|
Post by Reactionary Rage on Aug 18, 2023 13:39:26 GMT
We seek, in ever greater numbers, things of beauty because they no longer exist in our culture. Can you imagine living in 17th century Rome, infested with plague, rats and poverty, and being able to go to St Peters for Mass every Sunday? But how much of this lack of beauty is the product of a secular world? We are compelled to seek out beauty because it is in our nature to do so yet we have removed the fundamental driver behind the beauty we have lost.
|
|
|
Post by adamcoan on Aug 18, 2023 13:43:38 GMT
We seek, in ever greater numbers, things of beauty because they no longer exist in our culture. Can you imagine living in 17th century Rome, infested with plague, rats and poverty, and being able to go to St Peters for Mass every Sunday? I think my penis just fell off my lord, could you find your way to giving me a little bread ? Oh,do shut up Baldrick, look at the columns and the portraits of Christ.
|
|
davey
god
Posts: 1,694
Member is Online
|
Post by davey on Aug 18, 2023 13:49:09 GMT
There’s more beauty in nature than ‘high art.’
|
|
|
Post by tory on Aug 18, 2023 13:51:37 GMT
There’s more beauty in nature than ‘high art.’ No. Rather than denigrate what we do, sometimes we need to admire what humanity is actually capable of.
|
|
davey
god
Posts: 1,694
Member is Online
|
Post by davey on Aug 18, 2023 13:55:25 GMT
There’s more beauty in nature than ‘high art.’ No. Rather than denigrate what we do, sometimes we need to admire what humanity is actually capable of. Sure. There’s a reason I’d rather go to Paris than the Grand Canyon. But it isn’t more beautiful.
|
|
|
Post by Reactionary Rage on Aug 18, 2023 14:03:29 GMT
I'm grateful for this. Would he have created all that art if he wasn't funded by the church? The religious nature of art like this is what gives it its symbolic power and meaning that even non-religious people can surely understand. You can't divorce the two. Well, it's commissioned, altered by the employer if it doesn't reflect the message that it was created for. As a non - religious person the sculpture ( every virgin and child also ) makes it difficult/ impossible ,I guess ,for me to care about symbolic power, when that really means oppression and lack of freedom of expression. I see Lichtensteins BLAM and I appreciate it, care for it, more. I find that an odd thing to project onto it tbh. Ideological. At a very basic level it is a Mother holding the limp body of her dead son. But in its obvious, sublime beauty it communicates something sacred and profound in a way that BLAM never, ever could. In this moment the pain and suffering of Mary and by extension the pain of suffering of the human experience is elevated beyond the crude material world we all have to endure into something else entirely. By giving it this quality of the sacred - as communicated by its otherworldly beauty and symbolic power - it affords us meaning and transcendence, a spiritual release from the purgatory of the material world. We seek this as people. It is innate. Through religion, through art, through nature and so on. In providing this it not only offers comfort and solace through its sculpted grace but a reminder that in spite of all our ugliness we are capable of producing art like this and in recognising that we can also aspire to be something greater than ourselves too.
|
|
|
Post by adamcoan on Aug 18, 2023 14:08:09 GMT
There’s more beauty in nature than ‘high art.’ No. Rather than denigrate what we do, sometimes we need to admire what humanity is actually capable of. I often receive notifications on my Facebook account from ancient world or the mysteries of the ancients. They are full of peeps declaring "and we can't build a pyramid today "or despite our modern capabilities we cannot reproduce an Inca wall. It's all down to aliens or the capabilities are vastly exaggerated compared to what followed. Tell those folks that we have a space station and the most of the world's knowledge available in the palm of your hand and yet, all the value and wonder is only found in admiration for the past.
|
|
|
Post by Stacy Heydon on Aug 18, 2023 14:12:11 GMT
We seek, in ever greater numbers, things of beauty because they no longer exist in our culture. Can you imagine living in 17th century Rome, infested with plague, rats and poverty, and being able to go to St Peters for Mass every Sunday? But how much of this lack of beauty is the product of a secular world? We are compelled to seek out beauty because it is in our nature to do so yet we have removed the fundamental driver behind the beauty we have lost. There is a lot of beautiful secular art (however we define this -I mean Van Gogh was certainly religious, but he didn't paint religious art). Think you're in danger of being overly reductionist and boxing yourself in with that argument.
|
|
|
Post by adamcoan on Aug 18, 2023 14:15:26 GMT
Well, it's commissioned, altered by the employer if it doesn't reflect the message that it was created for. As a non - religious person the sculpture ( every virgin and child also ) makes it difficult/ impossible ,I guess ,for me to care about symbolic power, when that really means oppression and lack of freedom of expression. I see Lichtensteins BLAM and I appreciate it, care for it, more. I find that an odd thing to project onto it tbh. Ideological. At a very basic level it is a Mother holding the limp body of her dead son. But in its obvious, sublime beauty it communicates something sacred and profound in a way that BLAM never, ever could. In this moment the pain and suffering of Mary and by extension the pain of suffering of the human experience is elevated beyond the crude material world we all have to endure into something else entirely. By giving it this quality of the sacred - as communicated by its otherworldly beauty and symbolic power - it affords us meaning and transcendence, a spiritual release from the purgatory of the material world. We seek this as people. It is innate. Through religion, through art, through nature and so on. In providing this it not only offers comfort and solace through its sculpted grace but a reminder that in spite of all our ugliness we are capable of producing art like this and in recognising that we can also aspire to be something greater than ourselves too. How many fingers am I holding up Winston ?
|
|
|
Post by Reactionary Rage on Aug 18, 2023 14:32:48 GMT
But how much of this lack of beauty is the product of a secular world? We are compelled to seek out beauty because it is in our nature to do so yet we have removed the fundamental driver behind the beauty we have lost. There is a lot of beautiful secular art (however we define this -I mean Van Gogh was certainly religious, but he didn't paint religious art). Think you're in danger of being overly reductionist and boxing yourself in with that argument. I'm not defining secular here as strictly non-religious but non-spiritual too. I think it's something that has become lost from our wider culture and even if the art is not strictly religious that impulse can still exist and influence the art being produced via the artist or the wider culture. Maybe Van Gogh was using colour to communicate something about nature that was influenced by his religious beliefs, I dunno. Wagner wasn't religious but his art has a very obvious religious quality to it etc. If you look at the 60s pop explosion I think there was a spiritual, consciousness raising element to the artists and the culture that influenced the music which is not something I detect much these days. You can hear this in John Coltrane, in Jimi Hendrix, in the psychedelic Beatles and so on. You can very obviously see this in the counter culture and the hippies too of course. It was like some reaction to the increasingly technologically driven rationality of the modern world.
|
|
|
Post by Stacy Heydon on Aug 18, 2023 14:56:54 GMT
There is a lot of beautiful secular art (however we define this -I mean Van Gogh was certainly religious, but he didn't paint religious art). Think you're in danger of being overly reductionist and boxing yourself in with that argument. I'm not defining secular here as strictly non-religious but non-spiritual too. I think it's something that has become lost from our wider culture and even if the art is not strictly religious that impulse can still exist and influence the art being produced via the artist or the wider culture. Maybe Van Gogh was using colour to communicate something about nature that was influenced by his religious beliefs, I dunno. Wagner wasn't religious but his art has a very obvious religious quality to it etc. If you look at the 60s pop explosion I think there was a spiritual, consciousness raising element to the artists and the culture that influenced the music which is not something I detect much these days. You can hear this in John Coltrane, in Jimi Hendrix, in the psychedelic Beatles and so on. You can very obviously see this in the counter culture and the hippies too of course. It was like some reaction to the increasingly technologically driven rationality of the modern world. Fair enough. I think you're talking about transcendence here and I would agree it's often a quality in the very best art.
|
|