I found it amazing people can think that art must be connected to religion. Religion may give art themes, but there would still be art without religion. Bach is not proof that art exists.
This quote by Michel Onfray, a French philosopher known for his secular and often provocative views, challenges the commonly held belief that art must be deeply tied to religion. When he says, “I found it amazing people can think that art must be connected to religion,” he expresses surprise and skepticism toward the idea that religious belief is a necessary foundation for artistic creation. His perspective encourages a more inclusive and secular view of artistic expression.
Onfray acknowledges that religion may give art themes, pointing out that many works—like paintings, architecture, or music—have been inspired by spiritual or biblical subjects. However, he firmly argues that art is not dependent on religion. His statement that “there would still be art without religion” emphasizes his belief that human creativity, emotion, and imagination are sufficient sources for producing meaningful and profound works of art.
The reference to Bach, one of the greatest composers of religious music, serves to challenge the assumption that religious genius proves a divine origin for art. Onfray states, “Bach is not proof that art exists,” meaning that the brilliance of a religious composer does not mean art originates from faith—rather, it shows that gifted individuals can use any theme, including religion, to create beauty. This aligns with Onfray’s broader philosophy of atheism and materialism, which seeks to separate aesthetic and moral values from theological roots.
Ultimately, Onfray’s quote calls for a reexamination of how we define and understand art’s origins. He invites us to recognize that artistic expression can flourish independently of religious frameworks, driven by the human experience, not divine inspiration. For him, that independence makes art even more amazing, as it springs from the natural depth and complexity of the human mind.
MTminh thuy
This raises an interesting question about what validates art. If we take religion out of the equation, what do we use to measure artistic greatness? Emotional resonance? Technical mastery? Cultural impact? I’d love to hear what others think about how we decide what art matters. Maybe we rely too much on legacy and not enough on exploring diverse, non-religious artistic expressions from around the world.
AAzuri
Onfray seems to argue for a broader, perhaps more secular, definition of art. I agree with the idea that art isn’t contingent on religion, but I wonder—why do so many still view religious inspiration as the 'highest' form of artistic expression? Is it the moral weight? The sense of transcendence? Or maybe we’ve just inherited that view from centuries of religious dominance in artistic production?
LVLe Viet
This perspective feels very modern, almost postmodern. But I’m curious—does removing religion from art’s history risk stripping away the context that gave certain works their meaning? Isn’t part of what makes art powerful the connection it has to the time, belief systems, and societies in which it was created? I’m not religious, but I feel like religion has given us some of the richest artistic legacies ever.
PHPhuongg Ha
Is the author suggesting that equating great religious art with the essence of art itself is a logical fallacy? That’s an interesting point. I wonder—how do we define art’s legitimacy or value if not through masterpieces like Bach’s works? If not religion, what cultural or philosophical systems have had similarly foundational roles in the development of artistic expression across civilizations?
GBNguyen Ngo Gia Bao
I find this statement quite provocative. It seems to dismiss the profound spiritual or religious motivations that have driven many great artists. Sure, art can exist independently of religion, but doesn’t denying the role of religion in shaping certain masterpieces overlook the emotional and philosophical depth religion has inspired in artists throughout history? Is it possible to respect both perspectives without minimizing either?