(A)theism and Art

[Intricate Mystic]

(Mod note: discussion split from http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/philosophy-spirituality/45853-atheists.html)

What I see is some dude being tortured with millions of people celebrating his death as a martyr. To me martyrdom is as equally selfish as suicide since you don't have to live through the fallout of your death and see the pain in the eyes of people who loved you.

So now, where do we stand? You believe torture is beautiful and I find it gross.

Here's a link to a Buddhist Monk setting himself on fire to bring attention to the repressive policies of the Catholic Diem regime that controlled the South Vietnamese government in 1963. Is this beautiful too since it's symbolic of [insert theist (buddhist) reasons]? Millions of people also revere this monk for his martyrdom.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E37cMtCrKoA

Christ's death did cause pain for his followers and family. He appeared to them after he was resurrected, though, so I would imagine that gave them some reassurance. He was alive in heaven after his ascension there, as well, so he wasn't gone in a spiritual sense, at least. Regarding suicide, I agree that it is a selfish act. I hope you haven't had anyone close to you do that. It must be pretty devastating for those left behind. As for the Buddhist monk, I'm only superficially knowledgeable about Buddhism so can't really comment on the practices of their monks.

The other argument previously presented that IM completely ignored, was that who's to say the artwork created by the atheists she's so quick to impugn, aren't symbolic of [insert belief or cause].

Those works of art are sometimes symbolic of a particular belief or cause. What I object to is when they produce works that are openly hostile to Christianity. Why attack an image of the Virgin of Guadalupe, for example? It's an image revered by so many people, and prayer to the Virgin has resulted in healings and great comfort to many Catholics. Why attack that? I also object to the atheist art faculty, gallery owners, and artists who are openly hostile to expressions of faith by artists and art students. What kind of artistic freedom is that? They have taken control of the contemporary art scene and do not want to allow artists with any kind of religious beliefs a place there. They are just as prejudiced and narrow-minded as they accuse theists of being.

 

[rav3n]

Christ's death did cause pain for his followers and family. He appeared to them after he was resurrected, though, so I would imagine that gave them some reassurance. He was alive in heaven after his ascension there, as well, so he wasn't gone in a spiritual sense, at least. As for suicide, I agree that it is a selfish act. I hope you haven't had anyone close to you do that. It must be pretty devastating for those left behind. As for the Buddhist monk, I'm only superficially knowledgeable about Buddhism so can't really comment on the practices of their monks.

Back away from the dogma. Look at the logic. If there's beauty in one, there's beauty in the other.

Those works of art are sometimes symbolic of a particular belief or cause. What I object to is when they produce works that are openly hostile to Christianity. Why attack an image of the Virgin of Guadalupe, for example? It's an image revered by so many people, and prayer to the Virgin has resulted in healings and great comfort to many Catholics. Why attack that? I also object to the atheist art faculty, gallery owners, and artists who are openly hostile to expressions of faith by artists and art students. What kind of artistic freedom is that? They have taken control of the contemporary art scene and do not want to allow artists with any kind of religious beliefs a place there. They are just as prejudiced and narrow-minded as they accuse theists of being.

Whoah, whoah, whoah, this is a completely different stance than prior. What you're protesting has nothing to do with beauty as a concept, it has to do with certain artists creating artwork that you believe is blasphemous or people in the art world who don't endorse your beliefs.

Do you see what I see? Probably not.

 

[Beargryllz]

Whoah, whoah, whoah, this is a completely different stance than prior. What you're protesting has nothing to do with beauty as a concept, it has to do with certain artists creating artwork that you believe is blasphemous or people in the art world who don't endorse your beliefs.

Do you see what I see? Probably not.

It would be one thing to express one's taste in art, but instead I've been accused of being an artist, and not just any artist, but a blasphemous artist, and I don't even do art. Except when I do. And when I do, it isn't blasphemy.

But to have a taste in art, we would want to be able to defend our position, yes? I think, sometimes, we want to show others that our tastes are good tastes, and one way to do this is to point out extraordinary examples of modern art, while tying in a belief system to the work (I don't know why anyone thought this added validity to an argument against atheism) in an attempt to make the work appear less attractive. But the jokes on them, because I don't have a high opinion of these works either.

 

[rav3n]

It would be one thing to express one's taste in art, but instead I've been accused of being an artist, and not just any artist, but a blasphemous artist, and I don't even do art. Except when I do. And when I do, it isn't blasphemy.

But to have a taste in art, we would want to be able to defend our position, yes? I think, sometimes, we want to show others that our tastes are good tastes, and one way to do this is to point out extraordinary examples of modern art, while tying in a belief system to the work (I don't know why anyone thought this added validity to an argument against atheism) in an attempt to make the work appear less attractive. But the jokes on them, because I don't have a high opinion of these works either.

It's head smackingly..head smacking!

 

[Intricate Mystic]

Back away from the dogma. Look at the logic. If there's beauty in one, there's beauty in the other.

Whoah, whoah, whoah, this is a completely different stance than prior. What you're protesting has nothing to do with beauty as a concept, it has to do with certain artists creating artwork that you believe is blasphemous or people in the art world who don't endorse your beliefs.

Do you see what I see? Probably not.

I'm aware of the logic. The Buddhist monk martyring himself by setting himself on fire to protest something is not the same as Christ being crucified by other people. The monk committted suicide, Christ did not. Christ's death was not a protest, either, and he didn't die eternally after his act- he was resurrected. Suicide is a denial of hope, therefore I cannot say the monk's martyrdom was an act of beauty. However, I do respect and acknowledge the fact that it was considered a noble, selfless act by adherents of Buddhism.

No, I don't see what you see.

 

[Beargryllz]

I'm aware of the logic. The Buddhist monk martyring himself by setting himself on fire to protest something is not the same as Christ being crucified by other people. The monk committted suicide, Christ did not. Christ's death was not a protest, either, and he didn't die eternally after his act- he was resurrected. Suicide is a denial of hope, therefore I cannot say the monk's martyrdom was an act of beauty. However, I do respect and acknowledge the fact that it was considered a noble, selfless act by adherents of Buddhism.

No, I don't see what you see.

I find the monk's sacrifice very meaningful because there was a purpose behind it, a statement stronger than a living, breathing, talking person could make, but that a burning, dying man could shake the world with. It isn't at the behest of others that he would martyred, it was choice, it was independence, it was pain, it was not for glory, it did not lead him to eternal reward. The story is definitely compelling and inspirational to a huge number of people.

 

[Arclight]

Back away from the dogma. Look at the logic. If there's beauty in one, there's beauty in the other.

Whoah, whoah, whoah, this is a completely different stance than prior. What you're protesting has nothing to do with beauty as a concept, it has to do with certain artists creating artwork that you believe is blasphemous or people in the art world who don't endorse your beliefs.

Do you see what I see? Probably not.

No. her art is being rejected for some florescent tubes and ink blotches that are being called art.
She feels her art is a gift from God.. Since art is a virus that only some people catch. It is indeed a gift regardless of it's origin.
To have her work cast aside for 3 lines that look like a flag on an a 12 foot canvas is a sin.. literally.
It's a sin against humanity and it's sin against ART.
You just need to see the bigger picture my dear.

 

[Arclight]

I went to the national gallery of Canada last week.

A whole viewing room (20'x20') had these two pieces of "art" hanging in it.

Or how about the lovely "Voice of Fire"
Look at the space being wasted that could be filled with REAL art.

When stuff like this takes up space that could be filled with real art and real talent I see I.M.s point.
Put her faith aside and listen to the artist that she is.
She is crying for art, not trying to convert anyone to Christianity.

 

[Mephistopheles]

You both seem to dismiss that you will never be able to convince someone by insulting them.

Yeah, everything beside your personal taste in art isn't REAL art.

 

[garbage]

I went to the national gallery of Canada last week.

A whole viewing room (20'x20') had these two pieces of "art" hanging in it.

What are the religious views of these artists?

 

[Randomnity]

Debates on art preference aside, I'm not sure what abstract art style has to do with theism, or with IM for that matter.

Abstract art is not equal to atheistic art. Why would that even be proposed, let alone stated as fact?

 

[Totenkindly]

Theists celebrate ugliness, hopelessness, and deny our humanity? You've got to be kidding me.

Apparently you haven't been keeping up with what passes for "religious art" in mankind's recent history... Thomas Kincaid, Precious Moments ceramics, and "Adventures in Odyssey."

But, putting all that crap aside, I think a lot of religious passion drove art for centuries. (The old oil painters; Bach and other classical music; etc.) It's a fine, careful dance that must be made, between passion for one's values and beliefs and the freedom and the exploration of ideas and possibilities that actually allow for life and choice. Art, as a reflection of life, has to embody both at once. There is too much shit that is called "art" (including in religious circles) that misses one of these things, if not both.

Debates on art preference aside, I'm not sure what abstract art style has to do with theism, or with IM for that matter.
Abstract art is not equal to atheistic art. Why would that even be proposed, let alone stated as fact?

Yeah, don't ask me what the hell that false dichotomy is about.

 

[Kasper]

When stuff like this takes up space that could be filled with real art and real talent I see I.M.s point.

Art is subjective, your dislike of those pieces in favour of something else would be countered but someone else's preference for them over anything else. You have no point.

If someone is an artist, surely they can appreciate that the value of art is in the perceiver, weather they themselves appreciate it or not. If one wants artistic freedom there should be no call for censorship of art.

Other than that I'd rather hear IM expain her point as what you're saying, and what she has been, are not the same thing.

 

[Totenkindly]

Art is subjective, your dislike of those pieces in favour of something else would be countered but someone else's preference for them over anything else. You have no point.

Basically. I'm always willing to hear more about what the artist was thinking or "trying to get into their head" or seeing the world through their eyes first, before I decide how I feel about their "art." I'm not really into the art that Arc showed, myself, but I'm also not much into Pointillists or some types of Abstractionists, etc. Still, other people ARE. Doesn't mean they're wrong.

As someone is an artist, surely they can appreciate that the value of art is in the perceiver, weather they themselves appreciate it or not.

I guess people always bitch when resources are slim and so some art must be prioritized above others. Everyone wants their view of art to dominate.

Why again are we talking about art? Isn't this thread about atheists?
(Maybe they should be called "artheists"?)

To get back slightly to religious art, I remember Christians in my evangelical denoms saying they would never listen to Bach's "Ave Maria" because it was about the Virgin Mary and said stuff about her that they could not condone, faith-wise. That's their choice. They made me wrestle with it... until finally I realized that, for me, all that was bullshit; the song was beautiful and obviously inspired, and I could respect and enjoy it as art, and I was going to listen to it.

Which is a comment that can be abstracted back to the topic at hand: Atheism, religion, making the world more beautiful. I don't really give a crap what someone believes, I only care about the outcome and the impact of their belief on the world and in their life. I can weep over Mother Teresa's helping the poor in Calcutta because of her faith, I can weep over Sartre and Camus' brilliant understanding of existentialist choice and absurdism, I can be moved over sacrifices that people make that end up shining radiantly in the dark as choices that fly against nihilism and meaninglessness. In the end, isn't all that is? Giving meaning to one's life and creating something of substance in an empty universe?

Atheist? Theist? Whatever. Both can be radiant; both can be ugly.
In the end, beauty is still beauty, and self-sacrifice is still sacrifice, and devoutness is still devoutness.

 

[rav3n]

"The Voice of Fire" was painted by Barnett Newman who was a theist...

Ha...Dan Flavin was a Roman Catholic, even studied for priesthood at one time in his life!!

 

[Kasper]

I do not think the world would be better off if everyone was athiest.
To me it would signal a dull period of inspriation and creativity.
Replacing the kind of that can only come from a spiritual connection with something beyond the physical world.
For example Art would turn into a Warhol Nightmare world that would challenge his own sensibilities.

So what of all the beautiful works of art in visual art, poetry, music and so on that is composed by atheists with inspiration coming from both within and without? I cannot fathom the arrogance of those who are religious believing that their religion and/or their theist spirituality are the only places that beauty can originate from in humans.

It's not an attack on your views, but please explain how beauty can only come from theist spirituality?

 

[Vie]

I put other because my belief on the subject is rather contradictory. I do think that religion has a place in the world, but I don't think it has place in some aspects of the world - most importantly politics.

It seems to me that when properly done right, religion (organized or just plain spirituality) can be a beautiful thing that leads to a number of positive things. Coexist and then I would believe that religion does have a spot in the world.

But you bring it into politics, which leads to conflict, and war and a bunch of nasty things? Eh, then the world should be atheist. There really is no happy medium, in my opinion though. /shrug

 

[Intricate Mystic]

No. her art is being rejected for some florescent tubes and ink blotches that are being called art.
She feels her art is a gift from God.. Since art is a virus that only some people catch. It is indeed a gift regardless of it's origin.
To have her work cast aside for 3 lines that look like a flag on an a 12 foot canvas is a sin.. literally.
It's a sin against humanity and it's sin against ART.
You just need to see the bigger picture my dear.

It's so nice to be understood. *sigh* Thank you, Arclight.

Those two statements, particularly back to back as you wrote them are highly hypocritical. Artistic freedom, if that is what you seek, should not only apply to those who would not offend your sensibilities, else it's not really any kind of freedom now is it? Either you object to art that offends you, or you seek freedom for artistic expression, which is it?

My response to this may make your head explode, as I have that effect on NT's sometimes .......
I both object (on a personal level) to art that offends me, and seek freedom for artistic expression (as a goal for the art world, in general). However, the art world as it exists now does not promote complete artistic freedom. It only encourages artistic freedom if the artists' work goes along with atheist dogma. It is hostile to artists who wish to express their religious beliefs through their art. People who produce religious art are in the minority, are attacked, and pushed out of the mainstream art world simply because it has been taken over by atheists who can't stand to see religious art. That is not artistic freedom. It is an art world controlled by a particular philosophy. I'm tired of this being the case, and I'm going to fight it, no matter how much hostility and attacks I have to put up with. So, I guess if people like me want artistic freedom we're going to have to fight for it. Also, to be absolutely clear, I do NOT object to other people making non-religious art if they so choose, and certainly there is beautiful work around that isn't Christian art.

Oh, so that's what you meant when you said atheists celebrate despair, hopelessness, cruelty, etc etc. "Hostility" to religious symbols = celebrating hopelessness. That makes sense.....

I don't think I said hostility to religious symbols=celebrating hopelessness

I went to the national gallery of Canada last week.

A whole viewing room (20'x20') had these two pieces of "art" hanging in it.

Or how about the lovely "Voice of Fire"
Look at the space being wasted that could be filled with REAL art.

When stuff like this takes up space that could be filled with real art and real talent I see I.M.s point.
Put her faith aside and listen to the artist that she is.
She is crying for art, not trying to convert anyone to Christianity.

Yes, exactly. It makes me so sad when people who are artistically gifted just bring ugliness into the world, when they could be using their talent to create work that is noble and inspiring, instead.

That's simply because I pick up emotional undertones people like you and randomnity miss. Blame my crazy F and N combo

Yes, you are quite good at that. The passionate responses my posts have invoked in this thread have been surpising.

 

[swordpath]

I vote no. Hindu art is too cool.

 

[Kasper]

My response to this may make your head explode, as I have that effect on NT's sometimes .......
I both object (on a personal level) to art that offends me, and seek freedom for artistic expression (as a goal for the art world, in general). However, the art world as it exists now does not promote complete artistic freedom. It only encourages artistic freedom if the artists' work goes along with atheist dogma. It is hostile to artists who wish to express their religious beliefs through their art. People who produce religious art are in the minority, are attacked, and pushed out of the mainstream art world simply because it has been taken over by atheists who can't stand to see religious art. That is not artistic freedom. It is an art world controlled by a particular philosophy. I'm tired of this being the case, and I'm going to fight it, no matter how much hostility and attacks I have to put up with. So, I guess if people like me want artistic freedom we're going to have to fight for it. Also, to be absolutely clear, I do NOT object to other people making non-religious art if they so choose, and certainly there is beautiful work around that isn't Christian art.

So long as you recognise the hypocrisy in what you're saying then so be it, I'm fine with you having your personal morals. No one out there has to make it easy for anyone but I believe art should be free from restrictions, that includes religious based works and that which can offend.

This is very much off topic now though so let's get back onto why some people think a world with only atheists would be ugly.