Art and Religion

I find myself agreeing with your view. Quite an interesting one that I think you are tapping into.
How about the label of luxury art? Consider that desperate and hurting people tend to fall away from religion due to survival. To see the art of religious promises or promotions, hurts. We all identify or are repelled by sights or sound as well as thought.
Art involves all of that. Religion does as well. The visions of reward and punishment can be too much for some.

Perhaps the commonality between art and religion or spirituality are the visual and auditory images that well up spontaneously from the unconscious psyche.

Yes but what about sentience or what we consider lack of sentience? Have you ever seen an animal bond or own an object or another different species?

Yes,

Your main point as above is;

Bob: “for some time now, that religion is an art form”

I disagree with the above [religion is not an art form] and proposed that the main purpose of religion is to soothe the existential crisis.
Art in religion is an expression of reverence for God or the respected authority of the religion. Art is a secondary thing to religion’s main purpose.

All humans need some kind [religion or otherwise] of “soothing” is very subliminal, thus most are not conscious of it.

If I don’t agree with your premise, then I will have to express it and offer a counter view. This is an exchange of views. We cannot agree all the time.

Note your main premise is ‘religion is an art form’.
Art is a form of artistic expression which can be expressed in all fields of knowledge and activities.

You missed my point.
I was stating not every one has the artistic intelligence and propensity for the arts. It could like 50% of all humans are artistically inclined. There are some people who are so ‘robotic’ that they are indifferent to the arts but rather prefer mathematics, Sciences, engineering, etc.
The inclinations of these 50% who has inclinations for the arts comes in degree.
Those with inclination for arts may expressed their arts in religion and other activities.
It is not religion per se that is responsible for one being artistic.

Yes, some of the religious will have altered states of experiences with loads of visual images of all sorts.

But if the person [have visual images] do not have an inclination and artistic competence, they will not be able to put the images into any art form. If they are indifferent to art, they will not be bothered to draw them out but merely enjoy the images themselves.

I also don’t believe that everything a social construct, but the dreams we have at night, the stories we tell and re-tell, the way we describe our lives as part of a narrative, does go a long way to permeate our reality. The expression of this reality in “art” goes a long way in creating a collective idea or illustrating those ideas. Who has not stood before a piece of art, heard a symphony, been steeped in a story, and not asked where was I in that moment? How can I be swept away by something that, in its material form, is just paper and ink, paint and canvas, but becomes more in the hands of the artist.
But I’ll quote Sexson on this:

It is when the object becomes meaningful, that something is sacred, which, as Sexson argues elsewhere, could be a feather, a postcard, a block of stone. Giving it meaning is generally the task of the artist.

In this way, the word God needs to have meaning to be real, it has to be combined with hopes and ideas that create awe and amazement. That is why God cannot be a thing, because things are not sacred in themselves, but the meaningful lends its sacredness to an object, an idea, a text, a painting, a symphony and so on.

Yes, whatever is regarded as “luxury art” may have a meaning, but more than that it has a price - which provides the value. If something is on the wall because it has a high price, we may question whether it is meaningful and therefore sacred. It is the fact that religion and art go through similar processes, is held high or declared unworthy, that art of a kind that gives meaning to people is then sacred.

I was struck by the fact that Sexson mentions the burning of pictures by the reformists amongst others, in an attempt to restrict the sacred to the written word and at most, to the cross. The couldn’t keep it up of course, since even the Crucifix, as we know it, is a piece of art. The Bible is an anthology of religious thought, formed into a narrative, which in itself gives rise to paintings and drawings of diverse nature.

This is what I believe as well. There is a lot more going on in art that you can’t explain with reason. The soul guides the mind in art of any kind and when it gives meaning, the mind follows the soul.

The main reason I disagree with you is that soothing means primarily calming, or pacifying, but that isn’t what art or religion are primarily up to. Especially meaningful art challenges us, our outlook and our reason for what we think about ourselves. It can be soothing, but that is best done with some pipe music, or sounds of nature. That isn’t, when it is used that way, art in the way Sexson is referring to it.

I was quoting Sexson and you failed to react, but rather started with “I maintain”, rather like the creed (I believe).

I don’t believe that everyone needs to be an artist, but everyone reacts in some way to art of some kind. That is where I see the commonality with religion (which is what Sexson was saying). But rather than just being soothing, as you propose, art/religion is always challenging us or providing meaning for us individually and collectively. Why then did certain ideologies burn books, confiscate or burn paintings, ban certain kind of music?

Again, art is not only when you “do” art, but also when you see, listen, read …

As I had mentioned above, what is artistic comes in degrees.
What we have are;

1. Those who can expressed [as artists, etc.] and appreciate the arts.
2. Those who appreciate the arts only but are not good in being artistic as artists, dancers, etc.

Your OP is ‘Art and Religion’ and I presumed Sexson has to be confined to art in religion.
I am not ignorant of art in religion.
All the art in religion has an religious element, else it be general art.
The religious elements will comprised god, the founder of the religion, temples, churches, etc. and whatever is related to a religion.

I mentioned ‘soothing’ refer to more subliminal reactions and less of conscious soothing.
When a believer looks at arts related to his religion, there is a sense of ‘pleasantness’ that calms and soothe his whole psyche.
I have read of reports by Christians who feel good when they are in Church with paintings, statutes and architectural designs, etc. Same with believers of other religions in their own artistic environment.

However, an atheist or non-Christian who appreciate art will also feel something artistic and positive with the artistic works done, but that has nothing to do with religion and art.

I presumed Sexson has to be confined to art in religion.

Yes, there will be much more but they are reducible to the OP, art and religion.
My point is, art is independent of religion.

Note my point above where are those who appreciate the arts but cannot do art.

Nope, the art in religion is not for challenging the believers of the religion.
The Abrahamic religion provide the complete guidance for the believer from the God delivered to the believers via messengers and the holy texts. There is no room for believers to challenge what God has commanded.
Thus what is art in religion is merely to increase reverence for God and the religion and to soothe [subliminal] the existential crisis.

Note to topic, it is ‘religious’ ideologies.
Why the believers of certain religions commit the above acts is they are compelled to be duty bound to comply with their God’s command. It has nothing to do with art in religion.

Arts in religion is not induced by the religion per se but are merely artistic expressions by SOME of the inherent-artistic-inclined believers.

Thus far all attempts to define what religion is or is not have failed. Rather one can talk about how images appear in one’s own mind provided one has begun to pay attention to them not as something I create but as the structure and fabric that forms my own consciousness. Whether one chooses to call such my art or religion or philosophy or something else seems to depend on the cultural context in which I’m operating.

Religion, properly defined, refers to spirituality founded on text, that holds this text as being sacred.
Everything else can be differentiated by calling it spirituality.
Therefore, Hinduism and Buddhism and Paganisms are not religions, but types of spiritualism.
There are three major religions, all three related and sharing the same sacred texts - Judaism, Christianity and Islam. All three are anti-life, anti-wold, and therefore nihilistic. I call them the people of the Book, by the Book, for the Book.
This attitude is transferred into philosophy as an idolization of specific thinkers, and the use of their philosophical texts as if they were sacred - undeniable, absolute truth.

I find it interesting that you say you are not religious, claim that religious art does not challenge, but think you know what religious art will comprise of.

I have read reports of UFO’s, Flat Earth and all sorts of claims. It doesn’t mean they apply to us all. You’re making assumptions because you lack experience. The arts can affect people in all sorts of ways, and because Sexson’s book is titled “Ordinarily Sacred,” even ordinary objects can cause an epiphany or religious vision. My intuition whilst attending religious services was that this is an experience of profound artistry. The way the service is held is to evoke a to and fro between the priest and the congregation, music is used, symbols and text. Attending a service you are drawn into an experience that you either take part in it, remain unmoved by it or you shy away. Pleasantness may occur, but attendance is intended to mean confrontation with the word. It is mythology at work.

When you practise in your own home, with meditation, contemplation or prayer, you generally use scripture, devotional writing, or religious songs to begin with, but the silence is the most important part, because you are required to listen, not just speak. Feelgood is just irrelevant.

God challenges, usually not the believer, although I have lamented in difficult times and asked a resounding “WHY?”

If you believe that it was only religious ideologies that burnt books and paintings, then you haven’t been paying attention in history class.

As a musician, you must feel the soul that is in certain music, where the heart is touched in an almost religious sensual way. Being moved by your music, is there really a difference between artistry and religion in that moment?

Well hello. Do Hinduism and Buddhism have no texts? Are you sure about that?

Another bold statement: All three Abrahamic religions are “anti-life, anti-world, and therefore nihilistic.” Well, I suppose you can pass that as your opinions, but they are not founded on much.

Ha!! you have a problem with reading?
Reread what I posted and then begin patronizing.

They are nihilistic because they propose an alternate reality to the one experienced. Like the existence of a singularity, and the idea that this existence is a staging for the more real reality; illusory.

Let me put it another way so seven someone as brilliant as you can comprehend.
Hinduism has no text that it holds as unquestionable and of divine origins - it is polytheistic - Buddhism does not even believe in god, but posits ways of reaching enlightenment - a nihilistic spirituality, but I will not get into that.
Only three major RELIGIONS, have a book, text, the declare unquestionable and of divine origins.
Maybe we can include Scientology and Hubbard’s sacred Book.

Now, return to your condescending demeanour.