Thanks for clarifying those things -
The sentiment I feel is expressed by those qoutes is the sameness of things i.e. nothings special, it just is - it's how I imagine art would seem when witnessed from the nibbanic view-point. Earlier in this thread zavk mentioned papanca, I'm still studying it but from what I'm gathering it's only when we indugle in papanca that things become more than they are.
If art that had allusions to The Dhamma was the catalyst that started me on a pursuit for truth/wisdom/the cessation of suffering I would be pretty foolish not to check out The Dhamma.
In saying this, with all my defilements reading
The Dhamma might be laborious as I struggle to concentrate on it/give it my attention so I end up not sticking with it.
On the other hand, The Dhamma presented in a form that suits
my defilements is less laborious to concentrate on/give my attention so I am more open to it and I might stick to it longer than I stuck to reading "The Dhamma".
After a while if this "artistic" source of The Dhamma is communicating the teachings successfully I might decide to work through my defilements and I might even reach the point where I can sit and read
The Dhamma - then it comes to a point where you don't need your old source of The Dhamma anymore i.e. the art and you can, as you say, just stick to the suttas.
I don't really know why you would indulge in art when we're trying to cultivate disppasion and non-delusion, that's one of the reasons I started this thread.
From where I am at the moment I would say:
- there are worse ways you could spend your time.
- there is a chance you could help someone shed some degree of ignorance and thus ease their suffering.
- it's a way to keep the body busy/skill you can develop while you use your mind to contemplate.
Other than that I'm at a loss to think of a beneficial reason to indulge in art.