As an atheist and skeptic, people often present me with the argument that religious belief is a necessity for the creation of great works of art such as The Sistine Chapel or The Last Supper. Personally, I believe that this is a coincidence, and that great works of art will appear in any culture. It just happens that Christianity was a dominant force in Europe when these works were created.

Agree?

Well, I agree, since I think religion is just an expression of human impulses and characteristics. I don't think the presence of religious art is enough to prove God exists, certainly. Besides, the religious theme isn't all that makes a piece a 'great work of art'. Religious context is important when looking at such works, because as you say, religion was a dominant force at the time. But the impulse to create art about the world in which we live is a human trait which hasn't exactly disappeared. Do these people suggest that only religious art is 'great'? I'd have to disagree.

I think artist take on the role of the archetypical shaman, journeying inwardly to find some insight or message to bring to the world. Does this have to be a religious message? No. However a general belief that there is something out there, something unknown, something greater, (maybe God), I feel is necessary.

But what if your message as an artist is in conflict with that? For example, I can think of a few pieces of art that champion the success of the individual in spite of forces greater than themselves.

Part of that message also involve the greater forces no? Whichever the point of view, I tend to feel that openness is needed to produce great art.

Are you an artist Owen?

Not really. I write stories and in the past I had made art, but I wouldn't call myself an artist.

Perhaps I gave a bad example before.

What about a work of art that is plainly not interested in greater forces. Say I wanted to produce a painting that was a tribute to something I personally find moving but wouldn't be described as a greater force. I have a shiny blue teapot, it is rather nice to look at and I'm sure it would be a pleasure to paint. I could paint it and try to convey in my painting how aesthetically pleasing I find the shape, the colour and the reflections of light in it. While the colour and shape of the teapot might be pleasant, I wouldn't consider them to be greater forces.

This might be a difference of beliefs. But I would consider the light falling upon the teapot a greater force, and have a certain reverence and respect even for my eyes and hands which i use to paint the teapot... the breeze in the room might affect my perception of the teapot, i think paintings with made with that sort of reverence and humility, tend to be better.

I have painted in such a state, and i have painted in more egotistical states ignoring everything else, I find the former produces better results.

A belief that there is something out there, would challenge, an artist to look for it. I believe that quest a noble one, producing noble results.

But teapots are nice too.

Oh certainly, it can be seen that way. However, if I didn't see it that way, would it prevent me from producing a great piece of art?

I suppose what I'm saying is that I think I can appreciate something for being beautiful, complex or amazing without recognising it as a greater force.

Take ants. I am a greater force than an ant. My ability to shape the world far exceeds that of an ant, or of a colony of ants. As a human being I also, perhaps selfishly, consider myself more important than a colony of ants.

Does this impede my ability to find ants fascinating or inspiring? I don't think so.

I think Owen is right that it's possible to appreciate beauty without attributing that beauty to a greater force.

But I also see something in I-Ming's idea that you would recognize a greater force in the things — in this case, the art that you view.

A religious person might see a painting and think, "Wow, what great vision God blessed the artist with," and God's direction would be the greater force they see. A non-religious person might see the exact same painting and think, "Wow, what great vision this artist has," and the artist's own being would be the greater force they see.

And people can have these beliefs about the painting regardless of whether the artist himself is religious!

To get back to the first statement, though, that "religious belief is a necessity for the creation of great works of art", I don't think it's so much religious belief as it is religious experience, the experience of obeying the demands of art.

In "Walking on Water," writer Madeleine L'Engle proposes that good art — regardless of the artist's religious beliefs — results from the artist's complete submission to the art:

"I believe that each work of art, whether it is a work of great genius, or something very small, comes to the artist and says, 'Here I am. Enflesh me. Give birth to me.' And the artist either says, 'My soul doth magnify the Lord,' and willingly becomes the bearer of the work, or refuses."

"My soul doth magnify" is not necessarily a statement of submission to a God; Ms. L'Engle uses it here to show submission to artistic vision. Basically, good art is a result of the artist saying, "Okay, idea; okay, vision. I will put my best, my soul into the work you're going to demand of me and see it to the end."

And artists can make that kind of declaration whether they believe that the vision for their art comes from God or not.

"Only religious art is great" would thus be correct, in the sense that the artist can look at his/her work and honestly say it is great because he/she gave the work that level of devotion.

I mean, no matter how people will praise your art, if deep inside, you know you didn't do as well as you could have, you probably wouldn't agree with them.

I take your point about an artist putting their all into a work and I agree that is a necessity for a great work of art, but I think we're playing with the definitions of religious a little bit here.

Putting your very heart into a work might be described as an emotional experience, it might even be described as a spiritual experience, but I personally wouldn't describe it as a religious experience unless it was done in the service of one's own personal religious beliefs.

While a great amount of art has been done in the service of spirituality, I don't think that precludes very well done art that is created purely in the service of emotional, aesthetic or political interests. None of which I would call religious drives.

You're correct, of course. :) I'm just using religious experience as a metaphor for the experience of creating art.

Where I-Ming mentions the necessity of a "greater force," I can't help but think of the twelve step program's "higher power." This is put forward as an essential ingredient in self improvement, surrendering to an entity greater than yourself.
Of course, if you're not religious, you are encouraged to think of an object and give it the attributes of a higher power so you have something to surrender your responsibility to.

I feel like the same case is being made for art here, it doesn't matter if the "greater force" actually exists but you have to act like it if you want to create great art. But I don't think that's true for self improvement, and I don't think that's true for art.

I don't think it's true, either. I don't think you have to give an external object the attributes of a higher power to make great art. Why can't the power (for a non-religious person, anyway) come from your own will, for instance?

It can be good no doubt, but I doubt as good, as work done for a greater cause, religious or otherwise. Limited self vs. being a channel of the 'Unlimited'. I believe the second world view will create better art.