The loss of an objective aesthetic in art has led to a loss of the meaning of beauty, the celebration of the scatalogical, and the move, as he puts it in the video, from the transcendent to the trashy.
Art is a window to the human soul, which we peer out of to see visions of what could be or peer into for pictures of what is. In either view, the aesthetic of of much of modern art offers nothing of real substance or meaning because it is not grounded in any objective standard of what is good, excellent, or beautiful. The loss of an objective aesthetic is not merely a matter of art, then, but of culture’s understanding of truth in all it’s forms.
The highest ideal is no longer the nobility of the transcendent but the expression of one’s desires above all else. Here, then, art has become a progressive, intellectual, and secularized society’s own golden calf. Except this time, the calf looks like us and it’s neither excellent or beautiful.
The truth about society, marriage, sexuality, gender, or the meaning of personhood itself has followed precisely this same trajectory as classical art. There are no standards, no objective reality. Nothing except the sum of one’s feelings about, well…whatever.
In this sense, as a window (or mirror) of culture, modern art’s obsessive navel-gazing and deification of self-actualization both reflects and helps feed the slow death of society.
I’m not going to rehash that list here, but the 7 reasons are spot on. They got me thinking of some traits that I’ve observed over the last 20 years that makes for successful, valuable, and transformational members of a organization. I’m purposefully not putting this in the context of what makes a good leader because, while this happens to be true, its really not about leadership in spite of our obsession with it. Its about being great citizens of a community of people engaged in a common endeavor or effort.
This list is by no means exhaustive or categorical; merely practical observations about what makes some people shine brighter and with greater effect. People who do these things make a difference. Leadership is made possible and happens when these folks show up and do their thing.
Find a problem and solve it or a job that needs doing and do it
Be a self-starter, stop needing to be told exactly what to do
Practice being curious, think and learn about things outside your job description
Become an expert at something but never stop being teachable
Learn to dig beyond the surface and look for other angles, other perspectives, or hidden problems
Master the art of careful, attentive listening
Be a great asker of questions
Take risks, don’t be afraid of mistakes, learn from failure
Learn to write and verbally communicate correctly and clearly — yes, your spelling and grammar really do matter!
Study art, music, the Bible, and philosophy. You’ll be amazed at how these disciplines can influence any kind of work (this is a good place for a rant about how STEM-only thinking is killing American education…)
One interesting note in the Forbes piece. 80% of millennial see themselves as leaders and embrace the rather curious and vague notion that anybody can lead from any position. [Just one of the numerous vague definitional problems the (my) field of leadership suffers from.] Yet, according to Forbes, only 12% of this group had held leadership or management positions in 2013, a number that had been steadily declining.
Of course, as Forbes has also noted, it could be that this due to a lack of failure to provide leadership training to millennials, or the different set of values many millennial hold that may cause them to not remain at one organization long enough to be promoted. Whatever the case may be, our culture has an obsession with leadership. We are in a steady slide backwards for people who actually can do it, even at the highest levels. I wonder if some of what we see in the millennial generation’s apathy about some of these things is just a subconcious weariness with what often is a shallow and manufactured industry that seems to exist only to generate revenue for those who come up with new leadership secrets.
A better approach is to stop focusing on trying to be a leader and start trying to be a better, more well-rounded, informed citizen who is genuinely interested in the possibilities of the world around you. Focus on how to make the people and organization around you better because of your presence there. Do good work. Let people matter. Be curious about everything. Make a difference. Leadership tends to come along more organically when that happens.
Howard Gardner is the psychologist and educator who introduced the idea of multiple intelligences. More recently, Gardner has suggested five distinct mental abilities, or minds, that are important for educators to cultivate in order for students to be effective and successful in the globalized complex world of the digital information age . The first three minds are cognitive, the last two relational:
The Disciplined Mind masters key subjects.
The Synthesizing Mind organizes information to make sense to self and others new connections.
The Creating Mind breaks new ground and discovers new concepts.
The Respectful Mind understands and appreciates the differences of others.
The Ethical Mind seeks to identify and fulfill one’s obligations to others and society.
What’s interesting is that Gardner here is not writing as a psychologist but as an observer of culture. In an interview with the Harvard Business Review, Gardner said
When I talk about the five minds for the future, there is no scientific claim that these are the five minds that God gave us or that are innate or that we have to develop. Rather, I’m making the case that in the future people need to have minds that are disciplined, capable of synthesis, creative, respectful, and ethical. 
Disciplined, capable of synthesis, creative, respectful, and ethical. It’s a good simple list that faculty and teachers can use to help students understand both what is expected of them and why.
Following the instructions and rules, for instance, is a form of building discipline. Disciplined people who can understand and work within parameters, who can get things right the first time, who can stay focused and on task, even when that task is no fun: this makes for a good citizen and a good worker. Or the the ability to synthesize: it means better problem-solving and critical thinking, necessary skills in any workplace or organizational setting.
Feedback and Formation
Gardner gives us some vocabulary and concepts to approach the learning task in a better manner. I suggest teaching faculty keep this list close at hand and use it to help shape their own thinking, their own minds, about the various aspects they need to cultivate in the mind of a student. Great learning, holistic character and citizenship formation (the goal of classical liberal arts learning), and productive skill development are never the product of just one single way of thinking.
One suggestion is to use this list as you are reviewing student work. Do any of these minds seem applicable to the task at hand. And, if so, what feedback could you provide to help strengthen or better cultivate that particular mind?
A second suggestion is to use these minds as a lens for helping you communicate with students each week or session. What general things can you say in lectures, announcements, or general class discussion to help stimulate one or more of these minds? I have discovered in my own teaching that when I set expectations high (Disciplining) for students but then take time to explain my reasoning and to help them see how their growth is my motive (Respectful and Synthesizing) that students actually come to value my toughness and rise to meet or exceed those expectations. Time and time again, I have seen students grow to the place where a high level of productivity and integrated, holistic thinking has become voluntary and normal.
A Student Model
I can see possibly developing a model for student success based off of Gardner’s work in which each of the 5 minds describes a list of more particular responsibilities, habits, characteristics, or skills that successful learners demonstrate. This model could then be incorporated into student orientation and introductory courses. It would also provide a framework for helping assess and coach students throughout a course.
 Gardner, Howard. Five Minds for the Future. Harvard Business School Press, 2006.
“The Church does have a mission in the world because it advances an incarnational faith, one in which God himself took human form. So we cannot deny the human, and hence, political dimension to the Gospel but if one does not get the mix right, one gets confused on one side or the other. One error says that we should abandon the world and run away from it, and the other error says that we should on the world and run it.”
I have been reading Fr. Robert Sirico’s The Soul of Liberty. Father Sirico is the founder and President of The Acton Institute, an think-tank I highly recommend for their splendid work to promote a free and virtuous society based on human liberty and religious truth.
One of the most transformative implications of the Church’s mission in the world — proclaiming the Gospel of the redemption of all creation through Christ — is the dignity, worth, and entrepreneurial creativity of human persons made in the image of God. In human history, it has only been in societies rooted in this biblical worldview that equality, freedom, prosperity, and justice have flourished. Only a truly Christian, biblical view of the created order leads to an economic and political system in which “individuals have the right to own, to create, to contract, and to prosper” but where those rights are “tied to a profound sense of moral and social obligation.” Secular (rejecting religious truth) systems inevitably lead to either tyrannical despotism, fascism, or anarchy. The French (and Haitian) and Bolshevik (Communism) Revolutions, German National Socialism are three modern examples. Only a Judeo-Christian view of the world (and subsequently, economics, property, and law) leads to this necessary balance of freedom and internal moral, social obligation.
Sirico raises a very important point about the incarnational nature of the Church in the world as well as the need to get the mix right. The doctrine of creation means that the fundamental activities of human society — economics, trade, use of property, the rule of law, and politics — are not products of a fallen human society but rather expressions of the imago Dei in culture. And, as such, has profound implications for the our understanding of what it means to be a human being living in a physical world with others in a society. We cannot limit our understanding of the incarnational aspect of the the gospel merely to the spiritual or physical needs of individuals. Rather, the Creation and the Incarnation beckon us to speak to the economic, legal, and political systems of our day. Not in the effort to “run the world” but to point culture to its telios, its created purpose found only in God the Creator.
 The Soul of Liberty by Fr. Robert Sirico (The Acton Institute)
Excerpts from my upcoming new book (Summer 2017), Kenotic Leadership and the Movement that Changed America (working title), that looks at the imitation of Christ in the life and leadership of Francis Asbury, first bishop of the Methodist church in America.
(A condensed version of this subject is covered my chapter “The Leadership of Francis Asbury” in Leadership the Wesleyan Way [2016, Emeth Press].)
Some years ago, I came across across a wrinkled, black-and-white family photograph of a newly-built stone farmhouse on the Oklahoma prairie (I am writing this from Oklahoma’s Green Country in the northeast). Scrawled across the bottom in black ink were the words, “Part of my consecration 1953.” At the age of 36, the author, a successful farmer and married father of five, heard God’s call to ministry. He traded his large farm and newly constructed home for his brother’s smaller property, and then set about constructing a brand new building for the church he began pastoring. Across the next half-century, he worked as a bi-vocational pastor in small, rural churches across Oklahoma and Louisiana. The family would grow to 10 kids, eventually sensing the call to settle in the Ozark mountains of northwest Arkansas. There, he carved a homestead and a church out of the cedars and rocks of the Boston Mountains. A small, modest chapel for ministering to the local mountain community was constructed in the woods off a county road. I was coming of age as a young teenager at that time, and had the opportunity to help this pastor, my grandfather, clear the land and work on the building.
My grandfather sacrificed a great deal to be obedient to God’s call. The photo of his new house, built the year of his calling, represents a consecration far beyond merely a home. His ministry will never make the pages of denominational histories or be publicly celebrated for its tremendous numeric impact or methodological influence. There are no great monuments to his leadership; the fruit of his work will not be seen in the books he authored, seminars he conducted, masses to which he preached, or countries to which he traveled. He did not serve among the intellectual, suburban, wealthy, or sophisticated; rather, he embraced a life of selfless ministry to an ordinary, common, and out-of-the-way people. With the exception of those who knew him personally, few will ever be aware of the affects of his ministry. Yet, in my reading of the life of Francis Asbury, I cannot help but see echoes of his life in that of my grandfather. In my own life, he modeled for me the life of a leader who imitated Christ through sacrifice, servanthood, humility, incarnationality, and devoted obedience.
I wrote this book because I firmly believe these stories — of devout, faithful, and skilled men who are so seized by a hunger for God that they will abandon everything — just might have something to say to modern western culture obsessed with celebritites and celebrity leaders, fueled by desires of self-expression, self-fulfillment, and self-gratificaiton, and unanchored to any transcendent point of reference outside of themselves. Nor do I think one has to look to far to realize this is an affliction as much in the church as it is in the culture.
The 21st Century could use another Francis Asbury with the spiritual, moral, and intellectual courage to lead boldly out of theological convictions and a personal experience of divine transformation and, in so doing, catalyze a renewal of both culture and church. At the same time, though, there are countless numbers of leaders in church, in business, in families, in the marketplace, who are just like my grandfather. Going about their calling with diligent steadfastness, pursuing righteousness and holiness in love of God and neighbor, and seeking to let all they do be informed by that pursuit. But their names are largely unknown. They do not grace the fronts of bestsellers, banner ads for mega-conferences, or magazine covers because of their great influence. Yet they lead, they shepherd, they model, they exemplify, they give, they pour out their lives and change their corner of the world daily. Upon such men and women rests the kingdom of God and the vitality of human culture. This is, in one sense, their story.