Art and Religion defined
Moderator: e_dog
To Kierkegaard I do not subscribe: if you read my passage more carefully you will note I'm attacking that "leap of faith," which is required of any of those who wish to be Christians. My point is that Scripture and religions in general are too irrational to warrant a belief in; thus, we should resist the "leap of faith" and mysticism as well, including aesthetic mysticism. So regardless if it's an interesting myth or lie or great poetry with profound connotations, Scripture and the tradition that follows from it is invalid and does more harm than good. I start with a Hobbesian material causality--as did Marx and Darwin really ( tho I am not marxist). Meat popsicles, man, that's what we is.
(the one advantage that Litkicks had, before it turned into the LitContest site, was the structure of the boards allowed for branching conversations, rather than this linear format, anyway... )
Trevor:
it is encouraging that someone is trying so hard to determine the meaning of my "quip" but i fear that you are too quick to misinterpret it and then attack the misinterpretation. for instance, you introduced the word "intent" into the discussion which is not present in my original lines, which speak of "attempts at redemption through lies" which does not logically imply that the lies are intentional lies (because there is a structural ambibuity of scope in the line). the proponents of religion are attempting something which turns out to be based on lies, whether or not that is what they intend. so is the artist -- though i'd drop the moralistic connotations of calling some one a liar, here -- because art portrays the world in ways that falsify the way it is, not by accident but by the very design of the medium.
ZYZetc.:
Heidegger, the mystic, says that reason is the adversary of thought (the thinking of Being). and that theology is the confusing of faith.
Schopenhauer reads religion as essentially poetry, allegory, myth that, sometimes, symbolically conceives truths about the world, ethics, suffering, etc. it is literally false, but metaphorically illuminating. i suppose that on this approach, you could have a materialist version of scripture. indeed, Benjamin does just that sort of thing. your friend Hobbes, by the way, filled his Leviathan with scriptural interpretation for theological support: we usually don't pay much attnetion to that stuff because it gets edited out of the anthologies, but Hobbes bent way down before the Sovereign of Christianity.
Trevor:
it is encouraging that someone is trying so hard to determine the meaning of my "quip" but i fear that you are too quick to misinterpret it and then attack the misinterpretation. for instance, you introduced the word "intent" into the discussion which is not present in my original lines, which speak of "attempts at redemption through lies" which does not logically imply that the lies are intentional lies (because there is a structural ambibuity of scope in the line). the proponents of religion are attempting something which turns out to be based on lies, whether or not that is what they intend. so is the artist -- though i'd drop the moralistic connotations of calling some one a liar, here -- because art portrays the world in ways that falsify the way it is, not by accident but by the very design of the medium.
ZYZetc.:
interestingly, Soren K. agrees with your premise about the irrationlity of the religious. but he rejects your "thus." in fact he says, religion is irrational, thus we must make a leap of faith. you say the same, except, thus we must reject it. in truth, neither follows logically.My point is that Scripture and religions in general are too irrational to warrant a belief in; thus, we should resist the "leap of faith" and mysticism as well, including aesthetic mysticism.
Heidegger, the mystic, says that reason is the adversary of thought (the thinking of Being). and that theology is the confusing of faith.
Schopenhauer reads religion as essentially poetry, allegory, myth that, sometimes, symbolically conceives truths about the world, ethics, suffering, etc. it is literally false, but metaphorically illuminating. i suppose that on this approach, you could have a materialist version of scripture. indeed, Benjamin does just that sort of thing. your friend Hobbes, by the way, filled his Leviathan with scriptural interpretation for theological support: we usually don't pay much attnetion to that stuff because it gets edited out of the anthologies, but Hobbes bent way down before the Sovereign of Christianity.
I don't think 'Therefore, I am.' Therefore, I am.
If some strange preacher were to ask two people to believe in a religion entitled Cult of the Flying Pig, and has a text claiming that pigs do indeed fly, and one chooses to join and believe in the cult (based on the premise that pigs do fly), and one doesn't, saying that pigs don't fly (and the preacher is unable to conjure up a real flying pig) , who has acted logically? (Hint: the second one).in truth, neither follows logically.
The mere presence of reports of strange supernatural occurences proves nothing: though it would be nice if astrology or tarot cards worked, they don't: and faith based on irrational acts or incidents--a "Resurrection" --is no better than astrology.
Hobbes made some overtures to the Church, as did all philosophers up until 19th cent---if he hadn't he might have been imprisoned or killed. Nonetheless, the Sovereign is not in any way immaterial or theological--it's the state, or power of the state which arises from the social contract out of nature. Hobbes is a naturalist through and through, as Marx and Engels knew. Besides, you are missing the point, which is not about Hobbes supposed politics or character, but about his ontology, if you will--which is material. After a bit of googling, from Hobbes De Corpore:
".......philosophy excludes from itself ..... theology, as I call the doctrine about the nature and attributes of the eternal, ungenerable, and incomprehensible God, and in whom no composition and no division can be established and no generation can be understood.
It excludes....all knowledge which arises from divine inspiration, or revelation...."
Looks like materialism to moi.
looks like dualism to me.
depends on what the meaning of "excludes" is. do you think he is saying that philosophy rejects theology or simply that philosophy and theology are distinct disciplines within a harmonious order. while i believe that you are correc that Hobbes truly believed that theology was bunk, he did not say so explicitly -- though he comes very close in one part of the Leviathan -- however, it seems that this passage allows that there is such a thing as "God" even if it is incomprehensible. that is not materialism.
Hobbes bowed down before the various "sovereigns" of real social power, including the church. that all philosophers -- and that is an exaggeration -- did the same doesn't somehow provide an intellectual excuse, or does it?
depends on what the meaning of "excludes" is. do you think he is saying that philosophy rejects theology or simply that philosophy and theology are distinct disciplines within a harmonious order. while i believe that you are correc that Hobbes truly believed that theology was bunk, he did not say so explicitly -- though he comes very close in one part of the Leviathan -- however, it seems that this passage allows that there is such a thing as "God" even if it is incomprehensible. that is not materialism.
Hobbes bowed down before the various "sovereigns" of real social power, including the church. that all philosophers -- and that is an exaggeration -- did the same doesn't somehow provide an intellectual excuse, or does it?
I don't think 'Therefore, I am.' Therefore, I am.
"Religion is something infinitely simple, ingenuous. It is not knowledge, not content of feeling (for all content is admitted from the start, where a man comes to terms with life), it is not duty and not renunciation, it is not restriction: but in the infinite extent of the universe it is a direction of the heart."
-Selected Letters of Rainer Maria Rilke
(I admire this sentiment, reluctantly)
-Selected Letters of Rainer Maria Rilke
(I admire this sentiment, reluctantly)
Last edited by ZyzxzxzyZ on April 14th, 2005, 1:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
"for instance, you introduced the word "intent" into the discussion which is not present in my original lines which speak of "attempts at redemption through lies" which does not logically imply that the lies are intentional lies "
That still doesn't change the difference between incorrect and a lie. Or false and a lie, or wrong and a lie. And even gray areas such as when something is right or wrong according to varying situations isn't always a lie either. I guess I'd still like you to explain for clarification, what is your definition of a lie? Is it something that is simply false or incorrect as you percieve it? A belief in something that is untrue is not a lie. Nor is it a lie to develop a system on falsehoods which you believe to be correct. It's just plain ignorant.
Furthermore, just because the word "truth" was not present in your original line, does not mean it is of no relation, the same applies for my use of "intent". I have not once misquoted you. "both are attempts at redemption through lies." To attempt something such as redemption, is willful intent to redeem oneself. I fail to see where you can have an attempt, ie. a decision to do something, and not have intent - that being attempting something for the purpose of an outcome.
"the proponents of religion are attempting something which turns out to be based on lies, whether or not that is what they intend."
Ahhh a little clarity finally. I think I see where you are going with this now. You are saying that religious followers are looking for redemption in a system that has been built upon lies...rather than followers looking for redemption by intentionally or unintentional lying themselves. Well if this is what you are driving at then I have to agree with you to a certain point in regards to religion, though add - not all of its falsehoods are based upon lies but some of it falls into ignorance or misconceptions...much like the original religions which needed to explain the big glowing orb in the sky is due to happy gods. Some people really do believe Adam was the first man and Eve was created from his rib. They will swear by it and live by it and help maintain the establishment of it. And some of them do hold a place in a religious establishment and continue to help strengthen that establishment. Therfore in that establishment their ignorance is as much a part as other people's lies and the future of such. And I think the same can apply to members of a religion all the way back to its conception. So if a religion is 1/3 lies, 1/3 ignorance, and 1/3 leap of faith, and an unmeasurable smidgen of truth, then it can't solely be based upon lies. Though I think I finally get the gist of what you were saying and feel that it has some validity...about 1/3
"so is the artist -- though i'd drop the moralistic connotations of calling some one a liar, here -- because art portrays the world in ways that falsify the way it is, not by accident but by the very design of the medium."
Again, I'll agree with you to a certain point on this as well. I appreciate you going into more depth on the subject, it definetly clarifies your point of view. The art medium is one that intentionally encourages participants to falsify life, but saying it is a tool for redemption through lies is only true if you see art as strictly a medium which deals only in truths and redemption rather than entertainment or reactionary. Art should not be used as a handbook for life. I don't think Godzilla was ever intended to be a historical document and I doubt Dali's art should fall under such scrutiny. Artists are presenting their perception in a form they want whether that form is an attempt to directly translate life or just mimick certain elements. It can not, nor will ever be an exact replica, it is impossibility to do so, but I would not go as far as to call it a lie. That would be like you saying I'm lying when I told you Bill exclaimed, "I like monkeys!" because I did not sound exactly like Bill. And I can't agree with you if you think art is an establishment of lies because art is not trying to replace life and life's truths, nor ever was, but rather express perceptions about it and inspire thought, whether they are accurate or false or abstract. Are petroglyph's of buffalo a lie because the carvings on the wall don't look exactly like a buffalo or should we just assume that it is the truth there were buffalo in that region?
The big difference between art and religion is; art is only telling a story about life, whereas religion is trying to be life's truth.
That still doesn't change the difference between incorrect and a lie. Or false and a lie, or wrong and a lie. And even gray areas such as when something is right or wrong according to varying situations isn't always a lie either. I guess I'd still like you to explain for clarification, what is your definition of a lie? Is it something that is simply false or incorrect as you percieve it? A belief in something that is untrue is not a lie. Nor is it a lie to develop a system on falsehoods which you believe to be correct. It's just plain ignorant.
Furthermore, just because the word "truth" was not present in your original line, does not mean it is of no relation, the same applies for my use of "intent". I have not once misquoted you. "both are attempts at redemption through lies." To attempt something such as redemption, is willful intent to redeem oneself. I fail to see where you can have an attempt, ie. a decision to do something, and not have intent - that being attempting something for the purpose of an outcome.
"the proponents of religion are attempting something which turns out to be based on lies, whether or not that is what they intend."
Ahhh a little clarity finally. I think I see where you are going with this now. You are saying that religious followers are looking for redemption in a system that has been built upon lies...rather than followers looking for redemption by intentionally or unintentional lying themselves. Well if this is what you are driving at then I have to agree with you to a certain point in regards to religion, though add - not all of its falsehoods are based upon lies but some of it falls into ignorance or misconceptions...much like the original religions which needed to explain the big glowing orb in the sky is due to happy gods. Some people really do believe Adam was the first man and Eve was created from his rib. They will swear by it and live by it and help maintain the establishment of it. And some of them do hold a place in a religious establishment and continue to help strengthen that establishment. Therfore in that establishment their ignorance is as much a part as other people's lies and the future of such. And I think the same can apply to members of a religion all the way back to its conception. So if a religion is 1/3 lies, 1/3 ignorance, and 1/3 leap of faith, and an unmeasurable smidgen of truth, then it can't solely be based upon lies. Though I think I finally get the gist of what you were saying and feel that it has some validity...about 1/3
"so is the artist -- though i'd drop the moralistic connotations of calling some one a liar, here -- because art portrays the world in ways that falsify the way it is, not by accident but by the very design of the medium."
Again, I'll agree with you to a certain point on this as well. I appreciate you going into more depth on the subject, it definetly clarifies your point of view. The art medium is one that intentionally encourages participants to falsify life, but saying it is a tool for redemption through lies is only true if you see art as strictly a medium which deals only in truths and redemption rather than entertainment or reactionary. Art should not be used as a handbook for life. I don't think Godzilla was ever intended to be a historical document and I doubt Dali's art should fall under such scrutiny. Artists are presenting their perception in a form they want whether that form is an attempt to directly translate life or just mimick certain elements. It can not, nor will ever be an exact replica, it is impossibility to do so, but I would not go as far as to call it a lie. That would be like you saying I'm lying when I told you Bill exclaimed, "I like monkeys!" because I did not sound exactly like Bill. And I can't agree with you if you think art is an establishment of lies because art is not trying to replace life and life's truths, nor ever was, but rather express perceptions about it and inspire thought, whether they are accurate or false or abstract. Are petroglyph's of buffalo a lie because the carvings on the wall don't look exactly like a buffalo or should we just assume that it is the truth there were buffalo in that region?
The big difference between art and religion is; art is only telling a story about life, whereas religion is trying to be life's truth.
Really the discussion of lies is misleading, as is the broad categorization that religion is all based on lies. Are you claiming no religious text is true except in metaphorical, anecdotal sense --and that any supernatural events/entities are impossible? That may be ( and I think it is). Or are you saying the believers don't know the real truth of religion, or that it doesn't matter. Or is this more a strictly philosophical point that there are no rational grounds for religious beliefs--in God, soul, etc. And that's not even dragging aesthetics into it--for I don't see how say a symphony is a lie.
How can a symphony be a lie? that is a perplexing question, but in the answer to it lies the truth about art.
A symphony is a lie to the extent it imposes a false order of music over the chaos of cacophonious noise. (The only true symphony is that of John Cage opening the window to the city street when his audience was expecting a musical performance.)
i'd distinguish between anecdotes and metaphors.
the concept of the supernatural doesn't make any sense. it is already a naturalist's tool (as is the phrase naturalist). so to say there are no supernatural entities is almost as silly as it is correct.
however, as Wm. James the philosopher suggests, there may be rational grounds for religious belief. it may help you find a mate. it might be fun drinkin that wine[/quote]
A symphony is a lie to the extent it imposes a false order of music over the chaos of cacophonious noise. (The only true symphony is that of John Cage opening the window to the city street when his audience was expecting a musical performance.)
i'd distinguish between anecdotes and metaphors.
the concept of the supernatural doesn't make any sense. it is already a naturalist's tool (as is the phrase naturalist). so to say there are no supernatural entities is almost as silly as it is correct.
however, as Wm. James the philosopher suggests, there may be rational grounds for religious belief. it may help you find a mate. it might be fun drinkin that wine[/quote]
I don't think 'Therefore, I am.' Therefore, I am.
Ok, I really have nothing more to say on this. You certainly imply naturalistic inclinations (and Wm. James' pragmatism was itself leaning towards the empirical camp), but with typical post.mod. style, refuse to commit to anything.
"If we subject everything to reason our religion will have nothing mysterious or supernatural. If we violate the principles of reason, our religion will be absurd and ridiculous."
Pascal
"If we subject everything to reason our religion will have nothing mysterious or supernatural. If we violate the principles of reason, our religion will be absurd and ridiculous."
Pascal
"this is a great remark, Trevor!"
Thank you.
I wish Zyz hadn't changed his post...I thought I initially saw him state something about birds and intent..etc. I think he had some valid points in my opinion.
"A symphony is a lie to the extent it imposes a false order of music over the chaos of cacophonious noise."
Can there really be a false order contrived from something as natural as being human? A man using an instrument is no more false than a monkey using a stick, or a woodpecker hammering a tree with its bill. A bird sings to communicate, why can't a person? If I had sang this response instead of writing it, would it then be deemed a false order of music over the choatic noise of the world? Also is there really chaotic noise, that would mean there is no reasoning or rhyme to the noise that naturally exist or occur.
"(The only true symphony is that of John Cage opening the window to the city street when his audience was expecting a musical performance.)"
I must say hodge podge to that. It was a gimmic at best to inspire thought, not to be absolute truth. Also, doesn't that go against your "imposes a false order of music over the chaos of cacophonious noise."? I think Cage once said that every window plays its own unique music or something to that effect....So didn't he just play over the chaotic noise with a structured, intentional sound? What's the difference between using a flute to hit a high C, or a window? Furthermore, isn't it just as natural for a window to make a sound based on its properties as it is for a person to do so?
Making noise and making music are two different things though having the same basic physical properties. The thump of my shoe as I walk is not music, it is a bi-product of my action, because my intent is not to make an arrangment of noise when I walk, but rather be in motion. Whereas music is the intentional result of using an instrument, or singing, or even stomping or smashing things. It is an intentional arrangment of sounds. Why do we do this?...because no one dances to the sound of a window opening.
Thank you.
I wish Zyz hadn't changed his post...I thought I initially saw him state something about birds and intent..etc. I think he had some valid points in my opinion.
"A symphony is a lie to the extent it imposes a false order of music over the chaos of cacophonious noise."
Can there really be a false order contrived from something as natural as being human? A man using an instrument is no more false than a monkey using a stick, or a woodpecker hammering a tree with its bill. A bird sings to communicate, why can't a person? If I had sang this response instead of writing it, would it then be deemed a false order of music over the choatic noise of the world? Also is there really chaotic noise, that would mean there is no reasoning or rhyme to the noise that naturally exist or occur.
"(The only true symphony is that of John Cage opening the window to the city street when his audience was expecting a musical performance.)"
I must say hodge podge to that. It was a gimmic at best to inspire thought, not to be absolute truth. Also, doesn't that go against your "imposes a false order of music over the chaos of cacophonious noise."? I think Cage once said that every window plays its own unique music or something to that effect....So didn't he just play over the chaotic noise with a structured, intentional sound? What's the difference between using a flute to hit a high C, or a window? Furthermore, isn't it just as natural for a window to make a sound based on its properties as it is for a person to do so?
Making noise and making music are two different things though having the same basic physical properties. The thump of my shoe as I walk is not music, it is a bi-product of my action, because my intent is not to make an arrangment of noise when I walk, but rather be in motion. Whereas music is the intentional result of using an instrument, or singing, or even stomping or smashing things. It is an intentional arrangment of sounds. Why do we do this?...because no one dances to the sound of a window opening.
-
Lightning Rod
- Posts: 5211
- Joined: August 15th, 2004, 6:57 pm
- Location: between my ears
- Contact:
trevor et al
i had an encounter with John Cage one time.
it was in the seventies
we got into an argument
it was about taking responsibility for the works you produce
I had just sat though a concert of Cage's music
it was interminable and boring
it had ambient recorded sounds accompanied by random piano noises
I was taken back to his piece where he burned the grand piano on the beach in Malibu and recorded the sounds of the strings popping.
very novel, but musically unsatisfying
anyway I got into a fight with Cage about the fact that an artist has to take responsibility for his output.
If you give the audience a headache, it's on you.
Cage was lovable in his suede elbows, if argumentative.
i had an encounter with John Cage one time.
it was in the seventies
we got into an argument
it was about taking responsibility for the works you produce
I had just sat though a concert of Cage's music
it was interminable and boring
it had ambient recorded sounds accompanied by random piano noises
I was taken back to his piece where he burned the grand piano on the beach in Malibu and recorded the sounds of the strings popping.
very novel, but musically unsatisfying
anyway I got into a fight with Cage about the fact that an artist has to take responsibility for his output.
If you give the audience a headache, it's on you.
Cage was lovable in his suede elbows, if argumentative.
Great story LR,
So I have to ask, did he budge in his opinions? Did you sip some whiskey and do a Hemmingway on him? I think I would have lit him on fire whilst opening windows and called it the Concerto of the Burning Artist...in Screetch Minor.
"I was taken back to his piece where he burned the grand piano on the beach in Malibu and recorded the sounds of the strings popping."
I don't think any artist can deny ever being gimmicky though it becomes tedious to hear of things like filming the torture of animals, dropping things from a building or throwing up on someone else's paintings as a new stroke of artistic genius. That would be like saying the Nazis were genocide artists. Genius in art would be composing a piano piece that inspires the thought of burning a piano on a Malibu beach, not actually burning it. Any schmuck with some lighter fluid and a match could do that.
"If you give the audience a headache, it's on you."
Actually I had a discussion about this last week. Art related showings, musicals, etc. have to be the hardest product in the world to get your money back if it is done poorly. You buy a crappy Cd with only two good songs on it...try and get your money back for that reasoning...go to an art gallery and say you didn't enjoy the paintings and ask for your money back...nada..Buy a book and its horrible - try to get the cashier to refund you. Too bad artistic showings aren't like restaurants, pay on the way out. Hmmm excuse me miss, my Pollack wasn't very good.
Anyways, great story LR, thanks for sharing it.
So I have to ask, did he budge in his opinions? Did you sip some whiskey and do a Hemmingway on him? I think I would have lit him on fire whilst opening windows and called it the Concerto of the Burning Artist...in Screetch Minor.
"I was taken back to his piece where he burned the grand piano on the beach in Malibu and recorded the sounds of the strings popping."
I don't think any artist can deny ever being gimmicky though it becomes tedious to hear of things like filming the torture of animals, dropping things from a building or throwing up on someone else's paintings as a new stroke of artistic genius. That would be like saying the Nazis were genocide artists. Genius in art would be composing a piano piece that inspires the thought of burning a piano on a Malibu beach, not actually burning it. Any schmuck with some lighter fluid and a match could do that.
"If you give the audience a headache, it's on you."
Actually I had a discussion about this last week. Art related showings, musicals, etc. have to be the hardest product in the world to get your money back if it is done poorly. You buy a crappy Cd with only two good songs on it...try and get your money back for that reasoning...go to an art gallery and say you didn't enjoy the paintings and ask for your money back...nada..Buy a book and its horrible - try to get the cashier to refund you. Too bad artistic showings aren't like restaurants, pay on the way out. Hmmm excuse me miss, my Pollack wasn't very good.
Anyways, great story LR, thanks for sharing it.
gon to an art gallery, it is like shopping in a tore. buy only if you like what you see. othrwise, its free and enjoy the free wine and cheese.
museums, library, even browsing in bookstores, great ways to take in free art. (tho, time is money.)
i disagree with Trevor on the concept of art perhaps. i think some art gimmicks are brilliant and not just any schmuck can do it. an example is or was Duchamps' Fountain (mens urinal signed Mutt). Cage's music takes the ready-made concept into sound. ccellenges the way we perceive the world by challenging traditional notions of what counts as art. invaluable if (and, because) iconoclastic.
museums, library, even browsing in bookstores, great ways to take in free art. (tho, time is money.)
i disagree with Trevor on the concept of art perhaps. i think some art gimmicks are brilliant and not just any schmuck can do it. an example is or was Duchamps' Fountain (mens urinal signed Mutt). Cage's music takes the ready-made concept into sound. ccellenges the way we perceive the world by challenging traditional notions of what counts as art. invaluable if (and, because) iconoclastic.
I don't think 'Therefore, I am.' Therefore, I am.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests