aa: Atheism and the Arts
Jason Page
sometime, having migrated from Agnosticism (which began at about age 14) to
Atheism at age 23 (I am now 28).
Last night while eating dinner with my girlfriend and listening to
classical music, it occurred to me that an incredible amount of the
artistic presence in our lives has come from very strong theistic
influences, which made me wonder what kind of art we would expect in a
world that gave up the mythology and nonsense of theism for once and for
all.
I am curious what other Atheists think about this... would an Atheistic
world be largely devoid of artistic endeavours? Certainly many Atheists
value and appreciate art, but an overwhelming amount of the art that we
would rate as "substantive" or "significant" has come from theistic
influences.
Just curious.
-DJ
Orhan Orgun
>, but an overwhelming amount of the art that we
>would rate as "substantive" or "significant" has come from theistic
>influences.
>
I wonder if this isn't at least partly because an overwhelming
proportion of people are theists. It's not as if there isn't *any*
significant art created by atheist (or at least not so theist)
people--in fact, I thought Beethoven for example was not so keen on
god, and if I had to pick one favorite composer, it could easily be
him.
On another note, it is true much art is created by people who are
mystics of some sort. Perhaps if the nonsense of theism were to
disappear one day, many artists could be the sort of non-theistic or
at least not-clearly-theistic mystics we have around today (this
applies to people I know who are pagans, pantheists, non-theisic
mystics, and so on).
_____________________
Orhan Orgun, #1867
You don't believe what I'm saying?
Just ask me if it's true and I'll tell you it really is!
Peter Perreault
news:8FD7B8D9Aj...@135.7.153.101...
> Let me just start out by saying that I am a firm Atheist and have been for
> sometime, having migrated from Agnosticism (which began at about age 14)
to
> Atheism at age 23 (I am now 28).
>
> Last night while eating dinner with my girlfriend and listening to
> classical music, it occurred to me that an incredible amount of the
> artistic presence in our lives has come from very strong theistic
> influences, which made me wonder what kind of art we would expect in a
> world that gave up the mythology and nonsense of theism for once and for
> all.
>
> I am curious what other Atheists think about this... would an Atheistic
> world be largely devoid of artistic endeavours? Certainly many Atheists
> would rate as "substantive" or "significant" has come from theistic
> influences.
>
>
> -DJ
As a pop/rock/folk songwriter and an atheist I can say that there is plenty
for me to write about, lyrically. During the past 3 months I have written
about a Mexican immigrant child dying of dehydration in the desert, a song
about my never-ending desire to experience new people and places, and, that
topic of all topics, love. The world is full of subjects ripe for the
picking.
Melodically, notes are notes are notes. The melody of Beethoven's Ode to Joy
could just as easily been applied to a non-textual piece. The story is told
that the melody of Amazing Grace was stolen from a bar song. A non-theist
artist/composer will create music that is non-theist in nature. The more the
world becomes free of mythology the more non-theist art will be created.
Art is art. A god is not required to create great art.
Peter
When in doubt, think.
Adrienne Aldredge
> <snip>
>
> I am curious what other Atheists think about this... would an Atheistic
> world be largely devoid of artistic endeavours? Certainly many Atheists
> value and appreciate art, but an overwhelming amount of the art that we
> would rate as "substantive" or "significant" has come from theistic
> influences.
Interesting question! I'm not too sure....speaking from personal
experience, I prefer more modern art over the medieval/Renaissance type
paintings of yore. For instance, I went to Paris last spring and visited about
a trillion museums, but the two that contrasted the most were the Louvre and
the Centre Pompidou. I wandered around the Louvre and gazed at all the
Renaissance religious paintings, many with the Virgin Mary or other prominent
religious figures, and even though I considered the artists' technique
masterful, I can't say those paintings really *did* much for me. They didn't
really challenge me; perhaps if I was a Christian they would have meant
something more. Then I went to the Centre Pompidou (a museum of modern art)
and there, the artworks *challenged* me. They weren't so easy to comprehend, I
had to actually look at them and ponder their meaning, because often they were
abstract and symbolic. Perhaps more of those modern artists were atheist or
agnostic (I don't know), but I find that art which challenges me and forces me
to think and see "outside the box" is of greater use than the paintings I
mentioned earlier. Ancient and medieval and Renaissance artists were
supposedly "inspired" by God and religion for their art, but I think art today
is all about breaking the boundaries, questioning limits, and proposing new
ideas, which are all things that atheists are very good at, being that they can
think for themselves. :)
--
************************
"One word sums up probably the responsibility of any vice president, and that
word is "to be prepared."
- Vice President Dan Quayle, 12/6/89
---adrienne aldredge--
aald...@email.smith.edu
*************************
Adrienne Aldredge
> I don't know about that. Much of classical music is either completely
> neutral in relation to religion, or related to freethought. Look at
> Beethoven and Tchaikovsky. While both produced some worls for churches, the
> majority of their works were secular, taking material from all sorts of
> cultural influences. I think that Tchaikovsky, being gay, would have been
> far from interested in helping the church, for instance...
But didn't Tchaikovsky make music around the turn of the century? I don't
think many churches had explicit policies on how evil homosexuality is at that
time; hell, the word barely even existed until the early to mid 20th century.
Either way, the man was a genius.
johac
orhan...@hotmail.com (Orhan Orgun) wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Oct 2000 20:39:41 -0500, Mike Smith mike...@apexmail.com
> wrote:
>
> .
> >
> >The composers of a lot of classical music were, IIRC,
> >commisioned by the church.
> >__________________________________________
>
>
> Well, a lot of it was commissioned by nobility, no necessarily or
> directly the church in many cases.
>
Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, and many others wrote both religious and
secular music. They worked on commission. To make a buck, florin, ducat,
or whatever, they would compose a Mass for the Archbishop's pet saint's
feastday one week, and the next a concerto glorifying the local Count,
Duke, Prince, or whoever was footing the bill.
>
>
> _____________________
> Orhan Orgun, #1867
>
> You don't believe what I'm saying?
> Just ask me if it's true and I'll tell you it really is!
--
John Hachmann, aa #1782
It was the schoolboy who said: "Faith is believing what you know ain't so."
- Mark Twain (1835-1910).
______________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Still Only $9.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
With Servers In California, Texas And Virginia - The Worlds Uncensored News Source
Kevin Walsh
secu...@lucent.com (Jason Page) wrote:
> Let me just start out by saying that I am a firm Atheist and have
been for
> sometime, having migrated from Agnosticism (which began at about age
14) to
> Atheism at age 23 (I am now 28).
>
> Last night while eating dinner with my girlfriend and listening to
> classical music, it occurred to me that an incredible amount of the
> artistic presence in our lives has come from very strong theistic
> influences, which made me wonder what kind of art we would expect in
a
> world that gave up the mythology and nonsense of theism for once and
for
> all.
>
Atheistic
> world be largely devoid of artistic endeavours? Certainly many
Atheists
> value and appreciate art, but an overwhelming amount of the art that
we
> would rate as "substantive" or "significant" has come from theistic
> influences.
>
>
> -DJ
>
Have you seen medeival art? How many pictures of mary and child do we
need. Talent will produce art whatever the theme or subject.
--
If I turn out to be wrong on this one, I am in some trouble with the
big guy.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
*Nemo*
> sometime, having migrated from Agnosticism (which began at about age 14)
to
> Atheism at age 23 (I am now 28).
>
> Last night while eating dinner with my girlfriend and listening to
> classical music, it occurred to me that an incredible amount of the
> artistic presence in our lives has come from very strong theistic
> influences, which made me wonder what kind of art we would expect in a
> world that gave up the mythology and nonsense of theism for once and for
> all.
There'd be less idiotic paintings of Jesus all over the place. That'd be a
positive move right there.
>
> I am curious what other Atheists think about this... would an Atheistic
> world be largely devoid of artistic endeavours? Certainly many Atheists
> value and appreciate art, but an overwhelming amount of the art that we
> would rate as "substantive" or "significant" has come from theistic
> influences.
I don't know about that. Much of classical music is either completely
neutral in relation to religion, or related to freethought. Look at
Beethoven and Tchaikovsky. While both produced some worls for churches, the
majority of their works were secular, taking material from all sorts of
cultural influences. I think that Tchaikovsky, being gay, would have been
far from interested in helping the church, for instance...
>
> Just curious.
>
> -DJ
--
Nemo - EAC Commissioner for Bible Belt Underwater Operations.
Atheist #1331 (the Palindrome of doom!)
BAAWA Knight! - One of those warm Southern Knights, y'all!
http://home.att.net/~jehdjh/Relpg.html
tanstaafl
**************************************************
No Gods No masters
-----
Know Gods Know masters
**************************************************
ju...@pconline.com.spambait
: I am curious what other Atheists think about this... would an Atheistic
: world be largely devoid of artistic endeavours?
HELL NO! Most 'classical' art is religious because for most of human
history only the church has had the money and inclination to fund the
arts (and then almost never just for art's sake: It was promotional
material.) Most art being done today (some of it very very good) has no
real religious overtones or inspiration, because that's no longer what you
need to do to sell a piece.
'Than
Orhan Orgun
wrote:
.
>
>The composers of a lot of classical music were, IIRC,
>commisioned by the church.
>__________________________________________
Well, a lot of it was commissioned by nobility, no necessarily or
directly the church in many cases.
_____________________
John Galt
>which made me wonder what kind of art we would expect in a
> world that gave up the mythology and nonsense of theism for once and for
> all.
I don't think its giving up mythology thats needed or wanted, simple
recognition of mythology AS mythology is all I'd like. For example Wagners
Ring Cycle. Mythology, but not mythology masquerading as truth.
As for classical music as a whole I believe that gifted composers will
produce brilliant music no matter what the setting is. In the earlier
periods ie. before the end of the classical/beginning of romanticism, much
of Europe was controlled by the church, and the church therefore controlled
and comissioned most of the music that was written. Tough to make a living
as a composer if you were not writing church music..
However in the romantic and neo-romantic periods you begin to see a big
break with the soley theistic themes. Examples.. almost all of Grand Opera.
Puccini, Verdi et al. Gustav Mahler, Tschaikovsky, Wagner, Beethoven,
Frederick Delius, who's "Mass for Life" is an open mockery of the much set
to music Requiem Mass of the Catholic Church, and many others.
One of the best examples of an acknolwedged classic which was inspired by
nothing more than materialism would have to be Holsts "The Planets."
Its also interesting to note that the many non-religious composers did do
Requiem Masses and the like not because of any belief in religion but in
memoriam of a particular person. In fact the most popular and oft performed
major piece of choral work, Verdi's Messa Da Requiem, was composed in memory
of italian author Manzoni. Verdi himself was a confessed agnostic and
remained so until his death. You would have a very difficult time, given
what I think we know of their lives, arguing that (arguably) the two
greatest composers to have ever lived, Mozart and Beethoven, held to
anything more than a vague deism at the most. I just think that at their
particular times the best way to express a given motif to the average person
was through what they knew best, masses and lituriges set to music.
Love,
John
Rune Børsjø
>value and appreciate art, but an overwhelming amount of the art that we
>would rate as "substantive" or "significant" has come from theistic
>influences.
Art is like old, smelly cheese. I like mine fresh.
Contemporary art is always influenced by current events and issues,
atheism being one of them. At least many of them bands, groups and
individuals I listen to for instance, discuss it, which is everything
from The Dust Brothers to Iron Maiden.
Jeff Dee
>
> Let me just start out by saying that I am a firm Atheist and have been for
> sometime, having migrated from Agnosticism (which began at about age 14) to
> Atheism at age 23 (I am now 28).
>
> Last night while eating dinner with my girlfriend and listening to
> classical music, it occurred to me that an incredible amount of the
> artistic presence in our lives has come from very strong theistic
> world that gave up the mythology and nonsense of theism for once and for
> all.
>
> world be largely devoid of artistic endeavours? Certainly many Atheists
> value and appreciate art, but an overwhelming amount of the art that we
> would rate as "substantive" or "significant" has come from theistic
> influences.
>
Your premise is fallacious. I'm an atheist, and I create
art on mythological themes all the time. I tend to steer
clear of xtian mythology because there's already a glut,
but I happily use its imagery upon occasion when the
situation warrants.
There's NOTHING wrong with fantasy, as long as you never
forget that that's exactly what it is.
-Jeff Dee
--
"It is as morally bad not to care whether a thing is true
or not, so long as it makes you feel good, as it is not to
care how you got your money as long as you have got it."
-Edmund Way Teale, "Circle of the Seasons", 1950
unig...@io.com * http://www.io.com/unigames/index.html
* * * Knight of the BAAWA since 10/26/99 * * *
YodelFish
> sometime, having migrated from Agnosticism (which began at about age 14)
to
> Atheism at age 23 (I am now 28).
>
> Last night while eating dinner with my girlfriend and listening to
> classical music, it occurred to me that an incredible amount of the
> artistic presence in our lives has come from very strong theistic
> influences, which made me wonder what kind of art we would expect in a
> world that gave up the mythology and nonsense of theism for once and for
> all.
>
> I am curious what other Atheists think about this... would an Atheistic
> world be largely devoid of artistic endeavours? Certainly many Atheists
> value and appreciate art, but an overwhelming amount of the art that we
> would rate as "substantive" or "significant" has come from theistic
> influences.
>
> Just curious.
It's all depending on time period, when the church had a great deal of money
and influence, they influenced the art, then the kings and noble men with a
lot of money influenced the arts and so forth.
Bedsides, I dont know if I call paintings of Jesus Art.
Besides look at the cave paintings, no religious motives there. Unless you
call herds of cattle and mammoth religion :)
--
HAND
Yodel
#1645
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
chibiabos
<secu...@lucent.com> wrote:
> Let me just start out by saying that I am a firm Atheist and have been for
> sometime, having migrated from Agnosticism (which began at about age 14) to
> Atheism at age 23 (I am now 28).
>
> Last night while eating dinner with my girlfriend and listening to
> classical music, it occurred to me that an incredible amount of the
> artistic presence in our lives has come from very strong theistic
> influences, which made me wonder what kind of art we would expect in a
> world that gave up the mythology and nonsense of theism for once and for
> all.
>
> I am curious what other Atheists think about this... would an Atheistic
> world be largely devoid of artistic endeavours? Certainly many Atheists
> value and appreciate art, but an overwhelming amount of the art that we
> would rate as "substantive" or "significant" has come from theistic
> influences.
>
> Just curious.
You've received some good replies already re church patronage. I'd just
like to add that most of the art being created today -- in fact, during
the last century or so -- is atheistic in nature in that it totally
ignores god.
-chib
--
listen;there's a hell
of a good universe next door;let's go
--e.e. cummings
Chris Brown
Jason Page <secu...@lucent.com> wrote:
>
>Last night while eating dinner with my girlfriend and listening to
>classical music, it occurred to me that an incredible amount of the
>artistic presence in our lives has come from very strong theistic
>influences, which made me wonder what kind of art we would expect in a
>world that gave up the mythology and nonsense of theism for once and for
>all.
>
>I am curious what other Atheists think about this... would an Atheistic
>world be largely devoid of artistic endeavours?
No. The reason much older fine art has a religious bias is that in
medieval Europe (I assume the art you refer to is medieval European in
origin?) there were basically two groups which had the means to
commision great works of art, namely churches and
aristocrats/monarchs. Writing music or painting pictures for churches
was the only way the majority of artists could earn enough money to
survive.
Much of the art that wasn't sponsored by the powerful churches is
largely secular. Consider the Mona Lisa, for example.
--
/* _ */main(int k,char**n){char*i=k&1?"+L*;99,RU[,RUo+BeKAA+BECACJ+CAACA"
/* / ` */"CD+LBCACJ*":1[n],j,l=!k,m;do for(m=*i-48,j=l?m/k:m%k;m>>7?k=1<<m+
/* | */8,!l&&puts(&l)**&l:j--;printf(" \0_/"+l));while((l^=3)||l[++i]);}
/* \_,hris Brown -- Any top-posted replies will be ignored. */
stoney
]>In article <8FD7B8D9Aj...@135.7.153.101>,
That and the church was just about the only marketing venue around.
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
Clayton Forno
> > I am curious what other Atheists think about this... would an Atheistic
> > world be largely devoid of artistic endeavours?
I am very artistically inclined. I am a painter and writer and poet myself.
In fact the most fulfilling times in my life come when I have successfully
completed a project...and I am at my most happy when I am creating.
Certainly many Atheists
> > value and appreciate art, but an overwhelming amount of the art that we
> > would rate as "substantive" or "significant" has come from theistic
> > influences.
I disagree with this. Many, many great art works have a theistic theme.
Great passion produces great art....and as irrational as we may find
it....religion is a primary producer of passion. However for every
religious art work there have been hundreds of works inspired by other great
passions....love, anger, nature, the human body....or even mundane everyday
things...or even just by life itself. And that's not just painting but the
other arts....writting.....movies...music ...the theatre....art is as
diverse as the people in the world. Atheists are as passionate and artistic
as anyone else.
Denis Loubet
"Clayton Forno" <cj...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:39ffd2f1$0$28145$7f31...@news01.syd.optusnet.com.au...
Denis Loubet
"Clayton Forno" <cj...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:39ffd2f1$0$28145$7f31...@news01.syd.optusnet.com.au...
>
>
Just because the atheists on alt atheism like to present logical arguments,
the theists like to think that we're all emotionless Mr. Spocks. That since
we don't believe in their fictional pals, we can't enjoy anything fictional.
That's in addition to all the other arbitrary dehumanizing claims they make
about us.
Sigh.
Denis Loubet
dlo...@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
Bea
> >
> >Last night while eating dinner with my girlfriend and listening to
> >classical music, it occurred to me that an incredible amount of the
> >artistic presence in our lives has come from very strong theistic
> >influences, which made me wonder what kind of art we would expect in
a
> >world that gave up the mythology and nonsense of theism for once and
for
> >all.
> >
Atheistic
> >world be largely devoid of artistic endeavours?
>
> medieval Europe (I assume the art you refer to is medieval European in
> origin?) there were basically two groups which had the means to
> commision great works of art, namely churches and
> aristocrats/monarchs. Writing music or painting pictures for churches
> was the only way the majority of artists could earn enough money to
> survive.
>
> Much of the art that wasn't sponsored by the powerful churches is
> largely secular. Consider the Mona Lisa, for example.
I haven't been around this group much the last couple of weeks,
telling myself it just takes too much time to keep up with
all these posts, and I have to spend my time studying for
a class I'm taking. (I find that I miss this group too
much when I'm away, and I'll just have to make the time!)
But, interestingly, this topic is something I have been studying
about. It seems that as the centuries march on, Christianity
periodically rises and falls in power and influence, and with
every rise of Christianity, art suffers.
Take classical Greek art. This is from pre-Christian times.
The forms, the themes, the representation of life -- it is
a thing of great beauty. Look at a classical Greek statue
and there you see the form of A MAN -- strong, vital, autonomous.
And within a few hundred years, we see the rise of Christian
art. The sculptures are stunted, puppet-like figures with
no individual identifying features, and are often clustered
together, looking more frightened than confident. It had become
more important for the artist to convey a message than to
portray life. Despite prohibitions in the bible against
artistic representations, the church took the official
position that art could help teach bible stories to the
illiterate. So, if artists were to survive rather than
endure persecution by the church, they had to create their
artistic expressions in the form of religious art.
The middle ages offer an example of just how bizarre life can
be when fanatical Christians are in control. Gargoyles were
considered religious art. Representations of all the horrors
of hell were considered religious art. (Gee, no one ever
said religious art had to be uplifting and inspiring.) All
the horrors of the Gothic period were in vogue because people
were convinced the world was going to end around the time of
the turn of the millenium -- the year 1000 -- and mankind
would be judged by God. Terror and damnation was a big
artistic theme.
But the year 1000 came and went, and another few centuries
went by, and shaking off centuries of fear and guilt, once
again civilization turned to learning new things, and there
was a great rebirth of the humanities. Kudos to St. Francis
for calling attention to "the God-made beauties of the natural
order." The religious art of the Renaissance finally began
showing inspirational themes, instead of hollow-eyed puppets or
representations of the horrors of hell. The Protestant
reformation was shaking loose the iron grip the Catholic church
had held over western civilization, and it was becomming
acceptable for people to think for themselves, and even
to think about things other than Christianity. The natural
world became an artistic theme (rather than the body as a mere
puppet inhabited by the all-important soul.) Themes from
Greek mythology reappeared in art. Consider Botticelli's "Birth
of Venus."
But the church still had control of the money. If you were
an artist and wanted to get paid for your work, you would
probably go to work for the church, or take a commission
from a weathy family for an artwork they would donate to
the church. Religious themes kept the artist fed.
The Vatican kept Michelangelo busy.
Michelangelo considered himself a sculptor and was working
on a huge project of creating sculptures for a tomb when the
Pope cut short the project, probably because the funding
had to be diverted to other projects. Michelangelo was bitter
about this, but he accepted the assignment of painting the
ceiling of the Sistine Chapel in hopes that the Pope would
eventually let him get back to his sculptures. So Michelangelo
spent years lying on his back on a scaffold 70 feet above the
floor, painting religious scenes on the chapel ceiling.
The scenes are bright and vivid, not the gothic horror
so popular a few centuries before. Notice it is the *ceiling*
of the Sistine Chapel that gets rave reviews. But Michelangelo,
the sculptor hired for painting, grew more disillusioned --
and more religious. After the ceiling, he turned
to other projects, while becomming increasingly preoccupied
with the fate of his own soul. By the time he got to the
Sistine Chapel *wall,* the mood had turned dark and ugly.
The theme of the painting on the wall is Christ's return
to damn mankind. In gothic spirit of previous generations,
Michelangelo's painting shows people being tossed into hell.
St Bartholomew, who was martyred by being skinned alive, is
shown with his hide in one hand and a knife in the other.
Yuck. There is no aspiration to beauty and inspiration here,
it's all ugliness and terror. That's what religion did
for Michelangelo.
There is the joyful ceiling with the tales of creation and
redemption. And twenty years later, from a more religious
Michelangelo, there is the wall with its painting of terror.
Well, that's Bea's History of Western Art Part One.
Contrast the stunningly alive and beautiful pagan art of
classical Greece, with the hollow puppets of early Christian art.
Contrast the horrors of Christian Gothic art, with the awakenings
to the beauty of the natural world in Renaissance art.
Contrast early Michelangelo with later, more religious
Michelangelo.
Christianity has given artists (and musicians) employment
and helped to preserve their art. The artists engaged in
the employment which kept them fed. It's good, I guess,
that some organization was able to support the arts and
the artists.
But does art actually COME from theistic influences? No.
Art does just fine without Christianity. Actually, history
shows art to be a far better thing without the oppression
of Christianity.
Bea
Heretical Theist
still...@my-deja.com
Bea <bn...@my-deja.com> wrote:
<clip>
Hi, Bea!
I've been interested in this thread since it started. I have a couple
of questions about your *very* interesting post.
> I haven't been around this group much the last couple of weeks,
> telling myself it just takes too much time to keep up with
> all these posts, and I have to spend my time studying for
> a class I'm taking. (I find that I miss this group too
> much when I'm away, and I'll just have to make the time!)
> But, interestingly, this topic is something I have been studying
> about. It seems that as the centuries march on, Christianity
> periodically rises and falls in power and influence, and with
> every rise of Christianity, art suffers.
> Take classical Greek art. This is from pre-Christian times.
> The forms, the themes, the representation of life -- it is
> a thing of great beauty. Look at a classical Greek statue
> and there you see the form of A MAN -- strong, vital, autonomous.
> And within a few hundred years, we see the rise of Christian
> art. The sculptures are stunted, puppet-like figures with
> no individual identifying features, and are often clustered
> together, looking more frightened than confident. It had become
> more important for the artist to convey a message than to
> portray life. Despite prohibitions in the bible against
> artistic representations, the church took the official
> position that art could help teach bible stories to the
> illiterate. So, if artists were to survive rather than
> endure persecution by the church, they had to create their
> artistic expressions in the form of religious art.
Question here. My memory of the particular mediums used, at least in
painting, during that period is that it didn't allow for much
flexibility. Pastiche? I can't remember -- something about made with
eggs. But was it, do you think, more the materials at hand, or the
subject matter?
> The middle ages offer an example of just how bizarre life can
> be when fanatical Christians are in control. Gargoyles were
> considered religious art. Representations of all the horrors
> of hell were considered religious art. (Gee, no one ever
> said religious art had to be uplifting and inspiring.) All
> the horrors of the Gothic period were in vogue because people
> were convinced the world was going to end around the time of
> the turn of the millenium -- the year 1000 -- and mankind
> would be judged by God. Terror and damnation was a big
> artistic theme.
Just by way of nothing at all, did you know that the largest private
collection of Bosch is owned by Bob Jones University?
All right. Here's a question or eight for you.
I'll say that art, lasting art, reflects something inherent in the human
spirit; undefinable, intangible, but immediately recognizable. It's why
Shakespeare is still performed, and why even ancient art is still
compelling.
So insofar as any religion translates that innate understanding well,
then the art based on that religion reflects that. The nice thing is,
we have history, so we can pick and choose the stories we find
compelling.
But there's this, insofar as the repressive nature of much of
Christianity (and of some cultures as well; Kruschev's USSR comes to
mind, and Hitler's Germany). That same inherent quality in the human
which is reflected and responded to in the art is also resilient and
uncrushable, so that often the best, most exciting art comes *from* that
repressive society. Gustav Klimt, I think, and Egon Schielle (I might
have misspelled the names). Also, weren't the fauve artists in
rebellion against a repressive society? And even the impressionists
were rebelling against an art society which had gotten too formal. In
other words, sometimes that repression coalesces and intensifies that
unsuppressible artistic drive, which generates some phenomenal art.
To sum this meandering line of thought up, I'm wondering if art doesn't
require some sort of standard to measure itself against and then deviate
from, and what happens in a society to art when there are no more rules,
no more standards of criticism, nothing seen as shocking, et cetera.
Does art get better in a postmodern world, or does it unravel?
What do you think?
And I'm glad to see you back.
Sunny
Bea
still...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <8u2gmg$cc5$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Bea <bn...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> <clip>
>
> Hi, Bea!
>
> I've been interested in this thread since it started. I have a couple
> of questions about your *very* interesting post.
>
> >
> > Take classical Greek art. This is from pre-Christian times.
> > The forms, the themes, the representation of life -- it is
> > a thing of great beauty. Look at a classical Greek statue
> > and there you see the form of A MAN -- strong, vital, autonomous.
>
> > And within a few hundred years, we see the rise of Christian
> > art. The sculptures are stunted, puppet-like figures with
> > no individual identifying features, and are often clustered
> > together, looking more frightened than confident. It had become
> > more important for the artist to convey a message than to
> > portray life. Despite prohibitions in the bible against
> > artistic representations, the church took the official
> > position that art could help teach bible stories to the
> > illiterate. So, if artists were to survive rather than
> > endure persecution by the church, they had to create their
> > artistic expressions in the form of religious art.
>
> Question here. My memory of the particular mediums used, at least in
> painting, during that period is that it didn't allow for much
> flexibility. Pastiche? I can't remember -- something about made with
> eggs. But was it, do you think, more the materials at hand, or the
> subject matter?
Hi Sunny! Yes, it's true that this example was before the
rise of good oil paints. It's kind of amazing that the egg-based
tempera they were using has held up at all. But not much
time elapsed between the era of classical Greek art and
the era of early Christian art. There was little difference
in the materials available at the time. My own opinion is
that classical Greek art was magnificent, and early Christian
art was, uhmm... not.
> > The middle ages offer an example of just how bizarre life can
> > be when fanatical Christians are in control. Gargoyles were
> > considered religious art. Representations of all the horrors
> > of hell were considered religious art. (Gee, no one ever
> > said religious art had to be uplifting and inspiring.) All
> > the horrors of the Gothic period were in vogue because people
> > were convinced the world was going to end around the time of
> > the turn of the millenium -- the year 1000 -- and mankind
> > would be judged by God. Terror and damnation was a big
> > artistic theme.
>
> Just by way of nothing at all, did you know that the largest private
> collection of Bosch is owned by Bob Jones University?
No, I didn't! That is very interesting. There is some debate
over whether Bosch created his nightmarish paintings of
religious themes out of deeply pious and pessimistic concern
for the fate of the souls of mankind, or out of religious satire.
Was he a heretic and satirist or was he a devout fanatic?
We'll never know.
I know that the case can be made for what you are saying, and
this is one of the great debates about the nature of art.
Art can come from pain and repression of the spirit. I am
reminded that in Nazi-occupied France, a theme of a caged
bird was popular. (It made the Nazis mad, and the French
just deadpanned, "Huh? What are you talking about? It's
just art.")
Myself, I am of the mind that we don't see art in societies
in which there is a daily struggle for survival and a hand-
to-mouth existance. Art only appears in societies which
have achieved the leisure of specialization of labor.
Life has to be moving along at an "okay" level or no one
can afford the luxury of allowing a member of the society
to expend his/her time and labor on an artistic endeavor
which serves no realistic purpose. In subsistence societies,
artistic thought may be expressed in the craftsmanship of
useful items, but we don't see the kind of art that is meant
to be appreciated as an end in itself. It wouldn't be
tolerated. So, for "fine art" to exist, the society has
to have at least some minor level of affluence, and permit
enough freedom for individual creativity.
Although some struggle may be necessary for an artist to
produce a compelling work, the struggle can be as simple
as the struggle to take an idea or a mental image, and
communicate it to others through art.
We know about great artists who were tortured souls, like
Michelangelo. But there are also great artists who were
cheerful and sociable, like Raphael. And those two knew
each other. (A similar and perhaps more familiar contrast
from the field of music would be the ponderous Salieri
and the party-animal Mozart).
I don't think that the best art comes from a struggle against
opression, or from rebellion against repression. The tortured
artists provide us with interesting stories, and the stories
perhaps make their works more memorable. But as for art
as an end in itself, I think remarkable works have been
produced by happy, cheerful artists who were reasonably
content in their societies. Any "rebellion" may have
taken the form of a simple desire to stand out from the crowd
with a somewhat different style.
To take it to a basic level, we don't see great art produced
by someone who has spent the day begging in the streets, who
is going to have to go to bed hungry. We see great art produced
by someone who has had a warm bath and a good meal. That goes
for intellectual and creative nourishment, as well.
So the question would be whether Christianity was veritably
crushing the creative soul of the artist in restricting his
themes and stylistic presentation, or whether Christianity
although imposing some thematic conditions in the contract
was able to offer the artist a stimulating creative
environment in which to carry out his work. The former,
I think, makes for constricted, unpleasant artworks, and
the later can produce wonderfully exuberant works which can
be appreciated for the art without undue concern for the theme.
(For instance I just love Botticelli's "The Birth of Venus"
but to appreciate the art, I don't have to worship Venus.
Botticelli didn't.)
I don't think art needs a struggle against repression so much
as art needs the financial backing of a patron (even if
not on commission, in the form of a hope that a patron will
appear to purchase the finished work). I think that whether
the artist is frightened of the patron, or whether the artist
and patron are working together in cooperation for their mutual
benefit makes all the difference in the world in creating
great art. When the church is not the patron, we see different
themes. But the art has to hold an appeal for some patron
or another, or the work is lost.
Well, this is long enough for one post!
stoney
]>In article <8t76ag$3t2$1...@narcissus.localdomain>,
I'd suggest keeping the priorities straight and concentrating on your studies.
IMO, it would be best to utilize aa as a reward and a treat.
]>But, interestingly, this topic is something I have been studying
]>about. It seems that as the centuries march on, Christianity
]>periodically rises and falls in power and influence, and with
]>every rise of Christianity, art suffers.
]>
]>Take classical Greek art. This is from pre-Christian times.
]>The forms, the themes, the representation of life -- it is
]>a thing of great beauty. Look at a classical Greek statue
]>and there you see the form of A MAN -- strong, vital, autonomous.
]>
]>And within a few hundred years, we see the rise of Christian
]>art. The sculptures are stunted, puppet-like figures with
]>no individual identifying features, and are often clustered
]>together, looking more frightened than confident. It had become
]>more important for the artist to convey a message than to
]>portray life. Despite prohibitions in the bible against
]>artistic representations, the church took the official
]>position that art could help teach bible stories to the
]>illiterate. So, if artists were to survive rather than
]>endure persecution by the church, they had to create their
]>artistic expressions in the form of religious art.
YEOW! This same type of description between 'a' and 'b' is utilized in the
latest book in Terry Goodkind's "Sword of Truth" series.
]>The middle ages offer an example of just how bizarre life can
]>be when fanatical Christians are in control. Gargoyles were
]>considered religious art. Representations of all the horrors
]>of hell were considered religious art. (Gee, no one ever
]>said religious art had to be uplifting and inspiring.) All
]>the horrors of the Gothic period were in vogue because people
]>were convinced the world was going to end around the time of
]>the turn of the millenium -- the year 1000 -- and mankind
]>would be judged by God. Terror and damnation was a big
]>artistic theme.
And it still plays the a world wide audience.
]>But the year 1000 came and went, and another few centuries
]>went by, and shaking off centuries of fear and guilt, once
]>again civilization turned to learning new things, and there
]>was a great rebirth of the humanities. Kudos to St. Francis
]>for calling attention to "the God-made beauties of the natural
]>order." The religious art of the Renaissance finally began
]>showing inspirational themes, instead of hollow-eyed puppets or
]>representations of the horrors of hell. The Protestant
]>reformation was shaking loose the iron grip the Catholic church
]>had held over western civilization, and it was becomming
]>acceptable for people to think for themselves, and even
]>to think about things other than Christianity. The natural
]>world became an artistic theme (rather than the body as a mere
]>puppet inhabited by the all-important soul.) Themes from
]>Greek mythology reappeared in art. Consider Botticelli's "Birth
]>of Venus."
You might take a look some of the artwork from Pompeii.
http://www.cib.na.cnr.it/ntnp.html
If it isn't this page then follow the links. There's a fantastic cup at the
Naples National Gallery carved out of something and there's a picture carved
into the inside cup bottom..
(snip)
stoney
]>In article <8u2gmg$cc5$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
]> Bea <bn...@my-deja.com> wrote:
]><clip>
]>
]>Hi, Bea!
]>
]>I've been interested in this thread since it started. I have a couple
]>of questions about your *very* interesting post.
(snip)
(tangent alert)
Hermitage Art Museum, Petersburg, Russia.
http://www.hermitagemuseum.org/
Tate Gallery, London, England
http://www.tate.org.uk/home/default.htm
still...@my-deja.com
stoney <sto...@stoneynet.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 05 Nov 2000 07:11:12 GMT, still...@my-deja.com wrote in
alt.atheism;
>
> ]> Bea <bn...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> ]><clip>
> ]>
> ]>Hi, Bea!
> ]>
> ]>I've been interested in this thread since it started. I have a
couple
> ]>of questions about your *very* interesting post.
>
>
> (tangent alert)
>
> Hermitage Art Museum, Petersburg, Russia.
> http://www.hermitagemuseum.org/
>
> Tate Gallery, London, England
> http://www.tate.org.uk/home/default.htm
>
> Stoney
> "Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
> and
> SCAMPERMEISTER!"
>
> When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
> When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
>
Oh, yum.
I'm running out of bookmark room. And now I want to go to St.
Petersburg -- which I've always wanted to do, anyway.
Please, if ever you feel like tangenting again...
Sunny
Bea
stoney <sto...@stoneynet.net> wrote:
<clip>
> You might take a look some of the artwork from Pompeii.
>
> http://www.cib.na.cnr.it/ntnp.html
>
> If it isn't this page then follow the links. There's a fantastic cup
at the
> Naples National Gallery carved out of something and there's a picture
carved
> into the inside cup bottom..
I couldn't get the link to work, but I would love to see
this. Ah, Pompeii! The last hurrah before early Christian
art unfortunately kicked in.
Sorry to get so worked up over this, but it's been a recent
revelation for me.
I was shown a statue from just _before_ the early Christian era
contrasted with a statue _from_ the early Christian era.
The contrast was so startling, I don't think I'll ever
look at anything quite the same way again.
Dore's Favourite Demon
>In article <5mbb0tcanlr17h0u8...@4ax.com>,
> stoney <sto...@stoneynet.net> wrote:
>
> <clip>
>
>> You might take a look some of the artwork from Pompeii.
>>
>> http://www.cib.na.cnr.it/ntnp.html
>>
>> If it isn't this page then follow the links. There's a fantastic cup
>at the
>> Naples National Gallery carved out of something and there's a picture
>carved
>> into the inside cup bottom..
>
>
>I couldn't get the link to work, but I would love to see
>this. Ah, Pompeii! The last hurrah before early Christian
>art unfortunately kicked in.
>
>Sorry to get so worked up over this, but it's been a recent
>revelation for me.
>I was shown a statue from just _before_ the early Christian era
>contrasted with a statue _from_ the early Christian era.
>The contrast was so startling, I don't think I'll ever
>look at anything quite the same way again.
Can you describe the differences between the two pieces?
I've seen some medieval art and it is quite crude compared to art from
classical )i.e. greek and roman) times.
>Bea
>Heretical Theist
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
Erikc (alt.atheist #002) | "An Fhirinne in aghaidh an tSaoil."
BAAWA Knight | "The Truth against the World."
| -- Bardic Motto
======
Remove god to respond.
stoney
]>In article <29cb0tkeckktv6j4q...@4ax.com>,
]> stoney <sto...@stoneynet.net> wrote:
]>> On Sun, 05 Nov 2000 07:11:12 GMT, still...@my-deja.com wrote in
]>alt.atheism;
]>>
]>> ]>In article <8u2gmg$cc5$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
]>> ]> Bea <bn...@my-deja.com> wrote:
]>> ]><clip>
]>> ]>
]>> ]>Hi, Bea!
]>> ]>
]>> ]>I've been interested in this thread since it started. I have a
]>couple
]>> ]>of questions about your *very* interesting post.
]>>
]>> (snip)
]>>
]>> (tangent alert)
]>>
]>> Hermitage Art Museum, Petersburg, Russia.
]>> http://www.hermitagemuseum.org/
]>>
]>> Tate Gallery, London, England
]>> http://www.tate.org.uk/home/default.htm
]>>
]>> Stoney
]>> "Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
]>> and
]>> SCAMPERMEISTER!"
]>>
]>> When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
]>> When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
]>>
]>
]>Oh, yum.
Heh.
]>I'm running out of bookmark room.
MUHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHAA (evil laughter)
]>And now I want to go to St.
]>Petersburg -- which I've always wanted to do, anyway.
Ummm...no thank you. I'll pass on Russia.
Years ago I had a chance to go on a 6 country, two week tour, from Scotland. I
went to a travel agent to figure out how to get to Finland and then meet the
tour the first night in Brussels, and stay within my (laughter!!!) *budget.*
(this was in the mid-70's when I was USN) The agent said "Well, you could take a
ship to Finland and then the train back. You'd change trains at Riga.
"Riga. Riga." The name was ringing bells I didn't like but I couldn't put my
finger on it. "Show me Riga on the map."
The travel agent put a finger on a spot around sixty miles inside the Soviet
Union.
"No, Thank you." Oh that would have gone over REAL good with Russian paranoia.
An active duty U.S. military person changing trains?
]>Please, if ever you feel like tangenting again...
/me activates the jato packs for the 'super scamper(tm)'
The Tate Gallery is fantastic. I've been to it on a couple of occasions years
apart. I've wandered through the Lourve as well. The last time I was in London
I meandered through the British National Gallery, which is online too... :)
Did I ever tell you about this one painting in the Detroit Institute of Art?
( dangling bait ) MUHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHHAAHA.
Oops... I mean ( cough ) "gentle grin." (yeah, that's it....a gentle grin)
The first time I was in London I had the opportunity to walk the decks, and go
below decks, on the H.M.S. Discovery.....(lets see if that rings any bells) :)
]>Sunny
stoney
]>In article <5mbb0tcanlr17h0u8...@4ax.com>,
]> stoney <sto...@stoneynet.net> wrote:
]>
]> <clip>
]>
]>> You might take a look some of the artwork from Pompeii.
]>>
]>> http://www.cib.na.cnr.it/ntnp.html
]>>
]>> If it isn't this page then follow the links. There's a fantastic cup
]>at the
]>> Naples National Gallery carved out of something and there's a picture
]>carved
]>> into the inside cup bottom..
]>
]>
]>I couldn't get the link to work, but I would love to see
]>this. Ah, Pompeii! The last hurrah before early Christian
]>art unfortunately kicked in.
Blast it. Servers not working and that was a main jump off page. :\
Trying to work my way in. Posting a trail of links.
http://www.infoculture.cbc.ca/archives/visart/visart_03302000_museumporn.phtml
Museum link is inoperative too.
This one works..
http://www.marketplace.it/museo.nazionale/index.htm
Naples Museum of Archeological History
OOOOHHHH OHHHH
Pompeii ruins!
http://www.marketplace.it/pompeiruins/index.htm
I still remember wandering the streets there for a couple of hours after
descending inside Mt. Vesuvius.
There's the Farnese cup and bull and a blue vase from Herculaneum(sp).
Anyway, the tourist page had the links.
I archived the pics of the above items and can email them, if you give
permission.
Sorry about that, but I wasn't expecting the main link go down.
However, on the bright side pics of the city of Pompeii showed up... :)
]>Sorry to get so worked up over this, but it's been a recent
]>revelation for me.
]>I was shown a statue from just _before_ the early Christian era
]>contrasted with a statue _from_ the early Christian era.
]>The contrast was so startling, I don't think I'll ever
]>look at anything quite the same way again.
That's understandable. :) I'd just hate to see your studies suffer.
]>Bea
]>Heretical Theist
Bea
fire...@god.insync.net ("Dore's Favourite Demon") wrote:
> >Sorry to get so worked up over this, but it's been a recent
> >revelation for me.
> >I was shown a statue from just _before_ the early Christian era
> >contrasted with a statue _from_ the early Christian era.
> >The contrast was so startling, I don't think I'll ever
> >look at anything quite the same way again.
>
> Can you describe the differences between the two pieces?
>
> I've seen some medieval art and it is quite crude compared to art from
> classical )i.e. greek and roman) times.
The Greek statue was a man, standing alone, strong, vital,
autonomous. The priciple of weight-shift (study of the
natural movements of the human form) had been used, so
the figure wasn't standing stiff as a board, it was in
a very natural and believable pose, down to the details
of flexed muscles, and the appropriate muscles flexed
to support the pose. The artist would have had to be a
keen observer of nature, and of the character of his
subject, because a confident personality seems to be
portrayed. There is such an accurate portrayal of
nature, it's easy to imagine that the statue might
suddenly spring to life and walk away!
Then there was the sculpture from the early Christian
era, perhaps from a time around two hundred years later.
In the Christian sculpture, we have stunted, puppet-like
figures which are blobs loosely representing human form,
with no individual identifying features, clustered together,
looking more frightened than confident. The figures
were thought to represent a group of Jesus's disciples,
probably Mathew, Mark, Luke and John since there were
four of them. I think that it would be hard to make
any such conclusions since the figures were so devoid
of character and individual identifying features.
There is no weight-shift in these figures, they stand
there rigid, huddled together. Like puppets on
a string. The message of that era seems to be that
the body and the individual are unimportant, and
significant only as a housing for the soul.
The early Christian work IS crude. I found myself wondering
if the artist was afraid that details might provoke the
wrath of the church, which was in a position to outlaw
artistic works and destroy the livelyhood of all artists.
No way to know, of course. But an entire era of artwork
rejects realistic portrayal of nature in favor of these
stiff, hollow-looking little figures. A rebellion against
"pagan art," perhaps.
I don't see anything to suggest that the rise of Christianity
was a positive influence on artwork, let alone civilization.
If the style of the artwork can be any hint at all into
the psychology of the people, I must say I would certainly
prefer to throw in with the Greek pagans!
Bea
Heretical Theist
> Erikc (alt.atheist #002) | "An Fhirinne in aghaidh an tSaoil."
> BAAWA Knight | "The Truth against the World."
> | -- Bardic Motto
> ======
> Remove god to respond.
>
Bea
stoney <sto...@stoneynet.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 06 Nov 2000 17:17:06 GMT, Bea <bn...@my-deja.com> wrote in
alt.atheism;
>
> ]>In article <5mbb0tcanlr17h0u8...@4ax.com>,
> ]> stoney <sto...@stoneynet.net> wrote:
> ]>
> ]> <clip>
> ]>
> ]>>
> ]>> http://www.cib.na.cnr.it/ntnp.html
> ]>>
> ]>> If it isn't this page then follow the links. There's a fantastic
cup
> ]>at the
> ]>> Naples National Gallery carved out of something and there's a
picture
> ]>carved
> ]>> into the inside cup bottom..
> ]>
> ]>I couldn't get the link to work, but I would love to see
> ]>this. Ah, Pompeii! The last hurrah before early Christian
> ]>art unfortunately kicked in.
>
> Blast it. Servers not working and that was a main jump off page. :\
>
> Trying to work my way in. Posting a trail of links.
>
>
http://www.infoculture.cbc.ca/archives/visart/visart_03302000_museumporn
.phtml
>
> Museum link is inoperative too.
>
> This one works..
> http://www.marketplace.it/museo.nazionale/index.htm
> Naples Museum of Archeological History
>
> OOOOHHHH OHHHH
> Pompeii ruins!
> http://www.marketplace.it/pompeiruins/index.htm
>
> I still remember wandering the streets there for a couple of hours
after
> descending inside Mt. Vesuvius.
>
> There's the Farnese cup and bull and a blue vase from Herculaneum(sp).
>
> Anyway, the tourist page had the links.
>
> I archived the pics of the above items and can email them, if you give
> permission.
>
> Sorry about that, but I wasn't expecting the main link go down.
>
> However, on the bright side pics of the city of Pompeii showed up...
:)
>
> ]>revelation for me.
> ]>I was shown a statue from just _before_ the early Christian era
> ]>contrasted with a statue _from_ the early Christian era.
> ]>The contrast was so startling, I don't think I'll ever
> ]>look at anything quite the same way again.
>
Stoney,
No problem, this thread is actually helping me think
through something I need to know for class.
Yes, I'd be happy to see what you have to email me.
Thanks! And thanks for all these links, this is great!
Bea
Heretical Theist
> Stoney
> "Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
> and
> SCAMPERMEISTER!"
>
> When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
> When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
>
Dore's Favourite Demon
>In article <3a06f3b4...@news.insync.net>,
> fire...@god.insync.net ("Dore's Favourite Demon") wrote:
>> On Mon, 06 Nov 2000 17:17:06 GMT, Bea <bn...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>
>
>> >Sorry to get so worked up over this, but it's been a recent
>> >revelation for me.
>> >I was shown a statue from just _before_ the early Christian era
>> >contrasted with a statue _from_ the early Christian era.
>> >The contrast was so startling, I don't think I'll ever
>> >look at anything quite the same way again.
>>
>> Can you describe the differences between the two pieces?
>>
>> I've seen some medieval art and it is quite crude compared to art from
>> classical )i.e. greek and roman) times.
>
>
>The Greek statue was a man, standing alone, strong, vital,
>autonomous. The priciple of weight-shift (study of the
>natural movements of the human form) had been used, so
>the figure wasn't standing stiff as a board, it was in
>a very natural and believable pose, down to the details
>of flexed muscles, and the appropriate muscles flexed
>to support the pose. The artist would have had to be a
>keen observer of nature, and of the character of his
>subject, because a confident personality seems to be
>portrayed. There is such an accurate portrayal of
>nature, it's easy to imagine that the statue might
>suddenly spring to life and walk away!
Exactly my point. Are you an artist yourself?
>Then there was the sculpture from the early Christian
>era, perhaps from a time around two hundred years later.
>In the Christian sculpture, we have stunted, puppet-like
>figures which are blobs loosely representing human form,
>with no individual identifying features, clustered together,
>looking more frightened than confident. The figures
>were thought to represent a group of Jesus's disciples,
>probably Mathew, Mark, Luke and John since there were
>four of them. I think that it would be hard to make
>any such conclusions since the figures were so devoid
>of character and individual identifying features.
>There is no weight-shift in these figures, they stand
>there rigid, huddled together. Like puppets on
>a string. The message of that era seems to be that
>the body and the individual are unimportant, and
>significant only as a housing for the soul.
To the christian right wing, that is still the case.
>The early Christian work IS crude. I found myself wondering
>if the artist was afraid that details might provoke the
>wrath of the church, which was in a position to outlaw
>artistic works and destroy the livelyhood of all artists.
Very probably so.
>No way to know, of course. But an entire era of artwork
>rejects realistic portrayal of nature in favor of these
>stiff, hollow-looking little figures. A rebellion against
>"pagan art," perhaps.
And it wasn't until the Renaissance that realistic artwork started
making a comeback.
In the moslem world, IIRC, it is forbidden in the Quran to make -any-
representation of any living thing, animal, vegetable, or human. I
don't know the -why- of it, but I suspect that it has something to do
with a prohibition against idolatry. All muslim art is geometric.
Perhaps this same notion infected the early christian artists as well.
>I don't see anything to suggest that the rise of Christianity
>was a positive influence on artwork, let alone civilization.
I can't see christianity as being a positive influence on -anything-.
About a year or so ago, I started a thread basically asking "what if
christianity had never come to power". I don't remember all the
responses, but the overall opinion was that we would be far more
advanced and much better off for it.
>If the style of the artwork can be any hint at all into
>the psychology of the people, I must say I would certainly
>prefer to throw in with the Greek pagans!
I'm with you on that one. I'm no psychologist but I think a person's
artwork (however it may manifest) is a -very- good indicator of how
that person thinks and relates to the rest of the world. Maybe
someone with a psychology background could discuss this further.
There is a rather active pagan community where I live. Discounting
the flakes and hangers-on, it is hard to tell the difference between
thier religious observances and a party. (There definitely is one,
though.) These people celebrate life rather than grovel to thier
deity and it shows in thier entire demeanor and approach to life. Whe
you're having a ball enjoying life, why waste time trying to convert
anybody. Talk about driving the christians absolutely batty! ;-)
Bea
I'm more of a commercial artist than a fine artist,
and have been more focused on how people react
psychologically to design. I'm finally getting a
chance to go back to school and pick up some more
background classes in the fine arts. I am just
loving art history, find myself immersed in it,
and wish I had done this a long time ago!
> >Then there was the sculpture from the early Christian
> >era, perhaps from a time around two hundred years later.
> >In the Christian sculpture, we have stunted, puppet-like
> >figures which are blobs loosely representing human form,
> >with no individual identifying features, clustered together,
> >looking more frightened than confident. The figures
> >were thought to represent a group of Jesus's disciples,
> >probably Mathew, Mark, Luke and John since there were
> >four of them. I think that it would be hard to make
> >any such conclusions since the figures were so devoid
> >of character and individual identifying features.
> >There is no weight-shift in these figures, they stand
> >there rigid, huddled together. Like puppets on
> >a string. The message of that era seems to be that
> >the body and the individual are unimportant, and
> >significant only as a housing for the soul.
>
> To the christian right wing, that is still the case.
Yeah. And that's what hit me like a brick.
> >The early Christian work IS crude. I found myself wondering
> >if the artist was afraid that details might provoke the
> >wrath of the church, which was in a position to outlaw
> >artistic works and destroy the livelyhood of all artists.
>
> Very probably so.
>
> >No way to know, of course. But an entire era of artwork
> >rejects realistic portrayal of nature in favor of these
> >stiff, hollow-looking little figures. A rebellion against
> >"pagan art," perhaps.
>
> And it wasn't until the Renaissance that realistic artwork started
> making a comeback.
And that was centuries down the road.
There is a pagan community across town from where I live,
which has full-moon observances in the public park. And,
oooh, what the Christians have to say about that... ;-)
Awhile back I announced to my husband (tongue only slightly
in cheek) that I had decided to worship the pagan gods of
my Viking ancestors, and honor their holidays. He hesitantly
asked me what this was going to involve. I told him, "When
it is a holiday, we will have a feast." Relieved, he said
he could fully support a religion like that!
Seriously, it makes a whole lot more sense to me to engage
in a spiritual observance through recognition of the natural
order of the earth, and enjoyment of the good things life
has to offer, rather than engaging in self-abasement and
wallowing in fear.
Bea
Heretical Theist
>
> Erikc (alt.atheist #002) | "An Fhirinne in aghaidh an tSaoil."
> BAAWA Knight | "The Truth against the World."
> | -- Bardic Motto
> ======
> Remove god to respond.
>
stoney
]>In article <bcee0tgu6tjl2t6a9...@4ax.com>,
]> stoney <sto...@stoneynet.net> wrote:
]>> On Mon, 06 Nov 2000 17:17:06 GMT, Bea <bn...@my-deja.com> wrote in
]>alt.atheism;
]>>
]>> ]>In article <5mbb0tcanlr17h0u8...@4ax.com>,
]>> ]> stoney <sto...@stoneynet.net> wrote:
]>> ]>
]>> ]> <clip>
]>> ]>
]>> ]>> You might take a look some of the artwork from Pompeii.
]>> ]>>
]>> ]>> http://www.cib.na.cnr.it/ntnp.html
]>> ]>>
]>> ]>> If it isn't this page then follow the links. There's a fantastic
]>cup
]>> ]>at the
]>> ]>> Naples National Gallery carved out of something and there's a
]>picture
]>> ]>carved
]>> ]>> into the inside cup bottom..
]>> ]>
]>> ]>
]>> ]>I couldn't get the link to work, but I would love to see
]>> ]>this. Ah, Pompeii! The last hurrah before early Christian
]>> ]>art unfortunately kicked in.
]>>
]>> Blast it. Servers not working and that was a main jump off page. :\
]>>
]>> Trying to work my way in. Posting a trail of links.
]>>
]>>
]>http://www.infoculture.cbc.ca/archives/visart/visart_03302000_museumporn
]>.phtml
]>>
]>> Museum link is inoperative too.
]>>
]>> This one works..
]>> http://www.marketplace.it/museo.nazionale/index.htm
]>> Naples Museum of Archeological History
]>>
]>> OOOOHHHH OHHHH
]>> Pompeii ruins!
]>> http://www.marketplace.it/pompeiruins/index.htm
]>>
]>> I still remember wandering the streets there for a couple of hours
]>after
]>> descending inside Mt. Vesuvius.
]>>
]>> There's the Farnese cup and bull and a blue vase from Herculaneum(sp).
]>>
]>> Anyway, the tourist page had the links.
]>>
]>> I archived the pics of the above items and can email them, if you give
]>> permission.
]>>
]>> Sorry about that, but I wasn't expecting the main link go down.
]>>
]>> However, on the bright side pics of the city of Pompeii showed up...
]>:)
]>>
]>> ]>Sorry to get so worked up over this, but it's been a recent
]>> ]>revelation for me.
]>> ]>I was shown a statue from just _before_ the early Christian era
]>> ]>contrasted with a statue _from_ the early Christian era.
]>> ]>The contrast was so startling, I don't think I'll ever
]>> ]>look at anything quite the same way again.
]>>
]>> That's understandable. :) I'd just hate to see your studies suffer.
]>
]>
]>Stoney,
]>
]>No problem, this thread is actually helping me think
]>through something I need to know for class.
]>
]>Yes, I'd be happy to see what you have to email me.
]>Thanks! And thanks for all these links, this is great!
Welcome. Perhaps the tourist link will work again in a couple of weeks.
They've been sent. Three pics.
]>Bea
]>Heretical Theist
still...@my-deja.com
stoney <sto...@stoneynet.net> wrote:
> ]>Oh, yum.
>
> Heh.
>
> ]>I'm running out of bookmark room.
>
> MUHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHAA (evil laughter)
I am not afraid.
Well, cockroaches scare me.
> ]>And now I want to go to St.
> ]>Petersburg -- which I've always wanted to do, anyway.
> Ummm...no thank you. I'll pass on Russia.
> Years ago I had a chance to go on a 6 country, two week tour, from
> Scotland. I went to a travel agent to figure out how to get to
> Finland and then meet the tour the first night in Brussels, and stay
> within my (laughter!!!) *budget.* (this was in the mid-70's when I was
> USN) The agent said "Well, you could take a ship to Finland and then
> the train back. You'd change trains at Riga.
> "Riga. Riga." The name was ringing bells I didn't like but I couldn't
> put my finger on it. "Show me Riga on the map."
> The travel agent put a finger on a spot around sixty miles inside the
> Soviet Union.
>
> "No, Thank you." Oh that would have gone over REAL good with Russian
> paranoia.
True, but that was then. I've always been fascinated by that country.
I have this insane dream to take the train Stalin built all the way from
Vladivostock to Moscow. Pack a jar of peanut butter, some extra
toilet paper, and stock up on hard currency and cigarettes. Maybe
without the children...
> An active duty U.S. military person changing trains?
>
> ]>Please, if ever you feel like tangenting again...
>
> /me activates the jato packs for the 'super scamper(tm)'
>
> The Tate Gallery is fantastic. I've been to it on a couple of
> occasions years apart. I've wandered through the Lourve as well. The
> last time I was in London I meandered through the British National
> Gallery, which is online too... :)
> Did I ever tell you about this one painting in the Detroit Institute
> of Art?
> ( dangling bait ) MUHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHHAAHA.
<shivers>
> Oops... I mean ( cough ) "gentle grin." (yeah, that's it....a gentle
> grin)
Whew! How soothing -- and tempting me to go to Michegan -- and not
Russia?
> The first time I was in London I had the opportunity to walk the
> decks, and go below decks, on the H.M.S. Discovery.....(lets see if
> that rings any bells) :)
I think I'm suffering from half-heimers.
It's not as bad as Alzheimers.
You just can't remember half the stuff half the time.
Sunny
>
> Stoney
> "Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
> and
> SCAMPERMEISTER!"
>
> When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
> When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
>
Bea
stoney <sto...@stoneynet.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Nov 2000 21:26:01 GMT, Bea <bn...@my-deja.com> wrote in
alt.atheism;
>> ]>> On Mon, 06 Nov 2000 17:17:06 GMT, Bea <bn...@my-deja.com> wrote in
> ]>alt.atheism;
> ]>>
> ]>> ]>In article <5mbb0tcanlr17h0u8...@4ax.com>,
> ]>> ]> stoney <sto...@stoneynet.net> wrote:
> ]>> ]>
> ]>> ]> <clip>
> ]>> ]>
> ]>> ]>>
> ]>> ]>> http://www.cib.na.cnr.it/ntnp.html
> ]>> ]>>
> ]>> ]>> If it isn't this page then follow the links. There's a
fantastic
> ]>cup
> ]>> ]>at the
> ]>> ]>> Naples National Gallery carved out of something and there's a
> ]>picture
> ]>> ]>carved
> ]>> ]>> into the inside cup bottom..
These are wonderful! Thanks!
And it becomes all the more poignant that this detailed,
naturalistic, exquisite work disappeared in subsequent
centuries in favor of something crude and primative and
uhm, Christian.
Bea
Heretical Theist
> Stoney
> "Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
> and
> SCAMPERMEISTER!"
>
> When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
> When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
>
stoney
]>In article <b0de0to7s4ijg5va4...@4ax.com>,
Cigarettes are hard currency. Amazing what a pack will buy-provided they aren't
confiscated as 'contraband.'
]>> An active duty U.S. military person changing trains?
]>>
]>> ]>Please, if ever you feel like tangenting again...
]>>
]>> /me activates the jato packs for the 'super scamper(tm)'
]>>
]>> The Tate Gallery is fantastic. I've been to it on a couple of
]>> occasions years apart. I've wandered through the Lourve as well. The
]>> last time I was in London I meandered through the British National
]>> Gallery, which is online too... :)
]>> Did I ever tell you about this one painting in the Detroit Institute
]>> of Art?
]>> ( dangling bait ) MUHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHHAAHA.
]>
]><shivers>
:)
]>> Oops... I mean ( cough ) "gentle grin." (yeah, that's it....a gentle
]>> grin)
]>
]>Whew! How soothing -- and tempting me to go to Michegan -- and not
]>Russia?
Not at all. Look at it again. I asked "Did I ever *tell* you about this one
painting at the Detroit Institute of Art?" There's a difference.
BTW: If you ever do meander north, I suggest spending a day at Greenfield
Village (which also has Edison's N.J. lab) and a day at the Henry Ford
Museum-they're next to each other.
]>> The first time I was in London I had the opportunity to walk the
]>> decks, and go below decks, on the H.M.S. Discovery.....(lets see if
]>> that rings any bells) :)
]>
]>I think I'm suffering from half-heimers.
]>It's not as bad as Alzheimers.
]>You just can't remember half the stuff half the time.
The H.M.S. Discovery was the ship that Admiral Peary took to the Pole around
1909. The ship was modified and a 4' X 4' section of the overhead was raised to
allow a crew member a spot below decks where he could stand upright during the,
iirc, two year voyage.
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=00332184621786444599&sa=Go&q="HMS%20Discovery"
http://www.nmm.ac.uk/cmr/polar_index.html
Detroit Institute of Art
http://www.dia.org/
Henry Ford Museum and GreenField Village
http://www.hfmgv.org/index2.html
stoney
]>In article <21vi0t82cbfd7u9fc...@4ax.com>,
]> stoney <sto...@stoneynet.net> wrote:
]>> On Tue, 07 Nov 2000 21:26:01 GMT, Bea <bn...@my-deja.com> wrote in
]>alt.atheism;
]>>
]>> ]>In article <bcee0tgu6tjl2t6a9...@4ax.com>,
]>> ]> stoney <sto...@stoneynet.net> wrote:
]>> ]>> On Mon, 06 Nov 2000 17:17:06 GMT, Bea <bn...@my-deja.com> wrote in
]>> ]>alt.atheism;
(snip)
]>> ]>No problem, this thread is actually helping me think
]>> ]>through something I need to know for class.
]>> ]>
]>> ]>Yes, I'd be happy to see what you have to email me.
]>> ]>Thanks! And thanks for all these links, this is great!
]>>
]>> Welcome. Perhaps the tourist link will work again in a couple of
]>weeks.
]>> They've been sent. Three pics.
]>
]>
]>These are wonderful! Thanks!
]>
]>And it becomes all the more poignant that this detailed,
]>naturalistic, exquisite work disappeared in subsequent
]>centuries in favor of something crude and primative and
]>uhm, Christian.
If you want to see an example of this in fiction, it can be seen in "Faith of
the Fallen" by Terry Goodkind. Granted it is the sixth in the series, but it
can be read standing alone.
]>Bea
]>Heretical Theist