I have written about this sort of thing in past. I don't necessarily want to go through it again but felt that the Religious News Service piece referred to in my post title was well worth taking a look at.
"12 'blasphemous' artworks censored or vandalized by angry believers"
It's sad that even a fraction of believers from various religions find it necessary to do this kind of shit.
Showing posts with label Art. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Art. Show all posts
Sunday, October 6, 2013
Saturday, April 13, 2013
Notable Papal Portrait
That's a portrait of the Pope I can definitely approve of. I am going to have to look that Milwaukee artist up if for no other reason than to find out how they managed to put together all those condoms.
Saturday, June 23, 2012
Art Does Not Depend on Theism
The title of Dori Hartley's June 14 HuffPo piece, "The Atheist Who Loves Angels," is a little misleading. Not exactly shocking to anyone who has spent more than a few minutes perusing the site. What she actually writes is fine if rather uninspiring. It is the tone that I find most interesting. She seems to play into, perhaps unwittingly, one of the more ridiculous myths about atheists. The idea that since we have no religious beliefs we can in no way appreciate religious inspired or themed art is a long standing myth. Hartley is almost apologetic about loving artwork that has such themes. That is silly to the point of being laughable. Theists never seem to turn such "standards" inward. How many religious people today believe in unicorns or faeries? There are still creative works (paintings, films, writings...) being produced that either use them or even focus on them. And besides, what makes beauty and creativity or the appreciation of them the sole domain of religion? It is an absurd point of view that I will never understand or care to.
Saturday, January 28, 2012
Church of de Botton
Atheist temple my ass. This brief piece in Huffington Post does give a little more insight into why Alain de Botton seems determined to muddy the basic definition of atheism. It will not be a temple of atheism in any way but rather a temple to de Botton or at least his odd ideas about religion and art. It seems to be an extension of his moronic TED talk and the book he recently published. I do not believe it is coincidental that his background is in architecture.
It all makes a little more sense when you string together a few other facts. The church used to be one of the biggest sponsors of art and architecture but has essentially moved away from such patronage. What is one of the faster growing demographics in the US and globally? The non-religious (not necessarily atheist). It seems as though de Botton wants the more secular groups to take up where the religions left off regarding the arts. His insistence on adopting the baggage of religion to achieve this goal is just a manifestation of his own ignorance. Religion was a patron of the arts for two main reasons; propaganda and prestige. The church had the resources and recognized the potential benefits. That does not in any way mean religion was necessary for either the creation or the appreciation of art.
I may be wrong but it seems that he is trying to reinvigorate his field of interest by attempting to inspire the nonreligious to step back into old unnecessary patterns of behavior. What's wrong with promoting art for arts sake. Why build a "temple"? How about a series of monumental structures designed to celebrate different forms and/or aspects of art. Such a project might inspire art lovers whether they are religious or not. That would at least be honest and far less self-centered.
It all makes a little more sense when you string together a few other facts. The church used to be one of the biggest sponsors of art and architecture but has essentially moved away from such patronage. What is one of the faster growing demographics in the US and globally? The non-religious (not necessarily atheist). It seems as though de Botton wants the more secular groups to take up where the religions left off regarding the arts. His insistence on adopting the baggage of religion to achieve this goal is just a manifestation of his own ignorance. Religion was a patron of the arts for two main reasons; propaganda and prestige. The church had the resources and recognized the potential benefits. That does not in any way mean religion was necessary for either the creation or the appreciation of art.
I may be wrong but it seems that he is trying to reinvigorate his field of interest by attempting to inspire the nonreligious to step back into old unnecessary patterns of behavior. What's wrong with promoting art for arts sake. Why build a "temple"? How about a series of monumental structures designed to celebrate different forms and/or aspects of art. Such a project might inspire art lovers whether they are religious or not. That would at least be honest and far less self-centered.
Saturday, January 21, 2012
A Religion onto Himself
Just recently I watched one of the most ridiculous talks I've ever seen on TED Talks. Most of the talks I've seen there are well done. Even when I strongly disagree with the speaker I am generally impressed with the presentation. Alain de Botton's "Atheism 2.0" was pathetic in every possible way. It not only was premised on old myths, misconceptions, and falsehoods it was not even presented well. de Botton actually negated most of the points he tried to make in the course of his talk within the first few minutes of the Q&A portion.
There was a brief moment at the beginning where I felt as if he might have something interesting to contribute. Opening with the statement that he had a "new way of being an atheist" certainly got my attention. Within a few minutes he set a quite different and disappointing tone. He implied, rather strongly, that in order to have a sense of morals and community and to appreciate art and literature people need religion. Utter nonsense. If this were even partially true how could atheist artists exist? And what about the fact that even though I have always been an atheist I have always had both a strong sense of personal ethics and a deep love for the arts. One of my all time favorite artists happens to be Albrecht Durer. I can't think of a single piece of Durer's that does not have religious themes and/or elements. I also have always been interested in social issues and have participated in a wide variety of community activities. No religion required.
Simply perpetuating such foolish ideas would have been bad enough but de Botton took it even further by setting up a false dichotomy.
"...seems as though you either accept the doctrines and then you can have all the nice stuff or you reject the doctrine and you are living in a spiritual wasteland under the guidance of CNN and Wal-Mart."
Seriously?! He thinks the choice is that cut and dry. He does use terms like "seems" but throughout the talk this comes across as more of quirk of his speech pattern than a qualifier. By this point I started to notice that he always references religion. Not once does he use the word God. I started to wonder if de Botton, who is trying to tell me and everyone else about being an atheist, is himself an atheist. He apparently does not believe in organized religion but that is far from being an outright atheist. It also began to stick out that he likes the term spiritual. It seems more likely that he's one of those individuals that is uncomfortable with organized religion and with the more scriptural personal conception of God.
de Botton finally got to a point I could agree with him on, sort of, when he started speaking about how we could replace scripture with culture. He insisted that this is a good idea but an idea we have somehow forgotten. He had me till the "forgotten" part. Who is the "we" the has forgotten this would be a good thing. I am by no means alone in pointing out that any given Shakespearean play contains more ethical and cultural value than the entire Bible, old and new testament. Maybe religious people have forgotten or never accepted it in the first place but the various non-religious communities certainly have not. It also does not seem to occur to him that the forces that have hampered humanism and the humanities are not the people who want to see scripture replaced by culture but by those who want religion to be a dominant force in all our lives.
He then throws in another false dichotomy when he insists, "The other thing religion knows is that we are not just brains, we are bodies..." Just brains? The brain is a pretty complex and amazing organ. Last time I checked the brain is an organ of the body so religion doesn't "know" any such thing. This is just a rehash of the foolish dualistic mind/body argument. The mind is not separate from the brain. It is a product of the brain. It is literally impossible to experience anything or to exist at all without a functioning brain. The nonsense de Botton throws around is staggering.
Then after that whopper he sets about redefining and in the most narrow terms possible what art is. I can think of any of the art majors I lived with in college who would get pissed off if they were told each of their pieces of artwork not only had to have a set message but that he also had to leave no room for any alternate interpretations. De Bottton actually comes out and states definitively that all art "should be didactic." What happened to his praising the humanities? I don't recall the humanist tradition ever favor a one-size-fits-all approach to anything let alone something as personal and subjective as art.
Earlier I mentioned that he contradicts himself in the Q&A part of the talk. He does this by saying that there is not a definitive connection between religion and art, community, and morality. What? The whole talk was about what atheists can learn, borrow, or "steal" from religion. If he concedes that as atheists we already have these things why do we need to get them from religion? In hi own mind what was the talk about? I already knew I could appreciate and learn form art and literature. I already have a strong sense of morals and community. What was I suppose to take away from his stereotype laced ramblings? Perhaps the answer lies in another one of his foolish statements where he says we, "can have spiritual moments without belief in spirit."
Did you catch that? Spiritual without Spirit. No you can't! By definition that is not possible. Notice the word "spirit" makes up not only the word but the meaning of "spiritual." Basically, I think it comes down to de Botton not knowing what he's really talking about. I think he wants to be religious but only on his own terms. he doesn't seem to get that he already is. That's both the amazing and dangerous thing about belief, you can make it into whatever you want. His need to have those around him accept it as some sort of universal thing is unnecessary and rather annoying.
Note: As I started thinking about what to pick from this smorgasbord of idiocy I noticed other were already starting to blog on it. I particularly like what PZ Meyers picked out to ridicule. His observations on de Botton's claim that religion gets education right is great. There are other points and statements made by de Botton I could have focussed on but I prefer to keep these posts short.
There was a brief moment at the beginning where I felt as if he might have something interesting to contribute. Opening with the statement that he had a "new way of being an atheist" certainly got my attention. Within a few minutes he set a quite different and disappointing tone. He implied, rather strongly, that in order to have a sense of morals and community and to appreciate art and literature people need religion. Utter nonsense. If this were even partially true how could atheist artists exist? And what about the fact that even though I have always been an atheist I have always had both a strong sense of personal ethics and a deep love for the arts. One of my all time favorite artists happens to be Albrecht Durer. I can't think of a single piece of Durer's that does not have religious themes and/or elements. I also have always been interested in social issues and have participated in a wide variety of community activities. No religion required.
Simply perpetuating such foolish ideas would have been bad enough but de Botton took it even further by setting up a false dichotomy.
"...seems as though you either accept the doctrines and then you can have all the nice stuff or you reject the doctrine and you are living in a spiritual wasteland under the guidance of CNN and Wal-Mart."
Seriously?! He thinks the choice is that cut and dry. He does use terms like "seems" but throughout the talk this comes across as more of quirk of his speech pattern than a qualifier. By this point I started to notice that he always references religion. Not once does he use the word God. I started to wonder if de Botton, who is trying to tell me and everyone else about being an atheist, is himself an atheist. He apparently does not believe in organized religion but that is far from being an outright atheist. It also began to stick out that he likes the term spiritual. It seems more likely that he's one of those individuals that is uncomfortable with organized religion and with the more scriptural personal conception of God.
de Botton finally got to a point I could agree with him on, sort of, when he started speaking about how we could replace scripture with culture. He insisted that this is a good idea but an idea we have somehow forgotten. He had me till the "forgotten" part. Who is the "we" the has forgotten this would be a good thing. I am by no means alone in pointing out that any given Shakespearean play contains more ethical and cultural value than the entire Bible, old and new testament. Maybe religious people have forgotten or never accepted it in the first place but the various non-religious communities certainly have not. It also does not seem to occur to him that the forces that have hampered humanism and the humanities are not the people who want to see scripture replaced by culture but by those who want religion to be a dominant force in all our lives.
He then throws in another false dichotomy when he insists, "The other thing religion knows is that we are not just brains, we are bodies..." Just brains? The brain is a pretty complex and amazing organ. Last time I checked the brain is an organ of the body so religion doesn't "know" any such thing. This is just a rehash of the foolish dualistic mind/body argument. The mind is not separate from the brain. It is a product of the brain. It is literally impossible to experience anything or to exist at all without a functioning brain. The nonsense de Botton throws around is staggering.
Then after that whopper he sets about redefining and in the most narrow terms possible what art is. I can think of any of the art majors I lived with in college who would get pissed off if they were told each of their pieces of artwork not only had to have a set message but that he also had to leave no room for any alternate interpretations. De Bottton actually comes out and states definitively that all art "should be didactic." What happened to his praising the humanities? I don't recall the humanist tradition ever favor a one-size-fits-all approach to anything let alone something as personal and subjective as art.
Earlier I mentioned that he contradicts himself in the Q&A part of the talk. He does this by saying that there is not a definitive connection between religion and art, community, and morality. What? The whole talk was about what atheists can learn, borrow, or "steal" from religion. If he concedes that as atheists we already have these things why do we need to get them from religion? In hi own mind what was the talk about? I already knew I could appreciate and learn form art and literature. I already have a strong sense of morals and community. What was I suppose to take away from his stereotype laced ramblings? Perhaps the answer lies in another one of his foolish statements where he says we, "can have spiritual moments without belief in spirit."
Did you catch that? Spiritual without Spirit. No you can't! By definition that is not possible. Notice the word "spirit" makes up not only the word but the meaning of "spiritual." Basically, I think it comes down to de Botton not knowing what he's really talking about. I think he wants to be religious but only on his own terms. he doesn't seem to get that he already is. That's both the amazing and dangerous thing about belief, you can make it into whatever you want. His need to have those around him accept it as some sort of universal thing is unnecessary and rather annoying.
Note: As I started thinking about what to pick from this smorgasbord of idiocy I noticed other were already starting to blog on it. I particularly like what PZ Meyers picked out to ridicule. His observations on de Botton's claim that religion gets education right is great. There are other points and statements made by de Botton I could have focussed on but I prefer to keep these posts short.
Saturday, August 20, 2011
Why does religion require censorship?
A recent post on Big Think posed the question "How Far can an Artist Go in a Religious Country?" I find the question far more interesting than Duggan's rather spineless non-answer. Why do religious people always seem to have tantrums about artwork that they don't like? Seems to me that it has little to do with the individual art works themselves. I see it as a sign of fear and weakness. Deep down perhaps these zealots realize there faith is rather pathetic. After all, they always complain that the art they seek to censor is critical of their religious beliefs. Why shouldn't it be assumed that it is a tacit admission that their beliefs are weak and unfounded? If their faith can withstand even the slightest criticism what can it be worth?
As for Duggan, I seriously doubt he would require an artist to make an "attempt at explaining the purpose behind his actions", if the work did not involve religious content/themes. I also doubt he would insist on "constructive rather than the destructive" forms of expression if it did not involve religion. So, I guess the answer is an artist can only goes as far as religious leash the most vocal zealots impose.
If religions or religious people can't handle the exercise of free expression I suggest they withdraw from public life entirely. If they want to criticize or complain about other people's views that is, of course their right. However, banning and censoring expression is not their right. Anyone who thinks it is okay to coddle such people should be ashamed of themselves.
As for Duggan, I seriously doubt he would require an artist to make an "attempt at explaining the purpose behind his actions", if the work did not involve religious content/themes. I also doubt he would insist on "constructive rather than the destructive" forms of expression if it did not involve religion. So, I guess the answer is an artist can only goes as far as religious leash the most vocal zealots impose.
If religions or religious people can't handle the exercise of free expression I suggest they withdraw from public life entirely. If they want to criticize or complain about other people's views that is, of course their right. However, banning and censoring expression is not their right. Anyone who thinks it is okay to coddle such people should be ashamed of themselves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)