Sistine Chapel • Hacker News Board

Re: Sistine Chapel

#231

Post by sofal » Sat, May 31, 2014, 5:49 PM UTC

darasen wrote: post #226

pavanred wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think you can attribute most incredible art to be inspired by religion, considering that during those times, art (sometimes just ideas) that lacked religious conformity were dealt with severity. Perhaps the reason there is so much art that is inspired by religion because not much else survived. This brings a famous bit by George Carlin (I think) to my mind - ...It start's when we are kids, we are told to be c…

Let us not forget that this concept doesn't just apply to Christianity, or religion in general, though. Monet struggled with the Académie des Beaux-Arts fot painting the way they thought people should paint. There is a long history of Ballet dancers in the USSR who struggled because they good communists. Today character assassination is the norm for for so many people (especially in the arts) who don't strictly adher…

Your theory that the Mom's Night Out movie was panned only because critics thought it wasn't "feminist" enough can just as easily be turned around to say that the Christian audiences praised it only because the movie panders to them. All the praising user reviews I've read come from a very politically motivated and reactionary viewpoint.

Re: Sistine Chapel

#232

Post by marcfawzi » Sat, May 31, 2014, 6:04 PM UTC

huskyr wrote: post #189

marcfawzi wrote: post #150

There's nothing technically novel about this. It's also kind of offensive given the mass genocide committed in the name of religion. Hacker News turning to Christian News.

This must be one of the best examples of a straw man argument i've read :)

You didn't have to think to type this, did you?

Re: Sistine Chapel

#233

Post by dredmorbius » Sat, May 31, 2014, 6:07 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #183

dredmorbius wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't make that attribution error of associating the patron with the artist. Yes, religion was the primary patron of visual, sculptural, and musical arts for much of the period from the Renaissance to the Enlightenment. But it wasn't the only. And you'll find beautiful works among the secularist of the Classical and Romantic periods, say, the Pre-Raphaelites. Of whom neither the artists, models, nor subject are gener…

Pretty much all of Bach's works were dedicated to God. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soli_Deo_gloria For Michelangelo I'm not so sure, but for Bach there is absolutely no doubt.

Much of Michelangelo's work was produced for the House of Medici, in large part to create a sense of culture around the newly-powerful clan. And while, yes, the family produced four Popes, though more as an outgrowth of their political and financial power consolidation than strict religious interest.

Again: the Church was very different during the period than it is today, representing political power, a center and repository of education and knowledge, tremendous financial power, and a very active role in political goings-on. Again: it's really not particularly surprising that the Church was so involved in sponsorship for the arts.

Today those roles are largely filled by commercial interests, an insight which first came to me in the late 1980s as an early computer animation festival was touring through my college town, and I realized that many of the best shorts, almost all advertisements, were for tobacco and alcohol companies. Today that niche is filled more by the FIRE sector.

Re: Sistine Chapel

#234

Post by dredmorbius » Sat, May 31, 2014, 6:08 PM UTC

wyager wrote: post #136

dredmorbius wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't make that attribution error of associating the patron with the artist. Yes, religion was the primary patron of visual, sculptural, and musical arts for much of the period from the Renaissance to the Enlightenment. But it wasn't the only. And you'll find beautiful works among the secularist of the Classical and Romantic periods, say, the Pre-Raphaelites. Of whom neither the artists, models, nor subject are gener…

I'm disappointed that you are in the negative points. Your comment was insightful and interesting, and I know more after reading it than I did before.

Doesn't much bother me either way, but my comment seems to have been rescued from negative territory by a significant margin.

Re: Sistine Chapel

#235

Post by okbake » Sat, May 31, 2014, 6:27 PM UTC

80 wrote: post #27

For more renaissance goodness check out this site on the Ghent Altarpiece - zooms so far in that you can see between the paint cracks: http://closertovaneyck.kikirpa.be/#home/sub=altarpiece

Thats awesome. Any idea whats going on with the X-ray versions of Adam and Eve? There seems to be things going on that arn't visible in the other views. Maybe its where they painted over another painting?

Re: Sistine Chapel

#236

Post by MisterBastahrd » Sat, May 31, 2014, 9:17 PM UTC

carljoseph wrote: post #174

Lucadg wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

a non-religious religion is what I dream about too! After many years despising religion (I am Italian, I know what Rome actually means) I traveled the world and learned that religion actually serves some high purposes. I really miss being religious, so if you build a non-religious one, count me in! sounds almost like a good start-up idea :)

The Sunday Assembly [0] might be of interest. I've only read of it recently but it's an interesting idea. Church for the atheists. [0] http://sundayassembly.com/

I had a thought about a similar concept. Imagine a place where you could get an inspiring message and self-help among others who have experience to share, along with community support for secular activities... kids could go to class to help prepare them for the adult world, learning about essential things like personal finance that are pretty much non-existent in the current public school curriculum.

Re: Sistine Chapel

#237

Post by MisterBastahrd » Sat, May 31, 2014, 9:19 PM UTC

lmm wrote: post #211

Swizec wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a line from a great Robin Williams movie where he talks about life to a gifted kid "I bet you can tell me every little detail about the Sistine Chapel, but you can't tell me what it smells like." It smells like sweaty humans being herded through like cattle as quickly as possible.

That argument really infuriated me. How does it not just boil down to "You're younger than me, therefore your opinion is invalid"?

Sometimes book knowledge ISN'T as good as experience. Mettle is not tested from the couch.

Re: Sistine Chapel

#238

Post by sitkack » Sat, May 31, 2014, 9:48 PM UTC

zo1 wrote: post #204

sitkack wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or something you can attend, http://afsc.org/ with people. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quakers are the closest thing we have to Buddhism in the Americas.

Interesting quote from that page: "Today, around 89% of Friends worldwide practice programmed worship [6]—that is, worship with singing and a prepared message from the Bible, often coordinated by a pastor." Note the usage of the phrase "programmed worship". Bit of an unintended pun there.

I have been to a few Friends meetings and have never encounter this. It would strike me as really really odd.

Trying to figure out how we can mash a joke out of Quaker Oats [0] and a Skinner Box [1].

[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaker_Oats_Company#Logo_and_Qu...

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programmed_instruction

Re: Sistine Chapel

#239

Post by zz1 » Sat, May 31, 2014, 10:05 PM UTC

SG- wrote: post #142

zz1 wrote: post #62

Am I the only one finding it ironic that they used (Adobe) Flash to show the chapel to the whole world, when tourists can't use (camera) flash to show it to their close friends? Well, just jacquesm, I simpathize with the stewards: "please, no flash" :(

i just find it ironic they used flash since there's webgl solutions now for this that would work on mobile devices a lot better.

At the same time you have to consider that this isn't new, as already pointed out.

Re: Sistine Chapel

#240

Post by pbhjpbhj » Sun, Jun 01, 2014, 1:08 AM UTC

lmm wrote: post #210

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> not a place of worship // Your contention is that the Sistine Chapel¹ is not a place dedicated by Christians to the glorification of God? Like it's not, say, a chapel? And they don't have art work depicting the lives of important people in the Christian faith, or imagery that Christians might use as part of their worship. When the Sistine Chapel choir sings the Miserere, say, to assembled members of the Roman Catho…

> Your contention is that the Sistine Chapel¹ is not a place dedicated by Christians to the glorification of God? Like it's not, say, a chapel? They don't use it as one, at least most of the time. There are too many people passing through for it to be a place of worship or reflection. Once you start selling entry to tourists you lose the right to demand they do something other than tourism, IMO. If they really wanted…

Just on a point of fact, you can worship/reflect/meditate anywhere, of course. It's like being at a pop concert in some ways, the imagery was commissioned with a purpose - which at least in part was to aid worship of God - if everyone is waving cameras around that inhibits that purpose in a way which is easily remedied. Cutting back to the thread start I was offering a reason to prohibit photography in the Sistine Chapel that I felt was better than some others, that's all.

Second point: The Kaaba, in Mecca is only accessible to Muslims. There are Umrah/Hajj costs to pay to get anywhere near the Kaaba.