Kimball's Mad Vision

[_moksha]

Quinn references a book on Pres. Hinckley in which GBH and his wife have glowing, halo-like aureoles of light around their heads in the cover photo.

So what if President Hinkley and is wife had halos, I imagine several members of this board will themselves be lit up tonight.



Why can't we have real smilies?

[_Moniker]

Well, I hadn't actually thought about that in any detail, but I'm aware of the lost potential due to state enforcement. And what I think is interesting, is that it's not like all Utah artists are forced by the church. Even at BYU, the art student culture there is very non-conformist, Barsch I barely even recognize as Mormon. Further, it's not like the church has overtly set standards for visual artists.

Well, I asked precisely this question (I'm used to no one answering me or reading my posts) about enforcement. Socialist Realism was state policy under the Communist Party. It was to essentially show what utopia could be -- what I find interesting about much of the work is you do not see the bitter landscapes, if there are snowy vistas there is vibrance and never a reflection upon the drab. Look to this Joseph Smith first vision portrayal, where is the snow? It's an upstate New York that does NOT exist in early Spring:



I asked about Barsch and whether he is accepted by the LDS Church as "LDS art" and whether his contributions are appreciated. If any art that steps outside the halos, and utopia of LDS art is appreciated then I don't draw the parallels so easily. If the Church does not specifically restrict LDS artists then there is something else (the indoctrination) that is creating the waves upon waves of hero worship art, ancestor worship that is being created. Gad, one of your quotes of Kimballs had him stating that the art should revolve about spirituality and the Church -- yet apparently you're saying now that artistic creativity is not confined by Church dictates. If this is the case (artists not confined) then this speaks more to the Church culture and religious indoctrination than to anything else, I would think. Which in and of itself is actually more alarming to me then the idea that the Church is enforcing rigid standards for art created by LDS.

Or, am I missing out on the fact that the LDS Church commissions certain artists to create art for the Church? I suppose these posts/threads have piqued my interest and I'll have to do my own research as much of these posts appear contradictory to me.

[_Blixa]

Commissions. It is primarily commissioned art that is seen as "LDS art," or work that consciously or unconsciously has absorbed the template. There are of course, a handful, of more "independent" Mormon artist working in less standard issue "realism," but the problem they face is that however creative their personal approaches and styles may be, the primary audience for thier work is one which will judge it lacking by commisioned standards. I wish I could think of the name of a particular LDS (now non-lds) artist whose work was often used on the covers of Sunstone/Dialog type journals and who was featured in Helen Whitney's documentary. He was interviewed, but some of his images were also used illustratively at several points in the documentary's description of LDS history/doctrine. If I recall correctly, one was a painting of Moroni's visit to Joseph Smith (I could have it wrong). Anyway, I noticed a great deal of commentary on line, among a host of online places for Mormons to discuss things---Bloggernacle blogs, PBS website discussion threads, Meridan Magazine letters to the editors, online reader forums at the Desert News etc.---where Mormons were complaining about the use of "weird" and "dark" imagery and the use of this art was linked to the "bias" and "distortion" of the documentary itself, i.e., "its trying to create dark feelings and doubt about the church." When I saw the documentary I too was struck by the use of his work instead of standard issue Mormon tractor art, but took it as an expression of Whitney's attempt to show a Mormonism not defined by cliches and stereotypes, in other words to treat it as capable of producing better aesthetic/cultural expression than that found on pamphlets and missionary materials.

Can someone supply the name I've forgotten and maybe some examples of his work?

[_Moniker]

Is it Trevor Southey?

I found this article:

http://www.cumorah.com/helenwhitneypbsmormons.html

The result of Ms. Whitney’s cynicism is not the insight or discovery of a tough investigative journalist, but rather that she introduces serious error and imbalance into the film by her rejection of faithful and well-documented answers in favor of the critical, the marginal, and the speculative. Spooky, ominous music pervades the film, while the hymns of Zion are omitted. Ms. Whitney presents dark, disturbing images inconsistent with the historical record[7] painted by excommunicant Trevor Southey, while ignoring the fine artistry done by Latter-day Saint artists including Greg Olsen, Del Parson, Simon Dewey, and others, as well as the art actually used in LDS churches. Is it ethical to represent the LDS faith to a general audience with the dark artistry of excommunicants that few Latter-day Saints would recognize, while neglecting the mainstream art that Latter-day Saints actually use? Does good documentary journalism consist in seeking out the most marginal, cynical, and suspicious content while neglecting the mainstream? Such steps seem calculated to heighten misconceptions and stereotypes about Latter-day Saints rather than to foster understanding.

Blixa, I'm assuming it's Southey that you're referring to in your above post.

Here's his website:
http://www.trevorsouthey.com/

Just from a brief glance I find it more appealing and visually stimulating then anything else I've seen from any other commissioned LDS artist.

Here's Joseph Smith - Three Views


Crucified

[_Moniker]

Ah, I think I'm getting it now.

http://www.signaturebooks.com/reviews/trevor.htm

Prodigal Son," a large trip-tych painted 1974 by Trevor Southey, was featured on the cover of the spring 1993 issue of Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought. Readers' reactions caught editors Martha Bradley and Allen Roberts off guard.

Bradley said the painting "spoke to the key issues published in that volume." This was of little consequence to many people who were offended by it. The image, which contains male nudity, challenged some readers' sense of propriety; more so than the controversial treatises on LDS intellectuals, church leadership, dissent among church members, and spiritual abuse.

"I first saw `Prodigal Son' in a Park City exhibit," Bradley recalled. "Its gesture of supplication so moved me, I began to weep." She said it made a profound statement about spiritual life. "The reactions of some [readers] who thought it suggested homosexuality or were offended by the nudity astonished me. It's an incredibly moving piece about something all believers in Christ share—the need to come to him in humility and ask for help."

Like the Dialogue cover and his "Flight Aspirations" mural that was removed from the Salt Lake International Airport, Southey's current exhibit at the Salt Lake Art Center is controversial. The Jordan School District canceled tours to "Trevor Southey: Reconciliation" because the show features nudity. At least one other school from a different district declined to schedule a tour after inquiring about the nature of the work.

Prodigal Son that brought one to tears and many to recoil from the human form


And more on Southey and the documentary
http://www.lathefamily.org/2007/05/the_mormons.shtml

Here's a collection of his work:

http://www.signaturebooks.com/excerpts/trevor.htm

[_Blixa]

Thanks Moniker! You got it---my brain is fried right now: way too busy.

Personally I don't care for his work, for a number of reasons not all that relevant to this discussion (ok, they may well be, but my brain is fried), BUT he does represent an interesting moment in both the history of art created by Mormons and the constellation of ideas about Mormon art which Gad is assembling. I would argue that his work is embedded in too "traditionalist" an understanding of art for the time in which he is creating (thus rendering ts more "illustration" than "art"), but it is of course instructive to witness the way he was/is understood as "too radical" within Mormon boundaries.

I had another random thought burp for Gad while I was relaxing in the bathtub and reading an article on Ken Russell's film of the
"rock opera," "Tommy." The name that burbled up was, Wagner. I'm thinking of his concept of a total work of art (the particular kunst-german phrase escapes me) as possibly relevant to some of the underlying assumptions in the Original SWK Essay, as well as some of his realized works remythologizing nationalist mythology. However, I should aslo say that Wagner, despite his wife, despite his daughter, despite even Hilter, did produce some absolutely spectatular work. I know that probably goes without saying but the Liebestod from "Tristan and Isolde" hardly ever fails to devaste me despite the fact that its pretty much aestheticized fascist death cult. And yet, yes, of course I want to die for love--nay kill myself over love--while under its spell. And somehow I can't bring myself to say that that's totally a bad thing either. I think my response both specific to my particular life, BUT also relevant to (historical) experiences that transcend my puny existence as well. I guess it is this complexity, both in Wagner and the idea of art itself, which makes hese things so attractive to me. And it is a kind of complexity--complex on intellectual, emotional, "spiritual" and physical levels---that I've always found lacking in LDS culture.

If any of this stream-of-partial-consciousness appeals to you Gad, as a road to follow, may I recommend the slim volume by Mark Neocleous called "Fascism" from the University of Minnesota Press's "Concepts in Social Thougt" series. Its an excellent introduction to theorizing fascism by locating it historically (thus demonstrating is links to market societies) that while doesn't extend to a developed discussion of aesthetics can be usefully adapted to many kinds of critical commentary on contemporary society and all its epiphenomical symptoms. Time for a nap.

[_Mister Scratch]

I asked about Barsch and whether he is accepted by the LDS Church as "LDS art" and whether his contributions are appreciated. If any art that steps outside the halos, and utopia of LDS art is appreciated then I don't draw the parallels so easily. If the Church does not specifically restrict LDS artists then there is something else (the indoctrination) that is creating the waves upon waves of hero worship art, ancestor worship that is being created. Gad, one of your quotes of Kimballs had him stating that the art should revolve about spirituality and the Church -- yet apparently you're saying now that artistic creativity is not confined by Church dictates.

I agree with this. Creativity is *not* confined by Church dictates. It cannot be. It can be influenced, or affected---powerfully, even---but in the end it cannot be fully controlled.

If this is the case (artists not confined) then this speaks more to the Church culture and religious indoctrination than to anything else, I would think. Which in and of itself is actually more alarming to me then the idea that the Church is enforcing rigid standards for art created by LDS.

Art should answer only to The Muse. That is the Master which artists should (and must) serve. When "the muse" is transmogrified into something such as Mormonism, or Soviet Social Realism, it seems problematic, because it seems as if the artist has forfeited something essential.

[_karl61]

I think Joseph Smith just needed a good pair of glasses.


now back to the original topic.

[_Gadianton]

you do not see the bitter landscapes, if there are snowy vistas there is vibrance and never a reflection upon the drab. Look to this Joseph Smith first vision portrayal, where is the snow? It's an upstate New York that does NOT exist in early Spring:

Yes! lol. I hadn't thought about the weather in viewing any of the stuff so far. I wouldn't have known that about spring in NY, but Russia doesn't have a reputation for year around sunshine.

I asked about Barsch and whether he is accepted by the LDS Church as "LDS art" and whether his contributions are appreciated. If any art that steps outside the halos, and utopia of LDS art is appreciated then I don't draw the parallels so easily.

You did? I went back to your posts and I didn't see the question about Barsch. I don't know if he's on the Church's radar or anything like that. I think I also asked in my post if anyone knows of his work being in church buildings. Given he's promoted by faithful LDS intellectuals, such as the Encyclopedia of Mormonism piece.

If the Church does not specifically restrict LDS artists then there is something else (the indoctrination) that is creating the waves upon waves of hero worship art, ancestor worship that is being created. Gad, one of your quotes of Kimballs had him stating that the art should revolve about spirituality and the Church -- yet apparently you're saying now that artistic creativity is not confined by Church dictates.

Let me explain, yes, the church has said those things and Kimball in particular. Further, as the prophets have said, the Ensign is right up there with the standard works, so whatever it portrays, the Saints are going to take notice of. It isn't explicitly dictated as it was in the Soviet Union. Had Utah remained independent, who knows what would have happened, but the church can't exactly throw people in prison and needs to be judicious in its excommunications. Also, the church to my knowledge, hasn't embarked on any kind of a "high culture" campaign despite what would be Kimball's desire to do so. In fact, it would appear by Kimball's own statements that despite the clear reference to one-upping the Western Canon, that he kind of just expected it would happen on its own. I don't think he likely realized a lot of the practical difficulties in acheiving it, issues of economy like funding, and so on. The two things I mean to be clear on is a) the clear art-style links to socialist realism b) The clear view of art as ideology and politics to glorify the foundations of the state in Kimball's view. How everything else plays out is what makes it an interesting topic to pursue.

Or, am I missing out on the fact that the LDS Church commissions certain artists to create art for the Church? I suppose these posts/threads have piqued my interest and I'll have to do my own research as much of these posts appear contradictory to me.

It most certainly has. Just note in my little world, commissioning art, having fantasies of high culture, heavily funding a movement to develop high culture, heavily funding a pop-culture ad campaign, are all things that might relate to each other in various ways but are themselves different things.

[_Moniker]

I asked about Barsch and whether he is accepted by the LDS Church as "LDS art" and whether his contributions are appreciated. If any art that steps outside the halos, and utopia of LDS art is appreciated then I don't draw the parallels so easily.

You did? I went back to your posts and I didn't see the question about Barsch. I don't know if he's on the Church's radar or anything like that. I think I also asked in my post if anyone knows of his work being in church buildings. Given he's promoted by faithful LDS intellectuals, such as the Encyclopedia of Mormonism piece.

I should be less subtle! I typed this:

So, is there artwork that is frowned upon by the Church? He mentions "great artists", but does the Church view the "great artists" as only perverts appreciated by the outside world? What is the defining quality of "good" art for the LDS Church? You mentioned Barsch, is his contributions to art appreciated by the Church? I did a search on him and apparently he didn't actually grow up in the Church and converted when he was 23 years old.

No biggie!

Just note in my little world, commissioning art, having fantasies of high culture, heavily funding a movement to develop high culture, heavily funding a pop-culture ad campaign, are all things that might relate to each other in various ways but are themselves different things.

Well, I wasn't finding the parallels because I apparently wasn't looking for them!! This is a very interesting topic and I won't derail any further! Sorry!