The articles are fun to read, and thought provoking. But what prompted me to post about them was the art show I attended on Friday. It was sponsored by the state organization, ANAC (Association of Nebraska Art Clubs), and took place at the Community College in our town.
The pieces exhibited were in many media, some two dimensional, and some in three D. None were AI assisted. The creativity was breathtaking. What was different from the AI art I have seen were the imperfections, the quirkiness, that said "This is from me, this is my vision." Someone asked me what my favorite piece from the show was. I said, "All of them!" The vital ingredient was the soul, or the consciousness, of the artist. I don't think AI can duplicate that. Full disclosure; I am member of the state organization, and had a piece in the show. It didn't win any ribbons, but I enjoyed the process, and the show.
How wonderful that you are an artist! I’m sure the exhibit was vastly more enjoyable than AI art!
ReplyDeleteKatherine, that is wonderful that you had a piece in the show! I hope you will share your art with us.
ReplyDelete"The vital ingredient was the soul, or the consciousness, of the artist. I don't think AI can duplicate that. "
ReplyDeleteI was thinking the same thing when I was reading the America articles and thinking a bit about the images featured in the articles.
It touches on something I've pondered a bit over the years: can one separate art from artist. It's an important question insofar as some artists have led lives that were far from admirable. Is it possible to appreciate their art while bracketing out the awful things some of them did? Even in the world of contemporary Catholic liturgical music, which usually isn't numbered among the most exalted of human arts, David Haas songs are being widely blackballed as accusations of #MeToo abuse have come to light (as we've discussed here in the past). Presumably there is an AI engine somewhere that could compose a singable setting of Psalm 100. As you note, it would lack that indefinable "this setting is from *me*" element. But if it was presented blindly to 100 Catholic musicians, I wonder how many would notice that missing element?
I think it is possible for a person whose personal life was less than admirable to be a stellar artist. Think of Caravaggio, whose works include "The Incredulity of Thomas" and the Entombment of Christ". He perfected the chiaroscuro technique of light and shadow. But he was known to be a violent and perhaps mentally disturbed person.
DeleteI think it is also possible for a good person to produce bad art. Remember that antique oil painting of Jesus in a church in Spain, that was deteriorating and they wanted someone to fix it? An elderly parishioner stepped forward and said she would give it her best shot. The result was face-palm awful. But it turned out that a lot of people wanted mugs and t-shirts with the awful image on them.
I understand why publishers of church music don't want David Haas collecting royalties from his music on their dime. But a lot of people have been inspired and moved by his hymns. I guess it's up to God to sort it out. Maybe he, and Caravaggio will get credit in their particular judgement for the good that they accomplished against the bad. And maybe the lady from Spain will get an "E" for effort.
I tend to believe the talent and the person don't necessarily coincide. I would let the art stand by itself. The Strauss father and son were lousy guys but those waltzes are wonderful. If you gave Louis Armstrong a beat up tarnished trumpet, the music would have sounded as sweet. So with God and artists. Sometimes I think we should just ignore the lives and behavior of artists. If a good person can be possessed by a devil, why not a bad person by an angel.
ReplyDelete"If a good person can be possessed by a devil, why not a bad person by an angel." Interesting thought!
DeleteIn that vein, artists and their descendents don't always respect their own gift and produce. These days, they whore out their output as background music for commercials. This thought occurred to me as I heard the beautiful Whitney Houston's music in a stupid advertisement. It always angered me to hear the "Alleluia Chorus" flippantly used in commercials. Don't hear it that much anymore. Maybe people complained. Or maybe millennials don't get it.
DeleteArtists should be compensated but, in my Weltanschauung, they are not the sole owners of that work.
I found this while looking for something else. This is St. Thomas Aquinas on whether we should ask the saints to pray to God on our behalf. I don't claim this is the most persuasive collection of reasoning in the Summa. (I can't make that claim, because I've read only a little of it.) I have to say, his objections to praying to the saints hold up pretty well after 750 years; one can meet people today making some of the same objections. As for his refutations of those objections, I leave you to your own conclusions. No point to my posting this, except that I think the medieval reasoning is interesting. And there are some good faith insights.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.newadvent.org/summa/5072.htm
________________________________________________
Article 2. Whether we ought to call upon the saints to pray for us?
Objection 1. It would seem that we ought not to call upon the saints to pray for us. For no man asks anyone's friends to pray for him, except in so far as he believes he will more easily find favor with them. But God is infinitely more merciful than any saint, and consequently His will is more easily inclined to give us a gracious hearing, than the will of a saint. Therefore it would seem unnecessary to make the saints mediators between us and God, that they may intercede for us.
Objection 2. Further, if we ought to beseech them to pray for us, this is only because we know their prayer to be acceptable to God. Now among the saints the holier a man is, the more is his prayer acceptable to God. Therefore we ought always to bespeak the greater saints to intercede for us with God, and never the lesser ones.
Objection 3. Further, Christ, even as man, is called the "Holy of Holies," and, as man, it is competent to Him to pray. Yet we never call upon Christ to pray for us. Therefore neither should we ask the other saints to do so.
Objection 4. Further, whenever one person intercedes for another at the latter's request, he presents his petition to the one with whom he intercedes for him. Now it is unnecessary to present anything to one to whom all things are present. Therefore it is unnecessary to make the saints our intercessors with God.
Objection 5. Further, it is unnecessary to do a thing if, without doing it, the purpose for which it is done would be achieved in the same way, or else not achieved at all. Now the saints would pray for us just the same, or would not pray for us at all, whether we pray to them or not: for if we be worthy of their prayers, they would pray for us even though we prayed not to them, while if we be unworthy they pray not for us even though we ask them to. Therefore it seems altogether unnecessary to call on them to pray for us.
___________________________________________
I have hit the character limit for a single comment, so you'll need to wait for the next comment for the Angelic Doctor's reply.
Reply to Objection 2. Although the greater saints are more acceptable to God than the lesser, it is sometimes profitable to pray to the lesser; and this for five reasons. First, because sometimes one has greater devotion for a lesser saint than for a greater, and the effect of prayer depends very much on one's devotion. Secondly, in order to avoid tediousness, for continual attention to one thing makes a person weary; whereas by praying to different saints, the fervor of our devotion is aroused anew as it were. Thirdly, because it is granted to some saints to exercise their patronage in certain special cases, for instance to Saint Anthony against the fire of hell. Fourthly, that due honor be given by us to all. Fifthly, because the prayers of several sometimes obtain that which would not have been obtained by the prayers of one.
ReplyDeleteReply to Objection 3. Prayer is an act, and acts belong to particular persons [supposita]. Hence, were we to say: "Christ, pray for us," except we added something, this would seem to refer to Christ's person, and consequently to agree with the error either of Nestorius, who distinguished in Christ the person of the son of man from the person of the Son of God, or of Arius, who asserted that the person of the Son is less than the Father. Wherefore to avoid these errors the Church says not: "Christ, pray for us," but "Christ, hear us," or "have mercy on us."
Reply to Objection 4. As we shall state further on (Article 3) the saints are said to present our prayers to God, not as though they notified things unknown to Him, but because they ask God to grant those prayers a gracious hearing, or because they seek the Divine truth about them, namely what ought to be done according to His providence.
Reply to Objection 5. A person is rendered worthy of a saint's prayers for him by the very fact that in his need he has recourse to him with pure devotion. Hence it is not unnecessary to pray to the saints.
Interesting quotes from the Summa. I have always thought that since we ask living people to pray for us, it is okay to ask the holy ones who have passed on.
ReplyDeleteI thought his Objection 2, that it's better to ask the greater saints than the lesser saints to pray for us, was pretty interesting. I think we see quite a bit of that in contemporary Catholicism: pray to Mary because she is the Mother of the Lord and the Queen of Heaven. I rarely hear of anyone being urged to pray to St. Cecilia or St. Philomena. And there are many "lesser" saints than those. Even St. Anthony is turned to when we misplace our car keys, but perhaps not as much when our marriages are in crisis.
DeleteOf course we honor Mary, but I think we honor the other saints if we have a personal connection. St. Cecilia is the patron of church musicians, and the name saint of our cathedral. We have personal patrons, for our Baptism name and Confirmation saint.
DeleteInteresting that he mentioned St. Anthony, since today is St. Anthony of Padua's feast. He is our parish's patron and namesake. And the namesake of our younger son.
ReplyDeleteI have to agree, Jim. Aquinas’s arguments are not particularly persuasive.
ReplyDeleteMore unfortunate thinking from Thomas - even worse, the RCC still clings to these ideas about women - second class humans whose role is procreation.
ReplyDeleteObjection 1. It would seem that the woman should not have been made in the first production of things. For the Philosopher says (De Gener. ii, 3), that "the female is a misbegotten male." But nothing misbegotten or defective should have been in the first production of things. Therefore woman should not have been made at that first production.
Objection 2. Further, subjection and limitation were a result of sin, for to the woman was it said after sin (Genesis 3:16): "Thou shalt be under the man's power"; and Gregory says that, "Where there is no sin, there is no inequality." But woman is naturally of less strength and dignity than man; "for the agent is always more honorable than the patient," as Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. xii, 16). Therefore woman should not have been made in the first production of things before sin.
Objection 3. Further, occasions of sin should be cut off. But God foresaw that the woman would be an occasion of sin to man. Therefore He should not have made woman.
Aquinas on women, continued
ReplyDeleteOn the contrary, It is written (Genesis 2:18): "It is not good for man to be alone; let us make him a helper like to himself."
I answer that, It was necessary for woman to be made, as the Scripturesays, as a "helper" to man; not, indeed, as a helpmate in other works, as some say, since man can be more efficiently helped by another man in other works; but as a helper in the work of generation. This can be made clear if we observe the mode of generation carried out in various living things. Some living things do not possess in themselves the power of generation, but are generated by some other specific agent, such as some plants and animals by the influence of the heavenly bodies, from some fitting matter and not from seed: others possess the active and passive generative power together; as we see in plants which are generated from seed; for the noblest vital function in plants is generation. Wherefore we observe that in these the active power of generation invariably accompanies the passive power. Among perfect animals the active power of generation belongs to the male sex, and the passive power to the female. And as among animals there is a vital operation nobler than generation, to which their life is principally directed; therefore the male sex is not found in continual union with the female in perfect animals, but only at the time of coition; so that we may consider that by this means the male and female are one, as in plants they are always united; although in some cases one of them preponderates, and in some the other. But man is yet further ordered to a still nobler vital action, and that is intellectual operation. Therefore there was greater reason for the distinction of these two forces in man; so that the female should be produced separately from the male; although they are carnally united for generation. Therefore directly after the formation of woman, it was said: "And they shall be two in one flesh" (Genesis 2:24).
Reply to Objection 1. As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active force in the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of woman comes from defect in the active force or from some material indisposition, or even from some external influence; such as that of a south wind, which is moist, as the Philosopher observes (De Gener. Animal. iv, 2). On the other hand, as regards human nature in general, woman is not misbegotten, but is included in nature's intention as directed to the work of generation. Now the general intention of naturedepends on God, Who is the universal Author of nature. Therefore, in producing nature, God formed not only the male but also the female.
Reply to Objection 2. Subjection is twofold. One is servile, by virtue of which a superior makes use of a subject for his own benefit; and this kind of subjection began after sin. There is another kind of subjection which is called economic or civil, whereby the superior makes use of his subjects for their own benefit and good; and this kind of subjection existed even before sin. For good order would have been wanting in the human familyif some were not governed by others wiser than themselves. So by such a kind of subjection woman is naturally subject to man, because in man the discretion of reason predominates. Nor is inequality among men excluded by the state of innocence, as we shall prove (I:96:3.
Reply to Objection 3. If God had deprived the world of all those things which proved an occasion of sin, the universe would have been imperfect. Nor was it fitting for the common good to be destroyed in order that individual evil might be avoided; especially as God is so powerful that He can direct any evil to a good end.
The guy was in the 1200s. He was a product of his time. Like we are. I feel he got some things right, but obviously not very enlightened when it comes to women. I pretty much ignore him.
ReplyDeleteTrue, Katharine. He was a man of a certain era. Augustine was also. But several current church teachings still reflect some of these beliefs of Aquinas ( and Augustine). Unfortunately we can’t ignore him. His ideas still permeate church teachings. Benedict was a big fan of Thomas. His ideas about women (passive) and men( active/ leaders) are clearly seen in JPII’s theology, in the denial of a sacrament to women, and in the notion that the primary role of women is to grow babies is also still very clear in Catholic teaching. To name just a few.
DeleteAquinas (and Augustine) had an excuse. Sheer ignorance. Aristotle, from whom he took many ideas, had an excuse. But in the 21st century, the RCC does NOT have a good excuse for several of its teachings. And, of course, if he was wrong about women in the 13th century, he may very well have been wrong about some other things too. But the church still relies heavily on Thomistic thought.