“Modern Art” Is Not Art

Via MOONBATTERY:

Liberal ideology, particularly as it is promulgated by universities, is similar to modern art in that both are manifestations of moonbattery that rely heavily on obscurantism to dupe the gullible. Understand what a useless, pernicious, and contemptible racket modern art is, and you may understand the same regarding the dogma of the prevailing intelligentsia.

Paul Joseph Watson offers some help (the usual language warning applies):

Why is modern art so terrible and what does it say about our society?

For two millennia, great artists set the standard for beauty. Now those standards are gone. Modern art is a competition between the ugly and the twisted; the most shocking wins. What happened? How did the beautiful come to be reviled and bad taste come to be celebrated? Renowned artist Robert Florczak explains the history and the mystery behind this change and how it can be stopped and even reversed.

The NEW YORK TIMES notes this collapse of the aesthetic:

Two California teenagers who recently visited the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art were less than impressed by some of the exhibits and wondered if they could do better.

And thus a scheme was hatched: They placed a pair of eyeglasses on the floor, stood back and watched as, within minutes, visitors regarded their prank as a work of art, with some even taking photos of the fake installation….

Luther’s Dialectics (Two Kingdoms) |Updated|

“[T]he paradox is that God must destroy in us, all illusions of

righteousness before he can make us righteous…”

~ Martin Luther

(Click To Enlarge – More About This Painting Below)

Luther LOVED Paul’s letter to the Romans. In this letter we find a battle of this “two-kingdom” idea (7:14-25[a]), which surely made him meditate on these things listed below.

A WILDERNESS OF CASUISTRY

In 1957, the great Reformation historian Johannes Heckel called Luther’s two-kingdoms theory a veritable Irrgarten, literally “garden of errors,” where the wheats and tares of interpretation had grown indiscriminately together. Some half a century of scholarship later, Heckel’s little garden of errors has become a whole wilderness of confusion, with many thorny thickets of casuistry to ensnare the unsuspecting. It is tempting to find another way into Lutheran contributions to legal theory. But Luther’s two-kingdoms theory was the framework on which both he and many of his followers built their enduring views of law and authority, justice and equity, society and politics. We must wander in this wilderness at least long enough to get our legal bearings.

Luther was a master of the dialectic — of holding two doctrinal opposites in tension and of exploring ingeniously the intellectual power of this tension. Many of his favorite dialectics were set out in the Bible and well rehearsed in the Christian tradition: spirit and flesh, soul and body, faith and works, heaven and hell, grace and nature, the kingdom of God versus the kingdom of Satan, the things that are God’s and the things that are Caesar’s, and more. Some of the dialectics were more uniquely Lutheran in accent: Law and Gospel, sinner and saint, servant and lord, inner man and outer man, passive justice and active justice, alien righteousness and proper righteousness, civil uses and theological uses of the law, among others.

Luther developed a good number of these dialectical doctrines separately in his writings from 1515 to 1545 — at different paces, in varying levels of detail, and with uneven attention to how one doctrine fit with others. He and his followers eventually jostled together several doctrines under the broad umbrella of the two-kingdoms theory. This theory came to describe at once: (1) the distinctions between the fallen realm and the redeemed realm, the City of Man and the City of God, the Reign of the Devil and the Reign of Christ; (2) the distinctions between the sinner and the saint, the flesh and the spirit, the inner man and the outer man; (3) the distinctions between the visible Church and the invisible Church, the Church as governed by civil law and the Church as governed by the Holy Spirit; (4) the distinctions between reason and faith, natural knowledge and spiritual knowledge; and (5) the distinctions between two kinds of righteousness, two kinds of justice, two uses of law.

When Luther, and especially his followers, used the two-kingdoms terminology, they often had one or two of these distinctions primarily in mind, sometimes without clearly specifying which. Rarely did all of these distinctions come in for a fully differentiated and systematic discussion and application, especially when the jurists later invoked the two-kingdoms theory as part of their jurisprudential reflections. The matter was complicated even further because both Anabaptists and Calvinists of the day eventually adopted and adapted the language of the two kingdoms as well — each with their own confessional accents and legal applications that were sometimes in sharp tension with Luther’s and other Evangelical views. It is thus worth spelling out Luther’s understanding of the two kingdoms in some detail, and then drawing out its implications for law, society, and politics.

John Witte, Jr., Law and Protestantism: The Legal Teachings of the Lutheran Reformation (Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 2002) ,94-95.

More about the painting. Be aware that the text below may be imperfect as it was “Google Translated” ~ via WIKI

According to the letters of the Apostle Paul, man’s way out of condemnation, sin and law is presented to eternal life, faith and grace. Since for Martin Luther sin is inextricably linked to the human being, the believer of the Mosaic law needs to be aware of his sinfulness. He must realize that he will fail and despair of the commandments of the punishing Old Testament God. This despair is the prerequisite for salvation through Christ and the Gospel. According to the differentiation made by Luther, the tree in the center of the image separates the contrasted events from the Old and New Testaments. In the left half of the law, the tree of life is dried, on the right side of the gospel it bears greening branches. On the left, death and the devil chase the sinful man into hellish fire while looking to the right to Moses, who points to the tablets of the Ten Commandments in a group of prophets of the Old Testament. Representations of the sin and the Last Judgment in the wide landscape show the origin and punishment of human misconduct. The scene of the bronze serpent from the Old Testament, which is important to Luther, typologically points to the crucifixion and shows the salvation of the Israelites before the poison by following the direction of God.

Right on the right of the tree, John the Baptist can be seen along with the naked man on the left. John, as the last prophet before Christ, stands for Luther between the law and the gospel, which is why he has the role of mediator. He directs the attention of the naked, who stands completely calmly and with folded hands, to the Crucified at the right edge of the picture. From the side-wound of Christ is a stream of blood, which extends over nearly the whole width of the right half, and goes down on the breast of the naked. The dove of the Holy Spirit appears in the stream of blood. It is shown here that only Christ, who died vicariously for man and whose good news is transmitted by the Holy Spirit, can abolish the sentence by the law. Only by his faith, sola fide, does the man of divine forgiveness participate in the form of the delivering blood-stream. By the risen Christ, who rises above the grave-cave behind the cross, the dead and the devil who pursued the sinner on the left side are banned: both lie conquered before the cross, under the Lamb of God, like the Risen One The victory flag. The sinner of the law is, however, a righteous one, with which the Gotha image illustrates the aspect of simul iustus et peccator. At the gates of Bethlehem, in the background of the right, the Annunciation appears to the shepherds. Like the raising of the brazen serpent, which the eye of the beholder finds right on the other side of the tree, this scene shows the recognition of God’s Word by man. For the viewer, it is made clear that the law and the gospel proclaim the same joyous message which always leads to Christ. Quotations from the Old and New Testaments in the lower part of the table underline the statement and also provide the biblical legitimation of the representation.

Murals At Univ. Of Wisconsin-Stout “Psychologically Devastating”

Here is one of the pieces… click to enlarge:



AMERICAN THINKER quotes DAILY CALLER’S piece and the comments on it:

Two inoffensive murals hanging in the lobby of Harvey Hall at the University of Wisconsin-Stout (UW-Stout) are being removed because of a recommendation of the so-called Diversity Leadership Team.

One mural depicts a wooden fort, and the other depicts French trappers canoeing down a river with Indians.  No violence, no depiction of white supremacy – about as inoffensive as you can find.

But the DLT claims that the murals may be psychologically devastating to American Indian students.

Daily Caller:

But now, after 80 years, the murals are abruptly being given the heave-ho after concerns were raised that the paintings are offensive.

School chancellor Bob Meyer says some American Indian students have objected to what the paintings show.

“When they look at the art, to them it symbolizes an era of their history where land and possessions were taken away from them, and they feel bad when they look at them,” Meyer told Wisconsin Public Radio.

In addition, UW-Stout’s Diversity Leadership Team complained about the murals to Meyer, arguing their presence helped to perpetuate racial stereotypes.

The diversity team’s arguments carried the day, and Meyer released a statement saying they were being taken down. Because of the risk the paintings could have a “harmful effect” on viewers, Meyer said they were only suitable for a “controlled gallery space” that could provide appropriate “context” for the viewer. But UW-Stout contains no such controlled galleries, so instead the paintings are being placed outside the public eye. One will go into a dean’s conference room, while another will be placed in Harvey Hall’s library.

Meyer claims his decision is strictly business and isn’t about trying to be politically correct.

Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha.

I would like to point out that if the ancestors of the Native Americans objecting to these murals were as sensitive and so easily offended as the snowflakes at UW-Stout, they would have died out within 50 years of arriving here…..

Sheperd Fairey ~ The Iconographer of Choice for Socialists

INSIDE EVERY LIBERAL IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT ~

Print

Gay Patriot does an excellent job in calling out the fascination of the extremist left’s enchantment with totalitarian “art.”

Shepard Fairey continues to establish himself as the Valentina Kulagina of American Socialism, coming with new iconography for the Bernie Sanders campaign.

Socialists, for some reason, really love this kind of stuff, the mating of terrible ideas with stunning graphic design.

The People’s Cube mock’s it by putting it side-by-side for comparison:

…Enter Shepard Fairey, the favorite visual agitator and propagandist of the American Left. We don’t think he considers himself a fascist at all. It’s just that when he tries to think of the coolest possible visual for a socialist candidate like Bernie Sanders, he comes up with a design that not only screams “national socialism” due to its style and execution, but directly imitates the elements and composition of Nazi paraphernalia…

nazis-for-bernie-composit

The Daily Caller will finish off this post with some points of interest:

Shepard Fairey, the “artist” who “created” that iconic image, is back. And you’ll never guess which presidential candidate he’s supporting this time!

Fairey says he’s “tired of portraits” and wants to focus on “principles, not personalities.” This is a tacit admission that he was a credulous dupe back in ’08, and he played a big role in manufacturing Obama’s fraudulent cult of personality. And if Fairey is “tired of portraits,” that might be because he stole a photo of Obama from the Associated Press to make the “HOPE” poster, then lied about it during the huge legal mess, and his own lawyers quit, and it was a whole big thing.

But now, for the low, low price of $30, you can own another piece of American history that was designed by the “HOPE” dope himself…

For real political art, see: http://unsavoryagents.com/

Why Is Modern Art So Bad? ~ Robert Florczak

For two millennia, great artists set the standard for beauty. Now those standards are gone. Modern art is a competition between the ugly and the twisted; the most shocking wins. What happened? How did the beautiful come to be reviled and bad taste come to be celebrated? Renowned artist Robert Florczak explains the history and the mystery behind this change and how it can be stopped and even reversed.

`Drones` vs. `Hope` // `Then` vs. `Now`

(To express in a short way my feelings on the matter… if we can take out Islamists with drones and our men and women in uniform do not get hurt… more power to Obama.) In an interesting segment, TMZ asks the artist who drew the now famous poster of Obama a question about what if anything he would change the word “hope” with, here is his answer:

Some artistic ideas using “drones” via Unsavory Agents: