In 1967, Andre Malraux, the French Information (1958) then Cultural Affairs Minister (1959 - 1969) wrote an interesting book in regards to art movements called "Museum Without Walls." (This isn't his most famous book which is probably "Man's Fate" -- originally published in the 1920's as "le Condition Humaine" an overtly communist/socialist work.) In it, he traced stylistic movements and not surprisingly, his rendition of history is somewhat different than the scholarly versions taught in schools and is evidenced in art history books. Some of it is accurate but, most importantly, the method brings up questions about structures. In this case, the structure of art history. Basically, Malraux posits that art historians are predisposed to track events following certain lines created by the historian by using a backward look and using facts that support the historical direction posited by the historian. In other words, art history is a self-serving/supporting system defined by relationships that may or may not be actually factual. In the musical world, this would be akin to stating that Beethoven was influenced by Mozart, with whom he briefly studied, and Mozart was influenced by Bach, who's style he copied in his "Requiem" and Bach was influenced by Buxtehuda and maybe his father. But, in fact, no such line really exists. Beethoven did not "follow" Mozart in the sense of a logical progression except as prominent composers. Paul Henry Lang wrote a historical survey called "Music In Western Civilization" which attempted to trace the extra musical elements at the root of musical stylistic changes. It's an interesting read. But Malraux had the idea that strictly artistic forces were not enough to alter artistic styles. Even with the publication of Ortega y Gasset's essay: "The Dehumanization of Art," Malraux still thought that social and extra-art forces had more of an effect on style than anything else. His view is that our accepted view of art history is simply that: An accepted view. In reality, art movements flowed completely differently than the "historical" view presented. The accepted history was based on a historian's perspective and "schools" were not defined by artists but by historians.
How does this fit into the current situation in the world vis-a-vis Islam or Christianity? The West is identified as Christian. Here is a fact: Every conflict ongoing currently worldwide can be traced to Islam. There are conflicts in Africa, Asia, Europe and even South America (Islam is embryonic in SA and there are other forces at work on the continent which are more pressing. But Islam is established there and Islamic militant influences are just starting to flex muscles.) In essence, the statement can be made that most military conflicts being waged today are the direct result of Islam. The tolerance we are being told about with every politician's speech is a lie. The truth is that Islam is motivated and moved by it's own impetus. Everyone else and every other system is an obstacle to Islam's internal motivations. Islam is at war with everyone who is not a believer. Islamic tolerance can be summed up as: We will tolerate your ability and potential to recognize Islam as the one true religion with Mohammed as it's main prophet even though you don't currently do so. What they are saying is that we don't recognize your right to be different but we do recognize your potential to accept our way. Why don't politicians see or acknowledge that? Is it even factual?
Right now, the biggest obstacle to Muslim expansion is the West and there is every possibility that we could change. We could disregard the constitution and adopt sharia law because a democracy and even a republic could elect people who view any other system as equally valid as our own. As soon as that intellectual wall is breeched, the next argument is why not enact the alternative instead of our constitution? It's already happening in England where courts have decided that sharia law can be used in cases where appropriate. The ultimate solution is that everything other than sharia law eventually falls away as unusable because it isn't based on perceived Islamic truth. We are promoting diversity and fighting a cultural influence based on lack of diversity. In fact, Muslims have been waring against each other long before the West became Islam's main obstacle. There is every indication that this will continue even if Islam becomes the only religion of the world. The followers of Mohammed's line will continually fight the followers of Ali's line.
Can we survive this onslaught? In the end, who wins? Historically, the society which has yielded to outside pressure to be inclusive of belief and legal systems not part of its core, eventually disintegrates as a major force in human events. The more we become inclusive and tolerant of intolerance, the less chance we have of maintaining a system founded on laws and the principles of humanism that was and is the basis of our country.
We are in a conflict that includes both physical and intellectual battlefields and as long as we try to see every side, will end up with no side. When we have no historical background or a distorted one, as Malraux states, we don't have the foundation to move forward in any kind of cohesive manner. In the end, who wins? The answer is pretty obvious.
Frank Benjamin
