Opinions requested: Art/religion
*Nemo*
"performance artist" who was doing some weird shit with a bunch of props on
his front lawn every day. He was doing some sort of pantomime of "the
working class" with an oversized monkey wrench, some other
mechanical-looking gizmos and a lot of prancing in front of the people
driving by on their commute.
It struck me that this guy's actions were very similar to the things
religious people do. As in, he was going through a lot of non-productive
motions that looked stupid to those who didn't understand. And it apparently
was done (from what little I was able to hear of the report) for his own
satisfaction.
Has anyone else thought of this - that art (particularly performing arts)
are rather similar? I mean, think of a priest, waving a cracker in front of
a crowd and saying, "This is Jesus' body." Anyone who didn't "understand"
what was going on would think it was time to crack up and laugh their ass
off.
Opinions?
--
Nemo - EAC Commissioner for Bible Belt Underwater Operations.
Atheist #1331 (the Palindrome of doom!)
Antichrist #1 (1 Jn 2:18,19)
http://home.att.net/~jehdjh/Relpg.html
tanstaafl
**************************************************
No Gods No masters
-----
Know Gods Know masters
**************************************************
Peter van Velzen
<da8C5.13204$s76.8...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
> I was watching "The Daily Show" a short while ago, and saw a report on
some
> "performance artist" who was doing some weird shit with a bunch of props
on
> his front lawn every day. He was doing some sort of pantomime of "the
> working class" with an oversized monkey wrench, some other
> mechanical-looking gizmos and a lot of prancing in front of the people
> driving by on their commute.
>
> It struck me that this guy's actions were very similar to the things
> religious people do. As in, he was going through a lot of non-productive
> motions that looked stupid to those who didn't understand. And it
apparently
> was done (from what little I was able to hear of the report) for his own
> satisfaction.
>
> Has anyone else thought of this - that art (particularly performing arts)
> are rather similar? I mean, think of a priest, waving a cracker in front
of
> a crowd and saying, "This is Jesus' body." Anyone who didn't "understand"
> what was going on would think it was time to crack up and laugh their ass
> off.
>
> Opinions?
Did the Artist also drink Blood?
--
"Think for yourself"
Peter van Velzen
Amstelveen
The Netherlands
http://home-2.worldonline.nl/~pbamvv/petervve.htm
*Nemo*
news:01c02cc4$080f3380$d1e6f1c3@default...
Not that I saw. But then again, I was talking about similarity, not
equality...
>
> --
> "Think for yourself"
> Peter van Velzen
> Amstelveen
> The Netherlands
> http://home-2.worldonline.nl/~pbamvv/petervve.htm
--
Michelle Roberts
news:da8C5.13204$s76.8...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> Has anyone else thought of this - that art (particularly performing arts)
> are rather similar? I mean, think of a priest, waving a cracker in front
of
> a crowd and saying, "This is Jesus' body." Anyone who didn't "understand"
> what was going on would think it was time to crack up and laugh their ass
> off.
I agree completely. Let's ignore the obvious nonsense involving the
snake-handling, poison-drinking, speaking in tongues, rolling on the floor
wackos and keep this more scholarly.
In my studies of medieval art when I was in university, there was this one
painted-panel icon of St. Barbara that always made me giggle hysterically
when I saw it. St. Barbara, as you may not know, was martyred by having her
breasts cut off.
She is represented as a woman holding a platter, upon which rest two little
breasts looking for all the world like poached eggs. Her dress is fastened
up the front, however, and she always appears to have curves on her front,
so assumably "god" gave her her boobies back once she was in heaven.
Now, how funny is that? Anyone who didn't understand the significance of it
would be either confused (are those eggs?) or very amused. Or both.
Metta,
Kuan-tao
*Nemo*
news:q3cC5.196$3P4....@newsfeed.slurp.net...
> "*Nemo*" <nemo...@yahoo.nospm.com> wrote in message
> news:da8C5.13204$s76.8...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> >
> > Has anyone else thought of this - that art (particularly performing
arts)
> > are rather similar? I mean, think of a priest, waving a cracker in front
> of
> > a crowd and saying, "This is Jesus' body." Anyone who didn't
"understand"
> > what was going on would think it was time to crack up and laugh their
ass
> > off.
>
> I agree completely. Let's ignore the obvious nonsense involving the
> snake-handling, poison-drinking, speaking in tongues, rolling on the floor
> wackos and keep this more scholarly.
>
> In my studies of medieval art when I was in university, there was this one
> painted-panel icon of St. Barbara that always made me giggle hysterically
> when I saw it. St. Barbara, as you may not know, was martyred by having
her
> breasts cut off.
So she had the xian precursor to mastectomy? And they named a city in
California after her? Weird...
>
> She is represented as a woman holding a platter, upon which rest two
little
> breasts looking for all the world like poached eggs. Her dress is fastened
> up the front, however, and she always appears to have curves on her front,
> so assumably "god" gave her her boobies back once she was in heaven.
More weirdness. I'm thinking that Christianity has a full catalog of every
weird, twisted thought possible to humanity...
>
> Now, how funny is that? Anyone who didn't understand the significance of
it
> would be either confused (are those eggs?) or very amused. Or both.
I don't need to be reading things like this at 4:30 AM. No way...
>
> Metta,
>
> Kuan-tao
ds
some
> "performance artist" who was doing some weird shit with a bunch of props
on
> his front lawn every day. He was doing some sort of pantomime of "the
> working class" with an oversized monkey wrench, some other
> mechanical-looking gizmos and a lot of prancing in front of the people
> driving by on their commute.
>
> It struck me that this guy's actions were very similar to the things
> religious people do. As in, he was going through a lot of non-productive
> motions that looked stupid to those who didn't understand. And it
apparently
> was done (from what little I was able to hear of the report) for his own
> satisfaction.
>
> are rather similar? I mean, think of a priest, waving a cracker in front
of
> a crowd and saying, "This is Jesus' body." Anyone who didn't "understand"
> what was going on would think it was time to crack up and laugh their ass
> off.
>
I see what you're saying but isn't it all relative? I have all the respect
in the world for you but isn't this sort of a "Nemo-centric" world view?
(not that there's anything _wrong_ with that ...)
There's nothing funny about crackers. Oatmeal is sort of funny but not
crackers.
chibiabos
*Nemo* <nemo...@yahoo.nospm.com> wrote:
> I was watching "The Daily Show" a short while ago, and saw a report on some
> "performance artist" who was doing some weird shit with a bunch of props on
> his front lawn every day. He was doing some sort of pantomime of "the
> working class" with an oversized monkey wrench, some other
> mechanical-looking gizmos and a lot of prancing in front of the people
> driving by on their commute.
If you saw it on The Daily Show, it was chosen for its humor and/or
shock value. While I'm not a big fan of performance art, I've seen some
of it that actually makes the viewer think or, at least, opens new
avenues of thought. In my experience, religion doesn't do this.
> It struck me that this guy's actions were very similar to the things
> religious people do. As in, he was going through a lot of non-productive
> motions that looked stupid to those who didn't understand. And it apparently
> was done (from what little I was able to hear of the report) for his own
> satisfaction.
Again, most performance art isn't stupid. Performances that end up in
the popular media are chosen for reasons other than the artist's
intentions, often to their denegration, as above.
> Has anyone else thought of this - that art (particularly performing arts)
> are rather similar? I mean, think of a priest, waving a cracker in front of
> a crowd and saying, "This is Jesus' body." Anyone who didn't "understand"
> what was going on would think it was time to crack up and laugh their ass
> off.
There's a great deal of performance in religion, especially the RCC
variety. But also in Wicca, Voodoo, Buddhism and many others. The
reliance on ceremony and ritual in these religions helps to codify the
principles of the religion for lay people, but it's not art.
-chib
--
listen;there's a hell
of a good universe next door;let's go
--e.e. cummings
*Nemo*
news:858540DE0C7E3F69.3284A514...@lp.airnews.net...
<snip>
> > Opinions?
>
> I see what you're saying but isn't it all relative?
Isn't just about everything in the realm of the human experience?
> I have all the respect
> in the world for you but isn't this sort of a "Nemo-centric" world view?
Nemo-centric. I like it. Think anyone else would buy into it?
> (not that there's anything _wrong_ with that ...)
>
> There's nothing funny about crackers. Oatmeal is sort of funny but not
> crackers.
I don't know. What about watermelon? Now *that's* funny, Nemo-centrically
speaking...
{;-)
Kenneth Doyle
> I was watching "The Daily Show" a short while ago, and saw a report on some
> "performance artist" who was doing some weird shit with a bunch of props on
> his front lawn every day. He was doing some sort of pantomime of "the
> working class" with an oversized monkey wrench, some other
> mechanical-looking gizmos and a lot of prancing in front of the people
> driving by on their commute.
>
> It struck me that this guy's actions were very similar to the things
> religious people do. As in, he was going through a lot of non-productive
> motions that looked stupid to those who didn't understand. And it apparently
> was done (from what little I was able to hear of the report) for his own
> satisfaction.
>
> Has anyone else thought of this - that art (particularly performing arts)
> are rather similar? I mean, think of a priest, waving a cracker in front of
> a crowd and saying, "This is Jesus' body." Anyone who didn't "understand"
> what was going on would think it was time to crack up and laugh their ass
> off.
>
> Opinions?
>
> --
> Nemo - EAC Commissioner for Bible Belt Underwater Operations.
> Atheist #1331 (the Palindrome of doom!)
> Antichrist #1 (1 Jn 2:18,19)
> http://home.att.net/~jehdjh/Relpg.html
> tanstaafl
> **************************************************
> No Gods No masters
> -----
> Know Gods Know masters
> **************************************************
Interesting. It is certainly true that some forms of art have their own
'language'. Colours can symbolize emotions, as can sounds; major chords are
bright and optomistic, minor chords are dark and forbodeing. Sometimes the
symbolism crosses over, eg. the blues.
I think that art and religion have only recently become completely seperate. In
the same way that science and religion have. Or even government and religion.
In the early days of art, it was an expression of religion.
In the original Greek theater for example, art and religion were one. As an
aside, ever wonder why the rear seats in a theater are known as 'the gods'? The
original Greek theater's format was the reverse of what it is today. The
audience was on the stage, and the action took place where the audience now
sits. When the gods made their inevitable entrance into the scenario, they
always appeared from way up there at the back.
I would argue that the entire edifice of symbology in art, still shows it's
roots in religious expression. What I mean is that artists still use that
symbology to express ideas, even though the ideas themselves might not be
*about* religion. Consider the way in which some scientists still use 'god' as
a symbol, even when it is obvious that they are not discussing religion. In the
same way, some artists use a well established symbolism to express abstract
concepts.
ds
> > > Opinions?
> >
> > I see what you're saying but isn't it all relative?
>
> Isn't just about everything in the realm of the human experience?
>
> > I have all the respect
> > in the world for you but isn't this sort of a "Nemo-centric" world view?
>
> Nemo-centric. I like it. Think anyone else would buy into it?
Always a way to find out, run for public office. emperor or something like
that.
>
> > (not that there's anything _wrong_ with that ...)
> >
> > There's nothing funny about crackers. Oatmeal is sort of funny but not
> > crackers.
>
> I don't know. What about watermelon? Now *that's* funny, Nemo-centrically
> speaking...
> {;-)
>
Yeah, but the funniness of watermelon is axiomatic, _everyone_ knows that.
Words like oatmeal and hamster are more relatively funny.