@Rodney
Petronius was getting in trouble on the politics thread as well for overstating that only liberals are able to appreciate creative work.
There are religious creatives and thinkers; ditto conservatives. The art Petronius happens to pay attention to, and enjoys, confirms his view of this, and things outside seem to be labelled “not art” and his ignorance is then validated for its judicious sorting. Petronius has blinders on. Though in his defense, if he had a religious upbringing based on conservatism and religion (that you kept or moved away from in adulthood), it would better equip you to navigate these aesthetics, which are different: iconography, hagiography, subtle biblical/torah/koranic references that can be nearly imperceptible to one not inured to this sort of thing. It is indeed less accessible, the learning curve is steep, and plenty of people who didn’t learn it young see no point it doing it later. I can’t fault fans of this art, nor people who dislike it for its inaccessible nature. Art is a matter of taste and educational opportunity. Still there is rigor in religious creative work, and not in a pantheistic god-in-everything manner (“I know some artists feel God is why they paint or create”), but based on tradition, ritualized craft, self-abnegation, and religious trial.
@Petronius
Did you like Crash?
You strike me as someone who would like Crash. Open-minded, liberal, atheistic, and yet enjoying only the company of the same? Do you keep the company of only people who hold your views, who never tire of priding themselves on diversity?
It is a relief to find like-minded individuals. I can’t knock that. An atheistic-liberal circlejerk is better than facism, but is also unchallenging and self-absorbed.
(Strange caveat ahead): Though, scratch all this if you live in the southeast US or Utah. I feel for you. Keep the dream alive via chat rooms until you can move to a saner place. Having lived in the southeast US, I know the relief that finding like-minded people on the Internet brings when one’s day is filled with sweeping up religious tracts left by customers and avoiding arguments with emotional people who need you to ascribe to, and laud, their beliefs or politics in order to do business; definitely, a tiresome game of not offending and not being offended and not being allowed to relax socially.
@All
Though this puts in my mind the question: Would it be better framed as a hedonist-bias? Are creatives more likely to be hedonists in order to work? Framed that way, one corner has Rohmer making countless movies about whether or not a straight man should cheat according to catholic marriage, while many other filmmakers have enjoyed the pursuit of pleasure on and off screen.
Are there other sober, non-hedonist filmmakers?
There is definitely somewhere in between where Paul Schrader, Luis Bunuel, and Kevin Smith live. No-longer-religious filmmakers playing with religious ideas and not being able to give up pondering the belief system they were raised in.
Rodney…. you take offence mate where none is intended. Most of the great artists through history who were believers had little choice in the matter however. Non belief has not really been an option until relatively recently. For the record believers can make great art, it’s their interpretation of what or why that I’ll disagree with if they send it skyward. I’d rather give the credit to humans who pulled it from their own brains and experiences.
Vellaem…. well said, and anyone that mention Schrader, Bunuel and kevin Smith in the same breath has got my vote.
musycks — I knew you’d say that before you wrote it and I knew what I’d answer and here it is: you can’t say you prefer artists who don’t buy into what you call the “closed system” of religion, and then say you’re okay with it so long as they came from another time. If believers can make great art in 1609, they can make it in 2009.
I have no idea what you mean when you say “I’d rather give the credit to humans who pulled it from their own brains and experiences” — what kind of bullshit is that? All artists employ their “brains and experiences,” among other things, so I’m not sure what you’re saying.
If you’re saying you can’t deal with any art that has deep religious concerns, you’re junking a vast amount of Western Civilization, from Michaelangelo to Donne to Milton to Bach to Handel to Blake to Tolstoy to Dostoevsky and on and on and on. Do these so-called “humans who pulled it from their own brains and experiences” get more credit than they do?
Rodney.. sorry I was unclear. I did say believers can make great art, in fact art is what it is by believer or atheist. What I disagree with is the credit being given to the divine as is done by many religiously inspired artists. I think all artists create the work from within themselves, if some say they were divine conduits (like the writers of your holy books) I think they are demeaning their own abilities. There is no seperate force outside of them guiding their thoughts, the voices in their heads are their own. As I mentioned most artists in the history of western civilisation have had no choice in believing or not. Atheism is a relatively modern phenomenon.
I have not seen Crash. Nor did it seem to look very good to me.
I guess I see why people are taking away the opion of my meaning. But it isn’t what I am saying at all. It just has been my experience that that people who are strictly conservative or strictly devout FOR ME seem limited in what they appreciate.
I have a two good friends one a black man who is a deacon at his church. He watches Transformers and all sorts of action films. The other a White woman who is VERY into her Assembly of God type church who will not watch any superhero film or magic stuff because it takes stuff away from Gods power.
I have a very diverse base of people in life and I enjoy the differences in that. It sure makes for some great conversations.
I guess my main point was that some people have as you say have blinders on. And that bothers me. I on the service would say I am a liberal. But that isn’t 100 true. And there are things I don’t know how I feel about and I try to acknowledge that and investigate them to ease my mind.
I have never had an issue with people who are gay. But as I get older I find my feelings are changing. I don’t care if someone is. I have had friends in the past who were . But last night I watched Milk. And you know I really didn’t like seeing all the kissing and the sex scenes.
But I know part of this is because my ex-wife number 2 was bi. And once she left me went to a woman. So I know my feelings are from that and nothing else. So it is my experiences that led to my feelings. Not because a book says so or because the leader of my party says so.
And just when are we going to eradicate this two party system anyway?
@Musycks if an artist truly feels God has made the work though him/her If they them self feel that how can we tell them threy are wrong. At least admit that the inspartion og god is what gave them the ability to create.
Absolutely Rodney… just don’t ask me to swallow the concept when there is no evidence for it. Say you are inspired by orbiting tea pot if you must, it just doesn’t mean it’s there.
as I’ve said elsewhere… I see no evidence for God, but I do see evidence of a search for meaning.
correction……. Petronius, not Rodney for that last comment.
If there is a God, he’s evil. Believe in me and worship me, although I give you no proof of my existence. If you fail to do so, you will be cast down into the depths of Hell to suffer eternal torment.
Thank God I’m an atheist.
Musycks – Atheism might be a relatively new phenomenon, but paganism is not. While the history of Western culture has been dominated by Judeo-Christian belief systems, that does not mean that it was the only option. In fact, it’s a bit hard to assume that the majority of people were Christians, or believers if you like, because collecting vast amounts of statistical data is also a recent phenomenon. It may not even matter much if artists throughout the centuries were believers or not, because they were commissioned by believers, or people who wanted to impress the Catholic church. I don’t mean to throw this discussion too far into pre industrial history, but, having studied Church history, and it’s surrounding context in depth, I think it’s a little too broad to assume that non belief was not an option. Maybe the Catholic Church’s history of mixing it up with the state has put people in a position to profess belief in word at least, but the option to reject the church was there.
Again, I’m not saying that belief wasn’t prevalent. I am saying that belief in the Catholic church was not necessarily the only system of thought a person could buy into – even if it was the dominant system.
Artists’ “deep religious concerns” are often not to be trusted. To the extent that artists are egotists and themselves creators, an artist will often invoke God as a corollary to his own power, or as a way of taking credit for the invention of God.
But then God has always attracted power-mad individuals from all walks of life.
My gods are Tarkovsky, Ozu, Bresson. I believe only in the spirituality portrayed in the films of Ozu. I am not Christian neither Atheist, I dont believe in any religion, none of them suits me. In any case I am nearer to another concept of God that I dont find in any stupid religion I dont believe in anything except movies haha
Justin… there’s a psychological narcissistic element to most belief, tie that up with charlatans selling invisible snake oil and the sky is not even the limit.
Nathan M. you make some fine points. I am of course referring to the Judeo-Xtian-Islam god who has dominated for the last couple of thousand years in western culture. China and India notably evolved there own systems, some of which syncretised into the Xtian traditions particulary. But if the art we value post renaissance is anything to go by, most of the artists were believers and some even devout. At that time non belief was not only barely an option it was dangerous… I mean nobody expects the Spanish inquisitiion!
Genaro… I feel much more sure that Kubrick existed, so I’m happy to give him et al thanks and praise. :)
Musycks – Since you’ve thrown the Spanish Inquisition out there, I think I need to reply directly. The Inquisition (as horrible, idiotic, and blatantly un-Christian as it was) only had jurisdiction over people who claimed to be Christians. It’s purpose was not to hunt non-believers down, but to clean the church from the inside-out. The eradication of heresy was it’s goal. It targeted people who had converted from Judaism to Catholicism, and from Islam to Catholicism.
My point here, and in the last post, is to say that while Christianity has been dominate throughout the history of Western Culture, and it’s arts, it has not been the only viable option of belief. Pagan religions were fairly commonplace, and in some cases mixed with Catholic practices. I can’t speak for the artists of the renaissance, because I haven’t studied their lived in detail. My guess, however, about them would be something like this: Many were professing Catholics. Why? Well, their artwork alludes to it. Perhaps they were commissioned to paint the Madonna and Child, but being commissioned does not mean that they didn’t believe. I’d guess that for many of them belief was at least nominal. The pagan religions of A.D. Europe lack the poetry of Christian theology.
I have to cut this post short, because I’m running late. I’ll try to finish my thoughts at another time. Or not.
Technically an atheist, although I wouldn’t call myself that, it’s so… high-school.
Thanks Nathan.
Class dismissed!
Although I am not a religious person I would never call myself an atheist nor would I deny that there is a God. Why take the chance?
Here is an interesting quote from a dialogue between God and Abraham;
God begins by chiding Abraham, “If it wasn’t for Me, you wouldn’t exist.”
After a moment of thoughtful reflection, Abraham respectfully replies, “Yes, Lord, and for that I am very appreciative and grateful. However, if it wasn’t for me, You wouldn’t be Known.”
Meister Eckhart: “The eye with which I see God is the same eye by which God sees me.”
Bob is ever present.
Bill Maher’s religulous is the a movie everyone has to like and i can prove it’s good although it’s filled with masonic symbols and is a bit too Scorcesesque. Please list your five favorite Atheist films:
Religulous
Plan 9 from Outer Space
Pulp Fiction
Ordet
Garfield
You should have started and stopped with Garfield.
Ademption
@Rodney
Petronius was getting in trouble on the politics thread as well for overstating that only liberals are able to appreciate creative work.
There are religious creatives and thinkers; ditto conservatives. The art Petronius happens to pay attention to, and enjoys, confirms his view of this, and things outside seem to be labelled “not art” and his ignorance is then validated for its judicious sorting. Petronius has blinders on. Though in his defense, if he had a religious upbringing based on conservatism and religion (that you kept or moved away from in adulthood), it would better equip you to navigate these aesthetics, which are different: iconography, hagiography, subtle biblical/torah/koranic references that can be nearly imperceptible to one not inured to this sort of thing. It is indeed less accessible, the learning curve is steep, and plenty of people who didn’t learn it young see no point it doing it later. I can’t fault fans of this art, nor people who dislike it for its inaccessible nature. Art is a matter of taste and educational opportunity. Still there is rigor in religious creative work, and not in a pantheistic god-in-everything manner (“I know some artists feel God is why they paint or create”), but based on tradition, ritualized craft, self-abnegation, and religious trial.
@Petronius
Did you like Crash?
You strike me as someone who would like Crash. Open-minded, liberal, atheistic, and yet enjoying only the company of the same? Do you keep the company of only people who hold your views, who never tire of priding themselves on diversity?
It is a relief to find like-minded individuals. I can’t knock that. An atheistic-liberal circlejerk is better than facism, but is also unchallenging and self-absorbed.
(Strange caveat ahead): Though, scratch all this if you live in the southeast US or Utah. I feel for you. Keep the dream alive via chat rooms until you can move to a saner place. Having lived in the southeast US, I know the relief that finding like-minded people on the Internet brings when one’s day is filled with sweeping up religious tracts left by customers and avoiding arguments with emotional people who need you to ascribe to, and laud, their beliefs or politics in order to do business; definitely, a tiresome game of not offending and not being offended and not being allowed to relax socially.
@All
Though this puts in my mind the question: Would it be better framed as a hedonist-bias? Are creatives more likely to be hedonists in order to work? Framed that way, one corner has Rohmer making countless movies about whether or not a straight man should cheat according to catholic marriage, while many other filmmakers have enjoyed the pursuit of pleasure on and off screen.
Are there other sober, non-hedonist filmmakers?
There is definitely somewhere in between where Paul Schrader, Luis Bunuel, and Kevin Smith live. No-longer-religious filmmakers playing with religious ideas and not being able to give up pondering the belief system they were raised in.