Religion in Art/Literature

[Anonymous No.17125150]

At the university, I take a poetry class. It's mostly a fun and interesting class, but there's one issue that bothers me. Other students seem hesitant to discuss biblical/religious influences and themes in the poetry we read, no matter the level of clarity.

As far as I can see it, whether you are religious or not, it seems undeniable that the majority of the great art and literature of the world is religious in some way or another.

Are there any significant literature works/movements or writers who are irreligious or blatantly anti-religion?
Why are students reluctant to discuss the religious themes of great art and literature?

[Anonymous No.17125190]

>>17125150
Yes, there are, but think of what would be lost, what we wouldn’t have found out about human nature, if there were no Christmas, for example

[Anonymous No.17125203]

>>17125150
>the majority of the great art and literature of the world is religious in some way or another.
Renaissance and enlightenment disproves this

[Anonymous No.17125215]

>>17125150
I recommend you read Wagner's "Religion and Art" essay, which goes heavily into this topic.

[Anonymous No.17125235]

>>17125203
Most famous Renaissance artworks:
>Statue of David
>The Last Supper
>The Creation of Adam
>Sistine Chapel
>The Last Judgement
>>Renaissance disproves this

anon . . .

[Anonymous No.17125260]

>>17125235
Yeah and Renaissance art was based on a return to the ancient artistic canons

[Anonymous No.17125322]

>>17125150
Bait thread. In all my classes no one gave a shit.

[Anonymous No.17125329]

>>17125260
Taken in the way that you mean it, as depriving Christianity of all artistic importance, you are blatantly wrong.

>What we understand in general by the artistic province, we might define as Evaluation of the Pictorial (Ausbildung des Bildlichen); that is to say, Art grasps the Figurative of an idea, that outer form in which it shews itself to the imagination, and by developing the likeness—before employed but allegorically—into a picture embracing in itself the whole idea, she lifts the latter high above itself into the realm of revelation. Speaking of the ideal shape of the Greek statue, our great philosopher finely says: It is as if the artist were shewing Nature what she would, but never completely could; wherefore the artistic Ideal surpasses Nature. (2) Of Greek theogony it may be said that, in touch with the artistic instinct of the nation, it always clung to anthropomorphism. Their gods were figures with distinctive names and plainest individuality; their names were used to mark specific groups of things (Gattungsbegriffe), just as the names of various coloured objects were used to denote the colours themselves, for which the Greeks employed no abstract terms like ours: "gods" were they called, to mark their nature as divine; but the Divine itself the Greeks called God, "ο θεος." Never did it occur to them to think of " God " as a Person, or give to him artistic shape as to their named gods; he remained [217] an idea, to be defined by their philosophers, though the Hellenic spirit strove in vain to clearly fix it—till the wondrous inspiration of poor people spread abroad the incredible tidings that the "Son of God" had offered himself on the cross to redeem the world from deceit and sin.
>But that picture of Raphael's shews us the final consummation of the miracle, the virgin mother transfigured and ascending with the new-born son: here we are taken by a beauty which the ancient world, for all its gifts, could not so much as dream of; for here is not the ice of chastity that made an Artemis seem unapproachable, but Love divine beyond all knowledge of unchastity, Love which of innermost denial of the world has born the affirmation of redemption. And this unspeakable wonder we see with our eyes, distinct and tangible, in sweetest concord with the noblest truths of our own inner being, yet lifted high above conceivable experience. If the Greek statue held to Nature her unattained ideal, the painter now unveiled the unseizable and therefore indefinable mystery of the religious dogmas, no longer to the plodding reason, but to enraptured sight.

CONT

[Anonymous No.17125338]

>>17125329
>The last sunset flush of artistic idealising of the Christian dogma had been kissed by the morning glow of the reviving Grecian art-ideal: but what could now be borrowed from the ancient world, was no longer that unity of Greek art with Antique religion whereby alone had the former blossomed and attained fruition. We have only to compare an antique statue of the goddess Venus with an Italian painting of the women chosen to impersonate this Venus, to perceive the difference between religious ideal and worldly reality. Greek art could only teach its sense of form, not lend its ideal content; whilst the Christian ideal had passed out of range of this sense-of-form [...] .
- Wagner's Religion and Art

[Anonymous No.17125361]

>>17125329
>>17125338
Case in point.

[Anonymous No.17125382]

>>17125260
Taken in the way that you mean it, as depriving Christianity of all artistic importance, you are blatantly wrong.

>What we understand in general by the artistic province, we might define as Evaluation of the Pictorial (Ausbildung des Bildlichen); that is to say, Art grasps the Figurative of an idea, that outer form in which it shews itself to the imagination, and by developing the likeness—before employed but allegorically—into a picture embracing in itself the whole idea, she lifts the latter high above itself into the realm of revelation. Speaking of the ideal shape of the Greek statue, our great philosopher finely says: It is as if the artist were shewing Nature what she would, but never completely could; wherefore the artistic Ideal surpasses Nature. (2) Of Greek theogony it may be said that, in touch with the artistic instinct of the nation, it always clung to anthropomorphism. Their gods were figures with distinctive names and plainest individuality; their names were used to mark specific groups of things (Gattungsbegriffe), just as the names of various coloured objects were used to denote the colours themselves, for which the Greeks employed no abstract terms like ours: "gods" were they called, to mark their nature as divine; but the Divine itself the Greeks called God, "ο θεος." Never did it occur to them to think of " God " as a Person, or give to him artistic shape as to their named gods; he remained [217] an idea, to be defined by their philosophers, though the Hellenic spirit strove in vain to clearly fix it—till the wondrous inspiration of poor people spread abroad the incredible tidings that the "Son of God" had offered himself on the cross to redeem the world from deceit and sin.
>But that picture of Raphael's shews us the final consummation of the miracle, the virgin mother transfigured and ascending with the new-born son: here we are taken by a beauty which the ancient world, for all its gifts, could not so much as dream of; for here is not the ice of chastity that made an Artemis seem unapproachable, but Love divine beyond all knowledge of unchastity, Love which of innermost denial of the world has born the affirmation of redemption. And this unspeakable wonder we see with our eyes, distinct and tangible, in sweetest concord with the noblest truths of our own inner being, yet lifted high above conceivable experience. If the Greek statue held to Nature her unattained ideal, the painter now unveiled the unseizable and therefore indefinable mystery of the religious dogmas, no longer to the plodding reason, but to enraptured sight.

CONT

[Anonymous No.17125388]

>>17125338
Didn't this germoid know Christian philosophy was fleshed out mostly by neoplatonism and aristotelianism?

[Anonymous No.17125393]

>>17125382
>The last sunset flush of artistic idealising of the Christian dogma had been kissed by the morning glow of the reviving Grecian art-ideal: but what could now be borrowed from the ancient world, was no longer that unity of Greek art with Antique religion whereby alone had the former blossomed and attained fruition. We have only to compare an antique statue of the goddess Venus with an Italian painting of the women chosen to impersonate this Venus, to perceive the difference between religious ideal and worldly reality. Greek art could only teach its sense of form, not lend its ideal content; whilst the Christian ideal had passed out of range of this sense-of-form [...] .
- Wagner's Religion and Art

[Anonymous No.17125401]

>>17125388
It would be much appreciated if you deleted your post anon, so to join mine own, and then replied with the same message.

[Anonymous No.17125416]

>>17125382
>>17125401
You can ask any art critic about this, medieval "christian" art is stale, unmoving and devoid of any spatial norms or background environment. Compare the Laocoon to any medieval sculpture and you'll find out how soulless medieval art was.

[Anonymous No.17125477]

>>17125388
There are major differences between Neoplatonism and Christianity. The entire artistic font of the Christian religion cannot be found in Neoplatonism almost at all.

>>17125416
What a fake pretence; no anon, I don't think people would extensively study medieval art to say its "stale and unmoving," it only shows how uneducated you are on the subject. And furthermore, your reading comprehension, Wagner specifically says the Renaissance borrowed the "sense-of-form," from the ancients, something which the Medievals did not wholly have.

[Anonymous No.17125526]

>>17125416
Also I should say, that "art critic" sounds more like your typical adherent of Duchamp.

[Anonymous No.17125576]

>>17125477
>I don't think people would extensively study medieval art to say its "stale and unmoving,"
It is stale compared to Renaissance and ancient art. There's hardly anything worth studying besides Giotto and his master and a couple of artists which worked for aristocrats.

>There are major differences between Neoplatonism and Christianity
The trinity and divine triad are nearly the same concept, and so is the eternity of the world within the Word or in the divine intellect as stated by the neoplatonists. Lots of aspects coincide and that's undeniably objective.
>the Renaissance borrowed the "sense-of-form," from the ancients, something which the Medievals did not wholly have.
And do you believe the ancients did not think of the Gods as abstract entities or had no concept of idealism? When it was common knowledge that in mythology mortals would die if they saw the Gods in their original form? Methinks Wagner was a victim of his time who made up his mind to slander the ancients and praise Christianity for the sake of not being looked down on by his fanboys.

[Anonymous No.17125584]

>>17125150
Most people in the world are religious, and most states that have existed have punished or penalized heresy or lack of belief. That probably has something to do with it, but what do I know?

[Anonymous No.17125645]

>>17125584
The artistic and religious feelings are one and the same however.

Think Schleiermacher.

[Anonymous No.17126219]

>>17125645
This is merely an attempt for the religious minded to usurp the artistic. Ironically, the best art helps you gain a new perspective, however it seems impossible for some to consider the possibility that others experience art in a non-religious way.

[Anonymous No.17126252]

>>17125203
>Renaissance
People from the renaissance were more religiously fanatical than people from the Middle Ages though. All the major religious wars and witch burnings comes from that time. I’ve read enough about the renaissance to know that people were still crazy religious and still had a very medieval mentality. You shouldn’t mix up the renaissance with the enlightenment.

[Anonymous No.17126268]

>>17126219
Define "religious way" of experiencing art from a non-religious way?

You suffer from having a complete misunderstanding of the nature of art and religion, and think this relation means "everything in religion is literally true." It's only your irrational dislike of associating seriously with anything deemed "religious", because you think it altogether an irrational and meaningless thing.

[Anonymous No.17126281]

>>17125416
>medieval "christian" art is stale

Excuse me. What?

[࿇ C Œ M G E N V S ࿇ !KNDYwWWmRs No.17126399]

>>17125150
>Are there any significant literature works/movements or writers who are irreligious or blatantly anti-religion?

IT IS NOT A MOVEMENT, BUT, RATHER, THE NORM; WE LIVE IN A WORLD IN WHICH MOST PEOPLE IS, EITHER: IGNORANT OF GOD, OR RENEGING OF GOD.


>Why are students reluctant to discuss the religious themes of great art and literature?

BECAUSE THEY ARE EITHER: CONDITIONED BY THE ATHEISTIC, OR AGNOSTIC, MILIEU IN WHICH THEY LIVE, OR BECAUSE THEY ARE CONSCIOUSLY ATHEISTIC, OR AGNOSTIC.

[Anonymous No.17126590]

If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don’t deal in lies,
Or being hated, don’t give way to hating,
And yet don’t look too good, nor talk too wise:

If you can dream—and not make dreams your master;
If you can think—and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build ’em up with worn-out tools:

If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breathe a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: ‘Hold on!’

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with Kings—nor lose the common touch,
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,
If all men count with you, but none too much;
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds’ worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it,
And—which is more—you’ll be a Man, my son!