A fascinating post at by David Clayton New Liturgical Movement earlier this week ties well into my recent post on the excesses of modern art, particularly that of dissonance. In it, the author discusses, beginning with a quote from the lesser-known John Scotus, also named Eriugena, how elements of ugliness can enhance the overall beauty of a work. I whole-heartedly agree. I think I mentioned this point in passing in my post, but Mr. Clayton expounds on it wonderfully, bringing in examples of gargoyles and introduced errors into manuscript illuminations. At a seminary near where I live, the chapel includes one of these introduced errors (which show the imperfection of man's work against that of God): a reversed tile, which I had picked out to me during a tour, and which I've picked out anytime I've given a tour there. Mr. Clayton's point is less on these theologically-driven errors and more on the aesthetic side of ugliness and dissonance. He specifically mentions how dissonance in music can lead to a greater beauty; however, I think he'd agree that the dissonance in the Threnody that I embedded in my post does not serve that purpose. Dissonance, just like power, can be used for good when used in proportion. When it takes over, it destroys beauty.
Another interesting point Mr. Clayton makes is the necessity, in a sense, of dissonance in a work. He describes how a work too dedicated to rules and formulae and perfection can become inhuman and lacking in beauty. It's an intriguing thought: would that mean the beauty of God is lacking if He has no dissonance? I really don't think that's what Mr. Clayton's saying. Maybe men just can't comprehend perfect beauty correctly, so their attempts at it are not really beautiful because they are too dedicated to man's prowess and work. Man cannot create perfection on his own. That, I think, is a message to take from this.
In short, I would recommend reading Mr. Clayton's article as a great, and much more thorough, analysis of one of the ideas mentioned in passing in my post.
Another interesting point Mr. Clayton makes is the necessity, in a sense, of dissonance in a work. He describes how a work too dedicated to rules and formulae and perfection can become inhuman and lacking in beauty. It's an intriguing thought: would that mean the beauty of God is lacking if He has no dissonance? I really don't think that's what Mr. Clayton's saying. Maybe men just can't comprehend perfect beauty correctly, so their attempts at it are not really beautiful because they are too dedicated to man's prowess and work. Man cannot create perfection on his own. That, I think, is a message to take from this.
In short, I would recommend reading Mr. Clayton's article as a great, and much more thorough, analysis of one of the ideas mentioned in passing in my post.
No comments:
Post a Comment