My wife has a wonderful eye for art and decorating a home in a way to make it beautiful and comforting. It’s clearly something she has an innate gift for. Now I just need to become a tech magnate so she can become our great patron of the arts and revitalize beauty the world over!
Angela, have you considered marrying a Trump so that your megalomania can have free rein in the fight against philistinism? I don’t think any of the lads’ current spouses are up to the task.
Disclaimer: this comment has its tongue firmly in its cheek.
This piece presents an interesting thesis that deserves a more substantive response than my other comment.
I think a crucial difference between the 16th C and our own culture is the relatively recent phenomenon of mass consumption, which tends to imply values that are at odds with the sort of capacities necessary for apprehending beauty. Thus we end up with a culture in which there is no awareness of aesthetics as a discrete category that might be valued. And such a culture can’t help but produce elites, including elite nerd-wives, that do not value the creation of beauty, either as consumers or potential patrons.
Where their patronage is concerned, our elites are happy to devote their resources to social causes that they believe advance their interests (rocket launches and fantasies about Mars colonization are included here), and they will part with immense sums in the service of maintaining their class status (donating to political campaigns and universities, for example). But after that, they seem to spend the discretionary portion of their wealth on a scaled up form of personal consumption unavailable to normal people, even though it largely targets the same mass cultural products. Even art collecting falls under these categories, either as a form of consumption or an investment strategy.
Of course, there are exceptions here and there. Right now there is a really wonderful Rothko exhibit in DC, and a number of the pieces being shown are on loan from private collections. Given the hefty price tag a Rothko commands, I assume these private collections belong to wealthy individuals, though I didn’t pay attention on account of being distracted by the Rothkos, several of which definitely had something of the void about them. So thank you at least for that, elites.
Would Garech Browne count as an example of what you're thinking of? The foundation of Claddagh Records (which among other things gave us The Chieftains) and his general encouragement and patronage of Irish arts is certainly a legacy worthy of respect. I guess he isn't a sibling/child of finance/nerdery, rather from a lineage that gave us the greatest ever gift to Ireland and the world. But maybe the theory applies to the aristocracy as a whole?
My wife has a wonderful eye for art and decorating a home in a way to make it beautiful and comforting. It’s clearly something she has an innate gift for. Now I just need to become a tech magnate so she can become our great patron of the arts and revitalize beauty the world over!
Angela, have you considered marrying a Trump so that your megalomania can have free rein in the fight against philistinism? I don’t think any of the lads’ current spouses are up to the task.
Disclaimer: this comment has its tongue firmly in its cheek.
Lady Bird Johnson, as First Lady, instigated a beautification campaign which had wide ranging and practical consequences. https://www.pbs.org/ladybird/shattereddreams/shattereddreams_report.html
This piece presents an interesting thesis that deserves a more substantive response than my other comment.
I think a crucial difference between the 16th C and our own culture is the relatively recent phenomenon of mass consumption, which tends to imply values that are at odds with the sort of capacities necessary for apprehending beauty. Thus we end up with a culture in which there is no awareness of aesthetics as a discrete category that might be valued. And such a culture can’t help but produce elites, including elite nerd-wives, that do not value the creation of beauty, either as consumers or potential patrons.
Where their patronage is concerned, our elites are happy to devote their resources to social causes that they believe advance their interests (rocket launches and fantasies about Mars colonization are included here), and they will part with immense sums in the service of maintaining their class status (donating to political campaigns and universities, for example). But after that, they seem to spend the discretionary portion of their wealth on a scaled up form of personal consumption unavailable to normal people, even though it largely targets the same mass cultural products. Even art collecting falls under these categories, either as a form of consumption or an investment strategy.
Of course, there are exceptions here and there. Right now there is a really wonderful Rothko exhibit in DC, and a number of the pieces being shown are on loan from private collections. Given the hefty price tag a Rothko commands, I assume these private collections belong to wealthy individuals, though I didn’t pay attention on account of being distracted by the Rothkos, several of which definitely had something of the void about them. So thank you at least for that, elites.
Would Garech Browne count as an example of what you're thinking of? The foundation of Claddagh Records (which among other things gave us The Chieftains) and his general encouragement and patronage of Irish arts is certainly a legacy worthy of respect. I guess he isn't a sibling/child of finance/nerdery, rather from a lineage that gave us the greatest ever gift to Ireland and the world. But maybe the theory applies to the aristocracy as a whole?