Mopologetics and Stalinist Art

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Anyway. I do find it absolutely bizarro the Maverik store connoisseur found the comparison of temple architecture to Soviet aesthetic so reprehensible he'd devote no less than five, FIVE, blog posts in short order to our ribbing him over it..

Yeesh.

- Doc

eta: I should add that parallels can be drawn between virtually all art and architecture, hence my posting nonsense comparisons. What I find odd is DCP's deep sense of insecurity over this thread. Why did this thread, of all threads, compel him to make so many blog posts? I'd have to guess it's because there's a kitschy feel to LDS and Mormon art? That there's been a distinct lack of artistic, architectual, and cultural taste? If you moved to Utah like I did one of the things that's striking is the sense of utilitarianism in the valley. It's a distinctly bland, or average looking metroplex, where outside of some old Ward buildings and temples there seems to be no public yearning for aesthetic, public art, or beauty. Even Las Vegas, outside the kitsch of the Strip, seems to understand the need for beauty:

https://www.reviewjournal.com/local/the ... -the-park/

https://www.lasvegasnevada.gov/portal/f ... opmgyqtm_4

https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-las-v ... 45178.html

Could it be that he senses that Salt Lake City, the flagship city of Mormonism, is distinctly unremarkable?

[_Doctor Scratch]

Dr. Peterson has now posted the sixth post in his long-running series on Mopologetics and Stalinist art.

Truth be told, I'm a bit disappointed that he has failed to address the Stalin in the room: his previous contention that "I readily admit that a lot of official Latter-day Saint illustrative art over the years has reminded me a bit uncomfortably of Soviet 'socialist realism,' and that I’ve complained about that for years."

I'm blown away by his recent post.

Grant Wood likely wouldn't have lived long under Stalin. His paintings are realistic, sure, but that only gets you part way. There is much left for the viewer to fill in. That would be a problem. Imagine Cam posting those photos and then saying, "Mormon farmer in field." Would it be funny, or make any sense at all? No, it wouldn't.

Stalin wished the artist to tightly control the narrative. There's pretty much only one way to mis-interpret the works Cam just posted, and that's as portraying them as capturing moments within religious fundamentalism.

ETA: the art in the new history isn't socialist realism. so what? Maybe this is a new trend, and the Church will start building temples that aren't Stalinist now.

The Grant Wood paintings are a pretty terrible refutation. One of the hallmarks of Soviet Socialist Realism was their depiction of workers in bucolic settings. Wood's "American Gothic" is an archly ironic rendering of a similar theme, but then again, how would DCP react to a Mormon version of "American Gothic"? Have their been any depictions of Mormons that are sort of dour, and which wind up seeming like a somewhat grimly humorous commentary on LDS culture? Why, yes--there has been. And it was called the "TIME Lightbox Fiasco."

Look, at the end of the day, the Mopologists sort of hate art. Or, more accurately, they hate to mix Mormonism and art. The only Mormon art that's acceptable to them is faith-promoting art, and art in which the Book of Mormon is the pinnacle of the canon. That's why there cannot be an irony; why there cannot be any aesthetic critiques of the power structure, etc. Only the most blandly inoffensive depictions will suffice.

[_Gadianton]

Now, I readily admit that a lot of official Latter-day Saint illustrative art over the years has reminded me a bit uncomfortably of Soviet “socialist realism,” and that I’ve complained about that for years. But then, official illustrations may almost need to be something of that style.

So is the new book "Saints" "something of that style" or is he admitting it's not an official publication?


S a in
t

[_azzolina]

oh boy
https://media.deseretdigital.com/file/6 ... a=e0717f4c

[_huckelberry]

Visiting northern New Mexico I found some lovely old church which you could just walk into , sit down and enjoy some rather lovely art. A person could just sit and meditate by themselves if they wished. Some years back I stopped to view the Manti Utah temple. Its appearance reminded me of churches which you could walk up to the door and walk in. It is merely a resemblance of style.

More modern LDS temples do not present that impression to me at all. They present an image of contained authority. It is that quality that could suggest to somebody a similarity to Stalinist government buildings. Materially there are a bunch of differences. I doubt the connection somebody made had much to do with actual shared influences.

This thread somehow then pursues Soviet realism . It seems to me Doc pointed out correctly that in terms of style all sorts of things could be similar. There is a good deal of standardization of style in illustration in the past few hundred years. I think people find striking in the Soviet art an Orwellian distance between real Soviet experience and the images required by the government.

Do people suspect some sort of similar problem with Mormon art? Not quited admitted perhaps? People sometimes call Book of Mormon illustrations kitsch. That seems unfair to me. They are not the greatest of art but they are pretty effective illustration. Nephi is so grand that you might imagine him walking into a native city and becoming its leader. (if you are able to stretch your imagination that way)

Its possible that people sense Mormon images are nicer than real experience. I see a reflection of my emotional memory in the dark cast of McNaughtons depressed unclear political visions. He may be manipulating my memory by way of some exaggeration.