| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Religion and images
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Religion and images

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123>
Author
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Religion and images
    Posted: 05 Feb 2011 at 14:43
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Feb 2011 at 14:57
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.





Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Feb 2011 at 15:19
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.

Back to Top
Flipper View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 23 Apr 2006
Location: Anatolia&Balkan
Status: Offline
Points: 2798
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Flipper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Feb 2011 at 15:51
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.


Edited by Flipper - 05 Feb 2011 at 15:55
FΑΝΑΚΤΟΥ ΜΙΔΑ ΓΟΝΟΣ
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Feb 2011 at 16:10
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.
Back to Top
Dolphin View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
Teaman to the Society of Dilettanti

Joined: 06 Feb 2007
Location: Lindalino
Status: Offline
Points: 2766
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dolphin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Feb 2011 at 16:33
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.
Back to Top
Joe View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 19 Jan 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 473
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Joe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Feb 2011 at 17:06
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






Edited by Joe - 05 Feb 2011 at 17:09
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Feb 2011 at 17:46
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.


Edited by drgonzaga - 05 Feb 2011 at 19:18
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Feb 2011 at 18:51
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.

Back to Top
Flipper View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 23 Apr 2006
Location: Anatolia&Balkan
Status: Offline
Points: 2798
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Flipper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Feb 2011 at 19:10
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...".


Edited by Flipper - 05 Feb 2011 at 21:01
FΑΝΑΚΤΟΥ ΜΙΔΑ ΓΟΝΟΣ
Back to Top
Flipper View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 23 Apr 2006
Location: Anatolia&Balkan
Status: Offline
Points: 2798
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Flipper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Feb 2011 at 19:10
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
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Feb 2011 at 19:33
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
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Feb 2011 at 22:15
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.



Edited by pinguin - 05 Feb 2011 at 22:17
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Feb 2011 at 11:30
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.
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Feb 2011 at 11:36
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.


Edited by Carcharodon - 07 Feb 2011 at 11:37
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Feb 2011 at 11:43
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.


Edited by gcle2003 - 07 Feb 2011 at 11:44
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

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

Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Feb 2011 at 11:51
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:
 
 
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.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Feb 2011 at 12:34
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:
 
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.

Back to Top
Flipper View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 23 Apr 2006
Location: Anatolia&Balkan
Status: Offline
Points: 2798
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Flipper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Feb 2011 at 12:49
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

 
Her she makes her own version of The Last Supper:


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.




Edited by Flipper - 07 Feb 2011 at 12:56
FΑΝΑΚΤΟΥ ΜΙΔΑ ΓΟΝΟΣ
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Feb 2011 at 13:13
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.
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Feb 2011 at 13:19
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.
Back to Top
Flipper View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 23 Apr 2006
Location: Anatolia&Balkan
Status: Offline
Points: 2798
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Flipper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Feb 2011 at 20:46
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?


Edited by Flipper - 07 Feb 2011 at 20:49
FΑΝΑΚΤΟΥ ΜΙΔΑ ΓΟΝΟΣ
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Feb 2011 at 22:46
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?
Back to Top
Flipper View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 23 Apr 2006
Location: Anatolia&Balkan
Status: Offline
Points: 2798
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Flipper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Feb 2011 at 06:24
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
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Feb 2011 at 13:35
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).
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Feb 2011 at 13:37
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.
Back to Top
Flipper View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 23 Apr 2006
Location: Anatolia&Balkan
Status: Offline
Points: 2798
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Flipper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Feb 2011 at 14:11
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
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Feb 2011 at 14:33
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.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Feb 2011 at 14:42
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.

Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Feb 2011 at 14:47
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.

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.110 seconds.