NOM

I titled this the "LDS View" of art, but that's not entirely accurate. What I mean is an organizational view or preference for art that lines up with a Fowler Stage 3 perspective.

My thoughts were sparked this past week when the new presidential portraits of the Obamas' were unveiled. The artist who painted the Obama portrait had previously painted a scene from the apocryphal Book of Judith where Judith beheads an Assyrian general. This story has been painted many times before, but this seemed to upset a lot of people this past week because Judith was depicted as black and the head she was holding was white. The immediate reaction was that the artist was advocating for violence against white people. There was also strong reaction to the Obama portrait itself as the style was unique for presidential portraits. Racism aside, the criticisms I saw seemed to point to a specific attitude and aesthetic when it comes to art, one that is very similar to what Boyd Packer used to profess.

A stage 3 faith interacts with symbols on the literal level. They are not representations, or primarily symbol which can be legitimately interpreted one way or the other, but an immutable truth with its own power that can only be understood in a single way. This carries over, I think, to LDS preferences for art. LDS homes are not generally filled with abstraction or impressionistic pieces. They strive toward photo realism, symbols when used are hyper-literal, and the paintings themselves are like propaganda in that they are meant to reinforce a specific message. A bird is a bird. A proper picture of Jesus should like the way he actually looks, thus the mythology surrounding Parson's Christ in a red robe. Jesus knocking on a door without a handle means that he wants to come into your life but only you can let him in. It's a realistic depiction and it has a set meaning, that's art. Anything like a Jackson Pollok is gobbledygook that "my three year old could paint". Anything like a Picasso is weird or disturbing. The purpose of art is to express a clear and specific truth, which is the beginning and end of that aesthetic.

This is why this sort of literal understanding of art interacts so badly with non-literal forms. The observer wants to jump to a definite answer as to what something intrinsically "is", and judgement that can only be rooted in their view of what is absolutely true. There are no multiple meanings, there is no alternate perspective, which is why any art form which requires the viewer to either empathize with or take the perspective of someone outside their own belief will be dominated by their preexisting beliefs concerning that "other". This experience when judging art seems similar to me in the way that stage 3 culture understands and interprets those of us who have left the faith or do not adhere to all the beliefs. Because there is no middle ground, or space beyond their current understanding, we must be interpreted within that stage 3 frame work and flattened out to remove perspective and nuance.

oliver_denom wrote: ↑Fri Feb 16, 2018 7:25 am They strive toward photo realism, symbols when used are hyper-literal, and the paintings themselves are like propaganda in that they are meant to reinforce a specific message.

This sentence above, to me, is the foundation of "The LDS View of Art and Artistic Expression". The art is ONLY justified if it supports or reinforces an idea prescribed by the church.

Examples would be decorative wall hangings of "The Proclamation"; a decorative artistic picture of "The Temple"; figures of "The Woman Kneeling in Prayer"; and the list goes on and on of typical displays, but it is often church or principle related ONLY.

I didn't know how much I was influenced by my own TBM upbringing when some 15 years ago I went to a friend's house in my neighborhood. That friend had a cabinet with some elegant dolls in it--real people dolls. One was Jackie O. Kennedy. She had a stylie hat on, nice dress and purse. Another doll was Marilyn Monroe wearing her white dress which reminded me immediately of the video clip of her dress blowing up over the air vent. My first reaction was: "HOW INAPPROPRIATE!" My neighbor, sensing my reaction, rebuked me in as kind a way as possible and explained that not everyone sees things the same way that I do.

I remember that. And I thought about it. She was right....not everyone sees things the way SHE did (and at the time I was incredulous about it. The way I see things is the way GOD SEES THINGS.)

That was a beginning, in a small way, of realizing that maybe my culture (TBM) influenced me in ways I wasn't aware of. It wasn't until later when I began to accept that maybe I wasn't right all the time that I began to see, in a small way, how others saw things as well.

Wow. I think that is called....lets see.....what is that word.....empathy? Oh yeh...there it is.

Part of the brittle nature of stage 3 is being right. It is also, in a deep way, related to how much one can or can't experience REAL empathy.

For millenia "art" actually existed in more of a symbolic form among tribes than it did as a "representation" of reality. The drawings on the caves of Lascaux in France being some of the earliest "representational" art we have encountered. They were done probably by multi-generational "artists" approx. 17000 years ago.

We don't know for sure why the drawings were executed to begin with. Could have been for spiritual purposes to give hunters power over the beasts to enable them to feed the tribe. May have been an innate urge to replicate what was being seen. It's too bad we can't ask them.

Art continued in this partially symbolic partially representational way with slow advances right up until the Renaissance. High Renaissance being from 1500 to 1525.

What set the artists of the Renaissance apart was a nearly scientific approach in understanding how to depict "reality". What actually occurs when light strikes an object. This new scientific approach fostered a change in the paradigm of Western civilization in particular. While what we would term as third world countries continued to create flat renditions and many times totally symbolic marks to represent identity and status, Western civilization was relishing the ability to represent the human form and nature as it really appeared both on a two dimensional surface and in the round as well. And as society progressed artists began to depict the world for the sheer enjoyment of doing it. No particular message had to be incorporated in the artwork. Objects were valued as artifacts of beauty on their own merits, not for any ulterior message they might carry.

This "scientific" approach to art has been deeply embedded in Western civilization. It goes well with our desire to expand our knowledge of things as they truly are. In engineering. In medicine. In technology. In understanding our society.

With the advent of Cubism and Abstract Expressionism there was a pushback against "representationalism". And if one considers the desire of an artist to be the next big "thing", what other direction could they go? Representational art had maxed out. In essence it had been perfected and with the advent of great photography it had nearly been replaced. Soon film and cinema would overtake the storytelling power of painting and drawing.

So Picasso and others took "art" back or in the eyes of a Western society possibly "backwards" into a homely type of symbolism which was against the engrained scientific paradigm. The desire to appreciate art as a thing of beauty on it's own merits was ridiculed. Society was forced to see art symbolically as a platform for political and religious commentary just as it had been in the dark ages.
In those times it was forced on the population by a benighted church. In the 1930-40s it was by a capitalistic desire for fame and fortune.

But in reality some beautiful, fun and good things came out of Abstract Expressionism. The world of design was set free in commercial, advertising, architecture, etc.
And in the fine arts as well there are beautiful abstract works done that all should appreciate. Great skill is required to do abstract art well and many uneducated (in the arts) fail to understand that fact. (Continued below)

Excellent observations. That is the strict literalist mindset. We talk about how Mormons are 20 to 30 years out of date, but in some ways when it comes to art they are much more out-of-date. They haven't even caught up to modernism, let alone styles that follow after it. I'm not a big fan of much modern art, but I recognize skill and some of the ideas. It's not really that they're out of date, though. It's an insistence on realism and on literalism in figurative and allegorical concepts. It's the same sort of clashes that inevitably come up whenever Mormons try to actually make sense of the Plan of Salvation, and why they so quickly abandon such attempts.

oliver_denom wrote: ↑Fri Feb 16, 2018 7:25 am one that is very similar to what Boyd Packer used to profess.

I remember a discussion long, long ago on mormon-l, the oldest Mormon-related discussion forum on the internet, about Packer's art. Many of the people involved in that discussion, were very reluctant to actually accept the term "art" as it related to Packer's creations. They felt it qualified as craft, but didn't show much real art.

Palerider wrote: ↑Fri Feb 16, 2018 11:00 am For millenia "art" actually existed in more of a symbolic form among tribes than it did as a "representation" of reality. The drawings on the caves of Lascaux in France being some of the earliest "representational" art we have encountered. They were done probably by multi-generational "artists" approx. 17000 years ago.

We don't know for sure why the drawings were executed to begin with. Could have been for spiritual purposes to give hunters power over the beasts to enable them to feed the tribe. May have been an innate urge to replicate what was being seen. It's too bad we can't ask them.

It really is too bad. The idea of progress verses regression in terms of the way people view new art styles is interesting, it's the entire subject of art history, but what's closed to us is how people really experienced these pieces. The LDS church, aesthetically, seems to have become a prisoner of utility. They early on rejected the symbol of the crucifix, but they replaced it with a whole host of symbols and designs borrowed from traditions across the world. Then something happened, they started stripping back anything that wasn't absolutely essential and unambiguous. Symbols like the pentagram became weird and "deep doctrine" best not spoken of, and the rejection of the cross as a symbol became elevated while the embrace of all other mystical shapes was shoved under the rug. Buildings became uniform, unadorned, and artwork if it was displayed at all, was meant to solely for the purpose of emphasizing a particular narrative. When they stripped down the religion to only the essentials, all they had left was their allegiance to priesthood authority. Ideals of freedom, beauty, and design were more or less discarded for structure and image which emphasized the power of the apostles.

Rob4Hope wrote: ↑Fri Feb 16, 2018 9:46 am I didn't know how much I was influenced by my own TBM upbringing when some 15 years ago I went to a friend's house in my neighborhood. That friend had a cabinet with some elegant dolls in it--real people dolls. One was Jackie O. Kennedy. She had a stylie hat on, nice dress and purse. Another doll was Marilyn Monroe wearing her white dress which reminded me immediately of the video clip of her dress blowing up over the air vent. My first reaction was: "HOW INAPPROPRIATE!" My neighbor, sensing my reaction, rebuked me in as kind a way as possible and explained that not everyone sees things the same way that I do.

Isn't that interesting? The first thing that pops into your head when you see a depiction of a woman, was what was or was not appropriate about being a woman. The very image of gender was used to reinforce the doctrine of gender roles. In that instance, you instinctively knew that this particular image was "wrong", unambiguously wrong.

Jeffret wrote: ↑Fri Feb 16, 2018 11:13 am

oliver_denom wrote: ↑Fri Feb 16, 2018 7:25 am one that is very similar to what Boyd Packer used to profess.

I remember a discussion long, long ago on mormon-l, the oldest Mormon-related discussion forum on the internet, about Packer's art. Many of the people involved in that discussion, were very reluctant to actually accept the term "art" as it related to Packer's creations. They felt it qualified as craft, but didn't show much real art.

I understand the reluctance, but I think a lot of Packer's work was quite beautiful and absolutely an artistic expression. I don't think it's the work itself that gets people riled up, but the way he related to it and attempted to impose on others. When Packer crafted a bird, his goal was to replicate the image of a bird as closely as possible. That was the work of the artist, to make a "truthful" representation. It's the inflexible nature of his definition of "truth" and the "truth" he depicted that sets people on edge. I totally get that, but even with Boyd Packer, who did everything he could to cover his human impulses with tradition, rules, authority, and regulation, even he couldn't keep his humanity from seeping out through his art.

For Packer, art could be separated into truth or lies. A work is either correct, or it is false.

So my point here is that Mormons generally, possibly even more than the general "Western" mind set, have this engrained proclivity for seeing things literally and chastely. It is mentally beaten into them from all angles.

BYU school of art doesn't allow nude models in their figure drawing classes. Only swimsuit clad is acceptable.

That's why many of their students go up to Salt Lake to the open studios at University of Utah to get more drawing.

I don't have a problem with some one taking a point of view in their art. I do have a problem when it isn't a sophisticated, well thought out, well considered approach. I don't like being bludgeoned by people from the left or the right. It isn't a matter of "nuance". Kind of getting sick of that word.

It's a matter of a well researched, intelligent, thoughtful search for truth. A lie can easily be "nuanced".

Sometimes the truth is complex and although in art the principle of simplification is paramount, Mormons have a tendency to OVER-simplify and lose the truth in the process.

oliver_denom wrote: ↑Fri Feb 16, 2018 11:25 am For Packer, art could be separated into truth or lies. A work is either correct, or it is false.

Which isn't really true. Packer's creations were clearly lies, then, because his art was never really correct.

Jeffret wrote: ↑Fri Feb 16, 2018 11:36 am

oliver_denom wrote: ↑Fri Feb 16, 2018 11:25 am For Packer, art could be separated into truth or lies. A work is either correct, or it is false.

Which isn't really true. Packer's creations were clearly lies, then, because his art was never really correct.

I'd have to spend a lot of time tracking them down but I'm kind of wondering if Packer didn’t use rough-outs to do his carvings?

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... -1U2MEuuAp

Judging from his drawings and paintings I would think Boyd was a relatively naive artist. Not quite on the same level as Grandma Moses. Less original.

But I'm sure it gave him a break from dealing with the waywards and the "less thans" he had to contend with in the quorum and the church in general.

Interesting discussion. I think what you are trying to label about art is the distinction between what is called "high art" and what my mother called blebeain art, Or, art of the common people. And I don't know that I would say that Mormons are any worse than any other group. Sure, there are Mormons who decorate their homes in kitsch, which I am not sure if that is the distinction you are making or not.

Art has gone through several periods, and some people appreciate some styles more than others. People who are kind of immature? (Is that the word I want?) in their thinking tend to like literalism in both literature and art. I would say stage 3 according to Fowler and stage 4 in moral thinking according to Kohlberg, and they like the world kept black and white and probably voted for tRump. And Mormons do tend to stay at those levels, but there is also having an education in art that makes one appreciate more complicated art, so I don't know.

I am one who feels that Packer's depiction of birds was craft rather than art. I had an art teacher explain it as "an artist does not record what they see, but *interprets* what they see." Packer tries to make his birds the same way a taxidermist makes his animals. But the line between art and craft is not a hard and fast line. There is some art involved even in taxidermy and other crafts. Photographers capture what they see, but there is still art involved. My husband had trouble with the art in photography. He had never taken art classes, so was blind to balance, lighting, repetition, eye flow patterns, and other artistic principles. He would get angry because we would both have cameras and taking pictures of the same thing and my pictures came back more interesting than his. But he knew how to make the camera do things that I was like, "what's aperture?" So, the difference between craft and art is kind of an abstract concept, and art really can slip sideways into junk. Some abstract slips sideways into junk and realism slipped sideways before that period ended. Artists who were closing their eyes and flinging paint at a canvas.....The artist who wrapped landmarks in plastic. That stops being art at some point. We were in Paris when he had bridges across the Seine all wrapped in plastic. Sorry, but that isn't art. I don't exactly have a name for it, but high art is not gimmicky or too overly repetitive. I saw too much real art in Paris (my kids were 10, 7, & 4, and whined and whined about "not another art gallery" "not another cathedral" "but we just spent yesterday in a museum.") to call a plastic wrapped bridge anything but stupid. Maybe the first landmark he wrapped in plastic was creative and "art" but by the time he has wrapped 50 or so landmarks in plastic, it stops being creative or original, or even interesting. Don't get me wrong, I can appreciate good abstract, but that is one style that is so subjective that some people like it because they think they are supposed to rather than because it is good. Some abstract is real art. I saw one in Berlin that made me cry, because in total abstract it captured the emotion of the destruction that was Berlin just after WWII.

OK, after all that, I won't say that Mormons are more literalist or kitschy in their art choices than any other group, or maybe I just come from a very artistic kind of family and so my view of other Mormons is warped by my experience. But lots of people everywhere are what my mother called plebeian in their art, music, and literature choices. She was quite contemptuous of things like "church art" and none of my relatives ever displayed kitsch. I only knew what kitsch was because my best friend was Catholic and my mother loved her parents, but made nasty comments about their church art in their house. We were art and music snobs and I didn't realize it until I married and got to know my husband's more normal family.

So, are Mormons more plebeian or literalist in their art taste than average Americans? I donno.

When I think of Mormon art, a number of things come to mind.

• The homoerotic art of Arnold Friberg in the Salt Lake Temple Visitors Center
  
  Not allowing a few of the works of Rodin to be displayed at BYU from the traveling collection of New York's Museum of Modern Art, including the famous sculptures The Kiss and The Thinker.
  
  Giving BYU-Idaho student Waverly Giles a zero score for her very compelling art, because it showed bare shoulders.
  
  No doubt a hundred more incidents of censorship we have heard nothing about in the news.

Whether Mormon artists in traditional art, cinema, music, writers, etc., all must conform to the Unwritten Rules imposed on them by LDS traditionalists. This has been so problematic that some of them have ended up leaving the Church because of this judgment and rejection.


Contrary the BYU thought, The Thinker did not represent toilet art.

Is it ok to discuss the performing arts here? I saw the old City of Joseph pageant in Nauvoo years ago. The church was not in charge of its production or content, but there was some connection. I really don't know how that worked. It was a very popular attraction. Then the church created its own Nauvoo pageant. It's hard to compare the popularity directly since CoJ only ran for two weeks/year and the Nauvoo pageant runs for about a month. However, it seems to me that the new pageant is much less popular. If I had to guess why, I think it's because the new pageant is less visually appealing and the story line is more churchy. There is conflict, but it takes place in a total church context. The old pageant also depicted a very human Joseph Smith who threw bullies in the creek but also cared about his people. The new pageant doesn't show JS as anything other than an Elijah-like prophet.

I also saw the pageant at the Kanesville Tabernacle in Council Bluffs. You could tell it's not a church production. The story is pretty complex. I don't remember all the details, but I remember the woman at the center of the story needing to choose between family and church. If I remember correctly, she chose family.

I have read several stories about the difficulties Mormons have in writing literature that I think is related. The LDS worldview is too straightforward. Moral ambiguity is hard for Mormons to get right. The church produces some very good writers, but they tend to end up writing young adult books that are less complex. (I do like Brandon Sanderson. It would be unfair to label all his books as YA, but no one would confuse his writings with George R. R. Martin's.)

Before I was thinking in terms of what Mormons produce and what they like. Not separating the people from their Mormonism.

I think if we define "Mormon art" as art (all forms, music, visual) produced *for and by the Mormon church*, then we know more what we are talking about. Not just art produced by Mormons or art that Mormons like, but produced by or even displayed by the church, or specifically for the church then we have something where we know exactly what we have...master pieces put in the Ensign where they take the wings off angels and put more clothing on them to cover the porn shoulders.

Then very quickly we can see both homophobia and an odd blindness to homoerotic art of Arnold Friberg. The church never seems to notice that women and gays think Nephi is has porn shoulders, clear to his hips. Just so focused on and paranoid about what turns straight men on that they fail to see that women get turned on too.

We see a terrible phobia about female bare skin, but no concept of other ways women are portrayed as sex objects because it is "sacred" sex objects, the portrayal is as sacred baby making boxes, not as human beings. Madona/whore complex.

And in general a preoccupation with sex.

Real difficulties are glossed over for a quick fairytale ending. Like as when Cinderella is righteous and goes to the ball and the rich prince falls in love and marries her in the temple, and did I mention that the prince was rich, and they lived happily ever after.

Prosperity gospel is preached. God will protect and reward the righteous.

So, plot lines are simplified. Villains are flat villains, black and white.

Cheese under the name of "heart sell". Cheese and mush so deep you can't wade through it.

So, yeah, art produced by the church has issues.

oliver_denom wrote: ↑Fri Feb 16, 2018 11:19 am

Rob4Hope wrote: ↑Fri Feb 16, 2018 9:46 am I didn't know how much I was influenced by my own TBM upbringing when some 15 years ago I went to a friend's house in my neighborhood. That friend had a cabinet with some elegant dolls in it--real people dolls. One was Jackie O. Kennedy. She had a stylie hat on, nice dress and purse. Another doll was Marilyn Monroe wearing her white dress which reminded me immediately of the video clip of her dress blowing up over the air vent. My first reaction was: "HOW INAPPROPRIATE!" My neighbor, sensing my reaction, rebuked me in as kind a way as possible and explained that not everyone sees things the same way that I do.

Isn't that interesting? The first thing that pops into your head when you see a depiction of a woman, was what was or was not appropriate about being a woman. The very image of gender was used to reinforce the doctrine of gender roles. In that instance, you instinctively knew that this particular image was "wrong", unambiguously wrong.

It is EXTREMELY interesting. I didn't even know I did it, and after she spoke to me about my reaction I took a moment and did a little reflection. She had a point. I didn't see it--I was completely blind to it (or had blinders on which is probably more accurate).

I've noticed a tendency in me and others for this type of "blinder" thing that surpasses just art. You have the same thing with race, gender (as you pointed to above), ethnicity, appearance and body type, and age. The list could go on and on.

The LDS church reinforces a specific image. They always speak to and reenthrown a specific ideal. That is, in my opinion, why Dieter Uchdorf was in the FP. He is a tall handsome "European" man. Now I happen to like the guy--so don't get me wrong about him--but I think that public image DOES play a role in some of those choices. Its all about image control and part of that stereotypically distorts other lines from what they could or perhaps should be.

moksha wrote: ↑Fri Feb 16, 2018 10:52 pm

• The homoerotic art of Arnold Friberg in the Salt Lake Temple Visitors Center

I'm unfamiliar with any Friberg art that could imply homoeroticism. Can you give me a specific reference?

Can't believe they wouldn't show The Thinker. Were his privates showing from a certain angle and they figured female students would wonder what that was? Or worse yet, become enamoured?

Palerider wrote: ↑Sat Feb 17, 2018 12:42 pm I'm unfamiliar with any Friberg art that could imply homoeroticism.

I don't know if these images will show up, but I think friberg's most sexy paintings are the BoM heros. So if my images don't work, look up captain Moroni, Nephi, and Ammon just before he cuts off the guy's arms.

Here is some art that is done in a realistic manner but portrays something that is not entirely realistic. This is certainly what is preferred in church. The Gospel Doctrine class covered D&C 132 a few months ago and the teacher explicitly limited it to discussion about having a good marriage.

.