Protestant art
Deborah
Protestant Christianity has never inspired any great visual art, mostly because
of the persistent fear of idolatry.
I've been trying to think of some examples of great Protestant visual art, and
all I can come up with is Grant Wood's "American Gothic." But that's really
more of a commentary on American Protestant culture, rather than a
glorification of Protestant faith. Can anyone think of some better examples?
Best regards from Deborah
--
FAQ file: http://members.aol.com/SJF1959/index.html
Found in the in-box: send a blank email to
Found_in_the_i...@yahoogroups.com
RM Mentock
> I've been trying to think of some examples of great Protestant visual art, and
> all I can come up with is Grant Wood's "American Gothic." But that's really
> more of a commentary on American Protestant culture, rather than a
> glorification of Protestant faith. Can anyone think of some better examples?
How about this: http://mentock.home.mindspring.com/smdollar.jpg
--
RM Mentock
C. K. Monet, c'est moi
The AFCA Kid
>A friend of mine (who is a Protestant theologian) remarked to me that
>Protestant Christianity has never inspired any great visual art, mostly
>because
>of the persistent fear of idolatry.
Huh. How about the Isenwald Altarpiece, or, say...Albrecht Durer, Hans Holbein,
or Peter Brueghel.
--
"Impeach duh-be-yuh"
Boron Elgar
>A friend of mine (who is a Protestant theologian) remarked to me that
>Protestant Christianity has never inspired any great visual art, mostly because
>of the persistent fear of idolatry.
>
>I've been trying to think of some examples of great Protestant visual art, and
>all I can come up with is Grant Wood's "American Gothic." But that's really
>more of a commentary on American Protestant culture, rather than a
>glorification of Protestant faith. Can anyone think of some better examples?
>
>Best regards from Deborah
Do you extend this to architecture? Christopher Wren comes to mind &
St. Paul's.
Boron
Opus the Penguin
> A friend of mine (who is a Protestant theologian) remarked to me
> that Protestant Christianity has never inspired any great visual
> art, mostly because of the persistent fear of idolatry.
>
> I've been trying to think of some examples of great Protestant
> visual art, and all I can come up with is Grant Wood's "American
> Gothic." But that's really more of a commentary on American
> Protestant culture, rather than a glorification of Protestant
> faith. Can anyone think of some better examples?
Well, see, that's the thing. Protestant art isn't about Protestantism.
It's just about the world. I think that was the whole point of Albrecht
Durer doing a bunny. You didn't have to eschew natural subjects for
theological as though painting (well, woodcutting) one of God's
creatures was somehow an inferior use of time to doing the Assumption
of the Virgin or whatever.
Protestantism helped get European art *out* of its Renaissance funk in
which the same religious subjects were repeated ad tedium.
It should be noted that Luther and Lutheranism never opposed the
production of religious images, even of God or Jesus. They simply
stipulate that these images are not to be worshiped or to be used as
conduits for worship.
It was the Reformed movement spearheaded by John Calvin that understood
the 2nd Commandment (which to the Lutherans as to the Catholics is
Commandment 1b) to forbid the making of images of God/Christ *at all*.
So Durer, a Lutheran, was not making a statement about the idolatry of
former subjects. He was simply saying that all God's creatures got
dignity. This fits in broadly with Luther's whole understanding of
vocation--i.e. it ain't just priests, monks, and nuns that have it;
plumbers and fishmongers are equally called (if not extraordinarily
so) by God to their appointed tasks.
Because of all this, it is not easy to delineate a Protestant artistic
tradition as such. Atheists can paint bunnies too, so the depiction of
natural subjects was no guarantee of Protestant convictions on the part
of the artist.
--
Opus the Penguin
"Here's a clue for some people: Your panties don't come off on their
own." - Lots42 (who was not recommending this as a pickup line)
The AFCA Kid
little about it.
--
"Impeach duh-be-yuh"
The AFCA Kid
>> A friend of mine (who is a Protestant theologian) remarked to me
>> that Protestant Christianity has never inspired any great visual
>> art, mostly because of the persistent fear of idolatry.
>>
>> I've been trying to think of some examples of great Protestant
>> visual art, and all I can come up with is Grant Wood's "American
>> Gothic." But that's really more of a commentary on American
>> Protestant culture, rather than a glorification of Protestant
>> faith. Can anyone think of some better examples?
>
>Well, see, that's the thing. Protestant art isn't about Protestantism.
"The Dutch Baroque stands out in art history for the volume of paintings that
artists produced for eager buyers. Between 1610/20 and 1670/80, easel pictures
of varying qualities were purchased by virtually every middle class family in
Holland. Why did such demand exist? And for the Dutch painter, a happy future
seemed all but guaranteed. Out of this period emerged Jan Vermeer, Jacob van
Ruisdael, Jan Steen, Jan van Goyen, Frans Hals and Rembrandt van Rijn. (of
course, Baldwin thinks these guys are all French) Yet, within this promising
situation was a significant flaw which led to a crisis in the art market and
hard times for many artists. But let us find the roots of the wealth which
created the desire for art in the first place....Also popular was the "Vanitas"
allegory. In Pieter Claesz's "Still Life" (1629) partially eaten food and a
tipped glass in an otherwise luxurious still life contain hidden meaning: they
remind the viewer that earthly pleasures are passing."
>It's just about the world.
No, it's about the pleasures of the world being fleeting, see for example
Vermeer's woman with a balance, or again, any of the various Dutch still lifes,
about which one of the art books I've read, which isn't the only way im not
like Baldwin, says "still lifes exist above all to delight the senses, but even
they can be tinged with a melancholy air. As a result of Holland's conversion
to Calvinism, these visual feasts became vehicles for teaching moral lessons"
That's Janson's history of art.
> I think that was the whole point of Albrecht
>Durer doing a bunny. You didn't have to eschew natural subjects for
>theological as though painting (well, woodcutting) one of God's
>creatures was somehow an inferior use of time to doing the Assumption
>of the Virgin or whatever.
Well, or more likely, since someone other than the church was beginning to be
able to buy paintings, they began to want something other than apotheosis
ceilings and scenes from the Bible, although certainly those remained popular.
>
>Protestantism helped get European art *out* of its Renaissance funk in
>which the same religious subjects were repeated ad tedium.
Rennaissance painting had largely given over to Mannerism and the Baroque
before protestantism got going, really, and certainly there continued to be no
shortage of religious subjects, even in protestant art, on until the modern age
in the graphic and plastic arts.
>
>It should be noted that Luther and Lutheranism never opposed the
>production of religious images, even of God or Jesus.
Well, Luther didn't, but certainly Lutheranism did, as Andreas Bodenstein and
"dismissal of pictures" and iconoclasm, and all that junk.
> They simply
>stipulate that these images are not to be worshiped or to be used as
>conduits for worship.
No, there was a big movement geared towards burning paintings, smashing
statues, not making that kind of thing. Luther wasn't addressing Calvin in
"Against the Heavenly Prophets in the Matter of Images and Sacraments"
--
"Impeach duh-be-yuh"
Deborah
<opusthe...@netzero.net> writes:
>Well, see, that's the thing. Protestant art isn't about Protestantism.
>It's just about the world.
Opus, your explanation is a model of clarity - thank you!
And yet, it's a little sad to think that stained glass windows depicting Luther
at the door of the Wittenburg cathedral(1) aren't set-pieces of the Protestant
tradition.
Best regards from Deborah
1) But let's not even get started about the Diet of Worms. I don't want to
think about it all, let alone see it in color.(2)
2) Yes, I know that it wasn't as disgusting as it sounds. That was a joke,
son.
Opus the Penguin
> Opus the Penguin writes:
>
>>Well, see, that's the thing. Protestant art isn't about
>>Protestantism. It's just about the world.
>
> Opus, your explanation is a model of clarity - thank you!
>
> And yet, it's a little sad to think that stained glass windows
> depicting Luther at the door of the Wittenburg cathedral(1) aren't
> set-pieces of the Protestant tradition.
There was something close to that for a while, at least with pictures
of Luther. True, many portraits stuck to a sort of homey realism (which
was itself a theological statement, I think, about the humbleness of
God's vessels). But others were more allegorical or even
hagiographical.
Check out, for example, Hans Holbein the Younger's "Luther as German
Hercules":
http://www.tasc.ac.uk/histcourse/reformat/eng2/war428.htm
This gets me to wondering, though, about the question of Jewish art. I
can't call to mind a Jewish artistic tradition either. Does this
represent a lacuna in my education, or is there a theological reason
for this as well?
For that matter, who are the famous Jewish artists (which I take to be
a separate question)? I can think of Jewish composers easily enough--
Feliz Mendelssohn (though he converted), Max Bruch, and Gustav Mahler.
And it's an embarrassment of riches when we come to the question of
excellent Jewish authors. But for the visual arts, I'm not coming up
with any names. Again, this may be merely an embarrassing deficiency in
my own knowledge.
--
Opus the Penguin
TWIAVBP, in spades. - Boron Elgar
The AFCA Kid
>Opus, your explanation is a model of clarity - thank you!
Except, honey, it's wrong. There's plenty of protestant art; Gruenwald and
Rembrant and Durer and Vermeer and Holbein and Breughel, and the Dutch still
lives.
--
"Impeach duh-be-yuh"
The AFCA Kid
>For that matter, who are the famous Jewish artists (which I take to be
>a separate question)?
They're mostly modern artists, as Jews were enjoined from apprentice programs,
and of course church tradition would rule them out as recieving commissions.
However, obviously you've got you Chagalls and Modiglianis, your Pisarros in
your old school, and Alfred Stieglitz doing as much as anyone to sell this
stuff, then then of course the various abstract expressionist, Rothko,
Frankenthaler, Ad Reinhardt of AFCA fame, Olitsky, Morris Louis and there are
several Jewish artists in the pop art school that replaced it, Jim Dine, Larry
Rivers, Roy Lichtenstein and the cartoonists who inspired him; Jack Kirby, Will
Eisner, Lou Fine, Jack Cole, Gil Kane, uh, I think Steve Ditko.
--
"Impeach duh-be-yuh"
Boron Elgar
>In article <Xns927E5E0C4F5ABop...@127.0.0.1>, Opus the Penguin
><opusthe...@netzero.net> writes:
>
>>Well, see, that's the thing. Protestant art isn't about Protestantism.
>>It's just about the world.
>
>Opus, your explanation is a model of clarity - thank you!
>
>And yet, it's a little sad to think that stained glass windows depicting Luther
>at the door of the Wittenburg cathedral(1) aren't set-pieces of the Protestant
>tradition.
>
Hans Holbein the Younger, illustrated Martin Luther's German
translation of the bible and certainly went on to be a famous
portraitist of famous Protestants.
You mentioned "American Gothic," which is really a secular subject
matter, despite its name, so you have to make a distinction between
Protestant artists and visual arts on a Protestant theme. What exactly
are you looking for? There is not the tradition of art within the
various Protestant sects that exists within the Eastern and Western
Orthodox and Catholic, and much of that is due to the very nature of
the Reformation itself, but surely there is much Protestant art of a
secular & religious nature.
The idea that "Protestant art is not about Protestantism," is a
charming turn of phrase, but not really based upon any facts of art
history.
Boron
John Lawler
>A friend of mine (who is a Protestant theologian) remarked to me that
>Protestant Christianity has never inspired any great visual art, mostly
>because of the persistent fear of idolatry.
>I've been trying to think of some examples of great Protestant visual art,
>and all I can come up with is Grant Wood's "American Gothic." But that's
>really more of a commentary on American Protestant culture, rather than a
>glorification of Protestant faith. Can anyone think of some better
>examples?
Dürer, Breughel, etc. have already been mentioned, and there were probably
lots more, but as Opus has pointed out, characteristically religious art
per se was never a major Protestant focus. (Music is a different kettle
of fish -- one need only mention Bach; but music isn't representational.)
Puts me in mind of a Bateson quotation I recently used as a section header
in a paper (at http://www.umich.edu/~jlawler/style.doc):
"The idea that there is any mental process going on that *isn't* meta-
phoric is a very late, school-marmish idea. What they were killing
each other over in the 17th Century was metaphor. Is the bread and
wine the body and blood of Christ? The Catholics said yes. The
Protestants said no; it *stands* for body and blood. The Protestant
view of the sacrament was a policy decision to exclude from the
Church that part of the mind which is concerned with poetry, feeling,
fantasy, metaphor, stories." -- Gregory Bateson
And thus representational art. Bateson remarks elsewhere that what was
subsumed under the institution of "religion" in Medieval Europe and most
other cultures has split into two social institutions in Western society
--- what we still call "religion" on the one hand, and on the other what
we now call "entertainment".
Modern "religion" has the moralistic bits but not much popular appeal (or
many good jokes, though god knows it inspires a lot of them), and modern
"entertainment" has the fun parts (including the naughty bits), but no
morals. Occasionally there are efforts to make one more like the other,
but they always fail; the split appears to be permanent.
-John Lawler http://www.umich.edu/~jlawler Michigan Linguistics Dept
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity."
-- Harlan Ellison
Opus the Penguin
> You mentioned "American Gothic," which is really a secular subject
> matter, despite its name, so you have to make a distinction
> between Protestant artists and visual arts on a Protestant theme.
> What exactly are you looking for? There is not the tradition of
> art within the various Protestant sects that exists within the
> Eastern and Western Orthodox and Catholic, and much of that is due
> to the very nature of the Reformation itself, but surely there is
> much Protestant art of a secular & religious nature.
>
> The idea that "Protestant art is not about Protestantism," is a
> charming turn of phrase, but not really based upon any facts of art
> history.
Well, then, you're in a position to answer Deborah's question, no? What
Protestant art that *is* about Protestantism can you point us to? We've
mentioned Hans Holbein the Younger. And Lucas Cranach, the Elder, could
certainly be added to that list.
Beyond that, what "facts of art history" are you referring to?
Cromwell's request that Peter Lely paint him "warts and all," perhaps?
--
Opus the Penguin
"Things might have got ugly if I hadn't had those Smarties and mustard
to distract her." - N Jill Marsh
Opus the Penguin
> Dürer, Breughel, etc. have already been mentioned, and there were
> probably lots more, but as Opus has pointed out,
> characteristically religious art per se was never a major
> Protestant focus. (Music is a different kettle of fish -- one
> need only mention Bach; but music isn't representational.) Puts
> me in mind of a Bateson quotation I recently used as a section
> header in a paper (at http://www.umich.edu/~jlawler/style.doc):
>
> "The idea that there is any mental process going on that *isn't*
> meta-phoric is a very late, school-marmish idea. What they were
> killing each other over in the 17th Century was metaphor. Is
> the bread and wine the body and blood of Christ? The Catholics
> said yes. The Protestants said no; it *stands* for body and
> blood. The Protestant view of the sacrament was a policy
> decision to exclude from the Church that part of the mind which
> is concerned with poetry, feeling, fantasy, metaphor, stories."
> -- Gregory Bateson
>
> And thus representational art.
That's interesting, but I think Bateson's historical knowledge is
inaccurate at this point. The idea that the bread and wine were
symbols only was not very much held in the churches that came out of
the Reformation. Lutherans didn't hold to it at all. Neither did
most Reformed churches. Even Zwingli's view was more nuanced.
As a standard Reformed example, take the Belgic Confession of 1561 on
the subject:
We do not understand the manner in which this is done,
just as we do not comprehend the hidden activity of the
Spirit of God. Yet we do not go wrong when we say that
what we eat and drink is the true, natural body and the
true blood of Christ. However, the manner in which we
eat it is not by mouth but in the spirit by faith.
This Confession was adopted by the Synod of Dort in 1618/19 and thus
became a confessional standard for the Reformed Church in the
Netherlands.
Many more examples could be adduced. Thus, I have to take exception
to Bateson's statement that the Protestants said the bread and wine
merely stand for body and blood.
That view is more properly attributed to the Anabaptist tradition
that arose alongside the Reformed. In general, the Baptists, who are
heirs of that tradition, are lumped in with Reformed and Lutheran
under the heading "Protestant." In many cases, this bracketing is
not helpful; and the teaching surrounding the Lord's Supper is one
of those cases.
Bill Diamond
alt.fan.cecil-adams back on 04 Sep 2002 05:04:30 GMT that ...
>In article <Xns927E5E0C4F5ABop...@127.0.0.1>, Opus the Penguin
><opusthe...@netzero.net> writes:
>
>>Well, see, that's the thing. Protestant art isn't about Protestantism.
>>It's just about the world.
>
>Opus, your explanation is a model of clarity - thank you!
>
>And yet, it's a little sad to think that stained glass windows depicting Luther
>at the door of the Wittenburg cathedral(1) aren't set-pieces of the Protestant
>tradition.
>
>Best regards from Deborah
>
I thought he tacked the 95 Theses onto the door of the Wittenburg, but
it was the Augsburg Cathedral where he left his fist marks.
Bill
Margaret Kane
"Opus the Penguin" <opusthe...@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:Xns927F5648AA8ABop...@127.0.0.1...
> Boron Elgar wrote:
> > You mentioned "American Gothic," which is really a secular subject
> > matter, despite its name, so you have to make a distinction
> > between Protestant artists and visual arts on a Protestant theme.
> > What exactly are you looking for? There is not the tradition of
> > art within the various Protestant sects that exists within the
> > Eastern and Western Orthodox and Catholic, and much of that is due
> > to the very nature of the Reformation itself, but surely there is
> > much Protestant art of a secular & religious nature.
> >
> > The idea that "Protestant art is not about Protestantism," is a
> > charming turn of phrase, but not really based upon any facts of art
> > history.
>
> Well, then, you're in a position to answer Deborah's question, no? What
> Protestant art that *is* about Protestantism can you point us to? We've
> mentioned Hans Holbein the Younger. And Lucas Cranach, the Elder, could
> certainly be added to that list.
Well, there are many portraits of Henry VIII that were basically done to
point out "Look at me, I'm the head of the church! Nyah, nyah, pope!" (I
paraphrase).
Margaret
Boron Elgar
(John Lawler) wrote:
>Dürer, Breughel, etc. have already been mentioned, and there were probably
>lots more, but as Opus has pointed out, characteristically religious art
>per se was never a major Protestant focus. (Music is a different kettle
>of fish -- one need only mention Bach; but music isn't representational.)
>Puts me in mind of a Bateson quotation I recently used as a section header
>in a paper (at http://www.umich.edu/~jlawler/style.doc):
>
> "The idea that there is any mental process going on that *isn't* meta-
> phoric is a very late, school-marmish idea. What they were killing
> each other over in the 17th Century was metaphor. Is the bread and
> wine the body and blood of Christ? The Catholics said yes. The
> Protestants said no; it *stands* for body and blood. The Protestant
> view of the sacrament was a policy decision to exclude from the
> Church that part of the mind which is concerned with poetry, feeling,
> fantasy, metaphor, stories." -- Gregory Bateson
>
>And thus representational art. Bateson remarks elsewhere that what was
>subsumed under the institution of "religion" in Medieval Europe and most
>other cultures has split into two social institutions in Western society
>--- what we still call "religion" on the one hand, and on the other what
>we now call "entertainment".
The intertwining of religion and art is not unique to Catholicism and
its separation or even forbidden nature, not uncommon to other
religions. I do not know if one can say as to the art being a focus
of Catholicism or Buddhism or ancient Greek religions, as much as it
was a means of reaching and teaching and attracting the adherents. If
the congregants cannot read, provide pictures in stained glass. Means
to an end with gravy if it's cute.
It would be interesting to investigate how each emerging Protestant
sect approached this and to determine how much was directly related to
doctrine and interpretation and how much just caught up a general and
sweeping rejection of all things Catholic.
The Catholic church expended quite a bit on lavish art to try to lure
& secure its wandering and waning congregations after the Reformation
and Calvinist Holland had many fine Protestant artists, too, who often
depicted religious themes. Rembrandt, product of a Catholic mother &
Calvinist father would be said to have trod in both worlds in his art.
Boron
Bill Diamond
alt.fan.cecil-adams back on 4 Sep 2002 05:38:17 GMT that ...
>
>For that matter, who are the famous Jewish artists (which I take to be
>a separate question)? I can think of Jewish composers easily enough--
>Feliz Mendelssohn (though he converted), Max Bruch, and Gustav Mahler.
>And it's an embarrassment of riches when we come to the question of
>excellent Jewish authors. But for the visual arts, I'm not coming up
>with any names. Again, this may be merely an embarrassing deficiency in
>my own knowledge.
Frida Kahlo, maybe DaVinci (there's some story his mother was Jewish),
Marc Chagall, Salvador Dali, Max Ernst, Vasily Kandinsky, Oskar
Kokoschka, Piet Mondrian, Modigliani, Camille Pissaro, Mark Rothko,
Peter Max, Deborah Kass all come to mind. Kenneth Goldsmith has done
some pretty provocative work helping Jews identify and address their
own conflicts.
Chagall's art is displayed in the Knesset, and his incredible stained
glass windows are in the Synagogue of the Hadassah-Hebrew University
Medical Center.
Bill
The AFCA Kid
>Dürer, Breughel, etc. have already been mentioned, and there were probably
>lots more, but as Opus has pointed out, characteristically religious art
>per se was never a major Protestant focus.
Again, I don't think this is true, as Durer, Breughel, Holbein (and I'm
including Greunwald as a proto-protestant.) Rembrandt and Vermeer painted
specifically religious art, and as oft noted, the abiding tradition of dutch
still lifes.. lives? represent Calvinist tradition, not only with their Vanitas
themes, but also with a fairly complex and now largely forgotten symbology.
--
"Impeach duh-be-yuh"
Kevin O'Neill
Kid) wrote:
>jla...@amidar.gpcc.itd.umich.edu (John Lawler) writes:
>
>>Dürer, Breughel, etc. have already been mentioned, and there were probably
>>lots more, but as Opus has pointed out, characteristically religious art
>>per se was never a major Protestant focus.
>
>Again, I don't think this is true, blah blah blah
<snip>
Hey, remember when I told you that if you didn't start owning up when
you were wrong that no one would play with you? And see, you might
even have a point here, but damned if the party don't just leave the
kitchen when you walk in. Now quit being such a buttmunch and maybe
someone will answer you next time.
It's all about the love, man
Kevin
The AFCA Kid
>Frida Kahlo, maybe DaVinci (there's some story his mother was Jewish),
>Marc Chagall, Salvador Dali,
Kahlo and Dali belonging to that branch of the Jewish faith known as "The
Roman Catholic Church."
> Max Ernst,
No
> Vasily Kandinsky, Oskar
>Kokoschka, Piet Mondrian, Modigliani, Camille Pissaro, Mark Rothko,
>Peter Max, Deborah Kass all come to mind. Kenneth Goldsmith has done
>some pretty provocative work helping Jews identify and address their
>own conflicts.
>
>Chagall's art is displayed in the Knesset, and his incredible stained
>glass windows are in the Synagogue of the Hadassah-Hebrew University
>Medical Center.
Jack Kirby basically invented comic books as we know them.
--
"Impeach duh-be-yuh"
The AFCA Kid
>
>On 04 Sep 2002 16:31:10 GMT, mutigho...@aol.comseven (The AFCA
>Kid) wrote:
>
>>jla...@amidar.gpcc.itd.umich.edu (John Lawler) writes:
>>
>>>Dürer, Breughel, etc. have already been mentioned, and there were probably
>>>lots more, but as Opus has pointed out, characteristically religious art
>>>per se was never a major Protestant focus.
>>
>>Again, I don't think this is true, blah blah blah
>
><snip>
>
>Hey, remember when I told you that if you didn't start owning up when
>you were wrong that no one would play with you?
Well, I do own up when I'm wrong, Kev. It's just I'm not wrong nearly as often
as you people with more superficial knowledge think. You're just mad I'm in
Kim's gang, and you're not.
> And see, you might
>even have a point here,
Yeah, no shit. Wow, it's astonishing how little these people know. Protestant
art isn't really about protestantism? What the hell is he talking about?
> but damned if the party don't just leave the
>kitchen when you walk in.
It's just in my nature to kill fleas with a sledgehammer ever since 1985. I
dissemble well, that's mostly it.
--
"Impeach duh-be-yuh"
Kevin O'Neill
Kid) wrote:
>K_S_O...@yahoo.com (Kevin O'Neill) writes:
>
>>
>>On 04 Sep 2002 16:31:10 GMT, mutigho...@aol.comseven (The AFCA
>>Kid) wrote:
>>
>>>jla...@amidar.gpcc.itd.umich.edu (John Lawler) writes:
>>>
>>>>Dürer, Breughel, etc. have already been mentioned, and there were probably
>>>>lots more, but as Opus has pointed out, characteristically religious art
>>>>per se was never a major Protestant focus.
>>>
>>>Again, I don't think this is true, blah blah blah
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>Hey, remember when I told you that if you didn't start owning up when
>>you were wrong that no one would play with you?
>
>Well, I do own up when I'm wrong, Kev.
Nah, you don't. Like with the econ thing, for example, your original
assertion turned out wrong, he was in fact published in all sorts of
non-Austrian journals, that's just a fact. So you switched to making
the point that Austrian econ is not mainstream, which is a fine point
perhaps, but not what you started on. So you ended up with a sort of
rear-guard action, playing the "If it turns out to be more like
osteopathy" card or something like that, to redefine who won. But,
see, what you should have done is folded, suddenly, said "Yep, you're
right, nevermind."
Now sit back, I'm gonna learn you something, here: The reason you
should have done this is because you're such an abrasive ratfuck so
much of the time; you remind me of someone I once knew, and like her
you have to give people something to look for, or they tune you out.
See, I had this big gang in college, we would hang around, eat dinner
together every Thursday night, take turns sleeping with each other,
and argue about anything under the sun. So, one girl who jumped in
was this math girl turned dancer/really-good-cook, Christina, who
latched onto us somehow and made herself at home. And she was the
most savage, evil debate ho you ever met, she'd hit you anywhere,
she'd talk about you mama, whatever, and she was smart, and usually
right on whatever topic we were on. But, you know, it was ok, because
in the middle of a *huge* fight, I mean huge, everybody mad and glued
down hard to a position, she'd just flip. She's realize she was wrong
on some point and would just give it to you, "OK, you're right."
Bizzare, she'd walk out and leave people reeling. And it meant that
she could be as savage as she wanted when she thought she was right,
because if you argued with her, you always had that carrot of knowing
you *could* win, if you made a good enough case. That's what you're
missing, you never give anyone the credit for winning. The most I've
ever seen was when you sort of admited you'd botched that "exception
that proves the rule" thing, and that was pretty grudging too. It's
gotta be like judo, when you go you have to really go, or it won't
work.
>It's just I'm not wrong nearly as often
>as you people with more superficial knowledge think.
My knowledge is superficial on many things, sure. I do, however, know
how to look up what journals someone has published in.
>You're just mad I'm in Kim's gang, and you're not.
I wouldn't know Kim's gang if it walked up and slapped me with a
flounder. Do you boyz have, like, a tag, er sumthin?
>> And see, you might even have a point here,
>
>Yeah, no shit. Wow, it's astonishing how little these people know. Protestant
>art isn't really about protestantism? What the hell is he talking about?
But notice how none of the nice people will talk to you? Why do you
suppose that is? They don't resent you for being right, you dork,
they're all more or less here because they more or less admire Cecil
for being right more or less all the time. They just think you're no
fun to argue with. So either get more polite all the time, which I
offhand doubt you could do or would enjoy, or learn to fold when
you're wrong, for punctuation.
>> but damned if the party don't just leave the
>>kitchen when you walk in.
>
> It's just in my nature to kill fleas with a sledgehammer ever since 1985. I
>dissemble well, that's mostly it.
Whatever, it's tedious to watch rear-guard actions all the time.
Kevin
RM Mentock
>
> On 04 Sep 2002 17:14:55 GMT, mutigho...@aol.comseven (The AFCA
> Kid) wrote:
>>
> But notice how none of the nice people will talk to you? Why do you
> suppose that is? They don't resent you for being right, you dork,
don't mind him
> they're all more or less here because they more or less admire Cecil
> for being right more or less all the time.
we're here to bury cecil, not praise him
> They just think you're no
> fun to argue with. So either get more polite all the time, which I
> offhand doubt you could do or would enjoy, or learn to fold when
> you're wrong, for punctuation.
> > It's just in my nature to kill fleas with a sledgehammer ever since 1985. I
> >dissemble well, that's mostly it.
>
> Whatever, it's tedious to watch rear-guard actions all the time.
Kevin. He said dissemble.
Opus the Penguin
> Kevin O'Neill
>> And see, you might even have a point here,
>
> Yeah, no shit. Wow, it's astonishing how little these people know.
> Protestant art isn't really about protestantism? What the hell is
> he talking about?
I'm ready to run an instructive experiment here to see if the Kid can
play.
What was I talking about? Well, I was talking about Durer, for one. I
made that clear. And Durer's point was that art didn't have to be about
religious subjects to be valid. Nor did Durer believe that religious
and non-religious art are both valid but religious art is superior. As
I noted, this comes from the same well as Luther's understanding of
vocation.
You responded by saying my statement had no validity, which was an
overstatement at the very least. But big deal. To temper your extreme
language, we'll say you suggested that at least some Protestant art
*is* about Protestantism. You mentioned the "Vanitas" theme and a
complicated symbology. That would be an interesting subject to pursue.
I'd even be happy to change my statement to "Protestant art isn't
*necessarily* about Protestantism. Part of the point of much Protestant
art is that it isn't explicitly religious."
Now one possible recourse is for you to say you don't really have the
knowledge to pursue this conversation further than your general
statements. The other is to back up your statements with specific
examples. A third way is to change the subject.
If you can make either of the first two responses without abuse, I'd be
pleased. If you can make the second response with a sufficient degree
of precision, I'd be happy to weather a moderate amount of abuse. But
if all this nets is some generalized statements combined with ridicule
and maybe a diversionary subject change, that's just not worth my time
to read, let alone interact with.
--
Opus the Penguin
"Thanks for totally creeping me out, though. It's educational." - Bill
Diamond
Opus the Penguin
> The intertwining of religion and art is not unique to Catholicism and
> its separation or even forbidden nature, not uncommon to other
> religions. I do not know if one can say as to the art being a focus
> of Catholicism or Buddhism or ancient Greek religions, as much as it
> was a means of reaching and teaching and attracting the adherents. If
> the congregants cannot read, provide pictures in stained glass. Means
> to an end with gravy if it's cute.
That's a good point to bring up. Protestants emphasized the preaching
of the word and giving laypeople the Bible in their own language, or
catechizing them if illiterate. Thus the perceived need for Bible
stories in picture form would have lessened.
--
Opus the Penguin
"No single political pov has a corner on the stupid market, son. Not
even yours." - Kevin O'Neill
RM Mentock
> I'm ready to run an instructive experiment here to see if the Kid can
> play.
He's book smart, still thinks that the 2nd amendment to the constitution
is an argument, not a law, but he's got good chops there, so I'm thinking
he can play but his moves are wooden
tooloud
news:cgccnu48dfh05mfl3...@4ax.com...
<snip>
> The Catholic church expended quite a bit on lavish art to try to lure
> & secure its wandering and waning congregations after the Reformation
Well, that, and paying people to stop talking about priests molesting little
boys and buying $200 million churches.
You know, that organization sure seems like it could use a good financial
advisor.
> and Calvinist Holland had many fine Protestant artists, too, who often
> depicted religious themes. Rembrandt, product of a Catholic mother &
> Calvinist father would be said to have trod in both worlds in his art.
>
>
> Boron
--
tooloud
Remove nothing to reply...
Greg Goss
>I dissemble well, that's mostly it.
If you disassemble a well, you get mostly dirt and a bit of water,
right? What's the point?
--
Pfft! Like Deuteronomy applies anymore! (C. Hammacher)
The AFCA Kid
>
>The AFCA Kid wrote:
>> Kevin O'Neill
>>> And see, you might even have a point here,
>>
>> Yeah, no shit. Wow, it's astonishing how little these people know.
>> Protestant art isn't really about protestantism? What the hell is
>> he talking about?
>
>I'm ready to run an instructive experiment here to see if the Kid can
>play.
"Now the kid plays hot, and hot don't pay. I say what I want mean what I say"
>
>What was I talking about? Well, I was talking about Durer, for one.
Yeah, huh. It seems there's a whole lot more to "protestant art" than Durer,
even if you had got his take correct.
> And Durer's point was that art didn't have to be about
>religious subjects to be valid.
As a lot of other artists felt this, though. I can certainly think of genre
painting, landscape, still lives, portraiture and other non-religious art
contemporaneous and even before Durer, even among the Italian renaissance
masters who were the major influence on him. Not only, but Durer was certainly
responsible for no small amount of explictly religious art himself So that you
have to wonder why you'd said that, it sounds like something Deb would say.
>Nor did Durer believe that religious
>and non-religious art are both valid but religious art is superior. As
>I noted, this comes from the same well as Luther's understanding of
>vocation.
See, and that's wrong. Durer is well within the traditions of the Italian
renaissance, and the transcending of religious themes is the inevitable result
of that period's humanism. Despite being derived from Erasmus's Manual of the
Christian Soldier (what was that about protestant art not being about
protestantism?) notice how the mounted knight in Death, Knight, and the Devil
is so similar to Verrochio's Equestrian Monument of Colleoni, or the idealized
forms of Adam and Eve; they're just as much Apollo and Venus. On the other
hand, and here i quote from my book, Janson's History of Art,
"The Climax of this trend is represented by The Four Apostles, paided panels
containing what has rightly been termed Durer's artistic testament. Durer
presented the panels in 1526 to the city of Nurembberg, which had joined the
Lutheran camp the year before. The Chosen Apostles are basic to protestant
doctrine...quotations from their writings warn the city government not to
mistake human error and pretense for the will of God. But, in another more
universal sense, the figures represent the four temperments, and, by
implication, the other cosmic quartets, the seasons, the elements, the times of
day, and the ages of life, encircling, like the cardinal points of the compass,
the Diety who is at the invisible center of this "Triptych." In keeping with
their role, the apostles have a cubic severity and grandeur we have not
encountered since Masaccio and Piero della Francesca. The the style of The
Four Apostles has evoked the names of these great Italians is no coincidence,
for Durer devoted a good part of his last years to the theory of art including
a treatise on geometry based on a thorough study of Piero della Francesca's
discourse on perspective."
>
>You responded by saying my statement had no validity, which was an
>overstatement at the very least.
It's an overstatement to say its an overstatement. Perhaps you should take
some sort of formal class in this kind of thing, or two or three or four.
> But big deal. To temper your extreme
>language, we'll say you suggested that at least some Protestant art
>*is* about Protestantism.
Really, quite a bit of it, including but by no means limited to Durer.
>You mentioned the "Vanitas" theme and a
>complicated symbology. That would be an interesting subject to pursue.
>I'd even be happy to change my statement to "Protestant art isn't
>*necessarily* about Protestantism. Part of the point of much Protestant
>art is that it isn't explicitly religious."
Now, Durer's praying hands, are those explicitly religious? The Four Apostles?
Adam and Eve?
>
>Now one possible recourse is for you to say you don't really have the
>knowledge to pursue this conversation further than your general
>statements.
Well, that's not true.
>The other is to back up your statements with specific
>examples. A third way is to change the subject.
A fourth way would be to leave you to your ignorance, or what will to
knowledge I may have awoken, though more likely this rebuke having come from me
you'll likely cling all the harder to your deb-knowledge even though you can
type "vanitas" and "Dutch still life" or "Vemeer" into Google as easily as
anyone else.
>
>If you can make either of the first two responses without abuse, I'd be
>pleased. If you can make the second response with a sufficient degree
>of precision, I'd be happy to weather a moderate amount of abuse. But
>if all this nets is some generalized statements combined with ridicule
>and maybe a diversionary subject change, that's just not worth my time
>to read, let alone interact with.
Yes, as though your time had any value, or you had something meaningful to
contribute. "interact," indeed.
--
"Impeach duh-be-yuh"
The AFCA Kid
>
> It's just in my nature to kill fleas with a sledgehammer ever since 1985. I
>dissemble well, that's mostly it.
However, I do tend to drop words when I'm thinking faster than I'm typing, and
I wind up saying the opposite of what I mean.
--
"Impeach duh-be-yuh"
The AFCA Kid
>Nah, you don't.
Well, that's not true. I can find examples, like when I got the thing about
the hybrid engine wrong
> Like with the econ thing, for example, your original
>assertion turned out wrong,
Well, no, that's not true. Remember, my original point was "Creationism ought
to be given, at most, the notice Austrian economics is given in a standard
economics curriculum," when Sean was feeling like being contrary, remember? If
you come late to a discussion, you often wind up thinking it's about something
other than it actually was. This is my post to which the professor was lured by
his catamite:
news:20020727151357...@mb-ce.aol.com...
so, you can follow the thread and see you're not honestly characterizing the
history, I suspect out of sloppyiness and having missed the beginning.
> he was in fact published in all sorts of
>non-Austrian journals, that's just a fact. So you switched to making
>the point that Austrian econ is not mainstream, which is a fine point
>perhaps, but not what you started on.
Then, of course, I next said this in reply to Tim Lambert asking him about an
article Tim had read.
news:20020728173310...@mb-cf.aol.com
"Eh, he's not even as real as Friedman. I mean, he's an Austrian, that's like
being a chiropractic, with a smattering of creationism thrown in."
So you ended up with a sort of
>rear-guard action, playing the "If it turns out to be more like
>osteopathy" card or something like that, to redefine who won.
Which was me, of course.
> But,
>see, what you should have done is folded, suddenly, said "Yep, you're
>right, nevermind."
So, am I going to get a "Yep, you're right, never mind." here, Kev? somehow I
think not, I think I'm going to get more "well, you said this and when you said
what you said it was wrong or it was taken wrong"
>
>Now sit back, I'm gonna learn you something, here:
well, mostly you're learning me that I should be more careful when I deign to
swat the flies of the marketplace, because they aren't fond of Zarathustra and
will try to catch him in the flimsiest of snares. You folks all remember this,
don't you?
Message-ID: <20000205204604...@ng-cf1.aol.com>#1/1
Wow, Ward's "well, sorry, I was wrong" has sure been a long time coming.
The reason you
>should have done this is because you're such an abrasive ratfuck so
>much of the time; you remind me of someone I once knew, and like her
>you have to give people something to look for, or they tune you out.
well, some people. Are they, you know, knowledgable interesting people, or are
they, you know, creationists and objectivists and Dave?
>See, I had this big gang in college, we would hang around, eat dinner
>together every Thursday night, take turns sleeping with each other,
I'm beginning to not like the direction this is headed.
>and argue about anything under the sun. So, one girl who jumped in
>was this math girl turned dancer/really-good-cook, Christina, who
>latched onto us somehow and made herself at home. And she was the
>most savage, evil debate ho you ever met, she'd hit you anywhere,
>she'd talk about you mama, whatever, and she was smart, and usually
>right on whatever topic we were on. But, you know, it was ok, because
>in the middle of a *huge* fight, I mean huge, everybody mad and glued
>down hard to a position, she'd just flip. She's realize she was wrong
>on some point and would just give it to you, "OK, you're right."
>Bizzare, she'd walk out and leave people reeling. And it meant that
>she could be as savage as she wanted when she thought she was right,
>because if you argued with her, you always had that carrot of knowing
>you *could* win, if you made a good enough case. That's what you're
>missing, you never give anyone the credit for winning.
Well, dammit Kevin, I say 1/2 is "something like" 1/3, and Austrian Economics
is a fringey liberal arts version of what's barely a science in the first
place, he said so himself.
> The most I've
>ever seen was when you sort of admited you'd botched that "exception
>that proves the rule" thing, and that was pretty grudging too.
I'm actually now reasonable sure the phrase in English has nothing to do with
Cicero, since apparently no one can find an example of its being used that way.
>>It's just I'm not wrong nearly as often
>>as you people with more superficial knowledge think.
>
>My knowledge is superficial on many things, sure. I do, however, know
>how to look up what journals someone has published in.
What's that got to do with anything, though, really?
>>You're just mad I'm in Kim's gang, and you're not.
>
>I wouldn't know Kim's gang if it walked up and slapped me with a
>flounder.
I'd say you wouldn't know your own name after that kind of incident.
> Do you boyz have, like, a tag, er sumthin?
>
>>> And see, you might even have a point here,
>>
>>Yeah, no shit. Wow, it's astonishing how little these people know.
>Protestant
>>art isn't really about protestantism? What the hell is he talking about?
>
>But notice how none of the nice people will talk to you?
Well, I mean...deb and Bill. Deb is, um...I guess she's nice enough, but she's
astonishingly clueless. From the Barrie factoid to the Melville, to the
difference between porn and porno, well...
> Why do you
>suppose that is? They don't resent you for being right, you dork,
>they're all more or less here because they more or less admire Cecil
>for being right more or less all the time.
Yes, well...it seems to me that's an easier idea to express your admiration
for than to actually live up to, and you can see where a certain sort that
fancies themselves rather cecilly wouldn't like being cecilled, especially with
a fair measure of "you silly ass" thrown in just to be, well, kicky.
> They just think you're no
>fun to argue with. So either get more polite all the time, which I
>offhand doubt you could do or would enjoy, or learn to fold when
>you're wrong, for punctuation.
Well, let's see if you can fold when you're wrong, for punctuation, since the
discussion was about the relative place of Austrianism, and not some personal
weighing of Steve Horowitz's CV, as having actually read what you're holding
forth on would tell you in a second or five.
>Whatever, it's tedious to watch rear-guard actions all the time.
What's really tedious, and by tedious I mean "rather hilarious like little is"
to see someone think they're on the side of the angels, when really they're by
the side of the road. But thanks for the yucks, Kev, I like to see what I'm up
against.
--
"Impeach duh-be-yuh"
The AFCA Kid
>
>Boron Elgar wrote:
>
>> The intertwining of religion and art is not unique to Catholicism and
>> its separation or even forbidden nature, not uncommon to other
>> religions. I do not know if one can say as to the art being a focus
>> of Catholicism or Buddhism or ancient Greek religions, as much as it
>> was a means of reaching and teaching and attracting the adherents. If
>> the congregants cannot read, provide pictures in stained glass. Means
>> to an end with gravy if it's cute.
>
>That's a good point to bring up. Protestants emphasized the preaching
>of the word and giving laypeople the Bible in their own language, or
>catechizing them if illiterate.
Eh, I don't know...they also started Latin grammar schools whereever they
went.
>Thus the perceived need for Bible
>stories in picture form would have lessened.
Little if any renaissance religious art was intended as Bible stories in
picture form for illiterates, as it is doubtful the Levis and Pesaros were
having the great unwashed 'round for tea. Moreover, there is no shortage of
Protestant art which depicts Bible stories or other instructive religious
messages in graphic terms, as say Rembrandt's The Blinding of Sampson or The
Return of the Prodigal Son, Breughel's theBlind Leading the Blind or Aertsons
The Meat Stall. Also, the emergence of still life, Landscape, Genre and
portraiture wasn't the work of any particular author, or Martin Luther's
influence on same, so much as the emergence of a fairly moneyed class as
Holland became independant from Spain wanted paintings with homier themes.
There was also apparently a speculation boom in the 16th century, and it's
fairly easy to slap out a landscape with a fan brush and a palette knife
compared to a portrait.
The thing is, mostly painting, because it tends to be made by painters, is
mostly about the craft itself.
--
"Impeach duh-be-yuh"
Sean Houtman
>mutigho...@aol.comseven (The AFCA Kid) wrote:
>
>>I dissemble well, that's mostly it.
>
>If you disassemble a well, you get mostly dirt and a bit of water,
>right? What's the point?
>
You should try disassembling another type of well, such as an oil well or a
sulfur well. Lots a money in some of those.
Sean
--
Visit my photolog page; http://members.aol.com/grommit383/myhomepage
Last updated 08-04-02 with 15 pictures of the Aztec Ruins.
Address mungled. To email, please spite my face.
Opus the Penguin
> Opus the Penguin wrote:
>>Nor did Durer believe that religious
>>and non-religious art are both valid but religious art is
>>superior. As I noted, this comes from the same well as Luther's
>>understanding of vocation.
>
> See, and that's wrong.
Perhaps, but nothing you go on to say indicates that. You do indicate
that Durer did religious art as well. Unless I missed it, you don't
cite any evidence that he felt this art was superior.
Still, what you did say was interesting and well worth reading.
--
Opus the Penguin
"I mean, you'd be irritable, too, if someone were trying to cut open
your skull with a dull axe." - Amy Austin
The AFCA Kid
>
>The AFCA Kid wrote:
>> Opus the Penguin wrote:
>>>Nor did Durer believe that religious
>>>and non-religious art are both valid but religious art is
>>>superior. As I noted, this comes from the same well as Luther's
>>>understanding of vocation.
>>
>> See, and that's wrong.
>
>Perhaps, but nothing you go on to say indicates that.
Eh, I think he just liked to draw and paint and cut wood, and the idea that
art doesn't have to be religious wasn't at all new.
> You do indicate
>that Durer did religious art as well. Unless I missed it, you don't
>cite any evidence that he felt this art was superior.
I'm mostly here disputing the part about "same well as Luther's vocation,"
unless you mean Luther just liked to cause schisms.
>
>Still, what you did say was interesting and well worth reading.
Actually, I was probably a little nastier than I had to be. oh, well, you'll
get over it.
--
"Impeach duh-be-yuh"