In perusing various websites of artists who paint landscapes, I’ve noticed a trend: a lot of these artists are into Christianity.
The most famous living landscape artist is Thomas Kinkade, who calls himself “the painter of light.” And the light in his paintings is supposed to represent the light of Jesus.
Art which depicts anything in a realistic manner, be it landscape, figure, or still life, has been out of favor for over a century. Or I should say, it has been out of favor with the elites. I don’t think anybody naturally likes non-objective art all that much, but people from the higher social classes are good at convincing themselves that they like what other members of their social class like. Proles, being less conformist, are free to enjoy the type of art they enjoy. I guess that, because there’s a correlation between Christianity and proleness, and a correlation between pretty paintings and proleness, there would alsy be a correlation between Christianity and pretty paintings.
Given the spread of the new Gaia religion among the elites, which worships Mother Nature, I’m surprised that realistic landscape painting hasn’t made a comeback with the elite. What better way to worship Mother Nature than to paint landscapes?
* * *
Mark Tully writes:
The elites cannot stand landscapes. Realistically portraying nature means portraying it as a physical realm. The elites have no real spirituality except a worship of the physical (i.e. nature). To display the object of worship as a physical representation, paradoxically, is to degrade it. So the elites prefer pieces that distort the thing being painted or, in the instance of abstract art, art that reflects a mental state. I suppose that the new religion has its own version of the command, thou shalt have no graven images.
The prohibition of depicting the holy is unique to Judaism and Islam, the latter being a more violent clone of Judaism. The Hasidim, to their credit, haven’t beheaded anyone for painting Yahweh, at least not in this century.
Most other religions delight in depicting their deities. Gaiaism borrow heavily from Buddhism, and the Buddhists love their Buddha statues.
No, the reason the elites like non-objective art is because realistic art requires the skill of the individual to create, and the leftists hate the skill of the individual. And leftism is the primary political ideology of the elites.
I predict that as the religion of Gaia continues to spread, landscape paintings will become more popular with the elite. An Albert Bierstadt painting would be a much better investment than an Andy Warhol. His smaller works are still affordable.