Print Page | Close Window

Religion and images

Printed From: WorldHistoria Forum
Category: GENERAL HISTORY
Forum Name: Modern Arts and Architecture
Forum Description: Discuss modern arts, literature, and architecture
URL: http://www.worldhistoria.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=126261
Printed Date: 14 Dec 2019 at 02:59
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Religion and images
Posted By: Carcharodon
Subject: Religion and images
Date Posted: 06 Feb 2011 at 00:43
http://www.ohlson.se/utstallningar_ecce.htm -

-  

-  

-  

-  the showing of homosexuals at so called holy places from the Bible, and the Koran, in the exhibition Jerusalem, by the same artist.

- Elisabeth Ohlson Wallin

http://www.ohlson.se/utstallningar_ecce.htm
 
http://content.expressen.se/blog/59/99/31/norrman/images/JERUSALEM.jpg
 
 



Replies:
Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 06 Feb 2011 at 00:57
Again, a deep topic so lightly expossed.

Christian missionaries destroying images? Indeed, particularly Protestants that don't stand the representation of God.  With respect to the destruction of idols in the Americas, you should remember those idols were the receivers of the blood of human sacrifices, so no wonder they were destroyed. But in these same colonial societies oppresed peoples preserved theirs gods by syncretism.

More interesting would have been you study the bible and find out why ancient Jews destroyed the images of pagan Gods. You should also get informed about how certain Christian Churches loved images, while others destroyed it. The case of the Orthodox church in Bizantum is very interesting.

And don't forget that Muslims forbid images as well.

Anyways, you shoud study a topic deeply.

You should not confusse homosexual rights (to not be hunged, or persecuted) with the attack against a religion. Christians are in theirs rights to sue these pseudo artists.







Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 06 Feb 2011 at 01:19
I don't see any artistic merit in the Wallin photographs whatsoever. Or the Jerusalem one.
 
Or for that matter any sign of talent or skill, given how easy modern technology makes it to take photographs os pretty well anything.


-------------
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.



Posted By: Flipper
Date Posted: 06 Feb 2011 at 01:51
Most religions have pictorial representations...It was first under Christianity this practice was tested and in the end survived.

Apart from that, when it comes to the artistic side, an artist should be testing the limits, expanding the borders and causing reaction with his art. However, I don't find Wallins and others attempts modern anymore. She's trying to catch big fishes captured in a bathtub and we both know Carch how those themes can be over-credited in Sweden. Homosexuality VS religion has been already tested. Anything new, is just a search for the identity of being different. Now that is my personal opinion, others might find it innovative. I don't anymore. We lack of other things today.


-------------
FΑΝΑΚΤΟΥ ΜΙΔΑ ΓΟΝΟΣ
http://www.palaeolexicon.com" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 06 Feb 2011 at 02:10
Flipper, there is a mistake there. Perhaps Moses and the history of the Golden Calf is the first exam of intollerance to images. And that event is a lot older than Christianity.


Posted By: Dolphin
Date Posted: 06 Feb 2011 at 02:33
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

I don't see any artistic merit in the Wallin photographs whatsoever. Or the Jerusalem one.
 
Or for that matter any sign of talent or skill, given how easy modern technology makes it to take photographs os pretty well anything.


I agree, a workmate of mine studied photography as a module for one term and had a better looking portfolio than this. It just smells of blatant controversy seeking. With no apparent depth.


Posted By: Joe
Date Posted: 06 Feb 2011 at 03:06
I believe it though about the "destroying pagan gods and culture" I mean look at what the Romans did to the Gauls or what the Spaniards did to the Aztecs and Inca. I mean there's still plenty of people who believe in the then religions and still do ayuhausca rituals and such but more often than not there christian and even sometimes the people who do ayuhausca rituals often do so in name of christianity or some hybrid of the ancient religion and the modern christian religion.

If you think about it christians are hypocrits and ignore the earlier jewish texts.

"I am the LORD; that is my name! I will not give my glory to another or my praise to idols." Issiah 42:8


God is not human, that he should lie,
   not a human being, that he should change his mind.
Does he speak and then not act?
   Does he promise and not fulfill?

Numbers 23:19






Posted By: drgonzaga
Date Posted: 06 Feb 2011 at 03:46
Are we discussing art as an instrument for symbolic understanding of much greater principles or are we discussing the visual as entertainment and shock value? Further, we are forgetting the role of the pictoral as needed symbols in a pre-literate world for the sake of aesthetics limited to but instances in time.
 
Even within the near contemporary, "shock art" is little more than expressions of the outre and scarcely comparable to the efforts of the Impressionists against the Naturalists that touched upon technique rather than subject matter. The Cubists shocked, but did they offend? Hardly. The old saw of art for art's sake was always an illusion and the term artist--if meant in an universal context--demands the mastery of technique (l'ouvre de le main) and not the sinking of a religious image in urine! Frankly, if one is an acute observer one can only conclude that art at the service of the political has always been pedestrian and even in this sphere it has gone on to borrow the symbolism proper to the religious for the sake of replacing ideological allegiance.
 
Now, what I find interesting in this hub-bub is the introduction of the Pentateuch as a condemnation of Christian art with respect to Scripture. Such is a novel twist since the history of iconography in Western religious art clearly underscores that representations of Yahweh are non-existent until the advent of the Renaissance   and its more secular milieu. Prior to that, symbolism rather than portraiture prevailed. In contrast, representations of individuals with a historical referant were common even in synagogue art (we will not mention the cherubim of the "Solomonic" era). So in a sense this discussion is launched from a premise that has no historical foundation or at best is a misinterpretation of the surviving artitistic record.


-------------
Honi soit qui mal y pense


Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 06 Feb 2011 at 04:51
The topic of the thread was supposed to be about religious iconography specifically, so I don't see that shocking the bourgeoisie is particularly relevant. In particular the Wallin photograps don't, as far as I ccan see, make a religious statement any more than they make an aesthetic one. Dr G's key sentence is the reference to the 'role of the pictorial as needed symbols' in a pre-literate world.
 
For a pre-literate society - or a literate one with an illiterate majority - how else can one make a religious allusion other than through pictures? I don't see how Flipper can assert that it was 'first under Christianity' that the practice began, when religious icons (in the general meaning) are plentiful from the ancient middle east (and even from neolithic times) onwards.
 
That said, is there any earlier example of the obliteration of religious art than that that took place either with Akhnaten's adoption of monotheism or its subsequent rejection?


-------------
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.



Posted By: Flipper
Date Posted: 06 Feb 2011 at 05:10
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

I don't see how Flipper can assert that it was 'first under Christianity' that the practice began, when religious icons (in the general meaning) are plentiful from the ancient middle east (and even from neolithic times) onwards.


I did not assert it appeared first under Christianity. I didn't make myself clear I think. I said it was tested (iconoclasm) under that period. I should have said "Most religions had and have pictorial representations..." instead of "Most religions have pictorial representations...".


-------------
FΑΝΑΚΤΟΥ ΜΙΔΑ ΓΟΝΟΣ
http://www.palaeolexicon.com" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: Flipper
Date Posted: 06 Feb 2011 at 05:10
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Flipper, there is a mistake there. Perhaps Moses and the history of the Golden Calf is the first exam of intollerance to images. And that event is a lot older than Christianity.


Again i think something was not understood here. The golden Calf is rather an exception compared to what was happening around Israel at that time.


-------------
FΑΝΑΚΤΟΥ ΜΙΔΑ ΓΟΝΟΣ
http://www.palaeolexicon.com" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: drgonzaga
Date Posted: 06 Feb 2011 at 05:33
Well, Flipper, the truth of the matter is that all religions had and have pictorial representations even in the abstract as found in Islam. Thus we are faced with the connundrum that the simple act of creating a sacred space becomes artistic symbolism. Further, the implications of idolatry are something else entirely. For example even an exegetical analysis of "Thou has not other gods before me" is hardly open to interpretation as just a proscription of idols or even serves as a premise justifying the iconoclastic.

-------------
Honi soit qui mal y pense


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 06 Feb 2011 at 08:15
Originally posted by Joe Joe wrote:

I believe it though about the "destroying pagan gods and culture" I mean look at what the Romans did to the Gauls or what the Spaniards did to the Aztecs and Inca. I mean there's still plenty of people who believe in the then religions and still do ayuhausca rituals and such but more often than not there christian and even sometimes the people who do ayuhausca rituals often do so in name of christianity or some hybrid of the ancient religion and the modern christian religion.


At least in Latin America the official religion since the Conquest was Catholicism. Folk rituals and practises were carried in marginality and usually hidden from the view of outsiders, as is in the case of African practises in the Caribbean and Brazil, and also Indigenous practises in most of South and Central America and Mexico. You can still see some of these in Mexico with beliefs such as the Madre Muerte (Mother Death), and the practise of chewing sugar skulls during the Mexican equivalent of Hallowen... Confused
In the Andes, natives that still carry ancient practises in syncrecity are the Aymaraes and Quechuas (former rulers of Tiahuanaco and the Inca Empire). One of the popular practises that remain is a strange magical figure called Ekeko, which is an ancient god modernized. You hold anything you wish to an ekeko and this dream will come true. If you want money, you put small bills on the ekeko, a car you put a plastic car toy on it, etc.

A picture of an ekeko with the wishes of TV sets and cars, among others.



I didn't mentioned Mapuches, because they keep theirs ancient rituals, cosmology and believe without the influence and presures of western culture and religion.



Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 07 Feb 2011 at 21:30
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

  Again, a deep topic so lightly expossed.

Christian missionaries destroying images? Indeed, particularly Protestants that don't stand the representation of God.  With respect to the destruction of idols in the Americas, you should remember those idols were the receivers of the blood of human sacrifices, so no wonder they were destroyed. But in these same colonial societies oppresed peoples preserved theirs gods by syncretism.
 
Do not whitewash history. Both protestants and catholics have opposed to and destroyed native art in the Americas, even  into modern times. And there was only a few Amerindian cultures that used artistic representations in a context of human sacrifices. Most Amerindian art was rather peaceful expressions of culture, nature, mythology and spirituality.

Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

More interesting would have been you study the bible and find out why ancient Jews destroyed the images of pagan Gods. You should also get informed about how certain Christian Churches loved images, while others destroyed it. The case of the Orthodox church in Bizantum is very interesting.

And don't forget that Muslims forbid images as well.
 
I actually mentioned the destruction in Afghanistan of the Buddhist statues.


Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

You should not confusse homosexual rights (to not be hunged, or persecuted) with the attack against a religion. Christians are in theirs rights to sue these pseudo artists.
 
Well, then Amerindians, and many other indigenous peoples, should sue the invaders and missionaries for destroying invaluable artistic images and also spreading a lot of lies and misrepresentations about them, and for attacking their religions in a lot of different ways.


Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 07 Feb 2011 at 21:36
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

The topic of the thread was supposed to be about religious iconography specifically, so I don't see that shocking the bourgeoisie is particularly relevant. In particular the Wallin photograps don't, as far as I ccan see, make a religious statement any more than they make an aesthetic one. Dr G's key sentence is the reference to the 'role of the pictorial as needed symbols' in a pre-literate world.
 
Wallin herself has said that her Jerusalem pictures is a sort of protest, or commentary, about the "terror-texts", as she calls them, against HBT persons that she sees in the Jewish, Christian and Muslim holy books. So she wanted to start a debate by photographing HBT persons in places mentioned in these texts.


Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 07 Feb 2011 at 21:43
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

The topic of the thread was supposed to be about religious iconography specifically, so I don't see that shocking the bourgeoisie is particularly relevant. In particular the Wallin photograps don't, as far as I ccan see, make a religious statement any more than they make an aesthetic one. Dr G's key sentence is the reference to the 'role of the pictorial as needed symbols' in a pre-literate world.
 
Wallin herself has said that her Jerusalem pictures is a sort of protest, or commentary, about the "terror-texts", as she calls them, against HBT persons that she sees in the Jewish, Christian and Muslim holy books. So she wanted to start a debate by photographing HBT persons in places mentioned in these texts.
 
So she's not making a religious statement (as I said) and she certainly isn't making an aesthetic statement. She may be making a political statement, but that has nothing to do with religious iconography, and she would do better anyway to stick to fields in which she has talent, assuming she has any.
 
She falls into the same category as the propagandist Leni Riefenstahl, but Riefenstahl, to give her her due, had a great deal of artistic talent.


-------------
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.



Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 07 Feb 2011 at 21:51
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

So she's not making a religious statement (as I said) and she certainly isn't making an aesthetic statement. She may be making a political statement, but that has nothing to do with religious iconography, and she would do better anyway to stick to fields in which she has talent, assuming she has any.
 
 
Well, religion and politics have a tendency to be mixed together in many cases. Perhaps one can call her art anti religious iconography, and also in her Ecce Homo exhibition she use the language of some religious imagery to make here point.
 
Her she makes her own version of The Last Supper:
 
http://www.sverigestalare.se/images/files/569-20100820162123.jpg - http://www.sverigestalare.se/images/files/569-20100820162123.jpg
 
And according to some of the schools of contemporary art, art has as an important funtion to provoke and start a debate. It does not have to be aestethically beautiful or be some sort of symbol for good taste.


Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 07 Feb 2011 at 22:34
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

So she's not making a religious statement (as I said) and she certainly isn't making an aesthetic statement. She may be making a political statement, but that has nothing to do with religious iconography, and she would do better anyway to stick to fields in which she has talent, assuming she has any.
 
 
Well, religion and politics have a tendency to be mixed together in many cases. Perhaps one can call her art anti religious iconography, and also in her Ecce Homo exhibition she use the language of some religious imagery to make here point.
 
Her she makes her own version of The Last Supper:
 
http://www.sverigestalare.se/images/files/569-20100820162123.jpg - http://www.sverigestalare.se/images/files/569-20100820162123.jpg
Which has nothing whatsoever to do with religion as far as I can see. What's supposed to be the message? I suppose it might be meant to suggest that Jesus came to save everybody, but that's a pretty standard Christian message. I don't see what's interesting about it, and the artistic standard is abysmal.
 
Quote
And according to some of the schools of contemporary art, art has as an important funtion to provoke and start a debate. It does not have to be aestethically beautiful or be some sort of symbol for good taste.
Art can be a tool that is used to provoke and start a debate. Insofar as it only does that though it isn't art of any consequence. I quoted Riefenstahl for the very good reason that while she had a political message, she also was a talented and innovative filmmaker. You could say much the same for D.W.Griffith and Eisenstein. But crude, talentless and boring art is crude, talentless and boring even if someone is trying to use it for propaganda.  
 
If you really want to see a political message of artistic power see Alexander Nevsky.


-------------
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.



Posted By: Flipper
Date Posted: 07 Feb 2011 at 22:49
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

 
Her she makes her own version of The Last Supper:
http://www.sverigestalare.se/images/files/569-20100820162123.jpg - http://www.sverigestalare.se/images/files/569-20100820162123.jpg


Ok, fair enough. But what do you understand from it Carch? What do you think is the general idea behind this? We know some people won't like it and we know they exist and will not change their minds. What does this contribute to you and me that won't care how someone depicts a religious figure and that has no problem with homosexuals?

Is it new? No
Is it cool? Maybe, depends on each ones taste in art.
Does it contribute with positive effects? Hopefully, it can extend some peoples tolerance towards homosexuals gradually.
Does it contribute with negative effects? Homophobic and deeply religious people will get more stubborn, in the same way you Carch can get stubborn when people will systematically push your button and not respect your views.

In the end it is all human nature isn't it? What everyone has in his depths of his mind is a mystery. Now, if the reasons of this creation is within the lines of the aforementioned it is welcome. If the real reason is to mock people who have not the same realization as of the artist, then it is unacceptable.

From my artistic experience within music, I have realized that your reality will only be respected if you first learn to respect the reality of others. Otherwise don't blame the world or the society for not agreeing with you.




-------------
FΑΝΑΚΤΟΥ ΜΙΔΑ ΓΟΝΟΣ
http://www.palaeolexicon.com" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 07 Feb 2011 at 23:13
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Which has nothing whatsoever to do with religion as far as I can see. What's supposed to be the message? I suppose it might be meant to suggest that Jesus came to save everybody, but that's a pretty standard Christian message. I don't see what's interesting about it, and the artistic standard is abysmal.
 
Well, she has stated in some interview I saw something like you said, that Jesus accepted everyone, regardless of their status in society. She said that these people that often are scorned by Christians most probably would be accepted by Jesus himself. It seems that she wants to contrast the tolerance of Jesus against the intolerance of some of his adherents.
 
 
Quote And according to some of the schools of contemporary art, art has as an important funtion to provoke and start a debate. It does not have to be aestethically beautiful or be some sort of symbol for good taste.
 
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Art can be a tool that is used to provoke and start a debate. Insofar as it only does that though it isn't art of any consequence. I quoted Riefenstahl for the very good reason that while she had a political message, she also was a talented and innovative filmmaker. You could say much the same for D.W.Griffith and Eisenstein. But crude, talentless and boring art is crude, talentless and boring even if someone is trying to use it for propaganda.  
 
If you really want to see a political message of artistic power see Alexander Nevsky.
 
Well, to judge talent can sometimes be a rather subjective undertaking. What one person sees as talent can be judged as totally talentless by others. Boring is also a rather subjective label.
 
But also I view Eisenstein, Griffith and Riefenstahl as much greater talents than Wallin.


Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 07 Feb 2011 at 23:19
Originally posted by Flipper Flipper wrote:


Ok, fair enough. But what do you understand from it Carch? What do you think is the general idea behind this? We know some people won't like it and we know they exist and will not change their minds. What does this contribute to you and me that won't care how someone depicts a religious figure and that has no problem with homosexuals?

Is it new? No
Is it cool? Maybe, depends on each ones taste in art.
Does it contribute with positive effects? Hopefully, it can extend some peoples tolerance towards homosexuals gradually.
Does it contribute with negative effects? Homophobic and deeply religious people will get more stubborn, in the same way you Carch can get stubborn when people will systematically push your button and not respect your views.

In the end it is all human nature isn't it? What everyone has in his depths of his mind is a mystery. Now, if the reasons of this creation is within the lines of the aforementioned it is welcome. If the real reason is to mock people who have not the same realization as of the artist, then it is unacceptable.

From my artistic experience within music, I have realized that your reality will only be respected if you first learn to respect the reality of others. Otherwise don't blame the world or the society for not agreeing with you.
 
It still is somewhat interesting how much feelings images can evoke, especially if they critizise or satirize religion or religious beliefs. The most well known example recently is the Mohammed pictures in Denmark and Sweden which still evoke violent and extreme reactions.


Posted By: Flipper
Date Posted: 08 Feb 2011 at 06:46
Carch you didn't answer in none of my questions. You're back again on the Mohammed pictures. I want to hear your opinion and I gave you very specific guidelines on what kind of answer I am expecting.

To add one more...What can this offer to someone that is not getting offended like you and me? Why choose this as a nice piece of art and not something else? Personally I don't judge art based on the reactions it is going to cause. How does this represent yourself?


-------------
FΑΝΑΚΤΟΥ ΜΙΔΑ ΓΟΝΟΣ
http://www.palaeolexicon.com" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 08 Feb 2011 at 08:46
Originally posted by Flipper Flipper wrote:

Carch you didn't answer in none of my questions. You're back again on the Mohammed pictures. I want to hear your opinion and I gave you very specific guidelines on what kind of answer I am expecting.

To add one more...What can this offer to someone that is not getting offended like you and me? Why choose this as a nice piece of art and not something else? Personally I don't judge art based on the reactions it is going to cause. How does this represent yourself?



A clue: Carch is anti-religious. He believes catholic priest and nuns are followers of Satan. Besides, he wants Scandinavia returns to the ancient pagan beliefs, with Thor included. Besides, he loves Celt music. Also, his favority site is "Survival" international.

Isn't Carch?


Posted By: Flipper
Date Posted: 08 Feb 2011 at 16:24
He can be whatever he wants (and that goes for everyone). I am myself not very religious. The point is if he understands the point of some things or if he just manipulates them for a cause. Does this art have a cause that is different than kids mocking other kids in school, which by the way has been a big big problem in Sweden. I am myself Swedish Pinguin and therefore I believe I know when some things (happening in Sweden) are truly what they seem to be and when they are not. 

-------------
FΑΝΑΚΤΟΥ ΜΙΔΑ ΓΟΝΟΣ
http://www.palaeolexicon.com" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 08 Feb 2011 at 23:35
Originally posted by Flipper Flipper wrote:

 

To add one more...What can this offer to someone that is not getting offended like you and me?

 

Images that confronts religion can also make people who are not offended a possibility to reflect over the relation between imagery and religion, and about the relations between religion and certain groups in our society (as for example Ohlsons HBT people). Through the art, and the reactions it awakens, one can study the mechanisms of these relations and also study the kind of attitudes and thoughts that religion sometimes can give rise to.

 

 

 

Originally posted by Flipper Flipper wrote:

Why choose this as a nice piece of art and not something else? Personally I don't judge art based on the reactions it is going to cause. How does this represent yourself??

 

Today (and also historically) art has had more functions than just being nice. Art have often had a sort of meaning, trying to convey some kind of message or ideology.

But as for me, I do not mind art that is just nice either (even if trying to be nice also can be an expression of an ideology or a certain way to view things).


Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 08 Feb 2011 at 23:37
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:


A clue: Carch is anti-religious. He believes catholic priest and nuns are followers of Satan. Besides, he wants Scandinavia returns to the ancient pagan beliefs, with Thor included. Besides, he loves Celt music. Also, his favority site is "Survival" international.

Isn't Carch?
 
I am not always against religion, just when it have too negative effects on people. I have no special bias against catholics, I can be equally critical to protestants or muslims or others when they use their religion as a tool of opression.


Posted By: Flipper
Date Posted: 09 Feb 2011 at 00:11
Bravo Carch! Now you made yourself clear.

What do you think the artist wanted to achieve here? The same purpose? I haven't read any comments on the papers yet. How are Christians reacting to it? How are homosexuals commenting on it?


-------------
FΑΝΑΚΤΟΥ ΜΙΔΑ ΓΟΝΟΣ
http://www.palaeolexicon.com" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 09 Feb 2011 at 00:33
Originally posted by Flipper Flipper wrote:

Bravo Carch! Now you made yourself clear.

What do you think the artist wanted to achieve here? The same purpose? I haven't read any comments on the papers yet. How are Christians reacting to it? How are homosexuals commenting on it?
 
According to interviews with her and debates I saw on TV she with the Ecce Homo exhibition wanted to show that Jesus cared about everyone, also those that normally was shunned by society. She also wanted to contrast the attiotude of Jesus himself against the attitude of some of his followers.
About the Jerusalem exhibition there she wanted to symbolize how some texts in the Tora, Bible and Koran expresses animosity against HBT (Homo-Bi-Trans) people. To illustrate this she let representants for these groups pose in somewhat provoking poses on locations that are described in the texts. She also quotes the texts from the books that she regards as "terror-texts" against HBT people.
 
In the museum for world culture in Gothenburg the exhibition Jerusalem was shown in the context of a larger theme of sexuality and religion.


Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 09 Feb 2011 at 00:42
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Originally posted by Flipper Flipper wrote:

 

To add one more...What can this offer to someone that is not getting offended like you and me?

 

Images that confronts religion can also make people who are not offended a possibility to reflect over the relation between imagery and religion, and about the relations between religion and certain groups in our society (as for example Ohlsons HBT people). Through the art, and the reactions it awakens, one can study the mechanisms of these relations and also study the kind of attitudes and thoughts that religion sometimes can give rise to.

Possibly. But the photographs you showed don't do that. They're just childish, or at best adolescent.
 


-------------
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.



Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 09 Feb 2011 at 00:47
Originally posted by Carcharodon<SPAN style=FONT-SIZE: 9pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana><O:P> Carcharodon wrote:

 

Originally posted by Flipper Flipper wrote:

Why choose this as a nice piece of art and not something else? Personally I don't judge art based on the reactions it is going to cause. How does this represent yourself??

 

Today (and also historically) art has had more functions than just being nice. Art have often had a sort of meaning, trying to convey some kind of message or ideology.

 
Frequently true, though not necessarily so. However to be art in the first place it has to have imagination, creativeness, originality and some kind of talent or skill. Which your photographs don't have. Certainly they don't have any novelty.
 
I remember someone writing in Granta when I was an undergraduate (say '54) a poem describing God washing his dirty socks. An undergraduate magazine was probably the best place for it.


-------------
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.



Posted By: Flipper
Date Posted: 09 Feb 2011 at 00:49
gcle2003

It is always a matter of perception and taste. Some people might find it artistic. Personally, I'm not sure about the motives. I made myself clear where I could agree and where I would not. What I can agree with for sure is that this is nothing new.


-------------
FΑΝΑΚΤΟΥ ΜΙΔΑ ΓΟΝΟΣ
http://www.palaeolexicon.com" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 09 Feb 2011 at 01:01
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

[
 
Frequently true, though not necessarily so. However to be art in the first place it has to have imagination, creativeness, originality and some kind of talent or skill. Which your photographs don't have. Certainly they don't have any novelty.
 
Well, what art is, or not is, is a tricky question. A view that one can hear often in todays debate is that art is the thing that is defined as such by the artist himself, ie if a person consider his work as art, it is art. Others differ from that opinion and think that what is art is defined by the concensus of a certain group of people (the "experts"). Some people also think that art shall follow certain conditions or standards to be regarded as art.
 
And we also have those who think that art shall communicate some message and that the form, or technique, is of secondary importance.


Posted By: Flipper
Date Posted: 09 Feb 2011 at 01:14
Now, I remember cases where people are looking at a plain circle and consider it art. So, yes it is very relative. Of course the quality is to be set by experts.

In the search of being different though one can create monsters.


-------------
FΑΝΑΚΤΟΥ ΜΙΔΑ ΓΟΝΟΣ
http://www.palaeolexicon.com" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: drgonzaga
Date Posted: 09 Feb 2011 at 02:27
Carch wrote:
 
"I am not always against religion, just when it have too negative effects on people. I have no special bias against catholics, I can be equally critical to protestants or muslims or others when they use their religion as a tool of opression."
 
Could have fooled me but what is telling in terms of reaching a "protest too much" moment is the concluding phrase: "...when they use their religion as a tool of opression".
 
Can any religion within the ambit of the contemporary Western world be labeled "oppressive" given that the working definition of the terms demands the exercise of political power or authority in a burdensome, cruel or unjust manner?  In essence oppression means the cruel and arbitrary exercise of power. The fact that Carch goes as far as equating religion in action as a tool of oppression reveals the extent of his artful sophistry at work.
 
The issue of cultural and/or social homophobia is far more broad than just some simplistic expression of religious indoctrination and one might even argue that choosing "religion" as the object of assault is a grand misdirection for the sake of agiprop.
 
Perhaps some should pick up this interesting book by David Greenberg: The Construction of Homosexuality (Chicago: U. of Chicago Press, 1990).
 
For an inkling of the contents read this review by John Thorp reacting in horror:
 
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/med/thorp.html - http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/med/thorp.html
 
By the way, Fordham is a Catholic institution.
 
 
 


-------------
Honi soit qui mal y pense


Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 09 Feb 2011 at 20:04
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

Carch wrote:
 
"I am not always against religion, just when it have too negative effects on people. I have no special bias against catholics, I can be equally critical to protestants or muslims or others when they use their religion as a tool of opression."
 
Could have fooled me but what is telling in terms of reaching a "protest too much" moment is the concluding phrase: "...when they use their religion as a tool of opression".
 
Can any religion within the ambit of the contemporary Western world be labeled "oppressive" given that the working definition of the terms demands the exercise of political power or authority in a burdensome, cruel or unjust manner?  In essence oppression means the cruel and arbitrary exercise of power. The fact that Carch goes as far as equating religion in action as a tool of oppression reveals the extent of his artful sophistry at work.
 
The opression can take place on different levels and scales, from the scale of family (when religion can be used for example to opress women and children and to impeed their freedom) to the level of  larger congregations or of the state (as in countries like Iran). The religious opression goes ofcourse most often hand in hand with political opression, especially when it comes to the larger entities (even if opression on an individual and family level in some sence also is political).
 
 
 


Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 10 Feb 2011 at 01:01
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

Carch wrote:
 
"I am not always against religion, just when it have too negative effects on people. I have no special bias against catholics, I can be equally critical to protestants or muslims or others when they use their religion as a tool of opression."
 
Could have fooled me but what is telling in terms of reaching a "protest too much" moment is the concluding phrase: "...when they use their religion as a tool of opression".
 
Can any religion within the ambit of the contemporary Western world be labeled "oppressive" given that the working definition of the terms demands the exercise of political power or authority in a burdensome, cruel or unjust manner?  In essence oppression means the cruel and arbitrary exercise of power. The fact that Carch goes as far as equating religion in action as a tool of oppression reveals the extent of his artful sophistry at work.
 
The opression can take place on different levels and scales, from the scale of family (when religion can be used for example to opress women and children and to impeed their freedom) to the level of  larger congregations or of the state (as in countries like Iran). The religious opression goes ofcourse most often hand in hand with political opression, especially when it comes to the larger entities (even if opression on an individual and family level in some sence also is political).
 
 
That doesn't meet drgonzaga's point in the least - in fact you are really confirming it. There is oppression. There is religion. There has been religious oppression, but there have also been non-religious oppression, religious tolerance and non-religious tolerance.  They are completely independent factors/concepts.
 
Incidentally I've hardly ever come across someone as dedicated to religious oppression and ikntolerance as you are.


-------------
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.



Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 10 Feb 2011 at 01:13
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

[That doesn't meet drgonzaga's point in the least - in fact you are really confirming it. There is oppression. There is religion. There has been religious oppression, but there have also been non-religious oppression, religious tolerance and non-religious tolerance.  They are completely independent factors/concepts.
 
Often religion and opression goes hand in hand. Irrational beliefs many times lend themselves well to be used in opressive ways.
 


Posted By: drgonzaga
Date Posted: 10 Feb 2011 at 01:34
Carch wrote:
 
The opression can take place on different levels and scales, from the scale of family (when religion can be used for example to opress women and children and to impeed their freedom) to the level of  larger congregations or of the state (as in countries like Iran). The religious opression goes ofcourse most often hand in hand with political opression, especially when it comes to the larger entities (even if opression on an individual and family level in some sence also is political).
 
What can one say to such other than he does a rather poor job in repressing his tendencies towards the absurd and the nonsensical. That he does not even understand the implications of statements such as the "freedom" of children and the "oppression" of women within the ambit of the secular world, and that such language is little more than evidence of getting lost in the milieu of agiprop and kookdom, becomes more than obvious. At law, children are responsibilities and as such under the discipline of tutelage where the "freedom" of action is and demands to be proscribed. Relationships between man and woman are governed under the laws of contract under which both parties cede their personal autonomy for the sake of the mutually beneficial. Anarchical abstractions are little more than the inflicting of mental violence upon the customary specially within a contemporary context where all soon becomes exercise in reductio ad absurdum.


-------------
Honi soit qui mal y pense


Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 10 Feb 2011 at 01:50
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

 
What can one say to such other than he does a rather poor job in repressing his tendencies towards the absurd and the nonsensical. That he does not even understand the implications of statements such as the "freedom" of children and the "oppression" of women within the ambit of the secular world, and that such language is little more than evidence of getting lost in the milieu of agiprop and kookdom, bcomes more than obvious. At law, children are responsibilities and as such under the discipline of tutelage where the "freedom" of action is and demands to be proscribed.
 
Relationships between man and woman are governed under the laws of contract under which both parties cede their personal autonomy for the sake of the mutually beneficial. Anarchical abstractions are little more than the inflicting of mental violence upon the customary specially within a contemporary context where all soon becomes exercise in reductio ad absurdum.
 
Please do not sound like some pamphlet for the moral majority. The old religious repression have inhibited enough many people already, giving them a lot of frustrations, which can be seen among other places in the records of mental institutions.


Posted By: drgonzaga
Date Posted: 10 Feb 2011 at 01:52
Often religion and opression goes hand in hand. Irrational beliefs many times lend themselves well to be used in opressive ways.
 
I doubt that Carch requires a shovel to dig a deeper hole given the fact he is employing a bulldozer. But then he is giving ample evidence that perhaps he is in need of a little Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy [REBT].
 

Irrational beliefs

1. It is a dire necessity for adult humans to be loved or approved by virtually every significant other person in their community.

2. One absolutely must be competent, adequate and achieving in all important respects or else one is an inadequate, worthless person.

3. People absolutely must act considerately and fairly and they are damnable villains if they do not. They are their bad acts.

4. It is awful and terrible when things are not the way one would very much like them to be.

5. Emotional disturbance is mainly externally caused and people have little or no ability to increase or decrease their dysfunctional feelings and behaviors.

6. If something is or may be dangerous or fearsome, then one should be constantly and excessively concerned about it and should keep dwelling on the possibility of it occurring.

7. One cannot and must not face life's responsibilities and difficulties and it is easier to avoid them.

8. One must be quite dependent on others and need them and you cannot mainly run one's own life.

9. One's past history is an all-important determiner of one's present behavior and because something once strongly affected one's life, it should indefinitely have a similar effect.

10. Other people's disturbances are horrible and one must feel upset about them.

11. There is invariably a right, precise and perfect solution to human problems and it is awful if this perfect solution is not found.

Albert Ellis. Reason and Emotion in Psychotherapy. New York: Birch Lane Press, 1994.
 
 


-------------
Honi soit qui mal y pense


Posted By: Flipper
Date Posted: 10 Feb 2011 at 05:49
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Often religion and opression goes hand in hand. Irrational beliefs many times lend themselves well to be used in opressive ways.


Ehm...I think you need to check the number of religions historically and realize that is religion and oppression usually do not go hand in hand. Apart from theocratic Egypt and probably central America that is an exception, oppression and religion as you present it, is rather a later trend.

Oppression on the other hand is not a feature of religion. No religion teaches you to oppress. It is usually the religious leaders and others that may misuse religion for controlling the crowds.


-------------
FΑΝΑΚΤΟΥ ΜΙΔΑ ΓΟΝΟΣ
http://www.palaeolexicon.com" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 10 Feb 2011 at 21:11
Originally posted by Flipper Flipper wrote:

Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Often religion and opression goes hand in hand. Irrational beliefs many times lend themselves well to be used in opressive ways.


Ehm...I think you need to check the number of religions historically and realize that is religion and oppression usually do not go hand in hand. Apart from theocratic Egypt and probably central America that is an exception, oppression and religion as you present it, is rather a later trend.

Oppression on the other hand is not a feature of religion. No religion teaches you to oppress. It is usually the religious leaders and others that may misuse religion for controlling the crowds.
 
Still there is an element of submission in at least some religions that easy can be used and manipulated by leaders.


Posted By: Flipper
Date Posted: 10 Feb 2011 at 22:35
Yes but that is what I said. However, it doesn't make true the comment that religion and oppression go hand in hand.

-------------
FΑΝΑΚΤΟΥ ΜΙΔΑ ΓΟΝΟΣ
http://www.palaeolexicon.com" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 10 Feb 2011 at 23:05
Originally posted by Flipper Flipper wrote:

Yes but that is what I said. However, it doesn't make true the comment that religion and oppression go hand in hand.
 
Still it does, and have done so many times in different contexts. The ideology of submission too often ends in opression. The step from submitting to supernatural entities to submit to their alleged spokespersons and representatives is unfortunately not always so long.


Posted By: drgonzaga
Date Posted: 10 Feb 2011 at 23:44
Hmm does not the shaman of your purported Amazonian Edens (see the Amazon love thread) operate in the realm of fear and submission, so much so that the notion of "let's kill the shaman" as the bearer of evils often becomes practice?
 
The interesting part here is hardly the subject and instead it is the magnificent display of obduracy by Carcharadon in maintaining an outlandish premise against the reasoned presentations of all others. What is even funnier here is that even your run-of-the-mill libertarian would make mince-meat of his argument. Here is an example:
 

Joseph Stalin is famously said to have asked an adviser, dismissively, "How many divisions does the Pope have?" Had the adviser possessed greater courage, he might have replied: "How many does he need?"

Observing the many government leaders gathered at the Vatican for the funeral of Pope John Paul II, we might well have suspected that the world's politico-military chieftains need what the Pope has more than the Pope needs what they have.

Governments have physical force--control over a society's most decisive means of dispensing violence. They may try to disguise this essential attribute by cloaking it in measures ostensibly for the enhancement of the people's "welfare" and "security"; they may paint its hardened, harlot face with cheery "democratic" cosmetics; but when push comes to shove, all governments fall back on their superior ability to beat, shackle, imprison, and kill those who challenge the exercise of their power.

They prefer, however, to avoid such resort to violence, because it is too obvious, too difficult to misrepresent, despite their adamant claim that war is peace when they do lash out. If they routinely smash dissidents and opponents with violence, they will be seen clearly for what they are: killers in crowns, mobsters in dark suits, white shirts, and red neckties. They would rather present themselves in a different guise--a kindlier, gentler semblance that not only proclaims their noble intentions but mollifies many of their subjects who might otherwise grow restive or even revolutionary. The rulers don't want to seem to be just the most powerful thugs in the neighborhood.

They crave legitimacy because, apart from its intrinsically gratifying character, a thief and a murderer can go farther with legitimacy than he can go without it. But how are such reprehensible human beings to acquire what, in the nature of things, they manifestly do not possess? Well, if there is guilt by association, might there also be virtue by association? The rulers think so.

Hence their appearance at John Paul's funeral. Clearly religion did not bring them: few of them even claim to be Catholic, and many belong to groups that have been at war with the Catholic Church for centuries. No, these rulers came in order to be seen in the presence of something not one of them will ever possess: genuine moral authority. They hope that by sitting beside the dead Pope's casket, some of his towering moral stature will seep onto them and make them appear to stand a little taller in the eyes of those over whom they rule and upon whom they prey.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/higgs/higgs32.html - http://www.lewrockwell.com/higgs/higgs32.html
 
Now that little exercise in cut-and-paste should have our resident shark in a state of beserkdom shortly.


-------------
Honi soit qui mal y pense


Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 10 Feb 2011 at 23:51
Do not forget that the spokespersons of religions do not always have to use direct physical violence to opress people. They can also do so by using phsycological tactics, scaring and intimidating their belivers into all sorts of things. Also political leaders can be influenced by religious ideas which in many cases can result in different kinds of opression, in violence and in instituting opressive laws and regulations.


Posted By: drgonzaga
Date Posted: 11 Feb 2011 at 00:08
Carch, have you ever heard the expression "It's as easy as shooting fish in a barrel."? The vacuity of your responses and their dire lack of actual analysis renders any need of reply to your quibbles entirely superflous in an intellectual setting. What can one say other than dredge up the sharp little phrases shaped by common sense. Before you go off again take these little jewels to heart:
 
Get your ducks in a row, its shooting fish in a barrel. But don't keep all your eggs in one basket, because birds of a feather flock together. So grab that tiger by the tail, but be as quite as a mouse about it, and you'll be king of the jungle.


-------------
Honi soit qui mal y pense


Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 11 Feb 2011 at 00:13
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

Carch, have you ever heard the expression "It's as easy as shooting fish in a barrel."? The vacuity of your responses and their dire lack of actual analysis renders any need of reply to your quibbles entirely superflous in an intellectual setting. What can one say other than dredge up the sharp little phrases shaped by common sense. Before you go off again take these little jewels to heart:
 
Get your ducks in a row, its shooting fish in a barrel. But don't keep all your eggs in one basket, because birds of a feather flock together. So grab that tiger by the tail, but be as quite as a mouse about it, and you'll be king of the jungle.
 
Your little phrases are moving but not too relevant for the subject of this thread.


Posted By: drgonzaga
Date Posted: 11 Feb 2011 at 00:22
That you miss the relevance in your artful dodging is entirely immaterial. You long ago departed from religion and iconography to pursue your own demons and just because you can not accept the reality of the sky not being blue at all, does not negate the truth of such a declaration.
 
So take your own advice here and actually discuss art as a visualization of cosmography.


-------------
Honi soit qui mal y pense


Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 11 Feb 2011 at 00:38
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

That you miss the relevance in your artful dodging is entirely immaterial. You long ago departed from religion and iconography to pursue your own demons and just because you can not accept the reality of the sky not being blue at all, does not negate the truth of such a declaration.
 
So take your own advice here and actually discuss art as a visualiation of cosmography.
 
Well, we have discussed both religion and images, and also about religion and opression in this thread. And somewhere there the topics meet each other since religion can be an isnpiration of image but also and inspiration for the opression and destruction of image.


Posted By: drgonzaga
Date Posted: 11 Feb 2011 at 01:36
Either you are a damned fool or a devious didact fixated upon caricatures of religion for the sake of noxious air pollution. Oppression of images!?! Even the utilization of language becomes obtuse at your hands Carch and if your objective is to exhaust the patience even of a saint then you have reached your goal.
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hIcKkKID8k - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hIcKkKID8k


-------------
Honi soit qui mal y pense


Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 11 Feb 2011 at 01:48
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

Oppression of images!?!
 
The destruction of images, the hindrance of making certain images or the hindrance of displaying such images.


Posted By: drgonzaga
Date Posted: 11 Feb 2011 at 02:10
Then go ahead and sue the German government in the European Court of Justice for "proscribing" the swastika! Better yet, listen to the Beatles from oh, so long ago: "If you go carryin' pictures of Chairman Mao, you ain't gonna make it with anyone anyhow!"
 


-------------
Honi soit qui mal y pense


Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 11 Feb 2011 at 03:51
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Still there is an element of submission in at least some religions that easy can be used and manipulated by leaders.
But there is much much more against that supposition than for it. Most oppression is secular, imposed by fanataics like you.


-------------
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.



Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 11 Feb 2011 at 12:50
Before responding to something Carch wrote, I have a few observations. Either they are helpful, or I have completely missed the mark and am making an ass of myself -- wouldn't be the first time. Wink
 
I think it is possible that Carch is using the term oppression in a different sense than everyone else is, and one that is potentially still valid. Carch may -- and correct me, Carch, if I'm wrong -- be thinking about oppression within the religious community which, by virtue of the fact that a certain religious community might be a majority, can often become societal. This certainly has happened in the course of history, and to a certain extent happens today. I would agree entirely with you, graham, that "most oppression is secular" -- I wonder in what sense and to what extent we agree on this one, don't you? Embarrassed -- but this secular oppression is in a constant state of conflict with religious mores that have become ingrained in our culture. While the term "Culture War" has been overused and abused, it does speak to a certain truth.
 
Don't know if anything there was helpful, but I just had a few observations from reading what you guys have made a very interesting discussion. Should we spin it off into a new thread and focus on images here, or is this a necessary precursor to such a discussion. That decision, I leave to you, my more erudite colleagues.
 
-Akolouthos
 
One more thing, specifically addressed to Carch:
 
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Well, she has stated in some interview I saw something like you said, that Jesus accepted everyone, regardless of their status in society. She said that these people that often are scorned by Christians most probably would be accepted by Jesus himself. It seems that she wants to contrast the tolerance of Jesus against the intolerance of some of his adherents.
 
I think that, while you are correct, an important distinction needs to be drawn -- and often is not: Jesus did, indeed, accept people as they were, but he often called them to be something different.


Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 11 Feb 2011 at 19:49
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Still there is an element of submission in at least some religions that easy can be used and manipulated by leaders.
But there is much much more against that supposition than for it. Most oppression is secular, imposed by fanataics like you.
 
Too much opression have actually been inspired by world views created in a religious and mythological context. And still today religion inspires a lot of opression.
 
And one do not have to be a fanatic to have a critical view of religion.


Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 11 Feb 2011 at 19:52
Originally posted by Akolouthos Akolouthos wrote:

 
 
[quote=Carcharodon]
Well, she has stated in some interview I saw something like you said, that Jesus accepted everyone, regardless of their status in society. She said that these people that often are scorned by Christians most probably would be accepted by Jesus himself. It seems that she wants to contrast the tolerance of Jesus against the intolerance of some of his adherents.[quote]
 
I think that, while you are correct, an important distinction needs to be drawn -- and often is not: Jesus did, indeed, accept people as they were, but he often called them to be something different.
Yes, he was after all a child of his time. But it seems that he still was rather tolerant for that place and time. Some of his later adherents have been much less tolerant.


Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 16 Feb 2011 at 00:00
Images that was a part of a religious and spiritual contexts one could also find on the Noaid drums (shaman drums) of the Sami people. In the 17 century and onwards the practice of such drums was forbidden by the Swedish church and authorities since it was deemed pagan and diabolic. At least one noaid were burned by the christians because he refused to let go of his drum and to stop perform shamanistic rites. He was burned together with his drum and some idols of tree.
 
A Sami drum


Posted By: drgonzaga
Date Posted: 16 Feb 2011 at 03:05
Er, Carcharadon you are forgetting the essential distinctions that must be made that separates religion and its constructs from political action by the "state" itself. The Romans were quite busy at eliminating druids and their oak trees (as well as proscribing their rituals) long before there were any Christians mucking about. Hence your particular phobia is little more than a grand exercise at misdirection. Further, you yourself are providing more than ample evidence that had you any political power you too would spend the bulk of your time "eradicating" Christians because somehow your belief system views them as inimical to public order and libertas.
 
Now I must admit that there is some attraction to the possible reconstruction of practices such as bog sacrifice and the induced trance as a means for identifying enemies and starting a big business in potions and amulets...but hey whatever turns you on.


-------------
Honi soit qui mal y pense


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 16 Feb 2011 at 03:20
Carcha is also confusing images with symbolism. The Sami drum above shows symbols, not images. An image is a realistic representation of a person, an animal or supernatural being.
This image of Ganesha (It is an Indian God; not Dumbo) is an image:







But the drawing in this Mapuche Kultrun it is not an image, but the symbol that represent the four direction of the compass, together with other complementary symbols.



What religions usually forbid are IMAGES not symbols.





Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 16 Feb 2011 at 22:40
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

  Er, Carcharadon you are forgetting the essential distinctions that must be made that separates religion and its constructs from political action by the "state" itself.
 
The Swedish state in the 17th century was partly founded on religious ideology with a state controlled church. Religion went hand in hand with power. The control of people was a combination of wordly and spiritual domination.
 
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

Now I must admit that there is some attraction to the possible reconstruction of practices such as bog sacrifice and the induced trance as a means for identifying enemies and starting a big business in potions and amulets...but hey whatever turns you on.
 
Actually, when it concerns Samis there are somewhat a renaissance of interest in old cultural practices and also of the old spiritual tradition, the noaiddástallan.


Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 16 Feb 2011 at 22:46
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Carcha is also confusing images with symbolism. The Sami drum above shows symbols, not images. An image is a realistic representation of a person, an animal or supernatural being.
 
Many images symbolize something and are thus a kind of symbols. Many symbols also are images, representing real or imagined beings. Especially a representation of a spiritual beings from a vision can according to the one making a picture of it be quite realistic,  but can be perceived by other people as just a symbol.
 
The lines can be quite blurred. Just look at the debate about the Scandinavian rock carvings wether they are just symbolic or if they are realistic images or both.
 
In this thread I also use a quite broad definition of image where I also include some symbols, just to make it somewhat more easy.


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 17 Feb 2011 at 00:52
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Many images symbolize something and are thus a kind of symbols. Many symbols also are images, representing real or imagined beings.

Baloney. A symbol is the cross. An image is the picture of Virgin Mary. Historically, what was persecuted by the Orthodox Church in Byzantium were the representations of Mary, Jesus, etc, and not the symbols.
In Islam, the representation of God or Mahoma was forbidden, not the Islamic symbols.
In Judaims, the images of foreign Gods were forbidden, not the symbols of Judaism.

Images aren't not symbols. At least, not from the religious point of view. You are talking here about images, and I repeat, symbols aren't images.

As usually, your childish tactic is confusing cathegories.


Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 17 Feb 2011 at 01:07
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Baloney. A symbol is the cross.

Well, have you studied archaeology or anthropology?  You are just simplifying things. Many times images and symbols can be interchangeable, some symbols can also be images or the other way around. Just read up on the archaeological debate about for example rock carvings.
 


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 17 Feb 2011 at 01:13
You haven't studies the history of religions, obviosly. The religious persecution of images is always against the representation of gods. Otherwise you wouldn't interchange symbols with images.


Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 17 Feb 2011 at 01:45
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

You haven't studies the history of religions, obviosly. The religious persecution of images is always against the representation of gods. Otherwise you wouldn't interchange symbols with images.
 
Actually, both symbols and images, clothes and other religious objects (like masks, or drums or different ritual objects, and also architecture) have been destroyed and the use of it being forbidden or opposed. Religious opression can take several shapes and be directed against different expressions of religion and culture.


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 17 Feb 2011 at 02:19
Well, keep away from Jehova Witnesses.


Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 17 Feb 2011 at 02:24
Do not worry, I will (even if they now and then come pounding on the doors here where I live).


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 17 Feb 2011 at 02:27
Just imagine you, addapting the Witnesses agenda! LOL


Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 17 Feb 2011 at 05:48
Not hard to imagine at all. The psychological pattern is just about right.

-------------
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.



Posted By: drgonzaga
Date Posted: 17 Feb 2011 at 07:17
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Baloney. A symbol is the cross.

Well, have you studied archaeology or anthropology?  You are just simplifying things. Many times images and symbols can be interchangeable, some symbols can also be images or the other way around. Just read up on the archaeological debate about for example rock carvings.
 
 
Well, Carch, I have studied Archaeology and Anthropology and have the "papers" that entitle me to pontificate the following: You are all wet here specially with your nebulosity as to "rock carvings"! If you wish to describe "rock art" (and I do not mean a concert by Mick Jagger) you had best be specific and satisfy the distinctions between the pictographs, the petroglyphs, engravings (the incised motifs), the petroforms, and the geoglyphs. However, since you yourself in opening this thread specifically detailed we were addressing images (the pictographic), you can not weasel out as easily as is your usual wont and wish. A cross is an image solely when it is a pictorial of the crucifixion, at all other times it is a symbol. It's as simple as that. Images and symbols are not interchangeable given that the former can include the symbolic but the latter can never include the former since then it ceases to be a symbol as it becomes an iconograph! 
 
Here is a classic example:
 
 
One image and more symbols than you could ever decipher!


-------------
Honi soit qui mal y pense


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 17 Feb 2011 at 08:29
Agreed with Drgonzaga fully. What a beautiful image of Mary and Child. Another example of Image full of symbols.





Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 17 Feb 2011 at 21:37
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Baloney. A symbol is the cross.

Well, have you studied archaeology or anthropology?  You are just simplifying things. Many times images and symbols can be interchangeable, some symbols can also be images or the other way around. Just read up on the archaeological debate about for example rock carvings.
 
 
Well, Carch, I have studied Archaeology and Anthropology and have the "papers" that entitle me to pontificate the following: You are all wet here specially with your nebulosity as to "rock carvings"! If you wish to describe "rock art" (and I do not mean a concert by Mick Jagger) you had best be specific and satisfy the distinctions between the pictographs, the petroglyphs, engravings (the incised motifs), the petroforms, and the geoglyphs. However, since you yourself in opening this thread specifically detailed we were addressing images (the pictographic), you can not weasel out as easily as is your usual wont and wish. A cross is an image solely when it is a pictorial of the crucifixion, at all other times it is a symbol. It's as simple as that. Images and symbols are not interchangeable given that the former can include the symbolic but the latter can never include the former since then it ceases to be a symbol as it becomes an iconograph! 
 
Actually you simplify things (papers or not). Symbols and images can be interchangeable in the way that a picture can have both functions. An image can also change its function over time to be a symbol, and also the other way around. If you had followed the latest discussions about rock art here in Sweden, and also internationally, you would have known that this is much discussed among archaeologists. Especially the changes of the interpretation of images and symbols over time are objects of interesting discussions.
 
And regarding rock art, here in Sweden we have both engravings (petroglyphs) and paintings. They are subdivided in cathegories as northern hunters engravings (jaktristningar) and southern farmers engravings (jordbruksristningar) and some cathegories that comes inbetween or have elements of both. The paintings are mostly thought of as belonging to the tradition that encompasses the northern engravings.
Also there is a discussion about northern rock art about if they have some connection with later Sami pictorial art and traditions.
 
 


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 17 Feb 2011 at 22:54
Nope. Symbols and images aren't interchangeable in the history or religion.

Why you insist so much in your irrational oppinions? I wonder.


Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 17 Feb 2011 at 23:01
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Nope. Symbols and images aren't interchangeable in the history or religion.
 
Well, you would not know would you? Have you any university studies in anthropology and archaeology, or history of religion? Do you follow the academic debates about symbolism and imagery in ancient art? Do you follow the discussions of interchangeability and satellites through time?


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 17 Feb 2011 at 23:26
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

 
Well, you would not know would you? Have you any university studies in anthropology and archaeology, or history of religion? Do you follow the academic debates about symbolism and imagery in ancient art? Do you follow the discussions of interchangeability and satellites through time?


Do you?

Never forget that "What Nature doesn't give, Salamanca won't provide"


Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 17 Feb 2011 at 23:28
Yes.


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 18 Feb 2011 at 08:33
Maybe it is just me, but i don't find the link in original thread topic in any way artistic, inspirational, provocative or even worthy of being debatable! Maybe i just pine for the days when art was art just for the sake of art, with religion and politics being separated from everyday life.


Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 18 Feb 2011 at 21:52
Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:

Maybe it is just me, but i don't find the link in original thread topic in any way artistic, inspirational, provocative or even worthy of being debatable! Maybe i just pine for the days when art was art just for the sake of art, with religion and politics being separated from everyday life.
 
It seems that art, religion, power and politics often have followed each other through history.


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 18 Feb 2011 at 22:26
Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:

Maybe it is just me, but i don't find the link in original thread topic in any way artistic, inspirational, provocative or even worthy of being debatable! Maybe i just pine for the days when art was art just for the sake of art, with religion and politics being separated from everyday life.


Indeed. We should let Carcha to talk alone.


Posted By: drgonzaga
Date Posted: 19 Feb 2011 at 01:42
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Nope. Symbols and images aren't interchangeable in the history or religion.
 
Well, you would not know would you? Have you any university studies in anthropology and archaeology, or history of religion? Do you follow the academic debates about symbolism and imagery in ancient art? Do you follow the discussions of interchangeability and satellites through time?
 
Apparently, some do not know how foolish they look when they claim competence and skills they do not have and then challenge another for not having such. Naturally one can resort to weasel words drawn from the latest abstractions on space junk ["interchangeability and satellites through time", shades of Saganistic ritual pomposity!] but then when that weasel goes "pop" all that is left is Humpty Dumpty on his Wonderland wall. Anyway, one does not need to be a "rocket scientist" to understand why the terms image and symbol are not interchangeable or synonymous, and any who pretend otherwise are simply abusing language usage! An image is a reproduction of a person or thing while a symbol is an abstraction that represents something entirely different from its own appearance.
 
As for the claim on "expertise" in ancient art just how ancient does one want to be and then posit fixed knowledge as to what any object actually represents? Go ahead Carch an expound on detail why the "Venus" of Lespugue, or for that matter the "Venus" of Willendorf, are symbols rather than images? And to top it off actually give us an authoritative declamation on their purpose.
 
For once give honest answers rather than circumlocution, or will such an effort prove too much of a mental strain?


-------------
Honi soit qui mal y pense


Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 19 Feb 2011 at 20:25
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

[
 
Apparently, some do not know how foolish they look when they claim competence and skills they do not have and then challenge another for not having such. Naturally one can resort to weasel words drawn from the latest abstractions on space junk ["interchangeability and satellites through time", shades of Saganistic ritual pomposity!] but then when that weasel goes "pop" all that is left is Humpty Dumpty on his Wonderland wall. Anyway, one does not need to be a "rocket scientist" to understand why the terms image and symbol are not interchangeable or synonymous, and any who pretend otherwise are simply abusing language usage! An image is a reproduction of a person or thing while a symbol is an abstraction that represents something entirely different from its own appearance.
 
As for the claim on "expertise" in ancient art just how ancient does one want to be and then posit fixed knowledge as to what any object actually represents? Go ahead Carch an expound on detail why the "Venus" of Lespugue, or for that matter the "Venus" of Willendorf, are symbols rather than images? And to top it off actually give us an authoritative declamation on their purpose.
 
For once give honest answers rather than circumlocution, or will such an effort prove too much of a mental strain?
 
It seems that you have not partaken in the latest discussions about rock art, at least not Scandinavian such, with discussions about changes in interpretation and changes in meaning of symbols and images, and also what is a symbol for some, in a certain time can be an image in another context and revert to a symbol again, and so on, several times. To study the changing meanings of imagery and symbols and the transformation of meaning is a topic that has been discussed for a while now. But perhaps you have not been on any rock art seminar lately?
 
Symbols and images can indeed be interchangeable or replacable with each other, but they do not necessarly have to be so either. Many times they are also separated and not interchangeable. But you can not simplify the discussion by saying it is always so or so. These categories has to be problematized now and then, and they indeed are.
 
And I have not worked with the Venus figurines so I will not claim any expertice about the discussions about those. But Scandinavian rock art I have worked with for a while, and I have attended seminars and conferences in the subject.


Posted By: Mable01
Date Posted: 04 Oct 2012 at 17:27
It is just to show some art forms through these paintings. I wonder why people relate these paintings to some religious non-voilance issues even though they are based on some religion.

-------------
http://www.overturemiami.com/" rel="nofollow - art basel miami 2012



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2018 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net