Mormon Art

[_Mister Scratch]

I will say that one set of LDS art which I genuinely like and admire are the unaccountably creepy sculptures at the Gilgal Gardens in SLC. These sculptures, to my mind, have a very disquieting totemic power that seems to tap into some of the fundamental strangeness at the heart of Mormonism. Has anyone else seen this stuff? One of the sculptures, for example, is a sphinx with the face of Joseph Smith. I believe there is a website, set up by the SLTrib, in which you can take a virtual tour of the Gardens.

[_Moniker]

I will say that one set of LDS art which I genuinely like and admire are the unaccountably creepy sculptures at the Gilgal Gardens in SLC. These sculptures, to my mind, have a very disquieting totemic power that seems to tap into some of the fundamental strangeness at the heart of Mormonism. Has anyone else seen this stuff? One of the sculptures, for example, is a sphinx with the face of Joseph Smith. I believe there is a website, set up by the SLTrib, in which you can take a virtual tour of the Gardens.

Oh!



My!

[_ozemc]

I will say that one set of LDS art which I genuinely like and admire are the unaccountably creepy sculptures at the Gilgal Gardens in SLC. These sculptures, to my mind, have a very disquieting totemic power that seems to tap into some of the fundamental strangeness at the heart of Mormonism. Has anyone else seen this stuff? One of the sculptures, for example, is a sphinx with the face of Joseph Smith. I believe there is a website, set up by the SLTrib, in which you can take a virtual tour of the Gardens.

That is weird stuff!

Here is the link: http://www.gilgalgarden.org/

[_huckelberry]

Blixa, you expressed a bit of puzzlement about a comment I made, I said, I do not respond very much to all that sentimentalism. I am practiced in seeing that as staying inside a small closet in back of ones mind.

The closet thing is kind of an odd image I see, I must have been rushing forward to the point I actually wanted to be critical of. I have some tolerance of sentimental art, a little that is. My tastes have been shaped by modernist rejection of 19th century sentimentalism starting back into my childhood. My father had strong opinions on such things and warped me from childhood. I was two when he showed me Matisse and explained no sentimentalism. I couple decades of my life I followed modern art rather closely but the past two I have not so much. My knowledge of currrent art is a bit limited. (I check out periodicals from time to time to see if anythng jumps at me. If it does it usually is something a few decades old, I have become fuddy duddy)

That doesn't explain the odd closet image. It came from my feelings about what it like to try to maintain a religous emotional state. It can be nice but it is a lot of work to maintain. I think it tends to produce a narrowing of concentration because a lot of experience produces emotions thoughts desires awareness that disrupts those religous feelings. I have already confessed to being a theist so I think some religous experience is valuable. I tend to think the state of relgious feelings is at best a sort of image of such experience. People can get into a pattern of trying to generate and protect those feelings or that image. That feels to me to be like trying to live in a closet in the back of the mind. Oh Lord keep me out of that dark place.

Actually I do not think sentalmentalism is even a very good image of religous faith. It was that (can you call it a sculpture?) of Christ and the woman at the well which I thought exposed some things I do not like about sentimental images.

But I am not so narrow as to think all sentimental images bad. Some just leaves me blank, EV bookstores seem fascinated with a Mr Kindcaid, I have no idea why. Compared to that Teichert seems a bit interesting and even a little bit positive.

I might expand my comment about those figures of women as not having a center. I meant they are all legs and arms in action while the body center is a lifeless undersized block shape. This could be a statement of an ideal, people devoted to work and community action not centered on self. Yet a picture makes an ideal visible. People look and cannot help but ask themselves how they react to the image. Do we want work to replace sense of self or is work something that should flow from the center of who we are?

[_The Nehor]

The "Don't watch R rated movies" thing is a myth. The only time that has been said is in a pamphlet by BKP to the young men. And, of COURSE young men shouldn't watch R movies.

It only needs to be uttered once and it takes on the sacredness of a white shirt.




by the way, for any Mormon artist out there, you are welcome to the idea of a sculpture consisting solely of a white shirt and tie as an idea.

*Hides his R-rated movies*

Yes....yes, of course.

[_The Nehor]

I will say that one set of LDS art which I genuinely like and admire are the unaccountably creepy sculptures at the Gilgal Gardens in SLC. These sculptures, to my mind, have a very disquieting totemic power that seems to tap into some of the fundamental strangeness at the heart of Mormonism. Has anyone else seen this stuff? One of the sculptures, for example, is a sphinx with the face of Joseph Smith. I believe there is a website, set up by the SLTrib, in which you can take a virtual tour of the Gardens.

That is weird stuff!

Here is the link: http://www.gilgalgarden.org/

I like. Weird and just the right amount of disturbing.

[_The Nehor]

I often wonder about the Mormon art that depicts Captain Moroni, who would put any of the bodybuilders in 300 to shame, mounted on his trusty steed. Or Joseph Smith dutifully pondering while looking at the gold plates, as if the translation process were anything like that.

You mean you haven't accepted yet that all muscular men in LDS are in fact evidence of our collective repressed homoeroticism? Get with the times.

[_Gazelam]

Huckelberry mentioned a disdain for images of Christ that make him large and overbearing. I agree, this is probably my least favorite image of Christ that I have ever seen:



he looks liek hes about to tear open his robe to reveal a superman costume underneath. Its just silly.

My newest favorite is from the recent BYU "Images of Christ"event. The Artist is listed as "Circle of Rembrandt
" I think the group were students of his if Im not mistaken.Its titled "Head of Christ":





And as for LDS artists, I think this one is just amazing, Greg Olsen's, "O Jerusalem":

[_huckelberry]

Hi Gazelam. I can see what you mean I think. Both the first and last of your picures are in same general style both are pictures of a scriptural moment. It is the last one I can feel sympaty with. I can share a moment with Chirst looking at Jerusalem. I might think of more of the story and reflect on that. I would not mind pauseing a few minutes looking at that from time to time. The first , resurrection doesn't offend me but I do not see much I can relate to. It leaves me a bit indifferent. Its a difficult subject for depiction I think. We can identify with and share a bit of Jesus's experience during his life. The moment of resurection is outside of our experience so is harder to relate to. It might be easier to depict the road to Emmaus meeting, we can share that a bit more.

[_Blixa]

Thanks for the thoughtful reply, huck! I liked your phrase about the closet, I just wasn't sure how you were wanting the metaphor to work out. But it makes sense to me now and its ambiguity is kind of its strength now that I think about it.

Our early exposure to art is probably kind of similar: my Dad was interested in Primitivist sculpture: he actually carved versions of African funerary fetishes with hammered brass and wrapped wire and such, because he liked them so. Of course his taste was formed by that very Modernist impulse you spoke of in your "art education" as well. I don't think I had "no sentimentalism" laid out as a law, but it was certainly highly implied.

Contemporary art is hard to navigate cold: there's just so much and the kind of situations that have produced it (social, economic, global, local, etc. etc.) are themselves complex. But on the other hand, anything takes some time to learn about and familiarize yourself with. Of course it helps to be able to see the things themselves (as opposed to reproductions): the sheer physicality of art is easy to forget if you don't get to "interact" with it. And that's the part I like.