The great distinction between Biblical verse and Biblical prose is the prose uses a much more limited vocabulary, since repetition is a key literary device for reflecting recurring themes, which conveys a continuity of action. Biblical verse, however, is more concerned with description than action, and therefore utilizes a greater vocabulary so as to convey detail. Yet both by far the most common style of both Biblical prose and Biblical verse is parataxis, which is optimal for conveying parallels and parables. In fact, Hosea 10:12 overtly names this Biblical style, saying God shows visions to his prophets and speaks through them through “parables”--the word here is a form of the word “likeness”, what God created man in. Indeed, man was created to become like God (most Church Fathers gloss that God is being sarcastic when he says Adam and Eve will become like him for eating from the Tree of Knowledge), but the Fall prevented that; God aims to restore the likeness (Zechariah 12:8). So Biblical aesthetic has blatant spiritual significance. Now that we have a rudimentary understanding of in literature, let’s examine this aesthetic in art and music.
cont
In ancient times, the primary function of art was (according to Aristotle, but obviously not totally) catharsis (similar to blockbusters or tearjerkers today). But with the rise of Christianity, art took on a new purpose that was beyond the synthesis of the binary Dionysian-Apollonian or ever Socratic spoken of by Nietzsche; art became about expressing truth which could *not be expressed by reason*. This was not emotional truth (we will get to that), but a higher true which reason could not order properly. Art eventually became about materialist truth or emotion later on in the West (it started in the Gothic period Giotto's "The Massacre of the Innocents" is a good example). Materialist art. especially in the Renaissance, started to trend toward an extremely fleshy aesthetic in contract to the Christians aesthetic (Byzantine icon of Adam and Eve for illustration).
cont
Where can I read more of this?
Now it is not that Christian art did not have emotion in it, but that it was not about Catharsis (this is why Orthodox icons do not depict Christ suffering on the cross, but always already dead, they do not aim for some catharsis). The major difference between Christian literature and Christian pictorial art is that the former conveys constant action, whereas the latter is tries to convey a stillness for holy figures, an absence of action and total calm (sometimes contrasted with the less than holy figures); this utilizes the medium very well, since pictorial art is frozen, whereas text is active.
I think the basic understanding of how this ties with Biblical aesthetic can be shown in Christ's parables, literature within literature. Here we see the full purpose and dynamic of Biblical of aesthetic in the illustration of truth. Touching back on Aristotle's theory on the function of art, I contrast the pagan Aesop's literature to illustrate the same aesthetic as the Christian function of art.
It's not about catharsis, it is about expressing truth in a way reason cannot. This is why art ceased to be naturalist during the Christian period, because naturalism is a kind of rationalism of art (not naturalism couldn't be used, it occasionally was, but here it was an element employed to facilitate a particular truth of a particular piece of art, as opposed to something always employed for the sake of being considered more true in and of itself).
To give you a visceral contrast between these two aesthetics, Here is a Roman Catholic hymn, followed by an Orthodox hymn, follow by a Roman Catholic hymn, follow by an Orthodox hymn. The Roman Catholic hymns embody the modernist aesthetic, whereas the Orthodox hymns embody the Christian aesthetic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0iOBOIwQ2o
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AE1FzSC8DBs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mgn2Y1Yvhs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8r5r4R2yuE
With the onset of modernity, truth ceased to be expressed in this unique, Biblical way (the Bible is also not about catharsis). Instead truth was expressed either rationally or trough catharsis, the return to the Apollonian-Dionysian synthesis. This is why modern variants of Christianity have difficulty reading the Bible, everything in is read as either cathartic or rational truth. This is also why scientism is increasingly marginalizing the humanities where they are not cathartic, since they are seen as inadequate to expression rational truth. We have lost touch with the use of art and philosophy as expression of truth in a way unique to art, that isn't about either rationalism or being an emotion junkie.
>>7775427
>catharsis
>similar to blockbusters or tearjerkers today
>not about "expressing truth which could *not be expressed by reason*"
Holy shit you are pleb if you are actually serious.
>>7775428
warosu
>>7775442
>not about "expressing truth which could *not be expressed by reason*"
By the way, I am not disagreeing with this, but I am saying that the contrast here is between emotional truth and purely rational truth, with no room for anything else, no truth like you would find in Aesop. Furthermore, with modernity, truth ceased to be considered synomous with Christ, but it held the legacy of Renaissance humanism: God is a creator of natural world, and it therefore should be studying as the truth as much as the Bible. So instead the natural world itself was seen as the truth, and the Reformation legacy endured, creating eventually both scientism and existentialism nihilism. Now existential nihilism is very different from Christian existentialism--a good example of the latter is Notes from Underground, here meaning is not something that exists solely by one's creation, but is a constant truth, but one which have the free will to not make peace with. Existentialism nihilism, on the other hand, applied the Reformation attitude toward the Bible toward the secular truth: there is no innate meaning, meaning is just a matter of individual conception. But what does this really lead to? Christianity sees God as the ultimate value, from which all others spring, like colors from a prism. But existentialism nihilism sees no objective vale and meaning which others are refracted from, all meanings are just independent and equally truth; so the truth that they all share in is what happens when all colors are mixed together: darkness. There is no meaning, there is purpose, there is no point, there is only chaos (from Greek for "abyss"). Total relativism means each truth is true so far as it partakes of the ultimate truth, which is, paradoxically, nothing.
>>7775454
And what I'm saying with all of this here, of course, is that is why the state of art is what it is today. Once art could no longer being a placeholder for photography, like it was at the start of modernity, it had to reflect truth other than materialist, but with the rise of materialism as a dominance ideology, all other truth was either absolute relative, or non-existence, and so no longer has any standard of truth, it reflects confusion and nihilism.
>>7775449
>That is exactly what catharsis is though
No it's not, you've probably misinterpreted Aristotle, in which case I doubt you'd actually experienced proper tragic catharsis yourself.
>>7775454
>existentialism nihilism
>all meanings are just independent and equally truth
Ok, you've confirmed to me you have no idea what you're talking about. See you.
>>7775469
Sorry if I offended you.
slightly intriguing thread
>>7775534
I try.
song of songs in the KJV is about as good as Bible-as-literature-in-English gets
I don't like your use of the word 'art' here because it seems like it only applies to works which aimed to reach a higher truth, so that you can safely make blanket statements about art while ignoring any other 'artistic production' -- by which I mean primarily the production of luxury objects, as well as church building -- with the claim that it isn't art.
There were many objects produced in the first few centuries of 'Christian art' that combined Christian themes with the use of Classical art. After all, Christian art wasn't produced in a vacuum; it was produced in the living cities of an Empire still ruled by its emperors. There is a large amount of Christian art directly involved with elevating the emperor while making Christ more material.
Christian art did attempt to depict action. In the west there are several luxury objects that have survived that use Classical depiction to portray the life of Christ, because art producers were working in a style they were familiar with. In the East you have Santa Maria Maggiore depicting the early life of Christ. Also St Catherine's monastery at Mt Sinai has an icon of the crucified Christ. It wasn't until 11th - 12th centuries that Byzantine mosaics and church building became so programmatic.
You neglect to mention anything about the Romanesque period as well which usually depict the Second Coming on tympani; hardly a calm scene, or the Franciscan use of the material Christ to empathise with the Passion. You also don't mention the cross-cultural influences on art production, such as the Eastern influence on icons (Divine Triad, as an example).
>>7775601
The Bible in general is really good literature, it just gets screwed up a lot in translation because translators feel the need to translate words into different forms based on context, but that is very damaging to Biblical prose.(Song of Songs is verse, and uses a wider vocabulary), which employs a minimalist prose in order to tie things together. The Orthodox translation (NT testament is out, you can google the pdf of it), Robert Alter's Hebrew Bible, and the King James, are some examples of translations which try to be extremely consistent with vocabulary translation and don't leave words out. Biblical prose, if properly translated, has a style similar to Blood Meridian (which of course was very influenced by Biblical style), albeit with fewer hapax legomena
>>7775616
Of course you're right, but even so it's important to remember that Christianity still employed classical style to a different end. For instance, pic related employs the realist style of Roman painting that's advent had nothing to do with Christianity. However, it employs it to accentuate a spiritual truth: in this instance, Christ's hypostatic union, human and divine. The right side conveys his humanity, the left his divinity.
>>7775616
By the way, concerning the Romanesque, it isn't all approved of by the Orthodox Church, but it is actually being employed in Orthodox fashion in Western Orthodox rite. Pic related is contemporary Romanesque, and as you can see, it is definitely not action oriented.
>>7775616
You say the formula came later, but to attest that it didn't, this formula exists in the Coptic and Ethiopian Orthodox Churches. Their style is very distinct from the Greek style of art (and is also ancient and passed down), but the same motifs are applied. For instance, saints are never depicted in profile. This is a Coptic icon, and the only holy person in action is Peter, and it is in an action which is rebuked by Christ in scripture.
>>7775642
By "profile", I mean their face. Even when they are turned to the side, if the character is holy, you can still see both their eyes.
>>7775642
The Byzantine church program can be seen developing in earlier church decoration. This usually made use of contemporary (at the time) court ceremonial in its depictions. Though probably not approved by the Orthodox church, the mosaic of Christ the Lawgiver in Santa Costanza depicts Christ in imperial robes, in the same pose of adlocutio that is seen in Imperial art, such as on the Arc of Constantine. Also of interest is that Christ is flanked by Peter and Paul who are seen in profile.
In the mausoleum of Galla Placidia is a typical early Byzantine building and in its mosaic program Christ is depicted naturalistically as the Good Shepherd, dressed in imperial purple.
Ravenna has a couple of examples. The first, Saint Apollinaris, uses a more stylised and mosaic program in contrast to earlier naturalism. Its layout relies on imperial procession, as does the other example of San Vitale after the reconquest and Justinian's policy of cesaropapism. Interestingly the scenes in San Vitale are more naturalistic and the beginnings of later church decoration can be seen, with certain spaces being occupied only by certain figures.
After the Iconoclastic period there was the Macedonian Renaissance which made use of naturalism again, as well as illusionism, allegory, antique clothing, etc. Then finally in the 11th and 12th centuries it became strictly standardised.
>>7775729
Also I mention imperial procession and court ceremonial so much because it is argued this is about imperial presence as ritualised through actions, or depiction of actions. I think this is important for understanding the function of Byzantine church mosaics from the 11th century, because the way the figures in the mosaics are used in their respective zones, they appear to reach around the space in which they inhabit, including the viewer in that space. This says 'presence' to me -- that the icons are living (Christ is not the god of the dead) and active. But absolutely it could be said there is calmness, stillness, and respite in the presence of Christ as well.
>>7775738
But also narrative scenes of Christ's life based around liturgy existed in these decorations in the 'Holy Land' zones (compared to the 'Heaven' zone depicting Christ Pantokrator and 'Earth' zone of local saints).
>>7775729
But my point wasn't that naturalism was inherently bad. Rather my point was that naturalism for the sake of thinking "more naturalism is truthier, less naturalism is less truthiless", is the problem, because it reflects a materialist conception of truth. Naturalism can be used to great effect, but it becomes a problem when naturalism is an end in itself rather than a device, because then paintings become a placeholder for photography and film.
>>7775742
Narrative scenes are kind of an exception since they were a stand in for Scripture to be "read" by those who were illiterate. But I think that you must remember that in an Orthodox Church, the idea is not to partition the zones of heaven and earth so much as to reconcile them, as dimensions to speak, even though there are zones in terms of the room as the vault of the heavens and the walls and the floor as the earth and so on. Orthodox Liturgy is designed to be heaven on earth.
>>7775562
As has been said before: >>>/reddit/ with the meme names.
>>7775758
Shit, responded to the wrong person.
>>7775758
Isn't "Anonymous" the ultimate meme name?
>>7775601
You just like it because it's erotic.
>>7775432
>The major difference between Christian literature and Christian pictorial art is that ...
Is that Christian literature was written by jews in 600BC to roughly 40AD, and the Christian pictoral art we have today mainly originated from the Medieval Era. The combinations of language, customs, influences and temporal and spacial distances would indeed come to enforce immense differences in artistic representation as corollaries.
>is that the former conveys constant action, whereas the latter is tries to convey a stillness for holy figures
Oh... Okay.
>>7775425
What do you think the Apollonian-Dionysian dynamic has to say about works like Le Roman de la Rose, where the cartharsis is only reached through 'Reason' (or Apollonian thought and conduct)?
'Reason' itself seems to have undergone a dramatic redefinition in 18th Century France, as though it was badly translated.
>>7779052
Have you seen the art from the Dura-Europos synagogue?
Now, as you artistic differences, of course there are stylistic differences between Coptic, Ethiopian and Greek Orthodox, for instance...and yet, they are all still Christian art. I didn't say Christian art was a unified style, I said it had a cohesive teleos.
>>7779150
Reason was so radically redefined because it became materialist. Before then, reason was seen as something transcendent.
