<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!-- generator="FeedCreator 1.7.3" -->
<rss version="2.0">
	<channel>
		<title>Go, Wash in the Pool of Siloam</title>
		<description>Comments for Go, Wash in the Pool of Siloam at http://www.thecatholicthing.org , comment 1 to 10 out of 10 comments</description>
		<link>http://www.thecatholicthing.org</link>
		<lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 May 2013 15:25:27 +0100</lastBuildDate>
        <generator>FeedCreator 1.7.3</generator>
		<item>
			<title>...</title>
			<link>http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/go-wash-in-the-pool-of-siloam.html#comment-11085</link>
			<description>I can hardly wait for your essay, Dr. Esolen.

Re: Hagia Sophia:  travesty or tragedy?  It brings tears to my eyes to think of it. - Louise</description>
			<pubDate>Sat, 28 Apr 2012 10:56:07 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>...</title>
			<link>http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/go-wash-in-the-pool-of-siloam.html#comment-11073</link>
			<description>And then there's the travesty of Hagia Sophia ...

It would be interesting -- and maybe I should do this -- to write about the destruction of art, from iconoclast Muslims to iconoclast Cromwellians to iconoclast post-Vaticanites to professors in the humanities today. - Tony Esolen</description>
			<pubDate>Fri, 27 Apr 2012 15:41:57 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>...</title>
			<link>http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/go-wash-in-the-pool-of-siloam.html#comment-11059</link>
			<description>Trish, this expresses it, I think:

It is a bad imitation of a dome; a bad imitation of art; a bad imitation of Beauty; a bad imitation of Truth, and a bad imitation of God. - Louise</description>
			<pubDate>Thu, 26 Apr 2012 11:48:17 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>...</title>
			<link>http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/go-wash-in-the-pool-of-siloam.html#comment-11058</link>
			<description>Thank you, Trish. 

&quot; it at least admits that there is a god&quot;

 My goodness, this thread could go in all kinds of directions.  One, for instance, is Allah God?  Is Moloch God?  Is Baal God?  God under a variety of names--an accommodating God that is anything anyone wants him to be.  My own thought is that if the word &quot;Allah&quot; is just another name for the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, He is lying to one of us about who and what he is.   Another thought:  Where does the divine leave off and the supernatural begin?  Or is all that is supernatural divine?

I agree with you certainly about most modern art.

I didn't say that the dome of the rock is ugly, but that it lacks grace.  Although, I do, in fact, think that it is ugly as it squats there, squashing all that it sits on in the city.  It looks heavy, ponderous, earthbound--ungraceful.

If the nature of God (I'm not sure what word to use here; nature will have to do) is the expression of the Good, the Beautiful, and the True, and, as Mr. Belloc says, an attack on one of these is an attack on all, and therefore an attack on God, Beauty must express Truth and Truth must express Beauty, and both must express the Good that is.  Are there degrees of Truth and Beauty?  of the Good?

These are certainly question to ponder and meditate on while I pull the melamine panelling off the bathroom walls.

 - Louise</description>
			<pubDate>Thu, 26 Apr 2012 11:16:59 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>...</title>
			<link>http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/go-wash-in-the-pool-of-siloam.html#comment-11051</link>
			<description>Louise, I wouldn't call the Dome of the Rock beautiful either, at least not per se, but I would say it contains more elements of beauty than, say, the vast majority of modern art that express relative chaos.  The Dome of the Rock at least has a sense of order to it, whereas most modern art seems to lack order, and I would suspect that this is becase there is at least some pursuit of the divine in Islam and in its art and architecture, whereas so much modern art is focused on self-expression and leaves God out of the picture (no pun intended!) entirely.  So, while Islam is far from the truth, it at least admits that there is a god, which is less untrue than modern art's ignoring God, and so its art contains more beauty than modern art, if that makes sense.  Or if you consider the Dome of the Rock ugly, I would opine that it's at least less ugly than anything you'd find in your typical art gallery today. - Trish</description>
			<pubDate>Thu, 26 Apr 2012 07:00:53 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>...</title>
			<link>http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/go-wash-in-the-pool-of-siloam.html#comment-11045</link>
			<description>Thank you, William.

I have long heard that Persian or oriental rugs always contain a deliberate error in the weaving for the reason that you state.  That may certainly be true in the execution of Moorish design and patterns, but I'm not sure about whether that applies to the intent of the artists in creating the patterns themselves.  To me, they lack grace, for all their very elaborate form.  It occurred to me that what is missing in the dome of the rock is just that: grace--and, therefore, life. - Louise</description>
			<pubDate>Thu, 26 Apr 2012 03:24:29 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>...</title>
			<link>http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/go-wash-in-the-pool-of-siloam.html#comment-11043</link>
			<description>Greetings from Croatia, it's nice to be mentioned on the  catholic  thing ! :) - Nestor</description>
			<pubDate>Thu, 26 Apr 2012 01:23:18 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>...</title>
			<link>http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/go-wash-in-the-pool-of-siloam.html#comment-11035</link>
			<description>To Louise:

I read somewhere that Muslim architecture is always and intentionally out of proportion or &quot;off&quot; in some way because only God (Allah) is perfect.  - William</description>
			<pubDate>Wed, 25 Apr 2012 17:46:33 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>...</title>
			<link>http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/go-wash-in-the-pool-of-siloam.html#comment-11031</link>
			<description>From Trish: &quot;art is beautiful in proportion to the truth it expresses&quot;

I hear so often about the beauty of the dome of the rock, but I have never found it beautiful--even before I knew what it was.  For some reason that I can't put my finger on, I find it out of proportion, awkward, poorly designed--curve to height, height to width--or something.  It the same with all Moorish design.  I wonder whether I am the only person who feels that way.  It it quite off-putting to me. - Louise</description>
			<pubDate>Wed, 25 Apr 2012 09:29:27 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>...</title>
			<link>http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/go-wash-in-the-pool-of-siloam.html#comment-11028</link>
			<description>Mr. Esolen:  Your excellent reflection here reminds me very much of John Saward's book &quot;The Beauty of Holiness and the Holiness of Beauty&quot;, in which he discusses the relationship between sacred art, truth, virtue, and holiness.  Reading that book made me see that sacred art is beautiful in proportion to the truth it expresses and why secular art or sacred art of another religion may be to some degree beautiful but will, for me as a Catholic, never come even remotely close to the beauty found in Christian sacred art.  For instance, the classical Roman art I come across in my Latin studies can be lovely, but it cannot hold a candle by a long shot to, say, the breathtaking beauty expressed in Rembrandt's Prodigal Son painting. - Trish</description>
			<pubDate>Wed, 25 Apr 2012 04:13:43 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
