>How can you possibly think that Michelangelo's art is great when it was
>inspired by a bogus religion? Do you admire his technical prowess? His
>"technique" is only one sentence in a long discourse of an aesthetic
>tradition of portraying the sacred body. If the sacred aspect of his
>work is bogus-- then what makes it even "good art?"
I don't think Michelangelo's art was inspired by a bogus religion. I think that
he probably adapted his technical and expressive artistic prowess to the agendas
of the Church. It's like many artists today who create art for corporate
interests, are not necessarily inspired by those interests. They just adapt
their talent to them. I suppose you could say that Michelangelo "sold out" by
going for a greater amount of temporary fame and fortune by devoting himself to
the intentions of the clergy. I think that art, like writing, can be considered
"good" even if I don't agree with it. Yes, I admire his technical prowess. My
reaction to it is "that's awesome". The question about whether his art is good
or not is, "did I get something out of his work?" So, I suppose I have mixed
feelings about Michelangelo.
>Correct me if I'm wrong here, but aren't you just repeating a
>popularized opinion, that Michelangelo is a good artist. You state that
>the memeset that decodes it is bogus-- so what is it? An expression?
>Michelangelo wasn't an expressionist. (or are you making him into one?)
In this case, I was, in a way, repeating a popularized opinion, as I was
focused on explaining that lack of words such as 'non-sequitur' prevents clear
thinking about how, say, the artistic prowess of artists was exploited by the
Church for political reasons.
>Flame at your heart's content.
There's really nothing here to flame, goddammit! But, that's ok because it looks
like Richard's back and I won't have to either go into the archives or "create"
conflicts where they don't exist.:-) -David