Of Art and Religion
John Ng
> You're right, of course, there are several camps of art fundamentalists.
>
> In Christianity you have several sects who think that all the other
> Christian sects "aren't real Christians" and then of course there are
> several sects of Muslim fundamentalists with the same idea.
>
> Art is no different, and perhaps it all stems from a single fundamental flaw
> of human nature. People don't want to see the bigger picture or consider
> that there may be more than one way to look at a given set of "facts." They
> don't want to think. Forget information, let's have slogans and name-calling
> and holy wars!
>
> I would like to see a 'religion' based on reason and logic, but who would
> attend and why? People prefer illusion and delusion, and the "I and my group
> are the exclusive keepers of all that is right and good" mentality.
>
> Pagani
The thread from which this post branches is filled with so much
childish invectives that I can't read the words between the dirt.
However, this is interesting especially the sentence "I would like to
see a 'religion' based on reason and logic".
You related religion with art, and I think there is a lot of
similarity. I approach art with the same philosophy and thought, and
feel that art should be of "reason and logic" as well. That is why I
have always believed in the objectivity of art, and hence the
rightness and wrongness of art. If reason should prevail, art that is
so subjective and based on some crazy contrived statements should be
considered poor art, no matter who the person or body really is.
Splatters by likes of Pollock is illogical, subjective and cannot be
measured and is one such example that you should consider bad art...
so is the stain-glass-like outputs of Picasso [Roob don't read this,
you might have another attack].
I understand that this approach is too much for most people to take
because I am throwing the 20C concept of art in disarray. And, like
how you feel of religion, I am aware that few would "attend" or
subscribe to my ideas (yet). A voice in the wilderness...
John Ng
Advocates an art renewal and the return to sensible art
http://community.webshots.com/user/pigsmayfly
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com
the fact that art is not religion. Art is a language - religion is a belief
that uses language as a tool to enslave believers. Language in itself is
neither good nor evil it is just language.
The purveyors of belief are forever changing the meanings attached to the
symbols of language so they more closely match their beliefs.
You are a believer - not an artist.
--
take care: Keith
The eye should not be lead where there is nothing to see.
Robert Henri - The Art Spirit
John Ng <pigsm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d1bb492a.03021...@posting.google.com...
Peter H.M. Brooks
"keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com" <scot...@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:MDY1a.317130$pDv.1...@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com
> That is why you don't understand art - you have been unable to
conceptualise
> the fact that art is not religion. Art is a language - religion is a
belief
> that uses language as a tool to enslave believers. Language in itself is
> neither good nor evil it is just language.
>
> The purveyors of belief are forever changing the meanings attached to the
> symbols of language so they more closely match their beliefs.
>
> You are a believer - not an artist.
>
What an excellent post! How concise, elegant and accurate.
--
The grandeur of real art, on the contrary, . . . is to rediscover, grasp
again and lay before us that reality from which we become more and more
separated as the formal knowledge which we substitute for it grows in
thickness and imperviousness--that reality which there is grave danger we
might die without ever having known and yet which is simply our life, life
as it really is, life disclosed and made clear . . . .
- Vladimir Nabokov "Marcel Proust (1871-1922)"
Roy L. Ballou
scot...@rogers.com says...
>You are a believer - not an artist.
And like many a believer, a deluded one at that.
John Ng
> That is why you don't understand art - you have been unable to conceptualise
> the fact that art is not religion. Art is a language - religion is a belief
> that uses language as a tool to enslave believers. Language in itself is
> neither good nor evil it is just language.
You don't understand the fact that art is not language. It does not
communicate. Religion is neither good nor evil. It is the perceivers
and the manipulators that make Muslim as an evil religion and
Christianity as a good religion (or vice-versa).
> You are a believer - not an artist.
Have you read and understood my post? You put forth meaningless
allegations.
John Ng
G*rd*n
pigsm...@hotmail.com (John Ng):
| The thread from which this post branches is filled with so much
| childish invectives that I can't read the words between the dirt.
| However, this is interesting especially the sentence "I would like to
| see a 'religion' based on reason and logic".
|
| You related religion with art, and I think there is a lot of
| similarity. I approach art with the same philosophy and thought, and
| feel that art should be of "reason and logic" as well. That is why I
| have always believed in the objectivity of art, and hence the
| rightness and wrongness of art. If reason should prevail, art that is
| so subjective and based on some crazy contrived statements should be
| considered poor art, no matter who the person or body really is.
| Splatters by likes of Pollock is illogical, subjective and cannot be
| measured and is one such example that you should consider bad art...
| so is the stain-glass-like outputs of Picasso [Roob don't read this,
| you might have another attack].
|
| I understand that this approach is too much for most people to take
| because I am throwing the 20C concept of art in disarray. And, like
| how you feel of religion, I am aware that few would "attend" or
| subscribe to my ideas (yet). A voice in the wilderness...
This isn't a very logical article, however. On what axioms is it based,
and where are the logical operations which produce such conclusions as
"Pollock is illogical" or "Pollock is bad"?
--
(<><>) /*/
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
{ http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 1/19/03 <-adv't
Erik A. Mattila
> "keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com" <scot...@rogers.com> wrote in message
>
>
>>That is why you don't understand art - you have been unable to conceptualise
>>the fact that art is not religion. Art is a language - religion is a belief
>>that uses language as a tool to enslave believers. Language in itself is
>>neither good nor evil it is just language.
>
>
> You don't understand the fact that art is not language. It does not
> communicate. Religion is neither good nor evil. It is the perceivers
> and the manipulators that make Muslim as an evil religion and
> Christianity as a good religion (or vice-versa).
John, take a look at Ernst Cassirer's "The Philosophy of Symbolic Form."
You might modify your views a bit.
Erik
Roadside Artist
religion based on reason and logic". The suggested alternatives still
require leaps of faith which I am not prepared to make at this time.
Now John, religion - at least the fear-based religions of Christianity and
Islam - has all kinds of tests about whether one is "good" or "evil". But
these are moral judgments. Moral judgments are based on some divine rules
presumably handed down by a superbeing who will fry us if we don't comply.
Art is paint on canvas...or paper... or carved stone...or glass...etc. It
has no innate moral qualities. I know of no moral rules handed down by
"God", whichever one you choose to give obeisance. Well, there's that whole
thing of not making any "graven images" in the Torah (and Christian old
testament and the Koran) but most people in the West ignore that. I can
assert fairly confidently that no broadly recognized deity has ever issued a
"thou shalt not make unto thee any abstraction, nor shalt thou paint any
nonrepresentational image" commandment. If you know of such a god, go ahead
and quote him/her.
Pollock might be "evil" in someone's moral pantheon, but his art cannot be
evil (nor "good") because it is not a moral being. Paint on canvas cannot be
"bad" like a "bad doggie" or a vicious criminal. People say something is
"bad" meaning they don't like it, but somehow that gets confused in many
minds with the idea that it might be morally "bad", or evil
My original point has been lost You like a piece of art or you don't. You
love a work or you hate it. But imputing good or evil morality to an
inanimate object? This is where religion and aesthetics merge, with
unpleasant results.
As you said, "If reason should prevail, art that is so subjective and based
on some crazy contrived statements should be considered poor art, no matter
who the person or body really is. Splatters by likes of Pollock is
illogical, subjective and cannot be measured and is one such example that
you should consider bad art."
But art is not science. Science is "bad" (not in the morals sense, but
rather in the sense of being substandard) when it fails to follow rules that
guarantee falsifiable, replicable results. The rules for art change
regularly, and many considered masters today were once ridiculed. That's
becaue art "rules" are based on subjective judgments of what a given person
does or does not like. Science, meanwhile, keeps the same rules of science
because they produce replicable results.
Replication is not usually a goal of art.
People view art, own art and advocate art because they LIKE something about
it. We don't have rules for "like" because it is something that is personal
and completely subjective (like religion).
Religious fundamentalism and art fundamentalism are alike in that each
mistakes personal experiences and judgments for objective rules which can be
imposed on the rest of the world.
I believe there is a basic organic process at work that draws people to
certain kinds of art, and it has everything to do with biology and nothing
whatever to do with morality. But I've already written too much on that
subject and I don't' want to go into it again.
Pagani
"John Ng" <pigsm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d1bb492a.03021...@posting.google.com...
Roadside Artist
"Thur"
>> If taste in art is subject to such 'fashions' that dominate clothing and
> popular music, then spending time on an oil painting is going to be
> a no-no because art will have to be rushed to the public like a Holywood
> film or a new toy for Christmas.
The "good news" is that there are always many veins of popular "fashion"
running all the time. There are many many types of art being produced today
and each has its own band of admirers. So in that sense it doesn't "come and
go" but instead it all happens at once.
Rules are doomed to failure because people are attracted to art because they
LIKE it (or repelled because they dislike it) and the general public really
never thinks about rules when so doing. They don't say to themselves, "Oh,
I see this piece has followed every rule to the nth degree as laid down by
the great Art God, so I must like it!" And no matter how much anyone wants
to FORCE the public (and we ARE talking about force, here, because the
public is not interested in yet another set of rules to obey) you won't get
everyone to conform.
But as I said at the start, that's the beauty of it all: Taste is completely
individual, personal, and subjective. If the art fundamentalists ever gain
control like the Taliban took Afghanistan, it will only be temporary, and
they will only control a few prize competitions or exercise their influence
in a few countries.
You see, as irrational as human beings are, you will never get all of them
to submit to being told what to like and what to dislike. Even the best
propaganda machines have limited range and power; they might take over a
nation but never the world.
Pagani
John Ng
You said earlier, "I would like to see a 'religion' based on reason
and logic". To that I responded that I too would like to see that
too, because then, one could understand why something is good or bad,
and not just through blind belief of the statements made by others or
through peer pressure.
>People view art, own art and advocate art because they LIKE something
about
>it. We don't have rules for "like" because it is something that is
personal
>and completely subjective (like religion).
Just because you like something, does that amount to art? In that
sense, everything is definitely art because your trash is somebody's
treasure. While cleaning the kitchen yesterday, I spilled something
and made a splotch on the wall and I kinda like the look of it. Is
that art? If so, then what is NOT? Unless art is not to be
ridiculed, this is an important question.
>I believe there is a basic organic process at work that draws people
to certain kinds of art, and it has >everything to do with biology and
nothing whatever to do with morality.
Exactly, you are re-echoing my point that beauty is (to a great
extend) objective.
>There are many many types of art being produced today and each has
its own
> band of admirers. So in that sense it doesn't "come and go" but instead it
> all happens at once
Exactly, I am arguing that fashionable art, like Pollock's, is BAD
although even I myself may like it. Good art has rules in that "basic
organic process at work that draws people to certain kinds of art".
It is not rules where you put through Einstein's brain and out comes
the boolean answer. Rules of art is unwritten but is imbedded deep
into a human's reptilian brain.
>And no matter how much anyone wants to FORCE the public (and we ARE
talking
> about force, here, because the public is not interested in yet another set of
> rules to obey) you won't get everyone to conform.
Sometimes I wonder how things like these get conveyed, probably
through the lines between my sentences. I am basically saying that
left alone, most people will come a consensus, and THAT is art. I am
really against the manipulation going on by the arty-fartsy know-all
and the sensationalising media who tell you what is art and what is
not. I do not agree with you what you say here because I think that
we are conforming to a FORCE right now. I wish your sentence were
true.
> But as I said at the start, that's the beauty of it all:
> Taste is completely individual, personal, and subjective.
No, I cannot think that is always true, but only to a certain extend
(as you have suggested earlier). You might get sick of something, but
you had liked it and it is still great art. You may get tired of
cherries, but cherries are still the fruits of choice... and that is
why you had it in the first place.
>If the art fundamentalists ever gain control like the Taliban took
>Afghanistan, it will only be temporary, and they will only control a
few prize
>competitions or exercise their influence in a few countries. You see,
>as irrational as human beings are, you will never get all of them to
submit
>to being told what to like and what to dislike. Even the best
>propaganda machines have limited range and power; they might take
over a
>nation but never the world.
Yes, very well said, and I hope so because for the last 100 years, we
have lived with a propaganda. I hope that is temporary enough.
> Replication is not usually a goal of art.
I have never suggested so. A exact copyist is competent does not mean
the art is necessary good.
Regards,
John Ng