I love this and think about these ideas all the time. When you mentioned that the UN has wood walls and carpeted floors, I thought of how much modern society values comfort. Wood and carpet are warm and soft and they muffle sound. Stone buildings are cold and hard and they echo. Placing comfort as a high priority means things won’t last, and I also wonder how good it can actually be for us to frequently be in a state of comfort. If that’s one of our highest aims, no wonder there are no great artists - no one is willing to exert himself beyond his comfort zone.
Thank you for this, this is a great article!! I’m an art historian, and I thought you might find this related information interesting - I can assure you it’s completely factual; I’m actually giving a lecture on it this Friday. I firmly believe another reason contemporary art is so divorced from the historical art canon is due to the fact that during the 1950’s, the CIA (working in conjunction with the MoMA - the Chairman of the Board and the Executive Secretary were both CIA agents) actively bought, promoted and toured Abstract Expressionism throughout the world during the Cold War to combat soviet socialist realism. They operated through a front organization called the Congress for Cultural Freedom which had offices in 35 countries, hosted art exhibitions and awards, and actively operated 20+ prestige magazines writing about and hailing American Abstract Expressionsim as the culmination of modernist achievement. John Hay Whitney (President and Chairman of the Board at the MoMA, agent of the CIA and head of the Whitney foundation) actively used his foundation’s money to award grants to art schools that taught new AbEx methods of painting. This fundamentally and completely transformed art education - independent art schools became decreasingly popular, representational painters and teachers were discouraged (and in some cases even fired), and the time tested methods of the masters were removed from art curricula in favor of these new, “highly acclaimed” modern methods.
It sounds like a conspiracy theory, but I can assure you it’s all true - much of my research was done using primary sources found through the freedom of information act reading room on the CIA’s website. I’m really passionate about letting people know about this because it is NOT taught in art history curricula. I hope you find it as insightful as I have!
Nice to be reminded of this US cultural expansionism, and maybe worth noting that it wasn't just Abstract Expressionism that they were flogging around the world. I understand that they also funded or enabled world tours of Jazz musicians, (including Louis Armstrong and Ella Fitzgerald I think) as examples of a country where freedom of expression was promoted and protected (unlike the USSR).
Yes exactly. That’s what I think makes this interesting; its so morally and ethically ambiguous. The promotion of artistic freedom and the freedom of expression certainly wasn’t a bad thing, although it has had some unfortunate, long-term consequences
And I reckon your findings with art (and well done to you) - the power of art to feed the soul, appreciate beauty and recognise an artist’s talent as being so awesome as to be a gift from God (compared to some modern art where one often hears, ‘I could do that’ or worse, ‘my kid could do that’ meaning it’s not all that impressive), I can’t help but think denying the public of a modern day Michelangelo is on purpose. Just one more way to deny God’s people nice things.
Very true! I am myself tired of short-term thinking consumerist time-wastes. Most modern are is pathetic compared to the art from the Renaissance.
I personally find meaning, passion, and hope in Bitcoin, its steel fundamental, and long-term ethos. I dream of a time when society breeds the next Michelangelo or Tchaikovsky. With hard work and direction we might get there within 2-3 decades. Or maybe our kids get to experience this new type of Renaissance.
Honestly, I think it all goes down to the *rich people* and their support (or lack of thereof) of arts and culture. If Musk, Bezos and co. supported artists, sculptors, musicians like the rich people of the centuries past did (for whom it was often considered PRESTIGIOUS to leave a lasting legacy of beauty and uplifting quality) instead of squeezing out their employees and hoarding insane wealth, the world would look very different. Nowadays, artists HAVE TO be commercial to some extent - to find audience on social media, to get grants, to get press, to get into galleries... If we are not commercial, we will be poor. Hence, art is a commodity and we've got bills to pay, gotta create and sell art fast! 😬
Hi, thank you for a nice thought provoking article. While I agree that we are unlikely ever to see another Michaelangelo I'm not sure that I agree with all of your reasoning. Is it fair for example, to compare his Sistine Chapel, centre of a then European Catholic church, one culture that effectively ruled people's lives, thoughts and teachings through it's network of priests and churches with a UN building that stands at the centre of a world-wide collection of different cultures and beliefs. Perhaps a blobby colour-filled mural is a pragmatically safe way of offending no-one?
And yes, the Renaissance hastened the birth of art criticism. Vasari wrote of the Lives of Artists - those at least that he knew and liked, and these we remember. But it's only fairly recently that Artemisia Gentileschi for example has surfaced - I can't remember if Vasari wrote about her… if not is this an example of the critic's power to fashion taste in the way that Clement Greenberg did in the 50s and 60s?
One last thing, the Renaissance is remembered through the great works of art that you mention. And yes, they marveled at 'the ceiling', but that was the TV of the day, the illustrations to their daily worship. But less well-known today are the fountains and garden follies, the plays and music and the all but unknown street art that the middle and low class people enjoyed when not at church.
500 years on we know the famous bits that have survived and we have built a humanist myth around them… what will people think of today's art in 2525? What will remain (assuming anything does) that people can use to describe us? I'd hazard a guess that, from the UK, some of Henry Moore's monumental works will survive, and, because of their value, Van Goghs, Impressionists and Picassos will still be locked away in family vaults. Might not academics in the 26th century assume that this was a golden age of free human expression and marvel at Coventry Cathedral and the Angel of the North?
(Sorry if this doesn't hang together very well, writing on a smartphone does not afford clarity of composition!)
I think about this often in places of healing like hospitals. Imagine looking at walls filled with beauty instead of the sterility of your average healthcare centre. I think Rudolf Steiner had some wonderful ideas around this.
Well, I was nearly late for an NHS appointment at Milton Keynes University Hospital last week because I kept stopping in the corridor to look at some of the wonderful art that they have displayed. And MK itself has a fine array of public art displayed around the city, and an Art Gallery (currently showing an exhibition of Warhol's early drawings and prints) that is full of people whenever I go.
There are some artists encouraging beauty and truth. One very worth investigating is Makoto Fujimura. His work in the ESV The Four Holy Gospels are prime examples of modern beauty and care.
I loved this article! I often think of how the notion of art has changed due to the atmosphere of impermanence that seems to have come about. Art truly is an extension of the human soul and to honor that, its creation should have a lasting element. It was such a pleasure to read this perspective!
Paintings and sculptures simply aren’t mainstream enough nowadays for an artist to become a household name like Michelangelo. Furthermore I believe that what we might call „classically beautiful“ has suffered from a connotation with the martial, which very much was not en vogue after the horrors of two world wars - not that I agree with the turn art overwhelmingly has taken since then.
This is great! Thanks so much for sharing. Your posts are always insightful and a real pleasure to read. I appreciate the clarity and perspective you bring.
Tom Wolfe's "The Invisible Artist," about Frederick Hart, is worth a read on this subject. It doesn't help Hart that the work people are most likely to see is "Three Soldiers," which is not his best and if anything adds to my appreciation of Maya Lin, but he did create some beautiful things over the course of his career and did seem to be doing what he could to revive the Michelangelic spirit.
About 25 years ago, I had a religious experience with Mark Chagall’s painting “I and the Village”. Led me to becoming a Christian in the following months. I didn’t know about his work before this. I’ve never read an art critic recognize the large animal in that painting to be a lamb. It’s always called a goat, and usually given some sort of socialist spin on what the artist intention was. I believe it’s the most subtle depiction of Christ in the history of art. …some years later I discovered he had done nearly 100 paintings of old testament stories. To my mind there’s no question, the Lord specifically used that painting at a specific moment in time to break into my heart. Just thought I would share that…appreciate your work!
Hmmm… maybe I’ll finally make my first Substack piece about a deep dive into this Chagall experience I had and my conversion.
I love this and think about these ideas all the time. When you mentioned that the UN has wood walls and carpeted floors, I thought of how much modern society values comfort. Wood and carpet are warm and soft and they muffle sound. Stone buildings are cold and hard and they echo. Placing comfort as a high priority means things won’t last, and I also wonder how good it can actually be for us to frequently be in a state of comfort. If that’s one of our highest aims, no wonder there are no great artists - no one is willing to exert himself beyond his comfort zone.
Thank you for this, this is a great article!! I’m an art historian, and I thought you might find this related information interesting - I can assure you it’s completely factual; I’m actually giving a lecture on it this Friday. I firmly believe another reason contemporary art is so divorced from the historical art canon is due to the fact that during the 1950’s, the CIA (working in conjunction with the MoMA - the Chairman of the Board and the Executive Secretary were both CIA agents) actively bought, promoted and toured Abstract Expressionism throughout the world during the Cold War to combat soviet socialist realism. They operated through a front organization called the Congress for Cultural Freedom which had offices in 35 countries, hosted art exhibitions and awards, and actively operated 20+ prestige magazines writing about and hailing American Abstract Expressionsim as the culmination of modernist achievement. John Hay Whitney (President and Chairman of the Board at the MoMA, agent of the CIA and head of the Whitney foundation) actively used his foundation’s money to award grants to art schools that taught new AbEx methods of painting. This fundamentally and completely transformed art education - independent art schools became decreasingly popular, representational painters and teachers were discouraged (and in some cases even fired), and the time tested methods of the masters were removed from art curricula in favor of these new, “highly acclaimed” modern methods.
It sounds like a conspiracy theory, but I can assure you it’s all true - much of my research was done using primary sources found through the freedom of information act reading room on the CIA’s website. I’m really passionate about letting people know about this because it is NOT taught in art history curricula. I hope you find it as insightful as I have!
Nice to be reminded of this US cultural expansionism, and maybe worth noting that it wasn't just Abstract Expressionism that they were flogging around the world. I understand that they also funded or enabled world tours of Jazz musicians, (including Louis Armstrong and Ella Fitzgerald I think) as examples of a country where freedom of expression was promoted and protected (unlike the USSR).
Yes exactly. That’s what I think makes this interesting; its so morally and ethically ambiguous. The promotion of artistic freedom and the freedom of expression certainly wasn’t a bad thing, although it has had some unfortunate, long-term consequences
When you read about the real reasons behind P Diddy and his ties with the ‘intelligence’ agencies, it’s a dark music scene. Very dark. (https://unlimitedhangout.com/2025/04/investigative-series/one-label-under-blackmail-the-early-intersections-of-diddy-and-the-epstein-network/).
And I reckon your findings with art (and well done to you) - the power of art to feed the soul, appreciate beauty and recognise an artist’s talent as being so awesome as to be a gift from God (compared to some modern art where one often hears, ‘I could do that’ or worse, ‘my kid could do that’ meaning it’s not all that impressive), I can’t help but think denying the public of a modern day Michelangelo is on purpose. Just one more way to deny God’s people nice things.
That is fascinatingly mad, and I love it and hate it at the same time!!
My actual reaction to the picture of the General Assembly Hall murals: "ewww, brother, ewww!"
Very true! I am myself tired of short-term thinking consumerist time-wastes. Most modern are is pathetic compared to the art from the Renaissance.
I personally find meaning, passion, and hope in Bitcoin, its steel fundamental, and long-term ethos. I dream of a time when society breeds the next Michelangelo or Tchaikovsky. With hard work and direction we might get there within 2-3 decades. Or maybe our kids get to experience this new type of Renaissance.
Honestly, I think it all goes down to the *rich people* and their support (or lack of thereof) of arts and culture. If Musk, Bezos and co. supported artists, sculptors, musicians like the rich people of the centuries past did (for whom it was often considered PRESTIGIOUS to leave a lasting legacy of beauty and uplifting quality) instead of squeezing out their employees and hoarding insane wealth, the world would look very different. Nowadays, artists HAVE TO be commercial to some extent - to find audience on social media, to get grants, to get press, to get into galleries... If we are not commercial, we will be poor. Hence, art is a commodity and we've got bills to pay, gotta create and sell art fast! 😬
Hi, thank you for a nice thought provoking article. While I agree that we are unlikely ever to see another Michaelangelo I'm not sure that I agree with all of your reasoning. Is it fair for example, to compare his Sistine Chapel, centre of a then European Catholic church, one culture that effectively ruled people's lives, thoughts and teachings through it's network of priests and churches with a UN building that stands at the centre of a world-wide collection of different cultures and beliefs. Perhaps a blobby colour-filled mural is a pragmatically safe way of offending no-one?
And yes, the Renaissance hastened the birth of art criticism. Vasari wrote of the Lives of Artists - those at least that he knew and liked, and these we remember. But it's only fairly recently that Artemisia Gentileschi for example has surfaced - I can't remember if Vasari wrote about her… if not is this an example of the critic's power to fashion taste in the way that Clement Greenberg did in the 50s and 60s?
One last thing, the Renaissance is remembered through the great works of art that you mention. And yes, they marveled at 'the ceiling', but that was the TV of the day, the illustrations to their daily worship. But less well-known today are the fountains and garden follies, the plays and music and the all but unknown street art that the middle and low class people enjoyed when not at church.
500 years on we know the famous bits that have survived and we have built a humanist myth around them… what will people think of today's art in 2525? What will remain (assuming anything does) that people can use to describe us? I'd hazard a guess that, from the UK, some of Henry Moore's monumental works will survive, and, because of their value, Van Goghs, Impressionists and Picassos will still be locked away in family vaults. Might not academics in the 26th century assume that this was a golden age of free human expression and marvel at Coventry Cathedral and the Angel of the North?
(Sorry if this doesn't hang together very well, writing on a smartphone does not afford clarity of composition!)
I think about this often in places of healing like hospitals. Imagine looking at walls filled with beauty instead of the sterility of your average healthcare centre. I think Rudolf Steiner had some wonderful ideas around this.
Well, I was nearly late for an NHS appointment at Milton Keynes University Hospital last week because I kept stopping in the corridor to look at some of the wonderful art that they have displayed. And MK itself has a fine array of public art displayed around the city, and an Art Gallery (currently showing an exhibition of Warhol's early drawings and prints) that is full of people whenever I go.
There are some artists encouraging beauty and truth. One very worth investigating is Makoto Fujimura. His work in the ESV The Four Holy Gospels are prime examples of modern beauty and care.
I loved this article! I often think of how the notion of art has changed due to the atmosphere of impermanence that seems to have come about. Art truly is an extension of the human soul and to honor that, its creation should have a lasting element. It was such a pleasure to read this perspective!
Paintings and sculptures simply aren’t mainstream enough nowadays for an artist to become a household name like Michelangelo. Furthermore I believe that what we might call „classically beautiful“ has suffered from a connotation with the martial, which very much was not en vogue after the horrors of two world wars - not that I agree with the turn art overwhelmingly has taken since then.
I agree with this point. For example, there are film directors, music artists, authors creating prolific and epic catalogues of work.
This is great! Thanks so much for sharing. Your posts are always insightful and a real pleasure to read. I appreciate the clarity and perspective you bring.
That was a wonderful article! I truly enjoyed that, especially the hopeful tone at the end.
A keeper! Thanks for a thoughtful article!
Tom Wolfe's "The Invisible Artist," about Frederick Hart, is worth a read on this subject. It doesn't help Hart that the work people are most likely to see is "Three Soldiers," which is not his best and if anything adds to my appreciation of Maya Lin, but he did create some beautiful things over the course of his career and did seem to be doing what he could to revive the Michelangelic spirit.
Thank you! I appreciate your thoughts and the questions you bring up. And the images are lovely!
About 25 years ago, I had a religious experience with Mark Chagall’s painting “I and the Village”. Led me to becoming a Christian in the following months. I didn’t know about his work before this. I’ve never read an art critic recognize the large animal in that painting to be a lamb. It’s always called a goat, and usually given some sort of socialist spin on what the artist intention was. I believe it’s the most subtle depiction of Christ in the history of art. …some years later I discovered he had done nearly 100 paintings of old testament stories. To my mind there’s no question, the Lord specifically used that painting at a specific moment in time to break into my heart. Just thought I would share that…appreciate your work!
Hmmm… maybe I’ll finally make my first Substack piece about a deep dive into this Chagall experience I had and my conversion.