Didn't you write this article about two years ago, Peter, because you had a friend who fancied himself as an artist? Oh, yes, here it is: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=11432

Nice to see you've learnt the art of brevity in the meantime.

"The proclamation of the death of God killed off any idea that there exists moral or aesthetic values. 'All that is left is the conflict of arbitrary notions of taste.' This means that there can be no art criticism because there is no criteria from which to make criticism."

Right, so obviously Egyptian art, Greek art, Roman art, Indian art, Chinese art, etc is all so much crap, isn't it, they not having had the benefits of our wonderful God? Thanks for letting us know. I realise that a few people think the Parthenon, for instance, has some artistic merit, but now I can set them straight on the matter.

But speaking as an atheist I have no trouble finding a basis from which to make criticism of art: "I like it." Or "I don't like it." Why on earth should I need more? Even if your God exists -- which you don't seem very sure about yourself -- why should his taste in art hold any more relevance for me than, say, Edmund Capon's? Or my own?

Have great works of art always conveyed meaning? What is the 'meaning' of Monet's Waterlilies, Van Gogh's Starry Night, the world's most over-hyped painting, the Mona Lisa? What is the 'meaning' of those thousands of torture paintings and sculptures depicting the crucifixion? Their purpose of indoctrination is clear, but what do they actually mean? Is their meaning affected by the technical expertise of the artist, as Peter Sellick is suggesting? Would a modern installation of a crucifixion be less 'meaningful' than a crucifixion painting by a Renaissance master

Christian art at its horrific sado-masochistic best!

http://dsdoconnor.com/2010/08/28/high-resolution-catholic-images/christ_passion_movie_cross

What kind of ideas about what we are as human beings, and thus of Truth, Reality and The Beautiful, does that image communicate?

...Trying to tie “mimesis” with the “art of divine madness” is an art-form Peter needs to practice a little more, me thinks!

Yes a lot of it is boring. Indeed, almost as boring as the toffee nosed snobs who claim to see either merit or meaning in any of it?
[Some of it is almost as interesting as watching grass grow, on Valium.]
Particularly, that produced by a gurgling pre-kindy tiny tot, creating a very profitable, hand crafted, version/interpretation of blue polls, to the endless delight of her, "art crowd" parents?
Meaning in art?
Interpreted, I believe, as something that gives rise to an emotive response?
Like the spine-tingling goose bumps, or the completely unexpected tears, one gets from listening to endlessly enduring beautiful music, or seeing a truly inspiring scene; or, hearing a very fundamental truth? [But particularly, that which completely conflicts or confounds, with an already rusted on belief systems?]
My own particular favourites include the pioneer series of paintings, and, "the Swan", played as a virtual solo on the Cello, with background piano accompaniment.
Both of which give rise to an emotive cellular memory, or goose-bumps response.
Rhrosty.

"If a work of art cannot speak for itself then it is a failure." I could equally say that if "the logic [or truth] of a religion does not speak for itself then it is a failure". Why then do you spend so much time "speaking" for your religion Peter?