Part of the destruction of natural/Divine order is the destruction of art and the corruption of artists. To some degree or another, we who have consciously rejected the present establishment in favor of the timeless order retain much of the scars and brokenness from growing up in the system.
While it's relatively easy for those awakened from the system to come to terms with observable, material reality, it's much more difficult for these same people to discover the immaterial truths, such as faith, wisdom, and art. Often they accept the material truths, but they unconsciously retain the old programming about the immaterial truths. They don't quite understand faith, wisdom, and art.
Or is it simply that those inclined towards art simply tend to drift towards the subjective and the immaterial and the emotional, while those inclined towards the utilitarian prefer the material and the rational? The left is full of fluffy irrationalists, and the right full of hard-nosed materialists.
In any case, for whatever reason, those today who reject the establishment and favor something of the natural order tend to have a very material or practical view of art (and wisdom and faith), and they fail to understand the immaterial depths and structures of art as an expression of deeper truth and humanity. They still approach art as something that one consumes, or something to materially shape the mind towards material ends, not as a transcendent expression of truth unto itself.
In short, artists on the "right" are hard to come by.
quite so. I think the best way to sum up art on the 'right' is 'either it is porn or it is propaganda, why would you want something different'. For their part, I would label my work as "research and development."
I failed to talk about the main point of this article, which is the development of common, constructive critique. I had to chew for a little while on what you must mean by this. The best I can come up with, and I hope you will correct me if I'm wrong, though I don't expect a reply, is that if truth is largely fixed, then the purpose of critiquing is to qualify the subject of the critique within the framework of truth. Does the subject reflect truth (and its subordinates that include wisdom, faith, health, goodness, and beauty) or does it oppose truth? Where people tend to fall all over the place is on the question of 'what is truth,' that overarching question of the ages!
So this really is a matter of "research and development!" Research to discover truth, and development to apply the truth to our lives!
There is some truth to this, but it's not merely discovering truth. Critiques have to do with the vision of what one is to do with that truth. Thus truthfulness is I think a prerequisite, but not sufficient.
As an example, one might have a critique of art based on the vision of art being anti-propaganda. In this case, while truthfulness is necessary (although we have to be frank about how people often are;) the critique is actually about whether that art is used to disrupt the effects of propaganda. So the classic anime 'Gundam Wing' would qualify as 'good' because although it shows a war, it shows both sides of the war as having their own, at least partially justified, reasons for fighting, and suggests to the viewer that whenever they see a conflict in the world, that what the news (or friends) is telling them about a conflict of nations is likely simply one-sided and they will become used to an attitude of understanding their enemy, even if they decide they still have to fight them.
Part of the destruction of natural/Divine order is the destruction of art and the corruption of artists. To some degree or another, we who have consciously rejected the present establishment in favor of the timeless order retain much of the scars and brokenness from growing up in the system.
While it's relatively easy for those awakened from the system to come to terms with observable, material reality, it's much more difficult for these same people to discover the immaterial truths, such as faith, wisdom, and art. Often they accept the material truths, but they unconsciously retain the old programming about the immaterial truths. They don't quite understand faith, wisdom, and art.
Or is it simply that those inclined towards art simply tend to drift towards the subjective and the immaterial and the emotional, while those inclined towards the utilitarian prefer the material and the rational? The left is full of fluffy irrationalists, and the right full of hard-nosed materialists.
In any case, for whatever reason, those today who reject the establishment and favor something of the natural order tend to have a very material or practical view of art (and wisdom and faith), and they fail to understand the immaterial depths and structures of art as an expression of deeper truth and humanity. They still approach art as something that one consumes, or something to materially shape the mind towards material ends, not as a transcendent expression of truth unto itself.
In short, artists on the "right" are hard to come by.
quite so. I think the best way to sum up art on the 'right' is 'either it is porn or it is propaganda, why would you want something different'. For their part, I would label my work as "research and development."
I failed to talk about the main point of this article, which is the development of common, constructive critique. I had to chew for a little while on what you must mean by this. The best I can come up with, and I hope you will correct me if I'm wrong, though I don't expect a reply, is that if truth is largely fixed, then the purpose of critiquing is to qualify the subject of the critique within the framework of truth. Does the subject reflect truth (and its subordinates that include wisdom, faith, health, goodness, and beauty) or does it oppose truth? Where people tend to fall all over the place is on the question of 'what is truth,' that overarching question of the ages!
So this really is a matter of "research and development!" Research to discover truth, and development to apply the truth to our lives!
There is some truth to this, but it's not merely discovering truth. Critiques have to do with the vision of what one is to do with that truth. Thus truthfulness is I think a prerequisite, but not sufficient.
As an example, one might have a critique of art based on the vision of art being anti-propaganda. In this case, while truthfulness is necessary (although we have to be frank about how people often are;) the critique is actually about whether that art is used to disrupt the effects of propaganda. So the classic anime 'Gundam Wing' would qualify as 'good' because although it shows a war, it shows both sides of the war as having their own, at least partially justified, reasons for fighting, and suggests to the viewer that whenever they see a conflict in the world, that what the news (or friends) is telling them about a conflict of nations is likely simply one-sided and they will become used to an attitude of understanding their enemy, even if they decide they still have to fight them.