Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!
An 'urgency': Sensing threats to institutions of society, church leaders make declaration 
Click to Print
Include Comments
The fathers (?) of Western Civilization
What do the men on the following list have in common:
Ludwig van Beethoven
Nicolaus Copernicus
Rene Descartes
Edward Gibbon
Horace
Soren Kierkegaard
Sir Isaac Newton
Blaise Pascal
George Santayana
Adam Smith
Leonardo da Vinci
St. Paul
Two things, really. First, they are some of the great minds and talents of Western Civilization. Second, they were all bachelors. In this piece in The New English Review, Christopher Orlet considers the benefits of bachelorhood. Marriage has its champions, but not all were meant for it. And I’ve known many good men who have been called to a life of celibacy (not that all bachelors are celibates, by any stretch).
Some years ago a noted Japanese researcher analyzed the biographical data of some 280 famous mathematicians, physicists, chemists, and biologists and discovered that all peaked professionally in their twenties, at which point their careers spiraled downward. Married scientists suffered the worst decline in productivity. However, those who never married remained highly productive well into their fifties. “Scientists tend to ‘desist’ from scientific research upon marriage,” the researcher told an interviewer, “just like criminals desist from crime upon marriage.” One theory suggests married men lack an evolutionary reason to continue working hard (i.e., to attract females). Though it likely they similarly lack the prerequisite time and solitude.
I might qualify Orlet’s statement to say that married men don’t suffer a decline in productivity. They just produce other things that are more commonplace: babies, families, other kinds of work. But I can testify: my most productive years of writing – at least regarding quantity – were in my twenties, in graduate school, when I was without wife or child. I worked 18 hour days, mostly writing and reading and talking about both. Those were halcyon days. I still write now, but in far less quantity and hopefully far more quality. Nevertheless, I am productive. I have the human beings to show for it.
back to top103 Comments to “The fathers (?) of Western Civilization”
Interesting observations. Singles are all too often misunderstood and under-appreciated. Your list of significant bachelors may at least punctures that trend a bit.
May I add a few fine bachelorettes (sp?) to the list?
* Florence Nightengale (founder of modern nursing)
* Clara Barton (nurse, Civil War “Angel of the Battlefield”).
* Amy Carmichael (humanitarian, author, missionary).
* Lottie Moon (missionary, humanitarian).
* Elizabeth Nourse (fine artist).
* Cecilia Beaux (fine artist).
* Christina Georgina Rossetti (fine artist).
* Fanny J. Crosby (hymn writer of nearly a thousand hymns, blind).
* Helen Keller (blind, deaf author, speaker)
* Mother Teresa (humanitarian, Catholic missionary).
* Condoleezza Rice (Stateswoman).
And a few more bachelors:
* St. Thomas Aquinas (theologian)
* St Francis of Assissi (Founder of monastic order)
* St. Bernard of Clairvaux
* George Frederic Handel (musician).
* Thomas A Kempis (author, monk)
* Isaac Watts (hymn writer)
* John Locke (philosopher, author)
* Immanuel Kant (philosopher)
* Washington Irving (author, ambassador, America’s for great man of letters).
* John Keats (poet)
* Thomas Asbury (Preacher, educator, minister)
* John Greenleaf Whittier (author, poet)
* Hans Christian Anderson (author).
* John Singer Sargent (artist).
* John Muir? (explorer, I think a bachelor).
* Sir Laurence Alma-Tatema (artist, poet).
* Albert Schweitzer (humanitarian, theologian)
* Dietrich Bonhoeffer (pastor, theologian).
* John R. W. Stott (author, theologian).
* Winslow Homer (artist)
* Phillips Brooks (pastor, hymn writer)
* C.S. Lewis (until he was in his 50s–when he did marry)
* Pope John Paul II
Report comment to moderator
Paul thought it better for a Christian to stay single in order to give a fuller devotion to Christ, though knowing people well he thought it was better to marry than to burn.
Report comment to moderator
You should also consider how male bachelorhood and homosexuality go hand in hand and how a disproportionate number of them were homosexuals.
Just because someone like for instance Da Vinci or Michelangelo were homosexual in orientation doesn’t necessarily tell us anything about their practice.
Allan Bloom (himself a homosexual) had an interesting theory — borrowed from the Greeks — that sublimated sexuality produced great works of artistic and philosophical accomplishment. Perhaps that has something to do with bachelorhood and high human achievement.
Report comment to moderator
Harrison, I believe the answer you will probably find in 1 Corinthians 7:32-34
Report comment to moderator
Aren’t you also supposed to point out something bad about each one, since they’re white?
Report comment to moderator
Jon, “male bachelorhood and homosexuality go hand in hand”? How grossly unfair. The vast majority of single people are not homosexuals, and this stereotype is not only wrong, it’s insulting.
I once wrote a letter to young girls encouraging sexual purity by listing reasons that it’s of benefit even to those who don’t marry. (The standard line is “wait for marriage.” After a certain point, when it becomes clear that one likely won’t get married, that line loses its punch.) I included a list of biblical singles–and the list included Jesus. (BTW, Jesus and Paul being on that list should forever silence the modern idea that singles can’t possibly have anything to say to married people or parents!)
I know someone who married a man who’d always dreamed of a certain career that was (in my mind) more play than work. He hadn’t done much to actually turn the hobby into a career when she married him, and he was already 28. Yet she felt like she should encourage his dream lest he feel like he lost something by getting married. I couldn’t understand, frankly. First, he probably was never going to do it anyway. Second, I don’t understand why a wife who was determined to be a stay-at-home mom would think that a husband should never, ever sacrifice something for the better dream of having a family. Third, the sports-related career he wanted seemed like a boy’s dream, and if it were me I’d have wanted my husband to be ready for manly dreams. (He ended up quitting a good job to try to the “hobby job” and failed in it. I’ve often wondered if things would have been different if she’d expected his work to be as family-friendly as she herself was willing to be.)
Report comment to moderator
The vast majority of people who live their entire lives as lifelong unmarried are not homosexuals, at least in orientation? I’m not convinced. A majority? Sure. A vast majority? No. By go “hand in hand” I meant, you are far likelier to find it there. The Catholic priesthood is a good example. A majority of Priest may not be homosexual in their orientation. I doubt I would say a “vast majority” of Catholic Priests are heterosexual in their orientation, however.
Report comment to moderator
The answer to the quandary as to why people may pour their lives into a given pursuit may well be answered by the great Mathematician Blaise Paschal, (who By the way was also a great theologian). He said: “Inside every man is a void. It is God Made and only God can Fill it.”
Report comment to moderator
Why does everyone seem to take it for granted that St. Paul was single? I had heard that it was expected that Pharisees be married. How do you know he wasn’t? Granted he seemed to live as a single person after his conversion.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark,
You gave all the guys’ claim to fame except St. Bernard. Guess which one I don’t know of his claim to fame?! St. Bernard. Was it carrying around kegs of booze to stranded tourists in the snow?
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark,
You listed Pope John Paul, and I certainly agree. But how about Pope Benedict? He seems to be off to a good start!
Report comment to moderator
CHREYL D,
How dare you question Jon Rowe? Only he and he alone is all-sufficient to judge historical figures regarding teir ‘Christianity’, ‘orthodoxy’ or ‘homosexuality’ or not, specifically or generally. After all, he has “meticulously” studied their private letters. If he wants to brand singles as disproportionately homosexual, what on earth right do you have to challenge him?
Report comment to moderator
RRBAR, I believe if you read the entire chapter of 1 Corinthians 7, you will discover that Paul identified himself as being a single man. To be a Pharisee did not require a man to be married. To be a member of the Sanhedrin, a man had to be married and have children.
Report comment to moderator
There is no proof that Da Vinci or Michelangelo were homosexuals.
Da Vinci was once accused along with three other men when he was 24. The accusations were anonymous and when it came up for a verdict, the accusers never revealed themselves. No witnesses ever came forward. The case was dropped. The target was probably not da Vinci but the Medici family and da Vinci happened to be included among those named (before he was famous). Other than this, there is little evidence for speculation either way. It remains a matter of conjecture.
When someone makes a big deal out of the alleged homosexuality of a dead white male, there is a chance they are doing it for their own reasons.
Dan Brown claimed that da Vinci was fascinated with goddess worship and male-female issues. That he had no evidence was not important to the gullible masses. Actually, da Vinci too obsessed with scientific research and how things works and learning, learning, learning.
For Jon Rowe, that they were single might be proof enough for him to label them in his image.
Report comment to moderator
Joe B,
Thanks for the info!
Report comment to moderator
CHERYL,
Seriously, I appreciated your post a lot.
I “waited” until I was 50 before I married, but the word “waiting” does not fit so well since I never gave up on the prospect (and not giving up made it harder in some ways). I also know that the prejudiced presumption which Jon conveyed that singleness and homosexuality “go hand in hand” (Rowe, #3) was as common as it was pernicious. While strangers often speculated on my alleged homosexuality (including church leaders in some cases), my real friends understood that a tough-minded patience and faithfulness to my future mate was (by God’s grace) at work.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t see how anyone can look at the male nudes of Da Vinci or Michelangelo and not see their homosexual orientations.
Report comment to moderator
St. Paul was a “great mind and talent of Western Civilization.” ?
Report comment to moderator
I respect Catholics but mandating the vow of celbacy for the priesthood is wrong-headed and unbiblical. Remember, the “mandate” of it is what is unbiblical. It is especially unhealthy to mandate that vow on young men just entering adulthood. It may well end up skewing the pool of candidates for the priesthood and that may indeed yield a higher pool of sexually confused men or homosexuals among priests. In fact, the vast majority of abuse cases in the USA involved priests abusing young boys.
Allowing priests to marry would be an excellent development. That would change the composition of those who are willing to apply for the job.
But singleness, in itself, is not what skews the pool of priests. A single man seeking the priesthood has more reason to stay healthy and faithful if he KNOWS that he may have a future wife to whom to be faithful.
I know that it gave me strength to know that the option of marriage was fully available to me as a Proestant minister. When I could access a real hope — that helped me, from the inside out, to stay faithful as God gave strength.
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe,
I know that at least Michelangelo sculpted female nudes as well. Does this mean he’s bisexual now?
Report comment to moderator
If you take a look at some of the men on the list, it becomes clear that they weren’t exactly marriage material. Aside from the obvious orientation problems, mercury poisoning, psychotic breakdowns etc all seem to figure prominently in their lives. Despite the protestations of some, if you have a list of 12 life long bachelors, at least one is bound to be gay and the best candidate is da Vinci.
Report comment to moderator
JBH
Orientation is a category devised by the emerging medical profession and sociologists in the 18th and 19th century. Prior to the either/or choice developed by the medical profession, sexual orientation frequently blurred the lines.
Report comment to moderator
#17, you are speculating based on how you feel or by accessing your own visual impressions. And, Jon, you tend to turn your speculation into dogmatic conclusions or presumptions of certainty. I did not confirm or deny their orientations. Historians need to be more humble about using speculations and personal impressions to make dogmatic judgments.
Report comment to moderator
HRW,
No orientation is a real phenomenon regardless of the fact that it was first articulated in the 18th & 19th Century. However, where folks run into trouble is when they assume a false “gay”/”straight” dichotomy. There is actually a continuum. But like most or all things measured by continuum, the concepts being measured do exist. “Tall/Short”; “Smart/Dumb”; “Fat/Skinny.” Black and White do exist. So do infinite shades of gray. The existence of dawn and dusk do not cancel out the reality of night and day. (Wow. I’m not meaning to rhyme; it just came out that way.)
Report comment to moderator
Besides, doing nudes is part of a classical tradition and to participate in that tradition does not necessarily indicate someone’s orientation. I was also an artist in my younger single years (vocationally and an art history professor), and was quite proficient drawing the human anatomy. There was not an ounce of “orientation connections” that had a thing to do with it. I loved art and still do.
Report comment to moderator
“Why does everyone seem to take it for granted that St. Paul was single? I had heard that it was expected that Pharisees be married.”
“…Paul identified himself as being a single man.”
I’ve heard the conjecture that Paul may have been a widower.
Report comment to moderator
Joel. You were single till 50. AND a minister. AND an artist and professor of art history. Look I perfectly believe that you are 100% heterosexual and it was wrong of folks to make that assumption. You cannot always judge a book by its cover. But, those things do correspond with you know what. There sometimes is a kernel of truth in certain stereotypes. You cannot deny the vast disproportionate influence of homosexual in Western Art. They just turned out to be false in your case.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark – Having waited so long to marry, do you have or plan to have any children?
Also – If Bonhoeffer had lived, he would have married his fiancee & thus not made your list.
Report comment to moderator
‘Orientation’ is not an entity one can nail down easily, NOR are there just a few distinct categories of ‘orientation.’ You cannot judge any one person’s “orientation” by another man’s alleged “orientation.” It involves a vast and diverse spectrum of humanity and human inclinations and preferences, all shaped by multiple factors, including choice. After all, human beings are not just automotrons or chemical machines.
Forest Gup said, “Stupid is as stupid does.”
I often say that “Love is as love does.”
By the same principle of truth, “Orientation is as orientation does.”
Report comment to moderator
#28, ah the plans of mice and men…
Bonhoeffer was 38 when he was engaged and then the next week, arrested, never to be released as a free man. The best Christian wedding sermon every written was written by Bonhoeffer in prison. But he makes the list in style.
I hope it gives stregth and courage to singles to see lists like the ones above, especially if they know the life stories of these great men and women. Greatness and singleness can go together quite well, and often do!
That said, I’m a huge fan of marriage–the covenantal bond between one man and one woman.
By all means, read lots of biographies of great men and women.
Report comment to moderator
I was going to challenge Jon about Michelangelo, too, because as I understand it, he had affairs with ladies. Just read some of his sonnets to his countess. However, I’m also under the impression that he swung both ways — though I confess, I don’t see what Jon sees in the David sculpture. Michelangelo was a man who studied anatomy using dead bodies to get things right.
I have to join CherylD when she says assuming singles are homosexuals is insulting. I didn’t think people had to prove themselves that way, and quite frankly, unless you have absolute proof, I would leave the dead alone on that subject. (The living can speak for themselves.) Someone even said Lincoln was gay based on letters he wrote to male colleagues. I’ve read some of those letters, and just I don’t see it. Today’s news has Goethe having an affair with some Italian woman also based on letters, but the language he used was common at the time and there is no other hard evidence. People use language differently at different times. Roland Huntford in his dual biography of Scott and Amundsen suggested that Amundesen was homosexual, was sued by Amundsen’s family and had to republish. Why he wrote that in the first place astonished me because it was well-known, and even in Huntford’s book, that once Amundsen no longer made major exploring treks, he had an American woman living with him in his home (and as a younger man had an affair with a woman who ultimately decided to stay with her husband because Amundsen was away so much). The guy just wanted to do what he wanted to do and did it. It isn’t fair to the dead to speculate like Jon does, so I agree with Joel Mark’s comment that “Historians need to be more humble about using speculations and personal impressions to make dogmatic judgments.” I would add that this should apply to anyone, not just historical figures. HRW’s point is also well-taken: some people just ought not marry because their problems shouldn’t be foisted on the unsuspecting mate.
Report comment to moderator
There is about as much evidence for Lincoln’s homosexuality as there is for Hitler’s.
Brannon Howse at Worldview Weekend is doing the same thing with accusing Hitler of being homosexual (to bash homosexuality) as the gay historians do when they accuse Lincoln of homosexuality (to glorify it).
Report comment to moderator
Karen O,
I decided to answer your question and it is a tribute to my wife. She was 44 and I was 50 when we married and she had two sons in college. I had no children. She knew how much I love kids and was willing to make having a child a possibility and we tried. For unspoken reasons, it is off the table now (I’m almost 54) and probably just as well. But she knew it was a desire of my heart and I truly considered her willingness as highly unselfish on her part. It was not really on her own ‘want-to-do’ list to have a third child except for what she wanted for me. God surely knows best!
I’m a bit shy on this topic but there it is. A good woman is good to find.
Report comment to moderator
And Western Civilization will go on!
Report comment to moderator
You’re going to make a great granddad someday, Joel. And, you’ll be able to send them home at the end of the day. All the fun, little work.
Report comment to moderator
One person that everyone has overlooked is Jesus.
Jesus has had the most influence on everyone in world. America was founded on Christian values and our founding fathers had extreme faith.Also most of the monarchs of Spain, France and Engalnd were either Catholic or Protestent, or later christian. The Russian monarchy was orthodox, and the Germans were Lutherists. so basically every ruler of every western country from 1300- 1900 was christian in some form. Based on that I think that Jesus has molded society more than any artist or musician.
Report comment to moderator
Tinkerbell,
Jesus bride is the church, remember?
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark – Thank you for answering my question. I had intended to write, “If you don’t mind me asking…” but then dashed it off too quickly.
BTW, you & your wife, & my husband & I, are approx. the same ages. (53 & 47 for us.)
Report comment to moderator
RRBAR
I don’t really understand what you mean.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark, I would modify your list of ‘bacholerettes’ to say that Fanny Crosby was married and had one child (who was either still born or died shortly after birth). She was married to a fellow student who was also blind. I believe he died not long into their marriage.
Report comment to moderator
It is called “revisionist history” when historians try to go back in time and rewrite someone or some event so that it will change what we think about a group of people or an event in our own time.
If we can “conclude” that some of the greatest people in the past were homosexuals, then we can somehow sell homosexuality as, not only normal, but virtually necessary for creativity/productivity.
Honestly, Jon Rowe does do some of this with the Founding Fathers (not with homosexuality, but rather with Christianity), and in other things, but I’m sure he considers himself quite middle-of-the-road compared to some scholars out there — and he’s probably right. Right now, it is in vogue to “out” people of the past — as homosexuals, or atheists, or deists, or whatever-you-want-to-justify in the present.
Sometimes, the historians are likely right, but most often there is an intention behind the “outing” that has more to do with changing our perspectives on today’s issues than on actually being faithful to history.
Report comment to moderator
“By the same principle of truth, ‘Orientation is as orientation does.’”
Joel Mark,
I believe that this is one of the most profound and true statements I’ve read on here.
I think humans are very, very adaptable. What we choose to do is usually much more important than what we are inclined to do by nature or birth or heredity.
I honestly think that the vast majority of people could honestly swing either way or both ways if they’d been brought up in a culture that made that acceptable and normal.
Unfortunately, our culture is becoming one of those, and we’re seeing a huge growth in “bisexuality” especially among our youth.
Report comment to moderator
TRS,
You may be right in describing the “deconstructionist” tendency of historians (and yes, I’m quite right of center compared to the academy and the poster boys for such deconstructing of America — Howard Zinn). However, “hagiography” — i.e., Washington and the Cherry Tree myth — is just as bad. That was the contamination of the previous era, before the era of deconstructionism.
Ultimately in my opinion, historians should get to the bottom of things. I don’t care what they/we uncover as long as its true.
Report comment to moderator
If we can “conclude” that some of the greatest people in the past were homosexuals, then we can somehow sell homosexuality as, not only normal, but virtually necessary for creativity/productivity.
But what if it’s true that homosexuality, in some strong way, correlates with artistic creativity?
Shouldn’t that be the most important question. Trying to impugn the motives of those exploring these issues is a logical error known as the genetic fallacy.
Report comment to moderator
The fathers of Western civilization were men like Plato, Aristotle, Paul, Augustine and Jesus Christ. As far as I know, they weren’t married either.
Report comment to moderator
It would be interesting to know whether Jon views homosexuality as a negative or positive quality.
There is no doubt that our conservative Christian friends view it negatively, which is why they get so indignant over even the slightest hint that a historical figure might have been homosexual.
Report comment to moderator
And they say left-handed people are creative, too. As a leftie, I’d agree, but so much more goes into any painting I might paint or half-witted story I might concoct. Lawyers create every day, they make stuff up to see what sticks. Does that mean every lawyer is homosexual? Because quite frankly, that’s not been my experience, and I doubt it’s yours.
Jon, you don’t just explore. You conclude and make your “facts” fit your conclusions. Michelangelo’s David is “perfect” because he studied anatomy and knew how to apply his artistic skills to be piece of stone. Your statement about looking at the statue and concluding that Michelangelo must have been homosexual because of the way it looks is your subjective opinion, not fact. Historians who make up facts to fit their worldview aren’t getting down to the bottom of things, they are rendering an opinion, and they do their subject a disservice.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t see how anyone can look at the male nudes of Da Vinci or Michelangelo and not see their homosexual orientations.
Huh? What would we expect to see in male nudes done by heterosexual men?
Report comment to moderator
Anlir, perhaps you would have preferred the Amundsen family not sue, but why should they accept some writer’s suggestive lies about their ancestor when they aren’t true? Amundsen, at least, still has relatives to defend his honor. Most historical figures do not, and it is intellectually dishonest to imply anything about a person if there are no real facts. That applies to Michelangelo, just as it does to Goethe, who is now being accused of supposedly having an affair.
Report comment to moderator
I view homosexuality as morally neutral. But I see its positive impact in places like the arts.
Report comment to moderator
Here is an interesting link on Michelangelo:
http://www.rictornorton.co.uk/michela.htm
From the article:
Other lovers of Michelangelo may have included his servant and constant companion Francesco Urbino; Bartolommeo Bettini, to whom he gave a drawing of Venus and Cupid; and Andrea Quaratesi, the 18-year-old boy with whose family he lived for several years. Surviving letters prove that Andrea for his part was infatuated with Michelangelo, and he even expressed a desire to “crawl on all fours” to see the artist one night in 1532. On the back of a letter to Andrea, Michelangelo writes of himself being shot at by Cupid’s arrows. His drawing on Andrea is his only finished portrait sketch.
In spite of numerous concurrent affairs — at least two, with Perini and Febo — Michelangelo in 1532 began wooing Tommaso Cavalieri, and even wrote to him:
“May I burn if I do not love thee with all my heart,
“And lose my soul, if I feel for any other!”
Report comment to moderator
Thanks for the clarification Jon.
Certainly there is a significant representation in the arts by homosexuals. But one will find homosexuals represented in all facets of society and contributing quite positively.
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe,
Sorry if I’m jumping the gun and you were in the process of responding, but my question #48 wasn’t rhetorical–I am awaiting a response.
Report comment to moderator
Ree,
I don’t see many heterosexual men as having the ability (or desire) to exhault naked male beauty.
Report comment to moderator
That (#54) is very lame, Jon. I thought you always backed up your opinions (whoops, I mean FACTS) with studies and such?
Report comment to moderator
#40, Sylvie,
Thank you kindly. I guess over time, I presumed Fanny J. was single for some reason, but now that you mention it, I think you are right.
Report comment to moderator
Nor has Jon explained why a 61-year-old Michelangelo had the hots for Vittoria Colonna.
There are so many things that go into the makeup of a person that to decide that Michelangelo’s genius was solely because of his sexuality is ludicrous.
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe called himself “right of center” by comparing himself to Howard Zinn.
That’s like calling yourself “left of center” by comparing yourself to Ann Coulter. Actually, that does not cut it. Zinn is far far more to the Left than Coulter has ever been to the Right.
Report comment to moderator
JR wrote4; “But what if it’s true that homosexuality, in some strong way, correlates with artistic creativity?”
But what if it’s true that “homosexuality” is just a construct to describe certain behaviors or preferences, but it does not actually exist as an entitut or orientation in the human person?
Report comment to moderator
What would Jon Rowe say if he found out I was left-haded as well as an artist? It sure helps me in ping pong.
Report comment to moderator
I just hate gay threads no matter how well hidden as singles, wink, wink, and let’s not talk about HSK’s quality, Obama was just crowned the anti-Christ in Europe and we have some serious celebrating to do with French wine, b read and cheese, German beer and brats and English …..eeeerrrrr…. fog and drizzle
Report comment to moderator
Jon,
I don’t see many heterosexual men as having the ability (or desire) to exhault naked male beauty.
So then, by definition, if a man sketches or sculpts a nude man, he has homosexual inclinations? The glorification of the human form by a member of the same sex has homo-erotic overtones? I have no problem with you believing this, but I trust that you do recognize it as a conclusion based on prejudice and not on evidence of any kind.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark,
I think you’ve revealed enough about yourself in this thread to “prove” to some that you are, indeed, a repressed homosexual. What a surprise this’ll be to your wife!
Report comment to moderator
I don’t necessarily buy the ‘homosexuality and the arts’ stereotype. It has more to do with the modern corruption of the arts and the skewed attention paid to that scene by the reigning art intelligentsia.
However, Picasso was heterosexual and he could not draw or paint to save his life. He was quite a raging mysogynist pervert though. Maybe it was the mysogyny that made him so creative… NOT!
Taste is subjective, but when you consider the artists that I regard as truly great, homosexuality does not enter the picture much at all (not that I ‘meticulusly’ dig for that connection though).
* Ilya Repin (Russian)
* Isaac Levitan (Russian)
* Edwin Austin Abbey (American)
* Henry Osawa Tanner (American)
* Elizabeth Nourse (American, devout Catholic)
* N. C. Wyeth (American)
* Jules Bastin LePage (French)
* Sir George Clausen (British)
* Albert Beirstadt (German/American)
* Thomas Moran (American
* Frank Tenney Johnson (American)
* Francois Millet (French)
* Peter Severin Kroyer (Scandinavian)
Report comment to moderator
I gave a short, curt answer because I thought what I was trying to articulate was self-evident, and believed in by most folks here. Perhaps I’m wrong that you really do understand this (but yes, if you do want me to make an argument, I could do much better).
Let me somewhat rhetorically ask: You don’t see Michelangelo’s or DaVinci’s male nudes as “homoerotic”?
Report comment to moderator
Joel,
I am not as well familiar with art history as I am with other areas. But I seriously doubt that less than 10% of the list you cited were homosexual.
I am acquainted with a distinguished professor of art history (Prof. Emeritus Professor of Art History at Hunter College) who also happens to be the editor of the Encyclopedia of Homosexuality. Indeed, he has a few good current historical blogs that not enough folks are familiar with. I can email him your list and get his expert opinion on just who on it happened to be homosexual, if you’d like.
Report comment to moderator
JR – “I am not as well familiar with art history as I am with other areas. But I seriously doubt that less than 10% of the list you cited were homosexual.”
I seriously doubt that it is even possible or intellectually responsible to try to put a “percentage” to a claim like that about a vague and controvertial category of independent human beings.
Don’t wsaste your time e-mailing that list to try to label and pidgeon-hole those great artists with some contrived term like “homosexual” (unless you want to). I will like their art all the same and will not have much use for any contrived attempts by self-presumed experts (who did not know these men and woman) to judge their alleged sexuality or inclinations from afar. What a monumental waste of mental energy.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark,
Not that it has to do much with the topic here, but Picasso was quite capable of painting what would be considered good according to traditional standards. I visited the Picasso Museum in Barcelona and was amazed to see that paintings from his earlier years were quite traditional and realistic. I wouldn’t say they were “great art” but they were definitely made by a man who knew how to draw and paint. Personally I happen to like his Don Quixote drawing and a few of his (non-realistic) paintings, though there are others I see little beauty in.
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe, how can you base an opinion of Michelangelo on David or his other nudes only? Why don’t you include the Pieta, or Moses? Or his self-portraits. Do you see homo-eroticism in the Last Judgment fresco behind the altar in the Sistine Chapel? He put himself in there, too, on the side of the damned. What about the influence of Savonarola, whose sermons were with him on the scaffolding in the Sistine Chapel. Michelangelo produced a lot of work which you seem to want to ignore.
Do you see homo-eroticism in his sketches of a male arm, too? Or do you see an artist who wanted to be accurate in his depiction of the body as opposed to what he thought of as failings in the ancient scultures of the Greeks, for instance. As usual, you are pulling out what you want to use as evidence while you ignore the entire person and every other influence on that person.
Don’t stop with the list Joel Mark gave you. You need to check on all artists to know for sure — and this is not something we can know “for sure” about a lot of dead people.
It may not be homosexuality that makes people creative. It may be madness. There are those who thought Michelangelo had that problem as well, and we all know Van Gogh was a few fries short of a happy meal. That had nothing to do with sexuality. That had to do with the fact that his mother never got over losing the first Vincent. He took another baby’s place and saw the grave every time she took him to it. It may be that more artists are bi-polar or depressives than homosexual and it is that chemical aspect of the brain that is the cause of artistic creativity.
I don’t know what you see in David or Moses or the Pieta, but I see someone who was bent on being accurate.
Report comment to moderator
Okay, maybe later I’ll get in touch with him. The person to whom I refer, if you care to know, is probably the most notable gay intellectual who challenged the thesis of John Boswell, the late Yale historian who tried to turn the Bible into a “pro-homosexual book.”
The guy I know is a straight shooter with historical facts.
Report comment to moderator
NJ Lawyer,
That’s not the only thing I’m basing my opinions on. I’ve got lots of other info. See (for a small piece of the historical record) post 51.
Report comment to moderator
Why don’t you include the Pieta, or Moses? Or his self-portraits. Do you see homo-eroticism in the Last Judgment fresco behind the altar in the Sistine Chapel?
Absolutely I see homo-eroticism here. So does Dr. Camille Paglia, one of the most notable (and politically incorrect!) present day art historians and public intellectuals:
“And Michelangelo, adorning the Sistine Chapel with twenty homoerotic ignudi (Greek youths), made the most radical statement yet of the enduring duality of pagan and Christian in our culture.”
Vamps & Tramps, p. 94.
Report comment to moderator
Here she is on Botticelli:
“The homosexual Botticelli produced, in The Birth of Venus, one of the most sublime images of the power of woman.”
Ibid.
Report comment to moderator
It’s always interesting to me to see those on here who are negatively obsessed with homosexuality. More interestingly, it’s always the same few individuals. I have tons of straight friends and acquaintances, but I have never heard any of them obsess over homosexuality.
Report comment to moderator
“It may not be homosexuality that makes people creative.”
I don’t argue that homosexuality “makes” people creative; I know plenty of uncreative homosexuals and very creative heterosexuals. Rather, that there is a pretty strong correlation between the two (you are more likely to find creativity and genius among homosexuals).
“It may be madness.”
Heh. You are arguably more likely to find MADNESS among artists as well.
Let me respond with an antigay argument to the following, what TRS wrote:
If we can “conclude” that some of the greatest people in the past were homosexuals, then we can somehow sell homosexuality as, not only normal, but virtually necessary for creativity/productivity.
Most of the great works of gay genius art was done in the Christian West when it had a strong cultural (and often legal) stigma against homosexuality! If someone argues that cognitive consonance is necessary for great works of art to be produced, such person is an idiot. TO THE CONTRARY!
Madness, cognitive dissonance, homosexuality, great art…they all go together. It’s just part of complicated human reality.
Report comment to moderator
I see the damned going to hell and those going to Christ in the Last Judgment. I see the influence of Savonarola, which you have ignored. Lots of things influence people.
It isn’t about sex for everyone, but I note you also have no comment on Vittoria Colonna. There is no doubt that Michelangelo swung both ways, but there is no way you can prove his talent comes from homosexuality any more than I can prove it comes from his mental problems and obsessions.
Is it against the rules to call Anlir tiresome when he injects himself like this and has nothing to offer?
Report comment to moderator
The guy I know is a straight shooter with historical facts.
LOL
Report comment to moderator
Jeff:
Heh.
Report comment to moderator
Is it against the rules to call Anlir tiresome when he injects himself like this and has nothing to offer?
Well, clearly it’s not against the rules for folks to shoot their mouths off on here. But I’ll have to check on “tiresome” people. There could be a rule, I don’t know.
Report comment to moderator
Camille Paglia explains the connection between homosexuality and art in Vamps & Tramps:
For me, civilization is art, and art is the highest record of humanity. One day, when we represent ourselves to inhabitants of distant galaxies, it will be by our art that we will want to be known. Therefore, anything that contributes to art must be nurtured and preserved. What seems irrefutable from my studies is that male homosexuality is intricately intertwined with art, for reasons we have yet to determine. p. 22.
She then goes on:
It is possible that gay men are caught midway between the male and female brains and therefore share the best of both. Talent in the visual arts may be related to a sensory or perceptual openness, detectable (as responsiveness to light and color) in early childhood and perhaps related to autism, where the flux of sensations is cognitively uncontrolled. The gay male brain seems to me permanently switched “on.” p. 75
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer,
Being a leftie does NOT make you creative. I’m a leftie and don’t have a creative bone in my body!
But I’m not homosexual, so maybe that explains it.
Report comment to moderator
Tinker,
The Bible occasionally refers to the church as the “bride of Christ”. I think it’s a symbolic reference to explain Christ’s love for us and his being willing to die for us.
But maybe someone more theologically adept can explain it better.
Report comment to moderator
Pauline,
I disagree with regard to Picasso. I know about the early stuff that is allegedly his, but there are serious doubts those claims–they were likely done by his teacher and he claimed them. But if Picasso was capable of painting well, then he is all the less respectable for not doing it the vast majority of his life (which was more devoted to deflowering women and tossing them back into the dirt).
Report comment to moderator
There are a lot of silly myths about creativity and people who are that way. Most who are creative, just work hard and pay more attention to develop certain skills in certain areas than others do. It’s not such a mystery.
Report comment to moderator
A homosexual is not a kind of person. A homosexual is a person who does homosexual things. This has nothing to do with art or Western civilization unless we’re talking about decadence.
The worst thing about homosexuality is not the sin itself, which is similar to other sexual sins. The worst thing is the continual insistence that it is a virtue. Now what some of you are saying is that it is a some kind of creative gift to mankind.
Give me a break!
Report comment to moderator
Good points, Joel Mark and Xion.
Report comment to moderator
RRBAR, I don’t know what makes a person creative. It may be some sort of innate talent, but then again it might not be. It might be circumstances. For instance, kids who have to learn early on to deal with an alcoholic parent are very creative — they have to survive. Who knows? I threw being a leftie, having some sort of mental problem, into the argument because they are just as likely to be a “cause” for creativity as homosexuality.
If a child is given music lessons or art lessons, or language lessons, and then becomes a great musician or artist or linguist, is it the education? When the Wyeth family produces generations of artists, is it because of some genetic component or simply because the child is around artists and encouraged to create? Maybe it’s more about opportunity. Isn’t a great baker or cook who has been taught well also creative? Maybe the only opportunity was to sit with grandma in the kitchen and pick up baking and cooking skills. Other kids are handed paint brushes. And still others are creative in the way the repair autos, etc.
And then we have to account for all the artists, etc., who are not leftie, not mad, not homosexual. People are people and they have different interests. They are exposed to different things and have different reactions, ie., one child exposed to an alcoholic parent becomes an alcoholic; another might be a teetotaler.
Report comment to moderator
RRBAR
What does that have to do with Jesus being a father of western civilaztion.. I’m sorry, I just don’t get what you’re saying.
Report comment to moderator
If anyone wants to know whether Picasso was a great artist or not, simply look at his art. Cubism is to art what a toddler is to an Olympic athlete.
Postmodernism’s rejection of objective and traditional standards removes requirements for talent. An artist can be anyone who wants to play the art game.
To prove this renowned art critics were tested to see if they could tell the difference between paintings done by professional artists and apes. They could not. Their only defense was to say those apes were pretty darn good.
Postmodernism began the decline of Western civilization and Islamism will finish it off.
Our creative friends on the left, who have lost the ability to distinguish good from bad, will welcome the barbarians as the bringers of an exciting new culture. The shambles of utter ruin will be celebrated as a wonderful new art form. Viva la difference!
Report comment to moderator
If anyone thinks there was more sanity and decency in the West before the 60s, they need to confront the embarrassing fact that Picasso rose to such high levels of adulation and worship in those years.
Report comment to moderator
Joel,
What do you think of Andy Warhol?
Report comment to moderator
In our discussion of history, it seems to me, we didn’t adequately explore “hagiography” v. “deconstruction.” I wondered whether anyone would argue for hagiography on the basis of the “noble lie” as the Straussians do.
Let me give an anecdote relating to Warhol and hagiography. I was in 8th grade when he died and I remember my then art teacher briefly discussing this with the class, Warhol’s importance and death. Some smart-alec student immediately chimed in with something along the lines of “I heard he used to pee on his paintings, is that true?” And the teacher responded “of course not.” Later I learned two things: 1) Warhol really did do that. And 2) my art teacher was gay. Though I’ve never since run into him to ask him about it, I’m almost certain that, as a learned gay man, my art teacher knew Warhol did that but didn’t think such a fact was “appropriate” for 8th graders to know. Sometimes “the truth” is not appropriate.
Report comment to moderator
Teenage Tinkerbell – In your comment, #36, you mentioned Jesus as the greatest influence. This post & thread are specifically about fathers of Western civilization who were bachelors. The point was made that we are the bride of Christ, which would make Him “married” to us.
Report comment to moderator
“What do you think of Andy Warhol?”
Ambulence chaser.
Report comment to moderator
Sometimes “the truth” is not appropriate.
What is not appropriate, Jon, is an “art” teacher talking about Warhol at all in an art class. There are too many actual fine artists and there is to uch of value to learn about real art to spend time so worthlessly.
Report comment to moderator
Heh. I bet you don’t think comic book art is real art either, a position against which I fervently argued here. (For those of you who want to see my face and here my voice, check out the link. Yes, I know God gifted me with a nice looking face but reminded me that beauty is skin deep by having my hair fall out of my head and appear on places I didn’t want it to.)
Report comment to moderator
God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.
But you all have likely heard that already.
Just a refresher.
Report comment to moderator
Ok I didn’t think being a bachelor was a requirement. And Jesus was a bachelor .Comparing the church to his bride is symbolic. Its a ananlogy of 1st How husbands are supposed to treat their wives and 2nd the type of love Jesus has for his church is like the love a husband has for his wife. Also if we are saying taht to be a father of civilazation you have to be a bachelor than that is utterly ridiculous. I can name many men who shaped civilzation nad were married. such as,
Peter or simon peter. The rock on which the church was built
Abraham the father of Isreal
George washington, the first president
Thomas Jefferson who wrote the declaration of independance
John Adams a brillant statesman
Patrick Henry a firebrand of the revolutionary war
Abraham Lincoln,
winston churchill, the greatest prime minister England ever had
Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Louis Pastuer
John Bunyan
Shakesphere
Edward Jenner
Charles Dickens
C.S. Lewis
J.R.R. Tolkien
Ronald Regean
Harry Truman
Martin Luther King Jr.
Langston Hughes
Martin Luther
Report comment to moderator
Rio,
I don’t think you heard. Just after God created Adam and Eve, he created “Guy” and “Dude” the first gay couple. It’s found in the book of Linus which was supposed to be part of the original canon but was suppressed. Eventually, the Bible will be amended so we can add that and other Gnostic Gospels.
Report comment to moderator
There’s a reason Gnostic Gospels aren’t in the Bible. It’s because….oh, what was it……oh, yeah. THEY’RE NOT CREDIBLE!
Report comment to moderator
Um, sorry, Mr. Rowe….you were being sarcastic, I assume?
Report comment to moderator
Teenage Tinkerbell, Sweetie (I say that not condescendingly, but as a mom of 2 teen girls)-
If you go back & read the original post, you’ll find this…“What do the men on the following list have in common:
Ludwig van Beethoven
Nicolaus Copernicus
Rene Descartes
Edward Gibbon
Horace
Soren Kierkegaard
Sir Isaac Newton
Blaise Pascal
George Santayana
Adam Smith
Leonardo da Vinci
St. Paul
“Two things, really. First, they are some of the great minds and talents of Western Civilization. Second, they were all bachelors.”
That’s why the subject of Jesus being a bachelor vs. being married to His Bride came up.
Report comment to moderator
Heh. Yes.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!