quip

As the title implies, I personally equate religion/God as an elaborate form of artistic expression; much like traditional art, it is not a question of right or wrong; good or bad. –

n After all, is the art demonstrated by Picasso evaluated simply as “right or wrong”?

Continuing with the painter analogy:
The painter’s canvas is two-dimensional onto which he/she paints a vivid illusion of a third (more or less) dimension. The painting also tries to convey certain feelings, emotions, opinions and/or states-of-mind, using a variety of style to do so.

Some of these artistic “styles” are more popular than others, but is any one “style” more plausible or valid than another?

I see many logical parallels between differing religious belief systems and varying artistic expressions/medium.

Is religion simply a variant art-form? God / heaven an illusionary dimension via artful expressionism?

Any comments or suggestions?

Sabine Grant

I deeply appreciate your comparaison as it brings an aura of tolerance and an original perception of the concept of the divine.

I believe that evaluating that concept as right or wrong is indeed irrelevant as it is mostly based on the personal perception of the believer.
One cannot agree or disagree with art as it is a form of expression and it reflects the individuality of the painter.

Stating " I like it" or " I do not like it" is far more acceptable than evaluating the right or wrong of a painting.

The problem though is that some believers have utilized their own projection of the divine to harm others. They projected their greed, pride, ambition in that concept. They pertained to expand that concept onto others to rally them to their cause. It became a tool to control and impose their own evil on the rest of humanity.

One can contemplate a painting and relate to its qualities and the message the painter projects. It will not go further than a personal contemplation.( though in the case of Picasso,an informed admirer might be tempted to also embrace his political stand).

I am not sure I answered your question. I apologize if I did not. I mostly wanted to point that belief can have consequences if the concept behind the belief is an evil projection of an individual. The most "evilish" work of art will affect only the contemplator. It will cause us to feel nauseated maybe.(some of Dali's paintings have that half nauseating half fascinating quality).

This is a very interesting subject you brought up and I hope you will get many replies.

Jobar

Hello quip; good to see another Georgian around here. Like your screen name, too.

Humans create art. I think that is one of the defining things about our species. I have no doubt that gods, and God, are human-created. As to whether god(s) constitute art is an interesting question.

Mmm, tale-telling is an art form, I think we all agree; one of the Greek Muses (Calliope?) was in charge of literature. Painting, singing, sculpting- all of these are arts, and all have a religious dimension.

God-art would seem to be an art form which attempts to create something bigger than its own creator. Indeed, we create something, and define it to be that which creates us! I am forcefully reminded of M.C. Escher's "Drawing Hands".

I suppose that I may claim to be a God-artist in some small way; I have a small part in the creation of <a href="http://pub90.ezboard.com/binstituteforunicornresearch" target="_blank">The Invisible Pink Unicorn</a>, in that I have written one of the official scriptures about She Whose Hooves Are Never Shod.

[ November 16, 2002: Message edited by: Jobar ]</p>

Amos

Hi quip, personal preference is true but this preference tells 'the critic' something about the person.

When I did some Shakespeare courses it was suggested that the popularity of different plays in different countries over extended periods of time was an indication of the spiritual well being of the people. Various examples were given and I believe that this holds true today. One example was the fading popularity of Romeo and Juliet because we can no longer identify with the intensity of the love afair. Others, such as MacBeth was never popular in France and Coriolanus was never popular in England told something about their religious identifications with the plays.

quip

I suppose my interest in nominalism / pluralism, leads me to find a logical connection between otherwise opposing world-views.

It’s interesting that I find religion/Gods fascinating and repugnant at the same time.

Nonetheless,
I simply threw this “theory” out there to see what others might add (or subtract) from the conclusion.

Thanks for your comments. They seemed positive. (Although, I was also looking for an opposing view-point.)


Hello, Jobar

Yes, GA. is not exactly a hotbed for atheism / pantheism !

Jobar

"It’s interesting that I find religion/Gods fascinating and repugnant at the same time."

I'd say you will find yourself right at home around here, then; plenty of us atheists spend more time thinking about religion than most preachers do! As a moderator here, I have seen every argument for existence of God(s) ever thought of; your notion of god-art is not much discussed, though.

Oh, and some of us Ga. members of II occasionally get together for an afternoon of relaxation, food, and bullshooting- I'll let you know when the next one is planned. J.

Keith Russell

Greetings:

As an artist, I find the analogy interesting and--at the same time--disturbing.

I think art should communicate something meaningful about the artist. Religion, to be an art form, should likewise communicate something meaningful about the believer.

This doesn't seem to be the focus, purpose, or result of most religious belief, however...

Keith.

Biff the unclean

Could one then make the claim that 21st Century Christianity is in the non-objectivism school of modern art?
Surely it meets all the criteria. The story is freeform and asymmetrical with no two threads matching. The meaning of the art is completely ambiguous, in that everyone who views it says that it has a different-and frequently contradictory- meaning. A lot of color but little of substance.

Amos

Or the profane is enchanted in the artform. Chaim Potok wrote "My Name is Asher Lev" which is claimed to be equal or close to Joyces Portrait. Of course it is if you don't know Joyce but really it is a satire of the crucifixion account. Still nicely written (I guess) but repulsive to me and makes him an idiot in my view.

The above are extremes. Art can still be beautiful without much substance. Van Gogh is a good example of this without religious content either way.