Watercolor painting and artistic expression

[JohnH]

The simple fact is that part of plain Anabaptism means, well, a plain lifestyle, which means rejecting things like fancy art.

Are you including quilts and fraktur in this or are you not defining them as fancy art?

I let plain people define for themselves what is plain. Quilting is considered to be an acceptable plain art (although plain poeple don't call things "art"; they just call it quilting). However, amongst plain people, there is a general feeling that some quilting being done is too fancy / involved / expensive and many people aren't sure they want to be associated with that. To quote someone I heard once, "Quilts should be made for people to use and put on their beds or given away to the needy, not to be sold for high dollar amounts for a museum or to a wealthy buyer at an auction."

Likewise, Fraktur seems to primarily be a tradition associated with using archaic forms of the High German language. They wouldn't view it as "fancy", but rather as the proper orthography for printing books in German.

Within my own conference, visual arts relating to watercolours, drawings, pencil drawings, pen and ink, and AI generated content is seen as acceptable or even a worthy pursuit, but "fine art" would not be. Things like portraits would be on the edge of acceptability. (My wife did a self portrait when she took art classes in college, but this would not be the norm for most people in my church group.) It is tucked away in her portfolio but would not be seen as an appropriate thing to heavily pursue further.

It is interesting to me that "art" is being largely supplanted by computers, who seem to be better at art than people are. In my view, "art" is a worthy pursuit for machines, but perhaps less so for people.

[R7ehr]

The simple fact is that part of plain Anabaptism means, well, a plain lifestyle, which means rejecting things like fancy art.

Are you including quilts and fraktur in this or are you not defining them as fancy art?

I let plain people define for themselves what is plain. Quilting is considered to be an acceptable plain art (although plain poeple don't call things "art"; they just call it quilting). However, amongst plain people, there is a general feeling that some quilting being done is too fancy / involved / expensive and many people aren't sure they want to be associated with that. To quote someone I heard once, "Quilts should be made for people to use and put on their beds or given away to the needy, not to be sold for high dollar amounts for a museum or to a wealthy buyer at an auction."

Likewise, Fraktur seems to primarily be a tradition associated with using archaic forms of the High German language. They wouldn't view it as "fancy", but rather as the proper orthography for printing books in German.

Within my own conference, visual arts relating to watercolours, drawings, pencil drawings, pen and ink, and AI generated content is seen as acceptable or even a worthy pursuit, but "fine art" would not be. Things like portraits would be on the edge of acceptability. (My wife did a self portrait when she took art classes in college, but this would not be the norm for most people in my church group.) It is tucked away in her portfolio but would not be seen as an appropriate thing to heavily pursue further.

It is interesting to me that "art" is being largely supplanted by computers, who seem to be better at art than people are. In my view, "art" is a worthy pursuit for machines, but perhaps less so for people.

Would you find it more preferable/sensible/consistent/whatever, to have someone paint a picture of something, or to take a photo of it, or have a computer generate a picture? How is this weighed/calculated by you, and/or your church group?

[JohnH]

Would you find it more preferable/sensible/consistent/whatever, to have someone paint a picture of something, or to take a photo of it, or have a computer generate a picture? How is this weighed/calculated by you, and/or your church group?

None of this is about my preferences. I am simply observing how plain people and conservative/traditional minded people generally do things, what they're comfortable with, and what they are less comfortable with.

I think that AI generating pictures is far preferable to taking photographs, particularly the latter. Photographs have a deceptive nature to them in that they tend to pretend to be the real thing. With AI generated pictures, everyone knows (at this point) it's not real (although when AI generation is indistinguishable from the real thing, that will be a problem).

I don't think there's anything wrong with painting pictures, but I don't think it's a particularly useful pursuit. It can be a good hobby for some people, but I would put it in the same class of hobby as "figuring out how to prompt an LLM to generate pictures". Fundamentally, it is the exact same thing; the only question is whether the painter wields a palette or a keyboard and a B200.

[Ernie]

How is this weighed/calculated by your church group?

[ken_sylvania]

I think that AI generating pictures is far preferable to taking photographs, particularly the latter. Photographs have a deceptive nature to them in that they tend to pretend to be the real thing. With AI generated pictures, everyone knows (at this point) it's not real (although when AI generation is indistinguishable from the real thing, that will be a problem).

Does it bother you that the pictures aren’t what you’re selling?

Have you seen the typical supermarket ad that uses stock photos instead of actual pictures? This has been a common practice for years for many products such as fresh meats, produce, deli items, and so forth. Branded products are typically manufacturer-provided photos or graphics.

Also, if you want to use your own photos of the actual product, it is quite simple to upload those and request for them to be used.

I’m aware of that. I’m just asking what the comfort level is with using marketing images that are entirely fabricated.

I pay a local marketing agency to set up my paid Facebook ads because I don't have the time and expertise to dig into the technicalities of Facebook ad audiences, and they clearly use AI to to create graphics, image captions, sale descriptions, and I suspect even the Facebook audiences themselves. Especially at the beginning, I had to constantly issue corrections to AI descriptions/rephrases, but that got a lot better with time, and in the year or so that I have use the service, the ads have been quite successful. All while spending basically the same ad budget I was before when I set up the ads myself.

I have avoided “Internet marketing” as a business since there is really no way to do so effectively without engaging in dishonesty, and I’d offer a worse service than my competition which is willing to engage in dishonest behaviour.

Just the way it is.

John, I've PM'ed you a link to an ad with a ChatGPT-generated graphic from my business. I'm interested to see if you think this ad contains something dishonest. If anyone else would like to evaluate the ad, PM me.

JohnH, are you ghosting me, paging JohnH

Mike, did you ever get an answer from JohnH on your question?

[JohnH]

We had a conversation about it via PM.

[JohnH]

How is this weighed/calculated by your church group?

I wrote a long response which got eaten, but overall this is a rapidly moving area. AI is treated like a tool. It could be a painter’s palette, or it could be a camera. The issue would be with use.

AI can technically be used to make photorealistic pictures of people. It would be improper to do that.

[the-real-steve]

I do not know who this person is or what church she was part of, but there certainly are Mennonite churches in which artistic expression is highly restricted.

I think she hails from the Hope circles.

Her parents may have been Mennonite Christian fellowship at one point, but I believe in her growing up years they were with a Cumberland Valley Conference church. Which is similar to Hope. At some point though, her parents separated and one of them remarried. Regardless, I don't think either of these groups restrict things like watercolor painting, although MCF is quite conservative. I was MCF from around 10-18 years old and I don't remember any rules on such things. My wife was part of Cumberland Valley as a child, and took oil painting classes. We are with Hope now and I haven't seen anything like that.

Her sister taught school at Hope. But was not affiliated with Hope.

[Jazman]

It is pretty clear to me that art has a pretty low place of value in CA culture. I have various thoughts about why that is.

I'm interested in hearing your thoughts.

A few of my thoughts...
Most Plain Anabaptists believe in hard work and are very practical. Art doesn't seem very practical to them.
Most Plain Anabaptists don't do post-secondary schooling. As a result, most don't develop an appreciation for finer arts.
Most Plain Anabaptists have large families. Raising financially and emotionally stable large families doesn't allow much time for the cultivation of finer arts. Those who are rich enough to pursue this for their children don't often pursue it because their peers are not urging them to pursue it.
Most Plain Anabaptists believe that meeting the physical and spiritual needs of people should be priority based on the example of Jesus. Since there is not a New Testament precedent for pursuing fine arts, it is not considered something Christians should pursue.
Most Plain Anabaptists believe in efficiency. Producing art is not very efficient.
Historically, most Plain Anabaptists have believed in simplicity and utilitarian character. Fine arts that require extravagant amounts of training, money and time are not considered simple. An exception is quilting. But quilting is something that can be learned from family members at home, and the quilt serves a useful purpose.

As an artist, I'm reading through this with great interest (The various opinions & thoughts create quite the mosaic...)
Ernie, I think your descriptions are fairly accurate, but as I read through the above I was struck by these words / phrases...
very practical
[...]efficiency. Producing art is not very efficient.
[...]simplicity and utilitarian character.
[...]the quilt serves a useful purpose.

Again I think you're accurate, but there's a modernist and/or disenchanted vibe in that, isn't there? (Are we not the children / cousins of the Protestant ethos, from which arose modernism?)

But I understand the subject is.. very subjective. We have different standards and maybe even different callings to different convictions. I would not impose my liberation in the area on anyone who feels differently. (aesthetically or conscience-wise). But personally I resonate with this from jbg,

As for my philosophy of art, Barnhart, in short - I think humans do art the way birds sing. It is part of our humanity...and in spite of suppression it bleeds out. I'd like to see us step into and embrace it. When you think hard about it, beauty and art present a compelling argument for the divine, and for the divine reflection (imago dei), in us. It has, no other utility. Further, re common grace, I think art serves to glorify God for its own sake. That is true of a blues scale, an architectural marvel, a beautifully designed kitchen or RV, a well presented/mixed latte, etc etc. Whether or not the artist/musician/architect et al is a disciple doesn't impact the extent to which the art points to God. So I therefore am inspired by art from various traditions...and think "secular" art also is a deep part of our humanity and brings God glory. (ie blues scales as an example...)

In particular the mention of bird song... as I like to say 'they don't sing in English, do they...?' It does point to the Creator, but in a most un-pragmatic, non-get-to-the-point, non-Western/Protestant way?
Personally I'm all for that; art for art's sake and the roundabout way it glorifies the First Creator. I would like to see more embrace of that in my church culture as well. (By the way, a dim attitude towards art is not exclusive to conservative Anabaptists... it's prevalent throughout low-church american Protestantism.) Something to think about...

[Ernie]

As an artist, I'm reading through this with great interest (The various opinions & thoughts create quite the mosaic...)
Ernie, I think your descriptions are fairly accurate, but as I read through the above I was struck by these words / phrases...
very practical
[...]efficiency. Producing art is not very efficient.
[...]simplicity and utilitarian character.
[...]the quilt serves a useful purpose.

Again I think you're accurate, but there's a modernist and/or disenchanted vibe in that, isn't there? (Are we not the children / cousins of the Protestant ethos, from which arose modernism?)

Perhaps.

But the point I have been trying to make recently is that the "poor" don't have much time, money, or resources for fine art. They don't even have the cultural impetus to develop a taste for fine art.
Survival takes priority.
There are even Anabaptists who cannot afford Shenandoah Music Camp.

Plenty of Anabaptists as well as many others over the millenniums, have tried to make the case that investing in fine arts is depriving the poor of their needs. As Anabaptists become wealthier, many lose this sensitivity. But the majority of Plain Anabaptists still keep this value system alive.

So yes, modernity has maybe shifted the arguments a bit, but the values are still alive and well in many communities.