On Being Moved | by Fr. James V. Schall, S.J.

On Being Moved | Fr. James V. Schall, S.J. | March 16, 2008

The Anglo-Welsh poet and artist, David Jones (1895-1974), spoke on the BBC Welsh Home Services on the 29^th of October, 1954. His talk, entitled an "Autobiographical Talk," was reprinted in his Epoch and Artist.  This book was given to me for Christmas. Just recently I began to look at it.

The following passage in Jones' autobiographical lecture particularly struck me: "The artist, no matter what sort or what his medium, must be moved by the nature of whatever art he practises. Otherwise he cannot move us by the images he wishes to call up, discover, show forth and re-present under the appearance of this or that material, through the workings of this or that art." An artist's capacity to move us presupposes that within his own soul something not simply himself has previously moved him.

Read the entire essay...

Comments

[MMajor Fan]

This essay really makes a crucial point and is helpful as people grapple with "What is art?" It can be argued that "good art" is the product of the artist being moved by the object of his or her art, and then the artist creating a representation of that experience. "Bad art" may well be a visual image that is created only to manipulate the viewer. That artist is not himself or herself moved, and then transmitting their "movement" in art, but is setting out to impose a sensation on the audience. To me an example of the "moved by" "good" art is Guernica by Picasso. The terror of war and the slaughter of innocents moves him, and he in turn creates the art. The counter example would be the Mapplethorpe types of "art" whose sole purpose are to impose a shock and distress on the viewer. What a valuable essay with a thoughtful topic, and mention of an artist fewer would know of otherwise.

[Jackson]

Mapplethorpe flows from Picasso, among others. Both are practitioners not of art, but of antiart. It's no accident that Picasso is so very popular today.