Quote:
|
Originally Posted by powerclown
That's cool. I'm just curious.
Once upon a time in America though, circa the late 60s, rumor has it that it was the progressive liberals who were dropping all the acid and smoking all the Maui Wauwi - tuning out conservatism and the war, and tuning into the "cosmic consciousness" and transcendental grooviness of the universe, Hari Krishnas dancing in the streets and passing out religious literature - it was a veritable hippy revolution of religion and spirituality! And what about spirituality in the arts nowadays? Do we realize that great art can no longer be taken seriously because of you atheists? That there is no longer a spiritual component to a great Matisse or Chagall due to excessive religious overtone?
Perhaps this isn't our father's America (or Canadastan) anymore.
 |
I have never been comfortable with the "hippie" way to enlightenment. I suppose it was an important step in the search for new ways of doing things. For me, that is largely what the 60s ethos represented. Let's make a break with the power structures of the past.
In my mind, all there really did was replace one power structure with another. And all the drugs led to was either escapism from responsibility or in the worst cases, solipsist nightmares. No thank you.
As for atheism and the arts... interesting position. As you will note in my posts above, I do not subscribe to the completely rational mindset. I recognize the world is not an entirely rational place. For me, creativity comes from the irrational. I welcome these moments of pure oddness. They are what makes the world interesting.
As for an appreciation of art in general... I ask this: what are aesthetics? what is beauty? what is art?
Are you suggesting that a world without God (or Gods) is a world without an appreciation of these things? Or are you simply suggesting that great artworks that have religious contents should somehow be ignored because of those contents?