(A)theism and Art

[Randomnity]

I'm shocked that an INFJ would say

The passionate responses my posts have invoked in this thread have been surpising.

after saying things like

The world would be a terrible place if everyone was an atheist. The contemporary art world (both art departments at universities and art galleries) have been taken over by atheists resulting in work being produced that celebrates ugliness, hopelessness, denies our humanity, and denies the mystery that is present in the universe. ... It would be a bleak, hopeless world full of despair and longing for that "something" that people would know is missing in their lives.

My Fe is not particularly strong, but the "emotional undertones" in your post are not exactly subtle.

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

Well, after the above tirade on atheistic art, when asked how exactly atheists "celebrate despair" and so on you said:

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.

Assuming you're actually answering the question (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt), that would mean that you think either
1) "hostility" to religious symbols (as defined by you) = celebrating despair and so on, and/or
2) dislike/unwillingness to purchase/enjoy/display "religious art" (as defined by you) = celebrating despair and so on

I guess number 2 is correct, then?

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.

Question: what is "atheist dogma"? How does all art created by atheists follow this dogma? Why doesn't any theistic art follow this 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.

Now we're jumping from "art created by theists" to specifically "religious art"? What does that mean? Does it have to have blatant Christian imagery, crosses and so on? If so, I can easily see why that'd be unpopular.....it's hard to make it seem original/interesting/thought-provoking, for starters, and a lot of people will be either offended or bored by it (wait a second, see any similarities to that ungodly abstract art there? I do!).

I agree with artistic freedom too...but studio owners etc have a right to decide what they are comfortable displaying in their galleries, whether it's based on personal preference or what they believe will "sell"/be appreciated by viewers.

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.

That's uh, quite the backtracking from your original stance:

The contemporary art world (both art departments at universities and art galleries) have been taken over by atheists resulting in work being produced that celebrates ugliness, hopelessness, denies our humanity, and denies the mystery that is present in the universe.

It's a vast improvement though, I guess.

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.

Either you're talking about abstract vs. realism and therefore it's completely unrelated to the discussion here, or you're comparing abstract art to religious art which is not really a fair comparison given the many other genres of "nonreligious" art. Especially since theists can and do create abstract art, and atheists can and do create non-abstract art....I doubt there's even a trend , honestly.

 

[Intricate Mystic]

I'm shocked that an INFJ would say after saying things like

My Fe is not particularly strong, but the "emotional undertones" in your post are not exactly subtle.

Yeah, I guess I went on a bit of a rant.

Well, after the above tirade on atheistic art, when asked how exactly atheists "celebrate despair" and so on you

Assuming you're actually answering the question (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt), that would mean that you think either
1) "hostility" to religious symbols (as defined by you) = celebrating despair and so on, and/or
2) dislike/unwillingness to purchase/enjoy/display "religious art" (as defined by you) = celebrating despair and so on

I guess number 2 is correct, then?

Well, using the word "celebrate" was an exaggeration on my part. I actually started looking for artworks to illustrate my point, though. I thought of my atheist art professor's work, but just couldn't bring myself to post a link to it because while the darkness of his work makes me sad, and the fact that he has the knowledge and talent needed to produce much more detailed, technically impressive work but chooses not to, he is a nice guy and was a wonderful teacher. At the end of the day, I just don't have the heart to criticize my fellow artists on a personal level. However, since I've never met this guy, I will give his work as an example of what I'm talking about:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artist%27s_shit
Consider that work versus this:
http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/botticelli/botticelli.madonna-of-the-magnificat.jpg

Question: what is "atheist dogma"? How does all art created by atheists follow this dogma? Why doesn't any theistic art follow this dogma?

It's the world-view of atheists. The work artists create tends to show their belief-system on some level. Therefore, the art an atheist or theist produces will probably reflect their beliefs and/or philosophies to a certain degree.

 

[garbage]

However, since I've never met this guy, I will give his work as an example of what I'm talking about:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artist%27s_shit

What are the religious views of this artist?

 

[Beargryllz]

What are the religious views of this artist?

Irrelevant, I thought I worked really hard to discredit the need to connect religious tendencies with artistic taste and creativity. Why are you doing this to me?

 

[garbage]

Irrelevant, I thought I worked really hard to discredit the need to connect religious tendencies with artistic taste and creativity. Why are you doing this to me?

I do this to you because I love you.

Because I'm actually making the same counterpoint you are, because the same point keeps being brought up.

Even if this dude is an atheist, he was more inspired by materialism and consumerism than by his lack of religion. A Christian could have produced the same type of work, and I would have been none the wiser as to what his religious stance was.

(All I can find about his religious affiliations is that he went to school at the Society of Jesus, which may or may not mean anything. )

 

[Starry]

I am not sure how the conversation turned to art in such a literal sense…as in… ‘why some artists do not use their God given talent to invoke feelings of inspiration in others’ and ‘what constitutes good art vs bad art’ etc. because I do not feel this was Intricate Mystic’s original intention.

I actually feel Intricate Mystic’s original message was quite clear and very much on topic. She was using her own personal experience in the art world as a microcosm in order to deduce what the world might be like if there were only Atheists…and from that she concluded:

The world would be a terrible place if everyone was an atheist... I can only assume that a world devoid of adherents of the major religions would be like the current art world except it would be present in every aspect of modern life. It would be a bleak, hopeless world full of despair and longing for that "something" that people would know is missing in their lives.

The problem with this conclusion is that one need only to turn to another subject…a subject that art most often reflects rather than influences…and examine the ‘historical world’ to see that there may be some trouble/hypocrisy to her claim.

With regards to Christianity alone…one need only consider such atrocities or ‘sins against humanity’ as the slaughter of the Celts, Pagans, unimaginable numbers of tribal peoples…the Crusades (I believe there were maybe 9 Crusades total) …the Protestant Reformation…the Spanish Inquisition…the Salem Witch trials…the execution of such individuals as Joan of Arc, Bruno, etc. …the persecution of Galileo, Keppler, Copernicus…the Holocaust…the persecution of homosexuals…Rwanda… and I don’t even know how many ‘Holy Wars’…in order to see that it is inaccurate to suggest that the adherents to the major religions are the only ones seeking to spread ‘goodness & light’…while the atheists are busy working against this by insisting on spreading ‘loneliness & despair’.

Moreover, when one considers these ‘sins against humanity’…it is not as surprising that some forum members may have taken offense to what Intricate Mystic suggested. It may also be why the art sometimes looks so bad. It may also be why some people, in their sorrow, turn their backs on Christianity and the other major religions. And why some people may ultimately decide…’There can’t possibly be a God. There is no God at all’.

It is important to always remain mindful of the fact that there are terrible, terrible people in all walks of life.

 

[Randomnity]

Well, using the word "celebrate" was an exaggeration on my part. I actually started looking for artworks to illustrate my point, though. I thought of my atheist art professor's work, but just couldn't bring myself to post a link to it because while the darkness of his work makes me sad, and the fact that he has the knowledge and talent needed to produce much more detailed, technically impressive work but chooses not to, he is a nice guy and was a wonderful teacher. At the end of the day, I just don't have the heart to criticize my fellow artists on a personal level. However, since I've never met this guy, I will give his work as an example of what I'm talking about:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artist%27s_shit
Consider that work versus this:
http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/botticelli/botticelli.madonna-of-the-magnificat.jpg

Um. Ok, let's compare these two. I don't remember my art genres very well so bear with me

1) symbolic/pop/shock art; not religious, but not anti-religious either; faith of artist unknown
2) basically realistic; religious; faith of artist unknown

I get the second one as an example of religious art, it seems pretty standard although not really my thing. I'm not sure where the first one came from - it seems entirely random. It's also a very different genre (about as different as possible) as well as from a different era (contemporary vs...renaissance?), so you can't really compare them unless you say "realism = theist artists; shock art= atheist artists" which is clearly ridiculous.

I can show you another artwork that fits the category of "not religious, but not anti-religious either; faith of artist unknown":

(I tried to search for specifically atheist art but that information is hard to find online, for obvious reasons)

Don't you think it's a little biased to choose a can of poop as a representative sample of a group so diverse?

It's the world-view of atheists. The work artists create tends to show their belief-system on some level. Therefore, the art an atheist or theist produces will probably reflect their beliefs and/or philosophies to a certain degree.

So how does a can of poop reflect atheist philosphy (assuming the artist is atheist)?

This sketch was drawn by someone who I know to be atheist:

What do you think his/his life philosophy is?

 

[Randomnity]

And just for a bit of balance, here's an example of religious art which is not really all that happy and joyful and celebrating wonder and mystery in the world:

 

[Beorn]

Beliefs certainly impact art. Perhaps it's easier to compare the great buildings of particular cultures rather than the art of particular individuals.

One culture founded upon christian beliefs built this:

A subsequent culture founded upon atheistic beliefs built this:

One can find admirable things in both, but it is quite clear that the cultures value very different things and the resulting visual difference is striking.

 

[Randomnity]

You're discounting the effects of time period and non-religion-related cultural differences, which are both huge factors.

Anyway I don't disagree that beliefs "affect" art in different ways. I disagree that you can lump all atheist or all theist artworks together in a rational way, let alone rank them qualitatively.

 

[Intricate Mystic]

I am not sure how the conversation turned to art in such a literal sense…as in… ‘why some artists do not use their God given talent to invoke feelings of inspiration in others’ and ‘what constitutes good art vs bad art’ etc. because I do not feel this was Intricate Mystic’s original intention.

I actually feel Intricate Mystic’s original message was quite clear and very much on topic. She was using her own personal experience in the art world as a microcosm in order to deduce what the world might be like if there were only Atheists…and from that she concluded:

Yes, that is correct. The NF's get it!

The problem with this conclusion is that one need only to turn to another subject…a subject that art most often reflects rather than influences…and examine the ‘historical world’ to see that there may be some trouble/hypocrisy to her claim.

With regards to Christianity alone…one need only consider such atrocities or ‘sins against humanity’ as the slaughter of the Celts, Pagans, unimaginable numbers of tribal peoples…the Crusades (I believe there were maybe 9 Crusades total) …the Protestant Reformation…the Spanish Inquisition…the Salem Witch trials…the execution of such individuals as Joan of Arc, Bruno, etc. …the persecution of Galileo, Keppler, Copernicus…the Holocaust…the persecution of homosexuals…Rwanda… and I don’t even know how many ‘Holy Wars’…in order to see that it is inaccurate to suggest that the adherents to the major religions are the only ones seeking to spread ‘goodness & light’…while the atheists are busy working against this by insisting on spreading ‘loneliness & despair’.

Moreover, when one considers these ‘sins against humanity’…it is not as surprising that some forum members may have taken offense to what Intricate Mystic suggested. It may also be why the art sometimes looks so bad. It may also be why some people, in their sorrow, turn their backs on Christianity and the other major religions. And why some people may ultimately decide…’There can’t possibly be a God. There is no God at all’.

It is important to always remain mindful of the fact that there are terrible, terrible people in all walks of life.

You made some very good points.

Um. Ok, let's compare these two. I don't remember my art genres very well so bear with me

1) symbolic/pop/shock art; not religious, but not anti-religious either; faith of artist unknown
2) basically realistic; religious; faith of artist unknown

Well, I do find realistic art to require more skill and talent than other types of art (GENERALLY speaking). It's time-consuming, hard work, and requires abilities that not everyone possesses. Actually it's a type of art that ISTPs can be good at.

I get the second one as an example of religious art, it seems pretty standard although not really my thing. I'm not sure where the first one came from - it seems entirely random. It's also a very different genre (about as different as possible) as well as from a different era (contemporary vs...renaissance?), so you can't really compare them unless you say "realism = theist artists; shock art= atheist artists" which is clearly ridiculous.

I can show you another artwork that fits the category of "not religious, but not anti-religious either; faith of artist unknown":

(I tried to search for specifically atheist art but that information is hard to find online, for obvious reasons)

Don't you think it's a little biased to choose a can of poop as a representative sample of a group so diverse?

Yes, it is. However, people have openly discussed the fact that the current art world has been taken over by atheists. I'm not the only one who has reached this conclusion. One recent trend in it has been for people to portray humans with the heads of animals. It diminishes our humanity as people having been created in the image of God to give us the heads of animals. It's offensive. Anyone who is a practicing Jew, Christian or Muslim would probably find this offensive, as well.

So how does a can of poop reflect atheist philosphy (assuming the artist is atheist)?

Well, anything we call "art" tends to elevate it because of the great artistic legacy humanity possesses. Humans have produced some pretty magnificent works of art- both paintings and sculpture that makes us "oohh" and "aahhh" because of the supreme talent and creativity that were involved in creating them. Producing poop, in contrast, is something any human being can do without much effort (unless they are constipated ). Making poop requires zero talent or creativity. Therefore, elevating such a thing to the level of "art" seems to be crapping all over the amazing work of artists from the past, and it craps all over humanity as a whole to say, "Hey, I'm an artist with a lot of talent, but I choose to not use my talents but, instead to put my poop in a can as my artistic gift to you". It's the sort of thing that the current atheist-dominated art world tends to value. They also like to create a "shift in perspective" that occurs when you are viewing weird stuff and get into the mind of the artist. It's supposed to be akin to a religious experience.

This sketch was drawn by someone who I know to be atheist:

What do you think his/his life philosophy is?

Perhaps he values nature? It's a beautiful drawing.

And just for a bit of balance, here's an example of religious art which is not really all that happy and joyful and celebrating wonder and mystery in the world:

It's interesting...a depiction of hell, I assume? For those who believe Hell exists and that we all have the potential to go there after death, it's a work of art with a message that is relevant, regardless of how many centuries in the past it was produced.

 

[Beargryllz]

Yes, it is. However, people have openly discussed the fact that the current art world has been taken over by atheists. I'm not the only one who has reached this conclusion. One recent trend in it has been for people to portray humans with the heads of animals. It diminishes our humanity as people having been created in the image of God to give us the heads of animals. It's offensive. Anyone who is a practicing Jew, Christian or Muslim would probably find this offensive, as well.

Humans are closer to divinity than they are to animals, then. This is a good outlook, very human-centric and inspiring. I too value humanity greatly.

 

[Beorn]

You're discounting the effects of time period and non-religion-related cultural differences, which are both huge factors.

Ok, explain how those factors are at work here.

 

[Eruca]

This thread:

Creative expression is lit by strong emotion, passion and belief in one's art.

We can get passionate about religion, and make our god our muse, this is I'm sure what many great religious painters did. However, there are many more things we can be passionate about, and many things we can make our muse. The atheist has access to just as many of these as the theist does. In the end, it comes down to their passionate personality.

I believe it would be a good thing if everyone in the world was atheist. Not those hardcore atheists though, eugh. Just normal agnostic-atheists.

It might be--and I claim no certainty--that new beliefs systems that could be described as spiritual and yet not religious could foster. For example of one such system, look at Einstein's "spiritual" beliefs in my sig quote and this quotes:

"The sense of the religious, which is released through the experience of potentially nearing a logical grasp of these deep-lying world relations, is … a feeling of awe and reverence for the manifest Reason which appears in reality. It does not lead to the assumption of a divine personality—a person who makes demands of us and takes an interest in our individual being. In this there is no Will, nor Aim, nor an Ought, but only Being."

— Found in Goldman, p. 33.

Here we have inspiration without the weighty burden of doctrine and custom.

 

[iwakar]

Continuing art derail

Well, using the word "celebrate" was an exaggeration on my part. I actually started looking for artworks to illustrate my point, though. I thought of my atheist art professor's work, but just couldn't bring myself to post a link to it because while the darkness of his work makes me sad, and the fact that he has the knowledge and talent needed to produce much more detailed, technically impressive work but chooses not to, he is a nice guy and was a wonderful teacher. At the end of the day, I just don't have the heart to criticize my fellow artists on a personal level. However, since I've never met this guy, I will give his work as an example of what I'm talking about:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artist%27s_shit
Consider that work versus this:
http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/botticelli/botticelli.madonna-of-the-magnificat.jpg



It's the world-view of atheists. The work artists create tends to show their belief-system on some level. Therefore, the art an atheist or theist produces will probably reflect their beliefs and/or philosophies to a certain degree.

Then what of (self-described Roman Catholic) Andres Serrano and one of his many (sacrilegious some say) religious art installations?

This is Piss Christ:

This is Madonna and Child II:

[His religious art is frequently submerged in urine, blood, feces, and/or semen.]

Quotes related to the artist's work and faith:

Sister Wendy Beckett, an art critic and Catholic nun, stated in a television interview with Bill Moyers that she regarded the work as not blasphemous but a statement on "what we have done to Christ": that is, the way contemporary society has come to regard Christ and the values he represents.

Andres Serrano: "I have always felt that my work is religious, not sacrilegious. I would say that there are many individuals in the Church who appreciate it and who do not have a problem with it. The best place for Piss Christ is in a church. In fact, I recently had a show in Marseilles in an actual church that also functions as an exhibition space, and the work looked great there. I think if the Vatican is smart, someday they'll collect my work."

Clearly artistic tastes differ from (although they can be influenced by) religious preferences and are not to be confused with one another. Equating "bad taste in art" with atheistic or theistic artwork is pointless and irrelevant.

Art is art, even when it's debatable and IF it's debatable, it is not because of the artist's (anti-)religious beliefs, but rather their method of delivery.

 

[Eruca]

Damn, this video is so fricking relevant to this thread. All should listen to this.

 

[Beorn]

Damn, this video is so fricking relevant to this thread. All should listen to this.

I don't care what colorful and emotional language you use the bottom line is that in a materialist world beauty is perception based. You perceive something to be beautiful because of a random colliding of chemicals in your brain.

Within a Christian worldview beauty is an intrinsic quality possessed by both God and created things. When we view something as beautiful we are recognizing it's intrinsic value not merely experiencing a chemically stimulated emotional response.

 

[Eruca]

I don't care what colorful and emotional language you use the bottom line is that in a materialist world beauty is perception based. You perceive something to be beautiful because of a random colliding of chemicals in your brain.

Within a Christian worldview beauty is an intrinsic quality possessed by both God and created things. When we view something as beautiful we are recognizing it's intrinsic value not merely experiencing a chemically stimulated emotional response.

To defend the agnositc-atheist view:
The fact beauty and our feelings of beauty are explainable does not undermine their beauty. If you believe that it does that is your subjective opinion, just as it is Fry's subjective opinion to believe otherwise. By "perception based" I feel you mean to say that the atheist is like an animal eating sweet fruit, he gorges on the perception he finds so tasty, only taking pleasure at its most base level. You mean to say, I believe, that the atheist will not take what is called "spiritual" pleasure from things. But there is no reason to believe this. I believe kindness is beautiful, and so would feel emotionally touched to see an act of kindness. This is even when I know honouring kindness might not be defensible logically, save for utilitarian reasons.

To criticise the Christian world view:
I fully believe that a Christian can see the world in such a way. But, when you say that something possesses "intrinsic" qualities you base that belief on God, which is also your subjective belief. Why cant an atheist also have a subjective belief that, say, something is beautiful?

 

[iwakar]

Contininuing in the vein of art derail

Within a Christian worldview beauty is an intrinsic quality possessed by both God and created things. When we view something as beautiful we are recognizing it's intrinsic value not merely experiencing a chemically stimulated emotional response.

Are atheists, agnostics etc. not created things and not "blessed" with your same beautiful worldview? By your own values, non-Christians (which is merely a subset of theists) are also of God. So are you seriously positing that a magic lens of artistic appreciation falls over our eyes when we commit to your version of God?

 

[Totenkindly]

I don't care what colorful and emotional language you use the bottom line is that in a materialist world beauty is perception based. You perceive something to be beautiful because of a random colliding of chemicals in your brain. Within a Christian worldview beauty is an intrinsic quality possessed by both God and created things. When we view something as beautiful we are recognizing it's intrinsic value not merely experiencing a chemically stimulated emotional response.

So you're saying you need to "make up" some reason (AKA divine participation) for you to accept life as beautiful, because otherwise you would be a nihilist and would see any form of beauty or happiness as a complete lie. (That is the rational basis you are arguing on right now.)