Discouraging Artistic Ability

[Signtist]

Can we somehow split this thread? Very little of it has to do with promoting artistic ability. And I think that is an important discussion.

[steve-in-kville]

Can we somehow split this thread? Very little of it has to do with promoting artistic ability. And I think that is an important discussion.

Keep it up and I'll post a picture my mom took when I was in the bathtub at 2 years old.

[Soloist]

Can we somehow split this thread? Very little of it has to do with promoting artistic ability. And I think that is an important discussion.

Keep it up and I'll post a picture my mom took when I was in the bathtub at 2 years old.

Do that and you might end up in trouble for distributing child porn. As well as blocking any remaining filter people that somehow still can read this thread.

[steve-in-kville]

Do that and you might end up in trouble for distributing child porn. As well as blocking any remaining filter people that somehow still can read this thread.

Yes, but no.

I've abandoned all hope of this thread getting anywhere close to back on track.

[MaxPC]

If a group was really strictly against artistic expression, then I would think that even furniture should be very simple, with no non-functional designs or shapes. But I can understand the viewpoint that distinguishes between people and landscapes, or even animals. (Especially if the portrait was to look like a specific person.)

Likewise; I too can see the difference between caricatures and landscapes. Caricatures exaggerate specific features of a living person and they can be flattering (feeding vanity) or unflattering (denigrating of the person).

My own church went through a period of imitating Greek and Roman art in its depiction of Biblical figures. Our art is primarily clothed now and is used to illustrate Biblical narratives and people of outstanding holiness who have died. Is it right? I have never really been bothered by it one way or the other. I have seen churches in a number of denominations whether Catholic, Episcopalian, Orthodox, Byzantine, and Anglican in which the decor is "complex" with nearly every inch filled with something. That is not my preference which is for the simple and unadorned; but it may be the preferences of others.

Personally I believe that all of our talents should gladly serve Our Lord. How that is achieved is often directed by our spiritual mentors who guide us in order to keep us from deceiving ourselves. Self-deception is a weakness from which we all suffer at different points in our lives.
As always, YMMV.

[ABC 123]

Do that and you might end up in trouble for distributing child porn. As well as blocking any remaining filter people that somehow still can read this thread.

Yes, but no.

I've abandoned all hope of this thread getting anywhere close to back on track.

Since my comment seems to be the catalyst for going off topic and I haven't added anything since it spiraled off the rails, I thought I would come back and apologize.

There is a certain distrust of artists and writers in the plain community. (Even this thread has "art" being about nudes.) It is much safer to express a creative talent as a furniture maker.

[Ken]

Yes, it is interesting. Painting is supposed to "speak" to people (or something like that, right?). And as such, certain paintings I personally don't want. Yet I am not in the least opposed to having a book with an illustration in it of a woman praying uncovered. Nor would it bother me to have war scenes in a book. But I wouldn't have a battle scene on my wall.

The thing of prominent placement communicates volumes, and matters - I think. We've moved into a new house, and me and my wife disagreed on certain matters of taste. I'd have a picture I liked, and thought it should merit a living room or dining room placement, and she'd gently suggest that it might look better in some nondescript upstairs bedroom corner.

As such, we'll personally reserve the places of honor on our prominent walls for art that is best, while leaving the things such as uncovered heads and battle scenes to the picture books.

The role of art in society has traditionally been to challenge existing beliefs and mores. Artists who are now pretty much universally considered masters such as Monet, Renoir, and Degas were incredibly threatening and avant-garde during their own time. Just like Rembrandt who died in poverty. What you are essentially saying is that you don’t want art that is challenging. Which is fine. I expect that is the case for most religious conservatives, not just the Menno variety. But it is probably part of the explanation of why art (or at least new art) is not highly valued in most conservative societies.

Ah, but it is challenging! Just not in the way the heathen want it to be. I don't want to be "challenged" to be more sinful. I want to be challenged to be more holy. Take these prayer scenes we are talking about. I find them incredibly challenging, particularly "Grace" by Eric Enstrom. It challenges me to be more of what is being portrayed. More prayerful, more simple. More thankful, and content. To endure to the end, when I am old to be faithful. I do not strive to be inspired by patriotic scenes, nor have my sense of propriety dulled by nudity.

Those old artist were hardly living examples of faith. Should it come as any surprise that some of their art is as anti-God and chaotic as their lives? Why should we find inspiration or be challenged by such products? We also largely reject what modern artists produce in terms of inappropriate pictures, and music. To often these products are a reflection of values that are not of God.

To make money from art, I suppose you need to have a product that a large population finds attractive. As we know, sex sells. So that is what is produced. I expect the same economics were at play down through the ages. These products last forever, they aren't consumed like clothes or food. Each person is only going to buy so much art, and most people are going to buy mass produced art, or used cheap art. The starving artist is a real thing.

I do go to art museums somewhat frequently when traveling with my kids as they are interested. Honestly one rarely sees nudes in art museums that are newer than 500 year-old renaissance paintings. Other than modern expressionist stuff like Picasso or Duchamp’s famous Nude Descending a Staircase, which is barely discernible and certainly not selling sex: https://smarthistory.org/duchamp-descending/

Modern Art is almost never about nudes or sex: https://www.moma.org/calendar/exhibitions

[steve-in-kville]

If my thread got split, do I get double royalty payments?

[ohio jones]

If my thread got split, do I get double royalty payments?

The royalties get split, just like the thread.

[Josh]

The role of art in society has traditionally been to challenge existing beliefs and mores. Artists who are now pretty much universally considered masters such as Monet, Renoir, and Degas were incredibly threatening and avant-garde during their own time. Just like Rembrandt who died in poverty. What you are essentially saying is that you don’t want art that is challenging. Which is fine. I expect that is the case for most religious conservatives, not just the Menno variety. But it is probably part of the explanation of why art (or at least new art) is not highly valued in most conservative societies.

Ah, but it is challenging! Just not in the way the heathen want it to be. I don't want to be "challenged" to be more sinful. I want to be challenged to be more holy. Take these prayer scenes we are talking about. I find them incredibly challenging, particularly "Grace" by Eric Enstrom. It challenges me to be more of what is being portrayed. More prayerful, more simple. More thankful, and content. To endure to the end, when I am old to be faithful. I do not strive to be inspired by patriotic scenes, nor have my sense of propriety dulled by nudity.

Those old artist were hardly living examples of faith. Should it come as any surprise that some of their art is as anti-God and chaotic as their lives? Why should we find inspiration or be challenged by such products? We also largely reject what modern artists produce in terms of inappropriate pictures, and music. To often these products are a reflection of values that are not of God.

To make money from art, I suppose you need to have a product that a large population finds attractive. As we know, sex sells. So that is what is produced. I expect the same economics were at play down through the ages. These products last forever, they aren't consumed like clothes or food. Each person is only going to buy so much art, and most people are going to buy mass produced art, or used cheap art. The starving artist is a real thing.

I do go to art museums somewhat frequently when traveling with my kids as they are interested. Honestly one rarely sees nudes in art museums that are newer than 500 year-old renaissance paintings. Other than modern expressionist stuff like Picasso or Duchamp’s famous Nude Descending a Staircase, which is barely discernible and certainly not selling sex: https://smarthistory.org/duchamp-descending/

Modern Art is almost never about nudes or sex: https://www.moma.org/calendar/exhibitions

You and I must have been going to different modern art galleries, museums, and festivals over the last decade. A lot of modern art is extremely sexualised and indecent.