Jung art and religion

My question is whether art plays or can play the same function as religion for Jung. I know he says it can also access the unconscious but I’m unsure of whether he thought they were on equal level in their function of doing this.

From my own experience I would guess that the answer is yes, provided the art moved the individual to the correct degree (likewise some religions will move one person but do nothing for another so I suppose this is just the same thing). The only thing with art is I find it isn’t as all encompassing as religion, although, that I would say that is merely because I have not devoted enough of my time to any particular art as I have religion.

Would Jung view the artist as the same as a saint? like a medium between realms of conscious and unconscious? Upon this understanding it does alot to break down the distinctions between different fields.

I’m asking because I am thinking the total loss of spirituality in Western culture now can be replaced with art instead. There art many art forms around which have grown in ‘reaction’ to the technolisation of the world. Campbell once said in one of his videos that contemporary art must now take up the slack that the loss of religion left behind.

As I understand it from my own life art or religion are both just ways to make the mundane everyday into an aesthetic experience. When I listen to a piece of music it moves me such that I see the beautiful in everything and this effect lasts till after I’ve listened to the music although it fades quite quickly. As I said above, however, I have not devoted myself to any particular art form as one would with a religion, so, perhaps, if I were to do this, treating it as a religion, with more discipline and fervour then the gains may be exponential. I think the challenge is to get this aesthetic experience as the DEFAULT state of being.

People say that you can take anything as religion i.e golf tennis, your work. I’d agree with this if we are just taking the previous premise that the aesthetic experience is what we are after. Upon this reckoning then ANYTHING may produce the religious experience as long as it is endeavoured in to in the correct manner which then relieves alot of the ‘outward searching’ as one can now just focus on the process rather than the ‘object of worship’.

Please discuss as I want to understand these issues more, plus, if you know, please point me to the related Jung writings in which he discusses these topics.

Originally, Art, like printed matter, was for the educated classes.

Since, the Dadaists, and modern artists, it’s intent has been mostly to befuddle and cause consternation in the bourgeois.

I don’t think the masses are ready to give up tv and the movies for museums.
Jung talks about archetypes and the collective unconscious. To the extent that art partakes of these it might be an esatz form of religion.

That’s precisely it, I wouldn’t call it ‘inferior’ as your choice of wording ‘ersatz’ would indicate.

It is interesting you take this view, as your screenname is of the mighty one, Nietzsche. My views have been greatly influenced by the Holy one. He too thought that art was the highest human experience and that it would be the answer to the ‘death of God’ .

I am not trying to say that it is going to take over religion on a mass scale (it could but that is not what I’m concerned with here), as the next ‘opium for the masses’; moreso, on a personal level I am concerned with the actual psychological effect and whether it is the same on that level. Basically, art as your personal religion.

I just decided that I think they are both the same now, more or less. I came to this conclusion because all religion began as art. The very first signs of ‘religion’ are drawings were just pictures in caves which represented some respect for the animals/some transcendent value above them being ‘pieces of meat’ :slight_smile:. Joseph Campbell talks about the first sign of myths et al. in the days of yore, the first time a tool was made not for practical purposes but for ritual purposes, what Kant terms- purposive without purpose. Ritual has alot to do with this as well then I think. An aesthetic medium + ritual = religion? I guess that religion is just art plus making a morality based around that art? Discuss.

Originally? What about cave paintings and aborigine art et al?

wtf…Get a room :unamused:

…holy one :laughing:

Edit: I’m going to actually read this thread later, sounds interesting.

That’s primitive art. Also, I don’t swing that way.

The classification of art is irrelevant here, art is art or as I prefer to see it, creativity. Art is a creative process as was the formation of myths and religion. Works of the imagination. The classification of art is probably because of these educated classes you speak of; art existed before them though, I say.

Exactly Rebel.

It’s not ‘how good a piece of art to others is this piece’, but, rather, the psychological effect it has for the individual. For me I have had times of deep depression and then found myself forced to express it somehow. The medium of creativity allowed me an IMMEDIATE cathartic release of this existential angst. This is what I’m concerned with here.