DiscussMormonism.com

BYU seems to have a strained relationship with the arts, even going so far as to censor classical nude sculpture. That seems indicative of the culture in general.

It seems like Mormonism doesn't really have a tradition of really good literature, artwork or music (composition). Is that because in order to be a good artist you have to push boundaries, and boundary pushing is a no-no for active Mormons? Would an artistic mind find Mormonism too constraining?

Thoughts?

Buffalo wrote:BYU seems to have a strained relationship with the arts, even going so far as to censor classical nude sculpture. That seems indicative of the culture in general.

It seems like Mormonism doesn't really have a tradition of really good literature, artwork or music (composition). Is that because in order to be a good artist you have to push boundaries, and boundary pushing is a no-no for active Mormons? Would an artistic mind find Mormonism too constraining?

Thoughts?

I'm an illustrator, so I can only speak to the visual arts. I'd love to be able to comment about the musical arts, but I can't hold a tune.

For me, there is a difference between art and illustration. Illustration is creating images to please a client that demonstrates something that the client wants to graphically show (that's what I do). Tom Lovell is a Mormon illustrator. His work is technically excellent, but it has no artistic soul. He may have made great art for his own pleasure, but I haven't seen any.

Art (I think) is the expression of an artist's unique view of the world through whatever medium the artist works in. Most great artists (maybe all) are nonconformists. Their art displays a radical difference from what most people see. That's what makes it compelling.

Nonconformity is anathema to the LDS church. No budding artist who is also a faithful Mormon can bridge that gap. The choice is to be an artist or to be religious.

As someone that regularly views alot of art, i think that it would be very constraining. The physical form has alot to show in forms of beauty and skill of nearly every facet of artistry. Its really really hard to draw things that are real. Which is why alot of art classes have nude drawing just to get that kind of basics of form correct.

The church is so pent up on stamping down on sexuality that they overspill into areas that can be beautiful without being erotic. I find it disheartening that there are friends that like art but that i cannot show my fave artists to because they are too paranoid about what could be considered porn.

Interesting topic. Really.

Worth a serious discussion somewhere.

I also agree with you quasimodo. Conformity is a huge detractor.

Daniel Peterson wrote:Interesting topic. Really.

Worth a serious discussion somewhere.

Hey Doc! I was kind of hoping this was a serious discussion. Maybe you could push it in that direction if you don't feel it's quite there, yet.

Daniel Peterson wrote:Interesting topic. Really.

Worth a serious discussion somewhere.

Feel free to contribute to one any time.

There have been some interesting threads here on this topic in the past. Yes, I think that Mormonism's frequently stultifying culture has had a really toxic influence on the arts, though I think this is most apparent in the dramatic/narrative arts. The impact extends into matters of taste, too, and not just creation. If you've got General Authorities telling people that they shouldn't watch R-rated movies, it's going to affect people's ability to understand aesthetics in a full and rich way. Think, too, about apologists who have been going around posting only negative reviews of the "Book of Mormon" musical. It's a form of closed-mindedness and it's really unfortunate.

I do think it's an interesting topic, but -- and I'm being quite honest -- I don't think that a serious conversation on it is possible here.

Too bad.

I'm far from uncritical on the topic of Mormonism and the arts, and it's a topic that interests me very much. I don't think the situation is as bad as some here seek to portray, but I'm not even remotely content with it, either.

There has been, and continues to be, some good Mormon art, and a lot of very bad Mormon art, in all categories.

Doctor Scratch wrote:Think, too, about apologists who have been going around posting only negative reviews of the "Book of Mormon" musical. It's a form of closed-mindedness and it's really unfortunate.

Which, of course, means that you're supposed to think about me.

Scratch almost always brings every conversation around to me eventually.

A few years ago, he was even lamenting my conventional, conformist, unadventurous, hyper-orthodox, middle-brow, vanilla sensibilities in literature, art, music, and film -- despite the fact that he actually knows little or nothing about what those tastes are.

I'm just generally bad.

Daniel Peterson wrote:I do think it's an interesting topic, but -- and I'm being quite honest -- I don't think that a serious conversation on it is possible here.

Too bad.

I'm far from uncritical on the topic of Mormonism and the arts, and it's a topic that interests me very much. I don't think the situation is as bad as some here seek to portray, but I'm not even remotely content with it, either.

There has been, and continues to be, some good Mormon art, and a lot of very bad Mormon art, in all categories.

Could you expand on that?