/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>the catholic church is guilty for adhering to these pagan and bourgeoisie thoughts

That's not true though. We believe that art should be foremost good and truthful and then beautiful. But it should be both. For standards of beauty comes from absolutely beautifulness that is God. Beauty is both spiritual and material. Material beauty in Church or Church-sponsored/aproved art should inspire spiritual one. But we are not athenians, that equal thos three unto one. That rather belongs to Orthodox icongraphy that show no wound, no ugliness, no horror.

>>607779

>the bourgeoisie are guilty for turning art into an object of pleasure first and foremost instead of a force of good

True with regards to those who film live action pornography, false with regards to the Catholic Church who commissioned talented artists of faith.

To start it off, they didn't entirely create pieces of naked people. They just studied and applied the bodies/anatomy as practice. They weren't trying to focus on carnal attractiveness as artists sometimes used lower-class live models as reference, they just applied their knowledge they've learned with their skill into creating a piece for God.>>607779

>craftsmanship doesn’t matter

>only the message is important

Sounds like modern art.

>>607813

But what is beauty? Is God really beautiful? He's good and truthful, but beauty is something which is a part of our sensory pleasure. He came to earth as an unattractive man who preached words that make us tremble in fear. He was born in a poor condition and died in some of the most horrible death. It is said "with fear and trembling work out your salvation". It's okay to depict heaven in art with all it's beauty, but what happens on earth is not supposed to be very beautiful or pleasing.

>>607819

>They weren't trying to focus on carnal attractiveness

Oh yeah? Compare them to the likes of Peter Bruegel, whose art are just straight up realistic, non romanticized, and sometimes even disturbing looking for they portray commoners' life in it's truest sense.

>>607900

Maybe it's the craftmanship in art itself that needs to be redefined. Tolstoy wrote down his experience of attending an opera rehearsal. It was repulsive and poignant, he described. The workers hadn't bathed in days, the performers were half naked and had to repeat their parts over and over again for about 4 hours, the conductor hadn't had enough sleep. And it was just a generic opera with a generic story. Why such sacrifice for a mere banal entertainment?

And regarding modern art, at the time this book was written, modern art was still obscure and artistically sensible. However, 7 decades later Andrei Tarkovsky explained the reluctance of modern artist to present their art for the progress and well-being of humanity. The message of most modern art is oriented of the self. "Look how different I am", "hear my suffering", "look at how I am oppressed by evil", these have been the most common theme in most modern art. And on top of that, they make no attempt in making their art accessible to others. Tolstoy didn't say that art needs to be ineptly made, he said that it needs to be universal, for main the purpose of art is to transmit emotions and not simply expressing it in an echo chamber.

>>607950

I agree with you.

>>608268

>But what is beauty? Is God really beautiful? He's good and truthful, but beauty is something which is a part of our sensory pleasure.

People tend to forget that soul have senses too namely "common sense, phantasy/imagination, and the estimative and memorative powers".

>He came to earth as an unattractive man

I hate when people misuse this prophecy from Isaiah. For what can be said about Christ's condition on via dolorosa cannot be said about his attractiveness

>who preached words that make us tremble in fear. He was born in a poor condition and died in some of the most horrible death. It is said "with fear and trembling work out your salvation". It's okay to depict heaven in art with all it's beauty, but what happens on earth is not supposed to be very beautiful or pleasing.

Christ said that there is beauty in the world. Holy Ghost says that this beauty declares beauty and glory of the Lord. And we, as image of Christ can mimic this beauty.

>>608303

There is indeed beauty in the world, but it's not sensory beauty as depicted by romanticized art. There is a confusion between this pleasing beauty and moral beauty that Tolstoy has thoroughly explained in his book. It's a reminiscent of the old and primitive pagan thought. The beauty as depicted in romantic art is a very carnal definition beauty, unlike the moral beauty which should be the main purpose of art as a transmission of feelings and emotions.

>>608268

>Oh yeah? Compare them to the likes of Peter Bruegel, whose art are just straight up realistic, non romanticized, and sometimes even disturbing looking for they portray commoners' life in it's truest sense.

Every commisioned piece is non-romanticized and realistic as they were modeled after poor people who were used as reference.

>>608324

>There is indeed beauty in the world, but it's not sensory beauty as depicted by romanticized art.

Beauty is sensory for it can be known by senses, exterior and/or interior

>There is a confusion between this pleasing beauty and moral beauty that Tolstoy has thoroughly explained in his book. It's a reminiscent of the old and primitive pagan thought. The beauty as depicted in romantic art is a very carnal definition beauty, unlike the moral beauty which should be the main purpose of art as a transmission of feelings and emotions.

Or maybe Tolstoy looked in wrong places. Plus aristotelian concept of beauty is practically canonical in apostolic churches

>>607779

>Burgeouisie

It's the jews not Burgeouisie, jews turned capitalism into slavery of goyim

>>608361

>Beauty is sensory for it can be known by senses, exterior and/or interior

Actually, forget my last post. That was a bad post. Beauty and good have nothing to do with each other, it was probably a mistake to call the moral beautiful. Because what is good may not always be perceived as something positive by the sensory organs. Good is a different matter altogether.

>Plus aristotelian concept of beauty is practically canonical in apostolic churches

And yet most of the commissioned art has more to do with Plato.

>>608479

Were the renaissance artists, art commissioners, romanticism artists, and Adolf Hitler Jewish?

May I bump my thread again? I think Tolstoy is an interesting topic.