The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Why has so much contemporary art become so boring? > Comments

Why has so much contemporary art become so boring? : Comments

By Peter Sellick, published 20/8/2012

If a work of art cannot speak for itself then it is a failure. Great works of art have always conveyed meaning.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. All
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?
Posted by Jon J, Monday, 20 August 2012 7:36:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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
Posted by Candide, Monday, 20 August 2012 8:39:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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?
Posted by Daffy Duck, Monday, 20 August 2012 11:59:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
...Trying to tie “mimesis” with the “art of divine madness” is an art-form Peter needs to practice a little more, me thinks!
Posted by diver dan, Monday, 20 August 2012 12:30:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Rhrosty, Monday, 20 August 2012 12:44:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"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?
Posted by Priscillian, Monday, 20 August 2012 2:22:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Wynne Prize competition demands a statement from each artist explaining their entry but this year Tim Storrier's statement was basically 'my painting tells its own story', which knocked everyone else's guff into a cocked hat.
Posted by Candide, Monday, 20 August 2012 3:02:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So you don't like modern art, Mr Sellick.

While that doesn't surprise me in the least, nor should you be ashamed of taking such a reactionary stance. My own father took a similar position on the music of the sixties - you could even hear the inverted commas he would put around the word "music".

He did not however try to paper over his visceral objection to, say, the Yardbirds, by suggesting that it was because Jeff Beck or Jimmy Page had forsaken Jesus.

But I do believe you do Mr Hughes an injustice.

"Who is going to proclaim that the emperor has no clothes now that Robert Hughes is dead?"

Errrmmm... our august art critic had this to say when confronted by surrealism.

"I thought, God, that can't be art! Can it be art? Well maybe it is! You know... and gradually your eye gets hooked by an image and then you pursue it..."

As represented here:

http://www.youthink.com/quiz_images/full_902203777.jpg

Art is not quantifiable in the manner that you would like it to be, Mr Sellick. Some like some stuff, others like other stuff. There's even a non-ironic school of thought that the Green Lady is kinda neat.

http://starstruckworld.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/chinese-girlrobin.jpg

Go figure.
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 20 August 2012 5:13:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think I would like your father Pericles. Pity he got his decades wrong. It was the "music" of the 80s that he should have been talking about, the 60s music was OK, if not as good as the 50s.

I must admit I have seen very little recent "art" that I would hang on my wall. Then when I occasionally catch the Antique Road Show, I also see a lot of older stuff, sometimes highly valued, that I think would be better used to feed the fire, than grace a wall.
Posted by Hasbeen, Monday, 20 August 2012 6:31:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sellick wrote:” We are not calmed and enchanted by art that elicits the beautiful, even if that beauty is the strange beauty of the cross.”

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and all too often the cross has represented intolerance, tyranny, oppression, and murder. It is a symbol of an apparatus of execution.

Since Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire in 380 and somewhat earlier it has on occasion been relentless in persecuting those people who have maintained their faith against Christian pressures or even questioned Christian doctrine. On many occasions Christians have even murdered them.

There have been notable martyrdoms of those who refused the Christian demand to convert. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypatia tells of Hypatia, mathematician, philosopher and scholar, who was murdered by Christian monks in 370. Some think her martyrdom marked the beginning of the Dark Ages. Doubters of Christian doctrine were also martyrs to Christian persecution. Michael Servetus, theologian, physician, cartographer and humanist, was executed in 1553 in Calvin's Geneva apparently for doubting the Trinity. Giordano Bruno, mathematician, philosopher and scholar, was executed in 1600 in Catholic Rome apparently for pantheism.

Jews have been often exhorted to become Christians. When they remained faithful to their religion their fate was often exile or martyrdom. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Jewish_martyrs tells of some of the many Jewish martyrs who were murdered because they refused to deny their faith. Some were executed by Christians. Some were Christians who became Jews and were executed for apostasy. Such a one was Nicholas Antoine whose fate is described in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_Antoine.

Spreading the Gospel is an imperative in Christianity. However, acceptance of the Gospel means denial of one's previous beliefs. Some have become Christians of their own free will, and that is fine. However, many have done so to save their lives. Other have died as martyrs when they were unwilling to abandon their own deeply held beliefs. I regard the Holocaust as the culmination of the Christian effort to deal with those pesky people who would not accept the Christian Gospel.
Posted by david f, Monday, 20 August 2012 8:20:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Contemporary Art is not boring, the lack of contemporary talent is what's boring.
Posted by individual, Tuesday, 21 August 2012 5:01:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
All art, without exception, and regardless of the seeming content, even if it pretends to be religious (e.g. about "Jesus") is essentially a portrayal/description of the the ego of the person who produces it.

Borrowing from the title of the book by Herbert Marcuse we now "live" in a one-dimensional "culture". As such the normal dreadfully sane every-person is cut off from access to their deep psyche - the deep psyche being the well-spring from which creative artistic genius emerges.

Which is why most of visual art (in particular) is so boring.

What does the blood-soaked image of "Jesus" nailed to a cross tell us about Mel Gibson?
Posted by Daffy Duck, Tuesday, 21 August 2012 11:18:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What does the blood-soaked image of "Jesus" nailed to a cross tell us about Mel Gibson?
Daffy Duck,
Jesus & Mel Gibson in the same sentence doesn't make sense for a start. An image of a blood-soaked Jesus invokes a meaning of the cruelty of mankind in me & I'm not religious.
Most images of talented Art show highly fantasised idealistic subjects but at least there is artistic talent. Much of 21st century Art is just pure idiocy hyped up by idiots, bought by idiots & sold by callous dealers. There is not much talent in modern Art although a few contemporary Artists have outstanding talent but unrecognised by the morons dealing in Art.
Posted by individual, Wednesday, 22 August 2012 6:09:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I can only assume that Peter was moved to write this article after having visited the MCA during Sydney's biennale.

A few pieces were interesting; a couple of exhibits even justified a visit to the MCA.

However, much was banal, very little was cutting edge. Pieces of blue fabric hung on a wall did not really satisfy on any level. One can only assume the selection panel goes into spasms of ecstasy looking at a tie rack.

Whilst some artists were able to produce breathless explanations of their work, for the most part these explanations weren't very convincing. In future, it would be more helpful if the selection panel provided explanations for why they selected the pieces they did.

Even in the august setting of this building, the mundane remained mundane.

Contemporary art is supposed to create debate, even anger. This exhibition missed on this level also.

However, I returned home to marvel at my own 'artworks' littering around the house. Mundane - as even those on display at the MCA.
Posted by Danielle, Thursday, 23 August 2012 2:22:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Contemporary art.

"... functioning like a commercial brand ...

...financial value was now the only meaning that remained for art."

(Robert Hughes)
Posted by Danielle, Thursday, 23 August 2012 8:06:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Danielle,
Thanks for the comment. I have not been to the MCA, my comments were an amalgam of Christopher Allen, Robert Hughes, Peter Fuller and various other people who are disenchanted with the current art scene.
Peter
Posted by Sells, Thursday, 23 August 2012 9:59:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
An artist working to break into the scene told me of the 'common' relationship/contract between galleries and artists.

Galleries take 30-50% of sales, and are only obliged to give an artist two exhibitions a year. And it gets worse:

The gallery can claim 30-50% of any awards or prizes given to an artist for artwork he/she enters outside the gallery.

The artist remains totally bound with the gallery, and cannot seek representation with any other gallery whilst under their 'wing.'

It seemed so draconian, I queried this with another artist, who confirmed that the information was correct.

It appears that art is big business. Emerging artists must find it very hard to establish themselves. And the general public are passed off with 'the names ... and prices' for artwork, much of which is an insult to the intelligence ... a toilet seat; an ashtray full of butts.
Posted by Danielle, Thursday, 23 August 2012 11:29:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Sells,

I have visited many art galleries and seen hordes of pictures of two dimensional insipid virgins with aged infants. In the Renaissance the subjects expanded to include classical mythology and from then on to admit a whole variety of subject matter and techniques. In contrast Chinese art had great landscape painting dating to the fifth century. In order for European art to flower it needed to remove itself from the stultifying embrace of Chriatianity.
Posted by david f, Friday, 24 August 2012 2:41:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David,
On the contrary, we would have no art in the West if it were not for Christianity. Read some art history. The break with Christianity only occurred after the reformation with Dutch still lifes and landscapes i.e. after much had been achieved in church art.

Danielle,
The gallery system does sound draconian, however, they do find it hard to keep in business all the same. There are two problems, we are not producing enough artists who can sell work and the public do not have an appreciation of good work.

Peter
Posted by Sells, Friday, 24 August 2012 9:38:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sells wrote: "On the contrary, we would have no art in the West if it were not for Christianity."

Dear Sells,

The above statement is absolute rubbish. The artistic instinct of humanity is completely independent of Christianity. The prehistoric art in the Altamira caves are more lively and creative than some of the Christian icons. Myron and Phidias were noted sculptors in Greece. Pre-Christian was primarily a creative expressive while the early Christian art had the didactic purpose to convey the message of Christianity. Christianity was extremely syncretic. Most of its Bible was simply taken fron the Jewish fate. Christian mythology copied pagan myths. As Gods like Zeus mated with mortals to produce offspring the Christians had Mary impregnated by a Holy Ghost.

Early Christian art used pagan and Jewish symbolism. Moses striking the rock for water symbolised the Baptism. Orpheus and Apollo (the latter the product of a virgin birth) stood for Christ.

Your statement that I cited at the beginning of this post remains rubbish.
Posted by david f, Friday, 24 August 2012 10:08:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Peter,

You make fair comment about the galleries and artists.

From what I observe, much contemporary art is about making a metaphor from an item, the 'way-out' the item the better. I'm sure that if a contest were given to the general public, many would be able to come up with a metaphor as 'clever' as that the 'artist' has provided - even more so.

On the other hand, when an artist sculpts, paints or otherwise presents a mundane item, one expects that the mundane is seen differently, taken out of its ordinariness.
Posted by Danielle, Friday, 24 August 2012 1:27:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think that is right. The Dutch, under the influence of Protestantism sought the beauty in the everyday. Now, the artist sets out to confront with bizarre objects. The problem is that we are not confronted but bored.
Peter
Posted by Sells, Friday, 24 August 2012 3:17:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There's more than a touch of chicken-and-egg here, Sells.

>>...we would have no art in the West if it were not for Christianity. Read some art history. The break with Christianity only occurred after the reformation...<<

Art held a similar position in the social hierarchy as music. Both were hijacked by Christianity, primarily because Christianity operated de haut en bas (both literally and in its figurative usage); and the general public, as we have come to call them, simply did what they were told. Because socially, that's what they did.

They were told that they believed in Jesus, so they did. They knew no better. And "art", in the form of religiously-themed pictures of a blonde, bearded caucasian martyr and his fair-skinned, pious mother, was used to reinforce this understanding. In much the same way as the only access that the hoi polloi had to music, was in church. Where it was presented as something deeply mysterious and magical, to provide a hypnotic soundtrack to assist the process of suspension of disbelief at the stories they were asked to swallow.

So was it Christianity that produced art, or was art simply pressed into service by Christianity to serve its own purposes?

Both art and music changed significantly with the Enlightenment. Each was freed to entertain through its own inherent beauty without the need to fit into the church's agenda.

Not all of it has been good. But the Impressionists did not need Christianity in order to produce images both powerful and attractive. And Mahler was able to deliver one of the greatest artistic achievements of all time, based upon an entirely pagan theme.

John Cage and Damien Hirst, on the other hand...
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 24 August 2012 5:52:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear david f,

"The artistic instinct of humanity is completely independent of Christianity."

You are utterly correct. However, it was through the patronage of the church that art and artists were able to flourish. Not just those elements that you mention were incorporated into Christian art.

The bosses on the ceilings, the gargoyles,and leafy tracery on the pillars seen in the magnificent Gothic cathedrals are all pagan iconography which 'everyman' brought to his art. The church accommodated this. Chartres Cathedral was built on the site of a pre-existing Roman temple; the Black Madonna having been previously an ebony goddess.

Religious icons, however, had very specific rules. If one goes to Russia today and wishes to copy icons, one has to adhere strictly to the centuries old instructions. Even to making the paints ... and situating the icons into position.

Incidentally, david, I am not a Christian.
Posted by Danielle, Friday, 24 August 2012 6:09:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Christianity has at times been most destructive to art. When Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire there immediately followed an orgy of destruction as pagan temples, statuary and other artifacts were destroyed by rampaging Christian mobs encouraged by the Roman authorities. A similar destructive orgy followed in the Reformation as Catholic churches were stripped bare of statuary, stained windows and other art created in the Catholic milieu. Not only art but literature was banned. After Gutenberg introduced the printing the Catholic Church brought out the index which was a list of banned books. Not only art but science was opposed by Christianity. Hypatia, a brilliant mathematician and astronomer, was slaughtered by Christian monks. Servetus who doubted the Trinity but was a brilliant anatomist and scientist was burned at the stake in Calvin's Geneva. Bruno who thought that there were many solar systems was burned at the stake in Catholic Rome.

Christianity has been an enemy of art, literature and science. It was Christianity that made the Dark Ages dark.
Posted by david f, Friday, 24 August 2012 6:21:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Danielle,

I was reacting to Sells' ridiculous statement that there would no art without Christianity.

In music the sublime Bach and a host of others were subsidised or supported by various Christian groups. The Catholic church supported magnificent Renaissance art. The Eastern Orthodox Church has monumental liturgical music.

The Christian enmity to science, literature and art has not been consistent. The King James Bible remains a literary achievement. Many of the British naturalists were clergy.

However, since Christianity was in large part responsible for the Dark Ages it is my opinion that the artistic output in western society would have been much greater without Christianity.

I regard the adoption by the Roman Empire of Christianity as the official religion as one of the tragedies that has befallen humanity.
Posted by david f, Friday, 24 August 2012 7:20:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David is quite cross about Christianity, pathologically so. Was he abused by a priest?
Posted by Sells, Friday, 24 August 2012 8:40:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear david f,

You could be well right in much of what you write ...

You mention prehistoric art in the Altamira caves; indeed magnificent.

Archaeologists/prehistorians believe that all art at these periods was compelled by either magical or religious motives. Unfortunately, I can't recall a particular compelling study I could have cited (my ageing brain). Possibly, such impetus influenced subsequent eras in art.

Whilst the art of Rome became securalised it owed much to the idealism of the Greek. Emperors were certainly 'deified' in sculptural portraits.

I am not sure whether historians apply the term Dark Ages now. It was so described due to lack of written records and literature. Also Francesco Petrarca used this term in relation to Late Latin literature, which he obviously didn't like.

Some historians posit the fall of Rome was due to the lead in the water pipes... ; others believe there was a plague of some sort ...

Maybe 'spirit' or 'mystery,' neither necessarily in the sense of religious nor spiritual, is required in art. That 'something' that ignites a spark between the artist/art and the viewer. It seems that much contemporary art lacks this. An ennui of the spirit? Some artists are having an exciting collaboration with the scientific world. Why not? Science seeks to reveal the ultimate mysteries to us.

Perhaps this is our 21st century version of the 'magical or religious motive' ...

http://www.csiro.au/en/Portals/Education/Programs/SCIENCE-ART/CSIRO-and-the-arts.aspx
Posted by Danielle, Friday, 24 August 2012 11:11:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Sells,

I have not been abused by a priest and am not a Christian. However, I try to evaluate what happened in history. All of the incidents I mentioned in connection with Christianity happened. Rather than speculating on my pathology it might be useful to ask why Christianity has a history of violence and intolerance while labelling Jesus the Prince of Peace and itself a religion of peace. Have you ever wondered or do you just ignore the horrible record?

I question all belief in the supernatural and find flaws in all religions that I know of. The idea of a Chosen People and a real estate dealer God in Judaism are harmful nonsense. The detachment advocated in Buddhism has led to atrocity. One can see the phenomenal world as not important. The Japanese officer corps in WW2, a violent group of men, were in general Buddhists. They could accept the violence in such incidents as the Rape of Nanking as occurring in the phenomenal world and therefore not important. The Sri Lankan Buddhist clergy have promoted violence against non-Buddhists. The caste system in Hinduism has held people in bondage.

However, in my view, the two most harmful religions are Christianity and Islam. That is because they are missionary religions. They push their belief systems on others. Of the two Christianity has a worse cumulative, historical record of violence in spreading the faith.

Some Christians have confronted the horrible record and have tried or are trying to modify Christianity so as to eliminate the worst aspects. Pope John XXIII, Bishop John Shelby Spong and Basilea Schlink are three examples. There are Christians I greatly admire as opposing evil against great odds. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, John Brown and William Wilberforce are three examples of that.

You are not among those Christians. Your statement, “…we would have no art in the West if it were not for Christianity.” was a combination of unjustified triumphalism and abysmal ignorance. There are many thoughtful Christians who realise both their own fallibility and the fallibility of their faith, but you are not among them.
Posted by david f, Saturday, 25 August 2012 3:43:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My question, David, is why you are so fixated on Christianity, why are you not cross about the millions who died under the atheistic regimes of Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot?
Posted by Sells, Saturday, 25 August 2012 6:14:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
That's the way Sells. Don;t like Christianity? You must have been abused by priest! Because that's the most likely explanation isn't it? You would know.

Anyway, also I wonder why david doesn't mention the communists? could it be because this thread is not about them in the slightest? Their contribution to art wasn't very significant either as far I can tell.
Posted by Bugsy, Saturday, 25 August 2012 7:42:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Sells,

I have not said anything about communism because your sanctimonious blather has been confined to Christianity.

Marxist theory owes much to Christianity. Marx became converted to Christianity at six and received a Lutheran education. He was a disciple of Hegel who saw history as occurring in stages. Apparently Hegel was influenced by Joachim of Fiore who history as a three stage process with the first stage , the stage of the father characterised by Edenic bliss, the next stage was the stage of the son exemplified by conflict and the final stage was the stage of the Holy Ghost. This was the Millennium which would go on for a thousand years. Hegel saw freedom as humans working in concert for a common goal rather than the democratic concept of people living together while making their individual choices. Hegel’s concept of freedom was consistent with the totalitarian state.

Hegel also thought of history in stages with Christianity the highest stage of religion and the Prussian state the highest form of the nation. The followers of Hegel split into the Left Hegelians under Marx and the Right Hegelians who were German nationalists.

Rather than people divided by states Marx saw people divided by class with the proletariat the class with the potential to lead humanity in to the Marxist millennium.

History as seen by Marx was a variant of history as seen by Joachim. There were three stages with primitive communism in a tribal culture in an economy of scarcity as the first stage, class conflict under capitalism as the second stage and advanced communism in an economy of plenty as the ultimate stage. The transition from the first to the second stage was effected by the original sin of capitalism. The transition from the second to the third stage would be effected by communist revolution. Thus Marx transformed the murderous nonsense of Christianity into the murderous nonsense of communism.

In the battlefields of eastern Europe during WW2 the Soviet descendents of the Left Hegelians fought it out with the Nazi descendents of the Right Hegelians.
Posted by david f, Saturday, 25 August 2012 10:13:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
david f,

I think why Islam has not the toll that Christianity has, is because it is the "new kid" on the block, some 800 years of so.

It certainly is catching up ... and this is the 21st century. It too, purports to be a religion of peace.

I believe one group are hell-bent on destroying the pyramids - pagan monuments ... yadah, yadah, yadah

Incidentally, my father and over fifty members of his family perished in the gas chambers, so I don't hold false allusions about any group.
Posted by Danielle, Saturday, 25 August 2012 4:18:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bugsy,

Indeed, I can't think (at this moment) of any art worth mentioning under the communist regime. Those dreadful posters ...

All this is very depressing. What a litany of hatred we human-beings as a species, are capable of - and seemingly compulsively so.

Just different hats ... and undoubtedly interchangeable.
Posted by Danielle, Saturday, 25 August 2012 4:57:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Sells,

Why ask about communism when the thread had nothing to do with communism? Is it your perception that a person critical of Christianity must be a communist?

Dear Danielle,

I don’t know the motives that drive artists. Some of them could well be magical or religious. The artists who produced the works in the Altamira caves could have been inspired by magical or religious motives. However, to assume those were the motives is questionable since we can no longer ask the artists. Those who ascribe motives to them are seeing them through the prism of their own worldviews.

Science does not seek to reveal the ultimate mysteries to us. In my opinion an ultimate mystery cannot be revealed. I don’t think it is possible to live in a world where there is no more to be revealed. If there is an ultimate mystery that means that, with the revelation of that mystery, there are no more mysteries.

Science tries to yield the best explanation for observed phenomena. That implies that an explanation that has an exception is no longer an explanation so a better explanation must be sought.

We really don’t want what the fall of Rome was due to. Lead in the pipes would not explain the decay in the many areas which had no plumbing.

From http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=dark+ages

any benighted time in history, period of ignorance; specific focus on the centuries from the fall of Rome to the revival of secular literature is from 1830s.

I regard the Dark Ages as starting from the adoption of Christianity as the official religion of Rome as learning not regarded as essential to Christian belief was suppressed and considered frivolous.

Until the fourteenth century Islamic universities were great places of learning. However, a movement of reactionary clergy succeeded in limiting ijtihad, the process of inquiry, to theological questions at that time.

At about the time the western world was emerging from their Dark Ages Islam was entering their Dark Ages.

Given the choice between Christianity and Islam I’d ask for another choice.
Posted by david f, Saturday, 25 August 2012 6:26:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear david f

"Science does not seek to reveal the ultimate mysteries to us. In my opinion an ultimate mystery cannot be revealed. I don’t think it is possible to live in a world where there is no more to be revealed. If there is an ultimate mystery that means that, with the revelation of that mystery, there are no more mysteries."

You are absolutely right. I stand corrected.
Posted by Danielle, Saturday, 25 August 2012 6:32:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I guess there's only one place on this forum for this story, so I'll just parachute it in to this cosy thread, if you don't mind. : )

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-08-26/fresco-of-jesus-a-drawcard-after-botched-restoration/4223248
Posted by Poirot, Sunday, 26 August 2012 3:41:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
But does it now qualify as contemporary art Poirot?

If the same parishioner had gone to Florence to help with Ghiberti's Gates of Paradise, the restoration wouldn't have taken 27 years... but she would have probably have used a hammer to flatten out all the bumps in the bronze panels.
Posted by WmTrevor, Sunday, 26 August 2012 5:15:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
WmTrevor,

Apparently the fresco was still in reasonably good condition two years ago - as you can see in the following link:

http://www.regretsy.com/2012/08/21/regretsy-math-50/
Posted by Poirot, Sunday, 26 August 2012 6:29:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cosiness is interesting, and interestingness is cosy!

Oh well, I just wanted to ask Peter where this quote came from: "All that is left is the conflict of arbitrary notions of taste." - as it seems this is the crux of your argument.

From my perspective this is the essence of contemporary aesthetics, and also illustrates the reason why an absolutist doctrine such as Christianity simply cannot survive as a significant intellectual standpoint in a world where people are free to think for themselves.

My reaction to that quote would be "how could you possibly see anything objectionable in that situation?". Taste may be arbitrary insofar as it is influenced by forces as varied as culture (Christianity being an important, though rapidly-diminishing part of this) and genetics, for example. But why does its arbitrariness make it any less meaningful?

The reason a lot of modern art is boring is because on account of its arbitrariness it's much more difficult to do, and rarely successful. It's not only the "looker" who is challenged by it. Religious art meanwhile has a great history of producing some quite compelling stuff, because it provides a developed framework around which to situate belief in/adherence to something. But it's ultimately a simplistic belief.

Face it, Christianity was convincing once, and probably not without good reason, but circa 150 years ago those reasons were surpassed by other forms of knowledge. The best thing we can do to honour it now is to appreciate the role it has played in the development of ideas, and to put it out of its misery. Hanging onto it like this is only going to further damage its historical standing.
Posted by Sam Jandwich, Monday, 27 August 2012 2:52:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The quote is from the link I gave.
Posted by Sells, Monday, 27 August 2012 4:19:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Like a snake oil salesman who tells you that snake oil will cure acne and cancer Sellick will return with his snake oil remedy of Christianity. Either things are wrong because many are abandoning the superstition or the world will be bettered if the Christian snake oil is applied liberally. Even if there is no question superstition is the answer.
Posted by david f, Monday, 27 August 2012 4:34:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot,

Thank you for those links ... Quite apart from damaging a valuable artwork,I think it is absolutely hilarious.

Even more so. Undoubtedly the woman who did this was extremely devout and believed she was carrying out some divine mission, and this is how she saw 'him'.

Well ... art is subjective isn't it?
Posted by Danielle, Wednesday, 29 August 2012 9:05:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Danielle,

I don't necessarily think it's how she saw him. I think she had a picture in her mind of what she wished to achieve, but unfortunately her skill level wasn't up to the task.

I draw a bit myself, and I'm a stickler for getting things "right" when drawing portraits. However, accurately rendering a face is quite painstaking and takes all my skill. But I love drawing historic architecture as well, which for me isn't quite such a meticulous task. I can just imagine how she must have felt when it first began to dawn on her that it was a total botch.

I agree, though, there's something hilarious - and tragic - about the whole episode.

: )
Posted by Poirot, Wednesday, 29 August 2012 9:57:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot,

You sound like a perfectionist and I am sure you are very,very good.

I do life-drawing. My skills are such that I could competently outline dead bodies at murder scenes. :-}
Posted by Danielle, Wednesday, 29 August 2012 11:42:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Danielle,

Actually I'm a bit of a lazy artist....more of a good draughtswoman than anything. I'm not so good on composition or even colour. I'm reasonably good at copying things, and when it comes to portraits,in my experience, a lot comes down to capturing the eyes and, surprisingly, the mouth. I've had quite a few experiences where I've been unable to capture these features accurately - and the more I tried the lousier became the portrait. On one occasion, I was attempting to draw a picture of my mother for her eightieth birthday from a not very clear photograph (it was to be a surprise), and whatever I did, I couldn't get her laughing eyes....although I did manage to jag it in the end - don't know how.

The upshot being that if I hadn't have captured her eyes, the picture would not have seen the light of day.

Buildings are much easier.
Posted by Poirot, Thursday, 30 August 2012 12:17:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot,

What a lovely, lovely gift for your mother ... and on many levels. Your descendants will see her as she was, and importantly also, the relationship you had to each other.

I concur with your comments about eyes and mouth being the keys to a good portrait. We are all know how essential it is to capture the inner essence of a person; the mouth is also an expression of the life lived.

I envy your drawing abilities. I was quite good at school, however, didn't pick up a pencil again for many years. I do life drawing in charcoal when groups are available, but am currently engaged with negative space as recommended by Betty Edwards.
Posted by Danielle, Thursday, 30 August 2012 6:51:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy