The Language of Lies

 

Mr. C and I happened upon a lecture given by Sir Roger Scruton at the Oxford Union Society, which led us to watch his 2009 documentary, Why Beauty Matters (on Vimeo. . . while it lasts).  Both videos are well worth your time and speak of matters of importance and urgency to conservatives in our rapidly declining civilization.

About that label — “conservative” — Scruton says (roughly) “conservatism is love of what we have.” In the current climate in the West, and even for some time now, I’ve come to differ. I do not love what the West has become (despite my moniker) and I have chafed under the description “conservative” for some time now. I am not a lover of “what we have,” I’m a lover of the good, the true, and the beautiful. Or, better, I love the Good, the True, and the Beautiful. If there is a one-word description for that worldview, someone let me know. But, whatever it’s called, while Sir Roger and I agree on the “love” part, it is not about “conserving” what we have for me, that’s for sure.

Perhaps the destruction of our civilization didn’t begin with art — specifically modern “art” — but there’s certainly been lasting damage done by its corruption. PragerU offers two more excellent videos on the subject of art and beauty.

And its follow-on, Why is Classical Art so Good?

As Professor Florczak says, art is first and foremost a visual medium, which means good art (I would say “real” art) must appeal to the eye by meeting certain aesthetic criteria:

*composition
*form
*color
*line
*texture
*movement

The contrast between classical art and even the well-regarded impressionists with modern “art” is stark. Modern art is an assault on aesthetic standards and leaves us no better off for its viewing and even diminished as human beings. Coarser, more vulgar, and, ultimately, dehumanized.

So how does all this relate to the “language of lies?” If “art” is completely subjective — if it’s whatever the “artist” says it is — all standards of beauty and excellence are erased, and now we can lie about art at will. The same goes for “marriage” and even what a “woman” or even a “person” is. Perfect Goodness, Truth, and Beauty make up the Yardstick (God) by which we may measure anything. If every individual makes his own measurement according to his personal yardstick, there are no standards at all, and we are all less than the full humans God intends us to become.

Such is the dehumanization of our language that we even reduce people to their skin color or sexual proclivities. It is reductive to say someone is gay or Asian or whatever. These accidents of birth and sexual appetites tell you very little about the totality of who a person is.

I also object to the use and abuse of words like “racism” and “privilege” and “white supremacy.” If every bad thing is attributable to these descriptors, it cheapens actual racism and undeserved privilege and supremacist ideology. It’s not true that if everything is racist, nothing is racist. It is true that many circumstances attributed to “racism” actually have nothing to do with it, like five black police officers beating Tyre Nichols to death.

I am equally disdainful of appeals to “change” and “equality” and “diversity” and “social justice.” Not all change is improvement. Equality isn’t intrinsically a good, especially if everyone is equally miserable. Diversity should not come at the expense of merit and excellence. And justice is a real thing that doesn’t need a modifier. Either something is just or unjust and you know the difference because justice is defined as giving someone his due. Has someone received his due or is he the recipient of unmerited reward or punishment? This cannot be assessed based on someone’s skin color, but only on his free will choices and behavior in civil society.

When I was growing up in the 1960s and 70s, you started to hear that black kids who spoke proper English or achieved academic success were “acting white.” That’s the first time I noticed the smoke of Satan in America (I was young and innocent). “Acting white” was a critique of standards of excellence — especially among blacks. The same can often be said for “white supremacy.” It is a wedge meant to divide us, and has done untold damage to our society, especially to blacks and their families. If standards of moral, academic, and artistic excellence are scorned, we see what happens to individuals and society. . . and it ain’t pretty.

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 83 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    And don’t even get me started on “extremism!”

    • #1
  2. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    In a recent Oxford Union Q&A with Peter Thiel, the (white male) host asks him if it’s a problem that developers of AI algorithms are predominantly white (I guess he’s counting Asians as white. . .). I don’t remember Thiel’s response, since I was having an extremist response to the asinine question. 

    • #2
  3. Scott Wilmot Member
    Scott Wilmot
    @ScottWilmot

    Western Chauvinist: Or, better, I love the Good, the True, and the Beautiful. If there is a one word description for that worldview, someone let me know.

    Catholic.

    Western Chauvinist: If standards of moral, academic, and artistic excellence are scorned, we see what happens to individuals and society. . . and it ain’t pretty.

    Yep. We’ve become a Godless society. So many seem to have no clue about the three transcendentals of Truth, Beauty, and Goodness.

    • #3
  4. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    Scott Wilmot (View Comment):

    Western Chauvinist: Or, better, I love the Good, the True, and the Beautiful. If there is a one word description for that worldview, someone let me know.

    Catholic.

    Heh. I’ve thought maybe I should change my handle to “Christian Chauvinist” or even “Catholic Chauvinist” since “Western Chauvinist” is no longer offensive enough and is too “inclusive.” /joking, people! 

    But, it is true that if I didn’t believe Catholicism to be True, and Good, and Beautiful, I would cease to be Catholic.

    • #4
  5. drlorentz Member
    drlorentz
    @drlorentz

    Western Chauvinist: his [Scruton’s] 2009 documentary, Why Beauty Matters

    Great documentary. I downloaded a copy just in case it gets removed. It’s also on Rumble and Odysee. I’d urge everyone to rely less on the corporate media and move to alternative platforms.  

    • #5
  6. Jimmy Carter Member
    Jimmy Carter
    @JimmyCarter

    Roger Kimball is another fantastic read when it comes to art.

    • #6
  7. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    Jimmy Carter (View Comment):

    Roger Kimball is another fantastic read when it comes to art.

    Roger is one of my must-reads on everything. He’s great.

    • #7
  8. Goldwaterwoman Thatcher
    Goldwaterwoman
    @goldwaterwoman

    Western Chauvinist: Perhaps the destruction of our civilization didn’t begin with art — specifically modern “art” — but there’s certainly been lasting damage done by its corruption.

    Could I briefly defend modern art? Take a look at that graph again showing the years when classical art declined. Why do we blame it on a decline in society instead of the invention of the camera. Many artists had made a living, and still do, by painting family portraits and beautiful scenery. Not so much anymore, and we can trace that directly to the camera which came along in the mid 1800’s which managed a more accurate depiction of its subjects. It took years for commercial photography to make major headway owing to the expense of materials involved in producing the final product. Artists struggled to put food on the table and needed to compete. I could go on and on as this is a long and rich story, but I simply wanted to defend the artists who, like the horse and buggy being replaced by the automobile, had to find a   way to put food on the table.

    • #8
  9. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    Goldwaterwoman (View Comment):

    Western Chauvinist: Perhaps the destruction of our civilization didn’t begin with art — specifically modern “art” — but there’s certainly been lasting damage done by its corruption.

    Could I briefly defend modern art? Take a look at that graph again showing the years when classical art declined. Why do we blame it on a decline in society instead of the invention of the camera. Many artists had made a living, and still do, by painting family portraits and beautiful scenery. Not so much anymore, and we can trace that directly to the camera which came along in the mid 1800’s which managed a more accurate depiction of its subjects. It took years for commercial photography to make major headway owing to the expense of materials involved in producing the final product. Artists struggled to put food on the table and needed to compete. I could go on and on as this is a long and rich story, but I simply wanted to defend the artists who, like the horse and buggy being replaced by the automobile, had to find a way to put food on the table.

    That is addressed by Professor Florczak in one of the PragerU videos. The underlying assumptions are that good art must be strictly representational (photographic). Not true. He shows an example of Asian art, which is anything but photographic in nature. Same also of the impressionists. 

    The other bad assumption is that ugliness sells and that classical artists weren’t trying to put bread on the table. That’s precisely what they were accomplishing, because the standard for art at their time was the appeal to the eye. The ugliness and absurdity of modern art (a rock suspended on concrete pillars, an unmade bed with used condoms on the floor beside it, a massive, metallic balloon dog, an abstract Madonna made of cow dung. . .) only sell to people who buy Hunter Biden’s paintings. Leftist materialists and people interested in getting close to Joe Biden and whatever secrets the family has to sell.

    • #9
  10. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    I strongly recommend the videos to everyone. If you don’t have the time for Scruton, the PragerU videos are only 5 minutes long. They’re all excellent.

    • #10
  11. Jimmy Carter Member
    Jimmy Carter
    @JimmyCarter

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    Jimmy Carter (View Comment):

    Roger Kimball is another fantastic read when it comes to art.

    Roger is one of my must-reads on everything. He’s great.

    I’ve got a lengthy story about how I was led to Mr. Kimball.

    • #11
  12. Chuck Coolidge
    Chuck
    @Chuckles

    Scott Wilmot (View Comment):

    Western Chauvinist: Or, better, I love the Good, the True, and the Beautiful. If there is a one word description for that worldview, someone let me know.

    Catholic.

    Apostle’s Creed: “I believe in…the holy catholic church…”

    It doesn’t say  “the Roman Catholic church” .

    • #12
  13. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    Chuck (View Comment):

    Scott Wilmot (View Comment):

    Western Chauvinist: Or, better, I love the Good, the True, and the Beautiful. If there is a one word description for that worldview, someone let me know.

    Catholic.

    Apostle’s Creed: “I believe in…the holy catholic church…”

    It doesn’t say “the Roman Catholic church” .

    Right. It doesn’t say Lutheran or Presbyterian either. And I only say I’m “Roman” Catholic if, like my mother, I want to chase away someone proselytizing on my doorstep. . .

    • #13
  14. EODmom Coolidge
    EODmom
    @EODmom

     

    You focus on visual art, but I’ll suggest that the criteria also (mostly) apply to performing and written arts. I’ll also suggest that the degradation of those came along side of the collapse of visual arts.

    One of the things they have in common is that mastery of those aesthetic elements requires substantial time and effort in addition to any natural talent and desire one is born with. They take discipline and direction and willingness to strive to become better at technique. Practicing to learn to tell the story very well. 

    Demanding skills, discipline and mastery of technique in addition to some measure of “talent” was first frowned on and then rejected as merit was questioned. If so and so could make a bundle selling a painting of some street scene in Paris, say, then surely anyone could, right? And the one someone did on the weekend must be as good as the one so and so worked for months on and revised and waited for the light to change to work. 

    it goes right along with rejecting standards for excellence in any field – it seems few want to spend the time to become really, really good by working really, really hard. 

    • #14
  15. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    EODmom (View Comment):

     

    You focus on visual art, but I’ll suggest that the criteria also (mostly) apply to performing and written arts. I’ll also suggest that the degradation of those came along side of the collapse of visual arts.

    One of the things they have in common is that mastery of those aesthetic elements requires substantial time and effort in addition to any natural talent and desire one is born with. They take discipline and direction and willingness to strive to become better at technique. Practicing to learn to tell the story very well.

    Demanding skills, discipline and mastery of technique in addition to some measure of “talent” was first frowned on and then rejected as merit was questioned. If so and so could make a bundle selling a painting of some street scene in Paris, say, then surely anyone could, right? And the one someone did on the weekend must be as good as the one so and so worked for months on and revised and waited for the light to change to work.

    it goes right along with rejecting standards for excellence in any field – it seems few want to spend the time to become really, really good by working really, really hard.

    Absolutely! Sir Roger goes into this in the fields of both the visual arts and architecture (speaking of modernist dehumanization!). He finishes his documentary with music. I think you’d enjoy it. 

    I found it worthy of contemplation that he said true art is “useless” and “disinterested.” That is, it isn’t meant to send a message or advance a cause (although, it sometimes does that inadvertently). Its creator only intends to make something beautiful, and ends up making something meaningful that speaks to the human condition. He shows an example of the crucifixion of Christ, which, because it is visually beautiful, evokes both the love and loss we all experience as humans. 

    • #15
  16. EODmom Coolidge
    EODmom
    @EODmom

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    EODmom (View Comment):

     

    You focus on visual art, but I’ll suggest that the criteria also (mostly) apply to performing and written arts. I’ll also suggest that the degradation of those came along side of the collapse of visual arts.

    One of the things they have in common is that mastery of those aesthetic elements requires substantial time and effort in addition to any natural talent and desire one is born with. They take discipline and direction and willingness to strive to become better at technique. Practicing to learn to tell the story very well.

    Demanding skills, discipline and mastery of technique in addition to some measure of “talent” was first frowned on and then rejected as merit was questioned. If so and so could make a bundle selling a painting of some street scene in Paris, say, then surely anyone could, right? And the one someone did on the weekend must be as good as the one so and so worked for months on and revised and waited for the light to change to work.

    it goes right along with rejecting standards for excellence in any field – it seems few want to spend the time to become really, really good by working really, really hard.

    Absolutely! Sir Roger goes into this in the fields of both the visual arts and architecture (speaking of modernist dehumanization!). He finishes his documentary with music. I think you’d enjoy it.

    I found it worthy of contemplation that he said true art is “useless” and “disinterested.” That is, it isn’t meant to send a message or advance a cause (although, it sometimes does that inadvertently). Its creator only intends to make something beautiful, and ends up making something meaningful that speaks to the human condition. He shows an example of the crucifixion of Christ, which, because it is visually beautiful, evokes both the love and loss we all experience as humans.

    I often think of the work produced in the celebration of the Divine. The Gothic arch comes to mind. The real mathematicians I have known haven’t been able to do much else. That’s disinterest. And I expect it was so for those architects – but oh how they invited the celebration of worship. 

    • #16
  17. Stina Inactive
    Stina
    @CM

    Did you listen to the Michael Knowles interview on Pints? His answer sounds just like this.

     

    • #17
  18. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    Stina (View Comment):

    Did you listen to the Michael Knowles interview on Pints? His answer sounds just like this.

     

    Did I? I don’t think so. I have listened to segments of that interview, but I don’t remember if I heard him talking about the corruption of art, language, and the elimination of standards. If I did, I guess I absorbed it! Heh.

    • #18
  19. E. Kent Golding Moderator
    E. Kent Golding
    @EKentGolding

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    Scott Wilmot (View Comment):

    Western Chauvinist: Or, better, I love the Good, the True, and the Beautiful. If there is a one word description for that worldview, someone let me know.

    Catholic.

    Heh. I’ve thought maybe I should change my handle to “Christian Chauvinist” or even “Catholic Chauvinist” since “Western Chauvinist” is no longer offensive enough and is too “inclusive.” /joking, people!

    But, it is true that if I didn’t believe Catholicism to be True, and Good, and Beautiful, I would cease to be Catholic.

    Western Chauvinist is supposed to be offensive?    

    • #19
  20. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    E. Kent Golding (View Comment):

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    Scott Wilmot (View Comment):

    Western Chauvinist: Or, better, I love the Good, the True, and the Beautiful. If there is a one word description for that worldview, someone let me know.

    Catholic.

    Heh. I’ve thought maybe I should change my handle to “Christian Chauvinist” or even “Catholic Chauvinist” since “Western Chauvinist” is no longer offensive enough and is too “inclusive.” /joking, people!

    But, it is true that if I didn’t believe Catholicism to be True, and Good, and Beautiful, I would cease to be Catholic.

    Western Chauvinist is supposed to be offensive?

    Most people think any kind of chauvinist is offensive.

    • #20
  21. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    By modern do you mean today?  For eg Chagall’s painting are beautiful, and when he did them they were ‘modern’, but are they still modern?

    Also, do you think this ‘no longer beautiful’ thing is culture specific? Are some cultures still producing beautiful art – and if so, which ones?

    • #21
  22. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    E. Kent Golding (View Comment):

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    Scott Wilmot (View Comment):

    Western Chauvinist: Or, better, I love the Good, the True, and the Beautiful. If there is a one word description for that worldview, someone let me know.

    Catholic.

    Heh. I’ve thought maybe I should change my handle to “Christian Chauvinist” or even “Catholic Chauvinist” since “Western Chauvinist” is no longer offensive enough and is too “inclusive.” /joking, people!

    But, it is true that if I didn’t believe Catholicism to be True, and Good, and Beautiful, I would cease to be Catholic.

    Western Chauvinist is supposed to be offensive?

    Most people think any kind of chauvinist is offensive.

    I give you A for effort but….just not that offensive.

    • #22
  23. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    E. Kent Golding (View Comment):

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    Scott Wilmot (View Comment):

    Western Chauvinist: Or, better, I love the Good, the True, and the Beautiful. If there is a one word description for that worldview, someone let me know.

    Catholic.

    Heh. I’ve thought maybe I should change my handle to “Christian Chauvinist” or even “Catholic Chauvinist” since “Western Chauvinist” is no longer offensive enough and is too “inclusive.” /joking, people!

    But, it is true that if I didn’t believe Catholicism to be True, and Good, and Beautiful, I would cease to be Catholic.

    Western Chauvinist is supposed to be offensive?

    Most people think any kind of chauvinist is offensive.

    Derek didn’t think so.

    But he was wrong.

    • #23
  24. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    Zafar (View Comment):

    By modern do you mean today? For eg Chagall’s painting are beautiful, and when he did them they were ‘modern’, but are they still modern?

    Also, do you think this ‘no longer beautiful’ thing is culture specific? Are some cultures still producing beautiful art – and if so, which ones?

    I think Chagall is borderline. I can see that he approaches an aesthetic of color and motion, maybe, but he lacks in composition, form, and line. I’m not sure his work will last down through the generations as objectively beautiful. 

    By “modern,” I’m referring to the examples given in both Scruton’s and PragerU’s videos — the unmade bed, the cow dung Madonna, etc. . . Those works lacking any visual appeal or skill in execution whatsoever. Do you find them “beautiful” and uplifting? 

    As to culture-specific, there are artists (interviewed by Scruton) still producing works of beauty, and I would guess cultures still holding to some aesthetic standards are producing works of beauty, but I’m not keeping track of the art world. In architecture there are preservationists doing good work (we just watched a video about the effort here in Colorado Springs), but there’s also a lot that’s been lost. You should watch Why Beauty Matters. I think it’s very difficult to refute Scruton’s position after seeing for yourself what he’s referring to. 

    • #24
  25. Stina Inactive
    Stina
    @CM

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    Stina (View Comment):

    Did you listen to the Michael Knowles interview on Pints? His answer sounds just like this.

     

    Did I? I don’t think so. I have listened to segments of that interview, but I don’t remember if I heard him talking about the corruption of art, language, and the elimination of standards. If I did, I guess I absorbed it! Heh.

    He talked about conservatism and that it should mean conserving the good, true, and beautiful. Almost verbatim. I think about 12 minutes in.

    • #25
  26. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    E. Kent Golding (View Comment):

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    Scott Wilmot (View Comment):

    Western Chauvinist: Or, better, I love the Good, the True, and the Beautiful. If there is a one word description for that worldview, someone let me know.

    Catholic.

    Heh. I’ve thought maybe I should change my handle to “Christian Chauvinist” or even “Catholic Chauvinist” since “Western Chauvinist” is no longer offensive enough and is too “inclusive.” /joking, people!

    But, it is true that if I didn’t believe Catholicism to be True, and Good, and Beautiful, I would cease to be Catholic.

    Western Chauvinist is supposed to be offensive?

    Most people think any kind of chauvinist is offensive.

    Which is kind of the point of this post. Anyone with standards judging some things to be better than others and even defining of things like “art” and “marriage” (unless her opinion conforms to the current fads) is offensive in the current Left-dominated culture.

    • #26
  27. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    Stina (View Comment):

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    Stina (View Comment):

    Did you listen to the Michael Knowles interview on Pints? His answer sounds just like this.

     

    Did I? I don’t think so. I have listened to segments of that interview, but I don’t remember if I heard him talking about the corruption of art, language, and the elimination of standards. If I did, I guess I absorbed it! Heh.

    He talked about conservatism and that it should mean conserving the good, true, and beautiful. Almost verbatim. I think about 12 minutes in.

    Well, the focus on the good, the true, and the beautiful is kind of a Catholic thing, so no surprise that Knowles and I would use the same language.

    • #27
  28. Stina Inactive
    Stina
    @CM

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    Stina (View Comment):

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    Stina (View Comment):

    Did you listen to the Michael Knowles interview on Pints? His answer sounds just like this.

     

    Did I? I don’t think so. I have listened to segments of that interview, but I don’t remember if I heard him talking about the corruption of art, language, and the elimination of standards. If I did, I guess I absorbed it! Heh.

    He talked about conservatism and that it should mean conserving the good, true, and beautiful. Almost verbatim. I think about 12 minutes in.

    Well, the focus on the good, the true, and the beautiful is kind of a Catholic thing, so no surprise that Knowles and I would use the same language.

    Is it? That’s interesting. I know someone else that uses it who keeps his denomination kind of close to the chest, but I thought he was somewhere in the reformed Calvinist baptist ballpark. It would be interesting if he were Catholic.

    It’s rooted inPhilippians 4:8, isn’t it? Is there a church father that framed it thusly that makes it such a Catholic calling card?

    • #28
  29. Modus Ponens Inactive
    Modus Ponens
    @ModusPonens

    Chuck (View Comment):

    Apostle’s Creed: “I believe in…the holy catholic church…”

    It doesn’t say  “the Roman Catholic church” .

    Not to go off on a tangent but there are multiple Rites in the Catholic Church. The Roman Rite is the “main” one, but there are multiple Eastern Rites. They have their own liturgies and a separate Code of Canon Law, but are in union with Rome and the seat of Peter. It wouldn’t make sense to say “Holy Roman Catholic Church” because that would be a subset of the Catholic Church.

    • #29
  30. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    I just started reading Peter Kreeft’s Christianity for Modern Pagans: Pascal’s Pensées because I watched him with Matt Fradd on Pints with Aquinas where he said it was his best book.

    In this segment, he discusses how he became Catholic (from Calvinist Baptist evangelical) and finishes the segment with a story about beauty’s influence on his conversion.

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.