The principal form of visual art in our time and place is of course photography especially via motion pictures via TV and the cinema screen. Some of our best and also most controversial directors are considered to be cultural treasures.
The most popular Christian film in recent times was of course Mel Gibson's The Passion of Christ, a film which was widely praised and touted by both Catholics and Protestants as a great missionary tool for communicating the "good news" of the Gospel to the non-Christians. It was even mildly praised by the then Pope who supposedly commented that Gibsons gore-fest was an accurate depiction of how the last day(s) of Jesus actually happened.
Such a claim is of course complete nonsense, and it is certainly not even described thus in the work of religious FICTION called the Bible.
Furthermore it was essentially an auto-biographical description of Mel Gibson's personality as formed/created by his upbringing at the hands (via thrashings) of his psychotic father.

The photographs to be found on this site depict the nature of this presumed "good news".

http://spiritlessons.com/passionofchristpictures.htm

My advice would be to run as fast as you can away from a religion that uses such horrific imagery to promote itself.

Oh dear, Mr Selleck.

"...the European Enlightenment. This movement, its arrogance obvious from the implications of its name, claimed to discover reason"

And of course, there's not a skerrick of arrogance in your own approach, is there.

"The only way to restore the arts, the only way to see the artistic charlatans for what they are is to come to grips with truth and beauty. And the only way that I know is to recognise Christ as the figure of truth and beauty.".

Ah well. Reason cannot accept that religion has any factual basis (Adam, Eve, Noah, Jesus' miracles, bodily resurrection etc.). While Christianity has never forgiven the world for actually thinking for itself.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

"The next step on the path to nonsense is that because individuals are different and because they have different responses to art, all taste is relativised. At this point any warranted art criticism disappears. We can no longer say what is adept and inept, profound or naïve, art or fashion, easy and slick or the product of intense effort and focus. We can no longer talk about beauty or meaning. We cannot because all is relative; it is a matter of individual taste."

Are we to presume this recent example is exempt?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19349921

"The only way to restore the arts, the only way to see the artistic charlatans for what they are is to come to grips with truth and beauty. And the only way that I know is to recognise Christ as the figure of truth and beauty."

But because Cecilia Gimenez already recognises Christ this way, I assume she is immume from relativised art criticism of what is adept or inept?

Unfortunately before this Christ is the figure of truth and beauty there is a need to restore the art...

Art is always coincident with the culture or the dominant zeitgeist of the time and place in which it is produced or created.

All visual art, regardless of the seeming topic or subject depicted is an auto-biographical description of the artist who creates it.

The dominant zeitgeist of our time is that of scientific materialism which was/is the inevitable result of the profound shift in human (mis)understanding about the nature of Reality that occurred at the time of the Renaissance. Protestantism also emerged at the same time as the ideology of scientism. They are the two sides of the same dismally reductionist coin.

Scientism now rules the entire world. It has produced a "culture" that has deprived humankind of all profundity of view, relative to the nature and significance of the conditional universe, and of the Living Divine Reality.
We are all quite literally trapped within the perceptual strait-jacket created by scientism. This includes ALL of the usual advocates of old-time traditional religion whether Protestant of "catholic".

The Renaissance was the collapse of the "God"-civilization that preceded it. The civilization based on naive MYTHOLOGIZED presumptions of what was traditionally conceived (but not perceived) to be spatially and temporally "behind" and "above" the world.
The Renaissance destroyed that earlier form of civilization. With the Renaissance, "God"-myth-based civilization was replaced with human-based civilization, or ego-civilization - or the civilization based on the myth of the separate (and always separative) human ego-"I".
Protestantism is course the religion based exclusively on the whats-in-it-for-me separate and always separative ego-"I". And contrary to all of the hype of the back to the past "catholics", such as that promoted by the previous two Popes, the "catholic" religion is now entirely a form of self-serving whats-in-it-for-me religiosity.

This reference describes the characteristics of our now everywhere dramatized "culture" of doubt, and how/why ALL of the usual advocates of back-to-the-past traditional religiosity are devoid of any kind of understanding of esoteric Spiritual religion. And how the "culture" of scientific materialism has its roots in (or is an inevitable extension of) the essentially reductionist Christian mis-understanding of Reality

http://www.beezone.com/AdiDa/nirvanasara/chapter1.html

Now let me get this straight:
Art has been debased by the enlightenment which placed logic and reason at the centre of human endeavour and art is not subject to logic and reason, but is instead composed of universals, truth and beauty - each of which can only be reflected in the persona of jesus christ. Compounding this is the notion of relativism (300 years before postmodernism by the way) which places the self as the only meaningful authority in the judgement of art thereby rendering the notion of good/bad irrelevant because "i know what i like" is now the only determinant of good/bad.
Phew.
And all this happened in the eighteenth century.
Funny how the author is happy for Vopernican physics to supercede Ptolemaian physics but art is somehow universal, standing outside any kind of rational analysis.
The irony of this is that the author's belief in the universalism of art, free of the taint of the rational, mirrors the writings of the most famous of the Enlightenment's radicals: Jean-Jacques Rousseau. His notion of the noble savage, free of the taint of modern society, sits very comfortably with Peter Sellick's view.
Ah well don't let a few facts get in the way of an entrenched point of view eh?

This is very disappointing, Peter. Thanks to your previous article I've already explained to my friends how the alleged 'art' produced by the Ancient Greeks and Romans, Etruscan pottery, Egyptian statues and tomb carvings, Chinese scrolls, Japanese calligraphy, Islamic tiles and Pre-Columbian buildings and ornamentation are all complete rubbish because the artists were unaware of or unimpressed by Jesus Christ, but somehow they don't seem to be getting the message.

You'll need to come up something a bit more convincing to change their minds, I'm afraid.

Well yer can't beat this....

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-05-09/is-it-a-bird-is-it-a-plane-no-its-a-skywhale/4679676

To celebrate Canberra's centenary no less.

And if God provides the backdrop... perfect viewing conditions.

http://tobycettera.blogspot.com.au/2007/07/my-new-favourite-cloud-formation.html

Facile poirot.
How the hell would that thing be treated if it develloped breast cancer.

imajulianutter,

Well it just caught my eye.....

It's hilarious, but not to my taste at all.

I much prefer this:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-05-09/thousands-of-tickets-sold-for-monet-exhibition/4679492

hi Peter,

I found myself nodding in agreement with most of what you suggest. It mostly fits and compliments my view of literature from the past 100 years. Since the first war.

Since then we have seen, in our literature, the emergence and domination of the godless socialism. Indeed its basis is to rid us of individuality. Socialism the world over attempts to stifle immagination. A keystonre of all art. I suspect the Enlightenment may have had similar effect, on literature, but it may not have been as immediate or apparent as in the realm of art. Socialism undertakes its invidious task by infecting and tainting our media circles, our literary circles and our scholarhip.

Where I question your attitudes is simple. I see the personification of Christ as a little off the point. I prefer to foucus on his message, especially as expressed in 'The Sermon on The Mount', as truth and beauty.

To me that is genderless and not of man. It doesn't need man made structures or physical images to convey it's timelessness and encompassing universality.

In my conceptions I don't need the church or others intrepretations to define the truth and beauty in Christ's uplifting simple message. Often they muddy my thoughts and unintentionally distort my understanding of his essential message.

I suppose where you see physical representations of Christ as representing truth and beauty, I need only his message. I think we are essentially on the same side of the fence though as,I like you, see the Enlightenment and science and much of modern thought, especially socialism, and their expression, devoid of the essence of Christ's message.

Cheers.

Is the world a better place because of Sells and Singer?

One flogs the occupied and blockaded Palestinians relentlessly while the other flogs Christianity to the point of tedium.

Sells, in this article, introduces art in order to trick us. Then he reverts to type and the myths and fabrications of theology are thrown at us by the buckets full.

These two gentlemen, should they disappear from OLO, would not be missed.

Surely!

Don't be so churlish, David G.

>>These two gentlemen, should they disappear from OLO, would not be missed. Surely!<<

Personally, I'd miss Mr Sellick's contributions. Just because I share none of his religious fervour does not mean I don't find his outlook on the world interesting and informative. The mind of the dedicated religionist is a complex thing, after all, and is one that throughout history has led our world into so many pointless conflicts. It is therefore folly, in my view, to ignore it.

It takes a particularly aggressive thought pattern, if we take this current example, to baldly state that art can only exist if it somehow acknowledges "Christ as the figure of truth and beauty". It is such a pugnacious stance, exactly the kind of attitude that guarantees friction between, say, Christian and Muslim.

Maybe that it the intention. To challenge the (in his eyes) godless heathen with the most profound cultural insult that he can possibly dream up.

This is why I find it important to keep abreast of the thought processes that Mr Sellick characterizes. If these were hidden from us, who knows how dangerous they might become - at least while they are out in the open, as they are here, they can be exposed for what they are.

Pericles, you need some radical shock treatment. Perhaps being locked in a room with Sells for a month while he reads the Bible to you with explanations might sort you out! Such punishment would be far worse than water-boarding.

The only thing more shocking would be to share a desert island with the Singer for a week and have to listen to his anti-Palestinian diatribes.

Join the real world. Sells and Singer are regulars on OLO because of their guaranteed clickability. The more extreme their views the more comments they will attract, giving OLO an apparently bigger audience. Except that the posters are invariably the same old usual suspects arguing amongst themselves.

The well argued articles usually attract few comments because they are not contentious.

I'd like to see the actual figures for individual readers of articles compared to individual (not repeat) posters.

Pericles,

I too reject Peter's views, of religion snd the personification of 'truth and beauty' through depictions of Christ, just as you do.I do understand why Peter has the view he has. I'm also pleased he is able to express it.
However, I unlike you, have an alternative, which I express. It as not religion but as Christ's essential message, which I find as 'truth and beauty'.

I don't see you do the same, so would you mind very much telling me what you think could represent 'truth and beauty' and how you would express it?

I understand you as a thoughtful contributor so to see you align yourself with the likes of the empty and destructive, censorous socialists, such as David, surprises me.

This can hardly qualify as elucidation, imajulianutter.

>>It as not religion but as Christ's essential message, which I find as 'truth and beauty'<<

I quite understand why you might find 'truth and beauty' in the message itself, as various religions do, but how on earth can it inform your assessment of art? Mr Sellick is able to do so by confining his judgment to Christian-religiously-themed works, which is an extremely narrow view, since it excludes so much that happens not to have a religious orientation. You profess to have a broader perspective; but surely there needs to be some form of bridge between the message and the artistry?

And frankly, this sort of question will take us no further forward.

>>...would you mind very much telling me what you think could represent 'truth and beauty' and how you would express it?<<

I would of course find myself in a similar dilemma to your own, in that truth is a slippery concept at the best of times, and beauty - as we all know - is in the eye of the beholder.

By the way, I'm not sure how you reached this conclusion:

>>...to see you align yourself with the likes of the empty and destructive, censorous socialists, such as David, surprises me.<<

I was under the strong impression that we were in disagreement with each other...

As in my admonition "Don't be so churlish, David G.", which elicited the response "Pericles, you need some radical shock treatment".

Not much alignment there, I would have thought.

Pericles,

'Reason cannot accept that religion has any factual basis ...'

'... he reverts to type and the myths and fabrications of theology...'

now is there a common belief contained and expressed in these two statements?

Reason would dictate there is in fact quite a common belief contained in these two statements and it is: that christianity is only illogical and contains no truth.

This is why I think you are in alignment with David G.

Let's be clear here Pericles, you only ever disagreed with David G's censorous attitude.
As an aside, socialism also rejects the message of the Epistles of Matthew, Mark, luke and John.

I myself am much more nuanced when it comes to the religion of Christainity.
I do not accept all of the basis of Christainity, which is in fact the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. But, I unlike both you and David, do in fact accept parts of it. Some I put great faith in, parts little faith in and some no faith in.

Pericles on your other point, I think you might be a little confused.

'...but how on earth can it inform your assessment of art?'

I don't think I said anything like that. If you like to check you will find I was addressing the issue of literature and actually said

'It(Christ's Truth and Beauty)doesn't need man made structures or physical images to convey it's timelessness and encompassing universality.'

and your statement

'in that truth is a slippery concept at the best of times, and beauty - as we all know - is in the eye of the beholder.'

is hardly any sort of reasonable answer to my querry of how you would represent 'truth and beauty'.

It does however re-inforce Peter's original point.

Oh I don't know, imajuianutter,

It's in the nature of man to imitate and copy the physical universe. I'm of a mind that much of "truth and beauty" is communicated subliminally through the world around us.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_IOovpV_hX9I/TKNARzp8NzI/AAAAAAAAAPI/rm1IilRgso8/s1600/cave_painting_l.jpg

Exquisite....

http://www.paradoxplace.com/Photo%20Pages/UK/Britain_South_and_West/Wells_Cathedral/Images/800/Nave-Sep06-DC4278sAR900.jpg

This one came from the space station a few minutes ago...

https://twitter.com/Cmdr_Hadfield/status/333846272823947264/photo/1

It can't help but permeate our consciousness in ways beyond our ability to consciously comprehend.

Of course, we moderns are much to distracted to notice its effect.

That's odd, imajulianutter.

You reminded me that I had previously observed that:

'Reason cannot accept that religion has any factual basis ...'

But surely, this is a statement with which you must be very much in agreement?

Because, as far as I can tell, it is the simple truth that occupies the very heart of Mr Sellick's article. Let's face it, if the opposite were true - that Reason happily accepts that religion has a solid factual underpinning - where would that place his entire argument?

I'm not at all clear as to how it relates to David G's offering of...

'... he reverts to type and the myths and fabrications of theology...'

...which is hardly an objective stance.

>>I myself am much more nuanced when it comes to the religion of Christainity.<<

Nuanced, eh. A useful, non-specific qualification. Much like my own stance on rendition of terrorists for interrogation - I thoroughly approve of it, so long as there isn't torture involved. Pretty "nuanced", wouldn't you agree?

I was on a slightly different track with this one, though:

>>If you like to check you will find I was addressing the issue of literature...<<

I had obviously misinterpreted this statement of yours:

>>I suppose where you see physical representations of Christ as representing truth and beauty, I need only his message<<

And I thought I was exceptionally clear with this:

>>and your statement 'in that truth is a slippery concept at the best of times, and beauty - as we all know - is in the eye of the beholder.' is hardly any sort of reasonable answer to my querry of how you would represent 'truth and beauty'.<<

You yourself admit that...

>>I do not accept all of the basis of Christainity, which is in fact the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.<<

...which is pretty much what I was getting at with my observation on "truth". Selective truth, if you will, is a slippery concept.

As for beauty, I'm pretty sure that no-one has yet identified an absolute measurement. I certainly haven't.

Pericles

I've never seen truth as slippery, you think it slippery and those beliefs are on display here.

I can certainly understand that, imajulianutter.

>>Pericles I've never seen truth as slippery<<

It would certainly be a very difficult concept for you to come to grips with.

Particularly as you have already explained to us:

>>I do not accept all of the basis of Christainity, which is in fact the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. But, I unlike both you and David, do in fact accept parts of it. Some I put great faith in, parts little faith in and some no faith in.<<

By "accepting" only a selected subset of the Christian gospels and rejecting others, you must have an extremely finely-honed capability to determine which you "put great faith in, parts little faith in and some no faith in". I completely understand that it would be impossible for you in those circumstances to admit that truth, in these instances, could be even the slightest bit "slippery".

However, these are exactly the circumstances - an apparently seamless presentation of truths, half-truths and non-truths - where I find the concept of truth to be at its very slipperiest.

It would be fascinating to understand how you determine which is which. And whether you have ever found it necessary at any time to move any of them across boundaries, from truth to half-truth, or from non-truth to truth etc.

Any clues?

No new clues Pericles.

When I have given them to you in the past you stumble over them or miss them or twist them.

It is you who have forgotten the original arguments. Peter's, mine and your own. You'll find plenty of clues about my positions in there... if you can develop some skills in simple comprehension.