Mormon "art", and religious art in general

[_harmony]

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.

You think the calendar qualified as "art"?

[_The Nehor]

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.

You think the calendar qualified as "art"?

I have no doubt that Antishock finds anything that stimulates his libido artistic.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I don't regard Big Love as serious art.

How come? What about Big Love disqualifies it?

If you want to make the case that it's serious art, please do so.

Until then, I'll simply regard it as a fairly successful television soap opera.

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?

I don't think that theme is forbidden within Mormonism, though I don't think that the non-Mormon Tony Kushner's Angels in America (which I saw on Broadway) is a particularly good specimen of Mormon art.

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

I haven't seen Milk.

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?

I can't supply you with any neat predictive rules.

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?

I said nothing about whether it should have any such bearing.

But, if the work is "depraved," shouldn't that be cause for hauling him into a [disciplinary council]?

I'm aware of no Church rule against writing bad fiction. If there were, many practicing Mormons would be in serious jeopardy.

Further, wasn't LaBute disfellowshipped for his work?

I haven't the faintest idea. I've paid little attention to him or to his work.

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?

Obviously. I've already mentioned pornography and snuff movies as extreme examples, to establish the point that the sky isn't the limit.

But I'm not interested in attempting to provide you with some sort of artistic code that must be followed by Latter-day Saints.

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.

I'm not really hedging and ducking, but I do tire of your incessant interrogations. And, beyond that, I don't regard you as a sincere conversation partner who acts in good faith.

But don't you agree that there is a certain degree of this "cultural censorship" within the Church?

Without question.

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?

Obviously they do.

And further, what do you think the limits are?

I think they shift from place to place, time to time, leader to leader, community to community. I'm not capable of giving you precise formulations, and wouldn't really be interested in doing so even if I were.

[_Gadianton]

Obviously. I've already mentioned pornography and snuff movies as extreme examples, to establish the point that the sky isn't the limit.

But most people even outside the church, even outside, anything, don't consider snuff films to be art. And only a few more think "pornography" is art. By giving such extreme examples, you've made it easy for yourself (this isn't without precedent). I think to really grapple with the seriousness of the questions Mister Scratch has asked you -- and thank God they are legitimate questions rather than the kind of rhetorical, incriminating game-playing questions Christodoulos asks -- you should make your comparison to what is acceptable within liberal artistic culture. Within such culture there is a sensitivity, almost a religious one, to crossing certain lines. Jean Baudrillard comes to mind, as a contemporary intellectual who was very, very liberal, yet had a keen eye for identifying that fine line between sensuality and vulgarity. I have to wonder, in your opinion, where is this line from a gospel perspective, more or less that is? Can you think of a good example outside the church of an artistic piece that features nudity and sexuality which could be seen as a "paradigm" so to speak for LDS artists to emulate, one that a) increase the quality and meaning of LDS art b) achieves "a" while perhaps (even necessarily) offending a great deal of the membership while c) not crossing whatever lines may exist within the gospel -- abstracted from cultural perceptions of course?

[_Daniel Peterson]

But most people even outside the church, even outside, anything, don't consider snuff films to be art. And only a few more think "pornography" is art. By giving such extreme examples, you've made it easy for yourself (this isn't without precedent).

By reading it that way, you demonstrate that you haven't a clue what I was talking about (which isn't without precedent).

I think to really grapple with the seriousness of the questions Mister Scratch has asked you

I have no intention of "grappling" with the the questions Mister Scratch has asked me, let alone with their "seriousness." As I've already indicated, I have no neat formulae to provide for him, and don't think that such formulae exist.

and thank God they are legitimate questions rather than the kind of rhetorical, incriminating game-playing questions Christodoulos asks

Don't try that nonsense with me. I'm not buying it.

I have to wonder, in your opinion, where is this line from a gospel perspective, more or less that is?

Wonder can be the beginning of great things. I wish you well in your wondering.

Can you think of a good example outside the church of an artistic piece that features nudity and sexuality which could be seen as a "paradigm" so to speak for LDS artists to emulate, one that a) increase the quality and meaning of LDS art b) achieves "a" while perhaps (even necessarily) offending a great deal of the membership while c) not crossing whatever lines may exist within the gospel -- abstracted from cultural perceptions of course?

Yes.

[_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.

You think the calendar qualified as "art"?

Of course it's art. I may not particularly like it, but it's definitely art.

As for me? I'm more of a Banksy guy..

[_EAllusion]

I think snuff films are art. They might not be good art, but they are art nonetheless. If you have deliberately arranged sounds, words, objects, or visuals to appeal to the thoughts or feelings of others, you have produced art.

[_John Larsen]

I think snuff films are art. They might not be good art, but they are art nonetheless. If you have deliberately arranged sounds, words, objects, or visuals to appeal to the thoughts or feelings of others, you have produced art.

I have never seen a snuff film and nothing about them is appealing to me, but I don't know why people get all bent out of shape about them. How are they any worse than the Saw movies that play in mainstream, even Mormon owned theaters?

[_solomarineris]

El Greco, Michelangelo, Da Vinci, Chagall, Rembrandt, Bernini, Dürer, Fra Angelico, etc., etc., . . . If they'd been real artists instead of hacks, they wouldn't have churned out all that religious trash.

For once it is delightful to agree with you DCP,
This guy has absolute zero Verstandnis about art. As you said, according to his standard we could well empty out Louvre pretty much.
What a retarded post, especially badmouthing Arnold Friberg?
The guy is a LEGEND, his paintings are indelible from the mind of an art lover.
Way to go to make oneself a fool.

[_Mister Scratch]

If you want to make the case that it's serious art, please do so.

Until then, I'll simply regard it as a fairly successful television soap opera.

Oh, come on, now. The acting, writing, and production values are obviously far superior to the typical daytime TV soap. Can't you think of a better reason for disqualifying it than that? I suspect that you don't want to deal with it seriously since it is about polygamy.

And, anyways, your response was somewhat off-topic, so let me re-phrase, for clarity's sake: If Big Love has been produced by an entirely LDS crew, do you think that the members of this crew ought to be disciplined in any way? Or, do you feel that there is nothing objectionable about the program, from a TBM perspective?

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?

I don't think that theme is forbidden within Mormonism, though I don't think that the non-Mormon Tony Kushner's Angels in America (which I saw on Broadway) is a particularly good specimen of Mormon art.

Again: Why? What is your standard for determining such a thing? I'm not asking for a list of rules, or anything like that. Just a general sense would be more than fine.

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

I haven't seen Milk.

You know what it's about, though. Do you think this would be okay? Or, in your view, would the filmmakers be in for a heap of trouble with their ecclesiastical leaders?

To reiterate: you said that you would be interested is supporting "controversial Mormon art." I'm just trying to get a very rough sense of what that means.

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?

I can't supply you with any neat predictive rules.

Well, that's not what I'm looking for. I'm looking for the rough boundaries of Mormon art. I.e., what is "allowable"?

Further, wasn't LaBute disfellowshipped for his work?

I haven't the faintest idea. I've paid little attention to him or to his work.

Based on what you know, would you say that he deserved to be disfellowshipped?

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?

Obviously. I've already mentioned pornography and snuff movies as extreme examples, to establish the point that the sky isn't the limit.

But I'm not interested in attempting to provide you with some sort of artistic code that must be followed by Latter-day Saints.

And yet, you clearly believe that such a thing exists. What, are you trying to keep it a big secret? Why not just share your thoughts?

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?

Obviously they do.

I think I agree with you. It sounds like you are saying that it is very difficult---if not impossible---to produce good, controversial art within the context of the Church, due to the various conservative constraints.

Let's try this on for size:

You have characterized No Man Knows My History in the past as a "novel." Supposing this were true, do you believe that Fawn Brodie deserved to be excommunicated for writing it?