Hold the phone - Hold the phone - fessie has a cite! I don’t know whose side of the argument I’m on as I lost track several hours ago, but I have to toss this into the mix as it is one SCHOLARLY FACT of which I have possession:
"People have been accustomed to say that there were three religions in China: Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism. But Confucianism, as we have seen, is not a religion. As to Taoism, there is a distinction between Taoism as a philosophy, which is called Tao chia (the Taoist school), and the Taoist religion (Tao chiao). Their teachings are not only different; they are even contradictory. Taoism as a philosophy teaches the doctrine of following nature, while Taoism as a religion teaches the doctrine of working against nature. For instance, according to Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu, life followed by death is the course of nature, and man should follow this natural course calmly. But the main teaching of the Taoist religion is the principle and technique of how to avoid death, which is expressly working against nature. The Taoist religion has the spirit of science, which is the conquering of nature. If one is interested in the history of Chinese science, the writings of the religious Taoists will supply much information.
As to Buddhism, there is also the distinction between Buddhism as a philosophy, which is called Fo hsueh (the Buddhist learning), and Buddhism as a religion, which is called Fo chiao (the Buddhist religion). To the educated Chinese, Buddhist philosophy is much more interesting than the Buddhist religion. It is quite common to see both Buddhist monks and Taoist monks simultaneously participating in Chinese funeral services. The Chinese people take even their religion philosophically.
At present it is known to many Westerners that the Chinese people have been less concerned with religion than other people are."
From A Short History of Chinese Philosophy by Fung Yu-Lan, 1948. Of course this has nothing to do with the art-based argument at hand, but I’ve seen people make misstatements about Taoism before & didn’t have a chance to challenge them. This book is a great place to start if anyone’s interested in learning more.
The idea that art transcends the cultural circumstances of its production, and therefore is a completely separate category from “religion” or “politics,” is a very modern idea. In most cultures, art and religion have not been completely distinct notions. The oldest art objects in the world are predominately religious in subject: Stonehenge has already been cited, and we can add Sumerian ziggurats, almost all of Egyptian art, the Parthenon, Buddhist stupas, medieval cathedrals and illuminated manuscripts, and so on and so forth.
I imagine that some might wonder whether or not these religious projects prevented the artists who made them from working on other, purely artistic projects (e.g., what would Michelangelo have done if he wasn’t stuck working of the pope). But these historical artists did not share our concept of art as primarily a means of self-expression–this is an entirely post-Romantic concept.
And I’m not sure if it’s entirely accurate to say that religion, and not other cultural factors, is the source for the kinds of violence and repression that are attributed to it. Actually, I think it’s a combination of various social and cultural factors, which sometimes include religion and art. I’d say that it’s futile to isolate one cultural production and to either blame or exonerate it for the broader culture’s wrongdoings.
Skopo, while art may be an integral byproduct of a given society, I must argue strongly that it is inseparable from religion. As you can see from Fessie’s very informative post, there are distinct portions of Asia’s population that do not have religion as a focus of their cultures yet still produce art. While it is certainly true that some cultures have art and religion nearly inextricably intertwined (i.e., Islam) there are also others where this is most distinctly not the case.
It is for this reason that I segregate art and religion and non-interdependent entities. Throughout this thread, I have done my best to grant religion the respect I feel it is due. There is a portion of my consciousness that truly wishes to categorize religion as a brand of performance art. At times it is unavoidable to regard it as some sort of philosophical grand opera. The enormous amount of window dressing that is applied to what should be a simple interpersonal relationship with one’s own God(s) makes most religious rites into a spectacle and pageant instead of the truly awe inspiring experience it might be. While the pomp and splendor might awe the peasantry, this represents a lot of what is wrong with religion and the spiritual materialism that to often encumbers it.
I still maintain that art was in practice long before religion. Artifacts of practical nature show distinctive manufacturing styles and decoration that have nothing to do with religion and predate it substantially. If one regards the greater harmony and stress upon enlightenment found in many Asian cultures and then reflects upon how all of this was done without the putative benefits of religion, it becomes rather apparent that religion often conveys mixed blessings (as it were) to its practitioners, at best.
Art continues to uplift the human spirit and does so individually without need for consensus or guidance. One lone individual may practice it and achieve personal satisfaction even without the joy of sharing it with others. The forced gregarious nature of many religions renders them suspect per their intentions. Too often they unite the many against the one and the entrenched against the uncommon. Art does not actively promote exclusion nor does it initiate hostility to foreign elements. Of course, equally narrow proponents of both art and religion can engage in such counterproductive behavior, I just see so much more of it occurring in religion’s camp that I am of the opinion that art foments less isolation and strife in the human community.
Blonde, what in world are you talking about? These are two distinct threads, with very distinct OPs. You confused the second thread as a duplicate of the first, and Epimethus corrected you as you continued to ignore the differences in the threads. Let it go.
I simply thought he corrected me in a rather rude manner (i.e. distracting a blonde with shiny objects). However, I absolutely agree with you that I should let it go, Munch, and so I shall.
If you’re going to assert that art existed before religion, please provide actual evidence instead of the made-up kind.
Uh, what? Forebrain activity? Cite, please. Since there is some (admittedly controversial) evidence that Neandertals believed in an afterlife, I don’t see how you can argue art existed before religion without also being wrong.
Also note that ritual dances and shamanistic beliefs can’t generally be dug up, as opposed to stone tools.
Which artifacts are these? Hand axes? Arrowpoints? Their forms followed their function; that is, variation in their manufacture resulted from their intended uses, and not from artistic expression.
Perhaps you refer to cave paintings like the famous ones at Lascaux? Many archaeologists, though by no means all, believe that they were created as part of the shamanistic rituals of the cave painters. As Skopo pointed out, the notion of art for art’s sake is a relatively modern one.
I’m not saying that religion existed before art, either, I’m just saying that there’s no evidence one preceded the other. Unless by religion you mean organized religion, in which case you’d be right in saying that artistic expression came first.
