When Did Playboy Become Respectable?
— Posted by John (July 21, 2006 at 3:36 pm)
Last month I posted about a demonstration I participated in outside of the Playboy headquarters in downtown Chicago.
We were there to protest a fundraiser benefiting the Illinois Coalition for Adolescent Health — a group that has recently partnered with Planned Parenthood of Greater Chicagoland to form a coalition whose goal is to strip all funding of abstinence-only education for Illinois schools and instead require them to use condom-based sex education programs.
Recently, a reader who goes by the name of “Another Annie” commented on the post:
OK. I’m not even going to address the idea that comprehensive sex ed is instrumental in teaching kids to use condoms PROPERLY, so that they DO NOT fail as often…
Or that if you treated young girls like human beings and not like mere baby incubators and let them have access to Hormonal Birth Control, diaphragms, the sponge, spermicidal gels, or any other number of barrier/hormonal birth control methods, the condom failure rate wouldn’t even matter.
All I’m going to say is that if you’re surprised that Playboy Magazine supports comprehensive sex ed in schools, you need to crawl out from under your rock a little more often. Playboy, in addition to promoting and publishing some of this century’s finest writers and columnists, has long been an advocate for healthy, egalitarian relationships between the sexes. And for them, part of that is teaching men and women alike how to protect themselves, should they choose to have sex–no matter when or with whom.
I wanted to reproduce Another Annie’s comments here because by the time she posted her comment, the original post was off the main page, and therefore most readers of this blog would not otherwise see it.
Another Annie’s comments here are extraordinarily clarifying, and, in my opinion, emblematic of the “pro-choice” worldview.
Another Annie’s first point was this:
OK. I’m not even going to address the idea that comprehensive sex ed is instrumental in teaching kids to use condoms PROPERLY, so that they DO NOT fail as often…
Most of us, regardless of our views on “comprehensive” sex ed, have heard this line of argument before.
What never ceases to mystify me is the term “proper use” when referring to condoms. Whatever does this mean?
Does it refer to “perfect use” — a statistical term that, given human nature, has absolutely no practical relevance to ascertaining the effectiveness of condoms? Or does it mean something else?
Regardless, when referring to condom use, the term “proper use” rings hollow, considering that in 2001, a scientific panel co-sponsored by the CDC, NIH, FDA, and USAID looked at 138 peer-reviewed, published studies and found that — with the exception of AIDS and the female-to-male transmission of gonorrhea — “epidemiological evidence is insufficient to determine the effectiveness of condoms in actual use for preventing most other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs)”.
Noted chastity speaker Mary Beth Bonacci summarized the panel’s findings:
Basically, it boils down to this: There is no evidence to indicate that condoms prevent the heterosexual transmission of most sexually transmitted diseases. None.
Another Annie’s second comment was this:
Or that if you treated young girls like human beings and not like mere baby incubators and let them have access to Hormonal Birth Control, diaphragms, the sponge, spermicidal gels, or any other number of barrier/hormonal birth control methods, the condom failure rate wouldn’t even matter.
I’ll leave the straw man alone and simply make the observation that I can scarcely imagine a society that is more heavily saturated with condoms and other forms of artificial birth control than ours is today.
Given Another Annie’s argument here, one would expect to see an inversely proportional relationship between, on the one hand, the availability of condoms and birth control, and, on the other, rates of unplanned pregnancy, abortion, and STDs.
In reality, however, we’ve seen just the opposite.
Another Annie’s third comment was this:
All I’m going to say is that if you’re surprised that Playboy Magazine supports comprehensive sex ed in schools, you need to crawl out from under your rock a little more often. Playboy, in addition to promoting and publishing some of this century’s finest writers and columnists, has long been an advocate for healthy, egalitarian relationships between the sexes. And for them, part of that is teaching men and women alike how to protect themselves, should they choose to have sex–no matter when or with whom.
“Surprised”? Who’s “surprised”?
As I noted in the original post, it came as “no surprise” to me that Christie Hefner (Hugh’s daugher, herself the current Playboy CEO) was chosen as the guest of honor at the ICAH fundraiser.
Nor does it surprise me in the least that Playboy supports “comprehensive” sex ed, since both share the bedrock principle that the primary purpose of sex is self-serving pleasure.
The claim that Playboy “has long been an advocate for healthy, egalitarian relationships between the sexes” is beyond absurd.
How can the profoundly selfish, unhealthy thoughts introduced into a man’s (or boy’s) mind by looking at pictures of the Playmate of the Month possibly foster in him a desire to see women as anything more than sexual objects?
And since when is Playboy respectable? (Then again, maybe I’m overreacting. After all, in another comment on the original post, reader and frequent commenter Lauren insisted that “Playboy is NOT porn”, and — from the way I read her comment, at least — seems to believe that the pictures of naked women posing in Playboy constitute “art”.)
As I noted in my original post, Christie Hefner was the one who decided that the company could make more money by producing increasingly harder-core pornography — something that even her father was reluctant to do for a long time.
It’s an utter shame that so many self-styled “women’s advocates” turn a blind eye to the abundant evidence of a connection between pornography and violence against women.
Another Annie also hints — perhaps unwittingly? — at where we’re headed if advocates of Individualized Sexual Expression At All Costs have their way:
And for them, part of that is teaching men and women alike how to protect themselves, should they choose to have sex–no matter when or with whom.
Taken to its logical conclusion, it would be impossible to hold this belief while simultaneously rejecting laws against pedophilia.
As we’ve seen, the Netherlands is already moving in this direction, and — please God, I hope I’m wrong — it’s probably only a matter of time before it enters a full gallop.
This entry is filed under Contraception, Culture Wars, Health Issues, Sexuality. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Lauren says:
Get a freaking clue. Young people are having sex. They will continue to have sex. They have been having sex since the beginning of time. I’m not losing hope, abandoning moral principles, or blowing hot air. I am telling the truth. By saying, “that’s naughty” and not offering any real solutions besides “oh you shouldn’t have” is ridiculous, out of touch, and completely biased based on your religious beliefs. If you want to raise your children that way, that’s fine. Let them opt out of sex ed. When they get pregnant at 16, you shouldn’t be surprised. If they follow your principles good for them. But guess what, what I did when I was 16 is none of your freaking business!!!
This is the bottom line. Your whole group is such a bunch of busybodies it drives me up a wall. You’re like the town gossip. Oh my, can you believe that? Oh I surely can’t believe they’re having (GASP) sex?! Shield my eyes please.
For crying out loud.
Comment posted July 22nd, 2006 at 12:06 am
Lauren says:
“Then again, maybe I’m overreacting. After all, in another comment on the original post, reader and frequent commenter Lauren insisted that “Playboy is NOT porn”, and — from the way I read her comment, at least — seems to believe that the pictures of naked women posing in Playboy constitute “art”.”
Oh cripes. Playboy isn’t porn. I dont think it’s art, but that’s all in the eye of the beholder…. But I believe you are sort of reinforcing the idea that it is in fact art…Art is meant to move, challenge, even upset. The human flesh has apparently upset you…The fact that we’re even discussing it, means it is a piece of artwork. It may not be your taste, but I guess it pretty much is artwork..
I do find most of those magazines bother me to some degree, because I think they convey 1st unrealistic images of beauty 2nd I dont really appreciate women being appreciated for solely their bodies and 3rd I am a heterosexual female therefore don’t really care to see naked women. There are greater problems in this world than a naked woman I assure you.
Comment posted July 22nd, 2006 at 12:12 am
Jean says:
Annie,
As a crisis pregnancy counselor, I have witnessed many women who received sex ed in the schools from PP, who were on the pill or their partner used condoms, or they had their tubes tied become pregnant. There are no guarantees with any of these methods. Many who use these contraceptives end up with STD’s. Condoms have a very high failure rate from 18% to 30%. The only fool – proof method for avoiding pregnancy and STD’s is abstinence and that’s not something that Playboy or PP will teach you! They’re both in the BUSINESS of making money off of sexually active people.
Neither Playboy nor PP views you as a person with a mind and soul, but you are merely an object to them. If you want to be treated as an object by others — a thing without emotions, an intellect, or a soul — continue on the path you’re going because these organizations are taking advantage of you. However, if you desire for others to respect you and to give you truthful information so that you can make an informed choice, don’t expect it from either of these groups — that are definitely not advocates of human life or women’s rights. They are deceptive and are only out to make a profit at the expense of sexually active women, their partners, and the lives of their babies.
Comment posted July 22nd, 2006 at 12:17 am
Jean says:
Lauren,
Playboy is soft core porn. People in our society today are bombarded with “socially acceptable” soft-core porn that has infiltrated pop culture and continues to seep into every form of media touching their lives. Such exposure desensitizes teens to the dangers of viewing pornography, making the once taboo, normal — and bringing destruction to lives and families along the way.
Porn, in every form, has influenced society’s morality, redirected our youth and torn apart many families. In a nation that declares to be the land of the free, the First Amendment privilege is used to protect freedom of speech in ways that have caused debate across the country from family rooms to courtrooms. Yet this freedom, now often used as a justification for the soft porn depicted on our billboards and TVs, has caused young people to take the small leap to exploring hardcore pornography.
Today, the pornography industry annually grosses $57 billion worldwide and $12 billion in the United States. With more outlets for hardcore pornography in America than McDonald’s restaurants, there’s an incredible amount of explicit depiction available to the American public — without even addressing the Internet issue that has exploded since the new millennium.
This downward spiral in media morality has been shocking and appalling. What was hidden and hideous has now become socially acceptable by pushing the limits of “freedom” on television, in movies and in print. Today, our we are assaulted by soft-porn images of seductive women on billboards as we drive down Main Street America.
What this does to the psyche is very destructive. If you ask the betrayed spouses or brokenhearted children; if you ask the parents of children murdered at the hands of men such as Ted Bundy or Jeffrey Dahmer; if you survey the one of every four college girls who has been the victim of attempted rape; if you analyze women in American culture who have felt exposed and violated by pornography’s devaluing of females as a whole; I’m certain that none of them would support the “it’s nobody’s business” philosophy so prevalent today.
There’s more. The FBI interviewed 36 serial murderers and found that 29 of them (81 percent) identified pornography as one of their highest sexual interests. It would be foolish to say that pornography alone creates rapists and serial killers, but it would also be foolish to ignore the connection between pornography and violent crimes such as rape.
Pornography has the powerful influence to trivialize incest, child molestation and rape. We must help our young people take a stand against such “freedoms” in our country lest we unknowingly contribute to the desensitizing of the human conscience and slip into making sexual immorality an acceptable behavior.
Don’t ever underestimate the power of soft-core porn — it is as addictive as crack.
Comment posted July 22nd, 2006 at 12:34 am
Mary Kay says:
por·nog·ra·phy
noun Definition: 1. sexually explicit material: films, magazines, writings, photographs, or other materials that are sexually explicit and intended to cause sexual arousal
2. sexual images industry: the production or sale of sexually explicit films, magazines, or other materials
[Mid-19th century. Via French
Comment posted July 22nd, 2006 at 5:44 am
Mary Kay says:
Lauren,
It is the “intent”, not the “content” that makes something pornography. We’re not discussing whether or not Van Gogh hated people or loved them. We’re talking about using women’s bodies as objects for profit. The women’s body is beautiful. But if you sell it for profit it becomes an ugly situation. A twelve year old boys body is beautiful. Until a 50 year old man fondles it. Then the situation becomes ugly. A picture of my three year old taking a bath is beautiful. Until some old geezer puts it on the internet to arouse fellow geezers…then the situation becomes ugly.
I know you know better than to believe pornography is art. You are far too intelligent to try to make us believe you actually believe that playboy is only interested in sharing the beauty of a women’s body and that they would be shocked to find out men were using it for a different purpose. But you seem intent on projecting this image of a tough talking, uncaring, downright nasty human being. Why? Sweetie, I know that you are not as tactless as you portray yourself to be. I know that deep down inside you are a caring, compassionate human being. So why do you consistently try so hard to make us think otherwise. Even if you disagree with us, which is your right, why do you do it so harshly? I pray so hard for you. I ache inside whenever I read your blunt comments, because I think they are just grandstanding. I think you truly do disagree with us, but I wonder why you try so hard to appear like a pit bull…You know, the terrier was bred to dig holes, crawl into them and kill any rodents that it finds there. Then it must bark incessantly until it’s master comes and finds it because it can’t get out of the hole it dug itself into. These dogs are little because they have to fit in small places, but they are afraid of nothing. It would’nt phase them to play chicken with a semi-truck. They constantly have to prove that they are tougher than they look. And although I doubt that a Yorkshire terrier could take down an elephant, it would try. And it would certainly leave some serious bite marks, albeit they would only be knee high. You remind me of these little dogs. Always barking, picking fights…but terriers are also fun lovings and silly and quite sweet when they don’t feel threatened. Don’t let us make you feel threatened. Try to remember that many of us are collies and golden retrievers and we just want to have a good run in the park without fighting. We can all go for the same ball, but we don’t have to maul each other in the process…Let some of those good terrier qualities shine through…and for goodness sake, stop barking…we hear you already.
Truly your friend,
MK
Comment posted July 22nd, 2006 at 6:05 am
Lauren says:
I just dont see what consenting adults do is any of my business. Please read my past posts on pornography and stripping.
http://www.campusprogress.org/page/community/post/laurenpatrizi/C3Md
I am conservative (NOT POLITICALLY) on the topic but it does not mean that I think we should outlaw or forbid the practices. The only way we can control this is to be good people and as a society choose not to condone or patronize these places or issues.
I think Playboy has done a lot of bad in the last 10 or so years. Girls when I was 15 were wearing playboy t-shirts. It is wrong. Are 15 year old girls sexual creatures? Yes, we are inherently sexual creatures from birth. But should their sexuality be molded by Playboy? No.
I believe in personal freedom. I am a feminist. I believe that women shouldn’t exploit themselves. I think women are sexual creatures and should be allowed to enjoy and love sex. I think pornography is damaging to those involved and even times damaging to the perceptions of healthy sexuality. I don’t view Playboy as porn. Women are beautiful. Celebrating that beauty, while I don’t necessarily find it beautiful, should be perfectly legal for adults. This doesn’t mean I believe Playboy should be paraded in front of children the way it sometimes does. It makes young women grow up with a perverted sense of sexuality. I have no problem with Playboy donating money to help young people have access to sex education. I believe young people should have access to sex education. If Kim Jong Il donated one billion dollars to pro-life causes would you return that money?
Comment posted July 23rd, 2006 at 7:28 pm
Lucy says:
Considering Playboy isn’t looking to control women I think that they are very respectable. There is never a woman in the pages of Playboy that is there against her will. A womans body is beautiful, what is wrong with acknowledging the fact that women have beautiful bodies? Empowering women by giving them information to help them better understand their bodies is very respectful of women. Supporting their rights to have access to all information available is respectful of women, and young people in general.
Treating women as though they are capable of understanding information placed in front of them, and making decisions based on it is demonstrating respect for women. Treating women as though they are thinking, intelligent, competent human beings, and not simply baby factories is a demonstration of respect for women. Understanding that women should determine when they do and do not have children is vital to respecting them as human beings.
Understanding that we as women are sexual beings and not simply a wife or concubine of old for a man. That we are not simply born for the purpose of producing more children is a demonstration for women as real human beings. We are not here for your convience.
No matter how you spin it, telling a woman that she may not use birth control. That she must have sex for the purpose of having children. When and where and how she will have sex. How she will think, when she will think, and who will see her body are not actions that demonstrate respect for women. These are actions that demonstrate a desire to own and control women. These are behaviors that tell a tale of distrust of a woman to use her own mind and make her own judgements.
Comment posted July 23rd, 2006 at 8:32 pm
Lucy says:
Mary Kay,
That’s nonsense. People have gone mad over beautiful sculptures of nude women, and paintings of nude women calling them obscene. They used to cover them whenever they could. They would go over Michaelangelos paintings. Michaelangelo risked life and limb to understand the human body. He believed the human body to be beautiful and showed them only to offer beauty to the world.
His work was done for a profit. He wanted to eat, it wasn’t much of a profit, but it was a profit. What people see in art shows what is in them, not the artist.
The flowers of Georgia O’Keefe, for instance are frequently mistaken for being vaginal. They believe that she intended them to be so. Those inclined to disaprove of such ideas, thinking the human body a disgrace, are frequently appalled by the work of Georgia O’Keefe. This is them not her. The reality is that Georgia O’Keefe saw beautiful flowers and she wanted to know how to let the entire world see the beauty she saw. She knew if she painted them life size that they would be overlooked. So, she make them the size that has earned their fame, so that no one could miss them.
The artist very rarely makes ‘dirty’ art. It is the mind of the viewer which turns it into something ugly. Not that there would be a problem is O’Keefe had been presenting the flowers as vaginal. It simply isn’t the case.
When the consumer picks up a Playboy and sees a usable object in the women that grace the pages that isn’t the fault of the creator. The creator is providing a glimpse at something that is beautiful, with the permission of the women involved. They are showing that which is the beauty of a female body.
If beauty is in the eye of the beholder, what makes you think that ugly could be anywhere else?
Comment posted July 23rd, 2006 at 8:41 pm
Mike says:
Lucy said…
“No matter how you spin it, telling a woman that she may not use birth control. That she must have sex for the purpose of having children.”
——–
Lucy, Human Sexuality has two variables – “gratification” & “openess to new life”. With contraception you want the “gratification” without being “open to new life”. I think if God wanted us to have one of these variables without the other, God would have created another action.
God’s Natural Law has both “gratification” & “openess to new life” as ONE ACTION. Who are we to tell the Creator this was a mistake?
Those who feel contraception is morally OK must defend other sexual acts which takes the “gratification” but leaves the “openess to new life” behind like homosexuality (man & man), pedifilia (man & boy), masterbation (man with himself) & beastiality (man & animal) all of which are condemned in the Bible. This is just the way I look at it.
Mike
Comment posted July 23rd, 2006 at 9:52 pm
Mike says:
Here is a medical website which shows as of 2003, 18 out of 21 retrospective studies show that women who take oral contraceptives prior to their first-term birth incur an increased risk in developing breast cancer as noted in the bar graph below…
http://polycarp.org/overviewbreastcanceroralcontraceptives.htm
Mike
Comment posted July 23rd, 2006 at 10:42 pm
mary kay says:
Lucy,
You don’t really believe that Playboy exists to celebrate the woman’s body. It exists so men can get their rocks off. That is why it was created. I don’t think even Hugh would disagree.
I think you believe that if we had our way all of these things would be illegal. This is not true. We want abortion to be illegal. The rest we recognize as a necessary evil that insures our right to believe as we do.
Things that are immoral and offend us can remain legal as long as no innocent parties are getting hurt. Men can sleep with men. It’s a free country. I can speak my disapproval. It’s a free country. Men cannot sleep with boys. Because an innocent party is getting hurt. Woman can pose in playboy. It’s a free country. I can speak my disapproval. It’s a free country. 10 year olds cannot pose for playboy. Because an innocent party is getting hurt. A woman can sleep with anyone she wants. A man can sleep with anyone he wants. It’s a free country. I can speak my disapproval. It’s a free country. A man cannot force a woman to have sex with him. Because an innocent party is being hurt. In each of these instances a law was made to protect the weaker and more vulnerable party from the selfish actions of the stronger, more powerful party.
A woman can use birth control (providing it is not an abortificant). It’s a free country. I can speak my disapproval. It’s a free country.
But taking a baby’s life…well, it should be illegal because we must make laws that protect the weakest and most vulnerable members of our society from the stronger and more powerful members who wish to harm them…
Just because we say that we don’t approve of a certain behavior (homosexuality, contraception, promiscuity…) doesn’t mean we want to make them illegal. What we want is to make everyone not want to do them of their own free will, and so we try to educate and form consciences with information…
The only thing we want to make illegal is abortion…
MK
Comment posted July 23rd, 2006 at 10:47 pm
mary kay says:
Lauren,
I’m sorry but I don’t know who this Kim person is. I assume she is in the porn industry, and I can’t answer for every pro-life group, but I myself would not accept dirty money. Turning it down would not be easy,no, but it would not be right, so I can honestly say that the money would be better spent somewhere else…like feeding the children that are already here. Or buying some clothes for this Kim person to put on…You know, long sleeved, high necked? (only teasing…)
MK
MK
Comment posted July 23rd, 2006 at 10:52 pm
Lucy says:
Mary Kay,
Why don’t you believe that Playboy can’t celebrate women and ‘men get their rocks off’?
I’m not asking you to subscribe to Playboy. I don’t personally, I don’t have any use for it. I don’t indulge in a lot of things that I can appreciate the existance of. I appreciate the attraction to alcohal for instance, yet I myself have no attraction to it. I simply never found any pleasure in it, or purpose. I don’t suggest that you should appreciate gay relationships at all, and so forth. Up till the part about abortion I agree with your list. I also include that any consenting adults should be able to participate in the marital ceremony if they wish and they can find a willing individual to perform the ceremony. The Constitution protects them.
I was responding to your assertion that the Pornography was linked to ‘intent’ not ‘content’ Which is very Kantian of you. I’m not a fan of Kant.
Of course Abortion should not be illegal. It infringes upon the rights of a woman to deny access to her body to something, anything. That something, which cannot possibly be counted as a baby, is certainly not the equal of the woman.
Comment posted July 23rd, 2006 at 11:49 pm
Pansy Moss says:
MK,
Kim Jong II is the leader of North Korea. Lauren, I think his number one pro-life cause should be to feed his people who are starving under his dictatorship, and starts disarming his weapons before he makes a big, big mistake.
Comment posted July 24th, 2006 at 3:30 am
Lucy says:
Oh, and Kim Jung II needs to get out of the way and let his people feed themselves.
Comment posted July 24th, 2006 at 10:42 am
John says:
Lauren said: “If Kim Jong Il donated one billion dollars to pro-life causes would you return that money?”
Yes.
Although it would be rather incongruous for him to do so, what with North Korea’s widely-known practices of forced abortion and infanticide.
Comment posted July 24th, 2006 at 10:54 am
John says:
Lauren said: “Playboy isn’t porn. I dont think it’s art, but that’s all in the eye of the beholder…. But I believe you are sort of reinforcing the idea that it is in fact art…Art is meant to move, challenge, even upset. The human flesh has apparently upset you…The fact that we’re even discussing it, means it is a piece of artwork. It may not be your taste, but I guess it pretty much is artwork..”
Lauren,
It’s clear you believe that Playboy doesn’t constitute porn. But then you confuse me.
First you say you “don’t think it’s art…”
Then you say, “The fact that we’re even discussing it, means it is a piece of artwork.”
Then you say, “I guess it pretty much is artwork..”
Is it art, or not?
As for your contention that “The human flesh has apparently upset you,” I can only say that you are completely wrong.
It is not the human flesh that upsets me (remember, gnosticism is a heresy). Base portrayals of human flesh, on the other hand, greatly upset me.
Pope John Paul II, of happy memory, once observed that the problem with pornography is not that it shows too much, but that it shows too little. I have never heard a more concise analysis of pornography than this.
A few months ago, Eve Grubin, blogging at Modestly Yours, had an excellent post titled Nude or Naked? that touched upon some of the arguments raised in some of the previous comments.
Here’s an excerpt:
In response to this question, I submitted this comment:
Comment posted July 24th, 2006 at 11:34 am
mary kay says:
Pansy,
Thanks. I should have recognized who she was talking about but I have never seen his name in print…duh! Not to mention the name was so out of context…The answer however remains the same. I would not accept the money. And instead of long sleeves and a high neckline perhaps he could use the money to buy some duct tape for his mouth…
MK
Comment posted July 24th, 2006 at 4:50 pm
lauren says:
I dont know why a group of Catholics are so concerned about idolatry.
It is art.. Upon my discussing it, I realized it is art.
Comment posted July 25th, 2006 at 11:33 am
John says:
Lauren said: “I dont know why a group of Catholics are so concerned about idolatry.”
Lauren,
Maybe I’m missing something, but what on earth do you mean by this?
On the one hand, you’ve hit the nail on the head, in that pornography (and sexual sins in general) can rightly be characterized as a form of idolatry.
But unless your comment was intended to be sarcastic, I can’t get my head around it.
I can’t understand why one would express incredulity at a group of Catholics being “so concerned about idolatry”.
It sounds as strange as someone saying, “I dont know why a group of Catholics are so concerned about blasphemy,” or, “I dont know why a group of Catholics are so concerned about the exploitation of the poor,” or, “I dont know why a group of Catholics are so concerned about abortion.”
Idolatry is on the short list of things Catholics (and all other Christians as well) must be concerned about.
Comment posted July 25th, 2006 at 12:43 pm
John says:
Lauren said: “It is art.. Upon my discussing it, I realized it is art.”
Lauren,
I appreciate the clarification.
‘Tis a pity your standards for what constitutes art are so pitifully low.
As for me, I hold to the belief that art must be measured up to standards of truth, beauty, and goodness.
Old-fashioned? Sure, and proudly so. As Chesterton said, “It is true that I am of an older fashion. Much that I love has been destroyed or sent into exile.”
Comment posted July 25th, 2006 at 12:48 pm
mary kay says:
John,
You’re right…”tis.
MK
Comment posted July 25th, 2006 at 3:00 pm
lauren says:
“As for me, I hold to the belief that art must be measured up to standards of truth, beauty, and goodness. ”
So Salvador embodies truth beauty and goodness? Glad you’re a right-wing blogger and not an art critic.
Comment posted July 25th, 2006 at 10:49 pm
lauren says:
salvador dali
oopsies
Comment posted July 25th, 2006 at 10:49 pm
John says:
Lauren said: “So Salvador embodies truth beauty and goodness? Glad you’re a right-wing blogger and not an art critic.”
Lauren,
We agree on one thing: I too am glad I’m not an art critic.
And, for the record, the distributist in me takes umbrage at being called “right-wing”.
I’m not sure what you’re inferring about my thoughts on Salvador Dali, many of whose works I admire. A print of his Sacrament of the Last Supper has hung in my parents’ house since I was a wee lad — and probably even long before that. It’s the first artistic rendering I ever recall seeing of the Last Supper, and I’ve always liked it.
I’m also a fan of Christ of St. John of the Cross, and have always been intrigued by paintings like The Persistence of Memory.
Comment posted July 26th, 2006 at 9:43 am
lauren says:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Dream_Caused_by_the_Flight_of_a_Bumblebee_around_a_Pomegranate_a_Second_Before_Awakening.jpg
Comment posted July 26th, 2006 at 10:21 am
lauren says:
oh and btw… Born a Catholic, he would say: “I practice but do not believe.”
Comment posted July 26th, 2006 at 10:25 am
John says:
Lauren said: “oh and btw… Born a Catholic, he would say: “I practice but do not believe.”
Lauren,
I must have missed Religion class the day Sister taught us that the pope strictly forbids Catholics from admiring any work by any artist who does not believe everything the Catholic Church teaches.
You may well find such opinions expressed on the websites of wacky, schismatic, Latin Mass-only Catholics, but not here.
Comment posted July 26th, 2006 at 11:17 am
mary kay says:
John,
#
John says:
I must have missed Religion class the day Sister taught us that the pope strictly forbids Catholics from admiring any work by any artist who does not believe everything the Catholic Church teaches.
Would that be sister Wendy?
MK
Comment posted July 26th, 2006 at 5:44 pm
Lauren says:
No, all I’m saying is, I could be a Republican and love Stephen Colbert, but it wouldn’t make me too bright would it?
Comment posted August 1st, 2006 at 8:08 am