Without religion, so much beauty would be lost | DeseretNews

[_EAllusion]

Without the Church domination of political structures, wealth, and daily living during the renaissance in there wouldn't be the religiously themed and patronized art that era produced? You don't say. Clearly the only logical conclusion to this is that no art would've blossomed in this period if not for such domination. If modern history has taught us anything, it's that religion is uniquely able to provide money and inspiration for art. Well, that and communism. It's amazing how much art is communist-themed in former Soviet bloc countries during the era of communist domination. If only there was some explanation for that.

[_EAllusion]

The nearly seven decades since the end of World War II have been the most secular in human history. Have they produced exceptional literary, artistic and musical masterpieces?

The jury is still out on that.

Heh. DCP's personal tastes really do center around a stodgy, vetted western canon. It's like he's a student trying to impress someone. Someone very dusty.

The world's exceptional artistic accomplishments are by far concentrated in the last 7 decades. That's simply a consequence of there being a ton more people alive today than in the past, the ability to build upon previous accomplishments and knowledge, improvements in technology, and gains in access to education and training. Some important artistic forms are mostly a modern invention. Almost all great novels a modern, and previous classics, like fabled sports heroes of the past, have to be graded on a curve relative to their time as modernity has too many evolved advantages.

[_Quasimodo]

Without the Church domination of political structures, wealth, and daily living during the renaissance in there wouldn't be the religiously themed and patronized art that era produced? You don't say. Clearly the only logical conclusion to this is that no art would've blossomed in this period if not for such domination. If modern history has taught us anything, it's that religion is uniquely able to provide money and inspiration for art. Well, that and communism. It's amazing how much art is communist-themed in former Soviet bloc countries during the era of communist domination. If only there was some explanation for that.

I can't quite decide if you're being honest in your comments or sarcastic. Anyway, the communist themed art in the Soviet Bloc was created for the same reasons as early christian themed art was. The people paying the artists were dictating the subject matter. Artists had to eat, too.

The Renaissance was a time where art and science were moving away from religious control. European art moved away from strictly religious themes to secular ones. Landscapes for example. As well as personal portraits of wealthy clients other than the clergy (The Medici in Florence, etc.)

The secular art that sprouted from the Renaissance was the beginning of true art for art's sake. The greatest art in the world comes from that tradition of freedom.

[_EAllusion]

I can't quite decide if you're being honest in your comments or sarcastic

Hmmm.

Anyway, I think DCP's article can rewritten with almost no changes if we change the subject from religion to autocratic government. There are plenty of important works of art and institutions would not have come to be (at least in the manner they did) if not for autocrats. That they served the whims and interests of emperors and monarchs mattered. Does this mean that people who say we are better off without autocrats are wrong? Only if you badly misunderstand what that probably mean when they say that.

[_Blixa]

Without the Church domination of political structures, wealth, and daily living during the renaissance in there wouldn't be the religiously themed and patronized art that era produced? You don't say. Clearly the only logical conclusion to this is that no art would've blossomed in this period if not for such domination. If modern history has taught us anything, it's that religion is uniquely able to provide money and inspiration for art. Well, that and communism. It's amazing how much art is communist-themed in former Soviet bloc countries during the era of communist domination. If only there was some explanation for that.

Thanks for reading my mind. Other than the pompous pretense of a "cultured" world view, that article was astonishingly empty. Like anything else, "art" is shaped by its historical and material situation. And while there were Christians involved in the abolition and civil rights movements, as well as in organizing medical charities, there were also all manner of agnostics and atheists as well. Not to mention the believers who also struggled a great deal against all those things.

[_Morley]

I can't quite decide if you're being honest in your comments or sarcastic

Hmmm.

Anyway, I think DCP's article can rewritten with almost no changes if we change the subject from religion to autocratic government. There are plenty of important works of art and institutions would not have come to be (at least in the manner they did) if not for autocrats. That they served the whims and interests of emperors and monarchs mattered. Does this mean that people who say we are better off without autocrats are wrong? Only if you badly misunderstand what that probably mean when they say that.

The government sponsorship of art doesn't have to be autocratic. Art flourished under Roosevelt's New Deal.

(Cue BCSpace and Droopy: "Not autocratic? The WPA was a socialist experiment inspired by Satan and the minions of hell..." )

[_Pollypinks]

Mormon music authors aren't well known. The Mormon tabernacle choir regularly sings stuff that non-mormons have written, and is also sung by other choirs around the country. Even the hymns that dear old dad think some Mormon sap wrote have been taken from christian authors, and given new wording. I saw the tip of that ice burg when I left the church and began attending others, and would sing familiar tunes, but with different lyrics. Then I'd look at the author, go home and look him/her up, and discover something totally different than what my dad had told me. Poor sap. He's usually spot on on most things.

[_Quasimodo]

The government sponsorship of art doesn't have to be autocratic. Art flourished under Roosevelt's New Deal.

(Cue BCSpace and Droopy: "Not autocratic? The WPA was a socialist experiment inspired by Satan and the minions of hell..." )

I believe there is still a lot of U.S. Gov. funding of the arts. PBS, etc.. Of course, this is all evil. :) It makes watching PBS even more fun when you are aware of how much you are sinning.

[_EAllusion]

Well, DCP is wrong about some of the details because he overreaches. Just war theory, for instance, absolutely would exist with or without religion. It just so happens that St. Augustine was highly influential in just war theory and Christian thinkers dominated the subject for many centuries. St. Augustine supposedly was influenced heavily by the secular work of Cicero on the subject, so case in point.

I think that's beside the point. He's expressed this argument on message boards over the years, and the problem isn't whether all his examples sufficiently count. I've broke out my "communist" counter-argument to mock him a few times. For instance in this thread.

[_Quasimodo]

I think that's beside the point. He's expressed this argument on message boards over the years, and the problem isn't whether all his examples sufficiently count. I've broke out my "communist" counter-argument to mock him a few times. For instance in this thread.

Ahh, I did detect some sarcasm in your earlier post. Your point is well taken.