Man was not a part of nature, he had raised himself above nature, and the more he thought about it, the more it seemed to him impious, even though he didn't believe in God, the more it seemed to him anthropologically impious, to scatter the ashes of a human being on the fields, the rivers or the sea. A human being had a conscience, a unique, individual, and irreplaceable conscience, and thus deserved a monument, a stele, or at least an inscription—well, something that asserts and bears witness to his existence for future centuries.
—Michel Houellenbecq, The Map and the Territory
"Anyway, Picasso's ugly, and he paints a hideously deformed world because his soul is hideous, and that's all you can say about Picasso. There's no reason anymore to support the exhibition of his works. He has nothing to contribute, and with him there's no light, no innovation in the organization of colors or forms. I mean, in Picasso's work there's absolutely nothing that deserves attention, just an extreme stupidity and a priapic daubing that might attract a few sixtysomethings with big bank accounts."
—Michel Houellenbecq, The Map and the Territory
The question of beauty is secondary in painting: the great painters of the past were considered such when they had developed a worldview that was both coherent and innovative, which means that they always painted in the same way, using the same methods and operating procedures to transform the objects of the world into pictorial ones, in a manner that was specific to them and had never been used before.
—Michel Houellenbecq, The Map and the Territory
"He sits around in his room with the door locked and does lines and listens to this song by the Buffalo Springfield, over and over . . . you know that one? 'Something's happening here . . . what it is ain't exactly clear . . . .' It's weird. People get upset, all of a sudden they want to listen to old hippie garbage they would never listen to if they were in their right mind, when my cat died I had to go out and borrow all these Simon and Garfunkel records."
—Donna Tartt, The Secret History (ellipses in original)
It was this unreality of character, this cartoonishness if you will, which was the secret of his appeal and what finally made his death so sad. Like any great comedian, he colored his environment wherever he went; in order to marvel at his constancy you wanted to see him in all sorts of alien situations: Bunny riding a camel, Bunny babysitting, Bunny in space. Now, in death, this constancy crystallized and became something else entirely: he was an old familiar jokester cast—with surprising effect—in the tragic role.
—Donna Tartt, The Secret History
The statue, Zerchi was dismayed to notice, bore a marked similarity to some of the most effeminate images by which mediocre, or worse than mediocre, artists had traditionally misrepresented the personality of Christ. The sweet-sick face, blank eyes, simpering lips, and arms spread wide in a gesture of embrace. The hips were broad as a woman's, and the chest hinted at breasts—unless those were only folds in the cloak. Dear Lord of Golgotha, Abbot Zerchi breathed, is that all the rabble imagine You to be? He could with effort imagine the statue saying: "Suffer the little children to come unto me," but he could not imagine it saying: "Depart from me into everlasting fire, accursed ones," or flogging the money-changers out of the temple.
—Walter Miller, A Canticle for Leibowitz
German philosopher Alexander Gottlieb Baumgarten is generally credited with establishing aesthetics as a distinct discipline. His goal, if you will, was to isolate beauty in something akin to a specimen jar and then examine it with the rigor a scientist might reserve for biology or chemistry. Approaching knowledge in this manner was a boon to science, of course, as well as to some approaches to art history. But for men and women eager to form a truly modern self, the isolation of beauty would cause it to grow increasingly arcane. As philosopher Alexander Nehemas suggests, "The creation of an aesthetic domain and the elaboration of a doctrine of fine arts were meant to establish the epistemological authority of sensory perception and to secure the spiritual rights of beauty. To that end the eighteenth century placed the arts side by side with the sciences in a setting in which each was to become increasingly impervious, even incomprehensible, to the other."
—Cameron Anderson, The Faithful Artist
A lot of research I've been doing has really been about differentiating between the sort of Catholic body-based imagery with a sensual, sexual kind of an aesthetic, versus what I see as this country's more dominant Protestant, Puritan-based approach. I see the latter as a more word-based, abstract-oriented, and more non-corporeal kind of an aesthetic. In fact one of the things I hypothesize is going on in the so-called culture war is that the aesthetic of Catholicism, which is a minority position in this country, is coming into conflict with the dominant Protestantism.
—Eleanor Heartley, quoted in Cameron Anderson, The Faithful Artist