#sacred and profane

[gnossienne]

(x)

[sagradofemenin0]

Daemonium, by Daniele Gay

[aliaslittlewilliam]

Street Distraction, Turin, Italy

Copyright @aliaslittlewilliam

[seamusberkeley]

[caedmonofwhitby]

Sacred and Profane by Benjamin Britten

The piece comprises eight lyrics based on medieval English poems

St Godric's Hymn

I mon waxe wod ("Foweles in the frith")

Lenten is come

The long night

Yif ic of luve can

Carol

Ye that pasen by

A Death

[sspacegodd]

I am the link between the sacred and the profane.

[autumnonapoea]

Collage work from a chapbook I made, 2004

[pepperhatter]

swap and coworkers AUs

[blackswaneuroparedux]

If Caravaggio were alive today today, he would have loved the cinema; his paintings take a cinematic approach. We filmmakers became aware of his work in the late 1960s and early 1970s, and he certainly was an influence on us. The best part for us was that in many cases he painted religious subject-matter but the models were obviously people from the streets; he had prostitutes playing saints. There’s something in Caravaggio that shows a real street knowledge of the sinner; his sacred paintings are profane.

Martin Scorsese on Caravaggio

Michelangelo Merisi, known to most of us as “Caravaggio,” was born on September 29, 1571 in Milan, Italy, to parents who were from the small town of Caravaggio. In the span of his 38 years long life he revolutionised painting with innovations like a unique use of chiaroscuro - with dark shadows contrasting with dramatic areas of light - and a deep sense of realism that later inspired the Baroque movement. But most of all, he developed such an iconic style that most of us can probably look at a painting and know if it’s a Caravaggio, or Caravaggio-inspired. 

Merisi spent the first few years of his life in Milan, studying painting, and later moved to Rome, where his early talent impressed Cardinal Del Monte, who introduced the young painter to other high-profile Catholic figures who became commissioners of some of Caravaggio’s best work. It seemed there was no end to the artist’s creative genius. Caravaggio, much to his patron’s delight, would pump out one masterpiece after another. It seemed the more out of control his personal life became (cheating, brawling and murder were standard fare), the more his art would become more refined, more potent.

In the long list of masterpieces he left behind, both secular and religious works stand out. But it is perhaps in his religious works that the artistic transition of the master is more evident. Caravaggio is, in fact, known to have changed his style after harsh personal life experiences led him to reassess his outlook on life.

In May of 1606 Caravaggio took part in a deadly brawl in Rome and was charged with murder. He fled to Malta, in search of asylum from the Order of Saint John, a Catholic order dedicated to helping the sick and the poor. The order commissioned some of the most important late life works of the Milanese artist.

It is in these works that we notice the shift in Caravaggio’s art, from a strong focus on aesthetics to an interest in the spirituality of his subjects, which critics believe was motivated by his own introspection.

On the streets surrounding the churches and palaces, brawls and sword fights were regular occurrences. In the course of this desperate life Caravaggio created the most dramatic paintings of his age, using ordinary men and women - often prostitutes and the very poor - to model for his depictions of classic religious scenes.

By representing biblical characters in a naturalistic fashion, typically through signs of aging and poverty, Caravaggio's populist modernisation of religious parables were little short of trailblazing. Although not without his critics within the church, by effectively humanising the divine, Caravaggio made Christianity more relevant to the ordinary viewer.

For some, though, his art was too real. Bare shoulders, plunging necklines, severed heads; this raw humanity didn’t always fly in 17th century Rome. As a result, many of his pieces were rejected as altar pieces and as church hangings. One such piece, the Madonna of Loretto (now hanging in a church in Rome) was widely criticised upon its unveiling. The people of the day were shocked to behold the Mother of God leaning nonchalantly against a wall in her bare feet while holding baby Jesus in her arms.

It is ironic that the very art that today we consider “classical” and “iconic” to the Catholic faith was considered questionable and perhaps void of modesty and virtue. Yet, the fact remains that no individual artist has made such a lasting impression on the world of modern art. Truly, many have called Caravaggio the “first modern artist”. It is no surprise, then, that his style has sparked both widespread admiration and imitation throughout the centuries.

Before Pope John Paul II refined a theology of the body beautiful, Caravaggio's paintings suggested a reverence for the inherent beauty of human form.

Troubled though he may have been, his art speaks eloquently of the dignity of the mundane. Though the original medium may be weathered and cracked, the message of beauty still echoes down the centuries. And this same beauty still fuels, escapes and reduces artists to relentless seekers as surely and as forcefully as it did in Caravaggio's life.

[thirdity]

The illusory paradise that represented a total denial of earthly life is no longer projected into the heavens, it is embedded in earthly life itself.

Guy Debord, Society of the Spectacle

[gnossienne]

Margaret Atwood, "In the secular night" from Morning in the Burned House

[art-allegory]

Allegory of Sacred and Profane Love

Artist: Michele Desubleo (Flemish, 1602–1676)

Date: 1665–1675

Medium: Oil on canvas

Collection: Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York City, NY, United States

Description

This painting is one of the supreme achievements of Michele Desubleo, a Flemish artist who trained in Rome alongside his stepbrother, Nicolas Régnier, before joining the workshop of Guido Reni. Desubleo combines Reni’s sensual depiction of the human form, citing his Sacred and Profane Love (Palazzo Spinola, Genoa), with a magnificent still life comprised of musical instruments, painter’s palette, fragments of sculpture, and armor that must have satisfied his learned humanist audience who - ideally, at least - balanced material pleasures with virtuous behavior.

[noosphe-re]

Every sacred space implies a hierophany, an irruption of the sacred that results in detaching a territory from the surrounding cosmic milieu and making it qualitatively different.

Mircea Eliade, The Sacred and the Profane

[collapsedsquid]

Ezra Klein going into how mad the libs are at RFK Junior's appointment as HHS secretary, "This is because the libs are obsessed with the sanctity of institutions" dude I think the appointment of an antivaxer and anti-public guy as HHS secretary is the worst possible example you could choose for this, Ezra Klein I think you got a bad case of substack brain.

[tio-trile]

I watched the show first, and then the book, and I have to agree about the dove.

Like Show Azi is such a lovely soft character and then that last episode hits, and he's gonna kill Adam? Huh?? This guy ???¿?? I was gobsmacked, it made no sense at all. But it was also only one part and all's well that ends well, so I didn't question it.

Then I read the book. And Aziraphale is. Well, he's trying to be nice. He gives away the sword and he's polite to everyone. But the people who menace his shop disappear, and he's very comfortable with lying, and making temptations, and he kills a dove and doesn't even care. Ah, yes. This is someone who would consider killing Adam to save the world. He'd feel so bad about it! But he absolutely would. Hot take: Aziraphale would've thrown the basket.

Oh yeah, it makes way more sense for Book!Aziraphale's character, because show!Aziraphale has always been so soft and so good. I hadn't thought about how someone who watched the show first would react to that before, haha! And yes, you are correct about book!Aziraphale. That bastard.

[utilitymonstermash]

There's a certain portion of the online right that views the "obvious falseness" of some of the left's sacred truths as something akin to a loyalty test or occasionally a demonstration of submission.

Well the literal corporeal resurrection of Jesus Christ has got to be one of the most obviously absurd and false "sacred truths" of all time.