There are three sources of sanctity, which incidentally are revealed in both the Hindu Trimurti and the Christian Trinity, though the latter more obliquely. Brahma => Father God => Creation, birth Vishnu => Holy Spirit => Sustenance, food Shiva => Jesus Christ => Eternity, death
-
Show this thread
-
Hopefully I managed to offend both Christians and Hindus with that tweet; look, syncretism is more art than science. But it was exactly 280, I didn't even edit it, it's got to be some kind of a sign.
1 reply 1 retweet 28 likesShow this thread -
Anyway, anything sacred has one of these three valences. Three itself is a sacred number, but that's a thread for another time. These topics then are the proper domain of art. When art fails to engage with the sacred, it fails to be art
1 reply 2 retweets 20 likesShow this thread -
Now, how did we get here? How did we lose the sense of art as a prism of the sacred? The problem starts with the printing press and accelerates with the advent of photography, film, and computer games. The solution, however, is NOT to destroy industrial society
2 replies 1 retweet 16 likesShow this thread -
An object of art has an aura, comprised of its substantive duration, its testimony to the history it has experienced, and its place w/r/t the collective consciousness of society. Another word for this is authenticity.
1 reply 0 retweets 17 likesShow this thread -
In order to be authentic, then, an object of art must be unique, and to be experience it in its fullness, we must be in its physical presence. You can feel, for example, the aura of a mountain range from its shadow. Not so with a photo
2 replies 0 retweets 18 likesShow this thread -
Face-to-face meetings, even brief ones, appear to cement personal connections of trust and liking to an extent not achieved by even years of mediated contact like phone calls, Internet text discussions, emails, or chat; this appears to be true in almost every context. h/t
@gwern3 replies 8 retweets 58 likesShow this thread -
The age of ubiquitous photography has given us representation without substantiation; art without an aura. The age of mechanical duplicability of art has given us golems without shems; clay husks infernally animated without the name of god.
2 replies 2 retweets 24 likesShow this thread -
We can no longer feel the presence of god because we can no longer feel the aura of art. The orientation towards mass duplication has attenuated sanctity in all forms of representative production, especially film.
2 replies 3 retweets 30 likesShow this thread -
This is not to say that mass produced art cannot connect us to the sacred, only that it cannot do so using the old modalities. And if it is naive, it will only pull us toward homogeneity, alienation, and endless pointless revolution
2 replies 0 retweets 13 likesShow this thread
You are gonna find my TRAD warhol article interesting haha.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.