No doubt, the artists' patrons were Churchmen when the Church wielded an enormous amount of wealth and temporal power. So their subjects reflect that. It seems entirely appropriate to produce Christian art for places of worship. Nonetheless, a sculpture like David is idealized man (Platonic).
Which Baroque artists are you talking about?
You brought up El Greco and Tintoretto.I put them after the rennaisance. I bring up baroque to represent how the times change and the subject matter and style change as well. And the prchasers of art change. Certainly you would agree that the artists of today aren't following the church by any stretch of the imagination. Their patrons are young men who like to see action movies and libidinous teenyboppers obsessed with anything sexual. Artists have to eat. But I already conceded that the Church was the art consumer at a particular time in history.
You are looking at the post-Vatican II world.
Am not. Marx and Lenin preceded V2, as did the concept of a government sans Church, as in our constitution. V2 has nothing to do with a lot of things that grip the world right now, and a lot of things that grip it preceded V2.
But it's not necessary. A crude fish on the wall is enough for an icon. But what the Church did was point to the successful aesthetic pracitices of the pagans and the natural uplifting quality they have and focus them on the right teaching of the Church. Any painting of a crucifixion is fine for an icon or altarpiece but that doesn't make it good art. Conversely all good art is not appropriate for altarpieces. But the Church put both to their highest function. So, if you want good art and you want to know about it, you'll be treated to a good sermon in stone or paint by default.
Nonetheless, a sculpture like David is idealized man (Platonic).
The idea that "David" is an idealized man as some Platonic statement is purely subjective. You are reading that into a sculpture that intrinsically cannot make that statement. Objectively a sculpture like David is an intelligently designed sculpture in terms of the flow of line and the play of light along with the textures represented in the Stone. It successfully serves it's aesthetic purpose. As iconography, the subject matter of David is certainly referring to something that is taught in the context of the Church as a whole. The quality of the craftsmanship of the Greeks reaches a higher level of meaning when the natural aesthetic value can be tied to the supernatural subject matter that the Church supplies.
You brought up El Greco and Tintoretto.I put them after the rennaisance.
Well since, Tintoretto lived between 1518 and 1594, I'd say he was in the mix. And also El Greco since he lived between 1541-1614. His real name was Domenico Theotokopoulos I would say that the Church had a strong influence on him, his art and those who came before and after him.
I bring up baroque to represent how the times change and the subject matter and style change as well. And the prchasers of art change. Certainly you would agree that the artists of today aren't following the church by any stretch of the imagination. Their patrons are young men who like to see action movies and libidinous teenyboppers obsessed with anything sexual. Artists have to eat. But I already conceded that the Church was the art consumer at a particular time in history.
. Marx and Lenin preceded V2, as did the concept of a government sans Church, as in our constitution. V2 has nothing to do with a lot of things that grip the world right now, and a lot of things that grip it preceded V2.
What you are missing is the fact that Vatican II should have been the defense against those things which grip the world and it wasn't because Vatican II was a bust. In fact 500 Fathers put together a document at Vatican II to condemn Communism and Marxism but John XXIII nuked the idea.
Actually it was more than a bust, it wrecked the Church's defenses against modernism. Now, instead of the Church conquering and purifying all of the old cultural attachments, the Church's culture is now being paganized and corrupted by the pagan cultures that it is supposed to be catering to.
Three final points:
One, You keep referencing Rembrandt as being some kind of ego maniac for the self portraits that he did. Simultaneously you say you don't know that much about him. Which is it? I've seen hundreds of Rembrandts right in front of me. There are few self portraits in proportion to his entire output and those of his apprentices.
Two: Some clarification of terms. Subject Matter is the matter that is being painted. Portrait, still life, landscape etc. Subject is the point of the work of art. An example since you referenced it is "David" The subject matter is the character of David, his sling, the other characteristic traits showing the illustrative aspect of the work.
The subject of the statue is defined in terms of broad aesthetic qualities: Power, forms in space, balance, texture, the play of light and line, the colors of the stone.
Three. The discussion is about the massive influence for morality that the Church provides. As I posted earlier, most people do not even realize how much of how we live has an origin in the teaching of the Church, "Goodbye" being a truncated version of "God be with you." The Pretzel being the product of monks shaping the extra dough into a shape reminiscent of children's hands folded in prayer, along with Art and music, etc. The Church had always up to Vatican II provided an ever stronger resistance to the evil let loose in the world. If the Church decides to exert her full weight on the culture of the World. The gates of that Culture will not prevail against it. Instead Vatican II eased up on that pressure. Now the pressure is on the gates of the Church and they are and have collapsed severely.