BYU's stance on nude art - "Self Censorship"

[anatess2]

2 minutes ago, Vort said:

Hmmmm. I don't think that art is necessarily inherently emotional. Though I could see myself writing the exact opposite in response to something else... I think art is inherently expressive, but not necessarily emotional.

It is COMMUNICATION.

You can communicate whatever you want to communicate including propaganda, historical fact preservation, etc. etc.  But, the main purpose of Communication is being able to understand and be understood - hence, touching on an emotional connection.  An empathy.

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

I'm not condemning you of something.  I'm trying to defend myself after you called me blasphemous and nothing more than some hollywood libtard.

As far as the blasphemy, I explained that.  I was pointing out that I would be considered blasphemous.  I never said anyone else was speaking blasphemy.  Get that point clear.

Now, as far as the hollywood libtard thing... No.  I didn't.  I clearly recall saying... oh yes, here it is.

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

 You're definitely not a Hollywood leftist.

But you have bought into this one concept that is incorrect.  I'm not of the current political warriors who insist on agreeing with every single point in order to be acceptable.  I was pointing out that this ONE belief of yours is incorrect.  And the source of said incorrect belief is from the Hollywood libtards.

If you don't get the difference, then I guess we're done.  That's the best I can explain it.

Edited August 23, 2017 by Guest

[anatess2]

3 minutes ago, Vort said:

 

??
Methinks you (anatess) may have misread him (Carb).

I don't think I did.  I understood it as... if I think artistic expression is emotion then I'm nothing more than a hollywood libtard is pretty clear, no?

 

[anatess2]

6 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

It's technique. Pure, simple, 100% technique.

Technique is necessary for proper expression.  You can try to express yourself as much as you like, if you don't have the proper technique, you won't succeed.  The same with the written word.  You can try to explain what you want to explain, if you are lacking vocabulary you'll end up just cursing people.

[Guest]

16 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Then you would be wrong. I can create something just as artistically beautiful and valid that I don't "feel" as I can when I really "feel" it -- if I simply know the technical how of doing it.

Granted, there are a host of artists who create by feeling alone, and that feeling happens to render the technical. But it's still technical.

Statistically, yes, I would think people who don't put emotion into what they do will create inferior products, but that speaks to caring more than it does ability. Per ability, emotion is not requisite.

I don't care how much someone "feels" that violin solo. On his worst, most emotionless, I-don't-want-to-be-here days, Itzhak Perlman is still going to drive artistic circles around Joe I-can't-even-create-vibratto.

Not buying it with performing art -- fine...go back to Vort with his Mozart example. Most composers who "feel" the stink out of their stuff still write blah junk. Mozart, on his worst day, created phenomenal art.

It's technique. Pure, simple, 100% technique.

You make some good arguments.  As a result, I'll have to modify my position.

1) I believe that in any worthy endeavor, we tend to put forth an inferior product if we're not emotionally involved in the project.
2) Yes, if you were to compare a technically savvy individual with little to no emotion vs an emotionally involved person with little technical training, the former would probably put forth a superior product.
3) If you compare the most technically savvy individual who has absolutely no emotional involvement vs the pretty well technically trained individual with a tremendous degree of emotional involvement (not to the point of becoming irrational about it) the latter latter would produce a superior product.
4) I believe it takes does take a minimum of technical talent and still pass of something as a superior product -- hence today's record industry.  The Beatles, Taylor Swift...  So many one hit wonders.
5) But, yes, the bottom line is that it is technically possible to put forth an acceptable work of art when only using our technical and logical faculties without our emotional involvement.  And at the same time the person with absolute emotional commitment without any technical ability or knowledge will not be able to produce much of anything (savants excluded).

[NeuroTypical]

To the general readership of this thread:  If you think Squidward has a point, then you're missing much of the point of art.

Edited August 23, 2017 by NeuroTypical

[Guest MormonGator]

3 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

You make some good arguments.  As a result, I'll have to modify my position.

1) I believe that in any worthy endeavor, we tend to put forth an inferior product if we're not emotionally involved in the project.
2) Yes, if you were to compare a technically savvy individual with little to no emotion vs an emotionally involved person with little technical training, the former would probably put forth a superior product.
3) If you compare the most technically savvy individual who has absolutely no emotional involvement vs the pretty well technically trained individual with a tremendous degree of emotional involvement (not to the point of becoming irrational about it) the latter latter would produce a superior product.
4) I believe it takes does take a minimum of technical talent and still pass of something as a superior product -- hence today's record industry.  The Beatles, Taylor Swift...  So many one hit wonders.
5) But, yes, the bottom line is that it is technically possible to put forth an acceptable work of art when only using our technical and logical faculties without our emotional involvement.  And at the same time the person with absolute emotional commitment without any technical ability or knowledge will not be able to produce much of anything (savants excluded).

You need both technical ability and inherent artistic talent to be an artist of any kind. It's a both-and kind of situation. 

[NeuroTypical]

5 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

You need both technical ability and inherent artistic talent to be [recognized and appreciated by many, but not all, others as] an artist of any kind. It's a both-and kind of situation. 

Fixed it for you.  You don't have to be good at arting to be an artist.  I've gained immense satisfaction, fulfillment, and even growth from my art, and I suck at it so bad that almost nothing I have ever done is worth showing to anyone.  And I've thrilled at watching proto-artists grow and evolve, even though they might not be much better than me.

Edited August 23, 2017 by NeuroTypical

[Guest]

45 minutes ago, Vort said:

Hmmmm. I don't think that art is necessarily inherently emotional. Though I could see myself writing the exact opposite in response to something else... I think art is inherently expressive, but not necessarily emotional.

Here's what I'd say about this.  

Playing a piano:  I think that it would take an absolute genius to be able to create the subtle differences in volume, duration, and all the dozen minor factors of each sound using purely technical means to properly express/communicate/convey the feelings of a song without any emotional involvement.  But it could be done with the right person.  It is MUCH easier to simply feel it and then let your body do what it needs to do with the proper technical training.

This is why I believe it 99.9% of the time requires both.  Your body can't properly translate what you're feeling to the piano if you haven't had proper technical training and lots of practice.  But to just look at the notes on the page without having any clue of the emotional message, you'll get a happy song sounding like a carnival background noise rather than the Beatles Ob-la-di...

Edited August 23, 2017 by Guest

[Guest MormonGator]

8 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Fixed it for you.  You don't have to be good at arting to be an artist.  I've gained immense satisfaction, fulfillment, and even growth from my art, and I suck at it so bad that almost nothing I have ever done is worth showing to anyone.

I'm not an artist, so I can't tell you how one thinks. The only "art" I know about is tattooing. 

I know many tattoo artists who can't draw but are technically good tattooists. They can apply to your body what someone else drew-hence why flash tattoos are so popular. They are basically copy machines and looked down upon by old school artists, but they still make a good living. The most popular tattooists are obviously the ones who can draw well on paper and apply it to your body. I'm sure many other art forms are like that. You need a balance. I'm not sure you can teach someone to play piano, draw an appealing picture, or write a good novel. You either have it or you don't. 

Edited August 23, 2017 by MormonGator

[Jojo Bags]

I can't believe this is even open for debate.

[BT]

Now back to the original topic of this forum: BYU Stance on nude art and Self-censorship.

I'm new to this forum. I came across this discussion and wanted to respond because this is a subject that has concerned me since I was a student at BYU in the 90s. Concerned because people very close to me are addicted to nudity of any sort. They search for it in medical books, science magazines, and, of course in art books. Every form of nudity has the same response to an addict--chemically, emotionally and psychologically.

Are we allowed to reference scripture? I hope so. Here are some questions I don't claim to have definitive answers to, nor do I claim to be an authority, but they are questions that this forum has caused me to ask for my learning and study. I hope you find them as interesting as well. Why did Father instruct Jesus to "make a coat of skins" [garments] to cover Adam and Eve's nakedness? (Gen. 3:3, 21) Why was covering their nakedness so important and why did it require sacrifice? Why were fig leaves not enough? Why are covenants associated with the coat of skins [garments]? If God designated a time when it is okay to remove the sacred symbols of our covenants to display the beauty of the body, when is that time? Consider teachings from the Book or Mormon: Why was the state of mind of the Lamanites as it was when they began to shed their clothing (Enos 1:20)? Why was the state of the minds of the Nephites and Jaredites as it was when they "cloth[ed] their nakedness" (Mosiah 10:5; Helaman 6:13; Ether 10:24)? Of course, we might ask why John the Baptist was dressed in a girdle of loins while living in the wilderness? Perhaps there is something about John's context we don't fully know.

In Milton's Paradise Lost (clearly not scriptural), Satan was envious of Adam's love for Eve because of Eve's beauty. This is a direct quote from Milton (the grammar and syntax comes from Ol' English): "aside the Devil turnd For envie, yet with jealous leer maligne Ey'd them askance, and to himself thus plaind (p. 118).

Milton described Eve's beauty in this way: "With Flowers, Garlands, and sweet-smelling Herbs Espoused EVE deckt first her Nuptial Bed, And heav'nly Quires the Hymenaean sung, What day the genial Angel to our Sire Brought her in naked beauty more adorn'd, More lovely then PANDORA, whom the Gods Endowd with all thir gifts" (p. 126). 

Milton believes Satan yearned for what he could not have, Eve's beautiful body. So Satan created a situation wherein he could possess Eve's body. Of course  Milton is not scriptural, but are there lessons we might learn from his magnificent poetic piece of "art"? To answer this question do not take these small quotes out of context of Milton's full message. There is much more I might write, but I'll spare you. 

The Fall has powerful lessons, which is why we relive it each time we attend the temple. God is concerned with how one gets in and out of the world. If the body is sacred and is covered for a reason, perhaps understanding why God has done what He has done and "[His] thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways [His] ways..." (Isaiah 55:8-9), whose "thoughts" and "ways" should we follow when discussing the beautiful body? Perhaps the arm of flesh (the famous artists of old, nor contemporary artists and teachers of art), are not the best interpreters of God's thoughts and ways. it's personal, but as someone wrote above, you and God know.

Edited August 24, 2017 by BT

[anatess2]

@Carborendum @Vort

Okay, I think I understand now where the miscommunication is.

I think @Carborendum said the art school teachers are like hollywood libtards because they treat art as emotion (as in, hippie type, soHo type... that kind of thing).   I associated myself with the art school teachers so I thought I was part of the libtards.  That's where I went off-base because my son's art school is not like this and the teachers there are high quality teachers in their art field.  Although, yes, most of the teachers are so liberal that my son has now had his 3rd change of schedule of the 1-week-old school-year as teachers play hot potato with him (vocal Trump supporter, Mormon values on full display, self-confident with a talent that tend to be noticed, etc.).

Anyway, I was saying that any art school worth their salt strongly encourages self-expression.  This is well and good for people like my son who knows exactly who he is (son of God).  That expression of self promotes something Godly.  Unfortunately, many kids now-adays have no idea who they are.  The expression, therefore, tends to be barren of Godliness.  Couple that with the school's high quality technical education... you end up with a lot of kids who are very good at expressing themselves through their art with such power as to touch other people with their.... barreness.  Now, imagine if the art school was full of upstanding sons and daughters of God, with the high-caliber ability to express their spiritual selves through their chosen art form.  It could change the entire planet for good!  So yeah, that's my only gripe about the school.  It's a public school so there's no moral teaching.

 

[anatess2]

5 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Here's what I'd say about this.  

Playing a piano:  I think that it would take an absolute genius to be able to create the subtle differences in volume, duration, and all the dozen minor factors of each sound using purely technical means to properly express/communicate/convey the feelings of a song without any emotional involvement.  But it could be done with the right person.  It is MUCH easier to simply feel it and then let your body do what it needs to do with the proper technical training.

This is why I believe it 99.9% of the time requires both.  Your body can't properly translate what you're feeling to the piano if you haven't had proper technical training and lots of practice.  But to just look at the notes on the page without having any clue of the emotional message, you'll get a happy song sounding like a carnival background noise rather than the Beatles Ob-la-di...

So, both my sons think today's pop music is "ear cancer".  I ask my pianist son why he thinks so and he says... these songs are created through computerized models of sound combinations that are statistically proven to sell records.  It is devoid of self-expression.  They add lyrics to it that is as vulgar and shocking as they can get away with to add to the sell-ability.  Then they put it on eye-candy music videos reflecting the cultural propensities of today's youth and you sit back and rake in millions.

Modern visual art is no better.  Modern art has become a testament to the depravity of today's society.  It's like we forgot how to connect soul to soul anymore.

Okay, on the piano.  My son started with classical training.  The usual - baroque, then classical, etc... to develop proper technique.  He did nothing but technique from the time he was 4 years old to when he was about 8 or 9.  He wouldn't practice his piano lessons even as he spends hours plinking on that piano because it's... boring.  Anyway, the good thing about this method is, boring as it may be, once he got good enough technically, then he was able to play any style of music he desired and even the ones he composes himself tend to have some complexity to it that draws me to the movements.  So then he enrolled in the arts middle school and high school and these schools teach technique in such a way as to be able to play according to what somebody else decides they want to hear out of the piece.  They started with ensembles - 4 or more pianists playing together.  The teacher tells the student - this is what I want this piece to say  - and all 4 players play it together to achieve that expression.  So, during performances, the first year student ensembles tend to play first and the solos - usually higher grades - go towards the end.  Now, the soloists play their pieces according to their own interpretation of the music.  So basically, the more precision you achieve on your technique as you mature in the art form, the more powerful your expression.   So then they held a Sonata competition at the high school.  They imported judges from the arts colleges up north.  So, each performer has to first give the Sonata score to the judges before they go to the piano to play it.  The judges then follow along on the score while the performer plays.  They ding the performer for technical deviations between the playing and the composition and that comprises half the rating.  The other half is interpretation - basically, how the performer expressed the music and their connection with the audience.

[The Folk Prophet]

15 hours ago, Carborendum said:

You make some good arguments.  As a result, I'll have to modify my position.

1) I believe that in any worthy endeavor, we tend to put forth an inferior product if we're not emotionally involved in the project.
2) Yes, if you were to compare a technically savvy individual with little to no emotion vs an emotionally involved person with little technical training, the former would probably put forth a superior product.
3) If you compare the most technically savvy individual who has absolutely no emotional involvement vs the pretty well technically trained individual with a tremendous degree of emotional involvement (not to the point of becoming irrational about it) the latter latter would produce a superior product.
4) I believe it takes does take a minimum of technical talent and still pass of something as a superior product -- hence today's record industry.  The Beatles, Taylor Swift...  So many one hit wonders.
5) But, yes, the bottom line is that it is technically possible to put forth an acceptable work of art when only using our technical and logical faculties without our emotional involvement.  And at the same time the person with absolute emotional commitment without any technical ability or knowledge will not be able to produce much of anything (savants excluded).

# 3 is not absolute. It just isn't. You cannot put everything into such an "always" bottle as that. It really comes down to motivation. You are projecting the idea that emotional involvement is they prime motivator. I say phooey on that in all cases. Think. What else motivates. Money? Sex? Fame? It is perfectly reasonable that someone can be motivated to do excellent, excellent work in something where they have no real passion for the work itself, but are highly motivated by something else.

Moreover, it strikes me that you are defining beauty and technique in a somewhat limited way. You throw out the Beatles, for example, as an example of an inferior product. I don't necessarily disagree...but first, that is a subjective view, and second, regardless of that view, there is a very, very distinct "technique" that the Beatles applied to what they did, whether you consider it "talent" or not isn't important. It is still technique. Technique and talent are not the same thing. I didn't say art stems from talent. I said it stems from technique. And you are as guilty as what you claim anatess being in using a western "Hollywood" view of what qualifies as appropriate or superior technique.

[Guest]

32 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

You cannot put everything into such an "always" bottle as that.

Isn't that what you're doing by saying it is 100% technical?

[Guest]

I am continuing to hear the term "expression".  This is held to be somewhat different than "emotion".  I'm also hearing "technical".  Difficulties arise without firm definitions.  And I don't know if I can clearly define them.

When I "feel" the right pace of the song, my fingers now just when to move.  Is this technical?  Is it emotional?  I'd agree it is "expressing" the feeling.  But what is that?

When driving, do we ever calculate just how much we turn the wheel to change lanes or to turn a corner?  No.  It is a feeling.  But I'd be hard pressed to say that is emotional.

When driving we have clearly delineated lanes in which we are to drive.  But within that lane, there is some variation.  Some drive toward the center, others to the driver's side, still others to the passenger side.  And as we drive, we may vary a bit according to our driving ability and style.  But it is clearly understood that if you cross over the line, then you'd better make a lane change or get back where you were.  You can't drive on the line.

In the same way the duration of a note has lane lines with some variation.  But such pacing is communicated not by the musical score, but by text.  Often there is a note such as "with feeling"  or "allegro" or "with passion" or "en dante" etc.  These are interpretive and can vary with the performer or conductor.  Are these emotional?

Edited August 24, 2017 by Guest

[Vort]

48 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

You throw out the Beatles, for example, as an example of an inferior product.

I understood him to be saying the opposite.

[Guest]

49 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

You throw out the Beatles, for example, as an example of an inferior product. 

Just now, Vort said:

I understood him to be saying the opposite.

I said

15 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I believe it takes does take a minimum of technical talent and still pass of something as a superior product -- hence today's record industry. 

What I was pointing out was that these individual had a minimum technical training.  Yet they had some good products.  Yes, they borrowed the technical expertise from George Martin.  But it wasn't all Martin that made these songs.  The songs started and ended with the Beatles.

Compare all those with Billy Joel.  He was classically trained.  He really is a great musician.  His music goes from the pop styles that are common fare to the more complex and technically brilliant.  His lyrics are much better than your average pop music (which admittedly isn't much).

Then look at Sally DeFord.  I recently directed our choir's performance of Because He Lives.  What a beautiful song.  The more I directed and studied it, the more I was impressed by it.  Clearly, she had some training.  But she was also very talented.  Her lyrics are beautiful poetry.  The music is perfectly matched to the lyrics.  I could go on.  I loved that song.

[anatess2]

1 minute ago, Carborendum said:

I am continuing to hear the term "expression".  This is held to be somewhat different than "emotion".  I'm also hearing "technical".  Difficulties arise without firm definitions.  And I don't know if I can clearly define them.

When I "feel" the right pace of the song, my fingers now just when to move.  Is this technical?  Is it emotional?  I'd agree it is "expressing" the feeling.  But what is that?

When driving, do we ever calculate just how much we turn the wheel to change lanes or to turn a corner?  No.  It is a feeling.  But I'd be hard pressed to say that is emotional.

When driving we have clearly delineated lanes in which we are to drive.  But within that lane, there is some variation.  Some drive toward the center, others to the driver's side, still others to the passenger side.  And as we drive, we may vary a bit according to our driving ability and style.  But it is clearly understood that if you cross over the line, then you'd better make a lane change or get back where you were.  You can't drive on the line.

In the same way the duration of a note has lane lines with some variation.  But such pacing is communicated not by the musical score, but by text.  Often there is a note such as "with feeling"  or "allegro" or "with passion" or "en dante" etc.  These are interpretive and can vary with the performer or conductor.  Are these emotional?

Okay, I'm only going to touch on piano (music) because that is what I know well from the arts school.

Expression - What you're trying to communicate with the art form.

Technical - that's HOW to achieve what you're trying to communicate with the art form.

So, in piano music.. let's take a very simple music that is the latest piece my son played at church - Joseph Smith's Medley.  This piece is a combination of 3 hymns very familiar to LDS folks - Joseph Smith's First Prayer, Poor Wayfaring Man of Grief, Praise to the Man.  What my son tried to communicate is the book-ends of the prophet's work and a testimony that he is a true prophet of God.  If we were singing this hymn, the words tell the story.  But with piano music, there's no words.  You communicate all those words into pure emotion invoked by the sounds that a piano can produce.  That's the expression.  My son achieves that expression through various techniques - so, I don't really know technique well enough to be able to identify them in piano playing, but the easiest one to identify is the dynamics a pianist can produce through the loudness/softness of touch - from mezzopiano (very soft) to mezzoforte (very loud).  This technique is absent in Baroque music because in the days of Baroque, they only had the pianoforte and it can't produce a sound that varies in loudness/softness. 

So to express Joseph Smith's Medley, my son started off with piano (not quite as soft as mezzo piano but softer than normal touch) with a light and short, kinda airy touch on the keys to produce that feeling of "lovely" "radiant" "birds singing", then he went on to move the music to produce a sound that is deeper and heavier to express the somber and serious feelings of John Taylor saying, "I really don't want to sing the song again Brother Joseph" and the feeling of the prophet as he replied, "just start singing, you'll feel better once you do" then he moved the music using technique to produce a louder, fuller sound to declare  "Hail to the Prophet ascended to heaven, traitors and tyrants now fight him in vain" - going full mezzo forte towards the end there having the piano sounds ringing all throughout the chapel that it brought my testimony of the prophet out to the forefront of my consciousness.

I wish you could have heard it.  It was really awesome.  The stake counselor who spoke after it took a while to compose himself before he could speak.

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Okay, I'm only going to touch on piano (music) because that is what I know well from the arts school.

Expression - What you're trying to communicate with the art form.

Technical - that's HOW to achieve what you're trying to communicate with the art form...

Well, from this explanation, it seems you're not talking about emotion at all.

[anatess2]

9 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Well, from this explanation, it seems you're not talking about emotion at all.

Emotion is in the expression.  When you play the piano... what are you trying to communicate?  That's different from visual arts where there are several things you can express on a canvas - a historical fact, for example.  Or an informational ad on a new car.  With piano music - you're not expressing any of those.  You're communicating what you're trying to say by invoking feelings in the absence of words.

Edited August 24, 2017 by anatess2

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Emotion is in the expression.  When you play the piano... what are you trying to communicate?  That's different from visual arts where there are several things you can express on a canvas - a historical fact, for example.  Or an informational ad on a new car.  With piano music - you're not expressing any of those.  You're communicating what you're trying to say by invoking feelings in the absence of words.

Well, what I'm trying to say is that expression of emotion can be accomplished through technical means.  But the process of analyzing it cannot be completely conscious.  Some of it is a "feeling" (for lack of a better word) for the instrument.  Is that "feeling" the artist's emotion?  Or is it something else?

Ask your son.

[anatess2]

3 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Well, what I'm trying to say is that expression of emotion can be accomplished through technical means.  But the process of analyzing it cannot be completely conscious.  Some of it is a "feeling" (for lack of a better word) for the instrument.  Is that "feeling" the artist's emotion?  Or is it something else?

Ask your son.

I know exactly what my son would say. 

The pianist is the communicator.  He is trying to convey a message to the audience.  The audience is the receptor.  Now, a pianist who wants to express happiness, for example, can just try to feel happy while playing, not knowing any proper technique.  That can be achieved and the audience will understand the message.

But then the pianist starts to want to communicate more complex stories.  The entire story of his girlfriend for example - the hopefulness in the beginning, the excitement, then the eventual heartache.  A lot of times, the pianist begins to feel frustrated that he can't quite "find the proper words" to tell the story he wants to tell because what comes out of his fingers can't quite match what he's trying to say.  That's when he should have sat down and spent hours a day working on his Hanon.

 

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

I know exactly what my son would say. 

The pianist is the communicator.  He is trying to convey a message to the audience.  The audience is the receptor.  Now, a pianist who wants to express happiness, for example, can just try to feel happy while playing, not knowing any proper technique.  That can be achieved and the audience will understand the message.

But then the pianist starts to want to communicate more complex stories.  The entire story of his girlfriend for example - the hopefulness in the beginning, the excitement, then the eventual heartache.  A lot of times, the pianist begins to feel frustrated that he can't quite "find the proper words" to tell the story he wants to tell because what comes out of his fingers can't quite match what he's trying to say.  That's when he should have sat down and spent hours a day working on his Hanon.

Respectfully, I don't believe that is what he would say.  If he really is as gifted as you say, and he understands my question, I believe he will say something else.