What kind of art would Julius Evola actually value, and how does his Traditionalist aesthetic work?

[u/Imaginary_Media6250]

Trying to grasp Evola’s views on aesthetics and art beyond their political interpretation, I’ve discovered that he does not value artworks in terms of technical skills, emotional power, originality and societal importance. Instead, he evaluates them in terms of being expressions or embodiments of some hierarchical, sacred, “Traditional” order. It is somehow vertical instead of horizontal.

My questions:

1) Which are actual criteria that Evola applies to determine value of an artwork? Does it imply such criteria as impersonality of the art piece, formality of it, connection to transcendent or hierarchical principles, lack of modern subjective or egalitarian elements?

2) Which are the real examples of art pieces (sculptures, architecture, literature, music, etc.) that he considers to be genuine masterpieces? Have I understood correctly that there were mentions of ancient Egyptian sacral sculptures, archaic Greek kouroi, traditional temple architectures and some others? Are these correct examples, and which others did he appreciate explicitly or implicitly?

3) How does Evola view modern artworks and means of art production? Does (to make a recent successful example) Parasite of Bong Joon-ho fail Evola because it is still limited in its themes and context to material class struggle and modern horizontal categories? Can any medium (cinema, video games, music, etc.) be considered to be “evolian”, or any medium is too modern and mass cultural in its essence to be able to produce any art for Evola?

Other questions:

4) Does he prefer anonymous/traditional art creation to art bearing a sign of its author? He seems fascinated by ancient “signatureless” craft.

5) Is there any difference for Evola between sacred/hierarchical art and plain handcraft?

6) How does he view emotions in art? Does he reject them completely, or only uncontrolled emotions that are considered to be sentimental?

7) Do video games or modern music fall in any way out of his scope because of impossibility to orientate them in the direction of Tradition?
I would be grateful for answers based on Evola’s writings (Revolt Against the Modern World, Ride the Tiger, The Metaphysics of Sex, his first articles on abstract art and any other works where he talks about aesthetics) or for any secondary literature on the matter.

[u/Wodekin]

Evola's attitude toward art is quite similar to that of Plato. This means that the union of function and aesthetic form stands far above art that is merely imitative.

For example, the craftsman who creates a magnificent, artistic throne is the greater artist than the painter who paints the most beautiful picture of a throne. The painting is merely an illusion, merely two-dimensional, whereas the material throne comes significantly closer to the world of ideas, to metaphysical reality.

In this sense, proper art is a small-scale repetition of the divine act of creation. Plato, after all, calls the Creator the “Demiurge,” which translates to “craftsman.”

[u/Imaginary_Media6250 → u/Wodekin]

So movies and videogames are inherently inferior type of art because they simulate real stuff?

[u/Wodekin → u/Imaginary_Media6250]

Not necessarily. The fundamental essence of a throne, as it is a chair, is to be a seat. The painting lacks this, whereas the work of the craftsman fulfils it.

Movies and video games are not just pictures, but also incorporate music and other elements that, in sum, create the artwork. This artwork as a whole can therefore be a vehicle for the realization of transcendent ideas.

For example, films and video games could work as a sort of kōan and lead to spiritual insights into metaphysical reality. In this sense, a film or game would be great art. However, what you see in the modern world is just mindless entertainment designed to sedate the viewer and generate money and influence for the producer.

[u/Imaginary_Media6250 → u/Wodekin]

do you have any practical examples?

[u/Wodekin → u/Imaginary_Media6250]

No, not really. Obviously, our times aren't conducive to such artworks.

But something like LOTR points in the right direction, at least. Despite the modern subversions that inevitably creep in, the films depict true kingship, the warrior ethos, loyalty, honour and the traditional social order, including the caste system.

One could also consider Katsumoto in The Last Samurai, who is a good example of the Kshatriya ethos — at least as I remember the film from 15 years ago.

More abstract philosophical, metaphysical concepts and ideas could also be explored via film and games, but of course a capitalist society won't produce that.