Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
The problem begins with the fact that people tend to call everything “classic” for purely rhetorical reasons. If you look at the actual art of classical antiquity, the spiritual values are so-so.
Does it refer to spiritual values, for example, the deification of emperors? What about the deification of the emperor's horses? The sacrifices are kind of spiritual, but I take it we'll skip them, too?” Herma's idols with protruding penises are spiritual enough, or what?
But I do understand what Christian culture is meant. And apparently not Medieval. And not later than the Industrial Revolution, since 19th-century neoclassicism has only a stylistic relationship to antiquity.
That is, it remains… three hundred years from the Renaissance in the 16th century to the 1790s, and the entire period is already attributed to the transitional early modern period. And half a century of it falls on the Rococo. And most of the easel works of this entire period will relate to secular orders, and the list of church ones will be filled with reliquaries of relics.
Wait, no, silver for reliquaries-from Spanish slave mines in the New World. The problem with art and spiritual values is often complicated by the peculiarities of material culture, haven't you noticed?
But okay, I know I might be referring to a 19th-century Russian classic. Yes, there are enough explicitly spiritual works in the National Assembly — but what spiritual issues do the Turkestan lanes of Vereshchagin and the ship forests of Shishkin solve? The quantitative majority of Russian classics are secular works with a rare episodic turn to social criticism — in turn, they are still popular today.
Etc. In other words, any combination of classics and spirituality is inevitably based on a selection error.
Because if you take art from any period and look at it for spiritual content-and separately for spiritual content that has at least a minimal relation to modernity — the picture turns out to be complex. Ambiguous information. It does not allow us to judge to what extent, in principle, cultures can be correlated then and now.
And by the way, modern attempts to fake classical antiquity look rather dubious: the Stalinist Empire style, the Nazi obsession with Roman continuity, the monstrous vulgarity of neoclassical elements on money and diplomas, et cetera.
Indeed, such art is not in the top. Why would that be?