user19739: I would not be writing this if I had another way of knowing the answer. Unfortunately, I cannot talk to anyone due to quarantine. Even though I have thought a lot about it, I am still unsure. My question is this: "Is art bad karma?" To preface, I am a Theravadin woman. As you know, women cannot be ordained. So, I try my best to follow the monastic rules but stay outside of a monastery. I would like to follow the strictest Buddhist teachings. Now, I will write what I have thought about art.
Firstly, the Buddha does not speak much about householders in comparison to monks. However, the popular consensus seems to be that he allows laypeople to have their cultures. Yet, different countries also seem to have different monastic cultures, too, despite being ordained. Secondly, part of this culture is Buddhist art like sculptures and narrative tapestries. Thirdly, since the Buddha allows written works, narrative art may be permitted as a form of visual communication like writing and the Buddha's own speech can be poetic.
Recently, I have promised myself that I would finish an art project and then move onto a fully religious life. However, I have repeatedly been stopped from progressing by a great pain in my heart at the prospect of never doing art again. Music is meant to seduce people with melodies. Likewise, acting is lying to arouse extreme, perhaps negative, emotions in people. Dance is the most lustful artistic field. I took the same attitude to visual art, seeing it as being influenced by lust and anger.
However, in my art (which I have felt guilt for doing due to my opinions of it), I have slowly realised that I do not have lustful or wrathful intentions. My art depicts my culture (Japanese): marriage, funerals, temples, mythological figures, daily life, mountains, etc. I wanted to preserve the cultural narrative for my own peace of mind, rememberance, meditation, and future generations. Considering all that I have said and seen about culture and art and Buddhism and karma, is art bad karma? If someone has a specific quotation on this, please let me know. Any comments, I appreciate.

user19741: If good householder finds stenght in effort to let go of what binds back and seeks for what is of long term use and help for oneself and all others, such isn't compareable with what ever worldily art and skill to go after. If starting to try to justify reasons to do not go for it, the highest, meaning doubt, meaning lack of Saddha, then right there the path is lost.
Clear of that does no more require the philosophy around of what is ku-sala (bad-cutting off) and not (a-ku-sala, not-bad-cutting-off).
Does one seek for admirable association, advices, or actually look for feed of ones defilement?
Good householder knew the answer to her already, righy?
Don't wast time. You could later, if wishing, once gained highest goal, teach the Dhamma by pictures to live in proper reference, but yet there is a more importand task: getting independend.
[Note that this isn't given for trade, exchangs, stacks or to be used by Vollkoffer, but for an escape from such relations]

user13694: Some answers have already indicated what seems to be the point of view of EBT teachings: sense stimuli and sense doors are aflame; craving is an arrow; the phenomena connected with the aggregates are to be seen as a disease, as stressful, as a cancer.
Craving and attachments for any form or idea of yourself is a still craving for the senses or craving for becoming. That seems to be non-negotiable.
However, I think one let go in the proportion of our convictions and energies. The training is gradual and in accordance with our understanding and degree of clinging to the world.
I do not like to study the Dhamma from the perspective of Christian connotations of sin and guilt. Instead, there are just causes, consequences, conditions and phenomena arising from them, which can be classified as kusala and akusala depending on the nature of the underlying intention. It is kusala if slands towards renunciation, non-ill will (or good will) and non-violence (or compassion); if it's the opposite, it's an akusala deed.
Also, remember that lay people can still attain, at least, the first three stages of enlightenment, and the degree of the giving-up goes, as said before, with your own disposition to commit to the path. Art done for art sake can still be a part of an (non-fully) enlightened mind. But some deeds done with Right Intention can still be considered art, even when art was not done with the purpose of creating beauty for the senses; an example of this are the poetic verses and stanzas -supposedly- spoken by the Buddha or its disciples in many instances throughout the Nikayas.
I could be wrong, though. If that's the case, I'd appreciate any correction.
Kind regards!

user16635: To deny beauty in the world is to deny the very essence of dharma.
Art isn't a lie. Art is an expression and a magnification of what it is to live. Many artists focus on things that might be considered problematic from a Buddhist perspective, sure: their self-infatuations, their desires, their contempt for society, their raw emotions, their personal needs and wants. But even those are honest expressions of tanhā and dukkha, and art can take those expressions of misery and make them beautiful, pulling the pure out of the impure like a flower blooming out of dark soil.
The dharma is meant to abate our sense of misery, not increase it. When we reach a place where we feel the dharma is forcing us to choose between one misery and another, that is a sure sign that we need to reevaluate our understanding of the dharma.
I feel like you're dancing around issues of compassion: compassion for the rising urge of artistic self-expression; compassion for those selves who might be the subjects or recipients of that self-expression. Be gentle with yourself, and with others, and let the art rise naturally out of that. That brings the dharma into your art, which is all you really need.

user17553: Nobody is going to punish you for your art. Art is not a crime. But in Buddha’s world the priorities are different. The number one priority is to end suffering. And for that purpose art is a distraction for those follow the Noble Eightfold Path. Most people do not understand the urgency of the matter.
If you follow Buddha’s Dhamma then avoid painting and instead concentrate on meditation. If you can’t then at least depict Dhamma through your art: this way you will remain in touch with the Truth and not get lost in the world of Mara.

user13709: In DN1, the Buddha explains in detail what he refrains from. Since you're an artist, you'll understand that art can be used to highlight beauty. Such art would foster clinging and prolong suffering by that attachment:

DN1:1.16.1: ‘There are some ascetics and brahmins who, while enjoying food given in faith, still engage in beautifying and adorning themselves with garlands, fragrance, and makeup. This includes such things as applying beauty products by anointing, massaging, bathing, and rubbing; mirrors, ointments, garlands, fragrances, and makeup; face-powder, foundation, bracelets, headbands, fancy walking-sticks or containers, rapiers, parasols, fancy sandals, turbans, jewelry, chowries, and long-fringed white robes. The ascetic Gotama refrains from such beautification and adornment.’

Also in DN1, the Buddha explains how certain practices such as marriage fall outside the practice. Art seeking to preserve and cherish such practices might therefore side-step a deeper and mindful consideration of precepts:

DN1:1.26.2: This includes making arrangements for giving and taking in marriage; for engagement and divorce; and for scattering rice inwards or outwards at the wedding ceremony. It also includes casting spells for good or bad luck, curses to prevent conception, bind the tongue, or lock the jaws; charms for the hands and ears; questioning a mirror, a girl, or a god as an oracle; worshiping the sun, worshiping the Great One, breathing fire, and invoking Siri, the goddess of luck. The ascetic Gotama refrains from such unworthy branches of knowledge, such wrong livelihood.’

But art is also an exploration into perception itself. To draw a form, we must perceive a form. And to draw a form properly requires equanimous and accurate perception. Artists need to strip away preconceptions to draw what is seen. So if we draw a marriage, are we seeing the bags of bones holding hands or are we merely celebrating a facade of impermanent wishes? What truth informs our art?

SN22.76:9.1: The master’s knowledge has arisen: ‘This bag of bones is my last.’

The answer to your deep question might be found SN12.23, which explains perception and suffering:

SN12.23:1.2: “Mendicants, I say that the ending of defilements is for one who knows and sees, not for one who does not know or see. For one who knows and sees what? ‘Such is form, such is the origin of form, such is the ending of form.

May your art bring you peace.

user43: Art can be a continuation of samsaric inertia, or it can be an expression of the enlightened mind. What message are you sending with your art? What impulse does it carry forward into the future?

19739: <p>I would not be writing this if I had another way of knowing the answer. Unfortunately, I cannot talk to anyone due to quarantine. Even though I have thought a lot about it, I am still unsure. My question is this: <strong>&quot;Is art bad karma?&quot;</strong> To preface, I am a Theravadin woman. As you know, women cannot be ordained. So, I try my best to follow the monastic rules but stay outside of a monastery. I would like to follow the strictest Buddhist teachings. Now, I will write what I have thought about art.</p>
<p>Firstly, the Buddha does not speak much about householders in comparison to monks. However, the popular consensus seems to be that he allows laypeople to have their cultures. Yet, different countries also seem to have different monastic cultures, too, despite being ordained. Secondly, part of this culture is Buddhist art like sculptures and narrative tapestries. Thirdly, since the Buddha allows written works, narrative art may be permitted as a form of visual communication like writing and the Buddha's own speech can be poetic.</p>
<p>Recently, I have promised myself that I would finish an art project and then move onto a fully religious life. However, I have repeatedly been stopped from progressing by a great pain in my heart at the prospect of never doing art again. Music is meant to seduce people with melodies. Likewise, acting is lying to arouse extreme, perhaps negative, emotions in people. Dance is the most lustful artistic field. I took the same attitude to visual art, seeing it as being influenced by lust and anger.</p>
<p>However, in my art (which I have felt guilt for doing due to my opinions of it), I have slowly realised that I do not have lustful or wrathful intentions. My art depicts my culture (Japanese): marriage, funerals, temples, mythological figures, daily life, mountains, etc. I wanted to preserve the cultural narrative for my own peace of mind, rememberance, meditation, and future generations. Considering all that I have said and seen about culture and art and Buddhism and karma, is art bad karma? If someone has a specific quotation on this, please let me know. Any comments, I appreciate.</p>
 19741: <p>If good householder finds stenght in effort to let go of what binds back and seeks for what is of long term use and help for oneself and all others, such isn't compareable with what ever worldily art and skill to go after. If starting to try to justify reasons to do not go for it, the highest, meaning doubt, meaning lack of Saddha, then right there the path is lost.</p>
<p>Clear of that does no more require the philosophy around of what is ku-sala (bad-cutting off) and not (a-ku-sala, not-bad-cutting-off).</p>
<p>Does one seek for admirable association, advices, or actually look for feed of ones defilement?</p>
<p>Good householder knew the answer to her already, righy?</p>
<p>Don't wast time. You could later, if wishing, once gained highest goal, teach the Dhamma by pictures to live in proper reference, but yet there is a more importand task: getting independend.</p>
<p><em>[Note that this isn't given for trade, exchangs, stacks or to be used by Vollkoffer, but for an escape from such relations]</em></p>
 13694: <p>Some answers have already indicated what seems to be the point of view of EBT teachings: <a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.028.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">sense stimuli and sense doors are aflame</a>; <a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.105.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">craving is an arrow</a>; <a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.126.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">the phenomena connected with the aggregates are to be seen as a disease, as stressful, as a cancer</a>.</p>
<p>Craving and attachments for any form or idea of yourself is a still craving for the senses or craving for becoming. That seems to be non-negotiable.</p>
<p>However, I think one let go in the proportion of our convictions and energies. The training is gradual and in accordance with our understanding and degree of clinging to the world.</p>
<p>I do not like to study the Dhamma from the perspective of Christian connotations of sin and guilt. Instead, there are just causes, consequences, conditions and phenomena arising from them, which can be classified as <em><strong>kusala</strong></em> and <em><strong>akusala</strong></em> depending on the nature of the underlying intention. It is <em><strong>kusala</strong></em> if slands towards renunciation, non-ill will (or good will) and non-violence (or compassion); if it's the opposite, it's an <em><strong>akusala</strong></em> deed.</p>
<p>Also, remember that lay people can still attain, at least, the first three stages of enlightenment, and the degree of the giving-up goes, as said before, with your own disposition to commit to the path. Art done for art sake can still be a part of an (non-fully) enlightened mind. But some deeds done with Right Intention can still be considered art, even when art was not done with the purpose of creating beauty for the senses; an example of this are the poetic verses and stanzas -supposedly- spoken by the Buddha or its disciples in many instances throughout the Nikayas.</p>
<p>I could be wrong, though. If that's the case, I'd appreciate any correction.</p>
<p>Kind regards!</p>
 16635: <p>To deny beauty in the world is to deny the very essence of dharma.</p>
<p>Art isn't a lie. Art is an expression and a magnification of what it is to <em>live</em>. Many artists focus on things that might be considered problematic from a Buddhist perspective, sure: their self-infatuations, their desires, their contempt for society, their raw emotions, their personal needs and wants. But even those are <em>honest</em> expressions of tanhā and dukkha, and art can take those expressions of misery and make them beautiful, pulling the pure out of the impure like a flower blooming out of dark soil.</p>
<p>The dharma is meant to abate our sense of misery, not increase it. When we reach a place where we feel the dharma is forcing us to choose between one misery and another, that is a <em>sure</em> sign that we need to reevaluate our understanding of the dharma.</p>
<p>I feel like you're dancing around issues of compassion: compassion for the rising urge of artistic self-expression; compassion for those selves who might be the subjects or recipients of that self-expression. Be gentle with yourself, and with others, and let the art rise naturally out of that. That brings the dharma into your art, which is all you really need.</p>
 17553: <p>Nobody is going to punish you for your art. Art is not a crime. But in Buddha’s world the priorities are different. The number one priority is to end suffering. And for that purpose art is a distraction for those follow the Noble Eightfold Path. Most people do not understand the urgency of the matter.</p>
<p>If you follow Buddha’s Dhamma then avoid painting and instead concentrate on meditation. If you can’t then at least depict Dhamma through your art: this way you will remain in touch with the Truth and not get lost in the world of Mara.</p>
 13709: <p>In DN1, the Buddha explains in detail what he refrains from. Since you're an artist, you'll understand that art can be used to highlight beauty. Such art would foster clinging and prolong suffering by that attachment:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a href="https://suttacentral.net/dn1/en/sujato#dn1:1.16.1" rel="noreferrer">DN1:1.16.1</a>: ‘There are some ascetics and brahmins who, while enjoying food given in faith, still engage in beautifying and adorning themselves with garlands, fragrance, and makeup. This includes such things as applying beauty products by anointing, massaging, bathing, and rubbing; mirrors, ointments, garlands, fragrances, and makeup; face-powder, foundation, bracelets, headbands, fancy walking-sticks or containers, rapiers, parasols, fancy sandals, turbans, jewelry, chowries, and long-fringed white robes. The ascetic Gotama refrains from such beautification and adornment.’</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Also in DN1, the Buddha explains how certain practices such as marriage fall outside the practice. Art seeking to preserve and cherish such practices might therefore side-step a deeper and mindful consideration of precepts:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a href="https://suttacentral.net/dn1/en/sujato#dn1:1.26.2" rel="noreferrer">DN1:1.26.2</a>: This includes making arrangements for giving and taking in marriage; for engagement and divorce; and for scattering rice inwards or outwards at the wedding ceremony. It also includes casting spells for good or bad luck, curses to prevent conception, bind the tongue, or lock the jaws; charms for the hands and ears; questioning a mirror, a girl, or a god as an oracle; worshiping the sun, worshiping the Great One, breathing fire, and invoking Siri, the goddess of luck. The ascetic Gotama refrains from such unworthy branches of knowledge, such wrong livelihood.’</p>
</blockquote>
<p>But art is also an exploration into perception itself. To draw a form, we must perceive a form. And to draw a form properly requires equanimous and accurate perception. Artists need to strip away preconceptions to draw what is seen. So if we draw a marriage, are we seeing the bags of bones holding hands or are we merely celebrating a facade of impermanent wishes? What truth informs our art?</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a href="https://suttacentral.net/sn22.76/en/sujato#sn22.76:9.1" rel="noreferrer">SN22.76:9.1</a>: The master’s knowledge has arisen: ‘This bag of bones is my last.’</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The answer to your deep question might be found SN12.23, which explains perception and suffering:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a href="https://suttacentral.net/sn12.23/en/sujato#sn12.23:1.2" rel="noreferrer">SN12.23:1.2</a>: “Mendicants, I say that the ending of defilements is for one who knows and sees, not for one who does not know or see. For one who knows and sees what? ‘Such is form, such is the origin of form, such is the ending of form.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>May your art bring you peace.</p>
 43: <p>Art can be a <em>continuation of samsaric inertia</em>, or it can be an <em>expression of the enlightened mind</em>. What message are you sending with your art? What impulse does it carry forward into the future?</p>
