Table of Contents:
- INTRODUCTION
- QUESTION 1. WHAT IS THE IMPORTANCE OF ART IN THE AGE OF ENTERTAINMENT?
- QUESTION 2. HOW DO YOU VIEW THE CURRENT STATE OF THINGS?
- QUESTION 3. DOES ART HAVE A SPIRITUAL QUALITY?
A Dialogue between Frank Ormond and Matthew Pungitore
Introduction by Frank Ormond
Postface by Matthew Pungitore
INTRODUCTION
What is the current role of physical books in our internet-heavy society?
This discussion kicked off as a result of a conversation I had with Matthew Pungitore (author of “The Tale of Marius the Avenging Imp”) about society and art as a whole. As we’re both authors, we share many of the same perspectives regarding art and the artistry of the written word. My own background is in painting and poetry first, with prose second. However, I feel Matthew hit on some excellent points when he started to described the role of the printed word in society, and the importance it once had versus the current importance mindless entertainment seems to have. While the subject matter focuses in on bookstores and print books, art in general is a focus for the article.
In order to indicate who is speaking per section, we have gone with a letter format. The quick responses we made to the questions are used for the fuller, letter-length responses from one another. As far as structure, I went ahead and divided the discussion into three parts: “Art in the Digital Age”, “Physical vs. Digital Books”, and “The Decline of the Book Store”, where the last section also includes a brief discussion of modernity and progress. Likewise, each section starts out relatively broad then focuses in on solutions or values we hold to as a discussion point. Responses to the question asked are labeled as “RESPONSE” while replies to what the other has written are labeled as “REPLY”.
Lastly, before we dive into this, I want to emphasize the philosophical nature of this article. As a student of philosophy, I want to emphasize that even if we find a point of disagreement, this is not a personal disagreement but rather an intellectual one. Matthew Pungitore’s opinion is his own, as my opinions are my own. We hold no ill will due to any sort of academic disagreement on these things.
With all of that clear, we can begin our discussion.
– Frank Ormond
Art in the Digital Age
QUESTION 1.
WHAT IS THE IMPORTANCE OF ART IN THE AGE OF ENTERTAINMENT?
MATTHEW PUNGITORE’S RESPONSE—
Dear Frank,
I often ask myself: “How can I help make the world a more peaceful, loving, compassionate place through Art?”
Art lifts people up towards the divine. It frees people from darkness, ignorance, and crudity. Art provides escapism, introspection, and gnosis, whilst engendering empathy and sympathy also. It teaches us clemency and peace. Art, who shepherds us to the groves of Beauty, is beneficial to the human heart, soul, and mind. It is a mirror, but it allows us to form our own opinions freely while permitting us to be aware of the astral essences within ourselves. Art soars with all the Gods and Goddesses, the Graces, the Muses.
Artists can become like hierophants of mysticism and enlightenment to free people from pain, emptiness, and doubt.
Literary- and genre-fiction have the potential to give form and life to the sublime, the mystic, and the divine in diverse ways. Although, it would be wise to remember that these labels (“literary” and “genre”) mean little to naught, for they are but terms better suited to the fields of marketing and criticism.
However, if we want to improve even one thing about how people treat and interact with Art and artists, improvements need to be made on everything.
Your friend,
Matthew Pungitore
(END OF MATTHEW PUNGITORE’S RESPONSE.)
FRANK ORMOND’S RESPONSE—
Dear Matt,
The initial question is a good one. I certainly think art has a role, but it’s hard to begin explaining that role without getting into definitions.
My own background is a complicated one. I was raised in a religious household, starting out with the spiritual as a child, the artistic as an adolescent, and the philosophical as an adult. Throughout it all I wrote poetry and fiction. I still hold to these pursuits, but for me “art” has a large breadth of possible meanings. Aristotle held to art as imitation that removed imperfections.
I feel “art” as a philosophical definition is
- anything created
- that someone enjoys
This enjoyment doesn’t have to be a rudimentary entertainment, but can be. That means art is more of an umbrella term when we look at it in comparison with entertainment. With the rise of streaming services, 24/7 internet access, and constant television, the consumption of art as a product has never been greater. Unfortunately, this style of art has become the norm. Art that educates, tantalizes the mind, and brings new experiences is still being produced. However, this is in less demand than art that is content for streaming platforms or sells products.
To that end, I argue that art that entertains is perfectly fine and acceptable. I have written many stories that seek only to entertain without any deeper moral, philosophical, or religious meaning. However, this kind of art has a purpose in society at large of passing those values and thoughts on to later generations. Humans, by virtue of the written word, are able to transcribe meaning for later understanding, and stories that give that meaning are important for continued understanding.
To summarize: this type of art has importance in sharing value systems (what the artist feels is beautiful or worth consideration) with the beholder.
Thank you,
Frank Ormond
(END OF FRANK ORMOND’S RESPONSE.)
QUESTION 2.
HOW DO YOU VIEW THE CURRENT STATE OF THINGS?
MATTHEW PUNGITORE’S RESPONSE—
Dear Frank,
Humans have created a superficial world currently run by global plutocracy. It is a shifting, chaotic world of inequality and hardship. Though prudery, consumerism, and Philistinism rule society, it values cheap entertainment above all, except money and power. All in all, mainstream entertainment today is over-regulated and offers little to no emotional or numinous rejuvenation.
This world of technology, “mainstream art,” and popular entertainment mostly just feeds narcissism, fueling perpetual deterioration and the ever-increasing boredom and absurdity of the everyday. The general masses are excessively occupied in overindulgence with their bread and circuses: social media, sports, streaming, gaming, and gambling. Meanwhile, poverty, homelessness, unemployment, and a general malaise of cruel, brutalizing destitution intensifies. It is a world of extreme contradictions and dichotomies.
Your friend,
Matthew Pungitore
(END OF MATTHEW PUNGITORE’S RESPONSE.)
FRANK ORMOND’S RESPONSE—
Dear Matt,
In our current society art is negatively seen as either a joke or a type of entertainment. There can be a change to this, but it requires a framework in which to thrive.
I see these two current views and wish to explain my thoughts before getting into the role of the author:
- Where art is seen as a joke, people point to scribbles on paper that will sell in art galleries. The idea that art has “lost its way” is not necessarily wrong of the high art scene, but I think a bit of a generalization over the entire art community. One of the current states of art is that it is seen as easy or a joke due to these kinds of artists.
- Where art is seen as a type of entertainment we fall into issues of legitimacy. Art that is produced for big budget television programs or with large movie budgets are seen as lesser than the independent Scandinavian drama about a single mother. Both, however, are art. Yet, most people who hear of film or movies think only of the former.
For the author, overcoming these two perceptions is important. To prove your competence, you need to have a bit more complexity than a simple story. Many authors attempt character development on top of plot progression. These character complexities sat within a framework of a character’s values. These considerations help, but they are simply the norm in much of fiction, so the story is not seen as anything special. This was the earliest days of fiction trying to prove it was more than just entertainment.
The weight of moral decisions is lacking in current fiction, and I feel in art as a whole. This is not to say that everyone needs to have the same value system, but those systems should be explored through art. The earliest example I can think of is the art of the Renaissance period with the sculptures and paintings of the great masters. They had a value system displayed in full by showing images of Biblical and mythological tales. Later, the humanist artists used similar techniques to show the light of the Enlightenment on the arts. However, once the framework of those values was discarded, the art itself devolved into a way to surprise or shock rather than any intellectual pursuit.
I point back to my initial thoughts on art in the first section. An author should be using the consideration of values or morals in their story, since a human is a person wrapped within a value system. I am not advocating for a particular value system, but rather the rumination of these concepts. An act can be moral or immoral, and a character has to weigh these things. This, in turn, causes the reader to weigh these things in their mind and either agree or disagree with the character. I feel this is an improvement in society, regardless of your value system.
I hope this made sense, as I truly feel the lack of a values framework hurts art in general.
Thank you,
Frank Ormond
(END OF FRANK ORMOND’S RESPONSE.)
QUESTION 3.
DOES ART HAVE A SPIRITUAL QUALITY?
FRANK ORMOND’S RESPONSE—
Dear Matt,
I have to admit I’m a bit confused on the question. How are we defining the “spiritual”? For some people this word can have a religious/philosophical meaning or a political one.
In that vein, I want to confront both suppositions in this initial response:
- Art does have to have some genesis from the non-physical, though whether that’s a facet of the mind or a thought in the grander universe, I’m not sure. I feel the act of creation is in itself a spiritual act, though art itself need not be spiritual in nature.
- As far as political art, I think art need not be political at all. Sometimes “a cigar is just a cigar”. Consider the pop art of the 1960’s and the work of Andy Warhol. While he could make political art, most of the work he made from manufacturing or corporate art was made with the intention of proving what was defined as “high art” wasn’t the only kind of art that could be enjoyed by those with a critical lens. I, therefore, argue that art is not always political but can be political depending on the motivations of the artist or the depictions in the work.
Are the paintings of the impressionists spiritual or political? I think not, though they be both based in a lesser politics of the art world at the time. What of the the work in antiquity? Aristotle felt the imitation of reality was important to art, but it was not a spiritual belief that drove this perception.
I think when we discuss spirituality in art, we mean religious, philosophical, or even overt political themes, and in this way I would argue none of these apply when an artist or viewer is approaching art with the mind of enjoyment.
Thank you,
Frank Ormond
(END OF FRANK ORMOND’S RESPONSE.)
MATTHEW PUNGITORE’S RESPONSE—
Dear Frank,
Art does not always need to be spiritual or political; Art can simply be Art, and this is usually the ideal, but Humanity, at this moment, is in need of help, and I’d like to see more artists walk a new path more often, an ancient path, by which they may heal the heart of the world. I believe that even stories in the genres of Horror-, Decadent-, and Transgressive-fiction can be socially, emotionally, and spiritually enlightening, helping readers to find and appreciate eudaemonia, peace, and empathy.
By creating works of art, artists can reconnect people with the glory and goodness of Nature and divinity. We may attempt to create incredible bridges to the primeval forces, beliefs, and faiths that honor ancestral heritages and endow us with arcane eyes, by which we might join with the natural world and ultimate serenity—beliefs and faiths like Animism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, Shamanism, Shinto, Stoicism, Platonism, Neoplatonism, Hellenic and Hellenistic polytheism, Roman polytheism, and the theologies of ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt.
Get people reconnecting with the spiritual, mystic, and divine. Create gardens, obelisks, temples, shrines, stupas, necropolises, pyramids, monasteries, and colossal monuments worthy of Nepal, Tibet, Angkor, Babylonia, Troy, Egypt, Persia, Greece, Alexandria, Rome, and the High Renaissance.
Your friend,
Matthew Pungitore
(END OF MATTHEW PUNGITORE’S RESPONSE.)
FRANK ORMOND’S REPLY TO MATTHEW PUNGITORE—
Dear Matt,
I find myself agreeing with much of what you’ve said. Art can simply “be art” it need not be over-complicated. I find it interesting that you mention art as connecting people to the divine or the spiritual. Much of what I consider art tends to be empirical art which would likely fall under that same categorization.
However, I still feel art originates from a non-physical place. I would like to explore this by mentioning something that impacted my entire life from when I was a teenager.
As a teenager I suffered from sleep paralysis. Much is made on the internet about “sleep paralysis demons” and the like, but I assure you this was a real condition for me. My eyes would open up and I would be unable to move for what felt like several minutes. I often tried to yell to get myself to move, but my body didn’t vocalize my scream, instead I sub-vocalized as if thinking intensely. Oddly, though, my breath would squeeze as if I was attempting to scream in reality.
During one of these sleep paralysis episodes, I was in the middle of a dream and perceived a striped object. I had no idea what the object was, but as my mind caught up to my opened eyes (as my mind processed the image it was seeing) I understood I was looking at something in reality. I then realized it was a shirt in my closet, a striped dress shirt hanging up on the rack. Eventually I regained control and was able to move. However, that realization changed everything for me. I knew from then on that our minds are not passive observers of information about our reality. Our minds are active interpreters of our reality.
This is important because art is informed by our interpretations, which are informed by how our minds interpret what is being shown. If our minds are actively interpreting our reality, then our artwork is never truly “objective”, never truly a reflection of an objective reality.
In this way, I understand your ideas of connecting with the spiritual through art, but I wish to emphasize that all art has some measure of a spiritual genesis. A nihilist would say these are the mechanics of the brain, but regardless of the mechanism it’s obviously not the external reality alone. Art comes from the artist, who has their own interpretation of reality. This, in a way, is a spiritual origin for art in the mind.
Thank you,
Frank Ormond
(END OF FRANK ORMOND’S REPLY.)
With this, our first part has ended. To read the following parts, follow this blog and the remaining parts will be posted here.
Thank you.
Frank Ormond 