Read the Delacroix journal excerpts on the Portal and respond to the following question. Also, you MUST respond to at least one other peer on the blog. You have until 12 noon tomorrow (Friday, 10 January) to complete this post assignment.
(1) Delacroix states that progress is a negative force in nineteenth-century France. Art and philosophy have contributed, in his opinion, to a decline in civilization. This type of degeneration is called "cultural decadence," where art becomes destructive, ugly, and poorly formed, but is nonetheless celebrated. Is all progress destined to become decadence? Do all civilizations eventually collapse under the weight of their culture (i.e., Ancient Rome, Absolutist France)?
I think Delacroix was right in thinking that cultural decadence could ultimately ruin a society and is bound to happen eventually. In a successful civilization, art is often very beautiful and great. However, artists often become lazy and even arrogant in their art and stop producing great art.This art, though not as great, is celebrated nevertheless. This leads to cultural decadence. When this happens, this is one of the major signs of the decline of an empire or nation. As all civilizations eventually fall, cultural decadence is bound to happen eventually to all countries producing art and this pattern has been repeated over time.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you on how cultural decadence is a sign of a struggling and declining nation. When art becomes less and less or like you said, lazy, it shows that people don't have time anymore to put much attention or detail into their work to show a more beautiful aspect. The luxury of time is a sign of a prosperity nation because people are not only concerned about working and trying to survive in harsh conditions. Also, if the art is not impressive or beautiful, then it reflects on how the empire or nation is looking at the time: poor, dirty, sad.
DeleteI also agree what Gillian says. Usually art pieces are highly influenced by their nation's situation and mood. For example, in the age of Renaissance, when lots of complicated and beautiful artworks existed, Europe had cultural / economical wealth. But, in the other hand, I'm hard to agree with the idea that bad arts affect national decline. Arts are based on their nation's condition, as I said before, which means those arts cannot oppositely make nation's condition based on its art works.
DeleteChelsea: How do you reconcile the rich/poor gap in the situation you describe? If artists and upper class people have more income and leisure, what about the working classes who toil without monetary reward or leisure time? Are not the rich simply feasting off the poor's labor?
ReplyDeleteThere is no reconciliation of the gap between the rich and the poor. There are major differences between the rich and poor that there is no possible way for that gap to close. The rich will always have the upper hand when it comes to being successful because they are supported with money. It is hard for the working class to move up in the social ladder because although they are working nonstop, problems would occur that would stop the worker form progressing - making the most amount of money such as someone's death, the failure of a company, or there's to many children to feed. In a way, the rich is feasting off the poor's labor but that's how society is structured. It is all about how much money the person has in the bank that gives them more opportunities for new machines, factories, and business.
DeleteI agree with Chelsea, there is a huge gap between the rich and the poor. However, in many successful civilizations, there is free time for everyone to create or at least enjoy beautiful art. When a great empire starts to decline, different matters become important and preserving culture is pushed to the side. In cultural decadence, I definitely think that both the rich and poor suffer. The wealthy citizens have time to make art, but instead choose to make ugly artwork that they celebrate anyway. When the wealthiest of citizens have the opportunity to sponsor and create great art but choose not to is a very clear sign of decline in a civilization.
DeleteCivilization would reach their climax and would then start to collapse afterward. For example, Ancient Rome, it was at its peak with the most land in the known world at the time, but it lead to strategic overstretch and the empire collapsed. I don't necessarily agree with Delacroix with how art and philosophy contribute to the decline of a civilization because having beautiful art means time and it lets people explore the world and their mind which could lead to questions and progress in the civilization. Too much of art and philosophy wouldn't do any harm; it would show the progress in the nation.
ReplyDeleteAs I respond on Gillian's idea, I don't think art works could affect nation's condition. On a larger scope, I think cultural decadence happens at nations that are collapsing, which means it is not cultural decadence that make nation collapse. Philosophy and lectures that create doubts (long time no see) are the symptoms of decline, because these means people started to disbelieve the traditions of the nation. Nation without belief falls eventually. But also, after the period of cultural decadence, there was always new cultures rise. For example, after the fall of church, idea of philosophy spread the world.
ReplyDeleteJeong, does the rise of a new culture have to come with a climactic event, like a revolution or a war?
DeleteI agree with Jeong. I do not believe that art can be the cause of a civilizations decline. Art is reflective of the civilization and it's success but does not dictate it's success. Just because some artists become lazy or arrogant does not mean that the civilization will fall or take a step backward. In response to Mr. Sacco's question, I do believe that some sort of climactic event like a revolution or war is necessary for a totally new culture to arise. Culture plays a huge part in all aspects of life and in order to change so many things, a big event or turning point is needed in order to set the path for a new culture to arise.
DeleteI agree with Jeong and how there was a creation of doubt involved in philosophy during the nineteenth century in France. Philosophers lost their imagination as time passed and they made up philosophies that created a lot of doubt. This causes decline in believing in the traditions of a nation and I think that cultural decadence occurs when a nation is collapsing and it eventually causes a nation to completely collapse because people will eventually stop believing, following, and caring about the nation.
DeleteResponse to Mr. Sacco's question, I do think the rise of a new culture have to come with a climactic event. But not only a one certain event changes its culture. As protestant movement took time to grow bigger and bigger and later contributed fall of the church, it takes long time to clean an old culture and place a new one.
DeleteAlthough art is usually seen as positive, it had a negative effect in nineteenth century France. Art starts off as grand and beautiful, but as time goes on, the quality lessens. Art becomes less about creativity and beauty, and more about greed and money. This is just one of the factors that lead to decline. I agree that all progress leads to decadence and all cultures collapse under the weight of their culture. An excess of technological advances, for instance, can ruin a culture and the morals it is found upon. Technology is meant to be helpful, but when used in the wrong way it can lead to decline.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that the artwork did begin to decline ad the quality lessened, but like I said before I don't think that the art could be blamed for the cultural collapse. And I also agree that technological advances when used to replace all manual labor and not used correctly, disaster will strike.
DeleteI believe that that feeling of craving change is what will cause the cultural decadence and eventually have the potential to destroy a society. Every great power will collapse eventually, especially at this rate in history. Like Chelsea said, when civilization reaches their climax and has done everything they can do, they have the tendency to begin to decline. In terms of Delacroix, I agree that many great artists are always changing because people always strive for change. And yes, sometimes the art changes in a way that people do not like and in ways that "ruin" the artwork, but artists are always changing, as it is a form of expression. Also, I believe that philosophy is an extremely important part about culture and rising up, but Delacroix looks upon philosophers with nothing but disgust. He blames them for wanting to prosper and because of that they treat the people badly and to destroy the work on the farms, which I don't think is the actual intent. I do agree with him about the fact that the industrial revolution was proving to be problematic instead of affluent, but the intentions were good. I believe that art has the power to influence culture in fantastic ways, just look at the renaissance period, however I find it hard to believe that art was the main and only cause of the declining nation.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Bella. I don't think that art can be the only reason fir the decline of an empire. It will most likely happen with a civilization that it declining but it is hard to believe that it is the only thing crushing a civilization and causing it to fall.
DeleteAs I mentioned earlier in my reply I do not believe that art is a main contributor to the fall of a civilization. In my opinion, art that is beginning to worsen is a sign that a civilization is in the midst of destruction. Art reflects the civilization and it's society. If things are going well for people, art will be beautiful and elegant. If conditions are poor and life is not easy in a civilization the art of that time will reflect these hardships. Although I do not believe that art could be the main cause for the fall of a civilization, there is no doubt that art does play a significant role in every culture and civilizations.
ReplyDeleteDuring the nineteenth century, I would think that most progress would seem to be destined to become decadence especially because of art and philosophy. As time passes in a civilization with artists who paint good pictures at the start, they become lazy and they don’t paint good pictures anymore. They lose sight of the eternal laws of taste and logic which governs the arts. Artists like this still produce more art for an imperious need to do something better or something different from what had been done. Another cause of cultural decadence would be philosophy because the philosophy from philosophers was the kind of philosophy that created a lot of doubt towards people (especially Girardin’s philosophy about machinery and people). The reason why this occurred is almost the same reason as why art caused cultural decadence and philosophers started to lose their imagination, their heart towards people, and they became lazy. Eventually civilizations will collapse under the weight of their culture because of art and philosophy.
ReplyDeletePeople who make great art are celebrated. And sometimes, even when they make bad art, they are still celebrated. That can be wrong and bad. If your culture is off and celebrating the wrong thing, that can be a burden, but it cant be the only reason a civilization falls. For art and decadence to be the sole reason to crush a civilization is very hard to think. It can be a factor but I don't think it can be the only one. It is a burden for a civilization but it cant outweigh everything and crush an entire one. It is very hard to think that art would be the reason for a empire to decline and fall. Decadence can happen and probably will if an empire is already in decline, but I don't believe that it causes an empire to fall all by itself.
ReplyDelete