It has become a common saying that art imitates life and life imitates art. If we understand the close relationship between humanity and the art we produce, then shouldn’t we pay more attention to what kind of art we’re exposing the populace to?
When we speak of the greatness of Western civilization, our minds often conjure up images of the great works of art made throughout history. We envision Michaelangelo’s David, Da Vinci’s Mona Lisa. We picture the lush gardens of Versailles, the grandeur of the Eiffel Tower. We hear the music or orchestras filling concert halls throughout Europe.
Most people understand that great art is a hallmark of a great civilization. Just as a healthy society produces technological advances, mathematics, and scientific discovery, it likewise generates art that inspires and uplifts.
But what is less often thought of is that this connection between art and society is a two-way street. Each one reinforces the other.
Think about it: A healthy man is healthy because he exercises. But he also exercises because he is healthy and feels good. An unhealthy man’s ill body causes him to not exercise. But he is also unhealthy because he doesn’t exercise.
In the same way, a healthy society produces beautiful art, but the presence of beautiful art influences the mind, the mood, and the behavior of the members of a society, for human beings are mimetic creatures and absorb everything around them — good or bad — like a sponge.
This is one reason the wealthy throughout history have traditionally been patrons of the arts. Of course, nowadays the wealthy globalists invest in art and entertainment as a means of social control so that they may influence the masses. But going back in history, when art was primarily enjoyed by the wealthy, why were the rich so invested in patronizing painters, sculptors, architects, composers, and other artists?
The answer is that the royalty and aristocracy of past ages understood that by constantly exposing themselves to beauty, they were able to cultivate in themselves a mindset of success, regalness, sophistication, erudition. Not only did this make life more pleasurable, but it served the utilitarian purpose of instilling in them a more commanding presence with which to lead their subjects and thus remain in power.
Author James Perloff, a former TNA contributor who wrote The Shadows of Power exposing the Council on Foreign Relations, published a post several years ago in which he explained how television was innocuously introduced into American households with biblically compatible programming; yet as the content on the TVs changed, the mindset of the American people changed along with it:
I believe what made that era’s shows so appealing was essentially their morality. 1950s television permitted no cursing or sex scenes; any violence wasn’t graphic. Furthermore, most shows’ plots ended with a positive moral lesson. Honesty, respect for others, “doing the right thing,” self-control, and other virtues were upheld. Superman began every episode reminding children that Superman fought for “truth, justice, and the American way.”
… So why did all this change? It certainly wasn’t because Americans demanded that cursing, sex and gore be added to their TV diet. As a journalist for three decades, and student of “the New World Order” for four, I’ve realized that 1950s television was a carefully set trap. To lure a mouse into the trap, you’ve got to insert some cheese.
… To digress slightly, a change in America’s entire demeanor began in late 1963.… One could chalk it up to adolescence and onset of puberty, but there seemed to be a spiritual undercurrent. Certain events had primed that pump. On June 17, 1963, the Freemason-dominated Supreme Court had ruled that reading the Bible in public schools was suddenly “unconstitutional.” (Hugo Black, William O. Douglas, Tom C. Clark, Potter Stewart and Chief Justice Earl Warren were all members of the Craft, ensuring a 5-4 majority of men who apparently held their oath to the Brotherhood above their oath to the Constitution.)
Perloff argues that television programming was innocent at first in order to assuage the fears of America’s Christian population; but once most households had a TV, the companies behind television programs felt free to begin introducing subversive content.
As I wrote previously, art is not, as the Left would have us believe, subjective, nor is beauty in the eye of the beholder. The good, the true, and the beautiful are objective and absolute ideals.
So much of modernity is ugly. Again, life imitates art. Our modern world produces ugly modern art, music, and architecture because our society is sick, but our society also remains sick as a result of it.
If we want to restore the greatness of our nation, we must introduce greatness into the lives of our people. We don’t need to spend public money on art, but localities can make partnerships with artists who want to get their work out to the public. Adorning communities with well-made statues, murals, gardens, and attractive architecture will have a tremendous effect on raising citizens out of the lull they have been in, propelling them to greatness once more.
