What is the role of art?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Student09
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Voodoo is based on the premise that you can cause harm through a symbol of that Thing. That is what you are describing. Do you believe that it works? That a pop singer can cause harm by ripping a picture?

As for the art I am just saying what a possible message maybe. If you can’t take your symbols being defaced. you are worshiping the symbol. Worshiping an idol. An Idol Worshiper.

If you are taking it all personally, that’s on you my friend.
Do you think you are worshipping a symbol when you look upon the monstrance with the body of Christ displayed in it?

Or do you think the eucharist is just a symbol?

Religious art and statues and crucifixes are symbols but they are also part of the Church which is the temple of God. They help people to imagine and remember and pray and worship and glorify God.
 
Do you think you are worshipping a symbol when you look upon the monstrance with the body of Christ displayed in it?

Religious art and statues and crucifixes are symbols but they are also part of the Church which is the temple of God. They help people to imagine and remember and pray and worship and glorify God.
The Catechism of the Council of Trent (1566) taught that idolatry is committed “by worshipping idols and images as God, or believing that they possess any divinity or virtue entitling them to our worship, by praying to, or reposing confidence in them” (374).
The Eucharist and transubstantiation aren’t relevant to this, unless you don’t believe. (non-catholic) If you are protestant and are just doing grape juice and crackers than yes. They are tools, they aren’t to be sanctified anymore than a hammer should be.

Once you have given them more significance, they become objects of worship. A manufactured crucifix, or a painting or a child’s drawing or two sticks tied together all accomplish the same thing remind us and focus us on the death and resurrection of Jesus. You can appreciate them as works of art and respect their expense but they aren’t holy. It is you that bring the significance to the object, not the object bringing significance to you.
 
Well Don, I had an opportunity to read the motivations of fine artists in an arts publication over the weekend. They were not healthy and were mostly psychological. In other words, they would take “found objects” and “repurpose” them, or they would simply try to get a reaction out of the viewer. In one case, an instructor told his students that viewers, not artists, were responsible for reacting to and defining the art.

All of this psychological nonsense means these artists produce distorted images or unrecognizable images. At some point it was decided that distortion or a collection of nondescript markings would be art. This is in contrast to artists who have a clear message to send to viewers with their art. Since art is a communications medium, I consider any art that does not have a clear message to give to the viewer as unsuccessful.

God bless,
Ed
Ed, I have to respectfully disagree with what seems to be a too-broad condemnation of art that isn’t representational. However, I may have interpreted your words incorrectly, so if that’s not what you meant, then disregard the following - or be secure in the knowledge that I’m just taking an opportunity to get on my soapbox a bit!😉

I do abstract expressionist art and I like collage and “repurposing found objects.” It doesn’t have to be done in an obscene or meaningless, nihilistic way. I don’t go for that sort of shock art, either.

In fact, I find that my colorful abstract expressionist pieces are met by enthusiasm and enjoyment by the people I’ve shown them to. People find shapes in them or the colors and patterns evoke emotional responses, and bring the viewers joy.

I think about how God placed his colorful rainbow in the clouds for Noah, and how color and pattern and the human ability to make brushstrokes that convey energy and life, or make a collage that juxtaposes different elements into a new whole through wit and intelligence, a God-given gift.
Just a coincidence, but I just started watching this series a few days ago.

catholictv.com/shows/episode-listing.aspx?seriesID=158

It seems to me that humans are the only creations that can appreciate beauty in any way, and the fact that we actually can appreciate it is a gift from God. Even if you personally can’t create music, or art, you can still see and acknowledge the beauty in it. One can also appreciate the talent, given by God to the artist.

If we can’t appreciate, or refuse to appreciate the beauty in front of us in this world, how can we ever deserve the infinite beauty of Heaven?
Very well put.

I love JPII’s Letter to Artists, btw, and thanks to the posters who provided some other interesting links from Pope Pius, which I’ll have to look up! 👍 Wonder what Pius would think of the Internet? :eek:
 
Well Don, I had an opportunity to read the motivations of fine artists in an arts publication over the weekend. They were not healthy and were mostly psychological. In other words, they would take “found objects” and “repurpose” them, or they would simply try to get a reaction out of the viewer. In one case, an instructor told his students that viewers, not artists, were responsible for reacting to and defining the art.

All of this psychological nonsense means these artists produce distorted images or unrecognizable images. At some point it was decided that distortion or a collection of nondescript markings would be art. This is in contrast to artists who have a clear message to send to viewers with their art. Since art is a communications medium, I consider any art that does not have a clear message to give to the viewer as unsuccessful.

God bless,
Ed
Thanks, Ed,

You and me both.

God loves you and yours,
Don
 
Perhaps the message is that you as the viewer are holding on to symbols as if they are the real thing. A plastic cross is still just a piece of plastic, it’s you that gives it meaning. Profaning the object, only profanes the object, not the subject. We don’t worship idols.
Hi, Jon,

I disagree with this kind of empty progressive rhetoric.
You’d probably be better off if you didn’t let people like that form your thoughts.

Merry Christmas to you and yours,
Don
 
Voodoo is based on the premise that you can cause harm through a symbol of that Thing. That is what you are describing. Do you believe that it works? That a pop singer can cause harm by ripping a picture?

As for the art I am just saying what a possible message maybe. If you can’t take your symbols being defaced. you are worshiping the symbol. Worshiping an idol. An Idol Worshiper.

If you are taking it all personally, that’s on you my friend.
More empty progressive rhetoric.
 
What is the role of art in our life (from a Catholic point of view) or in the scheme of salvation? … by “art” I don’t merely mean the visual arts but also music, literature, poetry, etc.
To instruct with delight.

God bless,
jd
 
The Eucharist and transubstantiation aren’t relevant to this, unless you don’t believe. (non-catholic) If you are protestant and are just doing grape juice and crackers than yes. They are tools, they aren’t to be sanctified anymore than a hammer should be.

Once you have given them more significance, they become objects of worship. A manufactured crucifix, or a painting or a child’s drawing or two sticks tied together all accomplish the same thing remind us and focus us on the death and resurrection of Jesus. You can appreciate them as works of art and respect their expense but they aren’t holy. It is you that bring the significance to the object, not the object bringing significance to you.
I disagree. They become part of the Church and they are sacred. it would be horrible if someone defaced a crucifix. Also icons seem to be very sacred to me. In fact, people say that icons are written by the Holy Spirit, not drawn by man. Likewise, true art is inspired by the Holy Spirit and has God written all over it, such as Giotto’s frescos, Michelangleo’s Sistine Chapel, etc, etc. Did you read the Letter to Artists by Pope John Paul?
 
Ed, I have to respectfully disagree with what seems to be a too-broad condemnation of art that isn’t representational. However, I may have interpreted your words incorrectly, so if that’s not what you meant, then disregard the following - or be secure in the knowledge that I’m just taking an opportunity to get on my soapbox a bit!😉

I do abstract expressionist art and I like collage and “repurposing found objects.” It doesn’t have to be done in an obscene or meaningless, nihilistic way. I don’t go for that sort of shock art, either.

In fact, I find that my colorful abstract expressionist pieces are met by enthusiasm and enjoyment by the people I’ve shown them to. People find shapes in them or the colors and patterns evoke emotional responses, and bring the viewers joy.

I think about how God placed his colorful rainbow in the clouds for Noah, and how color and pattern and the human ability to make brushstrokes that convey energy and life, or make a collage that juxtaposes different elements into a new whole through wit and intelligence, a God-given gift.

Very well put.

I love JPII’s Letter to Artists, btw, and thanks to the posters who provided some other interesting links from Pope Pius, which I’ll have to look up! 👍 Wonder what Pius would think of the Internet? :eek:
Thank you for your polite response. When I took art classes at a local University, it soon became apparent to me that in order to do art, I had to accept a belief system imposed on me by my instructors.
  1. In “Art Appreciation” class, students were shown a slide of a rectangular block of lucite with metal rods sticking out of it. The instructor, with great emotion, exclaimed, “This is a man’s life!” I have other examples of something in its obvious form being explained as something else
  2. In “Advanced Painting,” students would sit down next to the instructor during class with their latest work on an easel in front of them. Invariably, those who told an interesting story about their random markings received words of praise from the instructor. Those who struggled to find the words to explain the various markings or who were simply boring, received negative remarks from the instructor: “You’re not realizing your vision.” “You need to investigate your process further.”
  3. For my final exam, which was a significant part of my grade, I switched from my representational efforts to hand in a piece of canvas board with random squiggles and lines which took me 15 minutes to put together. There was no mixing of paint, just straight color from the tube.
After looking at it, my instructor said, 'Why haven’t you been doing this sort of work all along?" I promptly quit after this, realizing that I was part of a cult as opposed to receiving art training.
  1. While viewing exhibits at a local art museum, I came across a spiral of duct tape on the floor. Next to it was a small card. It read: “Please do not remove. This is art.” Obviously, those who were members of the cult and suitably indoctrinated would somehow know this was art. However, the unenlightened, such as the cleaning lady, might scrape it up off the floor - so that card was placed there.
When I returned to class, I asked my Life Drawing instructor about it. His reply? “That’s a man’s life!” Uh, huh. Cue the Twilight Zone music.

Peace,
Ed
 
Thank you for your polite response. When I took art classes at a local University, it soon became apparent to me that in order to do art, I had to accept a belief system imposed on me by my instructors.
  1. In “Art Appreciation” class, students were shown a slide of a rectangular block of lucite with metal rods sticking out of it. The instructor, with great emotion, exclaimed, “This is a man’s life!” I have other examples of something in its obvious form being explained as something else
  2. In “Advanced Painting,” students would sit down next to the instructor during class with their latest work on an easel in front of them. Invariably, those who told an interesting story about their random markings received words of praise from the instructor. Those who struggled to find the words to explain the various markings or who were simply boring, received negative remarks from the instructor: “You’re not realizing your vision.” “You need to investigate your process further.”
  3. For my final exam, which was a significant part of my grade, I switched from my representational efforts to hand in a piece of canvas board with random squiggles and lines which took me 15 minutes to put together. There was no mixing of paint, just straight color from the tube.
After looking at it, my instructor said, 'Why haven’t you been doing this sort of work all along?" I promptly quit after this, realizing that I was part of a cult as opposed to receiving art training.
  1. While viewing exhibits at a local art museum, I came across a spiral of duct tape on the floor. Next to it was a small card. It read: “Please do not remove. This is art.” Obviously, those who were members of the cult and suitably indoctrinated would somehow know this was art. However, the unenlightened, such as the cleaning lady, might scrape it up off the floor - so that card was placed there.
When I returned to class, I asked my Life Drawing instructor about it. His reply? “That’s a man’s life!” Uh, huh. Cue the Twilight Zone music.

Peace,
Ed
That’s a great story and so true of so-called artists!

I loved the Letter to Artists by Pope John Paul, where he says: “The opening page of the Bible presents God as a kind of exemplar for everyone who produces a work: the human craftsman mirrors the image of God as Creator.”

and “The theme of beauty is decisive for a discourse on art. It was already present when I stressed God’s delighted gaze upon creation. In perceiving all he had created was good, God saw that it was beautiful as well as good.”

Beauty and art and truth go hand in hand.
 
I disagree. They become part of the Church and they are sacred. it would be horrible if someone defaced a crucifix. Also icons seem to be very sacred to me. In fact, people say that icons are written by the Holy Spirit, not drawn by man. Likewise, true art is inspired by the Holy Spirit and has God written all over it, such as Giotto’s frescos, Michelangleo’s Sistine Chapel, etc, etc. Did you read the Letter to Artists by Pope John Paul?
I don’t know what to tell you. If you are giving something sacred value because of what it represents, you are practicing idolatry. You are worshiping the thing rather than what the thing represents.

All art is inspired or you wouldn’t create it. Why bother. You may be inspired by an emotion or an event or by nature, and chose to convey something by making art.

If it is inspired the holy spirit, it’s goal is to lead us to God. That’s a great thing but the thing that does it, is still a thing. Defaming the thing doesn’t hurt God.

Do you really think that mass produced plastic crosses and rosaries are sacred?
 
Thank you for your polite response. When I took art classes at a local University, it soon became apparent to me that in order to do art, I had to accept a belief system imposed on me by my instructors.
  1. In “Art Appreciation” class, students were shown a slide of a rectangular block of lucite with metal rods sticking out of it. The instructor, with great emotion, exclaimed, “This is a man’s life!” I have other examples of something in its obvious form being explained as something else
  2. In “Advanced Painting,” students would sit down next to the instructor during class with their latest work on an easel in front of them. Invariably, those who told an interesting story about their random markings received words of praise from the instructor. Those who struggled to find the words to explain the various markings or who were simply boring, received negative remarks from the instructor: “You’re not realizing your vision.” “You need to investigate your process further.”
  3. For my final exam, which was a significant part of my grade, I switched from my representational efforts to hand in a piece of canvas board with random squiggles and lines which took me 15 minutes to put together. There was no mixing of paint, just straight color from the tube.
After looking at it, my instructor said, 'Why haven’t you been doing this sort of work all along?" I promptly quit after this, realizing that I was part of a cult as opposed to receiving art training.
  1. While viewing exhibits at a local art museum, I came across a spiral of duct tape on the floor. Next to it was a small card. It read: “Please do not remove. This is art.” Obviously, those who were members of the cult and suitably indoctrinated would somehow know this was art. However, the unenlightened, such as the cleaning lady, might scrape it up off the floor - so that card was placed there.
When I returned to class, I asked my Life Drawing instructor about it. His reply? “That’s a man’s life!” Uh, huh. Cue the Twilight Zone music.

Peace,
Ed
Oh, dear. :nope: I can see why you feel the way you do, Ed. And Don, too! Hi! 👋 That sort of thing would tend to make one dismiss all abstract expressionism and non-representational art as flaky.

I got my B.A. in Creative Writing and during that took an unofficial minor, so to speak, in art - basic drawing, graphic design, etc. Then a little over a decade after that I went back to the same university, thinking to do a double major in psychology and studio arts and then go after a Master’s in Art Therapy.

Well, I eventually modified that plan, dropped the psych end of it first. The studio art department of this university, while secular, emphasized a lot of representationalism and I was frustrated because I wanted to go into abstract expression at the time.

Finances - or lack thereof - ended my time there, and then a few years afterward I decided I will just be self-taught - read books, practice, etc. And I am enjoying that. How far I will ultimately take it is up to God and me and it’s too early to tell.

I’m not saying anyone has to like the kind of art I do! 😉 But I do think there is an element of intention that comes into play.

For example, two of my favorite artists are Wassily Kandinsky and Jackson Pollock. Kandinsky had a lot of occult stuff behind his art. But I don’t have to buy into all that to enjoy looking at the interplay of color and form. Or to do something similar but with the Christian worldview I described in my earlier post.

Jackson Pollock was a troubled, cantankerous alcoholic whose life ended tragically. And his action paintings may just look like spattered paint, but I “get” his artistic vision and I like his stuff; again, I don’t have to agree with everything about how he lived his life, etc.

I could ramble on and on, but I think I’ve made my main points!😃 Ed, I’m glad you posted what you did; I had just unsubscribed from this thread because of all the back-and-forth about other stuff that IMO doesn’t seem to answer the question that the OP had posed and is only peripherally related to art. I was thinking about starting a new thread of my own, or just retreating to the relative peace and calm of my “Artistic Catholics” social group.:tanning:

So…I’ll stick around for awhile, see what happens next…:bounce:

Or I may go, because in the time it took to compose this, I got logged out, and now that I am back I see the other debates are still raging. Sigh. :rolleyes:
 
To instruct with delight.

God bless,
jd
Good art, and, therefore, a good artist, can create (with a small “c”). Good art should be, therefore, a creature. The matter should be “organic,” in a sense. And, it should produce, for the viewer, onlooker, listener, sensor, a near-mystical experience. It should explicate, to some extent, a hateful contrary.

God bless,
jd
 
Not every crucifix is blessed and not everything that is blessed is holy. e.x. blessing of the pets. Is my Dog a saint now? 😃
 
I came across this, as it relates to the last posts:

Images and Religious Articles: Many, especially before the Second Vatican Council, were accustomed to equating sacramentals with blessed objects used in private devotion such as rosary beads, scapulars, and religious images. It would be more accurate, however, to call these “devotional articles,” if we wish to follow the language used in official documents of the Magisterium since 1962. When such articles are blessed by an ordained minister according to the liturgy of the sacramentals, they are closely linked to the Church’s public, official prayer, but are nonetheless distinct from it. Non-liturgical prayers like the rosary and stations of the cross are not called sacramentals, but rather “popular devotions” or “expressions of popular piety” (SC 13 and CCC 1674-6). The term “sacramental” is applied to the rite of blessing itself, not the object blessed.

The fact that the Church formally blesses such visible aids to devotion flows from her appreciation of what the Catechism of the Catholic Church calls “the Sacramental Economy.” She understands that God, who created us body and soul, communicates his truth to us not only through ideas and words but through sensible signs as well. Through his Incarnation, the Eternal Word has forever ennobled matter, endowing it with the potential to be an instrument of his life-changing power. In commenting on the sacramental blessings of the Church, Vatican II says “There is scarcely any proper use of material things which cannot thus be directed toward the sanctification of men and the praise of God” (SC 79). Therefore, even when a sacramental blessing does not consecrate a particular visible item for religious use, it still employs some visible sign such as outstretched hands, the sign of the cross, holy water, or incensation (Book of Blessings 26, abbr. BB).

As to Christine’s quip on the St. Bernard dog … :rotfl:
 
The foundation of all art is beauty and truth. It is meant to be uplifting and instructive.

I work in a media company and act as assistant art director. I am called upon to evaluate art, especially cover art. After a sketch is approved, the artist gets the go ahead to finish it.

In nonrepresentational art, some or most of the message contained within it is held in the head of the artist. Both artists and critics have something to say about nonrepresentational art that is usually not obvious in the art itself. The following is an example of an artist talking:

“My work explores the tensions between shapes as an expression of personal internal tensions set against a backdrop of warm colors that gives my work directionality.”

The critic:

“His work embodies elements of the Dadaist perspective with a fresh take on the Cubist principles. This important work also contains some of the bold Modernist trends emerging on the art scene today with a personal, signature flair. I predict great things are ahead for this artist as he continues to surprise and delight.”

From a Catholic perspective, the role of art is as messenger. It must be identifiable to the viewer in order to communicate its message. I have no use for confusion. If the art does not fully or mostly express what the artist meant to convey then it has failed as a communications medium.

I can’t undestand why Jackson Pollock was popular. His work represented technical skill but communicated very little. Without a suitable reference point, it just sits there. For me, it is design on its way to being something, as opposed to actually being something.

Peace,
Ed
 
The foundation of all art is beauty and truth. It is meant to be uplifting and instructive.

I work in a media company and act as assistant art director. I am called upon to evaluate art, especially cover art. After a sketch is approved, the artist gets the go ahead to finish it.

In nonrepresentational art, some or most of the message contained within it is held in the head of the artist. Both artists and critics have something to say about nonrepresentational art that is usually not obvious in the art itself. The following is an example of an artist talking:

“My work explores the tensions between shapes as an expression of personal internal tensions set against a backdrop of warm colors that gives my work directionality.”

The critic:

“His work embodies elements of the Dadaist perspective with a fresh take on the Cubist principles. This important work also contains some of the bold Modernist trends emerging on the art scene today with a personal, signature flair. I predict great things are ahead for this artist as he continues to surprise and delight.”

From a Catholic perspective, the role of art is as messenger. It must be identifiable to the viewer in order to communicate its message. I have no use for confusion. If the art does not fully or mostly express what the artist meant to convey than it has failed as a communications medium.

I can’t undestand why Jackson Pollock was popular. His work represented technical skill but communicated very little. Without a suitable reference point, it just sits there. For me, it is design on its way to being something, as opposed to actually being something.

Peace,
Ed
I agree with you 100%.👍 When I look at the beautiful religious paintings of the Middle Ages and Renaissance, I can feel the presence of God in the works. They are absolutely beautiful, tell a story, and show the fruits of Christ.

When I look at an Andy Warhol or a Jackson Pollock or many other modern paintings, I see disorder, commercialism, and ugliness.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top