Atheist Art.
Smedley
There is really only one aspect of atheism that is troublesome for me.
It seems (and maybe I am wrong) that the majority of the more increadible
works of art and architechture were created in the name or some type of
supposedly divine entity.
Would Michelangelo have given us his creations if it was not for his
faith? Would others?
I really don't know. It could just be coincidence that the churches
throughout history were powerful at a time when art was being taken
seriously.
What do you all think? Has art benefited because of religion, or was
religion not the main factor?
-Smedley
Paul Pfalzner
Smedley (j...@acpub.duke.edu) writes:
> There is really only one aspect of atheism that is troublesome for me.
> It seems (and maybe I am wrong) that the majority of the more increadible
> works of art and architechture were created in the name or some type of
> supposedly divine entity.
>
> Would Michelangelo have given us his creations if it was not for his
> faith? Would others?
At the time these works were created, society was indeed in the grip
of religious thinking - and art forms which did not contain at least
outwardly religious themes were condemned as works of impiety.
However, this does not mean that the outward piety was in fact
accepted by the persons living at the time - certainly not in many
cases. The popes were highly licentious, had mistresses and children,
lived like princes, had armies and fought wars.
A wonderful example of these contradictions is Leonardo da Vinci, who
executed works steeped in religious lore - but was himself a
non-Christian, a non-religious person, a pagan, if you will.
Michelangelo was a higly pessimistic and put upon artist who resented
his total dependence on the popes.
>
> I really don't know. It could just be coincidence that the churches
> throughout history were powerful at a time when art was being taken
> seriously.
Was art taken seriously then - and not later, too? In fact art in the
Middle Ages was used for decorative purposes, for doctrinal purposes,
as well as to display wealth and power.
Of course the church was very wealthy and so could afford to pay for
artistic works - obviously the artists knew what was expected of
them.
Paul P.
Larry Loen
Smedley <j...@acpub.duke.edu> wrote:
>There is really only one aspect of atheism that is troublesome for me.
>It seems (and maybe I am wrong) that the majority of the more increadible
>works of art and architechture were created in the name or some type of
>supposedly divine entity.
>Would Michelangelo have given us his creations if it was not for his
>faith? Would others?
I think it is a mixed bag for artists in general and even for
particular artists, at least in the West.
I'm not sure all of Micelangelo's work was motivated by his faith.
However, that's a quibble. Bach, for instance, seems to have been
extremely faith-motivated, at least in his choral works.
Yet, even though the Lutherans call Bach "The Fifth Evangelist",
I think it is fair to say that some of Bach's works were arguably
secular. It's hard to say which is more famous; his religous
works or his more abstract music like his Fuges.
Certainly, I find the average "Dutch Master" quite secular.
Da Vinci is quite secular. I see no religious significance
in "The Mona Lisa" which is perhaps the most famous painting of
them all.
Then there's the neoclassical period. I am a quack pretty much
when it comes to fine art, but I find myself attracted to what
I think are the classics, but find out when I look closer that it
is more often than not neoclassics.
This is important to dig into, because any neoclassical work
that shows the ancient Greek Gods is, of course, not motivated
by true religious belief.
Moreover, when one looks at artists like Titian and Raphael, it is
hard to see much "religion" or at least "Christianity" in some works
whose supposed theme was religious. It looked more like some
myth, Christian or ancient, was used as an excuse to do what
men have always done; admire the naked femal form, which is of
course rather against the beliefs of most Christian sects, at least
officially.
I don't remember offhand, but some of that art was
probably commissioned by Popes and Cardinals;
some of these fellows were noticably secular and it is obvious in
some of the "religious" art, even to an eye as weakly trained as mine.
Moreover, when one leaves the West, one finds:
1. Art is seriously arrested in the Islamic world due largely to the
prohibition of depicting the human form. Here is a place where
religion and art did not work together well. It's important to
factor this into your thesis.
2. Art seems to me notably secular in Japan and China. I am a real
quack here, because Eastern religion isn't based on the same kind
of god-theme; there is no Yahweh guy to deal with, so what may look
pastoral may be deeply significant in Tao or something. Still, I
don't see a lot of "adoration of the such and so" kind of art out
East.
3. Chinese ceramics may have religious symbols on them, but they
don't seem to me to have been valued for that alone. I am on very
shaky ground, here.
>I really don't know. It could just be coincidence that the churches
>throughout history were powerful at a time when art was being taken
>seriously.
I think you need to study art more closely. Even I, a quack at
fine art, have a lot of trouble taking your theory as any sort of
real problem:
1. By no means all art is or was religious.
2. The fact that a lot of good art is undeniably religious merely
means that art springs from deep emotion. No atheist I know has
denied that religion is the result, at least in part, of strong
human emotions.
3. The idea that religious feeling is required to produce great art
is simply false.
>What do you all think? Has art benefited because of religion, or was
>religion not the main factor?
Get thee to an art history class. My guess is the answer turns out
to be: Sometimes the main factor, sometimes not. If the age was
religious, the art probably was more often religious. If
the age was more secular, the art probably was.
Art doesn't exist in a vaccuum. It reflects the values of its age.
That is, in part, what art is _for_. You dont' expect Piccasso to
make half of his paintings and sculptures to be "The Adoration of
the Magi" any more than you expect Bach not to write Cantatas.
At the mudane end of it, most of them had to get paid, and that
limited their choices. Michelangelo didn't get to put cats on
the Sistine Chapel, because his client wanted religious stuff.
T S Elliot _could_ write a poetry book about cats, because he knew
he could find an audience for it (and, in fact, win a posthumous
Tony for his "book").
And then there's lots of close calls like the Taj Mahal. It was a
tomb for a beloved wife. Was the goal mostly religious or mostly
to commemorate a great love? I don't really know and I wonder if
anyone does, no matter what the guidbooks say. . .
Larry Loen -- with still poor access
Jeff Myers
So far as I can tell, at almost all times and in all places, there have
been non-religious works of art. In the Renaissance, e.g., there were
portraits, pornographic nudes (I'm not being judgmental here--I mean images
meant for masturbation--not works with nudes like Michelangelo's Last
Judgment), classical mythological works and historical paintings, just to
name a few.
And religion has not typically been very supportive of representational
arts. Even in the Renaissance, Catholics were covering the naughty bits
of the painting mentioned above and Protestants were destroying works of
art in their churches. Of course, some religions, like Islam, are
absolutely hostile to the visual arts.
Large-scale architecture, since it requires a great deal of money, has
often been associated with organized religion, but there are many
examples of secular governmental buildings (look at the classical
architecture of Washington DC) and private residences of the rich
(palaces, mansions, etc.).
So, although religion has sought to control and use the visual arts, I
don't think there is any evidence that the arts would not flourish
without religion. Right now, in the USA at least, the religious right is
unabashedly anti-art.
Of course, one of the reasons an atheist might want to learn about
traditional religions is for the sake of understanding religious works of
art, which (IMHO) have value despite the mistaken ideology of the artist
or the sponsor. Part of that understanding is the realization of the
insidious social, political and economic motives that underlie the
religious use of art.
Jeff Myers
Eric Pepke
> There is really only one aspect of atheism that is troublesome for me.
> It seems (and maybe I am wrong) that the majority of the more increadible
> works of art and architechture were created in the name or some type of
> supposedly divine entity.
I don't really understand what that has to do with atheism. It may have
something to do with opposition to religion, but that's not really the
same as atheism.
> Would Michelangelo have given us his creations if it was not for his
> faith? Would others?
Michaelangelo gave us his creations because of his passion. He worked for
churches, because churches paid him, and he got a kick out of eating.
Some of his best stuff had Biblical themes, but then again, the Bible has
some great stories. Emotionally, it's very powerful.
As to whether religion has benefited art, well, sure it has. The Greek
myths are especially important, followed by Christianity and Islam.
However, the gods in the Greek myths weren't all that divine.
Religion is one of the places that you get characters that represent
important human concerns. This is great stuff for art.
--
Eric Pepke
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute
Florida State University
pe...@scri.fsu.edu
Paul Filseth
Smedley <j...@acpub.duke.edu> wrote:
> It seems (and maybe I am wrong) that the majority of the more incredible
> works of art and architecture were created in the name of some type of
> supposedly divine entity.
Well, I don't know what this proves, but the two most beautiful
pieces of religious music ever written (imnsho) are the requiem masses
by Brahms and Verdi. Both men were unbelievers.
--
Paul Filseth I promise to be different. I promise to be unique.
p...@lsil.com I promise not to repeat things other people say.
- Steve Martin
Greg Joy
Smedley <j...@acpub.duke.edu> wrote:
>
>
>There is really only one aspect of atheism that is troublesome for me.
>It seems (and maybe I am wrong) that the majority of the more increadible
>works of art and architechture were created in the name or some type of
>supposedly divine entity.
>
>Would Michelangelo have given us his creations if it was not for his
>faith? Would others?
>
If anything the church limited the expression, while they were a
powefull institution and did fund art. When indeviduals became
as wealthy as the church, we see art with a wider range of
expression. Right now there are religious organizations that
seek to limit funding to the NEA. Art is not so unlike science
it flurishes in an open enviroment
Greg Joy
j...@li.net
Greg Joy
j...@li.net
Smedley
pe...@scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke) wrote:
>In article <4pff80$j...@newsgate.duke.edu>, Smedley <j...@acpub.duke.edu> wrote:
>
>> There is really only one aspect of atheism that is troublesome for me.
>> It seems (and maybe I am wrong) that the majority of the more increadible
>> works of art and architechture were created in the name or some type of
>> supposedly divine entity.
>
>something to do with opposition to religion, but that's not really the
>same as atheism.
>
It's pretty simple actually. I am an atheist and I often think that
the world would be a much better place if all the world's inhabitants
were atheists. Yet, the one thing that worried me was the issue of
art. That is why I brought it up. But after reading the responses
I am pretty sure that art would not suffer if religion were to
be forgotten--and it might actually be better off.
Thanks for the insightful repsonses.
Smedley