Community Bridge
I'm still picking my way through this fascinating website; however: a theory as to why this strikes such a chord (despite its non-slick web design): its creation, albeit in flimsy materials, bears strong resemblance to the method of the Gothic cathedral builders. There, master masons, spanning generations, provided a core of direction, but each individual stone carver had much freedom to depict his subject within certain bounds. True, the Medieval stone carvers of Europe were highly trained craftsmen, where some participants in a modern mass project, like this bridge, might almost be accused of doing "paint-by-numbers", but the overall effect had profound effects on their respective communities. I appreciate the referral to this site from the head of the Foundation for Community Arts. Can Christendom do better than encourage human artistic sub-creation to the end of coalescing a community that encourages brotherly love?
Notice 3 qualities about the symbols — they are:
• subjective — they adopt a point of view, as good art should;
• figurative (though occasionally geometric with cultural references);
• emotive — they express emotion of the artist & attempt to impart it to the viewer.
I see the first quality as exemplified by the Stuckists and perhaps by critics such as John Gardner, Fred Chappell, and those holding related views; the second as embodied in works by Pre-Raphaelites, Classicists, and various traditionalists for better reasons and mediocre ones; the third might meet certain of the standards for art of Leo Tolstoy.
Suffice it to say that the creation of works similar to this is an encouraging sign for our culture. We nevertheless must discover the core values we choose to defend in that milieu.
