Kimball's Mad Vision

[_beastie]

I love that painting of Joseph Smith and the - " wow - look at her " expression on his face "

Maybe he just got a glimpse of her ankle.

[_Bond...James Bond]

First, I gotta say, I love how Joseph Smith has morphed into a stud muffin. ;)

He certainly appears to be lionized and idealized a bit. And is that a glow coming off his face?

[_Sethbag]

First, I gotta say, I love how Joseph Smith has morphed into a stud muffin. ;)

Well you got the stud part right. You know, when the Lord needed to raise up a righteous generation of seed, on whom could he call to sire all that offspring? Why, Joseph Smith, of course! Only, there's not much offspring, is there? Oops, oh well, it was the thought that counts, right Joseph?

[_capt jack]

Gad:

You're on to something. In fact, the trend towards hero-worship art has only accelerated since Kimball's ascension to that great PEC meeting in the sky.

I can't figure out how to paste the image, but follow this link and go to page 83 for a Soviet-realism look at Hinckley himself preaching as a missionary.

[_Mister Scratch]

First, I gotta say, I love how Joseph Smith has morphed into a stud muffin. ;)

He certainly appears to be lionized and idealized a bit. And is that a glow coming off his face?

Quinn notes in one of the Mormon Hierarchy books that around the 1950s, during the administration of David O. McKay, the Church began to really "promote" the LDS leader as a "prophet"---i.e., Church publications began to refer to him as the "Prophet" in print (rather than "President"). Perhaps most intriguing, as Quinn states, images are sometimes altered/adjusted to emphasize this effect. Quinn references a book on Pres. Hinckley in which GBH and his wife have glowing, halo-like aureoles of light around their heads in the cover photo.

[_Mister Scratch]

Yes, Blixa, there are some serious blind-spots in SWK's remarks. But I've picked up a special interest, thanks to Scratch's insinuations, in the connections between art in the church and art under the reign of Stalin. I have a further interest in the development of Mormon art on the whole and the possibilities of "high culture" within the church.

I wonder how useful it is to consider the opposite end of the aesthetic-political spectrum: I.e., commercially-driven "art" such as dominates U.S. popular culture---I.e., art which is principally about reproducing and spreading itself (a facet of U.S. popular culture which foreign observers often complain about). In a sense, it is wholly accurate to label SWK's remarks as "mad," since he seems to want to have it both ways---art which both edifies the institutional ideology, and art which "purifies" the masses virus-style.

Scratch, I am definitely interested in your suggestion. I don't know whether you read my entire OP, I realize it's long, but I am considerably interested in art as popular consumption within Mormonism and as I noted, the Encyclopedia of Mormonism article is basically resigned to Mormon art as prolific and uninteresting. The tension you note is one that the Soviet Union also faced. Much of the art is great in a historical and technical context, but as many commentators note, stylistically static and bland. I think it's questionable whether or not the U.S.S.R succeeded in creating something of high cultural value or whether its necessity to appeal to the common man (lower the bar on art rather than raise the bar on man) undercut its efforts.

On second thought though, what exactly do you mean by, "edifying institutional ideology"?

I probably could have chosen a better word, but I simply mean that the art is meant to serve/support/enrich the principal ideology. In other words, LDS art is meant to "prop up" and support believers of Mormonism. That's the basic difference between totalitarian art vs. more classical, Aristotelian aesthetics. The former is about serving an ideology, whereas the latter is about mimesis, or serving itself. (Let's not forget Wilde's assertion that all art is "quite useless"; it can be made into a political and ideological tool, but this is a perversion of aesthetics. in my opinion, anyways; some critics will tell you that *ALL* art is political, though I strongly disagree with that.)

[_Blixa]

in my opinion, anyways; some critics will tell you that *ALL* art is political, though I strongly disagree with that.

We shall have to strongly agree to strongly disagree, then.

(of course if we drew out various ways of conceptualizing the political, I wonder if we would disagree in the final instance?)

I'd like to throw out some ideas for you to consider, Gad, but I haven't had time yet and next week I'm going to be under school preparation pressure: I'm still working on my syllabus for the Nature and Literature course I'm teaching, making final decisions about texts and essays (those silly non-academic things that are never taught at Bob Crocket U) and writing the 4 or 5 page introductory essay (another worthless piece of non-academic folderol) I begin with in such courses. But I'll try to chime in with some suggested things to look at and think about.

Right now, I'll say that I think the initial comparison (the irony of an art produced by supposedly widely variant ideologies looking identical) seems a bit obvious and easy. However, as you've continued, you've started to "thicken" your argument by bringing in some interesting specifics (the treatment of race being one), so I'm not worried that you're leaving your study where you started it. I think another historical instance to bring into the mix would be the "Entartete Kunst" (Degenerate Art) exhibit staged by the Nazis---the allusion to "degeneracy" in SWK's remarks is a nice way to bring together another set of similar ideas about aesthetics and morality. Finally, if you really pursue this in any truly developed way, you'll want to take a gander at the work of Theodor Adorno: especially the emphasis in "later" Frankfurt School work on the importance (at a particular historical juncture) of purely negative critical and aesthetic practices. (At Blixa Open University we demand that all scholarly publications contain at least one pithy citation from "Minima Moralia.")

[_Gadianton]

I don't know who is right between Scratch and Blixa, it seems to me either way SWK has a hurdle. If Scratch is right, for the reasons Scratch mentioned. If Blixa is right, then the whole enterprise of "high culture" is questionable. I would imagine those critical of modernism might have gone down that path, and since I imagined that immediately, one of the first things I did a few days ago was satisfy my curiosity over any attempts to "deconstruct" high culture (I'm talking about in the last thirty years, so not Veblen, for instance). Anyway, since we're free from the church breathing down our necks it's OK to disagree.

Blixa, I'll have to look into your suggestions. The only discursion I've had time for so far was an interesting dabble into futurism and Italy.

[_Blixa]

If Blixa is right, then the whole enterprise of "high culture" is questionable.

I see that I haven't explained myself very well. That's the trouble with trying to reply without thinking through an answer adequately. Maybe the whole issue of "political" isn't clear (I mean something more along the lines of ideological, which on one level I would use interchangeably with "politcal" while on another, I would use the two terms for different purposes). Or maybe I really do agree that the whole enterprise of "high culture"is questionable---at this juncture I would say yes and no, an answer that sure doesn't sound like anything useful at all!

Sorry to be so opaque. Its been a while since I've addressed these kind of things in quite this way, I'm more used to thinking about them in the kind of personal shorthand one uses when one is only discussing things with oneself.

Blixa, I'll have to look into your suggestions. The only discursion I've had time for so far was an interesting dabble into futurism and Italy.

I'm sure you've thought of this, but pre-stalinist soviet art (constructivism etc) might be an interesting point of contrast. And I've got James Turrell on my mind tonight since I went to see his work "Meeting" again today---some of his work with a more explicitly religious point of departure offers a very creative and non-representational, yet thoroughly grounded in the real and material, approach to what, asecular? art. Check the discussion of his work for Quaker meetinghouses on my blog...

I'd like to help you out a bit with the political nuances of the argument as well--and here I'm talking about the political ideologies "expressed" by these various works and practices, but as you know I really hold off opening that can of worms on messages boards (see the devolution in your "racism in Mormon art" thread). I consider the kind of lengthy responses necessary to adequately address the manifold and yet uniformly crude misunderstandings, provocations and hysteria generated by thought which breaches the commonsense of bourgeois society to be utlimately a diversion from doing something more useful with one's time----like taking a hot bath, going to the gym or cooking dinner. Even though discussion of the authoritarian personality (see the Is Truth Useful thread) beckons tantalizingly. Remember the fun on the Z board when wade used Adorno as a sociological support for his...whatever? Ah, the memories...

[_Gadianton]

I see that I haven't explained myself very well. That's the trouble with trying to reply without thinking through an answer adequately. Maybe the whole issue of "political" isn't clear (I mean something more along the lines of ideological, which on one level I would use interchangeably with "politcal" while on another, I would use the two terms for different purposes). Or maybe I really do agree that the whole enterprise of "high culture"is questionable---at this juncture I would say yes and no, an answer that sure doesn't sound like anything useful at all!

The mistake is mine, actually. I was skipping steps that maybe I shouldn't take for granted. It was my understanding that you meant something along the lines of ideology which I belive Scratch does too. And I just jumped to "high culture" on the "no private language" assumption that ideology is a group phenomena, and the implementation per Scratch's Aristotelian explanation would seem to leave it as somewhat of a tautology --- a society that captured the teleos just right would by definition be a "high culture". Eastern Marxists and the roots of western Marxism, e.g, George Lukacs, were quite taken with teleology per Marx and Hegel, but as I understand it, Western Marxists generally, the Frankfurt School notably, became very skeptical of the teleological approach which seemed rigid and naturally fit for totalitarianism which they resisted.

I'm sure you've thought of this, but pre-stalinist soviet art (constructivism etc) might be an interesting point of contrast. And I've got James Turrell on my mind tonight since I went to see his work "Meeting" again today---some of his work with a more explicitly religious point of departure offers a very creative and non-representational, yet thoroughly grounded in the real and material, approach to what, asecular? art. Check the discussion of his work for Quaker meetinghouses on my blog...

Well, I hadn't actually thought about that in any detail, but I'm aware of the lost potential due to state enforcement. And what I think is interesting, is that it's not like all Utah artists are forced by the church. Even at BYU, the art student culture there is very non-conformist, Barsch I barely even recognize as Mormon. Further, it's not like the church has overtly set standards for visual artists. I even attended an atonal concert at BYU that opened in prayer. Not that I really dig the stuff, but I found the performance fascinating. Not surprisingly, 3/4 of the audience rudely got up and left before it was half over. The voice of Mormon tractor realism and cult personality worship is largely emergent. It's multifacited, the authority complex of the church, the roots in western art which draw similar criticisms, the need to connect with Mormon status quo. And that last one is significant in many ways from the fact that Utah residence have no demand or appreciation of art to a strange phenomena within Mormonism to prove their humility to each other by dumbing things down. This is the Meridian effect I have yet to flesh out. The race thing is interesting because I recognize that the church is feeling the pressure to throw token "minorities" into its media, but it doesn't seem to me that popular Mormon art is doing the same.

Oh, and last, yes, let's not forget Wade's odd ZLMB contributions. How did Wade discover the difficult theorist, Theodor Adorno, who in his hands became a practical guide for de-bigotizing Mormon critics?