<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Is the Spirit the reason that so much LDS art is terrible?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://bycommonconsent.com/2006/10/18/is-the-spirit-the-reason-that-so-much-lds-art-is-terrible/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://bycommonconsent.com/2006/10/18/is-the-spirit-the-reason-that-so-much-lds-art-is-terrible/</link>
	<description>A Mormon Blog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Feb 2012 07:52:28 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Joe</title>
		<link>http://bycommonconsent.com/2006/10/18/is-the-spirit-the-reason-that-so-much-lds-art-is-terrible/#comment-109508</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Joe]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Dec 2006 14:51:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2006/10/is-the-spirit-the-reason-that-so-much-lds-art-is-terrible/#comment-109508</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[One problem in this thread (and often in the university) is that what constitutes good art is never defined. So we can just go ahead and say, &quot;That was a terrible movie&quot; or &quot;That painting is just kitch&quot; without bothering to define what we mean.

There are at least two issues at stake here, one involving communication of an idea or of a truth and one involving the purposes of art (which may include communication but may not).

Resolving those issues is necessary before the question regarding the Spirit can be resolved.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>One problem in this thread (and often in the university) is that what constitutes good art is never defined. So we can just go ahead and say, &#8220;That was a terrible movie&#8221; or &#8220;That painting is just kitch&#8221; without bothering to define what we mean.</p>
<p>There are at least two issues at stake here, one involving communication of an idea or of a truth and one involving the purposes of art (which may include communication but may not).</p>
<p>Resolving those issues is necessary before the question regarding the Spirit can be resolved.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jeffrey Royal</title>
		<link>http://bycommonconsent.com/2006/10/18/is-the-spirit-the-reason-that-so-much-lds-art-is-terrible/#comment-109507</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jeffrey Royal]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 17 Dec 2006 23:51:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2006/10/is-the-spirit-the-reason-that-so-much-lds-art-is-terrible/#comment-109507</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Pingback, this feeling of the spirit, is indeed a subjective term.  It generally is referred to as a feeling of &quot;sugar, spice, and all things nice&quot; a la Galatians fruits of the spirits.  Of course, that verse has nothing to do with how the spirit feels, but rather the effects of following it in your life, but it is applied this way.  Hence, wading away from this spiritual sensationalism and evangelism, being touched by the Spirit ought to be less a striking of chords on one&#039;s spiritual strings and more referred to as a mental illumination.  It involves a specific communicable and pragmatic message from God that involves guidance through one&#039;s life or an impression to do something for another person or make some decision.  If this doesn&#039;t come, one might question if they are indeed experiencing God&#039;s illumination and not just indigestion, or a personal bias or fear which keeps them from accepting something which is quite fine in the eyes of God.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Pingback, this feeling of the spirit, is indeed a subjective term.  It generally is referred to as a feeling of &#8220;sugar, spice, and all things nice&#8221; a la Galatians fruits of the spirits.  Of course, that verse has nothing to do with how the spirit feels, but rather the effects of following it in your life, but it is applied this way.  Hence, wading away from this spiritual sensationalism and evangelism, being touched by the Spirit ought to be less a striking of chords on one&#8217;s spiritual strings and more referred to as a mental illumination.  It involves a specific communicable and pragmatic message from God that involves guidance through one&#8217;s life or an impression to do something for another person or make some decision.  If this doesn&#8217;t come, one might question if they are indeed experiencing God&#8217;s illumination and not just indigestion, or a personal bias or fear which keeps them from accepting something which is quite fine in the eyes of God.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jeffrey Royal</title>
		<link>http://bycommonconsent.com/2006/10/18/is-the-spirit-the-reason-that-so-much-lds-art-is-terrible/#comment-109506</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jeffrey Royal]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 17 Dec 2006 23:45:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2006/10/is-the-spirit-the-reason-that-so-much-lds-art-is-terrible/#comment-109506</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[These arguments of religious experience trumping all art are simply ridiculous.  How often does the Spirit actually communicate a definate message?  Meaning, showing you an image or speaking to you in the English language.  I can think on the top of my head of only a few.  Those who think only the spirit teaches truth are bound to be led astray by their own ecstasies, interpreting some passing feeling as God&#039;s truth to whatever they feel is valid.  It&#039;s like missionaries who are so bound to be led somewhere that God leads them to a street to tract with no homes on it.  Relying solely on religious or spiritual experience is dangerous, and you will seek to invent such experiences just to receive your subjective &quot;truth.&quot;  And to clarify, these experiences ought to be more than waffling impressions or strange ineffable feelings; they ought to have some substance and meaning to them.

Look at how God communicates in dreams and visions, aiding our understanding of truth with our visual senses.  Words themselves are art and convey meaning.  Art is needed and we would not understand as much truth without it (by the way, art need not be only visual, as I know you know, just clarifying this).]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>These arguments of religious experience trumping all art are simply ridiculous.  How often does the Spirit actually communicate a definate message?  Meaning, showing you an image or speaking to you in the English language.  I can think on the top of my head of only a few.  Those who think only the spirit teaches truth are bound to be led astray by their own ecstasies, interpreting some passing feeling as God&#8217;s truth to whatever they feel is valid.  It&#8217;s like missionaries who are so bound to be led somewhere that God leads them to a street to tract with no homes on it.  Relying solely on religious or spiritual experience is dangerous, and you will seek to invent such experiences just to receive your subjective &#8220;truth.&#8221;  And to clarify, these experiences ought to be more than waffling impressions or strange ineffable feelings; they ought to have some substance and meaning to them.</p>
<p>Look at how God communicates in dreams and visions, aiding our understanding of truth with our visual senses.  Words themselves are art and convey meaning.  Art is needed and we would not understand as much truth without it (by the way, art need not be only visual, as I know you know, just clarifying this).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: By Common Consent &#187; Der Heilige Geist: Part One</title>
		<link>http://bycommonconsent.com/2006/10/18/is-the-spirit-the-reason-that-so-much-lds-art-is-terrible/#comment-109505</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[By Common Consent &#187; Der Heilige Geist: Part One]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 17 Dec 2006 20:03:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2006/10/is-the-spirit-the-reason-that-so-much-lds-art-is-terrible/#comment-109505</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] What does it really mean when Mormons say they &#8220;feel the Spirit&#8221;? According to this thread, &#8220;feeling the Spirit&#8221; equates to positive emotional reactions to bad art. If this is true then the Spirit is particularly adept at pulling heart strings. Let&#8217;s call this &#8220;feeling the Spirit&#8221; via a lump in the throat. [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] What does it really mean when Mormons say they &#8220;feel the Spirit&#8221;? According to this thread, &#8220;feeling the Spirit&#8221; equates to positive emotional reactions to bad art. If this is true then the Spirit is particularly adept at pulling heart strings. Let&#8217;s call this &#8220;feeling the Spirit&#8221; via a lump in the throat. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark Butler</title>
		<link>http://bycommonconsent.com/2006/10/18/is-the-spirit-the-reason-that-so-much-lds-art-is-terrible/#comment-109504</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mark Butler]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 21 Oct 2006 13:07:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2006/10/is-the-spirit-the-reason-that-so-much-lds-art-is-terrible/#comment-109504</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[George D.,

I do not see that as a necessary limitation in either case - it is a more difficult task perhaps, but the work of the Spirit seems to be to be completely dependent on the viewer / listener / reader realizing or at least feeling the &lt;i&gt;significance&lt;/i&gt; of what is being represented or conveyed.

In the visual arts, it seems to me that significance or meaning is usually derived from non-visual sources, especially cultural ones.  But some sources such as the common experience of humanity or the glories of God&#039;s creation or the way we fall short are so universal that words of any kind are hardly necessary to be brought to mind at all.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>George D.,</p>
<p>I do not see that as a necessary limitation in either case &#8211; it is a more difficult task perhaps, but the work of the Spirit seems to be to be completely dependent on the viewer / listener / reader realizing or at least feeling the <i>significance</i> of what is being represented or conveyed.</p>
<p>In the visual arts, it seems to me that significance or meaning is usually derived from non-visual sources, especially cultural ones.  But some sources such as the common experience of humanity or the glories of God&#8217;s creation or the way we fall short are so universal that words of any kind are hardly necessary to be brought to mind at all.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: georgeD</title>
		<link>http://bycommonconsent.com/2006/10/18/is-the-spirit-the-reason-that-so-much-lds-art-is-terrible/#comment-109503</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[georgeD]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 21 Oct 2006 11:12:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2006/10/is-the-spirit-the-reason-that-so-much-lds-art-is-terrible/#comment-109503</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The problem with religious visual art is that it aims for the impossible. Truth can only be conveyed by the Spirit and (in my opinion) the Spirit does not work through representational art. If the Spirit worked that way God would never have commanded us not to make and worship graven images. (I am not against art, just opposed to any notion that visual art can invoke the Spirit. )

My reservations about music are not as encompassing but I do have reservations about the role of music in conveying truth and invoking the Spirit. To say more would jeopardize my anonymity.

But poetry and literature have real potential....]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The problem with religious visual art is that it aims for the impossible. Truth can only be conveyed by the Spirit and (in my opinion) the Spirit does not work through representational art. If the Spirit worked that way God would never have commanded us not to make and worship graven images. (I am not against art, just opposed to any notion that visual art can invoke the Spirit. )</p>
<p>My reservations about music are not as encompassing but I do have reservations about the role of music in conveying truth and invoking the Spirit. To say more would jeopardize my anonymity.</p>
<p>But poetry and literature have real potential&#8230;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Josh M</title>
		<link>http://bycommonconsent.com/2006/10/18/is-the-spirit-the-reason-that-so-much-lds-art-is-terrible/#comment-109502</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Josh M]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Oct 2006 23:19:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2006/10/is-the-spirit-the-reason-that-so-much-lds-art-is-terrible/#comment-109502</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[or mattharding.com]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>or mattharding.com</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Josh M</title>
		<link>http://bycommonconsent.com/2006/10/18/is-the-spirit-the-reason-that-so-much-lds-art-is-terrible/#comment-109501</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Josh M]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Oct 2006 23:17:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2006/10/is-the-spirit-the-reason-that-so-much-lds-art-is-terrible/#comment-109501</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Oh and some of you might like stuff by Matt Harding, an LDS musician. Check his stuff out on itunes.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Oh and some of you might like stuff by Matt Harding, an LDS musician. Check his stuff out on itunes.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Josh M</title>
		<link>http://bycommonconsent.com/2006/10/18/is-the-spirit-the-reason-that-so-much-lds-art-is-terrible/#comment-109500</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Josh M]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Oct 2006 23:10:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2006/10/is-the-spirit-the-reason-that-so-much-lds-art-is-terrible/#comment-109500</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Someone wrote earlier that art is about being vulnerable. I like that.

I know how I feel when I stand in front of a Rothko and I know how I feel when I see a Del Parson work. There is no comparison in my mind.

I remember the first time I saw Picasso&#039;s Guernica. The inhumanity and tragedy. Maybe it&#039;s not great art, but it moves me. I find myself vulnerable and I embrace works that make me feel connected, that my fears, my doubts are shared by another. another who can express it better. Perhaps its all subjective.

In varieties of Religious Experience William James discusses the different personalities in religions. Perhaps Lamb of God and such films are great art for some. I only know that for me, I am a brooding dane. My joy in art almost always comes from a sense of being part of humanity, warts and all.

I dont see why the spirit cant operate with Beethoven as well as Mos Def. I think what matters is what the person feels and thinks inside. We bring our own thoughts, feelings, beliefs to any work (art, literature, music, etc.)

I find the spirit moves me more based on whats going on inside rather than any external art form. Its not testifying as to the art, but the way I see the art.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Someone wrote earlier that art is about being vulnerable. I like that.</p>
<p>I know how I feel when I stand in front of a Rothko and I know how I feel when I see a Del Parson work. There is no comparison in my mind.</p>
<p>I remember the first time I saw Picasso&#8217;s Guernica. The inhumanity and tragedy. Maybe it&#8217;s not great art, but it moves me. I find myself vulnerable and I embrace works that make me feel connected, that my fears, my doubts are shared by another. another who can express it better. Perhaps its all subjective.</p>
<p>In varieties of Religious Experience William James discusses the different personalities in religions. Perhaps Lamb of God and such films are great art for some. I only know that for me, I am a brooding dane. My joy in art almost always comes from a sense of being part of humanity, warts and all.</p>
<p>I dont see why the spirit cant operate with Beethoven as well as Mos Def. I think what matters is what the person feels and thinks inside. We bring our own thoughts, feelings, beliefs to any work (art, literature, music, etc.)</p>
<p>I find the spirit moves me more based on whats going on inside rather than any external art form. Its not testifying as to the art, but the way I see the art.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: D. Fletcher</title>
		<link>http://bycommonconsent.com/2006/10/18/is-the-spirit-the-reason-that-so-much-lds-art-is-terrible/#comment-109499</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[D. Fletcher]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Oct 2006 22:15:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2006/10/is-the-spirit-the-reason-that-so-much-lds-art-is-terrible/#comment-109499</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I was mostly commenting favorably on samdb&#039;s paragraph about being afraid of contemporary culture. I think we&#039;re not so much afraid of it as, we would like to remain separate, somehow. I would, anyway.

As to copying Beethoven, if somebody could actually do it successfully, more power to &#039;em! If you&#039;re gonna copy, copy the best.

I&#039;m not advocating Beethoven&#039;s sound as appropriate for our meetings, though.

:)]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I was mostly commenting favorably on samdb&#8217;s paragraph about being afraid of contemporary culture. I think we&#8217;re not so much afraid of it as, we would like to remain separate, somehow. I would, anyway.</p>
<p>As to copying Beethoven, if somebody could actually do it successfully, more power to &#8216;em! If you&#8217;re gonna copy, copy the best.</p>
<p>I&#8217;m not advocating Beethoven&#8217;s sound as appropriate for our meetings, though.</p>
<p>:)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

