Buddhism And The Concept Of Art

[Bellatrix]

I'm not really sure how to word this question correctly, so I hope this makes sense.

When pondering the question "What is art?", I sometimes wonder how appreciating (or creating) art fits in the way of thinking encouraged by Buddhism, and I was wondering if anyone has any thoughts on this or can direct me to any writings on this subject.

Thank you.

(Thus far I have found this article http://arts.ucsc.edu/faculty/lieberman/zen.html)

[chownah]

The link leads to nowhere.

I'm not trying to be cute or clever but I really do think it depends on what your definition is for "art" and for "Buddhism". At first read it may seem like this is an obvious and juvenile retort but in my experience there is a very very wide difference of functional definitions used for both these terms.

The following is an expression of my views.

If by Buddhism you mean the teachings of the Buddha as expressed in the Tipitaka and the Commentaries you can narrow the answer down somewhat but still, even within this narrowed range of "Buddhism" you will find a variety of views expressed by those who have undergone a serious study of this literature. Some of these people are even of the view that one must use two different interpretations of the teachings; one for a common person who is going through the rounds of rebirth and is making merit so that conditins might be right in a future birth for a run at nibhanna and another one for people who are working at living the holy life in this very life.

Taking the view of the teachings as applied to common people, the teachings sometimes say that developing skills is a good thing when these skills are used for the purpose of right behavior, right view, right livelihood, and right intention, etc. .....and the Buddha sometimes uses the development of various skills as a metaphor for following the path or for meditative practice. So in the sense that "art" is the skillful use of materials then it could be viewed as beneficial, especially if the message expressed was one that would lead one toward the following of the path.

Taking the view of the teachings as applied to people who are living the holy life in this existence now it might be said that "art" is mental object and the messages are likewise mental objects and are impermanent and are created, exist, and extinguish many times in one second and that art is annica, dukkha, and annata (impermanent, inadequate, and not-self) just like all things in this existence . In this case a teaching might be viewed as meaning that when creating art or viewing art one should be mindful of the mental objects that arise and pass away and this should be done with detachment and equanimity. Viewing art with detachment and equanimity is contrary to the purpose that some people think that art should perform...that is an artist quite often wants to create an emotional reaction in the audience and for this emotion to be strongly felt and indulged in....while the Buddha's teachings are often viewed as meaning that emotions should be observed with detachment as they rise and fall away and seen for what they are (annica, dhukka, and anatta) rather than as being central to existence or helpful on the path or to be indulged in.

Chownah

Edited January 18, 2007 by chownah

[lannarebirth]

I sometimes wonder how appreciating (or creating) art fits in the way of thinking encouraged by Buddhism, and I was wondering if anyone has any thoughts on this or can direct me to any writings on this subject.

My thinking, encouraged by Buddhism, might substitute "experiencing art" for appreciating art; and might substitute "be artful" in place of creating art. That's just me, everyone's different.

[Bellatrix]

Viewing art with detachment and equanimity is contrary to the purpose that some people think that art should perform...that is an artist quite often wants to create an emotional reaction in the audience and for this emotion to be strongly felt and indulged in....while the Buddha's teachings are often viewed as meaning that emotions should be observed with detachment as they rise and fall away and seen for what they are (annica, dhukka, and anatta) rather than as being central to existence or helpful on the path or to be indulged in.

Thank you. This is precisely what I was thinking about.

[Bellatrix]

My thinking, encouraged by Buddhism, might substitute "experiencing art" for appreciating art; and might substitute "be artful" in place of creating art. That's just me, everyone's different.

That's very helpful too, thank you.

[lannarebirth]

My thinking, encouraged by Buddhism, might substitute "experiencing art" for appreciating art; and might substitute "be artful" in place of creating art. That's just me, everyone's different.

That's very helpful too, thank you.

From Buddhadhassa's "Handbook For Mankind" :

"At the very least, everyone ought to consider Buddhism as Art, as the Art of Living - in other words, as skill and competence in being a human being,"

[ourmanflint]

I must admit to not understanding almost everything written above... is it me or you?? That aside....

I have been to Mogao and if that is not art, not Buddhist art, then I am really confused

[chownah]

I must admit to not understanding almost everything written above... is it me or you?? That aside....

I have been to Mogao and if that is not art, not Buddhist art, then I am really confused

If you would like to learn about the things that I mentioned then I suggest a good starting place is the Wings to Awakening web site. It is a thorough treatment of the Buddha's teachings written by a well respected (although not entirely controversy free) monk....American I think. He starts with the basics but some people recommend reading some simpler more basic text first...I hope someone will post and recommend one as I don't know the names of any.

Chownah

[jumnien]

It is a very good question. From my experience (Los Angeles, NY, SF) much of the art world is steeped in ego glorification and the manufacturing and selling and sometimes worship of the personality of the artist. This aspect of the contemporary art world seems less than liberating from a Buddhist perspective. Taking an otherwise beautiful painting and scribbling one's name across the lower right corner also seems a bit odd for those interested in ego dissolution.

[ourmanflint]

I must admit to not understanding almost everything written above... is it me or you?? That aside....

I have been to Mogao and if that is not art, not Buddhist art, then I am really confused

If you would like to learn about the things that I mentioned then I suggest a good starting place is the Wings to Awakening web site. It is a thorough treatment of the Buddha's teachings written by a well respected (although not entirely controversy free) monk....American I think. He starts with the basics but some people recommend reading some simpler more basic text first...I hope someone will post and recommend one as I don't know the names of any.

Chownah

Maybe not!! I am completely at ease with my understanding and interpretation of Buddhism, but thanks anyway. My point was I couldn't understand it because it made no sense to me.

[lannarebirth]

I must admit to not understanding almost everything written above... is it me or you?? That aside....

I have been to Mogao and if that is not art, not Buddhist art, then I am really confused

I think your confusion stems from the OP's question about what Buddhism thinks of art, while your response deals with what artists think of Buddhism. Not unlike visiting the Uffizi. You won't learn a thing about what Christianity thinks of art, but you'll certainly gain some insight as to what artists think of Christianity.

Edited January 25, 2007 by lannarebirth

[ourmanflint]

I must admit to not understanding almost everything written above... is it me or you?? That aside....

I have been to Mogao and if that is not art, not Buddhist art, then I am really confused

I think your confusion stems from the OP's question about what Buddhism thinks of art, while your response deals with what artists think of Buddhism. Not unlike visiting the Uffizi. You won't learn a thing about what Christianity thinks of art, but you'll certainly gain some insight as to what artists think of Christianity.

How so?? The artists that created the many murals at Mogao where themselves Buddhist monks, they were painted to inspire to instruct and to aid meditiation. There is no similarity to the Uffizi whatsoever. And seeing them 1000 years later they still inspire, instruct and make you just sit there in admiration. All qualities of art I would say.

I think it would be safe to say that you can learn a lot about what Buddhism thinks of Art as the caves at Mogao are art for and by Buddhists.

[chownah]

I must admit to not understanding almost everything written above... is it me or you?? That aside....

I have been to Mogao and if that is not art, not Buddhist art, then I am really confused

I think your confusion stems from the OP's question about what Buddhism thinks of art, while your response deals with what artists think of Buddhism. Not unlike visiting the Uffizi. You won't learn a thing about what Christianity thinks of art, but you'll certainly gain some insight as to what artists think of Christianity.

How so?? The artists that created the many murals at Mogao where themselves Buddhist monks, they were painted to inspire to instruct and to aid meditiation. There is no similarity to the Uffizi whatsoever. And seeing them 1000 years later they still inspire, instruct and make you just sit there in admiration. All qualities of art I would say.

I think it would be safe to say that you can learn a lot about what Buddhism thinks of Art as the caves at Mogao are art for and by Buddhists.

Once again it depends on what you mean by Buddhism and what you mean by art. I think that the murals you mention can reveal what a particular group of Buddhists thought about their wall decorations (art) but since Buddhism is such a diverse collection of people and beliefs I would hesitate to accept the view that those murals say much about Buddhism as a whole.

[ourmanflint]

Once again it depends on what you mean by Buddhism and what you mean by art. I think that the murals you mention can reveal what a particular group of Buddhists thought about their wall decorations (art) but since Buddhism is such a diverse collection of people and beliefs I would hesitate to accept the view that those murals say much about Buddhism as a whole.

Both your statements are of course true, we may have different notions of what is art and what is Buddhism, but when these murals were painted between the 4th and 14th centuries, there must have been a much stronger sense of what Buddhism "is" or was at the time. I would from a common sense perspective argue that religions or philosophies can only dilute over time, and so whilst in todays perspective you may not see the relevance of a group of murals, they would have been seen in a much different light when they were created.

To say these are just murals either is not to do them justice, they are incredible works of art and some would not be out of place amongst the greatest art we have. I have always believed that the appreciation and creation of art are central to the Buddhist way of life, as they both bring joy, and are a good thing. Art is the sublime result of right action and right thought. Many of the works at Mogao are the result of meditative practices, they come from concentration from mindfulness.

So I think it is safe to say that they do say volumes about the Buddhist view of art, you cannot break it down to "annica, dukkha, and annata" that would be like a chemist only seeing the various chemicals used to make the paints.

I think there is a greater appreciation for art in Buddhism, art in nature and art made by artists.

[chownah]

Ourmanflint,

I've looked around a bit on the internet for the history of the art at Mogao and so far I have not found a site that claims that the art works were made by monks and I did find one reference that suggested that they were made by travelers....but nothing definitive. Do you have a link with a good history of the art there?

Chowah

[ourmanflint]

I must admit to most of my knowledge of Mogao came from the guides we had there. But here are a few excerpts and links I have found.

The Indian tradition of sannyasa refers to the concept of renouncing attachments to the material world in order to devote oneself entirely to spiritual matters. This concept developed in two ways: The first, outlined in the "Bhagavad Gita", is the principle of internalizing this concept so that it inspires one's daily life. The second is the physical execution of this ideal by formally renouncing the various comforts of society for the austerity of a remote location where the spiritual aspirant devotes him/herself to the search for enlightenment. A remote cave offers peace and shelter as well as an environment suited to spiritual endeavor. Neither light nor dark, high nor low, enclosed nor exposed, a cave is a metaphor for a dimension that exists beyond the worlds of reality and unreality.

The cave thereby became a place for spiritual search. It was but a small elaboration to painting the caves' walls with emblems to facilitate meditation or with visualizations derived from the search for enlightenment.

Sannyasa originally relates to an individual's search for enlightenment. However, even before the institution of the Mahayana school of Buddhism, there was evidence of devotees' zeal to enlighten their contemporaries. Caves also became loci of pedagogy and the tools of proselytizers. Cave paintings came to have the function of publicizing Buddhist stories and concepts to an illiterate audience. The images became attractive and accessible libraries of Buddhist sutras (teachings) and jataka (moral tales of previous incarnations of the Buddha).

from here

Also here, the wikipedia entry is here

Examples from the caves can be seen here

It would seem that for such a huge treasure trove there is remarkably little research on them, possibly as a result of the ongoing disputes between China and various institutions worldwide over the removal of many of the manuscripts.

Edited January 26, 2007 by ourmanflint

[camerata]

Although it's true there are murals in Thai temples I think Buddhist art is more of a Mahayana thing than a Theravada thing. The Theravada attitude is that everything that gives pleasure is ultimately an attachment to be let go of. In Mahayana, appreciation of beauty is OK as long as you don't get attached to it.

Japan has a rich history of Buddhist art, including statuary and mandalas that could be used skillfully for practice, and Pure Land "Descent of Amida" and hel_l scrolls that were used to inspire/scare people. For most of the medieval period the Buddhist clergy considered any kind of fictional literature to be heretical unless it was written to teach Dhamma.