THE ARTISTIC ACHIEVEMENTS OF WHAT WE REJECT
 
When we reject religion
and the belief in gods or demons,
in the singular or plural,
some people may refer to
the beauty of a certain temple or religious work of art,
and ask how we cannot be deeply moved by it;
they may refer to
the beauty of a certain theist anthem or piece of music
and ask how we cannot be deeply moved by it;
they may refer to
the beauty of certain religious or theodemonist literature
and ask how we cannot be deeply moved by it.
They will not mention the ugly temples and sculptures,
the dreadful ideological paintings and music,
or the paralyzation of the arts
in a totally religionistic society.
They will only mention their denominational doctrine
as a source of artistic inspiration.

When we reject the sort of political ideology
which goes to extremes
or which rests on partial sentiments,
some people may refer to
the beauty of a certain official monument or work of art,
and ask how we cannot be deeply moved by it;
they may refer to
the beauty of a certain political anthem or piece of music
and ask how we cannot be deeply moved by it;
they may refer to
the beauty of certain committed political literature
and ask how we cannot be deeply moved by it.
They will not mention the unsightly official buildings,
the dreadful ideological songs and stories,
or the paralyzation of the arts
in a politically totalitarian society.
They will only mention their political doctrine
as a source of artistic inspiration.

However,
when we reject religion and theodemonism, and
when we reject extremist, exclusivist politics,
we condemn the systematic violation of truth,
and the belief in what ought not to be taken to be true;
we condemn the systematic violation of relevance,
and the belief in what ought not to be taken to be relevant;
we condemn the systematic violation of moderateness,
and the belief in what ought not to be taken to be moderate.
We do not defile marvelous songs or euphonious music,
even when made or hailed by adherents of supernaturalism;
we do not defile good prose and great poetry,
even when written or read by adherents of exclusivism;
we do not defile impressive buildings or fine works of art,
even when designed or desired by adherents of extremism.
We only repudiate the ideologies and practises
expressed by them,
and may only dismiss the very specific ideas and symbols
inherent in them.

It is not the artist as artist to be criticized,
nor 'er artistic achievements to be scornful about,
even tho of a different denominational or political creed.
It is the fact that 'e works or worked for the wrong cause
which we cannot think well of and be pleased with.
What we really hold is that the artist,
as every other person,
should not make use of extremist symbols,
should not add or omit things for exclusivist reasons,
should not propagate supernaturalist ideas.
It is these considerations which have been disregarded
by artists who do or did not know better, or
who chiefly produce or produced for the sake of money.
Yet, it is these considerations alone which,
when taken seriously, can make an artistic achievement
both beautiful and acceptable.

Competent artists and designers need not be dictated how to translate fundamental thought into art, or how to translate a program of requirements into a design. Therefore it is not necessary to elaborate in this book a complete denominational symbol system, for it is precisely part of an artist's or designer's vocation to accept the challenge to create new symbols or forms of symbolism and to utilize the symbols or symbolic tools offered to 'im in an imaginary way. Any attempt to make a generative symbol system such as the neutralistic one complete would almost be as senseless as an attempt to make a complete list of all sentences that could be produced in the present language.

It is one thing to tell artists and designers what they have to do, and quite another to advise them and to point out ways in which they can make use of their creative imagination or skill. One such way is a technique which in itself has nothing to do with symbolism at all. It is the method of dichotomous substitution as introduced in section 2.1.3 of the Book of Fundamentals. Three examples have been given there, altho this method can be applied to any form of traditional, dichotomous exclusivism. Little fantasy is needed to take an existing case of gender-based or denominational exclusivism, for instance, and to expose it by reversing the traditional order. Much more fantasy is needed, of course, to make the result an interesting and educational one, if only because the artist manages to show that everyday life in exclusivist (sub)cultures is as ridiculous as the plot of the story or the picture 'e has presented.

For those forms of art and applied art in which language plays a role the potential influence of the DNI or the Ananorm is practically unlimited. The reason is that a new weltanschauung does not only lead to a new way of life but also to a novel trend in literature and in the arts in general. Such an influence is particularly strong when the weltanschauung is that of a denominational paradigm or paradigm-to-be. It is then the herald of a culture with new norms and values, expressing itself by dint of new words and names, antitheses and metaphors. No artist or designer living in 'er own time (rather than in the past) can ignore the signs of what is to become the kernel of future denominationalism; and no artist or designer living in 'er own time can ignore the symbols of what has become the kernel of contemporary denominationalism. These symbols are for a writer primarily verbal or linguistic ones, but for artists and designers in general they can be of any type.

We will now consider two examples of nonlinguistic, nonfundamental symbolism in applied art or design. The first one is an example in the field of designing clothes, the second one in the field of designing architectural structures.