Mormon "art", and religious art in general

[_bcspace]

One of the really low practices I see is the marketing of "Mormon Art". Friburg and others play on the heartstrings of fools in their work to separate these fools from their money. It is all about the money. Religious art in general is the same. Rarely inspired work it is designed to be warm, touchy-feely and is for the most part not fine art by any stretch of the imagination.

It is designed to be a puff piece. Propaganda designed to sell and make money.

Most of it is crap and those producing it are rip-off artists preying on gullible fools.

So the government shouldn't be involved in funding the arts? I agree.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I think this is a genuinely good and sincere post from you, Dan. Thank you. It's refreshing.

I don't know whether your comment was meant as a serious compliment or not. I'm inclined to think No, since it falsely suggests that most of my posts are bad and insincere. I'm reasonably sure that that's what you think, but, on that, you are and have always been spectacularly wrong.

You know, Eugene England once suggested that the first truly great literary artist in Mormonism would wind up getting excommunicated. Do you agree with that statement?

No. I can't see any particular reason why it should be so.

Do you think that the conservatism of Mormonism tends to be a drawback when it comes to the narrative and dramatic arts?

I think that the conservatism of dominant Mormon culture may tend to be a drawback, along with the fact that much Mormon art has been the province of the official Church rather than of independent patrons. (My wife and I have tried to break that mold in our very minor way, as noted above; we've even commissioned three small musical compositions, two instrumental and one the setting of a poem from ancient Egypt.)

Hence why folks such as Richard Dutcher, Neil LaBute, and Brian Evensen all left the Church?

I'm not quite sure why all three left the Church. Richard Dutcher's reasons, so far as I understand them, were not artistic in any really obvious way. I haven't paid much attention to Neil LaBute, but, from what I've seen of his work, he strikes me as a misogynist. (I'm not a fan.) Brian Evensen explicitly justified his departure from the Church on the basis of artistic reasons, but they made little sense to me. Perhaps I just wasn't very sympathetic: I found his novel Altmann's Tongue genuinely repulsive and depraved.




.

[_Mister Scratch]

I think this is a genuinely good and sincere post from you, Dan. Thank you. It's refreshing.

I don't know whether your comment was meant as a serious compliment or not.

It was.

I'm inclined to think No, since it falsely suggests that most of my posts are bad and insincere. I'm reasonably sure that that's what you think, but, on that, you are and have always been spectacularly wrong.

I do think that quite a few of your posts are "insincere" and "bad" in one way or another, but I didn't really feel that way about this particular post.

You know, Eugene England once suggested that the first truly great literary artist in Mormonism would wind up getting excommunicated. Do you agree with that statement?

No. I can't see any particular reason why it should be so.

I've been under the impression that England felt that, for a Mormon literary artist to develop fully, it would involve delving into territory that the official Church wouldn't much like. Again I refer to Evensen, who was pressured out of BYU after a student "ratted" him out to the GAs, complaining of "a darkness" in his work. I agree that Evensen's work is quite dark; but ought this be grounds for booting him out of BYU, or alienating him from the Church? Is there a place within the Church to explore the darker aspects of life? If the portions of The Brothers Karamazov dealing with the cruelty of God were featured within the context of a novel explicitly about the LDS Church, would the Brethren tolerate it?

Do you think that the conservatism of Mormonism tends to be a drawback when it comes to the narrative and dramatic arts?

I think that the conservatism of dominant Mormon culture may tend to be a drawback, along with the fact that much Mormon art has been the province of the official Church rather than of independent patrons.

I would agree with you there.

(My wife and I have tried to break that mold in our very minor way, as noted above; we've even commissioned three small musical compositions, two instrumental and one the setting of a poem from ancient Egypt.)

Well, I applaud your patronage of the arts, Professor P. And yes: I do genuinely mean that.

Hence why folks such as Richard Dutcher, Neil LaBute, and Brian Evensen all left the Church?

I'm not quite sure why all three left the Church. Richard Dutcher's reasons, so far as I understand them, were not artistic in any really obvious way. I haven't paid much attention to Neil LaBute, but, from what I've seen of his work, he strikes me as a misogynist. (I'm not a fan.) Brian Evensen explicitly justified his departure from the Church on the basis of artistic reasons, but they made little sense to me. Perhaps I just wasn't very sympathetic: I found his novel Altmann's Tongue genuinely repulsive and depraved.

.

Things like misogyny and depravity are part of life, though. And, as I noted above, Evensen felt that he could not examine these parts of the human condition within the confines of the Church. I've only read parts of Altmann's Tongue---and wasn't it a short story collection rather than a novel?---so I cannot comment on that, though I have read The Parted Veil [I believe that's the name of it] and I thought it wasn't half bad. Have you read it? It is about a young man who winds up getting "infected" by the evil inherent in an aspect of Mormon history.

Perhaps the sense---embodied in your above comment---that artists ought to be forbidden from exploring certain things is what prevents the arts from flourishing within LDS culture?

[_Daniel Peterson]

I do think that quite a few of your posts are "insincere" and "bad" in one way or another

And I sincerely think that you're borderline insane, so I guess I can't really complain.

I've been under the impression that England felt that, for a Mormon literary artist to develop fully, it would involve delving into territory that the official Church wouldn't much like.

I'm not really familiar with what Gene thought about that subject.

If your summary is correct, though, I disagree.

Again I refer to Evensen, who was pressured out of BYU after a student "ratted" him out to the GAs, complaining of "a darkness" in his work.

I know little to nothing of that story, and wonder if it's altogether true. In some analogous cases of which I'm personally aware, the commonly accepted stories are largely false.

I agree that Evensen's work is quite dark; but ought this be grounds for booting him out of BYU, or alienating him from the Church?

I don't know who "alienated" him from the Church, or even whether anybody actually did.

As for "booting him out of BYU," again, I just don't know the story well enough to judge, and don't trust popular legends about these things quite enough to draw conclusions.

I will say that, when he become controversial, I immediately marched out to buy a copy of his novel. I was prepared to defend him, since I do think that Mormon culture tends to be too artistically conservative. But both my wife and I -- neither of us particularly squeamish, both of us serious about serious art -- found his writing genuinely revolting. I couldn't really muster much enthusiasm for coming to his defense. And I wondered whether the University might not be right to feel uncomfortable being associated with his work.

Face it: If somebody writes something problematic at Harvard or Berkeley, nobody holds Harvard or Berkeley (let alone, in the latter case, the state of California), responsible for the work. But the work of professors at BYU is often taken, rightly or (as I think) wrongly, to reflect directly on the Church. (Case in point: I received a telephone call just this morning from a rather powerful individual with ties to the leaders of various Near Eastern countries, concerned that, if a certain speaker were allowed on campus, those leaders might be offended and hold it against the University as a whole and against the Church. I offered as robust a defense of variety in viewpoints at an academic institution as I was able, and said that, anyway, I could -- and would -- do nothing to block the speaker from coming.)

Is there a place within the Church to explore the darker aspects of life?

Certainly. And dramatists like Tom Rogers (on Huebner and the Mountain Meadows Massacre) and Tim Slover (on Liberty Jail) and historians like Ron Walker, Richard Turley, and Glen Leonard (on the Mountain Meadows Massacre), among others, have done it.

If the portions of The Brothers Karamazov dealing with the cruelty of God were featured within the context of a novel explicitly about the LDS Church, would the Brethren tolerate it?

Some would be more receptive than others. They're not a monolith.

Things like misogyny and depravity are part of life, though.

I agree, and I think they should be treated.

I don't dislike LaBute's work because he treats misogyny. I dislike it because he seems to me to be a misogynist.

I know that Brian Evensen said he was trying to examine depravity, which would be legitimate. But his work, to me, seemed actually depraved. I was surprised by it, and disliked it intensely.

And, as I noted above, Evensen felt that he could not examine these parts of the human condition within the confines of the Church. I've only read parts of Altmann's Tongue---and wasn't it a short story collection rather than a novel?

Yes, it was. It's been ages since I've looked at it.

so I cannot comment on that, though I have read The Parted Veil [I believe that's the name of it] and I thought it wasn't half bad. Have you read it? It is about a young man who winds up getting "infected" by the evil inherent in an aspect of Mormon history.

I haven't read it.

Perhaps the sense---embodied in your above comment---that artists ought to be forbidden from exploring certain things is what prevents the arts from flourishing within LDS culture?

I've said absolutely not a word about "forbidding" artists from exploring anything -- although I do think that there are limits to what a Mormon artist can legitimately do as a serious disciple. (A genuinely Mormon pornography is almost as inconceivable to me as a seriously Mormon snuff film.)

[_Gadianton]

found his novel Altmann's Tongue genuinely repulsive and depraved.

Interesting. I was required to read it as a Freshman at BYU. Maybe that's why I am the way I am today?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Interesting. I was required to read it as a Freshman at BYU. Maybe that's why I am the way I am today?

Wouldn't be surprised.

[_Mister Scratch]

I agree that Evensen's work is quite dark; but ought this be grounds for booting him out of BYU, or alienating him from the Church?

I will say that, when he become controversial, I immediately marched out to buy a copy of his novel. I was prepared to defend him, since I do think that Mormon culture tends to be too artistically conservative. But both my wife and I -- neither of us particularly squeamish, both of us serious about serious art -- found his writing genuinely revolting. I couldn't really muster much enthusiasm for coming to his defense. And I wondered whether the University might not be right to feel uncomfortable being associated with his work.

This is sort of what I'm getting at. What "controversial" Mormon art can you envision? Does something like Big Love count? Frankly, the notion of "controversial Mormon art" seems rather like an oxymoron, doesn't it? You say that you are interested in non-squeamish LDS art, but what would that look like?

But the work of professors at BYU is often taken, rightly or (as I think) wrongly, to reflect directly on the Church. (Case in point: I received a telephone call just this morning from a rather powerful individual with ties to the leaders of various Near Eastern countries, concerned that, if a certain speaker were allowed on campus, those leaders might be offended and hold it against the University as a whole and against the Church. I offered as robust a defense of variety in viewpoints at an academic institution as I was able, and said that, anyway, I could -- and would -- do nothing to block the speaker from coming.)

Well, that's fine, and your actions were laudable, but I wonder more about whether or not the Church itself is somehow limiting to artistic expression. You yourself have admitted that there tends to be a bit too much "squeamishness" among TBMs... So, obviously outsiders such as these "leaders of various Near Eastern countries" aren't the (sole) thing holding the LDS artists back. And, besides: Why should LDS artists feel worried about the fact that they might be so "judged" by outsiders? Your statement seems to suggest that all LDS artists ought to feel the burden of the institutional Church---i.e., that they all, in one way or another, ought to feel like they are constantly "representing" the Church....

Is there a place within the Church to explore the darker aspects of life?

Certainly. And dramatists like Tom Rogers (on Huebner and the Mountain Meadows Massacre) and Tim Slover (on Liberty Jail) and historians like Ron Walker, Richard Turley, and Glen Leonard (on the Mountain Meadows Massacre), among others, have done it.

Well, we're not exactly talking about historians here.

If the portions of The Brothers Karamazov dealing with the cruelty of God were featured within the context of a novel explicitly about the LDS Church, would the Brethren tolerate it?

Some would be more receptive than others. They're not a monolith.

Of course, of course. But, wouldn't you agree that this likely wouldn't go over well among the "flock"?

Things like misogyny and depravity are part of life, though.

I agree, and I think they should be treated.

I don't dislike LaBute's work because he treats misogyny. I dislike it because he seems to me to be a misogynist.

???? Do you also hate Wagner's music because Wagner was an anti-semite?

I know that Brian Evensen said he was trying to examine depravity, which would be legitimate. But his work, to me, seemed actually depraved. I was surprised by it, and disliked it intensely.

Well, "beauty" (as it were) is in the eye of the beholder, as they say. But do you think that your reaction---assuming, for the sake of discussion, that your reactions represents a typical TBM reaction, or even a more educated and somewhat more liberal TBM reaction---constitutes legitimate grounds for distancing Evensen from BYU, or the Church?

Perhaps the sense---embodied in your above comment---that artists ought to be forbidden from exploring certain things is what prevents the arts from flourishing within LDS culture?

I've said absolutely not a word about "forbidding" artists from exploring anything

Well, I meant "forbidding" within the context of still remaining a TR-carrying TBM.

-- although I do think that there are limits to what a Mormon artist can legitimately do as a serious disciple. (A genuinely Mormon pornography is almost as inconceivable to me as a seriously Mormon snuff film.)

Those are awfully hyperbolic examples, Professor P. Why not stick to the much more relevant examples listed above: Dutcher, LaBute, and Evensen? You seem to think that at least two of these three represent artistic expression that exceeds the limits of the Church. Right?

[_Daniel Peterson]

What "controversial" Mormon art can you envision? Does something like Big Love count?

I don't regard Big Love as serious art.

Frankly, the notion of "controversial Mormon art" seems rather like an oxymoron, doesn't it?

Not to me, no.

You say that you are interested in non-squeamish LDS art, but what would that look like?

If I could create it, I would be a Mormon artist.

Why should LDS artists feel worried about the fact that they might be so "judged" by outsiders? Your statement seems to suggest that all LDS artists ought to feel the burden of the institutional Church---i.e., that they all, in one way or another, ought to feel like they are constantly "representing" the Church....

I said nothing about whether they ought to feel that way. I think it's pretty likely that people -- in and out of Mormonism -- will often regard them as representing the Church.

But, wouldn't you agree that this likely wouldn't go over well among the "flock"?

It probably wouldn't.

But great art is seldom really popular. I don't see paperbacks of Dante or Milton or Kafka or Fitzgerald or even Seamus Heaney or Czesław Miłosz on sale at supermarket checkout lines.

Do you also hate Wagner's music because Wagner was an anti-semite?

Wagner was a swine in many regards, but that's not the point.

If anti-Semitism were a central theme or undercurrent of Wagner's music, I would dislike it, yes.

As it is, I'm something of a Wagnerian. I've attended several of his operas, including a San Francisco Ring cycle and a relatively recent Metropolitan Opera performance of Parzifal. I first saw Tannhäuser on my mission, at the Zürich opera house.

But do you think that your reaction---assuming, for the sake of discussion, that your reactions represents a typical TBM reaction, or even a more educated and somewhat more liberal TBM reaction---constitutes legitimate grounds for distancing Evensen from BYU, or the Church?

Possibly the former. Not the latter.

Evensen didn't have the BYU equivalent of tenure when he left. People are let go from BYU and other colleges and universities for all sorts of reasons prior to the achievement of tenure. This is pretty routine. Once tenure is granted, a school is essentially stuck with the faculty member for perhaps three decades or even more, so people who aren't a good fit are often let go at the end of their yearly contract before it becomes difficult to do so.

I've said absolutely not a word about "forbidding" artists from exploring anything

Well, I meant "forbidding" within the context of still remaining a TR-carrying TBM.

I've said nothing about that.

Why not stick to the much more relevant examples listed above: Dutcher, LaBute, and Evensen? You seem to think that at least two of these three represent artistic expression that exceeds the limits of the Church. Right?

Not precisely, no.

[_Mister Scratch]

What "controversial" Mormon art can you envision? Does something like Big Love count?

I don't regard Big Love as serious art.

How come? What about Big Love disqualifies it?

Frankly, the notion of "controversial Mormon art" seems rather like an oxymoron, doesn't it?

Not to me, no.

Well, please elaborate, then. I'm curious to know what you imagine "controversial Mormon art" to be. Would it be something like Tony Kushner's Angels in America, which depicts an LDS guy struggling with his repressed homosexuality? Or, would that be verboten, within the context of the Church?

What about the guy who won the Academy Award for Best Screenplay---the gay LDS guy who idolized Harvey Milk? Acceptably controversial? Or problematic?

You say that you are interested in non-squeamish LDS art, but what would that look like?

If I could create it, I would be a Mormon artist.

I'm not asking you to create anything. I'm just curious where the controversy would occur. Obviously, the "controversy" is going to involve the pushing of boundaries, right? What are those boundaries? What are the limits?

Why should LDS artists feel worried about the fact that they might be so "judged" by outsiders? Your statement seems to suggest that all LDS artists ought to feel the burden of the institutional Church---i.e., that they all, in one way or another, ought to feel like they are constantly "representing" the Church....

I said nothing about whether they ought to feel that way. I think it's pretty likely that people -- in and out of Mormonism -- will often regard them as representing the Church.

Meaning...what? How and why should that have any bearing whatsoever on the artists' creations?

But, wouldn't you agree that this likely wouldn't go over well among the "flock"?

It probably wouldn't.

But great art is seldom really popular. I don't see paperbacks of Dante or Milton or Kafka or Fitzgerald or even Seamus Heaney or Czesław Miłosz on sale at supermarket checkout lines.

That's true, though I wasn't referring to popularity, per se.

But do you think that your reaction---assuming, for the sake of discussion, that your reactions represents a typical TBM reaction, or even a more educated and somewhat more liberal TBM reaction---constitutes legitimate grounds for distancing Evensen from BYU, or the Church?

Possibly the former. Not the latter.

Evensen didn't have the BYU equivalent of tenure when he left. People are let go from BYU and other colleges and universities for all sorts of reasons prior to the achievement of tenure. This is pretty routine. Once tenure is granted, a school is essentially stuck with the faculty member for perhaps three decades or even more, so people who aren't a good fit are often let go at the end of their yearly contract before it becomes difficult to do so.

Gotcha. But, if the work is "depraved," shouldn't that be cause for hauling him into a Court of Love? Further, wasn't LaBute disfellowshipped for his work?

Well, I meant "forbidding" within the context of still remaining a TR-carrying TBM.

I've said nothing about that.

That's fine, but I have. So what do you think? In your view, should artists, if they wish to remain in good standing, avoid saying, exploring, and doing certain things?

Why not stick to the much more relevant examples listed above: Dutcher, LaBute, and Evensen? You seem to think that at least two of these three represent artistic expression that exceeds the limits of the Church. Right?

Not precisely, no.

Well, then, what?

Look: I'll just cut to the chase. I can see that you are starting to hedge and duck a bit, probably because you think I am going to turn around and accuse you of believing in censorship, or whatever else. Well, I don't believe you endorse Soviet- or Orwellian-style censorship, and I think that your attitude towards Mormon-related "cultural censorship" (I cannot think of a better term for what I have in mind) is probably far more..."progressive" than is typical of TBMs.

But don't you agree that there is a certain degree of this "cultural censorship" within the Church? I am mainly interested in hearing your views on the "limits" that the Church, or Church culture, imposes on people. Yes, yes, I know: you are going to say that people are free to say whatever they like, and etc., but that's not what I'm getting at. I'm interested in learning your views concerning what artists can get away with within the context of typical, conservative LDS culture.... You said earlier that you lament the fact that most LDS art seems to be so crummy. Would you agree that these "limits" that I am positing have something to do with it? (And further, what do you think the limits are?)

[_antishock8]

Chad What's-his-face certainly became familiar with the limits of LDS tolerance on art. Don't make the mishies too sexy. That's a limit.