Atheists; where would art be without religion?
There is still plenty of art which has not been inspired by religion. Many artists of the Rennaissance period were sponsored to create their works of art – and most of the money derived from the church so it was natural that many of the subjects were religious. It was also customary for rich people to buy favours with the church by commissioning religious artwork. There are also ‘billions’ of works of art inspired by other religions – islam, hindu, buddhist and many others, including much aboriginal art. How typically christian of you to claim that the only source of art in the world is christianity. Saying the christian religion has inspired art doesn’t make religion any less of a delusion any more than saying it’s right to take LSD just because it inspired a lot of ’60s musicians.
The art of the high Renaissance had nothing to do with religion, and it is some of the most astonishing art known to man. At all times, even highly religious times, there has always been secular art as well as religious (this includes music – Bernart de Ventadorn is still celebrated today as a secular minstrel from 800 years ago). What exactly is your point, other than to assert that “religion is responsible for human goodness,” which it most certainly is not. EDIT Also, you do realize that much religious art and music throughout the centuries was commissioned by the church to fulfill their own need to inspire the masses. Artists have to eat, you know. I’m not saying that the artists didn’t believe in the church, but if not for the paycheque they may very well have painted something else. The ceiling of the Sistine Chapel came down to one thing in the end: a paycheque for Michaelangelo.
There would have been some process for the patronage and development of art: we have an innate urge to create art, gods or no gods. And as to contemporary art, I agree that a lot of it is pseudo intellectualised navel gazing but it can be put down as a reaction to the sentimental dross of popular art which I find more nauseous than any of Hirst’s or Emin’s efforts.
Art was in the Renaissance often paid for by the Church hence so many religious inspired paintings and sculptures. Also many pagan legends inspired art works at the same time too (the Renaissance was a humanist movement fuelled by the rediscovered of classical art and literature), so they weren’t all religious paintings. One thing about the Renaissance was it’s shock of the new value, it was the Tate Modern art of its time. The one thing that strikes me about religious imagery is its description not of the sacred but of the human condition. Michael Angelo’s God on the Sistine Chapel describes a father to me, a very human one. Leonardo’s Virgin and child is a beautiful portrait of motherhood. I think that’s why they are so appealing.
