The Radiance of Form

http://radianceofform.blogspot.com/

More

Next Blog

vengeancia@gmail.com

Dashboard

Sign Out

Blogs

Tuesday, February 23, 2016

The Cube, the Sphere and the Theology of

Architecture
The last two post I talked about the shape of the circle and its relationship to divinity and
perfection. I spoke about how the completeness and simplicity of the form made almost all
cultures revere the form as divine. This universality of understanding leads us to believe that
there is something both in the nature of the form, and in the nature of man's mind that leads us
to say this. No god ever declared it to be so, but the minds of men simply know that it is so.
Something known naturally is also known then universally by all mankind, and so has symbolic
meaning to all people. So we can say this is known to be divine naturally.

Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments

Followers
Join this site
with Google Friend Connect

Members (7)

These natural symbols then have power beyond any extrinsic character we put upon them,
and thus are very powerful, and so they must be used very carefully. We saw that the church
in the round misuses this symbolism as it places the altar in the same space as the people,
symbolizing the perfection of all that is present, so minimizing the teaching of a journey
towards the perfection of heaven.
But moving on I want to speak about symbols of divinity that are not purely products of natural
reason, but rather those that are given by revelation. In the interest of staying with the theme

Already a member? Sign in

About Me

of basic geometric forms, Id like to talk now in particular about the form of the cube.
The cube is a revealed form, as it is
given specifically by God to Moses
in outlining the dimensions of the
Tabernacle where the Aaronic
priesthood would worship God. God
would be actually present to the
Jews seated atop the Ark of the
Covenant, in the Holy of Holies
which took the form of a perfect
cube. The symbol of the cube
continues throughout the Old
Testament to be used for the
permanent Temple of Solomon,
where too the Ark and God were
truly present. In the Book of Revelation would it reappear, when St. John saw the New
The perfect cube instituted by God
for the Holy of Holies.

Jerusalem, built of gold in the form of a perfect cube.

The connection between this Old Testament revelation and the vision of paradise to come is
outlined well by Dr. Denis McNamara in his book Architecture and the Spirit of the Liturgy. He
explains that the Tabernacle and temple are a shadow of that divine reality of the New
Jerusalem, giving a hint at the reality but not showing it in full.

Blog Archive
2016 (3)
February (1)

Erik Bootsma
Board member,
National Civic Art
Society; Architect
working in
Richmond, VA
Graduated Notre
Dame School of
Architecture, 2008
Graduated Thomas
Aquinas College,
Bachelor of Arts,
Liberal Arts in the
Great Books, 2001.

The Cube, the

Sphere and
the
Theology of
Architect...
January (2)
2014 (1)
2013 (1)
2012 (14)
2011 (2)

View my complete
profile

We live now however in a time of image where because of God coming to Earth in the person
of Christ, the divine presence is here, in reality, but not in fullness. But we as Christians in that
time between shadow and reality, though we have God truly present as both in the Temple and
in Heaven, we have no divinely instituted form to give symbolism to this reality. What we must
do then is make use of both natural and divine reasons to come up with a solution. This is of
course the same thing as what theology is, which as a philosophical discipline takes one
premise from natural reason, and anotehr from revelation.
From the very beginning then the church embraced the divine form of the cube found in

1 of 11

6/19/16, 4:52 PM

The Radiance of Form

http://radianceofform.blogspot.com/

Temple and the Synogogue (as Pope

Benedict XVI explained), and carried them
forward by use of natural reason to make
them suitable for use by the Christian
Church.
Now the form of the cube, while divinely
instituted, is also a form which can be seen
as perfect by natural reason as well. The
pagan Greek mathematicians Euclid and
Pythagoras saw it as one of the perfect
solids, where divinity could be

The divinity of the circle is

known to even the pagans.

comprehended. The form is known

as divine both through reason and
revelation. To the early Christians,
then were working theologically, and
as theology is subject to
development, they quickly melded
this to another sacred form, the
aforementioned circle and it's
development, the sphere.
The perfect sphere of the interior of the Pantheon in Rome

Now the Romans used this divine

form in the Pantheon, a perfect

sphere defining the space where
the entire cosmos of the pagan
gods were to be worshipped. The
apse of course was a common form
used by the Romans where the seat
of authority would sit in judgement,
but the form of it is a combination of
the cube and the sphere. Melding
these three symbols, both of the
cosmic sphere, cube of the Holy of
Holies, and bringing along with it the
Roman authority, the Christians
were able to turn this form into a

The apse of the original cathedral of Venice,

S. Maria Assunta, Torcello

truly uniquely Christian sacred

space.
Tradition, like theology, does not abandon truths known in the past as obsolete, only develops
and perfects them, so when we create architectural forms for Christian worship, we should
keep this in mind. In rejecting the form of the temple and the apse, we do so by also rejecting
the theological understandings about that space, and the ability to symbolize those truths.

Posted by Erik Bootsma at 4:09 AM

No comments:

Links to this post

Recommend this on Google

Monday, January 25, 2016

Problems with the Church in the Round:

#2 "Perfection"
Last week I wrote about the problems with the "church in the round", in particular how the
location of the celebrant at the center causes a de-emphasis of the importance of the altar as
authority over the congregation. In this post I'd like further at the symbolism of the church in
the round and how it relates to the eschatology of the Church.
The form of the circle symbolically is one of gathering and binding together. All points of the

2 of 11

6/19/16, 4:52 PM

The Radiance of Form

http://radianceofform.blogspot.com/

circle are equally distant from the center point of the circle,
being "held together" by that point. The only direction that
can be seen in circle has is either inwards or outwards.
One cannot really talk about a top or bottom, or front or
back or a circular form, at least without reference to
something outside the circle itself. Also since it has no real
sides like any polygon, one can think of the circle as having
an "infinite" number of sides. The circle symbolically then
has the nature of completeness and "perfection" as well as
infinity. Thus we can see why throughout almost all of
human history, the circle is symbolic of divinity. Indeed in
Christianity we see an ancient symbol of the trinity, of three intersecting circles is deep with
that same meaning.
But this nature of completeness and perfection of the circle is deeply problematic in the design
of a Catholic church. The reason for this revolves around the idea of eschatology. Eschatology,
as Dr. Denis McNamara explains in his excellent series on the Catholic Architecture, is the
teaching about the eschaton, or simply about the end of the world. Christianity, in contrast to
the ancient pagan religions, proposed that not only did Christ come to earth to die for our sins,
but also that he will come again at the end of times, and that there will be an end of time. The
Church has always looked forward to the Second Coming, and thus has always taught that the
people of God are marching toward that end, where the work of Salvation will finally be
completed. The Church, through the liturgy of the Mass, teaches about the perfection of
Heaven and the world to come, but also gives us a "foretaste" of Paradise. When we receive
the Eucharist in Mass, we receive Christ truly and thus partake in his perfection in Heaven, but
we still remain in this world, fallen as it is, so it is we still are left wanting more.
But when the circular form is used in a church, the symbolism of the circle conflicts with this
teaching. The circle as said before, has a notion of completeness, of perfection and infinity. We
lose the sense that there is something lacking, which we are heading towards, namely the
perfection of
Heaven.
When you consider the ancient pagans at
Stonehenge, you can see this in act, there
they saw that seasons changed, but always
came back to the same place, a perfect
world, symbolized by the circle of stones.
So when we have a church in the round,
symbolically it communicates that this
church where we stand, is complete and
perfect just how it is. Coming to church,
being in communion with the people we see
"face to face" is all that we need, and there's nothing beyond.
When you couple this with a de-emphasis on the authority and importance of the altar, as we
saw in the last post, that notion of community alone becomes even more overwhelming. We
begin to lose the sense of being on the pilgrim's path toward salvation, and begin to think that
just seeing friends and simply "being nice" to them is all that there is to the Church.

Posted by Erik Bootsma at 6:32 AM

No comments:

Links to this post

Recommend this on Google

Monday, January 18, 2016

Problems with the Church in the Round:

#1 Orientation
The church in the "round" is a particular form of church architecture that has been all the rage
for the past 50 years since the end of the Second Vatican Council. The form of the church puts

3 of 11

6/19/16, 4:52 PM

The Radiance of Form

http://radianceofform.blogspot.com/

the altar of sacrifice, admittedly the

focus of Catholic worship in the
Mass, at the direct center of the
church.
Whether it be a new purpose-built
church or a church which has been
renovated since then, the seating
around the altar is intended by the
liturgical designers and architects to
foster "a sense of community" and
to emphasize the "sacred meal"
aspect of the Mass. I'd like to take a few posts here to take a look at what sort of ideas and
symbols are communicated by this form of church and what sort of philosophical and
The church in the round.

theological problems arise from those ideas.

The first problem of the "church in the round" is a problem of orientation and emphasis. The
church in the round sets the altar of the church directly in the center of the church. The
liturgical designers note that being circular, the seats are all arranged closer to the altar,
allowing for ease of visibility. Oftentimes the church floor is sloped downward to the altar, much
like in a theater, making the altar easier to see. Aspects of community too then would be
emphasized, as everyone could see the face of their fellow parishioners and literally gather
"around the altar."
The liturgical designers of this sort of church note that the Council asked for the altar to be
"truly central" (p. 91), meaning that it be the symbolic focus of worship. Therefore, what could
be more symbolic of an altar being central to attention than it being literally central as well!
The configuration then was a "win-win" situation, as it both got you community and gathering,
but also kept the focus on the altar and the sacrifice of the Mass.
However, this latter aspect, the idea that Christ himself is offered on the altar, that God is
present in the church, over time seems to have been steadily eroded. A recent paean to a
parish renovation in what we might well assume to be a church in the round, in National
Catholic Reporter was illustrative. While the author talked glowingly about how often she
"looked for" her friends and various people, not once did she mention that she looked for God
in the church. The purpose of this author's church seemed to be more on socializing than the
worship of God in the Mass.
Why then is this sense of sacredness and presence of God so lacking? There are of course
many reasons, but one striking one philosophically is of orientation, or rather the lack of
orientation. Despite the claims of the liturgical experts that the church in the round would
increase the importance of the altar, the arrangement in fact actually almost nullifies the
importance of the altar. The reasons for this are apparent when we look at the form of
buildings, and how architecture is derived from our own human form.
As human beings we of course have the ability to communicate, and most universally through
speech. Our speech of course comes through our mouths, and because we only have one
mouth, the sound tends to emanate from only one side of our head. Logically then if you want
to hear a person speaking, you stand in front of them and face toward their face. This then is
even more important when someone of authority is speaking. Everyone who gathers to hear
them stands not around them but in front of them, oriented facing toward them.
As societies developed throughout history, the places where authority resided, mostly kings
and other lawgivers, would be built so that the speaker would stand or sit at one end of a large
space, and the audience facing toward him. The shape of the architecture then is determined
in a very real way by human nature. This is so attuned to our universal human nature that
almost every single example of the architecture of authority is made this way, no matter what
time or place the building was made.
In the Old Testament God instituted both the form of the Tabernacle in the desert, and the
Temple in Jerusalem and the Israelites would have recognized that a universal form, where the
the rational place for authority, was placed at one end of the space, facing the gathered. So
even more so for the highest possible authority, the One true God, would the form be
appropriate and good.
So when the Christians gathered to worship, the location of God, in the aspect of the Eucharist

4 of 11

6/19/16, 4:52 PM

The Radiance of Form

http://radianceofform.blogspot.com/

would be just the same sort of

place, in one of highest authority.
The Christians then adopted the
Roman Basilica was just as
naturally as a duck to water. It is no
coincidence that the apse of the
lawgiver is located analogously to
where the Holy of Holies sits in the
Temple. The form is nearly identical
because the nature of the use is
identical. Placing authority at the
end of a space, in order to be seen
and more importantly heard.
Now the problem of the church in the round and the presence of the sacred and of God
becomes apparent. When the altar is set below and amidst everyone, the authority is
lessened, if not negated entirely. According to our natures, we look to authority to be placed
facing us, to be situated even a few steps above us. What would we think of a judge seated
not in the usual raised box bench, but seated at floor level at the center of the court? The
authority he holds would be lessened, as we could look down on him, or be in a position to not
even hear him. So too for a President being sworn in, or delivering a State of the Union
address, or even a teacher in front of a lecture hall.
So in church in the round the altar, the priest and the sacrifice of the Mass itself lose the true
position of authority, and cannot compete with the overbearing symbolism of the community,
the meal and the social gathering or even the rock show. Each "participant" in the Mass then
too sits at a position of equal authority, equal even to God.
Now, one could argue the in the usus antiquior form of the Roman Rite, the priest faces away
from the congregation. However this only emphasizes the point further, as God is the
authority, the priest faces not the people, but toward to the cross and the tabernacle.
Then when our NCR author says looking across to the members of the community: "I look for
David and his twins. For Marge and her daughter. For Will. For Barbie. For Jerry, due back
from India. I look for Rita. If Bob is with her, I know he is having a good day", we know she's
not thinking about God, and certainly she's not praying, but instead she's thinking about her
friends. This is not because she's a bad Catholic, but it is because the proper object of her
attention in Mass, God and the Eucharist, has been removed from the one place where it's
location would naturally command that attention and allow her to pray and see God face to
face.

Posted by Erik Bootsma at 12:42 PM

No comments:

Links to this post

Recommend this on Google

Monday, July 7, 2014

Four Questions: Q1: What is architecture?

I subscribe to an email list that talks about traditional and classical architecture, often the talk
of the philosophy of architecture, and the philosophy of aesthetics is a topic. A contributor who
I respect posted recently a series of questions to the list, trying to ascertain if people had any
sort of common principles from which we were approaching the subject of classical
architecture.
1. What is architecture
2. What is classical and why?
3. How is classical different from traditional?
4. What are the orders?
In the next series of posts, I will try to give a brief, but more in depth answer to these questions
than I was able to give in the midst of our online discussion. I will try to answer each in one
post, but some may require further elucidation.

5 of 11

6/19/16, 4:52 PM

The Radiance of Form

http://radianceofform.blogspot.com/

What is architecture?
Architecture is commonly thought of
as simply the profession which is
concerned with the designing of
buildings. The architect draws up a
design on paper, or more commonly
these days, a computer, and hands
off his vision to a builder. Most
simply he's the person who
understands everything necessary
to build a building which the client
needs. The architect takes in
consideration the place of the
building, the building laws, the
The Parthenon
necessary activities taking place in
the building and the technology
necessary to keep the building dry and comfortable for its occupants. An architect also might
take into consideration a number of other factors, such as the environmental impact of his
building, and so work to reduce its power consumption or even prefer some materials over
others that the production of which causes deleterious effects in his city or country.
Now for most people these simple utilitarian ends are more than sufficient for them to feel that
an architect has done his job. Were an architect to be simply a technician, then this definition
would be sufficient, indeed the word itself implies this. Coming from the Greek, arche, meaning
master or highest, combined with tekton, builder; the architect is simply the orchestrator of
technical skills to build something. But today architects who are in the highest demand around
the world are not desired for simply their technical knowhow, but because they build structures
which in themselves we consider a work of art.
What makes architecture into an art, a "fine" art that is, is when it goes beyond simply the
utilitarian needs of a building and becomes something in which we find pleasure or delight.
That delight is there not simply because the building is put together well, but because the
building has something more to add which all people are able to see, a layer of meaning, or if
you will, poetry.
The addition of poetry to the practice of building is what makes architecture into an art, and
indeed what makes a building truly architecture. All other considerations can make a perfectly
acceptable building, but one that is not architecture. Of course just like there are many poets
and many styles of poetry, there are many different means of which an architect uses to add
poetic meaning to a building and transform it into architecture. Order and disorder, materials
and arrangement, ornament and decoration, all are tools in the architects palette as an artist. I
believe in answering the next three questions we will see what poetic devices are best for an
architect to transform simple building into architecture.

Posted by Erik Bootsma at 4:35 AM

2 comments:

Links to this post

Recommend this on Google

Friday, February 8, 2013

The Anti-Culture of Modernism

In my previous few posts last year, I wrote about the relationship of folk art and classical high
art to culture. I wrote that folk art, as an expression of culture, aims towards a particular
expression of a particular culture's self awareness, or "what it means to be" such and such a
culture. High art, or academic art or classical art, is an attempt not to express "what it means
to be" English or Italian or American, but what it means to be human as a universal idea. This
classical high art is concerned with the most fundamental principles: order, reason, and
beauty. This spectrum then, between the particular of folk art, and the universal of high art
served to describe well what art was for nearly all of human history.

6 of 11

6/19/16, 4:52 PM

The Radiance of Form

http://radianceofform.blogspot.com/

Now this all changed, as I related

before, with the rise of "kitsch".
The rise of industry, advertising and
mass marketing of art which arose
in the 19th and 20th Centuries
created a new category of art, the
mass marketed art of kitsch. Kitsch
is characterized by the divorce of art
from any of its cultural roots,
meaning that no painting, no
building or no song which is
produced by kitsch has a real
relation to culture, but only a
"simulacrum" of culture to appeal to
its market.

The potpourri of ornament and styles in Victorian architecture

riled the modernists for the excesses of "useless" ornament.

This is the state of art that the artists of the late 19th and early 20th Centuries found
themselves. They saw that the rise of industrialism and the market was making kitsch the
dominant form of art, which was threatening to kill culture and art. So to rescue art, a new art
was needed; and this new art would be the avante-garde of modernism. Modernism would be
the true art which could express man's deep longing to know "what it means to be." So with
one swift stroke, Modernism, would both simultaneously sweep away all the meaningless
detritus of kitsch as well as create a new meaningful, authentic and universal art.
To the modernists, all culture had
been irredeemably lost with the rising
tide of kitsch. Folk art was lost to the
masses and had been entirely
replaced by mass-marketed art of
every form. Think how true this is
today, as most people know not a
single folk tune passed down from
their ancestors, while the infectious
insipid "Call me maybe" is
ever-present. Not only has folk
culture been replaced, but the
academic high art as well, having all
been run over by a kitsch of

Piet Mondriaan's "Composition II in Red, Blue, and Yellow"

Beaux-arts historicism. So then, if

culture and its art has been entirely
lost, then a new art which embraced
traditions and traditional forms would

make no sense at all.

Entirely new forms of art would then be found in the avante-garde, the new forms of art in
abstraction and cubism, which, stripped of their cultural cancer, would allow for only the raw
expression of those fundamental truths themselves. Instead of using color and line and form,
art became color and line and form. From Mondriaan's blocks of color to Picasso's human
forms transformed into cubes, the art would not express old dead notions of particular cultures,
but one new universal idea of art.
In architecture, the accretions which
the Beaux-arts academics and their
peers had cobbled onto
architectural form were stripped free
in the architecture of the Bauhaus.
This new architecture, the
"International Style," is probably the
most succinct expression of this
new idea of the universal art.

Walter Gropius' Bauhaus school in Dessau Germany.

7 of 11

Since all culture is swept aside, a

pure clean architecture, which
expressed the barest idea of
architecture itself, was to be
created. Not mired in cultural

6/19/16, 4:52 PM

The Radiance of Form

http://radianceofform.blogspot.com/

flotsam, the International Style would be at home in any place, whether in Berlin or Los
Angeles or Brazil. Since culture had already been destroyed, it was only logical to create art
that would be pure expressions of art.
Modernism became then, at least in its earliest expressions, fundamentally and essentially
anti-cultural. Artists working in this milieu didn't see themselves as destroyers of art and
culture, but rather as saviors of art. Certainly this was Clement Greenberg's idea, that the art
of the avante-garde, in casting off as already dead the cancer of kitsch, would revive art and
make it whole again, and modern man, so longing for this purity and wholeness, would
respond and find it wonderful.
At least that was the idea, but the
reality was that Modernism created
a world that mankind did not
respond to, that left a cold and
empty world devoid of any
meaning. In the next few posts, I'd
like to look at a few responses that
art has made to the "failure of
modernism." In no particular order,
I'll be looking at the embrace of
kitsch in art, the criticism that
"anti-art" made, and the rise and fall
of Post Modernism, and where that
leaves us today.

Posted by Erik Bootsma at 9:15 AM

Jeff Koons' "Balloon Dog" exemplifies a later modern

fascination in the art world with kitsch.

1 comment:

Links to this post

Recommend this on Google

Friday, October 26, 2012

Kitsch, the Anti-Cultural Commodity

The essence of art, its final end, is to explain to man his own nature, what it means to be
human. Any art which does not have this for its end cannot truly be called "fine art." Art,
however, that is created for the sole purpose of being sold in the market cannot, in an
unqualified sense, be called true art, since it does not share the same final end. Now this sort
of art, which has for its end the pure utilitarian end of the maker, is called kitsch. Kitsch, as
reader Bob pointed out, can be defined as "the reduction of art to marketable forms."
Every part of kitsch is ordered
toward the end of being sold, so
every part of a work of kitsch is
calculated to be more palatable to
the marketplace. Kitsch uses
conventional forms, motifs and even
symbols only in so far as they make
the particular work of art more
marketable. Clement Greenberg in
his essay Avant-Garde and Kitsch
(from which I draw heavily from)
remarks that kitsch uses as "raw
material the debased and
Graceland by Thomas Kinkade
academized simulacra of genuine
culture." The preservation of a
cultural memory, or consciousness of "what we are," as I described before, is not the end of
this art but rather something akin to the utilitarian end of making money.
Kitsch, Greenberg continues, "borrows from [culture] tricks, stratagems, themes...[and]
converts them into a system and discards the rest." Kitsch sees the products of a culture
only as a component to be drawn from, not as a "good thing" in and of themselves. The
"art" of kitsch then is only an art of the most basic sense of making something, just like the art

8 of 11

6/19/16, 4:52 PM

The Radiance of Form

http://radianceofform.blogspot.com/

of pouring a concrete sidewalk, or making a chair. This most basic sense is primarily
concerned with its utilitarian end (i.e. making a place to sit or walk), and if it elevates itself to
something to the level of poetry, it does so only accidentally. Greenberg confirms this saying
"nor is every item of kitsch entirely worthless. Now and then it produces something of merit"
but these are only "accidental or isolated instances."
Kitsch though may be thought of as some sort of folk art, but as Greenberg argues, kitsch is
merely a replacement for the folk art lost by rural people living now in cities as a result of the
industrial revolution. "Discovering a new capacity for boredom ... the new urban masses set
up a pressure on society to provide them with some kind of culture fit for their own
consumption. To fill the demand of the new market, a new commodity was devised: ersatz
culture, kitsch, destined for those who, insensitive to the values of genuine culture, are hungry
nevertheless for the diversion that only culture of some sort can provide." [emphasis added]
Kitsch, the art of a mass-culture is not something that falls on the spectrum of art as poetry,
that spectrum between folk art, and high art. By and large, even though there may be
"isolated instances", kitsch cannot provide that consolation that only true culture can,
through beauty and symbolism and rich traditions, that gives meaning to the important
moments of our lives. One need only think of those jarring moments when a cell phone
jingle goes off in church, worst of all during a funeral. These are moments where the market
cannot give us what we really need in our souls. Kitsch does not have for its end the poetic
imitation which leads to a fuller understanding of man and his place in the universe, which is
the proper end of culture, both high and low.
I'm reminded of a story I read about
a Catholic chapel in a shopping
mall. The priests would say Mass,
and hear Confession, but something
about the mall made them hesitate
to ever hold a wedding there, not to
mention a funeral. It is as if the

Catholic Mall Chapel, a fine thing,

but somehow seems out of place.

overwhelming materialism of the

mall, entirely ordered towards
consumption seems so alien to
those parts of life where symbolism
and culture are so essential to our
very human existence.

Curiously though, this same feeling of alienation is felt less about a funeral on a city street, at
least streets in our older cities. Perhaps this is because even though commerce and all rank
of ordinary things happen there, there remains something about the city as a community, that
says these things are proper to this public place. The city is the product of culture
par-excellance, the place where architecture, art, sculpture and public ceremony all come
together where a culture can best express what we are. This notion of cultural identity, this
notion of belonging, is cultivated by the arts, and is reinforced by customs and conventions,
but it is today under constant assault -- first of all by the assault of kitsch, but also the assault
of the avant-garde modernism. This is something I looked at briefly before, when talking about
the city stripped of symbolism. In the next series of posts, I want to look at the relation of
modern art to culture, and its relation to kitsch, in so far as it too is an art which is at its
essence anti-cultural.

Posted by Erik Bootsma at 7:09 AM

4 comments:

Links to this post

Recommend this on Google

Wednesday, October 10, 2012

Further Thoughts on High Culture and

Folk Culture and Art
In my last post I talked a great deal about the art of "high culture" and "folk culture" in regards
to their relation to the classical and vernacular in architecture. The distinction that I was

9 of 11

6/19/16, 4:52 PM

The Radiance of Form

http://radianceofform.blogspot.com/

drawing was not to show that high and low culture are in opposition to each other, but rather
are a matter of variation of degree. Both high and low culture, classical and vernacular art, all
deal with the same subject, namely cultural memory or the maintenance of shared ideas of
self-identification. From very simple traditions of a household, the baking of traditional meals
for birthdays and holidays, to the triumphant hymn of a national anthem, the art and
architecture of a capitol, every one of these things seeks to express though through varied
degrees, "this is who we are."
The nature of a folk culture is of course defined by its
having risen from the people itself, the folk, where local
traditions, and family traditions lead to an art which is
particular to a certain people, place or a even family.
High culture, which arises from the folk culture, is
culture which has been subjected to intellectual and
philosophical examination. Rather than traditions of
culture and art being simply passed on to the next
generation, high culture places itself under to study and
criticism in order to make it better, finer and more
sophisticated. Moreover, this sophistication allows it to
be appreciated outside of a particular cultural context, it
begins to be appreciated by everyone.
Thus art that is produced by high culture is transformed
from a simple local art, into a universal art that begins
to transcend the particularities of place and people, and
is thus the only sort of art that can become a "national"
art. The universality of the art is what allows people from all over the world to enjoy the works
of Mozart and Bach, even without having been a part of that particular central European
Germanic culture from which the art arose. Certainly though, had one come from that
particular culture from which this high culture arose from, the art would be even more
meaningful.
High culture produces an art that tends toward universality, but yet maintains that same goal of
culture, to say "this is who we are," and consequently its art strives too for that universality.
Folk culture and its art says "this is what it means to be a Dutchman" or "this is what it means
to be a member of such and such family." High culture strives to say "this is what it means to
be man" (in other words in an unqualified sense). This difference between universality and
particularity is what I spoke of in earlier posts in dealing with art and politics. Art geared
towards politics is necessarily geared towards the particular, but it loses its meaning in the
universal flow of history. Great art, though even if it is political, is geared towards the great
universals and it thus has constant appeal.
This is not to say however that Folk
art loses its appeal through time, far
from it. The art of a folk culture is
expressive of a particular culture's
understanding of the same
universal longing to understand
"what we are." This, coupled with
transcendent notions of beauty
which all true art strives for, for
instance the same tonal system of
music is found both in the folk song
Greensleeves, as it is in Mozart's
Requiem, gives all true art a. The level complexity and the precision of the music is the only
difference between them, telling us they are in essence the same thing. So too in poetry, as
the works of Homer, Dante and Shakespeare represent the best of a high culture, the
simplicity of the poetry of those same folk tunes can tell us just as much about what it means
to be a human being.
But yet this universal nature of art and high culture only goes so far, we need only look to
where cultures across the globe have interacted to see the limits of cultural universalism. So
too in architecture, where attempts to introduce classical Roman styles of architecture in
foreign lands with highly developed native cultures, seem severely out of place. One need
only listen in the West to traditional Japanese or Chinese music to see where the limits lie.
Certainly one can come to know and understand and even love Chinese pentatonic music (it

10 of 11

6/19/16, 4:52 PM

The Radiance of Form

http://radianceofform.blogspot.com/

uses only five notes instead of the Western eight) but if we were to try to introduce it into a
cultural setting in America, we would only see it as a charming "theme."
The "theme" would of course be a farce, as there would be nothing that connects Chinese
traditional music as "belonging"for instance to a traditional Christmas party. The idea of
cultural "themes" can best be seen in context of amusement parks, or "theme parks" which
accumulate architecture of different places all into one park. A park such as this seems
cheesy and "kitschy" because the cultural artifacts that it reproduces are all out of place. Its
like a man walking into a bar in New York in a cowboy hat, chaps and spurs, where he would
be entirely silly, while doing the same in Texas might be an everyday appearance. The idea of
things being "out of place" is the essence of kitsch, which I intend to explore in the next post.
In particular, I am interested in how kitsch relates to the ideas of the avante-garde in modernist
art.

Posted by Erik Bootsma at 5:07 AM

1 comment:

Links to this post

Recommend this on Google

Home

Older Posts

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Watermark template. Powered by Blogger.

11 of 11

6/19/16, 4:52 PM