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

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.

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.

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

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...

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.