
My friend, Matthew Milliner, wrote some time earlier this year a succinct summary of everything I believe about contemporary art, namely that contemporary art is corrupt, is based on poorly formed principles (if any) sans the transcendant, and needs very much the simple, faithful return to classical foundations in a truly creative way that is based in, above all things, the sacred Liturgy, whether directly in the liturgical arts or flowing from the altar itself by grace. His very direct and lovely way of communicating this comes down to two bird analogies: the swallows of Capistrano (as taken from Jody Bottum’s article in First Things) and the sparrows whose littleness trumps the eagles of the art world (as taught by John Walford of Wheaton College).
Do read the article. It’s not a sound bite, hyper-summarized, bite size chunk of cultural niceties and theoretic sentamentalism, so don’t expect something that the average Facebook user would read and dig. It’s probably not something your average artsy fartsy person would dig either. Average, I said. It’s edgy, and a little (wee) bit long, but it’s worth the perseverance. So read it. It might offend you, and that’s okay I say. Truth offends. If we had more people willing to offend the Church we’d be in a much different place in respect to many things today.
Favorite quotes:
“A nearly universal response to contemporary art today–one that impressively transverses race, creed age, or class–is ‘What?’”“The decades to follow gave us conceptual art, landscape art, performance art, outsider’s art, found art, and (most revealingly perhaps) auto-destructive art.”
“The cult of celebrity–with its exorbitant votive prices–drives the art world today, leaving envy and resentment in its wake: a convocation of belligerent eagles.”
“We are waiting not for a Godot, but for another–doubtless very different–St. Benedict.” And lo, our Benedict has come.” [Props to Matt for the B16 reference--check his flickr account for his pics from the April Pope visit]


Follow me on Twitter
You’re too kind! I appreciate your drawing attention to my article. I received a good bit of criticism for being too negative about the art world, and realized that I have to concede at least something to my detractors. I have been moved by Daniel Siedell’s book to be a bit more hopeful. I try to explain why in this review. Dan’s book is a must read.
Thanks once again for the link. One can write, but without friends to take notice such as yourself, it would mean little.
I’m glad you got criticism. We all need it, but a healthy dose of cynicism isn’t bad either, especially when combined with humor. What did your detractors say? I’ve not read Siedell’s work, but I’ll check out the review.
They suggested Maritain (whom I reference in the article) was more positive than I was, and the point is well taken.
Matthew, I’m not as well read as I pretend. What does the Maritain-refernced feedback mean?
They suggested that Jacques Maritain, the great 20th century Neo-Thomist, was more positive about culture than I was. I retorted that he had more to be positive about than we do.