Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here’s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

God and art

By Peter Sellick - posted Thursday, 12 September 2013


God and Art.

The philosopher whose thought brought the middle ages to an end was William of Ockham. He did this by arguing that universals, the Platonic ideas that were more real than things did not have independent existence.

Since universals simply reduplicated individual things they were redundant. This shaving off of universals produced what is known as Ockham's razor. Furthermore, if universals only existed in the mind as ideas they did not really exist.

Advertisement

This conflict between the ideal and the real continues in our time between those who understand ideas as being more real than things and vice versa. For example, those who regard sensory experience of the real world to be unreliable will opt for the ideas being more real than things in the world.

Those who in our day are likely to have been trained in natural science will believe that particular things are more real than ideas. Examples in the history of philosophy abound. Thomas Hobbes was an extreme materialist for whom ideas were mere phantoms. At the same time, in England, there existed the Cambridge Platonists who understood the truths of the mind to be superior to sense knowledge, as did Bishop Berkeley.

Thus there is a tendency to emphasis either the life of the mind or the reality of the world. Our time is characterised by an oscillation between the ideal and the real.

While this is evident in many areas of our culture, politics and economics come to mind, it is writ large in the visual arts which are bounded by the real on the one hand in photorealism and the ideal on the other in conceptual art.

Photorealism, an imitation of the work of the camera give us the surface appearance of things and that alone. I am thinking especially of a group of painters here in Western Australia that paint detailed images of beachscapes that may be instantly attractive but soon become dull to the eye. This is because once one has seen the image there is little more to explore.

Conceptual art, on the other hand, jettisons the objective in order to present an idea. However, once the viewer has got the message the work itself is of no consequence and may be discarded. Where is Duchamp's original urinal now?

Advertisement

This movement, in its "look at me" ethos, has become desperate in its effort to attract attention and has resorted to shock tactics. My favourites are all scatological: Piss Christ, the poo machine at MONA, and the tinned artists shit at the Tate.

Where do we place abstraction on the polarity between idealists and realists? Kandinsky wrote that abstraction was a representation of the soul, in which case it would seem to be firmly in the camp of the idealists being to do with the interior world of the mind. But do abstract works represent the soul, or is that mere pretension? What does he mean by "soul"? Does he mean the thoughts and feelings that play in our consciousness, or does he refer to the soul of mind body dualism, whatever that is?

Although I have at times enjoyed abstraction, and particularly a painting by Kandinsky, I experience no feeling that something profoundly soulful is being evoked, merely a skilful application of paint to produce a pleasing picture.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

Peter Sellick is indebted to Philip Blond and his article "Perception: from modern painting to the vision of Christ" in Radical Orthodoxy ed. John Milbank, Catherine Pickstock and Graham Ward and to conversations with the Revd. Bob Booth, priest and painter.



Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

32 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Peter Sellick an Anglican deacon working in Perth with a background in the biological sciences. He has a website called Coondle Art Presentations.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Peter Sellick

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Peter Sellick
Article Tools
Comment 32 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy