/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.17603874]

Why is religious art so good? Why is it that an atheist has yet to surpass Bach, Homer, Ovid, Da Vinci, Caravaggio, C.S. Lewis, Aquinas, Rembrandt, Plato, etc?

[Anonymous No.17603919]

Art is fundamentally a gateway to the sublime. Atheists reject the sublime and focus on mankind and it shows. Art based on man's baseness is trash, art based on higher truths - even if those truths are not "true" - is beautiful.

[Anonymous No.17603962]

Religious art and art made by theists are separate categories.

[Anonymous No.17604036]

>>17603874
Atheists are soulless. Simple as.

[Anonymous No.17604062]

>>17603962
No it isn't.

[Anonymous No.17604065]

>>17603874
Because beauty itself is a religious concept. An atheist with a meaningless, nihilistic, hedonistic life has no concept of beauty; making him unable to produce any sublime art.

[Anonymous No.17604082]

>>17603962
Don’t lie now.

[Anonymous No.17604103]

>>17603874
What about the His Dark Materials by Philip Pullman? That’s suppose to be pro-atheist.

[Anonymous No.17604117]

>>17603874
>>17603919
>>17604036
>>17604062
>>17604065
>>17604082
If all it takes for good art is being religious, where are the masterpieces made by you zoomer Twitter LARPers? You're telling me that none of you have any talent?

[Anonymous No.17604132]

>>17603874
because they all channeled the divine through their works, and gave glory to god instead of themselves.

[Anonymous No.17604151]

>>17603874
https://youtu.be/qEMkaZMclSw
interesting video you might like

[Anonymous No.17604205]

>>17604062
Typical illiterate /lit/poster
>>17604082
Bach wrote lots of music for pipe organ and only churches had those so there's that. But most "art" is secular even if made by religious people.

[Anonymous No.17604211]

>>17604117
Too busy watching anime

[Anonymous No.17604687]

>>17604117
Aa an atheist I've seen such "masterpieces" in 2016...
Lets just say the person who made them abandoned said religion upon realising how popular they were all along -_-.

[Anonymous No.17604694]

>>17604132
>and gave glory to god instead of themselves.
Cringe.

[Anonymous No.17604726]

>>17604205
This guy is right, hmm. Vivaldi was a priest but The Four Seasons is secular music.

[Anonymous No.17604753]

>>17604117
Catholics still going strong artistically

[Anonymous No.17604759]

>>17604103
Is that really the best you can bring up

[Anonymous No.17604778]

>>17604117
Logical fallacy, faggot. Try again.

[Anonymous No.17604781]

>>17604117
>>17604753

Catholics are the only ones who’ve been able to make good modern architecture

[Anonymous No.17604788]

>Logical fallacy, faggot. Try again.

[Anonymous No.17604789]

>>17603919
>art based on higher truths - even if those truths are not "true"
What did he mean by this

[Anonymous No.17604803]

>>17603919
>And it shows
Based zoomer

[Anonymous No.17604842]

>>17604789
He says "just a coincidence" when he trips over unexplainable phenomena

[Anonymous No.17604856]

>>17603874
Because for over a millennium it was religious leaders and organizations funding these projects, to say nothing of the amount of influence they had on culture.
In other words, it's purely a numbers game. If artistic geniuses are distributed pretty evenly in an environment, then since Constantine I, most artists that ever existed in the west would have been under religious influence and largely dependent on religious patronage.
Here's some music made by atheists:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b44-5M4e9nI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFQKP3Ehucg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02apSoxB7B4

[Anonymous No.17604968]

>>17604856
>Because for over a millennium it was religious leaders and organizations funding these projects
Why didn't atheists have a community that rivals that of the religious? Why couldn't atheists unite their capital?
>it's purely a numbers game.
And why was there such a disproportionate ratio back then, in favor of religion vs, now, going in the opposite direction. Surely our ancestors had the same reasoning skills(as today) to see that there is no God.

[Anonymous No.17605035]

Art is subjective.

[Anonymous No.17605075]

>>17604968
>Why didn't atheists have a community that rivals that of the religious?
Because the established power had a habit of immolating those that disagreed with them.
>Surely our ancestors had the same reasoning skills(as today) to see that there is no God.
Reason, yes, evidence, no. Evolution has only been known for a little over 160 years (but theorized as far back as ~500 BC, by Anaximander).

[Anonymous No.17605109]

>>17603919
The only relationship that politicians and other people who keep busy for busynesses sake, such as the writer of this post--whether or not they LARP as religious--have to the sublime is by antithesis. Exactly like the mass of idiots they most appeal to and most strenuously & persistently solicit, they almost invariably have no sense of it or experience of it, as affect, as composition, as a reflective mode of the imagination, in intellectual ambition, in connoisseurship of performances, in emphasis on leisure as means to quality of experience, in prevailing playfulness of approach to subject matter, in prolonged and immersively elaborate digressions, in their criteria for selection among artists regardless of genre or medium or time or place, and above all in taste for activities. One either lives like an artist does, or doesn't, which is why poet's poets and other artist's artists are those who tend the most to the sublime in production and reception.

[Anonymous No.17605183]

>>17605109
>meaningless word salad
Didn't read

[Anonymous No.17605202]

>>17603874
Great Art involves looking at something higher and more meaningful than your own tiny mortal existence. Atheists, almost by definition, are unable to do this. They are consumed by small hedonistic and meaningless pleasures, video games, smoking weed and sticking bananas up their butt. Thus they cannot make great art.

[Anonymous No.17605369]

56:10.3. Philosophy you somewhat grasp, and divinity you comprehend in worship, social service, and personal spiritual experience, but the pursuit of beauty—cosmology—you all too often limit to the study of man's crude artistic endeavors. Beauty, art, is largely a matter of the unification of contrasts. Variety is essential to the concept of beauty. The supreme beauty, the height of finite art, is the drama of the unification of the vastness of the cosmic extremes of Creator and creature. Man finding God and God finding man—the creature becoming perfect as is the Creator—that is the supernal achievement of the supremely beautiful, the attainment of the apex of cosmic art.

56:10.4. Hence materialism, atheism, is the maximation of ugliness, the climax of the finite antithesis of the beautiful. Highest beauty consists in the panorama of the unification of the variations which have been born of pre-existent harmonious reality.

[Anonymous No.17605382]

>>17604132
>because they all channeled the divine through their works
this.

[Anonymous No.17605403]

>>17605109
https://voca.ro/1hm5faHOTkZ7
tell me more

[Anonymous No.17605410]

religious includes all layers of life, the higher and lower. secular is usually ideologically narrow and inward/closed, leaving out a lot of things.

[Anonymous No.17605456]

>>17604205
>Bach wrote lots of music for pipe organ and only churches had those so there's that. But most "art" is secular even if made by religious people.
Lmao imagine actually being this retarded that you cope by saying Bach had to write religious works.

[Anonymous No.17605469]

>>17604856
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b44-5M4e9nI
It's hard to strictly call him an atheist.

>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFQKP3Ehucg
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02apSoxB7B4
You have horrible music taste and if you think this is high art you should steer clear of discussions on the subject.

[Anonymous No.17605479]

This thread was moved to >>>/his/10502144