Mormonism is a cult

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
User avatar
Moksha
God
Posts: 5810
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:13 am
Location: Koloburbia

Re: Mormonism is a cult

Post by Moksha »

Morley wrote:
Wed May 31, 2023 3:37 pm
Agree. Though I've come pretty close to forking out for this one of Balzac:

Image
The Balzac piece was one of the four BYU refused to display due to nudity. The fifth piece, The Thinker, was rejected for fear it could give members ideas.
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
User avatar
Physics Guy
God
Posts: 1557
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 7:40 am
Location: on the battlefield of life

Re: Mormonism is a cult

Post by Physics Guy »

Morley wrote:
Wed May 31, 2023 1:47 pm
You see art as something that's primarily transactional.
I didn't really mean to say that. I'm just triggered by artists crying about being canceled, and that Guardian article hit the grating note. It's a "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's" point, in my mind. Whatever art may be in itself, if it brings money and acclaim then those are given by the audience at its own sole discretion. Maybe the fame and wealth are just rewards for creating great things, but that's not actually guaranteed. The real bottom line, for hack and genius alike, is that people clap and pay, or do not, because they want to, or don't. If people boo and stop attending your shows, there is no court of appeal. You live and die by the passed hat.

So for me the death of the author is only one side of the coin. On that side, sure, your works mean whatever your audience finds them to mean, regardless of what you think they mean. The flip side, though, is that your audience is perfectly well allowed to interpret your work in light of what they believe about you, if that's what they want. An artist cannot force their audience to consider creator and artwork together, but neither can an artist prevent the audience from doing that if it wants. Readers can bracket out the author's appalling politics and enjoy the story, or be moved to tears by stumbling prose because it's authentic. They're equally allowed to conclude that a hero can't write, or burn their copies of a great novel when the author is convicted of rape.

I think there can even be some shrewd sense in keeping the artist's personal life in mind when contemplating their art. It's kind of like voting for political candidates based on character rather than policies: you're thinking about how they may react to unknown future crises. With some kinds of art, appreciation is a long process, and you don't always know where it's going to go in the future. The painting might hang on your wall for years before you notice that thing about it. The whole story might suddenly change on your fourth re-reading—or when you read some other book. Depending on what you know of the artist's character, you might be confident that these later discoveries will only make the work better, or you might be worried that the piece will fail to age well because a person like that might very well have produced something that looks deeper at first than it is.
I was a teenager before it was cool.
User avatar
Morley
God
Posts: 1560
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 6:17 pm
Location: detail from Alice Neel's 1980 self portrait

Re: Mormonism is a cult

Post by Morley »

Morley wrote:
Wed May 31, 2023 1:47 pm
You see art as something that's primarily transactional.
Physics Guy wrote:
Thu Jun 01, 2023 7:45 am
I didn't really mean to say that. I'm just triggered by artists crying about being canceled, and that Guardian article hit the grating note. It's a "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's" point, in my mind. Whatever art may be in itself, if it brings money and acclaim then those are given by the audience at its own sole discretion. Maybe the fame and wealth are just rewards for creating great things, but that's not actually guaranteed. The real bottom line, for hack and genius alike, is that people clap and pay, or do not, because they want to, or don't. If people boo and stop attending your shows, there is no court of appeal. You live and die by the passed hat.

From what you continue to write, it still appears that you see the motivation to create art as primarily transactional. I don't agree. Most of the art that's created receives little acclaim or remuneration. Artists keep making art anyway.

George Ohr, Vincent Van Gogh, and Emily Dickinson all produced huge bodies of work despite their lack of accolades. Their value (either then or now) did not 'live or die by the passed hat.'

Art is everywhere. You're going to continue to consume art whether you pay for it or not. Artists are everywhere. Many of them will continue to produce art whether they receive money or praise for their art or not.
Physics Guy wrote:
Thu Jun 01, 2023 7:45 am
So for me the death of the author is only one side of the coin. On that side, sure, your works mean whatever your audience finds them to mean, regardless of what you think they mean. The flip side, though, is that your audience is perfectly well allowed to interpret your work in light of what they believe about you, if that's what they want. An artist cannot force their audience to consider creator and artwork together, but neither can an artist prevent the audience from doing that if it wants. Readers can bracket out the author's appalling politics and enjoy the story, or be moved to tears by stumbling prose because it's authentic. They're equally allowed to conclude that a hero can't write, or burn their copies of a great novel when the author is convicted of rape.

Barthes' 'death of the author' idea was that a work could be considered on its own, sans artist's intent. Bakhtin took this further, suggesting that there's always a dialogue between the work of art and the consumer, that a piece's meaning could and would change according to the culture and context in which it was viewed. That there's a dialogue doesn't mean that all interpretation is left up to the viewer.

In 1991, billboards started appearing in the United States. They featured the pillows and sheets of an empty bed.

Image

The artist, Felix Gonzalez-Torres, was making a political statement about the AIDS epidemic and the loss felt by those who had been left behind as their partners died. Read without artist intent, the billboard meant little, but as part of the dialogue that developed about what the posters were supposed to represent, the work became a powerful artistic and political statement.

You're right that an artist cannot force their public to see or understand what their works or intent might be. Artist know and appreciate that. They also know that any number of book bans will not necessarily blunt or (if you will) 'cancel' their messages. Sometimes it's the case that censorship sharpens the dialogue between art, artist, and viewer. Artists know this and will for that reason will often engage in ways that are provocative.

Physics Guy wrote:
Thu Jun 01, 2023 7:45 am
I think there can even be some shrewd sense in keeping the artist's personal life in mind when contemplating their art. It's kind of like voting for political candidates based on character rather than policies: you're thinking about how they may react to unknown future crises. With some kinds of art, appreciation is a long process, and you don't always know where it's going to go in the future. The painting might hang on your wall for years before you notice that thing about it. The whole story might suddenly change on your fourth re-reading—or when you read some other book. Depending on what you know of the artist's character, you might be confident that these later discoveries will only make the work better, or you might be worried that the piece will fail to age well because a person like that might very well have produced something that looks deeper at first than it is.

We look for good character in political candidates because it may predict how that official will react after she's elected. Good character in a scientist or artist says little about their work. James Watson is racist prick, but his work on decoding DNA is still celebrated. Paul Gauguin was a moral degenerate, but the transcendent beauty of his work is undeniable.

But you're right about assessment in art changing over time as being part of the ongoing and ever-changing dialogue between the work and the viewer of said work.

What does all of this have to say about the OP? I'm going to venture that the more cultish an organization is, the more they try to control the artistic message. The CoJCoLDS tears the wings off of angels and covers up bare shoulders in its effort to police artistic expression.
User avatar
Doctor CamNC4Me
God
Posts: 8979
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 2:04 am

Re: Mormonism is a cult

Post by Doctor CamNC4Me »

Going back to Morley’s art example for a second
To do anything less than create a narrative for his actions would brand Bertram as an idiot. And no man wants to be thought of as an idiot by either his wife or the rest of the world
This reminds me of the quip (it’s accuracy is, of course, debatable):

“Women need a reason to have sex. Men just need a place.” — Billy Crystal

Perhaps Joseph Smith just really wanted to cat around, and it seems to me a “church” that introduced secret initiations and legitimacy to have sex with women and kids was a good way to get access to that. Emma, after all, didn’t learn about this until Joseph Smith got 20 wives, willingly or otherwise, to marry him and ostensibly do what people do in marriage.

Nowadays I view Mormons much like the painter painting trees, not giving much thought about it all, until they’re asked about it. Are they cultists? Probably not until they have to think about it. If they keep coughing up money and fealty to the billion dollar corporation after having given the matter some thout, that’s when I think they cross the Rubicon.

- Doc
Hugh Nibley claimed he bumped into Adolf Hitler, Albert Einstein, Winston Churchill, Gertrude Stein, and the Grand Duke Vladimir Romanoff. Dishonesty is baked into Mormonism.
Post Reply