Dewey puts forth the following explanation for the forces (as evidenced through our modern day museums) that came together to create this chasm:
·
The rise of nationalism and imperialism: every capital city must have
its own museum for the exhibiting of the greatness of its artistic past
and for exhibiting the loot gathered by the conquering monarch.
. The growth of capitalism: As people, governments and other institutions began to acquire wealth, they began to amass fine art as evidence of good standing in higher culture.
. The growth of capitalism: As people, governments and other institutions began to acquire wealth, they began to amass fine art as evidence of good standing in higher culture.
·
The growth of economic cosmopolitanism: Mobility of trade and
populations weakened the connection between works of art and the genius
loci of which they were once a natural expression. The works become
specimens of fine art and nothing else, the production of which is
influenced by the economic patronage of wealthy individuals.
· Changes in industrial conditions: Artists are pushed aside to make way for the mechanized process of production and as a result must workout an isolated means (apart from the realities of daily life) of self-expression.
Dewey says that before this “art of
for art’s sake” would not have even been understood. He writes: “The
forces at work are those that have removed religion as well as fine art
from the scope of the common or community life. The forces have
historically produced so many of the dislocations and divisions of
modern life and thought that art could not escape their influence.”
· Changes in industrial conditions: Artists are pushed aside to make way for the mechanized process of production and as a result must workout an isolated means (apart from the realities of daily life) of self-expression.
Dewey says that before this “art of
for art’s sake” would not have even been understood. He writes: “The
forces at work are those that have removed religion as well as fine art
from the scope of the common or community life. The forces have
historically produced so many of the dislocations and divisions of
modern life and thought that art could not escape their influence.”
For
the last several years, everything I read gets filtered through the
following screen – “what has this got to do with my understanding of the
Church?” Scott and I long ago felt a chasm between our aesthetic
experience in church and the actual experience of our daily lives.
Sunday church experiences were like walking into a museum, oohing and
ahhing over the artwork that meant little to us and leaving the building
completely unchanged because it had no connection with our daily lives.
Of
course, in reading those 50 pages, I couldn’t help but ask a few
questions: Are our church buildings meant to exhibit the greatness of
our past and “monarchically” collected “loot”? Do we amass (property,
people, money, etc.) for evidence of good standing in higher culture?
These are topics for another time…
But
Dewey writes: “These things [the amassing of art and the buildings that
display them] reflect and establish superior cultural status, while
their segregation from the common life reflects the fact that they are
not a part of a native and spontaneous culture.”
Something
spoke to me in those words – native and spontaneous culture. Native –
belonging to a person by birth. Reflecting back on this idea of
Christendom made up of scattered seed, it seems that if the seed is to
germinate and grow there must be a Something - a Substance - that is
native to us and allows us to grow no matter what earthly culture we are
planted in. I need to think about this more. Guten Nacht my fellow
saints.
- Alicia Laumann
No comments:
Post a Comment