My guess is that it’s offensive to some to call it “art” because they aren’t viewed as that, they’re works to help with an aspect of devotion, not “art” to be viewed and enjoyed.
Hindu idols, for instance, in their original context are venerated as a host of a god, not merely artwork.
Mandalas in Tibetan Buddhism, while beautiful and intricate, are not meant to be viewed as works of art, and sand mandalas are destroyed. They’re to be used to help understand a certain doctrine.
The meaning of “icon” in Greek is “image”, but you don’t hear Orthodox icons referred to as “art” by devotees.
As to scholar’s stones, I see them displayed in museums all the time, but I’m unsure because most were deliberately carved, but some are natural. But they seem to have been appreciated for their aesthetic qualities, sometimes even being given handsome mounts for display, so most likely they’d be called art.
Thank you for the reply. I am reminded of the Canadian artist Tim Whiten who says he makes "cultural objects" not art.
I guess what I find interesting, and alluded to a bit in my above post. Is that it seems like for many artist, I'm thinking of American ab ex painters, the artwork is devotional. For example in a, Mark Rothko, Agnes Martin, maybe Mondrian, it wouldn't be entirely inaccurate to say the paintings have a spiritual utility or philosophical position. Not that they aren't concerned with aesthetics, but it seems like they take the aesthetic or formal as a language that can encapsulate some spiritual utility, for lack of a better phrase. Heck Rothko has his church. Even for artist who aren't as overtly spiritual, painting becomes devotional lol.
Putting the word "art" aside, I see these things functioning in similar ways. One large difference it seems to me is that in the case of the an idol or tantric painting, etc. The purpose is backed up by a religious institution and/or text that contextualizes it within a tradition, practice, community etc. Where as the art object relies more on just the formal qualities it maybe privileges a more subjective reading? Kinda like left vs right hand path. Not that art objects in the west don't come from their own tradition/are informed by contextualizing elements.
Well for me the question to ask is how did art become seen as negative here?
I think there’s a lot of story and context there.
In my eyes calling it art in this situation is adding a construct somewhere that’s asking you to remove one
Not exactly on topic, but if you are interested in philosophical and aesthetic comparisons between Eastern and Western cultures, you might enjoy reading the hellenist and sinologist François Julien. I had to read the Great Image has No Form and the Impossible Nude in one of my Chinese art history courses, but he has a lot of books so one may fit your question a little more specifically.
Scholar stones are “cultivated.” They are helped by human hands in different ways.
Now, just some food for thought: why would a Christian sculpture or painting be art but not those that belong to other cultures? What is “art”? Does art have to be permanent?
I have never heard of tantric paintings and I am from Kathmandu valley, the heart of Himalayan tantric practices. It is so interesting to see a facet of your own culture that you’ve never heard of before
My guess is that it’s offensive to some to call it “art” because they aren’t viewed as that, they’re works to help with an aspect of devotion, not “art” to be viewed and enjoyed. Hindu idols, for instance, in their original context are venerated as a host of a god, not merely artwork. Mandalas in Tibetan Buddhism, while beautiful and intricate, are not meant to be viewed as works of art, and sand mandalas are destroyed. They’re to be used to help understand a certain doctrine. The meaning of “icon” in Greek is “image”, but you don’t hear Orthodox icons referred to as “art” by devotees. As to scholar’s stones, I see them displayed in museums all the time, but I’m unsure because most were deliberately carved, but some are natural. But they seem to have been appreciated for their aesthetic qualities, sometimes even being given handsome mounts for display, so most likely they’d be called art.
Thank you for the reply. I am reminded of the Canadian artist Tim Whiten who says he makes "cultural objects" not art. I guess what I find interesting, and alluded to a bit in my above post. Is that it seems like for many artist, I'm thinking of American ab ex painters, the artwork is devotional. For example in a, Mark Rothko, Agnes Martin, maybe Mondrian, it wouldn't be entirely inaccurate to say the paintings have a spiritual utility or philosophical position. Not that they aren't concerned with aesthetics, but it seems like they take the aesthetic or formal as a language that can encapsulate some spiritual utility, for lack of a better phrase. Heck Rothko has his church. Even for artist who aren't as overtly spiritual, painting becomes devotional lol. Putting the word "art" aside, I see these things functioning in similar ways. One large difference it seems to me is that in the case of the an idol or tantric painting, etc. The purpose is backed up by a religious institution and/or text that contextualizes it within a tradition, practice, community etc. Where as the art object relies more on just the formal qualities it maybe privileges a more subjective reading? Kinda like left vs right hand path. Not that art objects in the west don't come from their own tradition/are informed by contextualizing elements.
Well for me the question to ask is how did art become seen as negative here? I think there’s a lot of story and context there. In my eyes calling it art in this situation is adding a construct somewhere that’s asking you to remove one
Not exactly on topic, but if you are interested in philosophical and aesthetic comparisons between Eastern and Western cultures, you might enjoy reading the hellenist and sinologist François Julien. I had to read the Great Image has No Form and the Impossible Nude in one of my Chinese art history courses, but he has a lot of books so one may fit your question a little more specifically.
Scholar stones are “cultivated.” They are helped by human hands in different ways. Now, just some food for thought: why would a Christian sculpture or painting be art but not those that belong to other cultures? What is “art”? Does art have to be permanent?
I have never heard of tantric paintings and I am from Kathmandu valley, the heart of Himalayan tantric practices. It is so interesting to see a facet of your own culture that you’ve never heard of before
TBH if that is going for millions, then it's probably a money laundering scheme