My disagreement is that the ‘dove’ is a poor example to illustrate Incense’s point, because the ‘dove’ is a literal representation of God. So would a burning bush, as you pointed out… contrary to your own interests in this discussion. I never said that only literal representations should be used–only that the ‘dove’ is a terrible example of a symbolic representation.
Again, that’s besides the point. Literal manifestation or not, if it becomes a subject of symbolism then that significance should be thrown out forthwith. Again, you’re the one not reading here. Suppose I was a famous pianist known for having a hook for a hand, just the same way God once made himself recognizable ala Burning Bush. That is also another literal manifestation. Does that make the hook-for-a-hand a symbol of classical piano now? No.
So you are the person who puts the boundaries on the Church?
Oh yes, let the Church run things like they did in the Middle Ages. Those were grand times. Let’s have clerical leaders in political and influential positions again outside their station. I’m sure my countrymen would like to return to the system that enslaved them for 300 years (both in the fields of art as well science and education).
Do you think that art exhibiting theological, moral, or spiritual truths is somehow untouchable by the organ that issued these truths?
Does that same organ of theology try to change facts of science in a subject such as evolutionary biology to suit its truths? Make no mistake, you can keep these abstract, formless concepts of theological, moral, and spiritual truths. The methods, mechanics, and means giving them artistic form however are just for rent. There’s a reason why the Pope commissioned even the most controversial artists back during the Renaissance instead of doing most of the painting himself.
The Cross is an unbelievably complex and fruitful image in both theology and religious art. I’m not sure where you’re going with your last ‘magic’ sentence, but I believe that its possible to reject the Cross and effectively reject Christianity.
No, it’s just two sticks placed together to form perpendicular angles. Ironically, the history of this symbol has ranged from that of terror-inspiring execution to now a symbol of faith.
However, contrary to the fantasy of Christian children’s stories, putting a cross on something does not make it any more holy than stuffing your head in a shelf makes it a book.
You’re actually confusing possibility with necessity, two very different things that are of paramount importance for someone trying to make sense. I said that representations can possibly pervert, &c. … not that they must necessarily pervert, &c.
Yet the general tone of your responses leans heavily to the opposition that symbolism and art are relative. I mean look at your posts for once why don’t you? You try to justify some inherent magical quality of one symbol (the cross) and then go further by criticizing my responses to unafraid right below. It doesn’t matter how you differentiate yourself. That difference is slight from how you’re presenting your case at the moment.
You seem to want everyone to lump themselves and their ideas into absolute categories, so that you can understand them more easily. I’m sorry, but that’s not the way people or ideas work.
For someone who doesn’t like to put himself into a category, you certainly don’t have any unique reasoning.
This is a utilitarian consideration, and not an aesthetic consideration. Therefore its yet another equivocation, and manages to COMPLETELY MISS the point of Unafraid’s argument.
And you think utilitarian desires don’t play a role in human taste? Common sense would actually tell you the reverse. These kids want money, no matter how dirty, over bread, no matter how nice, white, and round.
It’s the same even with well-off adults. I for one find sunshine and meadows so… eeeugh.
Smoldering battlefields are actually more common; but given the tone of this comment, you probably haven’t seen one.
One need not see a real one to appreciate art that depicts radical images of such scenarios. I’d even go as far as to say that fictionalized ones beat the real deal any day. For one thing, real battlefield imagery doesn’t have subjects pulsing power from their fingertips while surrounded by fallen corpses of grunts and minions sent to subdue them.
I’d rather identify myself with those than an empty meadow that’s so devoid of any rush that I feel someone trapped me in a crystal and designated such a place for a ‘fitting prison’.
Basic logic of racism.
Fair skin = Good
Dark skin = devil
This doesn’t make all criticism that takes the form of, ‘I like/reject/support/&c. because of x,’ a bad argument.
When it comes to justifying absolutism in art, such a format is automatically a bad argument.
