About.......Contact.......Society.....................

Saturday, May 31, 2014

Tears Before Graffiti


Standing in front of a profane backdrop created by her own campaign, an emotional Annette Bosworth condemned criticism of her...in a free-wheeling news conference Tuesday (May 27, 2014). [Source: Bosworth Condenms Mysogyny]
Annette Bosworth, the Republican canddate for South Dakota, designed her own backdrop as she stood before reporters to make a press conference. As she talked, she started to choke, and hold back tears. The reason? She was "bullied" online and called all kinds of names.

This is the woman who has a website called GiveEmHeckAnnette.com.

Yet, some name calling by anonymous commenters on internet sites is enough to reduce her to whimpers.

To make her appearance more effective at the press conference, she designed a graffiti of the names she was called, and posted it as a backdrop to her press conference. This actually makes me think that all of this was planned to elicit "sympathy," rather than denounce "haters" on the internet.

Imagine Bush, Reagan, or even Clinton (Mr.) complaining that people were writing hate mails which were published in newspapers or internet sites? They would be a laughing stock, and comedians would have (even more of) a field day.

But, so far as I know, the comics have left Bosworth alone.

And she's running for politics? What happens when the North Koreans, or the Chinese, start moving in on America and the West. How about Muslims saying the West is evil and not Allah's desires, and should be removed from the face of the earth? Would she start crying then?

I think she's actually unstable. She has videos where she looks like a cocky cheerleader, and she vacillates from chirpy to manic during her press conference .

So, that still begs the question: Is this a woman able to run a country, let alone a state?
"The misogyny is real," Bosworth said. "Go to the shootings in California. Look around. South Dakota is not unique. Our country has a problem."
Yes, equate the name-calling with people dying!

I had people send me emails calling me racist a while ago. It was a bit of a shock at first, but then I found a solution. I told them that if I heard anything more, I would track down their emails, and report them to the Human Rights Commission. I played them at their own game.

That stopped them!

This site has excerpts from Bosworth's press conference, as well as the full 22-minute video.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted By: Kidist P. Asrat
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Friday, May 30, 2014

Those Canadians!


Of Geese and Dandelions
[Photo by: KPA]


Here's a photograph I took of a couple of Canada geese in a park area filled with dandelion heads.

I think there is a nest nearby. The goose closest looks like he's the male, on high alert, whose
...black bill has lamellae, or teeth, around the outside edges that are used as a cutting tool...
Male Canada geese can be very aggressive they will often attack predators with their wings and bill.
[Source: Canada Goose - Branta canadensis].
The male and female have are very similar, with the main difference being the males are larger. They mate for life.

Apparently, they like to eat weeds, and dandelions are a favorite. Here's an explanation for their attraction to lawns:
Mowed lawns attract geese by providing nutritious, new grass shoots. Such landscapes also offer unobstructed lines of sight, allowing the birds to detect approaching predators from a distance, and enabling the birds to continue maintaining ties between parents and offspring.
[Source: Canada Goose Habitat Modification Manual (pdf file)]
And more information from the same source:
Many urban and suburban areas...were designed and constructed early in the twentieth century, long before resident Canada Geese were abundant birds. They contain landscape features ideally suited for these geese, such as a supply of fresh water, expanses of shortly-mowed lawn, an island with suitable nesting habitat, and sometimes people feeding Canada Geese and other waterfowl.
It's a strangely elegant bird. Its long neck is incongruous with it squat body, and it waddles on its flat, webbed feet. But its black and white neck, with the grayish brown body makes it stand out from a distance. And don't get caught in a gaggle fly over, with a burst of loud honks!


Call of the Wild
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted By: Kidist P. Asrat
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thursday, May 29, 2014

White Flowers


[Photo By: KPA]

I tried to find the name of these tiny white roses, which grow on a small tree, almost a bush. There is a cluster of five or six per stem. They have a delicate rose scent, and the larger ones have edges which have turned slightly pink, although that could be due to age. The leaves are much larger than the flowers, and act as a backdrop to these clusters of tiny roses.

I was taking the photograph as a gust of wind started to blow. I waited for a reprieve, which came, but didn't last long. I had to, at some point, just take the shot. The slightly out-of-focus effect is really the movement of the bush caused by the wind, not my camera technique! (notice that the flowers on the top, thick branch are in focus). But I like the impressionistic effect.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted By: Kidist P. Asrat
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wednesday, May 28, 2014

Neat, Precise, Inventive: Canada's Culinary Expert


Christine Tizzard's Best Recipes Ever

If you want to know who is the new Martha Stewart (of cooking at least), here she is:

Christine Tizzard, who has a daily 1/2 hour show on the CBC's Best Recipes Ever.

She is neat, precise, efficient, and creative. These are hard traits to combine. Her daily shows are posted on the CBC's Best Recipes Ever site, if you want to watch her in action.

She talks about her family, talks her way (a little too much, I have to say) through the food preparations, and gives us recipes on a daily basis. And lots of tips. She also has a weekly column in Canadian Living magazine.

Like Martha Stewart, she started her media career as a beauty pageant contestant. She's also acted in a couple of films. But, she realized her potential and went to George Brown College, the local Toronto college, to study culinary arts (cooking), and came out with a new vocation.

The Canadian media tries to glamorize her. This article says she's married to a "rock star." But, I've never heard of him. It's better to call him a musician. And for her to stick to her cooking, which looks like the more lucrative option.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted By: Kidist P. Asrat
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tuesday, May 27, 2014

"Mustn't offend? Mustn't offend? That was more important than saving the blessed beauty of our lost civlization...?!"


Kamāl ud-Dīn Behzād, c. 1450 – c. 1535
Persian
Advice of the Ascetic, c. 1500-1550


Diana West eloquently puts Islam into perspective with the beginning lines of her recent article: Report from the Future: The Umma States of America:
Imagine a curious soul or two in the not-too-distant future furtively peeling back the layers and learning the cruel truth: that their forbears willingly exchanged all of their precious liberties for tyranny rather than assess and educate and protect themselves against Islamic conquest -- violent, pre-violent, smooth, explosive, financial, political, kafiyya-wrapped or Armani-suited...They will be astonished, also very angry, over the way free men and women in 20th-21st centuries saw fit...to erect a massive and invasive security state that robbed all citizens of their liberties as they fiddled away the Islamic threat. Mustn't offend? Mustn't offend? That was more important than saving the blessed beauty of our lost civlization...?!
Perfect. We try to sympathize with the Islam that we think we can sympathize with. Mine would be the Armani-suited, although I would paraphrase it with the "Islam that attempts to take example from the beauty it finds in the countries it takes over."

I used to have Iranian friends in university. I found their language beautiful, unlike the harsh guttural sounds of Arabic. We used to frequent a couple of Iranian restaurants, where we had dishes flavored with delicate herbs. And my Iranian friends knew about Paris and fashion, although they were careful since those were the days of the Shah's demise and the start of the Iranian revolution, and any Iranian flaunting her assets would be suspect.

But, every single one of them chose their Islam, and their culture, over the Western culture from which they were getting so much. One girl had a terrible time though, louder than her well-mannered friends. She was clearly rebelling. But they put up with her, and protected her. The men, who looked so modern and were so gentlemanly, would marry women they hardly knew, through arrangements made by their families. One married a girl at least eight to ten years his junior, who was into mini-skirts and shaggy hairstyles. During their engagement, he was the model of tolerance and care, letting her go to dance clubs (with him of course). After their marriage, he graduated and they left, so I never knew what became of her.

At one time, I used to to go to every Iranian movie that came out. I even knew the directors, and would look for their new releases. The regular film festivals (the Toronto International Film Festival here in Toronto) used to have whole sections on Iranian films. But, the theme of these films was always the same: the culture of Islam, one way or another, approved or not by the filmmaker, would dominate. The filmmakers were so adroit at going around the restrictions and censorship that are part of Islamic society, that their very endeavor was artistic.

In an article about Muslim women, I describe a video installation by an Iranian woman. I write, taken in by the poetry of her images:
Iranian-American artist Shirin Neshat’s video installation "Rapture" shows a group of women traversing a long empty beach with a row boat anchored at a distant shore. The women reach the boat amid ululations. Their long black chadors get caught in the water and the wind. Only a few can board the boat while the rest push them out into the open seas.

Neshat’s women have now reached our shores.

[...]

Another striking video by Shirin Neshat is of a singer. Muslim women are not normally allowed to perform before an audience, but this woman circumvents that order by singing into an empty hall. Her Western film audience is as symbolically absent as are her barred Muslim followers. We cannot understand what she is singing while watching the footage, and they are unable to hear what she’s singing for their absence in the auditorium.

In the end, our attempts at understanding may ultimately be in vain. Even Muslim women cannot clearly articulate, and listen to, their own quandaries and dilemmas.
And it is the same now. As West writes, it is irrelevant the form in which Islam is presented to us, its end game is always the same.


Rapture, 1999
Shirin Neshat [Links to biographical information]
Iranian

Rapture is a two-channel video projection divided down gender lines. The male protagonists of the narrative are projected on the left wall of the gallery, the women on the right (Neshat exploited this binary technique in a series of films made in the late ’90s, like “Shadow Under the Web” of 1997, “Turbulent” of 1998 or “Soliloquy” of 1999). This binary formulation is stressed by the artist’s stark use of black and white (down to the actors’ clothes — women in black veils and robes, men in white shirts and black trousers). The viewer, meanwhile, is right in the middle, confronted with the constant dilemma of where to focus her attention; she can’t fully grasp the action in one scene without turning her back on the other. [Synopsis source]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted By: Kidist P. Asrat
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Monday, May 26, 2014

Memorial Day


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted By: Kidist P. Asrat
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Friday, May 23, 2014

Rural Ontario

Ontario is a strange province. Probably all of the Canada is the same with an uneven amalgam of rural, urban and farmland.

Below, alongside a busy highway, are some houses reminiscent of the old, Victorian era Ontario.

I took photographs of these fascinating buildings, quietly standing and holding their diminished ground, showing us some of this historical Ontario. It is difficult to get to the buildings, but buses do have stops in front of them, although cars have to make a purposeful detour to get to them. Traffic is heavy, with short reprieves from traffic lights which change to red after several minutes' wait.

The William Chisholm House, which is officially known as the Gardner-Dunton House, according to this site is:
Title: Gardner-Dunton House, Britannia
Date Built: Before 1832
Subject: Historic buildings - Ontario - Britannia (Mississauga)
Donor: Planning & Heritage, Community Services
Location: 5520 Hurontario Street, pt. Lot 3 E1/2, Conc 1 WHS

Description: 5520 Hurontario Street. Conc 1 WHS, pt. Lot 3 E¿. Probably built prior to 1832 by William Chisholm, perhaps before Chisholm sold the surrounding land to Joseph Gardner in 1832 for £750. The house, a two-storey, five bay facade Georgian structure, was originally located one mile north on Hurontario Street, but was moved in 1990 to the Peel Board of Education property. Designated under the terms of the Ontario Heritage Act. This is a 1995 photo of the house in its new location.
Here is the screen shot of the house from Google map:



The building is in a field (I don't think it is farmland), a short distance from the city of Mississauga. The high rises can be seen nearby.

Here is my version of the building, with tulips:


William Chisholm House, Mississauga Ontario
[Photo By: KPA]


The building, as far as I can decipher, is now a designated "heritage" building, and is open for public viewing. It is part of the Peel Board of Education, which I suspect is because there is a public school named after Chisholm, in the Peel school district.

This same bus goes further north, and passes another "heritage" building, also in the middle of a field. I once again go off the bus, to see the building.

The door was locked, but there was a group of children playing in the background. I asked the gentleman who seemed like the supervisor if the building was open for public viewing.

No, it is only open on the week-ends, he said.

"How did you get here?" he asked.

"I was on the bus and I got off to see if I could get find out more about the building."

"Well, I can show you in," he said.

So I got a private tour.

The building is a one-room schoolhouse, which was functioning as such until the 1950s.


Britannia One-Room Schoolhouse
[Photo By: KPA]


Here I am, a good teacher, at the front of the classroom, and sitting down, "a good student" as I said to my guide.


Britannia Schoolhouse Interior


Britannia Schoolhouse Interior

The gentleman told me that a group meets regularly to maintain the heritage of the region, and asked me if I would like to join the Friends of the Schoolhouse.

"Definitely," I said. And took down the information to attend their upcoming meeting.

Here is the site with the information:

The Britannia Schoolhouse.

As well as membership information, the site has fascinating documents, photographs, architecture, and other information describing Ontario in the Victorian era. There is a section called "Fun and Games" which shows how these young children amused themselves as they went through their school days. In the "links" section, there is a long list of Ontario one-room schoolhouses.

And here is more on heritage buildings in the Mississauga area, which also includes the Chisholm House:

Architectural Styles in Mississauga.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted By: Kidist P. Asrat
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Monday, May 19, 2014

Wine and Society


Dionysos: God of wine
Marble head and torso
Roman copy after Praxitelean work of the 4th Century B.C.

His appearance matches descriptions in classical literature:
"A magical enchanter..., his bond hair smelling of perfume
his cheeks flushed with charms of Aphrodite in his eyes"
Euripedes, Bacchae 192-194
[The above description is from the information plaque beneath the sculpture at the Royal Ontario Musuem, in Toronto]
[Photo by Kidist P. Asrat]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It looks like I've beaten the great Camille Paglia to the punch regarding oenology matters. I'm sure Paglia has written about wine before, but I haven't read her exclusive treatise on the beverage. Here is how I associated wine, culture and society in a couple of posts I did last year: Nectar for a Goddess and The God of Wine. In a third post, Dionysus' Fury, I discuss the lost culture of wine where Dionysus raises his fury through me at the ignorance of culture-bereft waitresses. Also in The God of Wine, I discuss the wine and the Eucharist.

I also write about beer, a beverage assumed to be less sophisticated than wine, but I raise its status to The Nectar for the Gods.

Below are some excerpts from Paglia's April 23, 2014 Time Magazine article: The Drinking Age is Past its Prime.

- On the refined cultures of France and Germany, who teach their children how to drink beer and wine, where Paglia associates "learning how to drink" with "growing up":
Learning how to drink responsibly is a basic lesson in growing up - as it is in wine-drinking France or in Germany, with its family-oriented beer gardens and festivals. Wine was built into my own Italian-American upbringing, where children were given sips of my grandfather’s homemade wine. This civilized practice descends from antiquity.
- On the "truth" that wine was associated with in ancient Greece and Rome, which is a precursor to the truth of the Eucharist in Christianity:
...wine was identified with the life force in Greece and Rome: In vino veritas (In wine, truth).. Wine as a sacred symbol of unity and regeneration remains in the Christian Communion service. Virginia Woolf wrote that wine with a fine meal lights a “subtle and subterranean glow, which is the rich yellow flame of rational intercourse.”
- About Dionysus:
Exhilaration, ecstasy and communal vision are the gifts of Dionysus, god of wine.
The article has the usual gems of Paglian Wisdom, but then we also get the erratic jumps of ideas and beliefs that make her works readable and entertaining, i.e. not to be taken seriously all of the time.

E.g.:
As a libertarian, I support the decriminalization of marijuana, but there are many problems with pot. From my observation, pot may be great for jazz musicians and Beat poets, but it saps energy and willpower and can produce physiological feminization in men.
Yes, Camille. And how about the pot-head on the road, in pursuit of that Kerouacian line of poetry?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted By: Kidist P. Asrat
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sunday, May 18, 2014

What Manner of Man is This,

That even the winds and the sea obey him?
Matthew 8:23-27

Niagara Falls
[Photo by: KPA]


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted By: Kidist P. Asrat
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Saturday, May 17, 2014

Yellow Flowers

The flowers below are from a bush growing in a pathway by a high rise. The bush is part of the "landscape architecture" of the area, but it stands a lone plant amidst the concrete and glass, giving the place a surprising burst of color during these spring days.

As I took the photographs, I could smell a whiff of something sweet, a little like freshly baked cake or cookies.

I used "google image" to find out what the plant is.

It is:
Ribes aureum, known commonly as the golden currant, is a species in the genus Ribes. It is native to Canada, most of the United States (except the southeast) and northern Mexico. The species Ribes odoratum is closely related, and sometimes named Ribes aureum var. villosum.

Description
Ribes aureum is a small to medium-sized deciduous shrub, 2–3 metres (6.6–9.8 ft) tall. Leaves are green, shaped similarly to gooseberry leaves, turning red in autumn.

The plant blooms in spring with racemes of conspicuous golden yellow flowers, often with a pronounced fragrance similar to that of cloves or vanilla. Flowers may also be shades of cream to reddish, and are borne in clusters of up to 15. The shrub produces berries about 1 centimeter in diameter from an early age. Ripe fruits, amber yellow to black in color, are edible. The flowers are also edible.

Cultivation
Ribes aureum is widely cultivated as an ornamental plant, in traditional, native plant, drought tolerant, and wildlife gardens, and natural landscaping projects. Unlike some other species of currants, Ribes aureum is in the remarkably drought-tolerant group of Ribes. [Source: Wikipedia]
So there you have it: cloves and vanilla.

I broke off a stalk, and have it sitting in a mug. The flowers' scent fills up the room subtly. It is more of a honeysuckle scent rather than the gastronomic vanilla or cloves.







This bottom rendition is actually an overexposed, unsaturated image. It looks like I altered it in Photoshop. I think it looks like an impressionistic oil painting. This might be what I can aim for some time.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted By: Kidist P. Asrat
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thursday, May 15, 2014

Post-Apocalyptic Vogue

Anna Wintour, editor-in-chief of Vogue magazine, has a new wing named after her in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, in New York.

Here's the announcemnt from the Met's website:
Thomas P. Campbell, Director and CEO of The Metropolitan Museum of Art, announced today that the Museum will designate the space occupied by The Costume Institute as the Anna Wintour Costume Center. The complex has been completely redesigned and renovated and will reopen on May 8 with the inaugural exhibition Charles James: Beyond Fashion. The Anna Wintour Costume Center will house the Department’s exhibition galleries, library, conservation laboratory, research areas, and offices. The curatorial department itself will continue to be called The Costume Institute.

"Anna Wintour’s extraordinary advocacy and fundraising have made this state-of-the-art space a reality,” said Daniel Brodsky, the Museum’s Chairman. “She has the rare ability to rally diverse groups across a wide range of industries to support The Costume Institute so it can educate and inspire visitors from around the world."
Wintour may be at the helm of the most prestigious fashion magazine in the world, but her magazine has been continuously giving us ugliness over the years. I no longer, even if greatly tempted, spend the $6.99 (almost the price of a paperback book) to skim through tens of pages of adverizement to get to the "fashion," since this fashion is often ugly.

So, I was curious what Wintour wore to this inauguration, and here she is.


Anna Wintour, Awkward and Self-conscious

Her "gown" looks like tattered, discarded material stitched together.



And designed by Chanel. Which proves my point that modern clothing is designed to look ugly.

Below, on the left, is the original Chanel (couture) dress.



At least Wintour got rid of the shiny leather corset/belt, and pulled up the neckline, but she has left the cheap plastic gauze both at the top and at the bottom flare of the dress. Random pieces of the material are stuck on the bottom gauze.

The ornate diamond collar necklace she's wearing is incongruous with the patchwork style of the dress. But such is the haphazard style that I expect from Vogue.



Wintour's work out regime is well documented in her spindly, muscley arms.

Looking feminine and beautiful isn't really her objective. Perhaps it is "powerful" that might best describe the aim of these high profile women like Wintour. But then their wires get all crossed, and when they attempt the feminine, they end up looking awkward and self-conscious.

Chanel was well-known for the simple, elegant skirt and jacket ensembles. But, contemporary Chanel is the work of Karl Lagerfeld, the resident designer for that iconic fashion house, and it was he who designed this dress.

Lagerfeld's showcased this dress in front of the fashion elite:
The Chanel Couture fall/winter 2013-2014 collection got unveiled at the Grand Palais on July 3, 2013, during the Paris Haute Couture Fashion Week, giving us an insight into the future of Chanel, at least in the eyes of Karl Lagerfeld. The legendary designer has already gotten us used to his creative ways of making Chanel shows memorable, and this time he transformed the catwalk into a post-apocalyptic theatre. On the background of ruins, he channeled his wonderful couture creations that were apparently paying a tribute to tweed! “The Old World and the New World” was the title of the Chanel Couture fall/winter 2013-2014 collection, where the old was the ruins, and the new – the fab outfits.

The "Post-Apocalyptic" Fall/Winter 2013/2014 Chanel Show at the Grand Palais

This "post-apocalyptic" theater is what Anna Wintour condones as she wears the tattered rags by today's "fashion designer" in this "The Old World and the New World" scenario. The concrete walls were put up for the show, to cover the shining gold arches that support the walls of the Grand Palais, which was built in 1900 as an exhibition hall. Its architects, must be turning in their graves, as must Coco Chanel.


The interior of The Grand Palais from a 1900 illustration
with its gold arches in full spectacular view

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted By: Kidist P. Asrat
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Saturday, May 10, 2014

Music and Technique

Technique, or perfecting technique, is the cornerstone of any artistic endeavor. Excercises are essential.

Here are two methods of technique, for flute and piano, and the musucians who developed them.

Carl Czerny
...was an Austrian composer, teacher, and pianist of Czech origin whose vast musical production (more than a thousand pieces and up to Opus 861) is being rediscovered. Czerny's books of études for the piano are still widely used in the pianistic pedagogy.
Here is a partial list of his pedagogical books:
Op.139, 100 Progressive Studies without Octaves
Op.200, The Art of Improvisation (or The School of Extemporaneous Performance)
Op.335, Legato & Staccato Exercises, 2 Bks
Op.400, The School of Fugue Playing, 24 Grand Studies
Op.599, Practical Method for Beginners
Op.718, 24 Studies for the Left Hand
Op.838, Studies on the practical knowledge of all the chords of the General basses
[Source]
Ernesto Köhler
...was an Italian flautist and composer. He was considered one of the must flautists of his era.

Born in Modena, Köhler was taught the flute by his father, Venceslau Joseph Köhler, who was the first flute of the Duke of Modena's orchestra. He moved to Vienna in 1869 as a flautist, and then became a member of the orchestra of the Imperial Opera in Saint Petersburg beginning in 1871. He also led the orchestra of the Imperial Institute of Engineering and taught at the Prinz Oldenburg Institute.

Noted as a composer for flute, Köhler wrote over 100 works for the instrument: études, duets, and solos. He also produced an opera and several ballets. He is well known among flute players for "Flöten-Schule" (c. 1880), his popular method for learning the flute, and for Progress in Flute Playing (his Opus 33, published in the 1880s), a series of three progressive instructional books for the flute player.
[Source]
Here is a list of his etudes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted By: Kidist P. Asrat
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Friday, May 9, 2014

Larry Auster and the Unprincipled Exception


Left: Lawrence Auster, giving a speech Islam and the West, Can They Co-exist?, in New York in 2010
(here is the three-part video)
Right: Mary Frances Berry (yes...)
(here's an article by Linda Chavez, at Townhall.com: Mary Frances Berry: Civil rights bully)


These juxtaposed images are from the blog Radishmag. The caption to the images reads:
Auster and Berry: one of them doesn’t believe civil rights apply to white men, and the other was considered “racist.”
Here is what Radishmag's author (one of them) writes in the aritcle following the images:
“Civil rights laws,” noted Mary Berry, the black chairwoman of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, “were not passed to protect the rights of white men and do not apply to them.” Besides Ms. Berry’s subtle take on “civil rights,” doublethink reminds me of nothing so much as the late Lawrence Auster’s concept of the unprincipled exception:
Radishmag also links to a post by Larry with a list of his articles on unprincipled exceptions. One example is:
And here’s an article on the unprincipled exception avant la lettre, in which I pointed out how liberals exempt themselves from their own rules when they feel it is necessary for their own safety (e.g. liberal opponents of gun rights owning their own guns), but that they never draw any larger conclusions from this.
Below is the full video of Islam and the West, Can They Co-exist?



I'm posting below the full article by Larry Auster, The Unprincipled Exception Defined, a term which he himself coined.

-----------------------------------------------------------

The Unprincipled Exception Defined
By Lawrence Auster
Posted at View from the Right on June 14, 2006

Recently, VFR readers and others have been introducing the concept of the unprincipled exception into online forums. While there are many articles by me that touch on the subject from a variety of angles (the key articles are listed here), there is a need for a short definition and reasonably concise explanation of this sometimes difficult concept.

Definition:

The unprincipled exception is a non-liberal value or assertion, not explicitly identified as non-liberal, that liberals use to escape the inconvenient, personally harmful, or suicidal consequences of their own liberalism without questioning liberalism itself.

Alternatively, the unprincipled exception is a non-liberal value or assertion, not explicitly identified as non-liberal, that conservatives use to slow the advance of liberalism or to challenge some aspect of liberalism without challenging liberalism itself.

Explanation:

Modern liberalism stands for principles of equality and non-discrimination which, if followed consistently, would make a decent life in this world, or any life at all, impossible. But modern liberal society does not permit the public expression of non-liberal principles, by which rational limits to equality and non-discrimination, or indeed the very falsity of these ideas altogether, can be articulated. This fact forces liberals continually to make exceptions to their own liberalism, without admitting to themselves and others that they are doing so. Such exceptions must take inchoate, non-conceptual, pre-rational forms, such as appeals to brute self-interest, to the need to respond to a pressing emergency, or to common sense. For example, liberals who want to escape from the negative consequences of their liberal beliefs in a given instance will often say that the application of a liberal idea in that instance “goes too far,” without their indicating by what principle they distinguish between an idea that has gone “too far” and one that hasn’t. In fact, it’s purely a matter of what suits their own comfort level and convenience.

Conservatives also must have recourse to the unprincipled exception, but for a different reason than the liberals. Liberals are seeking to escape the negative consequences of their own liberalism. Conservatives, of course, actively oppose liberalism, or, rather, they oppose some aspects of liberalism. But, because the conservatives live in modern liberal society, where principled opposition to liberalism is not allowed, and also because the conservatives themselves subscribe to liberalism and are not prepared to think outside its concepts, the conservatives’ only available means of opposing some aspects of liberalism is by unprincipled exceptions, such as appealing to common sense, or to the shared unreflective habits of society, or saying, “That’s just the way things are,” or asserting that a particular liberal belief is “silly” or “stupid” or “extreme.” These methods allow conservatives to find fault with various symptoms of liberalism, without attacking liberalism per se.

For example, a conservative might advocate the exclusion of Muslim jihadists from U.S. immigration, or the ethnic profiling of Muslims in airport security checks. But he will not challenge, or, indeed, even mention, the underlying liberal belief in non-discrimination that compels us to admit Muslim jihadists in the first place and that requires us to avoid ethnic profiling of Muslims. Instead he will make a non-conceptual appeal to common sense: we’ve got a really serious problem here, we can’t continue admitting these people into America, we can’t continue checking babies and old ladies in airports instead of focusing on young Muslim men, we’ve got to do something. And if there arises a social consensus at that point that the problem is indeed great enough to warrant an exception to the liberal rule (and such a consensus began to emerge regarding ethnic profiling of Muslims in the aftermath of the foiled attack on trans-Atlantic airliners in August 2006, when even liquids and books began to be banned from planes), then this opinion will become an accepted position, without the principle of non-discrimination that led us to the absurdity of admitting jihad-supporters into the West and of prohibiting ethnic profiling of Muslims in airports ever coming into view. Thus the excesses of liberalism that are intolerably costly and dangerous can be corrected, without the liberalism that led to those excesses being criticized or even becoming an object of consciousness, and without the conservatives who carried out the act of correction appearing as anti-liberal.

The above does not apply to all conservatives in all situations. There are many instances where a conservative argues against a liberal position on the basis of principle. But even these relatively more serious conservatives will tend to oppose only some particular aspect of liberalism, not liberalism as such. For example, there are conservatives who make good arguments against putting military women into combat or quasi-combat assignments, but they never challenge the underlying sexual integration of the military of which the placing of women in combat is the inevitable result. There are conservatives who make good, articulate arguments against same-sex “marriage,” but they never question the general idea of equal freedom that has led many people to support same-sex marriage.

What the above suggests is that the unprincipled exception is only a holding action against liberalism, a form of foot-dragging. This is because liberalism, with its principled demand for the elimination of all discrimination, keeps becoming more and more comprehensive and extreme in its goals, sweeping aside the remaining unprincipled exceptions to itself until everything non-liberal has been prohibited and the society is destroyed.

Under the rule of modern liberalism, both liberals and conservatives must resort to the unprincipled exception to contain the excesses of liberalism, even though the UE, being non-rational and lacking a principle, is ultimately impotent and cannot save them. They will go beyond the unprincipled exception only when they are free to express non-liberal concepts. To put it another way, liberalism, an all-encompassing belief system that prohibits any rationality other than its own insane rationality, forces people to be irrational in order to fend off liberalism’s intolerable consequences. The mission of traditionalism is to engage in and legitimize rational opposition to liberalism, its ultimate aim being the end of liberal rule over society and the restoration of our humanity.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted By: Kidist P. Asrat
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Destroying the Image


Still from film "The Young Prince" by Bruce Elder

Here is an email interaction I had with a Reclaiming Beauty reader who was getting spam email after commenting on my site. He also informed me that he was a student of Bruce Elder.

I am posting the interaction since it is really a continuation of my posts which I titled Art Thieves.
Dear _____,

Sorry to get back to you late. I cannot "unsubscribe" you at the moment, but I'm looking up how to and hope to do so soon.

[...]

Yes, I had Bruce Elder. He was an odd fellow, and to be honest, not very artistic. I think that was partly his forceful presence in "experimental" film. He started out as a poet, but failed at that, then turned to film.

I was one of his protege's, but I left the group. I criticized him on several occasions, twice during speeches he was making at public lectures. He could never answer my basic question of "why was he trying to destroy the image." He would thoroughly disapprove of my "realist" approach to photography.

I also similarly criticized the big and formidable Stan [Brakhage] during one of his visits to Toronto, in Bruce's home, where I was a member of his "round table" group of students, faculty and artists (we met about once a week for drinks and discussions). My question to Stan [Brakhage] was similar in stance to the one I asked Bruce [Elder], of why he was destroying the image. Stan [Brakhage], for a few brief moments, didn't know what to say. I think he deflected the question and talked about something else.

Your photographs are wonderful. You have a beautiful family.

All the best,

Kidist
Here is the response from my correspondent:
No rush. Thanks.

p.s. I must contact a friend who now lives in Montreal and tell him your thoughts on Bruce Elder. He'll smile. I had Bruce speak at an NPPA seminar once. I gave him a simple task, to talk about two television news reports, one American and one Canadian and both reporting on the same story. The news stories took two different views. The news was clearly biased in one or both countries. Bruce veered off into a very weird talk that literally emptied the auditorium. Hundreds fled his talk. I laugh now but I was the seminar chair and it was an awful moment.

Cheers!
I reply:
Dear ____,

I have removed commenting functions from Reclaiming Beauty. It looks like people send spam email to those who comment, as one reader informed me.

Thanks for your patience.

Here is one really interesting piece of information proclaimed by The Great Bruce himself:
"Years ago, I used to tell people, only half facetiously, that I was a film maker because I wasn't a creative artist."
More at In Conversation with R. Bruce Elder on the "techniques" he developed to make his films (one of which, I should add, which he hasn't, is to stand clothless infront of the camera being "creative" with himself).

He got one other film student, a woman called Izabella Pruska, to take off her clothes and make her "films." Here she in all her non-glory posing for the Toronto Star.

Here is her [film] Garden of Earthly Delights, which is a clever erotica, a la Elder, where we see flashes of her "delights."

They have made porn, basically. The greatest of nudes in classical painting were never so explicit (or subversively explicit).

And here is Pruska's latest: This Town of Toronto, with the Elder imprint of layered images that are difficult to decipher, repetitive, and which I call "destruction of the image." And Brakhage's imprint of flowers as erotica. Also, using old (or found) footage is another lazy way out of making films and photographs, as I write here in my recent post Art Thieves.

The film was shown at a Ryerson University Symposium in 2013: Electric Visions: How DADA and Surrealism Anticipated the Later Avant-Garde.

Pruska also had funding from Canada Council to make this 3-minute piece. They never think to fund their own films. Pruska is married to a well-positioned pharmaceutical researcher, at INC Research, who I have no doubt has enough money to pay for his wife's "experiments" - (the Elder crowd calls itself "experimental film makers").

Pruska, and MacDonell (subject of Art Thieves) both teach at Ryerson now. The "legacy" lives on.

Macdonell never took off her clothes, but her Masters thesis, which went into the "festival" circuit, was based on the "found" images of a "burlesque dancer" as she calls it, which is another way of saying "a stripper."

Better label for these film makers might be "Subversive porn film makers."

Those that Elder couldn't get to declothe, he got them to shoot him in his exposed glory. One woman who filmed him in his many naked works, never worked in film after that. She is now a manager (or producer, or a freelancer) at some video production company.

Elder tried to get me to film him as well, but that was one of the last straws which convinced me to quit his program. I left without finishing my degree at Ryerson (with only one more year to go!).

But, I got my films exhibited around Toronto [and in Europe], as well as my photographs.

I do not miss those days. As Elder said, there was nothing creative about it. I actually call it 'evil." His aim is to get at your "subconscious," and more precisely, your sexual/Freudian subconscious.

[Stan] Brakhage [an American filmmaker] also worked at this "subliminal" level, and essentially destroyed or distorted the image to make his films. But he was [more] clever than Elder. He made "imageless" films by coloring on the film itself. He is really akin to the abstract expressionists, who "splashed" paint all over the canvass, a la Jackson Pollock.

Here is a link to his "method" and aim.

Elder has a new book out (he is a prolific writer, or re-writer I should say), on Dada and surrealism. Both these movements are dead and gone (probably how their founders would have wanted it), but Elder keeps on churning out the Dada and the Surreal.

Here is the link to Dada, Surrealism and the Cinematic Effect, which came out in 2013. Same old, same old. Elder gets grants from the Canada Council and other government agencies to make his films and write his books. He has convinced them such that he can do whatever he feels like, and they give him the money for it.

Here is a google books link if you want to read large excerpts from the book.

This Dada book was funded by:

- The Canadian Federation for the Humanities and Social Sciences
- Canada Council for the Arts
- Ontario Arts Council
etc.

The links below are from my old website, Camera Lucida, so images are missing, but here are a couple of posts I did on Elder when his film The Young Prince came out.

New Books on Art: Beauty, Dissent and Wreckage (April 14, 2009)

The Destruction of Art by Artists: Comments on Bruce Elder's Film "The Young Prince" (April 25, 2009)

I hope I haven't bored you!

Best,

Kidist
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted By: Kidist P. Asrat
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Monday, May 5, 2014

New York City's Cultural Heritage






Excerpt from Lawrence Auster's speech: Multiculturalism and the War Against White America, presented in 1992.

The full transcript is available here.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted By: Kidist P. Asrat
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hat Season


Audrey Hepburn in My Fair Lady

This is one of my favorite hats in cinema: Audrey Hepburn who goes to the Ascots (the horse racecourse town in Berkshire, England) wearing the extravagant black and white showstopper.

The Kentucky Derby showcases the latest in hat wear.

But, I am skeptical. Other then the overworked tuque, or heavy wool caps for winter, people do not wear hats.

And I am skeptical about the hat taste of contemporary Kentucky Derby participants. And whatever "accessory" they will wear to "compliment" the hat (by accessory I mean clothing, not jewelry, gloves, parasols and other items which are the correct definition of accessory). Contemporary women have not style, have no desire to follow style, and would rather present themselves in "comfortable," often masculine, clothing.

And I am right. Here is what makes the "fashionable" set:


Kentucky Derby Hats and Fashion, 2014


Ascot Hats and Fashion, 2014

The main intent of the attendees at both events is to display their bodies in skin-tight, cropped dresses, and to wear ridiculously high heels.

And this one may be channeling Audrey Hepburn, at the 2014 Kentucky Derby, but she hasn't got it.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted By: Kidist P. Asrat
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sunday, May 4, 2014

Spring in New York


[Photo By: AA]

My aunt in New York sent me this photograph of blossoms in New York. We're still waiting for this burst of color in Toronto!

I think the image is perfect. The focus of the image, the blossom tree, is off-center (which is one of the cardinal rules of photography). The dry patch under the tree, grassless and plantless, isolates the tree from its surroundings, adding to its importance, and making it the subject of the photograph. The tree is cropped on three sides sides giving it a larger scope by letting the flowers spill out into the surroundings (outside the frame of the image). The background building adds a grid structure to the contrasting, chaotic forms of the branches and flowers. It also frames the top floral section. So it isn't the whole tree that is the subject, but its upper flowering branches. And these flowers look like the wind might blow them away, as does happen during the fleeting weeks of spring blossoms. The building also juxtaposes nature with architecture, as is inevitable in a city. Yet, it seems that nature might be winning, at least during these months of regeneration. We can see the full trunk of the tree, with the small shrubs and flowers at its base. The tree is thus grounded despite the unruly branches and flowers. The path shows human presence, under the strict architectural and impersonal grid of the building. The photograph is taken slightly pointing up, technically to capture as much of the tree as possible. This angle adds further dynamism to the image, giving us the view of an ephemeral human glance, and the presence of the photographer.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted By: Kidist P. Asrat
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary

In a recent post, I posted two photographs I took of stained glass windows which are displayed in boxes at the entrance of the St. Michael Hospital's chapel in Toronto.

Below are the images, and what I could find out about the Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary.




Devotion to the Sacred Heart developed out of the devotion to the Holy Wounds, in particular to the Sacred Wound in the side of Jesus. It is in the eleventh and twelfth centuries that the first indications of devotion to the Sacred Heart are found. It was in the fervent atmosphere of the Benedictine or Cistercian monasteries, in the world of Bernardine thought, that the devotion arose...

Saint Bernard (d.1153) explained that the piercing of Christ's side reveals his goodness and the charity of his heart for us. The earliest known hymn to the Sacred Heart, "Summi Regis Cor Aveto" is believed to have been written by the Norbertine, Blessed Herman Joseph (d.1241) of Cologne, Germany. This hymn begins: "I hail Thee kingly Heart most high."...

The Roman Catholic acts of consecration, reparation and devotion were introduced when the feast of the Sacred Heart was declared...

The Alliance of the Hearts of Jesus and Mary is based on the historical, theological and spiritual links in Catholic devotions to the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary. [Source: Wikipedia]
A lenghthy, but well-presented explanation is found at The Theology of the Hearts of Jesus and Mary, which traces and links the history and theology as far back as Genesis:
In simple, yet poetic and profound language the third chapter of the Book of Genesis narrates the story of the fall of man. Three creatures play the major roles in this momentous drama: the serpent, the woman and the man. The serpent beguiles. The woman who was given to the man as his helpmate lets herself be beguiled and the man follows suit. The story seems deceptively simple, but it has monumental implications. The man, Adam, is the progenitor and head of the human family. The woman, Eve, is his companion. As partners they are equal, but they have different roles. He is the head of his wife and the head of the human family. "The whole human race is in Adam 'as one body of one man.' By this 'unity of the human race' all men are implicated in Adam's sin."

At the same time it must be noted that the role of the woman given to the man as his helpmate was far from negligible...

God metes out punishment first to the serpent (Gen. 3:14-15), then to the woman (Gen. 3:16) and finally to the man (Gen. 3:17-19). What is particularly striking, however, is that already the sentence passed upon the serpent heralds the reversal of the fall. The Lord says: "I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; she shall crush your head, while you lie in wait for her heel" (Gen. 3:15). This text has become famous as the Protoevangelium - "first gospel" - and the Catechism of the Catholic Church explains why:
The Christian tradition sees in this passage an announcement of the "New Adam" who because he "became obedient unto death, even death on a cross," makes amends superabundantly for the disobedience of Adam. Furthermore many Fathers and Doctors of the Church have seen the woman announced in the "Protoevangelium" as Mary, the mother of Christ, the "new Eve."
In fact, the Church's magisterium (teaching authority) has grown ever more convinced of the soundness of this insight of the Fathers and Doctors over the centuries and has come to see the Protoevangelium as a revelation of the indissoluble bond between Jesus and Mary in the work of our salvation. The Second Vatican Council's Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy Sacrosanctum Concilium provides explicit corroboration of such an association by stating that Mary "is inseparably linked to her Son's saving work" (indissolubili nexu cum Filii sui opere salutari coniungitur) (#103). This follows logically from a principle of capital importance enunciated by Blessed Pope Pius IX in his Apostolic Constitution Ineffabilis Deus of 8 December 1854, namely that "God, by one and the same decree, had established the origin of Mary and the Incarnation of Divine Wisdom."...

It may be hard to believe, but much of today's theological establishment is firmly set against emphasizing the analogy between Jesus and Mary. One high-ranking theologian has gone so far as to state that there is no analogy between Jesus and Mary; rather their relationship is equivocal. Quite obviously this flies in the face of the entire Catholic tradition. Placing the images of the Hearts of Jesus and Mary together is an iconographic way of insisting on this analogy and the joint work of Jesus and Mary in bringing about our redemption. This is the divinely designed imagery on the reverse side of the miraculous medal and, according to Sister Lúcia, the reason the Lord himself gave for the consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary:
Because I want my whole Church to acknowledge that consecration as a triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary so that it may extend its cultus later on and put the devotion to this Immaculate Heart beside the devotion to My Sacred Heart.
Indeed I maintain that the recognition of Mary as Coredemptrix, Mediatrix of all graces and Advocate for the people of God is a condition for the triumph of her Immaculate Heart. The Lord wants the heart of the "New Eve" next to that of the "New Adam" and he wants us to enter into that admirable alliance for the world's salvation.
The author of the article is:
Monsignor Arthur B. Calkins [who] is a native of Erie, Pennsylvania, U.S.A. and was ordained a priest on 7 May 1970 for the Archdiocese of New Orleans where he served in various parishes as parochial vicar. He has a master’s degree in theology from the Catholic University of America, a licentiate in sacred theology with specialization in Mariology from the International Marian Research Institute in Dayton and a doctorate which he earned summa cum laude in the same field from the Pontifical Theological Faculty of St. Bonaventure (the Seraphicum) in Rome. He was named a corresponding member of the Pontifical International Marian Academy in 1985 and a corresponding member of the Pontifical Roman Theological Academy in 1995. He has been an official of the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei” since 1991 and was named a Chaplain of His Holiness with the title of Monsignor in 1997.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted By: Kidist P. Asrat
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Saturday, May 3, 2014

Spring in a Pot


Spring in a Pot
At the Atrium, on Bay and Dundas, Toronto
[Photo by KPA]


Every spring, outside the Atrium on Bay, these giant pots come out with variations of spring flowers. This year, there are tulips, daffodils and pansies, delicate flowers which somehow fit the austere urban gray and concrete of the giant pot.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted By: Kidist P. Asrat
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sacred Hearts

Below are stained glasses in boxed windows at the entrance of the chapel in Toronto's St. Michael's Hospital. I never knew about the chapel, although I have been a rather frequent visitor of the hospital these last few months.

I passed by them at my last visit, and retraced my steps after my doctor's visit, and managed to take these shots:





The text at the bottom of the windows says:
Erected to the glory of God by the men who
worked on this hospital 1952-54.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted By: Kidist P. Asrat
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Friday, May 2, 2014

Music for Spring


Simon and Garfunkel
Singing "See Me and Julio Down by the Schoolyard"
From the album: The Central Park Concert, 1982
Recorded on September 1981 in Central Park
The Concert in Central Park is the
first live album by American folk rock duo Simon & Garfunkel,
released in February 1982 on Warner Bros. Records.
It was recorded in September 1981 at a free benefit concert
in Central Park, New York City, where the pair performed
in front of more than 500,000 people.
Proceeds went toward the redevelopment
and maintenance of the run-down green space
in the middle of Manhattan. This concert and
album marked the start of a short-lived reunion
for Paul Simon and Art Garfunkel.[Source]
The song "Me and Julio Down by the Schoolyard" was written by Paul Simon and is in his 1972 self-titled album Paul Simon.

The melody is lighthearted, but don't pay too much attention to the lyrics...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted By: Kidist P. Asrat
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thursday, May 1, 2014

The Cult of Ugliness


Cathedral of Brasilia
(Image posted above the article)


The Cult of Ugliness in America

By: Fr. Anthony J. Brankin
[This talk on "The Cult of Ugliness in America" was given by Father Anthony J. Brankin on March 14, 2001 in the Washington Bureau of The American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property (TFP) in McLean, Virginia.]
The topic on which I have been asked to speak today is “The Cult of Ugliness in America.” I do not intend to speak of every possible example of ugliness in our society. That would be exhausting if not thoroughly discouraging. We already live cheek-by-jowl in an incredibly ugly culture; we cannot escape it. So if there is any purpose to this talk, it is to keep you aware of the very real danger that you might miss the ugliness entirely and never catch on to the real destruction that this ugliness is working in your very souls.

Now, what could I possibly mean by the word “ugly”? Is it too glib to say that if beauty can be defined as that which when seen pleases, then the ugly is that which when seen displeases? Why does it displease? Is there some definable element that tells us that an ugly piece is ugly? Is there an obvious line or shape or combination of lines and shapes that screams, “ugly!”

What can we make of the modern phenomenon whereby what is considered ugly nonetheless pleases — or what would be considered beautiful in another era or society is deemed by ours to be ugly?

For example, when I say that you live cheek-by-jowl with this ugliness, I mean to say that in coming to and going from this hall you are surrounded by miles and miles of unyielding ugliness: McDonalds and Burger Kings sandwiched between Amocos and tenements. You do not mistake that for beauty, but it is so ubiquitous that you may no longer recognize it as specifically ugly.

You may never even make a mental note of the ugliness of all the malls with their false fronts and even falser interiors, or of the condominiums that are just as empty and sterile on the inside as they are on the outside. That’s just how everything looks now.

And, of course, that’s just for starters, for there is likewise in our world a spiritual ugliness no less all-pervasive than and somehow related to the visual ugliness all about us.

You will turn on your car radio only to hear of some new school shooting, and you won’t even be sure if this is the eighth or ninth such massacre in as many months. You will, however, be able to form a mental image of the alleged perpetrators, for you have seen the look and the fashions on your own block and maybe even within your own families: the chopped, colored hair, the mutilations, the tattoos, the rings in the nostrils and eyebrows, the baggy clothes, the backward baseball caps, the surly looks and the sullen grunts. You’ve even heard their music — God have mercy on us; we’ve all heard their music.

Then, of course, when you finally reach home, you will turn on the television news to hear of our scientific culture’s progress in the harvesting and sale of babies’ body parts. You will see news bytes of the political candidates trying to outdo each other in their dedication to killing babies.

Perhaps then, after supper, you will turn the channel to a show where you are treated to hour after hour of actors and actresses spewing vile lines in ever more tawdry productions. Could television programming be any less accurately described than by saying it consists of ugly, mean people doing ugly, mean things to each other? Indeed, the ugliness is so universal, so part and parcel of our lives, that it hardly registers in our minds anymore. And having drunk fully of this awful cup, you go to bed.

Now, you might think that at least on Sunday you could be rescued from all of this visual and spiritual ugliness by going to church; but ugliness is there, too, for chances are that your church has already been despoiled by modern Catholic barbarians who haven’t even the artistic sense of the Unitarians who sit on your towns’ historic preservation boards.

The modernists will already have removed the tabernacle to a closet and the crucifix to the rectory basement. They will have torn up the sanctuary and torn down the shrines; and they will have done their expensive best to ruin whatever vision of spiritual loveliness the first parishioners and the first architect possessed. But, again, you are so used to it by now that what they have done to your church in the name of reform barely registers anymore in your minds — at least not until you have to confront what they have also done to the Mass — ever-perky, ever-childish, ever-changing, ever-boring, ever-therapeutic, until you are no longer sure who should be more embarrassed, you for still being there or the liturgists who invented it all.

No, the cult of ugliness is so pervasive, so all around us, in every nook and cranny of our lives, that we stand the risk at every moment of missing it, of no longer being able to see it or even be repelled by it.

What is Beauty?

Our talk will be divided into three parts: We shall first try to understand what has always been traditionally understood by the use of the word “beautiful” by most people in most eras, and in fact, how traditional Catholic philosophy was able to sort out that traditional understanding of beauty into an actual set of principles, the violation of which would yield ugliness.

Secondly, we shall try to situate these understandings of beauty and ugliness in the context of culture — or cult or faith — to see how beauty and ugliness flow naturally into the world from the content or emptiness of the soul.

Thirdly, we will make some personal resolutions, which we hope would take us a long way towards the destruction of this Cult of the Ugly.

Nature, the Matrix for Beauty

Ask any child who is drawing something what he is trying to do and he will tell you that he is trying to recreate something that he saw in nature, be it an apple, or the sun, or a tree, or a house. And, invariably, the measure of the success of the drawing for that child is how closely the drawing resembles nature.

Accuracy according to nature was always the standard of reference for artists and societies, for all high civilizations from the Egyptians and Greeks to the Romans and Europeans. Each culture’s succeeding generations of artists tried to improve upon, or at least remember, the techniques, lessons, and discoveries of the previous generations, always seeking a greater beauty of lines, more solid figures, and truer perspectives.

It was generally accepted that there was infinitely more to a face than just that face — something else between the proportions of nose, eyes, cheekbones, jawbones, lips, and mouth — and this, of course, would be “beauty.”

If, therefore, we are to understand anything about the “Cult of Ugliness,” we must first understand what beauty is. Its definition is basic enough. According to the great saint-philosopher of the Middle Ages, Thomas Aquinas, beauty is that which when seen pleases.* No more, no less. If colors and forms and shapes and compositions would please beggars and kings all at the same time, then that would be considered “beautiful.”

But why does it please? What would make the heart delight in that which the eye saw? Well, Saint Thomas said that if something gives us pleasure then there is always somehow present in the thing which gives pleasure something that is “good,” and the good always attracts us, always pleases us.

Now the good, which a person sees and senses in some beautiful thing, is its “form.” That is, it’s wholeness, its proportions. If such a thing is complete, right, and balanced, it is “good,” and what happens is that we are attracted to that “form” because we sense that there is in the object the same kind of form within us. We see and sense in the form of the beautiful object a “good.” And the good in it echoes the good in us — or at least the good that should be in us. We are fascinated and attracted by that sameness. It delights us and we want to remain in its presence.

Did you ever watch babies and see how they are totally taken in by other babies, how they react to those other little creatures that are so like them? How they stare at other babies, recognize the similarities, and even reach out to touch their faces?

The form of a beautiful object is considered beautiful because it is whole and proportionate, as we would sense ourselves to be whole and proportionate. We delight in the beauty of our own being. There is a resemblance between that which is in us and that which is in the beautiful object. And we are pleased.

But that is not all there is to the story. There is one more element present without which we cannot achieve all this pleasant recognition. Just as the eyes of the body need actual light to see anything, so too the eyes of the soul need a similar light which Saint Thomas calls claritas — clarity — a spark of light, so to speak, that glances off the beautiful object and actually comes from the beautiful object. It is the very same spark of being which comes from the Being of God. The very Being of God is present in the being of the object, and God’s beautiful Being is therefore revealed in the form and proportions and clarity of the object. Precisely because a beautiful thing is a reflection of the Beauty of God, we are naturally drawn and attracted to it as we would be drawn and attracted to God in our desire for union with Him.

The beauty of God is somehow mysteriously reflected in the beauty of being — first in nature, then in trees, sunsets, in faces and forms and figures; and then it is reflected in art — in drawings and paintings and sculptures and even in architecture (and, somehow, even more mysteriously, in music.)

The closer those artistic forms conform to nature, the closer they conform to the supernatural, and the more accurately do they reflect the truth, the beauty, and the goodness of God.

Beauty is Objective

We have been made to believe for generations now that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, that it is all a matter of taste and culture, opinion and upbringing, that there is no true objective beauty out there that can be used as a universal standard. It all comes from one’s mind and what one likes. So, if you think a horribly skewed, out-of-shape series of smears and stains is beautiful, then, for you, it is beautiful.

Well, I stand here today to say, along with thirty thousand years of human instinct and two thousand years of Catholic tradition, that beauty is not in the eye of the beholder. Beauty resides in the beautiful thing itself. It will either have proportion, wholeness, integrity, and clarity in itself and be from God, or it will not have those qualities and will be displeasing to the discerning soul and will therefore be ugly.

You see, just as theological modernism denies the objective reality of the supernatural, saying that all dogma, all revelation, is just your experience and, therefore, the truth is what you think is the truth, so too, artistic modernism tries to convince us that whatever anyone thinks is beautiful is beautiful for that person.

Indeed, today no one is allowed to say that anything is ugly, for to call something ugly hints at the possibility of an actual real standard of reference by which some things can be beautiful and some things not beautiful. This hints at the possibility of a claim to objective truth, which is certainly not allowed in today’s society because that would hint at a God.

We are cowed into a moral and cultural silence before the modern proclamation that a squat, misshapen, mis-proportioned figure is somehow beautiful — and even perhaps more artistic than the figure that God first created. How could it be said that that which seemed so ugly to us was still somehow beautiful to them? Well, they say it still, but now we know that this attitude is simply a modern intellectual conceit, by which their higher appreciation of art makes them superior to those not in on the game.

For the same reason, no one today is allowed to say that anything is wrong, to say that something is evil, or to say that something is immoral. If there is nothing that is in and of itself “true,” then neither is there something that is in and of itself good or bad — neither beautiful nor ugly.

Indeed, when you walk into some modern monstrosity of a church and your instinctive reaction is, “My God, this is ugly,” you are right. It probably is ugly. And you have no less an authority than Thomas Aquinas to back you up.

You incur no moral or aesthetic fault if weird angles and blank concrete walls in a church make you feel uneasy and uncomfortable. There is no sin in seeing some hideous deformation of Christ on the cross or some monstrous representation of Mary and saying that it is hideous, that it is monstrous. Nor is there virtue in trying to think that, somehow, it is all really beautiful and that there must be something wrong with you. You need no longer feel forced into a corner bleating, “Well I guess I don’t know much about art.” It may simply mean that your good human and Catholic instincts are still intact and that they have, somehow, survived this ugly, ugly society.

Now you might be thinking: “My goodness, the world is falling apart and he’s talking about drawings. More than a million babies a year are being sucked out of the wombs of their mothers and he wants to discuss pretty pictures. Seventy per-cent of Catholics don’t even go to church anymore and he’s giving us lessons on the philosophy of art. If we wanted Sister Wendy we could have turned on PBS.”

This goes much deeper than aesthetic philosophy. It refers to the way we think about and deal with life itself — all of life, all of nature, all of being. All human activity is meant by means of beauty to provide us with an access to God, Who is All-Beautiful.

To Produce Beauty One Must Possess Beauty

It takes virtue to do virtuous things. Indeed, it takes virtue to even recognize virtue or to recognize its opposite. And if you possess this virtue, this grace — this natural penchant for the supernatural, this healthy sense of beauty, you will see, know, feel, and do things of which the rest are simply incapable.

The same goes for the sense of beauty. Unless beauty first resides within, it will never be exemplified without in any part of our society. Nor will it even be recognized.

That remnant sense of beauty — in our minds and hearts — by which we can still recognize the ugliness out there, either in ugly buildings or ugly philosophy or ugly lives, must be cherished and guarded as our last weapon in the struggle with No-God.

But how is it that the rest of our world has become so relentlessly ugly at every level? We seem to wallow in it. Well, perhaps it is clear by now that our society, no longer possessing virtue — theological or practical — no longer possessing grace or faith or even the dimmest notions of God, has embraced emptiness. Having forsaken the true God, having blinded ourselves to His “claritas,” His spark, His light, we dwell in ugliness, darkness, and confusion.

We do not see or accomplish virtuous or beautiful things without, because there is no longer virtue or beauty within. A society that does not believe in God or super nature or even truth — let alone beauty — will do only ugly things.

Tragically enough, our world does not even know that it is ugly. We have already said that beauty is that which when seen pleases, and therefore we would know that the ugly would be that which when seen displeases. But look at our society, where it has become the macabre, the strange, the twisted, and the deformed that please. Where the most popular piece of cinema in years — number one for weeks — is a movie about a cannibal. It is the evil and ugly that now delights.

Well, welcome to the “Brave New World,” where that which in another era would have been called bad is now called good, and that which was once considered ugly is now considered beautiful.

The Cult of Ugliness Targets God Himself and Our Perception of Him

This discussion is hardly about pretty pictures. It is about the ever-ancient assault on His beauty — the original affront to His very existence and to the nature and the life that He created. The cult of ugliness in our land is no less than Satan’s rage against God. It is no less than the gleaming spear-point of the culture of death.

Moreover, the cult of ugliness is so utterly pervasive and thorough in its celebration of the fruitless, the sterile, the weird, and the ugly that it pushes to the margins all other faiths — above all the True Faith.

The subliminal message in every confused and misshapen piece of modern architecture, art, music, or drama is that there is no God. The subliminal message in every deliberate mutilation of natural forms, in every tribute to physical and personal perversion, is that there is no God. The subliminal message in every celebration of the weird and deathly is that there is no God. This subliminal message is as surely the “Illuminated Gospel of Death” as any culture could have ever proclaimed, and by virtue of its omni-presence in every aspect of modern life, we are constantly encouraged to accept this gospel.

Sadly, even much of the clerical caste, whose task would certainly be understood to include fostering the cult of the beautiful as part of its proclamation of the Gospel of Life — and whom we certainly imagine would defend us from the ugly allurements of the No-God, is often too dense to see what is going on, and itself has surrendered in so many ways to the Cult of Ugliness.

This is demonstrated every time we walk into a church to see some splayfooted, goggle-eyed Christ on a cross or some rude, crude cement Madonna. The poor priest thought he was simply purchasing a nice piece of contemporary art for his flock. In all innocence and ignorance he assumed he was simply obtaining some fresh interpretation of traditional religious themes and was never conscious that what he was looking at and what he was filling the eyes of his flock with was actually the human form exploded, exploited, and degraded — reduced to its individual and impotent parts and slapped together again in a unsettling imbalance — all for the purpose of revealing and teaching the modern loathing of living forms, the modern loathing of a Creator.

No, the poor priest never thought he was doing that. I don’t think he thought it through at all. I don’t think he ever questioned the spiritual source of such strange shapes, or ever wondered from what terrible fonts such new forms sprang.

Perhaps he never suspected the existence of a Cult of the Ugly. Perhaps he just assumed that it was all a matter of taste, and that his taste, like that of his flock, was simply old-fashioned and ready for a little jarring now and then. Well, we have all been jarred.

Look at some of our newest churches and cathedrals. Many of them are stunning and awesome — no, not for their homage to tradition and the Catholic sense of beauty. They are stunning and awesome in their utter inhumanity, their complete lack of scale, their thorough and total sterility, and their horrifying proportions. There is not an angle that could please nor an arch that could comfort. Not a piece of molding that could hold us in its shadow. Not even a little statue before which we could light a slender taper. Like the gaping mouth of the pagan, child-sacrificing furnaces of Moloch, some of our new churches will consume their people in holocausts of visual horror. I venture to say that one or two of these ecclesial “worship spaces” are some of the most terrifying pieces of architecture to have ever been accomplished by and for modern Catholics. I shudder at what harm this ugliness may accomplish in the souls of those who try to pray there. They are the clearest possible examples of the nihilism, the emptiness and nothingness, of which modernity constantly speaks — the relentless message that there is nothing out there — neither nature, nor beauty, nor God. And will we surprise ourselves to discover one day, by means of such architecture, that there is nothing left in our souls either?

Oh, what a series of ironic tragedies. We Catholics, thinking that we were opening the windows to dialogue with modernity, never had a clue that we were being used. Having spoken for so long in the language and in the forms of the modern world, we thought that we could put a Christian interpretation to the philosophy of the atheistic Enlightenment. We thought that now they would love us and come to our side. But we have found ourselves saying and meaning things we did not want to say or mean. And we do not even know how to unsay those things anymore. There it is for all the world to see — our newly acquired evangelical impotence and spiritual paralysis so clearly shown in the confusion of our renovated churches, the foolishness of our experimental liturgies, and the emptiness of our new cathedrals. Why indeed would anyone be attracted to the beauty of God, if this is what it looks like? And we will find one day that we ourselves are growing distant from God because His fascinating beauty is no longer to be found even within our own buildings.

What to Do?

So what do we do? What is the answer? Should we spend our remaining energies and spin our wheels trying to convince, to change, to convert our culture? And we really do sometimes think that, don’t we? We think that if everyone would see that one beautiful statue, or that one beautiful church, or would hear that one perfect argument or one beautiful Mass chant, then they would all be converted.

But how many converts came streaming into the Church after hearing the Gregorian chant recording from Spain? Sure it sold millions, but most, I’m sure, regarded it as little more than mood music to accompany them on the treadmill. The moderns had no idea about what these monks were singing — and Latin was not the problem.

How many of us thought, twenty-five years ago, that if we could just show everyone photos of the developing fetus, the pro-life cause would triumph conclusively? No one cared; and now we find ourselves fighting the battle against infanticide.

Well, is it all over? Do we throw our hands up in total discouragement? Do we resign ourselves to the physical ugliness and spiritual vacuum of our age? Do we surrender to the No-God of our era, place ourselves on the dung-heap of modernity and, like Job, wait for a merciful death?

No, I don’t think we have to. First among all our tasks is that we remain converted and committed to the God of our Fathers, the God of all beauty and all being. And then, naturally and unself-consciously, we will share among ourselves the beauty that we have interiorly experienced.

True Catholic culture has been left to us to create anew and afresh — with precious little reference either to our modern society or even to the clerics panting so faithfully after modernity. We ignore it and them and, taking a tip from the purveyors of the cult of ugliness, we proceed to fill our minds, our hearts, our families, our children, and our world with as much beauty as possible that by dint of the quantity and quality of our efforts there will be no room for that which is inhuman, ungodly, or ugly.

If this sounds like a clarion call back to the catacombs — that we withdraw from our modern culture — then so be it. Yes, that too is heresy in our contemporary Church culture where we are constantly encouraged to engage and embrace the modern world. But in doing so — as we have seen over these last tragic decades, we stand to gain nothing and lose all in such a poisonous encounter.

But where are those catacombs? Where are those refuges from the human and spiritual horrors of our “Brave New World”? They are in your very homes, your front rooms and bedrooms, your home schools and private academies. That is where the true culture of the New Millennium will take shape, for, undistracted by the pomps and pleasures, the flashy arrogances and fleshy superficialities of the ugly world around us, mothers and fathers can form and mold and guide their children with unadulterated faith and inculcate into their souls every form and example of beauty.

And in isolating and insulating your children from the moral squalor about them, you are only strengthening them in their eventual confrontation with it. Fill the walls of your homes with beautiful art, fill the ears of your family with beautiful music, fill the souls of your children with beautiful stories, and there will be no room left for the insipid, the warped, the ugly, and the faithless. If you can make of your family a little Church, you will not have to be engaging constantly in rear-guard action to counteract the toxins of the media and schools or that of your children’s strange new friends down the block. They will not be forced to unlearn at home the lessons they have just learned outside.

Your families will come to know and appreciate that there is only one thing about which to be busy, around which to revolve, only one thing to cultivate, and that is their souls, the beautiful gift from God. This realization will then help them do beautiful things, create beautiful things, and appreciate all the beautiful things that issue forth from beautiful grace-filled souls.

And if we do this, then, little by little, as modernity continues to die — as surely it must, for is not death its very theme? — it will be replaced by life, in fact a new Culture of Life whose healthy hallmark will be the celebration of the beauty of God in the beauty of the life around us.

Oh, indeed there is a Cult of Ugliness in our society, but it is not our cult and we will have nothing to do with it.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted By: Kidist P. Asrat
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------