Below we have a great work of art:

What the battle is all about

The painting is great for three reasons:

1.) Anybody can understand the meaning

2.) It exalts a noble cause(s): i.e. the family, military sacrifice, etc.

3.) It blends nature and humanity together in a creative way

By contrast, here we have a bad piece of art:

modern art

The painting is bad for the opposite reasons:

1.) Nobody can understand the meaning

2.) It lacks a noble cause

3.) It fails to blend nature and humanity together in a creative way

Mark Twain once said, “The difference between the almost right word and the right word is really a large matter. ’tis the difference between the lightning bug and the lightning.” In short, the two things have nothing in common. They’re diametrically opposite.

The same is true for great and bad art – the fundamental difference is profound. And learning to spot the difference is crucial. If you can spot a great work of art, your spirit will be sanctified. You’ll have a road map to the noble life. You’ll find a kinship with the heights of human emotion.

But if you put your faith in bad art, you’ll become lost. You’ll be lacking in a Weltanschauung. You’ll be alienated by the trickster. Your soul an empty cup…waiting to receive the poison.

See Related Article: Poetry Review: A Critique of “August 1968” by W.H. Auden

Advertisements

19 thoughts on “The Difference Between a Great Work of Art and a Bad One

    1. Indeed, it is Weltanschauung: German for “world view.”

      I like it because most of us do not have one – a comprehensive outlook on the world, that is. Historically, your Weltanschauung was provided by religion. By in modern secular times, the Westerner’s world view has been replaced by the media’s agenda. And we are seeing the implications of this amoral Weltanschauung.

      So I think it’s fundamental, even epistemological to a certain degree.

      1. I think my world view was provided by my parents, both in the military in WWII, father in Coldstream Guards at Dunkirk. Both subsequently working class living in a rented house in a coastal village. No TV only radio. Living hand to mouth.

  1. Dear Major Styles, *grinning darkly*

    I am now going to play Loki to your honest Hercules.

    As trickster god, I will point out the demi-god’s strength and simplicity.

    You are a direct man. You have the military’s no-bullshit attitude. “Get the job done — not at any cost, but minimize it.”

    The military is cautious to get involved in war-affairs. They know they can lose — and that losing entails death.

    You are also an academic. A teacher. You want to be understood. You prize this perhaps above all.

    But I, Sorcerygod, am neither military nor academic. I’m an audodidact. I’m ….. if I had to describe myself, I would say I am the Future — capital ‘F’.

    The Future’s view of art and literature is that there is — and must be — great room for complexity. If the world were rearranged to meet your Weltanschauung, much would be lost. Would it be more beautiful? Yes, for order and structure are more beautiful than disorder and messiness. Would it be TRUER? I think not.

    I have a favorite word of my own, and that is glamour in the magical sense, being in thrall to something sorcerous. You, I believe — and I am gently criticizing you here (though NOT TRYING TO CHANGE YOU) — are in glamour to your own Weltanschauung. As I understand it, Waltanschauung should be a tool, not the master. Yet you, in your struggle for beautiful order, have allowed it to tyrannize you, a man (a Great Man, to boot) of a particular kind of dark freedom. (Dark is also another favorite word of mine.)

    I think we should have this discussion and hearty debate in public and see where it leads me. You know me well by now. Pull now punches.

    — Yours in admiration,

    but sneakily,

    S*Gd.

    1. If the world were rearranged to meet your Weltanschauung, much would be lost. Would it be more beautiful? Yes, for order and structure are more beautiful than disorder and messiness. Would it be TRUER? I think not.”

      I might have to ponder that one a bit.

    2. “I have a favorite word of my own, and that is glamour in the magical sense”

      You might want to use that for your WordPress profile.
      SorceryGod – Glamour in the Magical Sense

      1. *grinning again* Very nice. But you are avoiding conflict, My Lord.

        One of the things I don’t like about you Styles (shocking beginning!) is your avoidance of conflict. I too spent time in the corporate world and recognize the origins of your attitude. I suggest you shuck off your professionalism when you enter the trenches of the Internet if you want the sharpness of your views to be more TRENCHANT (get it?)

        *broad amused almost laughing gape-mouth in RL*

  2. *grinning* Slight corrections: See where it leads US. (Note the slipup shows my willingness to follow your lead.)

    And Pull NO punches.

    Begin! *firing starter’s pistol*

  3. 6:24 PM EST.

    Major Styles, you are not gonna dodge this one.

    Sweeping issues of disagreement under the rug is old hat for the corporate world — and even in the culture of the military, disagreement has to be handled under proper channels.

    You have inculcated several bad habits that, while serving you well professionally, bode ill for your educational and entertainment side.

    Now then. I shall begin the debate. Ready?

    I say your Weltanschauung is a thing of classical beauty such that it practically incorporates the Golden Mean of Greek architecture. I grant you your mind is elegant, strong, efficient. But as someone who is more earthy and magical, I say that the whole world is my province, and nothing worthy — even something as vile as a liberal — shall be left out of it. For example, in my world there would be room for white liberal slaves. See? See how neatly I take a given evil and make it a 🙂 plus?

    Big ideas can only be described using the full range of tools, including hyphens, extended sentence construction, complex and multiple metaphor, and more. Moreover, such ideas will sometimes demand careful reading or even re-reading multiple times. Sometimes poetic license has to be taken, and poetry is notoriously hard to pin down or categorize.

    I say you have gone down the wrong road with your Weltanschauung.

    Switching guns, let’s talk about the Jews.

    You have halfway convinced me the Jews need to be eliminated and purged from the face of the entire planet. But only halfway. I lack your dedicated passion on that subject. Is it possible that a race that has produced such intellectual luminaries as Marx (yes, he was a sharp cookie), Freud and especially Einstein has perhaps a little merit? I ask as a devil’s advocate purely. You can pull me over to your view, but you have to earn it. Continue to wear the corpo-militaristic hat and you shall not. ~ S*Gd.

    Your turn.

    1. “But as someone who is more earthy and magical, I say that the whole world is my province, and nothing worthy — even something as vile as a liberal — shall be left out of it.”

      There is room for many, I do believe.

    2. With regards to the Jewish Question, I would never suggest something as harsh as an indiscriminate massacre. There are plenty of talented and fine Jewish people out there. I won’t refute that point.

      But the other ones…well, that’s a different story. They’ve wrought a hell upon the earth that few can match. You yourself detest these individuals (i.e. feminists, left-wing radicals) yet do not openly acknowledge them as Jews. Therein lies the difference between us. My point in this regard has been echoed by the greatest minds of Western history: from Mark Twain to Martin Luther to Henry Ford.

      I identify Soros, Steinem, Abzug (and many others) as Jews because that’s what they are. And the havoc they’ve wrecked upon the US is, in many ways, more insidious than the dark-skinned thugs of Chicago. It’s more astute, more calculated, more total.

      The ghetto thief loots your store and steals your wallet; the globalist Jew destroys your wife, your children and your nation.


      1. The ghetto thief loots your store and steals your wallet; the globalist Jew destroys your wife, your children and your nation.

        Reply”

        Just a note. If I were a member of a historically persecuted minority, I might see salvation on the defusing of the nation-state, and try to enhance the prospects of a globalist weltanschauung that would shelter me from the storm and my kids too. The cosmopolitan metropolis becomes the all-warm, all-safe nest.

        But see, I don’t care about that. I’m intellectually reasonable … and then I just dismiss that shit. Maybe Hitler was right. I doubt the Protocols of Zion were ever real, but they don’t have to be: if you don’t believe in the United States, you are inherently a traitor to its cause.

        And we both know the penalty for treason. (If terrorist families can bite the bullet, I believe the same logic can be extended to breeding Jewish offspring, particularly the GIRLS.)

      2. “If I were a member of a historically persecuted minority, I might see salvation on the defusing of the nation-state, and try to enhance the prospects of a globalist weltanschauung that would shelter me from the storm and my kids too.”

        That describes the phenomenon of JJ Abrams to a tee. He hath soiled Star Wars, no less.

  4. Let’s not get diverted.

    I’m launching a full-frontal attack on your worldview, Styles. I say that what was meant as a tool has become your master. You slave your writing-style to it, keeping your uniqueness unnecessarily at bay, and in addition to that, you are forced into attacking things like intellectual sophistication and things that do not neatly fit into boxes. In the current example, you’re writing about strange art. Now, I agree on the surface you’re right. But art has an idiom which NEITHER OF US is familiar with. You know damn well the artists are speaking their own language. To an untutored plebe — which artistically I’m willing to bet we both are — the simple, more family-oriented picture is the better, right one. But who’s to say which has the deeper meaning?

    This is what I mean by your weltanschauung enslaving you. You cannot possibly consider the value of the lower picture — EVER. This example could be multiplied an infinity of times.

    And there is a larger problem, still, Sir. Your aversion to direct argumentation is a threat to your intellectual integrity. You are not discussing the issues I’ve raised (a third time) in this comment. Instead, you indulge your pet peeve, the Jews. (And by the way, if you’re right, of COURSE they should be killed. You’re worried about your identity getting blown, which I don’t care about, which makes me more reckless but at least more intellectually honest. And I don’t give a shit about Ford. He was a mechanic, not an intellectual. YOU are an intellectual. YOU should know better.)

    Comments?

    *winks* — Sorcerygod

    By the way, in my latest comments on the Chateau I’m advocating for the overthrow of the Constitution and the emplacement of myself in its place. Seems like a fair deal, neh?

    1. “To an untutored plebe — which artistically I’m willing to bet we both are — the simple, more family-oriented picture is the better, right one. But who’s to say which has the deeper meaning?”

      I am not an art historian, by any means. But I do know a great painting when I see one.

      Any recommendations? I’m curious what the Sorcery Man would consider a great painting.

  5. Obviously, I am in a certain energized mood. I haven’t EVER written half as much as this.

    You remember my comment regarding my glorious leader, Justine Trudette? What I would do to him?

    Our selves are very similar, underneath, Major Styles. We react to each other as do like-minded chemical substances. You have a dry humor, I have an arrogant amusement. Similar. You are brainy as fuck, I am fucking brainy. Similar. But I cast my shadow longer than you. I am what you might become, given just a little nutrient-bath to marinate in for a while, and a society that no longer prejudges you, but enables you.

    I have known you for half a year. We still know remarkably little about our true lives. I myself have kept myself in shelter from you.

    Like many, you sense a bright kind of potential about me, a swirling light. And it’s true. The future may be very very optimistic for me. I talk of Exosorss corporation. I speak of threatening the CIA itself, not an idle threat to be making in a world of American hegemony where the U.S. intelligence agencies have greater budgets than some nations.

    Someday, Major Styles, you and I will probably meet. I say this in all seriousness. You should look forward to and prepare for that day. For when that happens, our weltanschuungs are going to have to wholly converge. I do not even want to be the eternal leader — I have a new society in mind, where leadership is shared. Why burn out over a power I only need part of the time?

    You say you want to be a Great Man. America will never allow that. I am the path to your Greatness.

    Today’s counter-comments should be considered carefully by you, My Demi-God Lord before you reply. I don’t want to censor you or threaten you, but only urge you to view them as the first steps to the shared future. The Internet is good for more than just talk. It’s also good for rebels of a sort (or natural tyrants, if you please) to meet.

    *sweeping bow of a dark cloak*

    I await all your responses, half-a-year upon the footsteps of our timely, judicial (virtual) encounter.

    ~ S*Gd.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s