Art and Religion defined

[e_dog]

The secret -- or not-so-secret -- link between religion and art:

both are attempts at redemption through lies.

[e_dog]

but, then again, Walter Benjamin wrote that there are as many absolute truths as there are authentic works of art. I'd like to believe that's correct, but it seems (perhaps) too much like romanticism.

[ZyzxzxzyZ]

Yes, there is some validity to that interpretation, that the artist is a cunning forger or conjurer; and Plato's attacks on lyric poetry and aesthetic inspiration are still relevant, I believe. Even Marx himself was disparaging towards "belle-lettrists." Who provides a better or more accurate picture of reality? The novelist or historian, the economist or poet? While I formerly believed in the power of literature to transcend history, I am not so sure any more. Kafka shows us something absurd and scary, but a decent history of the 3rd Reich provides facts which really overwhelm any literary or artistic extrapolations. I'll take photos of the battlefield dead over the drawings done by the eccentric officers......

[e_dog]

ah, but you haven't gotten to my definition of science, yet:

as religion and art are attempts at redemption through lies, natural science is an attempt at corruption through truth, and social science, the worst of the bunch, is an attempt at corruption through lies. so, yeah i'll take novels over economics any day, as far as tracking the currents of history. (economics is an ideology.)

Kafka wrote his work decades before the rise of the Third Reich. if you want your knowledge to always be too late, then, sure, focus exclusively on past history; but if you want to see where society is moving in the future, then looking at novels is perhaps the best way to see the future.

[ZyzxzxzyZ]

I think social science may occasionally be used for fraudulent, totalitarian, or manipulative purposes, but that doesn't mean all of it is. In some circumstances empirical research and data may be required--and there is a viable tradition of liberal and leftist empiricism isn't there? Economics performed by a Galbraith or Keynes is a legitimate intellectual activity, even if dry and not very appealing to beat poets and artistes. Sections of Marx and Engels are quite detailed social science as well, with stats., records, data, figures, etc. and inferences drawn from the data. So I disapprove of those aesthetes whom I have read who claim we must reject all historical or economic research as "structuralism" or "positivism" or whatever. Aestheticism--whether low forms of pop culture, or high brow culture ala TS Eliot or the catholic church--may be more dangerous than empiricism or "structuralism." A Kerouac is amusing but is he not also narcissistic to a very high degree? And that is what much modern art and lit. is--narcissism.

[ZyzxzxzyZ]

Whatever really. I think the beat-countercultural tradition is admirable to some extent. People should read Ferlinghetti and Pynchon and Kesey etc. I object to "hipster hierarchies" however, and the stalinist aspects of leftist academia, where guilt carries down in some magical way (ie. hetero American caucasian males are somehow all guilty--but I doubt many of the academic marxists would say Goering's kids are all guilty) . Sartre was an asshole and a fraud in many ways; so if we are going to do the authenticity thing again, I'd lean more to Camus, who disliked the marxists and the fascists. After auschwitz, after hiroshima, after 'Nam, reality is pretty much a set of more or less unpleasant absurd choices. I think robbing banks or rich IT barons is a perfectly acceptable course of action, tho not a very pragmatic one.

[e_dog]

how exactly is Sartre a fraud?

re: Camus. his critique of socialist realism in art is right on the money as is his insistence on the need to create dangerously i.e. to resist conformity, etc. but while his emhasis on the absurd is important and clear, it is not very original and his making suicide the only serious philosophical question is almost a parody of existential nihilism.

sure Kerouac is narcisstic. so is almost every great thinker in history even if they areless explicit about it. the best -- or most notorious -- are generally quite explicit in this. i.e. Christ, Hegel, Nietzsche, Derrida. delusions of grandeur seem to go well with the confidence in one work and abilities that leads to daring, innovative thinking, writing, artistry. think of the self-portraits of painters. to start a religion one cannot be humble, unless it is the sly ironic humility of a Socrates.

[ZyzxzxzyZ]

All that Sartrean claptrap about nothingness and so forth: pages and pages of if, without any real tangible claim. There is some decent information, I guess, here and there in Being and Nothingness: the more psychological stuff and "bad faith" are kind of cool but vague and unverifiable. The insistence on humans being "condemned to be free," etc. seems sort of dramatic and wrong in many ways: we may have certain choices available, but for instance we are usually very constrained, and I think any normal person would say some choices are much preferable or more rational then others. A baby in a cradle is left at your front door: there are various chocies, but say bringing it inside to cook it into a nice casserole would not be as decent a choice as calling child protective services. Sartreanism leads to all those typical moral relativism things. And the existentialist ideas on choice and decision are nearly theological, and fail to acknowledge that many human actions are determined and caused to various degrees.

[e_dog]

i don't think the baby on the doorstep example poses any problem for Sartre --with regard to the receiver of such a baby on doorstep -- indeed, his position is that you cannot evade taking responsibility for whatever choices are made in such circumstances, we are condemned to take action -- the only problem is that the Sartrean line seems to indicate that the baby is responsible for its own life course (later) regardless of its seemingly uncontrolable circumstances.

Sartre's ideas on bad faith and action in general are quite useable by social science -- e.g. Goffman's dramaturgical sociology is based on it.

[jimboloco]

I'll take photos of the battlefield dead over the drawings done by the eccentric officers......

[ZyzxzxzyZ]

E-canis--

Yes Sartre is big on responsibility or authenticity and such, but that doesn't really help matters. Or responsibility doesn't mean much if you hold to purely subjective accounts of ethics or truth. What does he mean by responsibility? Say Robert Blake--the Baretta dude--really did murder that broad in LA. And he admits it to himself, recognizes yeah that probably upset her family or understands the consequences. What does the existentialist say? If Baretta is suitably honest about his intentions, and realizes the consequences of his murder even to a mathematical certainty, that his murder is acceptable? OR that it's neither good nor bad--the badness being only self-deception. And I agree with you when u said that Sartre overlooks environmental factors--growing up in poverty for instance--may be very limiting and the child's "freedom to choose" is far less of a freedom than that of the rich kids on the hill.

[Trevor]

Hi Edog,

"The secret -- or not-so-secret -- link between religion and art:
both are attempts at redemption through lies."

Pretty bold statement. Lies are an attempt at deception, to intentionally convelute (sp?) the truth. So with this statement you are (A) Assuming that art and religion are practised or were concieved for the purpose of redemption, (B) Assuming that religion and art were birthed or are used for the purpose of deception.

Personally I think art and religion were birthed the same way and for the same intention: to attempt to explain ourselves to our environment and/or to understand our environment in relation to ourselves. I don't think it was an attempt to decieve and even now with its murky ways, both religion and art aren't always practised as deception. That would mean assuming that all artists and religions do not believe what they are doing. A lie isn't about being wrong or right, a lie is about someone's intent to be truthful or deceptive in regards to explaining their perception.

"as religion and art are attempts at redemption through lies, natural science is an attempt at corruption through truth, and social science, the worst of the bunch, is an attempt at corruption through lies. so, yeah i'll take novels over economics any day, as far as tracking the currents of history. (economics is an ideology.) "

But I think if you look close enough, you'll find the validity in all of it. That taken as a whole, all of it, lies, truths, grey areas etc. paint the best picture rather than narrowing the blinders to what you feel comfortable as truths. Furthermore, a lie itself does speak a truth.

[ZyzxzxzyZ]

Are you saying then that for instance Scripture is untrue, a "lie" and thus simply metaphorical or poetic? How about religious entities such as a soul, God or afterlife etc. Those are lies as well? Or miracles in Bible or hindu /buddhist texts--true or just myths. If the miracles are all just myths then they would seemingly have much less force then if literally true--obviously trad. Xtians believe in the literal truth of Scripture and miracles, that JC converted water into wine with a flick of his fingertips and so forth--it's not metaphor or myth to them.

Things are a bit more complex than just to say religion is a lie which is true (that's a contradiction in fact). It's more a situation in which there are highly improbable events being described which defy rationality, and thus to believe in the literal truth of the religion requires that ol' irrational leap of faith--a leap many of us refuse to commit to.

[e_dog]

trevor:

I don't think it was an attempt to decieve and even now with its murky ways, both religion and art aren't always practised as deception. That would mean assuming that all artists and religions do not believe what they are doing. A lie isn't about being wrong or right, a lie is about someone's intent to be truthful or deceptive in regards to explaining their perception.

a liar can believe what he is doing. self-deception may be the most pervasive form of deception. but this means a complex psychology.

if you look close enough, you'll find the validity in all of it. That taken as a whole, all of it, lies, truths, grey areas etc. paint the best picture rather than narrowing the blinders to what you feel comfortable as truths. Furthermore, a lie itself does speak a truth.

this somewhat Hegelian picture is impressive but overly optimistic. the whole adds up to confusion, not some adsolute knowledge. though, i would interested in learning what "truth" is contained in lies, on your account....

on the other hand, ZYZ is playing Kierkegaard, with this story of leap of faith into (or inspite of) the irrational and unpredictable. but how many persons make an actual leap? or are they pushed. . . .


Zyz, etc.:

Things are a bit more complex than just to say religion is a lie which is true (that's a contradiction in fact). It's more a situation in which there are highly improbable events being described which defy rationality, and thus to believe in the literal truth of the religion requires that ol' irrational leap of faith--a leap many of us refuse to commit to

[Trevor]

"a liar can believe what he is doing. self-deception may be the most pervasive form of deception. but this means a complex psychology"

Yes of course a liar can believe what he is doing and in what he is doing. Many people lie for many reasons and in some cases, such as a compulsive liar, they can not help themselves. But what's your point? Is this behaviour the basis of your comments regarding the intent of art and religion? It is one thing to believe your lies, its a another thing to be just plain wrong without knowing. I hope you don't call a kid who just answered 2+2=5, a bold faced liar. That would just mess him up. Giving an incorrect answer is not a lie, its just a wrong answer. So let me ask you something, are you wrong about what you think of art and religion (remember writing is an art form that you are partaking in) or are you just lying to us in your plight for redemption?

Furthermore, are you talking about liars or are you talking about "religion and art: both are attempts at redemption through lies."? Your subject is religion and art and claiming their purpose is to decieve for redemptions sake, not the behavioural patterns of compulsive liars.

You ever see an art show about a specific topic..say homelessness?...The photographer takes pics of homeless people during different moments in their daily life. The intent of the photographer is to capture still frames that speak of these people's lives, it may not show you their entire life in one picture, but it does show a truth about their existence. What they captured on film did happen. How would that be a lie?

"the whole adds up to confusion, not some adsolute knowledge."

Please don't speak on behalf of everyone else. More knowledge does not lead to more confusion for everyone. For some it actually leads to a greater understanding. Basically with your comment you just stated that knowing more about something leads to confusion and not to some sort of betterment of self knowledge. You aren't trying to say the the less you know, the more you actually know, are you?

"though, i would interested in learning what "truth" is contained in lies, on your account."

Well the very notion that you factually know someone is lying can speak volumes about a person's character or about the subject they are speaking on. A lie can speak a truth about the liar. There is a truth about why someone lies. There is a truth in why you or I or anyone lied. Just have to read between the lines sometimes to get at it, but its there in a muddy form. Then again, if you are looking for an absolute truth in a lie, then all that you will probably find is that it is a lie being intentionally used to obstruct you from another truth. Which would still be a truth about the lie.

I get the feeling by your response that what you are really trying to say by your little art and religion quip is that there is an absolute truth and all else is just simply lies. Or...perhaps you are trying to say there is an absolute truth to life and any interpretation of such by art and religion are just lies? Is that what you are gunning for? If so, I believe you are still wrong, but it would add some clarity to what you were trying to say.

So I have to ask, what do you define a lie as? Anything other then your own personal perception of the absolute truth?

"on the other hand, ZYZ is playing Kierkegaard, with this story of leap of faith into (or inspite of) the irrational and unpredictable. but how many persons make an actual leap? or are they pushed"

As disheartening as it is, some people really do join religions by free will and leap on their own.