|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 12/24/2007 : 08:04:26 [Permalink]
|
Dave wrote: And you didn't ask Gorgo about art appreciation. You asked him if he thought it was a waste, and he gave you an honest answer.
You've set up a huge "No True Scotsman" fallacy - in which the in-crowd recognizes the painting's significance and the ignorant don't - and then fault Gorgo for nothing more than being ignorant when he's absolutely correct: Raphael, had he lacked the religious theme, probably would have still made the significant contributions to art and culture that you mention, but on a different theme. |
No, Dave, because I fully admitted that ultimately art is subjective and he is certainly entitled to his opinion, but I find his opinion asinine because it is based solely on the surface literal subject matter when the surface literal subject matter is rarely what has been most considered by both artists, art historians, critics, and art buffs. Also, art is largely valued by its connection to a larger body of cultural products, how it is influenced by previous works and how much it influences future works. The influences of art across time and culture are always more aesthetic than about subject matter. Literal, narrow ideas (like religious dogma) are spread through much more base and simplistic means.
| What's wrong, marf, with stating something along the lines of, "I think you have great talent, but are squandering it on a subject that's absurd?" |
There is nothing wrong with saying that, but the artists of the Renaissance weren't choosing their subject matter. Artists have always had to work within certain social limitations. They are responsible for what they are able to achieve within those limitations.
| You, marf, have a great passion for art, and know its history and significance. Most people do not. |
But most people at least acknowledge that there is probably a good reason why these works are put in museums and conserved with public funds. As a society we must communally put value on these objects since we are all paying to protect them and we consider them worthy to be put in textbooks for our children to learn about in public schools.
| Gorgo didn't "twist" your words at all, and your rephrasing just shows that you think that he doesn't know "a damn" or "a little" about what you're talking about, a point he conceded already (which makes you appear quite the snob). And the Southern Baptist analogy is anything but apt, considering the fact that Gorgo obviously doesn't wish to impose his ideas on others with anything like the draconian ferocity of the fundamentalists. |
I compared him to them partially because what he said was similar to saying that the Bible is a waste because attempts to interpret it literally lead to absurd and harmful theology. Gorgo didn't say that the religious subject matter was a waste. He said the works were a waste. He stated that religious building have no merit. He is saying one thing and then contradicting himself in the next sentence. Perhaps he is making no sense then, and I shouldn't have even bothered to respond?
| Really, I think you're dead wrong on the "most people" comment, marf. |
Okay, I didn't make myself clear, and I apologize. When I said that I thought (and was apparently wrong) that it would be obvious that I was referring to most people who actually know and care about the art. I didn't mean most people in general. Hell, if we talk about most people in the whole world, most people are impoverished and uneducated living the third world. Obviously when people say "most people" they are usually referring to a specific group of most people. I was referring to people who have some knowledge and interest in art, even if they are not working in the arts. This is not snobbery because anyone can learn about art. It is only exclusive to people who are too uninterested to learn why these works are regarded as significant. And the older a work is, the more education people need to understand it because they are farther and farther removed from the cultural context.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
 |
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 12/24/2007 : 08:44:34 [Permalink]
|
Dave wrote: | Actually, it seems that marf is giving the artists a nod simply because they include the religious theme without making it "perfect." Which would be a snubbing of a stereotypically totalitarian church's wishes. In other words, Raphael took risks (even if I still can't see them), so his art has cultural value. |
That's part of it, but it is more than that. I love even the older, totally religious iconographic work. To me it is like looking at African pagan art, or mystical Buddhist art. I enjoy it for the cultural significance and the aesthetic beauty. It allows me to be intellectually more fulfilled and emotionally feel more connected to the whole human family. I just brought up the humanistic art of the Renaissance because I found it ironic to call work that depicts a literal religious story a waste since the roots of atheistic ideas in art start with such imagery. There is a huge difference between paintings which depict a religious story and propaganda. One is open to interpretation and connects to a whole cultural context, while the other sends a very specific political message and only connects to a movement or institutions which is a subset of the larger cultural context.
| I would agree, but wouldn't fault people for simply being ignorant of these things, because such facts aren't discernable from the artwork itself. |
I don't fault him for being ignorant of these things. I'm ignorant of a lot of things I don't have an interest in. But I don't go around calling something which is regarded as highly culturally valuable a waste when I'm aware of my own ignorance.
| marf might even be shocked at the number of people who know that Raphael was an artist only because they know (Trivial Pursuit style) that all of the Ninja Turtles were named after artists. |
This doesn't shock me. I am well aware of the paultry education the average American received when it comes to art. I see this as one of the problems with elementary education in this country, especially considering what a rich artistic heritage Western culture has, and what a rich recent heritage American art has. Europeans are much better about this.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 12/24/2007 : 08:46:41 [Permalink]
|
Gorgo wrote: | By being in church, and acting like they're promoting the fiction, are they not promoting the fiction? |
Only to people who only rely on surface interpretations and never bother to dig for the whole story. Only to people who want to simplify the human experience and fail to recognize the full diversity of personal worldviews. How do you think Christmas became secularized in the first place?
Garrison Keillor started this year's Christmas program on Prarie Home Companion by saying (I'm paraphrasing since I don't have a transcript):
If you don't believe in all of it, don't feel bad, it's okay. If you just like the food and the music, and don't believe in any of it, you're not unlike many people who go to church regularly.
I'm going to church on Christmas this year. I haven't in many years, and wasn't planning on it, but my parents came to Philly this year. In know my Catholic mom wants to go, and she would probably rather go with someone than alone. My mom is a liberal Catholic. Her interpretation of God and souls and heaven and hell and all that is abstract. She regards it as a mystery that cannot – at least at this point – be comprehended by the human mind, and religious ritual and concepts are one way to start to get in touch with the divine. Ethically she is a humanist. She will go to church and feel uplifted by the sounds, colors, smells, and familiar rituals. I will have a more intellectual experience. I'm willing to go because we're going to St. Joseph's – the oldest Catholic church in America. It was founded at a time when Catholic churches were outlawed, but William Penn, a Quaker, established Philadelphia as a city with religious freedom for all theists. (Not progressive enough yet to include atheists.) The church is currently a Jesuit community and extremely progressive. This is a church run by clergy who ripped up a letter from the Diocese telling them to oppose a city ordinance which would give partner benefits to city employees. My husband has a gay friend who is a member of the church. So I will enjoy the church for its aesthetic qualities and historical significance. I fail to see how I am perpetuating any fictions by doing this.
| Yes, I occasionally slip and start singing "God Rest Ye Merry Gentlemen" in the shower, but I usually don't finish, because it just isn't in me anymore. You won't hear me sing, "I Can't Live if Living is Without You," but you might hear me sing something equally stupid. I understand that people do and think stupid things, I'm one of them. |
To me there are different stages of maturity with this stuff. First, you just sing it 'cause everyone does and it is tradition, and you don't think about it. Then you think about it, and you either decide you believe I the message and sing it with that in mind, or realize you can't accept the literal message, and you are bothered by it. But to me, the next stage is realizing that even though you don't believe in it, for some reason you want to sing it. And then you see that the reason you want to sing it is because it has certain secular associations that you do accept and are perhaps personally beloved to you. Then you can sing it with that mind, and not be bothered by the literal meaning. People have been putting secular interpretations on religious icons and concepts, turning them into mere metaphors, for as long as religious icons and concepts have been around. There is nothing wrong with doing that. It is not stupid or a flaw.
Gorgo, I criticize you not because I dont' realize you are expressing an opinion, but because I think your reaction to these things just because of their literal subject depicts religious concepts is one of the major problems with freeth |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
 Posted - 12/24/2007 : 09:24:24 [Permalink]
|
We have become way too reactionary and defensive, so much that many secularists are becoming the myth that the author of this article talks about. I find this both sad and frightening.
|
And I disagree when Dawkins says that this is harmless fiction. This is not harmless fiction. This is not harmless "abstract" art. With all due respect to the wonderful people we both love who believe in superstition, superstition is at the very least, potentially harmful. He seems to disagree with his own statement in the "Four Horsemen" video, where all four participants seem to agree with the idea that religion is at least latently harmful.
We all have stupid ideas, so I'm not putting myself above them. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 12/24/2007 : 11:34:14 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
As a society we must communally put value on these objects since we are all paying to protect them and we consider them worthy to be put in textbooks for our children to learn about in public schools. |
Well, communally we've put value on a lot of things which, with years or decades of hindsight, we shouldn't have. Dunno that Raphael should be cast on the scrap heap, though. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 12/24/2007 : 12:33:40 [Permalink]
|
Gorgo.....
Your punch line:| I wish to show that it has no merit. |
is eminently without merit itself. Marf is dead-on with regard to this. Not only because of her encyclopaedic knowledge of graphic art history and significance, but because your statement is nonsense - whether as comment on your own views or as generalized to all things that have merit.
You start on solid ground in stating your opinion that the propagandizing; or more properly propagation aspect of religious art is odious in our "enlightened" twenty-first century, where all of survival intelligence should understand that religion itself is odious; but to ignore the multiple other aspects of Christian art, or liturgical music for that matter, is not only to display ignorance but to fail to reason.
As Marf clearly points out, art of any form is multi-faceted and multi-layered. Art worthy of survival over time must have merit - (Roget: importance, significance, consequence) - because historical survival is an integral part of the meaning of merit as applied to man's creations. That which works, survives. That which continues to please, titillate, amuse, entertain - whatever - that which continues to succeed, survives. If this were not true, today there would be no museums or concert halls, nor classic architectural style in new construction, no Shakespearian theater (nor classic Greek), nor ballet theater. All of art forms enshrined in these institutions have survived and prospered because of the merit inherent in the examples of the incredible human creativity that they display.
I could defend classical liturgical music in precisely the same way that Marf has presented the case eloquently for the graphic arts, as I have some knowledge in this area. Bach, particularly, is recognized universally as perhaps the greatest musical composer of all time and almost all of the his great works were deeply religious. An example that you might call "without merit" is: Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring
- a chorale from the cantata Herz und Mund...etc..:
Listen to it and then tell me you are not touched!
Robert Bridges words to the chorale go....
Jesu, joy of man's desiring,
Holy Wisdom, Love most bright;
Drawn by Thee, our souls, aspiring,
Soar to uncreated light.
Word of God, our flesh that fashion'd,
With the fire of life impassion'd,
Striving still to truth unknown,
Soaring, dying, round Thy throne.
Through the way where hope is guiding,
Hark, what peaceful music rings!
Where the flock, in Thee confiding,
Drink of joy from deathless springs.
Theirs is beauty's fairest pleasure;
Theirs is wisdom's holiest treasure.
Thou dost ever lead Thine own
In the love of joys unknown.
.....which, to your and my view, is unmitigated nonsense as what we know to be reality, but no one of any sensitivity can deny the poetry of this lyric. And Bach's (more properly, Johann Schop, who wrote the melody, but did not score or orchestrate) music is compellingly beautiful. To say that a work of art such as this is without merit because it extols a superstitious religious icon, is an extraordinarily narrow viewpoint. Even if one has no appreciation of art in any of its manifestations, reason alone dictates that it must be understood and recognized for merit far beyond the subject matter alone. The default position is that Art is without merit, and that is manifestly absurd!
By the way, Merry Christmas!
|
| Edited by - bngbuck on 12/24/2007 13:00:38 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 12/24/2007 : 12:55:08 [Permalink]
|
First of all, what I was saying is is that superstition has no merit. I agree that it is difficult to separate out what the products of superstition are and what they aren't. Whether or not someone has created art that you and Martha can appreciate, and that I can't, is a side issue. I suppose people can appreciate the art of the Nazis.
Yes, I think what you're copied here is something that I have no use for. The pictures that she has posted, whether they are the product of religion are not, are not something that I have any use for. None of them match my couch. If they were to disappear, my life would not change. I do not wish to destroy them, as some find merit in them and want to keep them.
My point is, insofar as things promote religion, I wish someone had spent their time on something more productive. If you find such things entertaining and enlightening, then I guess that your entertainment makes such things worthwhile, and makes me wrong. However, there is nothing worthwhile in them for me.
If you like it because it's absurd, I understand that. Elton John made a career of that.
Anyway, my point was not to say that you're wrong if you like that kind of art and architecture. Whatever you like, you like. I was just expressing my opinion. I understand that I'm ignorant, and my opinion is probably totally based on ignorance, and I said so. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
| Edited by - Gorgo on 12/24/2007 13:00:29 |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 12/24/2007 : 13:35:38 [Permalink]
|
Gorgo.....
There is very little that I pity. But to witness the lack of comprehension of, and inability to experience, aesthetic emotion that you have just expressed, brings me close to pitying you! What a catholic, cloistered mentality you must have to not possess at least some appreciation of the arts!
Is it just that you are indifferent or hostile to any form of artistic expression that involves subject matter contrary to your religious opinion? Is there no value in the Bible, or Christmas Carols, or ANYTHING with religious content? Or does your aversion extend to art, sculpture music, dance, poetry, literature of any nature which simply has high emotional content?
If the music I cited was not about Jesus and had no religious connotation, but was exactly the same melody with secular words, would you enjoy it?
I understand that you are just expressing your opinion, but the implication is that if anything is even remotely tinged by religion, you reject it part and parcel! I see this as irrational! And if you are rejecting all forms of artistic expression as a waste of effort, you are shallow, indeed! |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 12/24/2007 : 15:34:29 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
...which, to your and my view, is unmitigated nonsense as what we know to be reality, but no one of any sensitivity can deny the poetry of this lyric. And Bach's (more properly, Johann Schop, who wrote the melody, but did not score or orchestrate) music is compellingly beautiful. |
Interestingly, the content of the lyrics are separable from the music. And I bet if you wrote entirely new lyrics in Latin - about being a fast-order fry cook, for example - the result would be no less breathtaking for the ignorati like myself. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 12/24/2007 : 18:43:59 [Permalink]
|
Gorgo wrote: First of all, what I was saying is is that superstition has no merit. I agree that it is difficult to separate out what the products of superstition are and what they aren't. Whether or not someone has created art that you and Martha can appreciate, and that I can't, is a side issue. I suppose people can appreciate the art of the Nazis.
Yes, I think what you're copied here is something that I have no use for. The pictures that she has posted, whether they are the product of religion are not, are not something that I have any use for. None of them match my couch. If they were to disappear, my life would not change. I do not wish to destroy them, as some find merit in them and want to keep them.
My point is, insofar as things promote religion, I wish someone had spent their time on something more productive. If you find such things entertaining and enlightening, then I guess that your entertainment makes such things worthwhile, and makes me wrong. However, there is nothing worthwhile in them for me.
If you like it because it's absurd, I understand that. Elton John made a career of that.
Anyway, my point was not to say that you're wrong if you like that kind of art and architecture. Whatever you like, you like. I was just expressing my opinion. I understand that I'm ignorant, and my opinion is probably totally based on ignorance, and I said so. |
If you can't tell the difference between entertainment and fine art, between propaganda and fine art, between decorations and fine art, there really is no point to me continuing this debate. I am someone who is deeply moved by the story of the French common people who emptied the Louvre of all of its treasures and hid them in their homes before Nazis invaded, and after the war returned every single item. No doubt the majority of those works are of some sort of religious nature, as most art that has ever been created has some supernatural association. I was deeply unsettled when I learned in school about the iconoclasm, both shocked and relieved as I saw paintings from that era that had been saved from the mobs at the last minute. I am someone who was extremely angered when Muslim extremists destroyed the giant Buddha statues in Afghanistan. These events cause such an emotional reaction in me and in so many other secularists not because of the religious associations, but because they are part of our human heritage. Our creativity, our ability to make art, to revel in the aesthetic and abstract ideas and forms, is as amazing as our other unique abilities, such as our ability to reason, use science, create technology. The best of our art is among the greatest human achievements. They make our existence more meaningful in a communal way, and as we are a social animal, this is important. This is why we preserve and cherish them.
Your comment about the Nazis reminds me of an event in my life in 1999. I and three friends (all of us atheists who had met at a freethought organization) went to NYC and visited the Metropolitan Museum of Art. As we entered a room full of great master Renaissance paintings, one of my friends grimaced heartily, and we asked him what was wrong. He said that these paintings – which all depicted religious scenes – were to him nothing more than base religious promotion. Like you, he compared them to Nazi propaganda. My other two friends and I all looked at each other with expressions of first shock at what seemed to be an absurd statement, and then pity, that his biases against literal theology alone would prevent him from enjoying some of the greatest artwork ever created by mankind.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 12/24/2007 18:44:59 |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 12/24/2007 : 19:59:44 [Permalink]
|
Dave.....
For once, you are dead on target! I could not have said that better myself (high praise, coming from a developed snob and egomaniac)
The meaning or message, or even intent of the lyrics is unimportant compared to the majesty of the music. And Latin is a perfect vehicle, because very few understand it, but it has a certain affinity for choral music. Kind of like humming in words!
Glad to hear you not only like, but feel music of this nature.
By the way, dilettante, Merry Christmas and a smarter new year!! |
| Edited by - bngbuck on 12/24/2007 20:11:39 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 12/24/2007 : 20:23:54 [Permalink]
|
bngbuck wrote: | The meaning or message, or even intent of the lyrics is unimportant compared to the majesty of the music. |
Maybe this is part of the problem I've always had when some secularists take old religious songs and change the lyrics so they can feel better about singing it. By changing the words of a very well known carol, attention is drawn to the lyrics over the music, and this distracts from the music. Not to say that changing the lyrics can't or hasn't ever been done successfully. But someone gave me a CD of atheist versions of traditional Christmas carols, and I could barely stand it for this reason. I'd rather just listen to a top notch version of O Holy Night than listen to some amateur musician sing some cheeseball, or worse: politicized, lyrics set to that melody.
This reminds me of one of my favorite Johnny Cash songs. It is a Spiritual on one of his last albums. The lyrics go "Jesus, I don't wanna die alone..." It is one of the most gut-wrenchingly sad songs I've ever heard. I had a homeless friend who used to stay at my house occasionally, and once found him at 3AM with his head bent over the CD player, eyes closed, listening intensely to that song. (And this guy was anything but a Christian.) One day I was listening to the song, and my roomate (also an atheist) came home. At the word "Jesus" she audibly groaned from the kitchen, ruining what was a very meaningful experience for me. And why did she groan? She knew very well that I wasn't listening to the song for any religious meaning. Great art transcends this kind of bullshit. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 12/24/2007 : 20:27:19 [Permalink]
|
Great art transcends this kind of bullshit.
|
In your opinion, this is great art. This does not have to be everyone's opinion. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 12/24/2007 : 20:36:08 [Permalink]
|
I'm not impressed by most art. To my eyes most of what is billed as great art is simply not inspiring to me. I like Escher and Salvador Dali's works (probably more for the illusions and paradoxes than the actual artistic value) but the greats like Picasso, Rembrandt, or Leonardo Da Vinci don't inpire me much or at all really. One notable exception is Monet's "The Japanese Footbridge" part of his Waterlilies series, although I can't exactly put my finger on why that one in particular appeals to me so much.
I do enjoy reading history so if art is put in that context I'm more likely to appreciate it. Most modern and postmodern art has no particular artistic merit in my view. There is a certain pretentiousness about it as well that makes me suspect that the emperor is naked (or at least not dressed as finely as he is made out to be).
Regarding the article linked in the OP. It struck me as merely a puff piece inasmuch as it builds what is essentially a strawman so that we can all feel good about watching it burn. It fails to address the more relevant argument that Christmas has largely been co-opted by secularism.
I will note that there is a certain amount of bias inherent in dismissing art merely because it has a Christian theme or uses Christian symbology. As skeptics it is doubly important that we recognize our biases for what they are. The specific bias in play here would be the Halo effect. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
The myth of the secularist humbug
