No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Extract
If the art of painting exists for its own sake, if painting is nothing more than a sensuous arrangement, or (as the modernists would put it) an “organization” of line, colour, rhythm and mass, and if there is no underlying ethical or religious principle that finds its way from the artist's mind to the painted work, then of necessity the speculations and conclusions contained in the following essay are valueless. As a basis of agreement it may be acknowledged that art has no conscious concern with morals, and that the painter who has the deliberate intention of expressing an ethical or moral concept by means of his art is handicapped from the start. We may agree also that the satisfying quality (which we call beauty) of a painting depends upon quite other elements than those that belong to moral worth, and that the ethical outlook of the artist cannot and does not affect the aesthetic perfection of his work. All this we may concede. But it would be unreasonable to infer from this that his ethical outlook does not nevertheless find expression in his work, whether he will it so or not. A pious person may produce an execrable or negligible work of art, but at least the piety will be apparent in it. A hedonist, of a robust and vigorous habit of mind, may produce a series of works of great aesthetic perfection, but in the sum total of his works his hedonism can hardly fail to appear. All art is self-revelation.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © 1936 Provincial Council of the English Province of the Order of Preachers
References
1 Art et Scholastique (Louis Rouart et fils, 6 Place Saint Sulpice, Paris, VI), p. 113.
2 New Light on Old Masters (Sheldon Press), p. 31.
3 Mediæval Religion (Sheed & Ward), p. 50.
4 Ways and Crossways (Sheed & Ward), p. 141.
5 Three MS. copies of Cennini's work axe believed to exist, and it has been more than once translated into English. For this and the following quotations I am indebted Do Prof. Thompson's translation published by the Yale University Press.
6 “In things divine negations are true, affirmations are incongruous; to set forth unlikeness fits better the showing of their darkness. Things unlike them, if they do not add to their honour, at least do not dishanour. Si non condecorant, non dedecorant.” Quoted by Claudel. Ways and Crossways, p. 135.
7 In a letter to Alexandler Cingria, author of La décadence de Art sacré (Cahiexs Vaudois, Lausanne).
8 Ways and Cvossways, p. 136.
9 Derived, in this case, from the Relic itself, as Dom Ethelbert Home, O.S.B., has shown in a short monograph on this subject.
10 Art et Scholastique, p. 119.
11 Ibid., p. 112.