“If we could first know where we are, and whither we are tending, we could better judge what to do, and how to do it.” -Abraham Lincoln
While it seems that the press and many politicians are frustrated with the ongoing political vetting between Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, I enjoy watching these Democratic Party candidates vie for the most delegates. I have often wondered about the process of electing the president of the United states, including the selection process of the electoral college, the importance of the National Convention, and the seeming disparity that can occur between election and the amassing of the popular vote.
For my own part, I was eager for Hillary to enter the race a few years back, fascinated by the seeming meteoric rise of Barack Obama, and bewildered at my own inability to decide which was the candidate that best matched my own political convictions. The similarities and differences so confounded me that I literally found myself standing in front of the booth at the polling place thinking to myself, “oh yeah, I have to make a decision now.”
Others do not take such an open view of the situation. Many have viewed Senator Clinton’s determination as a type of weakness, that she should have given up long ago and bowed to the stream of primary wins by Senator Obama. Which is another fascinating occurrence in the process. What ever happened to “it ain’t over till it’s over,” or “until the fat lady sings” or “until the race is run”. There is nothing that says anyone has to quit until every voice has been heard, and that is the strength upon which our country is built. The house is not divided against itself because a party cannot come to terms with who is the best candidate, the house is divided against itself when one or the other of the candidates is denied their voice in the process. For, decisions made by a majority under any system that places majority's interests so far above a minority's interest that the minority is ultimately silenced is as to be comparable in cruelty to slavery of the minority.
It is interesting how polarized this country has become; the last few presidential elections in this country have been very close. Divided, if you will, narrowly along party lines. These divisions seem to run very deep, and yet it sickened me how, for example during the onset of the Iraq war, many supporting the Bush cabinet's position including Falwell and other neo-cons argued that, if you aren’t for the war, or rather, if you question the war... you aren’t for America. At the time, in 2003, polls showed the vast majority of Americans in favor of some sort of conflict with Iraq. Thus the sentiment “if you aren’t for the war, you aren’t for America” is nothing short of the tyranny of the majority. The notion of equality under the law was supposed to prevent majority tyranny, it is one of the founding principles upon which our constitution was based, and it is the reason why, despite any misgivings about the division of the Democratic camp, it is important that Hillary and Obama be given their chance, till the last vote has been counted and the last lady has sung.
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Friday, March 28, 2008
Furthur lesson from antiquity
The Mycenaean Civilization came to a sudden and abrupt end around 1200 BC. The age of Heros, the age brought down to us through the poet Homer, the age of the Trojan war was over, and for the next 300 year... nothing. A “dark age” followed the fall of the Mycenaean civilization, population decline and a loss of literacy and cultural ties (art, politics, religion) were systemic. The decline is generally blamed on the successive invasion of the Dorian and Ionian Greeks brandishing their weapons forged of iron against the Bronze age Mycenaeans, but could have been caused by a number of different causes including natural disaster, disease, or famine. The Mycenaean Greeks were highly insular, led by a warrior class, they lived in close proximity and their cities were walled and in close confines. Disease or privation could easily have threatened their basic existence.
However the Mycenaean people were also well traveled and the influences on their culture came from far and wide. Minoan Greek, Assyrian, and Egyptian art motifs are all found in archeological digs of the Mycenaean ruins, suggesting that their sphere of influence was also great.
America was once widely known as the “great melting pot” and in many ways our country still reflects this philosophy. Influences from a myriad of cultures can be found in our restaurants, our literature, our movies theaters and coffee bars. In fact the “global economy” means that I can pick up a plate at a local retail store, flip it over and discover that it was just as likely to have been crafted halfway around the world as in our own back yard. Some might argue that this imbalance between what we ourselves produce, and what we import mean that eventually we will become a nation, completely dependent on the imports of others. Already, labor disputes and oil disputes threaten the very nature of our existence. Jobs are exported abroad while we become ever more dependent on the raw materials of other countries. One wonders, what are the things that ultimately threaten great nations? What are the factors that ultimately threaten our nation, modern, great and strong? Dependence on others for jobs and raw materials? Political infighting and corruption? Sometimes the answers seem so impossibly vast in incomprehensible, and other times it might be as simple as the invention of some simple new technology; the wheel, the bow, the atom bomb. When looking back at the past I wonder, what were the powers that threatened the Mycenaean Greeks and overturned their civilization? Perhaps the demise of the Mycenaean people came from the mining of a single ore: iron. Will our dependence on oil help us to fair any better?
However the Mycenaean people were also well traveled and the influences on their culture came from far and wide. Minoan Greek, Assyrian, and Egyptian art motifs are all found in archeological digs of the Mycenaean ruins, suggesting that their sphere of influence was also great.
America was once widely known as the “great melting pot” and in many ways our country still reflects this philosophy. Influences from a myriad of cultures can be found in our restaurants, our literature, our movies theaters and coffee bars. In fact the “global economy” means that I can pick up a plate at a local retail store, flip it over and discover that it was just as likely to have been crafted halfway around the world as in our own back yard. Some might argue that this imbalance between what we ourselves produce, and what we import mean that eventually we will become a nation, completely dependent on the imports of others. Already, labor disputes and oil disputes threaten the very nature of our existence. Jobs are exported abroad while we become ever more dependent on the raw materials of other countries. One wonders, what are the things that ultimately threaten great nations? What are the factors that ultimately threaten our nation, modern, great and strong? Dependence on others for jobs and raw materials? Political infighting and corruption? Sometimes the answers seem so impossibly vast in incomprehensible, and other times it might be as simple as the invention of some simple new technology; the wheel, the bow, the atom bomb. When looking back at the past I wonder, what were the powers that threatened the Mycenaean Greeks and overturned their civilization? Perhaps the demise of the Mycenaean people came from the mining of a single ore: iron. Will our dependence on oil help us to fair any better?
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
portents in life and art
There has been a lot of talk about recession in the media lately. Housing crisis and war spending and tax breaks and I honestly don’t know what any of it means. Things seem more expensive, and I feel like I have less money, but then I am an artist and a teacher and I don’t have a lot of money and when you are broke, everything seems expensive.
I remember my high school debate coach telling his class one day that there was a theory that stock markets could be predicted by the rise and fall of the hem of women’s skirts. When things are going well, and there is a perception that people are making money, skirt lines go up, when recessions sink in, hem lines go down. I don’t know what kind of predictor this is, but I haven’t seen too many women in full length dresses yet, so maybe it isn’t all bad yet.
I think there is an equivalent in art, an agent of predictability of the times. This isn’t news. When things are going well, when people have lots of surplus income, they are going to spend it on themselves, on fashion and decoration and, in short, on art. No what I was thinking about were larger trends that seem to be hidden within art that may have something to do with economic prosperity, but also seem connected to shifts in moral, spiritual and political values as well.
What am I talking about? Well, take for example ancient Greece. The Archaic period of Greece goes from about 800 BC to 500 BC. Times were tough. The previous 400 years had been something of a dark age for much of Greece. Lands were divided into tribal factions, there was a great deal of infighting between these groups, and there was little in the way of civic or artistic development during this period. But all this changed around 800 BC, and would continue to change for the next 600 years.
First came the rise of the city-states, Athens and Sparta, for instance. Where the cities were first ruled by monarchs and tyrants and later by elected officials. These city-states cooperated with one another to some degree and became more successful. Art flourished. Ceramics, metal work, frescos and sculpture, notably sculpted human forms, appeared.
Success in the wars against the Persians galvanized Greek spirit. This became a golden age of Greek art. Philosophy, Literature, Art and architecture all thrived in this period. Man was the center of reason, and reason was the measure of all things. Idealized forms of nature were perfected in art. Proportion, scale, and perspective were all utilized to describe the perfect world in which we lived.
Greek culture extended out into the world with the aid of the might of Alexander. The known world was Hellenized as Greek thought was disseminated into the world giving rise to the Hellenistic period of Greek art. Influenced by art from newly conquered territories, human expression, theatricality and emotion began to appear in Greek art. Abstraction rather than perfection was the key to this style.
Unfortunately it was not to last. Alexander died and rival generals divided his territories. The rise of Roman power in the west sounded the death knell of the Greek culture, and it hadn’t been for a passionate love of all things Greek by the roman, there role in the history of art might have ended there. But was it roman might that ended the progression of Greek art. Or was the abstraction, the theatricality and emotion portrayed in the art the sign that things had run their course?
We see this pattern over and over again and again, from the proto-renaissance to the high renaissance, from studies of math and perspective to the eventual inclusion of theatricality, emotion and abstraction this pattern seems to occur over and over again and again in art, from neoclassicism to romanticism possibly to the beginnings of modern art we see this evolution of thought and expression over and over again and again, only to dies out and ultimately be reborn somewhere else in some new manner. If modern art is the final stage in this latest evolution of art, perhaps the recession is on the final signal in a trend that has been building for hundreds of years, one that we have been happily oblivious to as we enjoyed the theater of great art, in music, in the movies, and on T.V.
I remember my high school debate coach telling his class one day that there was a theory that stock markets could be predicted by the rise and fall of the hem of women’s skirts. When things are going well, and there is a perception that people are making money, skirt lines go up, when recessions sink in, hem lines go down. I don’t know what kind of predictor this is, but I haven’t seen too many women in full length dresses yet, so maybe it isn’t all bad yet.
I think there is an equivalent in art, an agent of predictability of the times. This isn’t news. When things are going well, when people have lots of surplus income, they are going to spend it on themselves, on fashion and decoration and, in short, on art. No what I was thinking about were larger trends that seem to be hidden within art that may have something to do with economic prosperity, but also seem connected to shifts in moral, spiritual and political values as well.
What am I talking about? Well, take for example ancient Greece. The Archaic period of Greece goes from about 800 BC to 500 BC. Times were tough. The previous 400 years had been something of a dark age for much of Greece. Lands were divided into tribal factions, there was a great deal of infighting between these groups, and there was little in the way of civic or artistic development during this period. But all this changed around 800 BC, and would continue to change for the next 600 years.
First came the rise of the city-states, Athens and Sparta, for instance. Where the cities were first ruled by monarchs and tyrants and later by elected officials. These city-states cooperated with one another to some degree and became more successful. Art flourished. Ceramics, metal work, frescos and sculpture, notably sculpted human forms, appeared.
Success in the wars against the Persians galvanized Greek spirit. This became a golden age of Greek art. Philosophy, Literature, Art and architecture all thrived in this period. Man was the center of reason, and reason was the measure of all things. Idealized forms of nature were perfected in art. Proportion, scale, and perspective were all utilized to describe the perfect world in which we lived.
Greek culture extended out into the world with the aid of the might of Alexander. The known world was Hellenized as Greek thought was disseminated into the world giving rise to the Hellenistic period of Greek art. Influenced by art from newly conquered territories, human expression, theatricality and emotion began to appear in Greek art. Abstraction rather than perfection was the key to this style.
Unfortunately it was not to last. Alexander died and rival generals divided his territories. The rise of Roman power in the west sounded the death knell of the Greek culture, and it hadn’t been for a passionate love of all things Greek by the roman, there role in the history of art might have ended there. But was it roman might that ended the progression of Greek art. Or was the abstraction, the theatricality and emotion portrayed in the art the sign that things had run their course?
We see this pattern over and over again and again, from the proto-renaissance to the high renaissance, from studies of math and perspective to the eventual inclusion of theatricality, emotion and abstraction this pattern seems to occur over and over again and again in art, from neoclassicism to romanticism possibly to the beginnings of modern art we see this evolution of thought and expression over and over again and again, only to dies out and ultimately be reborn somewhere else in some new manner. If modern art is the final stage in this latest evolution of art, perhaps the recession is on the final signal in a trend that has been building for hundreds of years, one that we have been happily oblivious to as we enjoyed the theater of great art, in music, in the movies, and on T.V.
Sunday, March 23, 2008
One more dance?
March 19th marked the five-year anniversary of the start of the war in Iraq, and as you might expect, speeches were made, the dead were remembered, and most of us shook our heads at the enormity of the situation, if we did anything at all. It is hard to mark a milestone when the accomplishments are so unclear. Not that things haven’t changed in Iraq, after all, we have accomplished our main objective at the start of the war: Saddam is gone, and the world is safe from his Weapons of Mass Destruction.
I think that memorials are good, they force us to remember, and the things that are worth remembering endure, if this date is important, history will be the judge. I was watching the Ten Commandments with Charlton Heston last night, all those scenes of Egypt made me think of the Palette of Narmer. The Palette of Narmer is a great example of a memorial. Narmer, or Memes in Greek, is the first king to unite Upper and Lower Egypt, and the palette is a ceremonial cosmetic palette decorated to commemorate the event. The Palette is of principle importance because it establishes not only the history of the events of Narmer's victory, but because the palette itself becomes a blueprint for Egyptian art for the next 3000 years. The hieroglyphic writing that we associate with the art of ancient Egypt has it genesis in the stylization of the palette of Narmer. The Palette of Narmer literally becomes the blueprint for Egyptian art.
The palette contains the images of Narmer, his priests, and victims, but also images of Hathor, Horus, Lions, bulls, and the triumphal procession. It is a work of art that stands at the beginning of dynastic Egypt.
It reminds me of George Bush going to celebrate the fall of Baghdad on an aircraft carrier. This palette is a piece of propaganda, but it is also a celebratory cosmological object that would have been taken out on special religious or festival days and paraded as an object of adoration and worship. There is nothing like it in our culture, though we certainly have our venerated objects of admiration: the declaration of independence, the original copy of the constitution, the liberty bell; objects that we also revere and look upon with special significance, that we unfurl on the 4th of July or Memorial day and look upon and remember the past and our founding fathers.
Memorials are for us to remember, as our ideas of processing and storing knowledge grow and change so does our perception of the world around us. The Egyptians recorded their experience of the world around them, the connections they saw between heaven and earth, between land and river. Their rendering of the world in flat planes in relief in tombs and on temple walls was not simply the etchings of bygone civilization, but an approach that constituted a viable living breathing reality that determined the real life experience of the ancient Egyptians.
By the end of the old kingdom factions were tearing the country apart, as priesthood and nobles were at odds over power and station. Mortuary monuments like the pyramids became too expensive to build and maintain even as temples for the emerging priesthood began construction. Statues of aristocrats show alliances to both the nobility and the priesthood. This decline in centralized power was to last hundreds of years until the rise of Mentuhotep II at the beginning of the eleventh dynasty. The capital of Egypt is moved to Thebes and will remain there for a thousand years, with only a brief ten-year interruption during the reign of Akhenaton. The move to Thebes was mandated by the widespread unrest in the south of Egypt, as the country began to show signs of internal division. A change occurred in Egyptian art as well. Pharaohs were depicted with expressions of humanity as the prestige of the royalty faded, cracks in the armor of immortality began to appear. People want their leaders to be larger than life, but the faults of any leader even our president make them seem weak, human. I suppose it is inevitable, still I can’t help but wonder, when our leaders ask us to dance, haven’t we heard this tune somewhere, at least once, before?
I think that memorials are good, they force us to remember, and the things that are worth remembering endure, if this date is important, history will be the judge. I was watching the Ten Commandments with Charlton Heston last night, all those scenes of Egypt made me think of the Palette of Narmer. The Palette of Narmer is a great example of a memorial. Narmer, or Memes in Greek, is the first king to unite Upper and Lower Egypt, and the palette is a ceremonial cosmetic palette decorated to commemorate the event. The Palette is of principle importance because it establishes not only the history of the events of Narmer's victory, but because the palette itself becomes a blueprint for Egyptian art for the next 3000 years. The hieroglyphic writing that we associate with the art of ancient Egypt has it genesis in the stylization of the palette of Narmer. The Palette of Narmer literally becomes the blueprint for Egyptian art.
The palette contains the images of Narmer, his priests, and victims, but also images of Hathor, Horus, Lions, bulls, and the triumphal procession. It is a work of art that stands at the beginning of dynastic Egypt.
It reminds me of George Bush going to celebrate the fall of Baghdad on an aircraft carrier. This palette is a piece of propaganda, but it is also a celebratory cosmological object that would have been taken out on special religious or festival days and paraded as an object of adoration and worship. There is nothing like it in our culture, though we certainly have our venerated objects of admiration: the declaration of independence, the original copy of the constitution, the liberty bell; objects that we also revere and look upon with special significance, that we unfurl on the 4th of July or Memorial day and look upon and remember the past and our founding fathers.
Memorials are for us to remember, as our ideas of processing and storing knowledge grow and change so does our perception of the world around us. The Egyptians recorded their experience of the world around them, the connections they saw between heaven and earth, between land and river. Their rendering of the world in flat planes in relief in tombs and on temple walls was not simply the etchings of bygone civilization, but an approach that constituted a viable living breathing reality that determined the real life experience of the ancient Egyptians.
By the end of the old kingdom factions were tearing the country apart, as priesthood and nobles were at odds over power and station. Mortuary monuments like the pyramids became too expensive to build and maintain even as temples for the emerging priesthood began construction. Statues of aristocrats show alliances to both the nobility and the priesthood. This decline in centralized power was to last hundreds of years until the rise of Mentuhotep II at the beginning of the eleventh dynasty. The capital of Egypt is moved to Thebes and will remain there for a thousand years, with only a brief ten-year interruption during the reign of Akhenaton. The move to Thebes was mandated by the widespread unrest in the south of Egypt, as the country began to show signs of internal division. A change occurred in Egyptian art as well. Pharaohs were depicted with expressions of humanity as the prestige of the royalty faded, cracks in the armor of immortality began to appear. People want their leaders to be larger than life, but the faults of any leader even our president make them seem weak, human. I suppose it is inevitable, still I can’t help but wonder, when our leaders ask us to dance, haven’t we heard this tune somewhere, at least once, before?
Friday, March 21, 2008
passing out of dark and into light
Well the spring equinox, the vernal equinox has come and gone, the first day of spring to some, just another day to others. I remember the day I learned that the full moon rose each month with the setting of the sun. I was completely bewildered; the full moon rises as the sun sets? I would watch for the day to come, marking the passing of the full moon and other celestial events.
The Vernal equinox is just as cool in many ways as the full moon rising with the setting sun, it is one of two days out of 365 in which the day has 12 hours of both light and dark, the day is as long as the night. Light and dark are balanced, good and evil, right and wrong, yin and yang.
People have been marking and celebrating the Vernal Equinox since the dawn of history. The Neolithic monoliths located at Stonehenge mark the position of the rising sun on the Vernal Equinox; as do many other monuments of antiquity, including the Great Sphinx on the Giza Plateau in Egypt, which faces due east on the Vernal Equinox. In Central America the Ancient Mayan Caracol Tower and Temples of the Sun and Moon also have alignments that coincide with the sun’s position on the Vernal Equinox.
People all through history have been watching the skies, and they must have done it over and over again, day after day through countless years, and began to realize patterns. “Dude, did you realize that yesterday the day was as long as the night?” “No dude, what do you suppose it means?” “I don’t know dude, but its kind of creepy, don’t you think?” “I don’t know dude.”
Most historians believe that this knowledge was important to ancient cultures though all we are left with is speculation as to why. In Iran they celebrate Norouz (which roughly translates to “new day”) on the Vernal Equinox. In China they celebrate Chunfen on the Vernal Equinox. In ancient Europe they celebrated the arrival of the goddess of spring Ostara on this day. Ostara was also known as Ostera and Eostre in different parts of Europe. Eostre is where we get our modern word for east; she is associated with the roman goddess Aurora, the goddess of dawn.
I suppose one could argue that the light bulb killed sky watching, thought the need for the almanac predates the light bulb. I would guess that people in cities stopped watching the skies because the information was no longer relevant, and to those few in the country that still relied on the information gleaned from the skies, i.e. when to plant crops, when to harvest. The information was passed down through lore, until it passed into myth and legend, only to be rediscovered, and reforgotten countless times and in countless cultures.
Perhaps the most bizarre twist is how some dates remain, some celebrations persist, while others fade away until all of the actions have lost their meaning, all gestures are futile, and even these pass away, like giving gifts at Christmas, or hunting for Easter eggs… While those that remain are etched into the very fabric of our lives like watching the skies for a full moon or catching a glimpse of the calendar and realizing that you are passing out of the dark of night and into the light of day.
The Vernal equinox is just as cool in many ways as the full moon rising with the setting sun, it is one of two days out of 365 in which the day has 12 hours of both light and dark, the day is as long as the night. Light and dark are balanced, good and evil, right and wrong, yin and yang.
People have been marking and celebrating the Vernal Equinox since the dawn of history. The Neolithic monoliths located at Stonehenge mark the position of the rising sun on the Vernal Equinox; as do many other monuments of antiquity, including the Great Sphinx on the Giza Plateau in Egypt, which faces due east on the Vernal Equinox. In Central America the Ancient Mayan Caracol Tower and Temples of the Sun and Moon also have alignments that coincide with the sun’s position on the Vernal Equinox.
People all through history have been watching the skies, and they must have done it over and over again, day after day through countless years, and began to realize patterns. “Dude, did you realize that yesterday the day was as long as the night?” “No dude, what do you suppose it means?” “I don’t know dude, but its kind of creepy, don’t you think?” “I don’t know dude.”
Most historians believe that this knowledge was important to ancient cultures though all we are left with is speculation as to why. In Iran they celebrate Norouz (which roughly translates to “new day”) on the Vernal Equinox. In China they celebrate Chunfen on the Vernal Equinox. In ancient Europe they celebrated the arrival of the goddess of spring Ostara on this day. Ostara was also known as Ostera and Eostre in different parts of Europe. Eostre is where we get our modern word for east; she is associated with the roman goddess Aurora, the goddess of dawn.
I suppose one could argue that the light bulb killed sky watching, thought the need for the almanac predates the light bulb. I would guess that people in cities stopped watching the skies because the information was no longer relevant, and to those few in the country that still relied on the information gleaned from the skies, i.e. when to plant crops, when to harvest. The information was passed down through lore, until it passed into myth and legend, only to be rediscovered, and reforgotten countless times and in countless cultures.
Perhaps the most bizarre twist is how some dates remain, some celebrations persist, while others fade away until all of the actions have lost their meaning, all gestures are futile, and even these pass away, like giving gifts at Christmas, or hunting for Easter eggs… While those that remain are etched into the very fabric of our lives like watching the skies for a full moon or catching a glimpse of the calendar and realizing that you are passing out of the dark of night and into the light of day.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
4 small children at the museum
We took the kids to the Martin Puryear show at the Fort Worth Museum of Modern Art. M. P. is probably the greatest American sculpture alive today. My daughter brought a friend and they ended up in a conversation about what makes art…art. Their exact comments were something like, “a lot of this stuff doesn’t belong in a museum.” When J. asked them why some things belonged in a museum and other things didn’t, they had a hard time saying why this object was better and that object was worse, and finally arrived at the decision that in order for art to belong in a museum it had to have narrative. It had to tell a story. No particular story, and interestingly, some of Martin Puryear’s art apparently did, while some of it evidently did not.
I run into this kind of question a lot in grad school. This is art, that is not. One professor told me that art wasn’t great until he wanted to lick it. Making art is hard, as is writing about it. For writing about art, critiquing art, evokes the secret language like that of the sommelier decoding a bottle of wine: this is fruity, and that is not, some toasty oak, a pinch of nutmeg, and a hint of leather in the tannins…
Artist struggle to find meaning in the things they do, it is like writing a great paper.. you put it out there and wait to see if your thoughts held general appeal, for it is one thing to write the most brilliant essay in the world, quite another if no one in the world besides yourself gives a damn about it. I guess that is the artist in me, creating objects and thinking about how they are formed, what goes in to them and ultimately will be viewed, received and consumed.
A central conviction among modern artist, critics and art historians is the existence of an artistic mainstream, the notion that some artworks are more important than others because they participate in some sort of progressive unfolding of a larger historical purpose. Art is not viewed by virtue of its aesthetic quality, rather the overall evolutionary pattern, the "movements" within art if you will, confer value, and any art that does not fit within can be, for the most part, ignored.
One might wonder what system of classification determines the High/Low myth of Modernism. It has its roots in the post WWII malaise of deteriorating civilization. During this time the art critic Clement Greensburg first began championing the idea. Greensburg himself later became famous for identifying the Abstract Expressionist movement and championing the New York School of Painting.
However his idea came under greater scrutiny in the 1970's as Greenburg’s formalism omitted so much of the history of recent art. Observers began to question whether a single dominant mainstream had ever existed. The extraordinary proliferation of artistic styles in the 1960's and 70's greatly contributed to those doubts.
Interestingly Philosophy has its own theories about the rise of artistic movements, Hegel and Heidegger both speculated about the rise of such movements, though neither identified them as such. In fact the whole branch of aesthetic philosophy seems to turn a blind eye to the evolution of the mainstream in art. Art is usually discussed in abstract generalities when discussed at all, its content usually consigned to the realm of divine inspiration. My favorite Philosophy of aesthetics is contained in Kant’s Critique of Judgment. Kant asserts that our individual wants and needs do not come into play when appreciating beauty, so our aesthetic response applies universally. In this way we only view art in a disinterested way, not with the finality of reason, In this way, art is allowed to continually renew itself, movements in art, impressionism, expressionism, minimalism, are not ends in themselves, but are possibilities waiting to inspire a new generation of artists, like four small children at the museum.
I run into this kind of question a lot in grad school. This is art, that is not. One professor told me that art wasn’t great until he wanted to lick it. Making art is hard, as is writing about it. For writing about art, critiquing art, evokes the secret language like that of the sommelier decoding a bottle of wine: this is fruity, and that is not, some toasty oak, a pinch of nutmeg, and a hint of leather in the tannins…
Artist struggle to find meaning in the things they do, it is like writing a great paper.. you put it out there and wait to see if your thoughts held general appeal, for it is one thing to write the most brilliant essay in the world, quite another if no one in the world besides yourself gives a damn about it. I guess that is the artist in me, creating objects and thinking about how they are formed, what goes in to them and ultimately will be viewed, received and consumed.
A central conviction among modern artist, critics and art historians is the existence of an artistic mainstream, the notion that some artworks are more important than others because they participate in some sort of progressive unfolding of a larger historical purpose. Art is not viewed by virtue of its aesthetic quality, rather the overall evolutionary pattern, the "movements" within art if you will, confer value, and any art that does not fit within can be, for the most part, ignored.
One might wonder what system of classification determines the High/Low myth of Modernism. It has its roots in the post WWII malaise of deteriorating civilization. During this time the art critic Clement Greensburg first began championing the idea. Greensburg himself later became famous for identifying the Abstract Expressionist movement and championing the New York School of Painting.
However his idea came under greater scrutiny in the 1970's as Greenburg’s formalism omitted so much of the history of recent art. Observers began to question whether a single dominant mainstream had ever existed. The extraordinary proliferation of artistic styles in the 1960's and 70's greatly contributed to those doubts.
Interestingly Philosophy has its own theories about the rise of artistic movements, Hegel and Heidegger both speculated about the rise of such movements, though neither identified them as such. In fact the whole branch of aesthetic philosophy seems to turn a blind eye to the evolution of the mainstream in art. Art is usually discussed in abstract generalities when discussed at all, its content usually consigned to the realm of divine inspiration. My favorite Philosophy of aesthetics is contained in Kant’s Critique of Judgment. Kant asserts that our individual wants and needs do not come into play when appreciating beauty, so our aesthetic response applies universally. In this way we only view art in a disinterested way, not with the finality of reason, In this way, art is allowed to continually renew itself, movements in art, impressionism, expressionism, minimalism, are not ends in themselves, but are possibilities waiting to inspire a new generation of artists, like four small children at the museum.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Sunday School Lessons
Recently we decide to start attending church again, primarily to give the children some sort spiritual groundwork that they can choose to build on, or not, as they get older. While not a spectacular Christian, my own Christian upbringing ensured I would best be able to guide them from a Christian perspective. Finding a church in Texas to go to is not hard, there is one on every corner it seems, finding one that is open minded, liberal, if you will, and large enough to have a good pool of both adults and children with out being too big is problematic. None-the-less we eventually found one, and in the spirit of joining also took part in adult Sunday school. In one such class, we were discussing the devil, the snake in the garden and such topics when the assoc. pastor commented that Gen. 3.16 should be struck from the bible, and I have been mulling on the ever since.
Gen. 3:16 says “Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire [shall be] to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.” I find myself asking the question, what has happened here? What does it mean to say that Adam is condemned to toil and sweat in the fields of the earth and Eve is to suffer the pain of childbearing? Are these punishments for sin? In that case, then would the removal of sin (i.e. from baptism) remove their suffering?
Consider Adam and Eve's life in the Garden before they ate from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Adam's job was to work the garden (Gen. 2.15) and Eve's to Bear Children (Gen. 1.28), they are no strangers to these tasks. However the nature of these tasks is fundamentally altered once they eat of the forbidden fruit. God condemns them to pain and suffering specifically when performing these very tasks. But in what way? The earth still needs to be toiled, children to be reared, thus what seems to have changed is not the nature of our existence, but rather our perception of it. Existence has become painful. God's remarks might be understood as him saying, "you are going to have to do the job you did before, but now it is going to hurt." Instead of cultivating the Garden of Eden, Adam now has to toil and work in the field. He is still doing the same job but his perception of his existence has changed. It has become painful.
The idea that Adams perception of his existence has changed is evident in the previous passages. Certainly it is suggested that Adam's perception has changed by eating the forbidden fruit. Once the fruit has been eaten, Adam becomes ashamed; he detects God in the garden and hides. Why is he ashamed? He is naked, and he is aware that he has not followed the edict of God. Adam has eaten of the fruit and has failed to obey the Lord. Adam has failed God, and what is more, Adam had failed specifically to nurture his spiritual relationship with god. He has become spiritually bankrupt, and for this, he is ejected from the garden. Do we imagine weeds and thorns to have suddenly sprung up to torture Adam? More likely, Adam's sufferings tied to weeds and thorns reflects his subjective experience as a person who is suffering spiritually. Spiritually defunct, Adam experiences the world as one of frustrations and suffering, the wages of an unrealized spiritual life.
As Adams perception of the world has changed, his perception of the world reflects his inner, spiritual loss. Consider also his progeny. Both Cain and Able are farmers, and both have very different perceptions of their relationship with God, Cain looks for acceptance from God while Able seems to have already found his. Again their relationships with God seem to be reflected in their relationships with the earth. Abel praises the Lord and cultivates an abundant harvest while Cain has an adversarial relation and is cursed from the earth. (Gen. 4.11)
Finally, consider the words of the Lord. "From dust you came, and from dust you will return." This passage seems to make the connection that our relationship with God is mirrored in our relationship with the earth. We often think of death as a return to heaven, and substitute the word "dust" for "god" or "heaven" as in "from god you came, and from god you will return." But this is not what God says; rather our suffering and our death are uniquely tied to our existence on the earth. Another way of looking at it is, you will suffer, but you will not suffer forever, you will die, and your death will end your suffering. Our mortality and suffering, then, is not the result of sin, but of nature. And our death will relieve us of this suffering, just as our body will dissolve back into the earth, not from sin, but by our own mortal nature.
Then what of Eve’s plight? What I think is being described is nothing short of the ugly conflict between the male and female that has marked so much of human history. Previously I mentioned Cain and Able, look at the parallel between Gen. 3:16 and Gen. 4:7. This comparison is not new, people have noted the similarities between these passages for ages. In 3:16 God says to the woman, "Your desire is for your husband, and he shall rule over you." In 4:7 God says to Cain, "Sin's desire is for you, and you shall rule over it." The desire in 3:16 might be read as sin, especially when compared to 4:7. Desire in the Hebrew might be translated meaning, "to urge, drive on, or impel. 4:7 says that the sin in Cain's heart threatens to overpower him. Likewise in 3:16 we see something similar. "Your desire shall be for your husband," suggests that sexual union has been tainted by their sin of disobedience to God, sexual union will be both painful and oppressive, whether in the form of a woman's desire for her man or a man's desire to rule over her. Both Men and Women have become depraved and corrupted by sin, first in rebellion against God, and then in exploitation of each other.
I agree that this passage is troubling, and it continues to trouble me, even as the grief it has caused many has certainly taken its toll. Perhaps it is because this passage points out our vulnerability that we in turn should become so vulnerable to it.
Gen. 3:16 says “Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire [shall be] to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.” I find myself asking the question, what has happened here? What does it mean to say that Adam is condemned to toil and sweat in the fields of the earth and Eve is to suffer the pain of childbearing? Are these punishments for sin? In that case, then would the removal of sin (i.e. from baptism) remove their suffering?
Consider Adam and Eve's life in the Garden before they ate from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Adam's job was to work the garden (Gen. 2.15) and Eve's to Bear Children (Gen. 1.28), they are no strangers to these tasks. However the nature of these tasks is fundamentally altered once they eat of the forbidden fruit. God condemns them to pain and suffering specifically when performing these very tasks. But in what way? The earth still needs to be toiled, children to be reared, thus what seems to have changed is not the nature of our existence, but rather our perception of it. Existence has become painful. God's remarks might be understood as him saying, "you are going to have to do the job you did before, but now it is going to hurt." Instead of cultivating the Garden of Eden, Adam now has to toil and work in the field. He is still doing the same job but his perception of his existence has changed. It has become painful.
The idea that Adams perception of his existence has changed is evident in the previous passages. Certainly it is suggested that Adam's perception has changed by eating the forbidden fruit. Once the fruit has been eaten, Adam becomes ashamed; he detects God in the garden and hides. Why is he ashamed? He is naked, and he is aware that he has not followed the edict of God. Adam has eaten of the fruit and has failed to obey the Lord. Adam has failed God, and what is more, Adam had failed specifically to nurture his spiritual relationship with god. He has become spiritually bankrupt, and for this, he is ejected from the garden. Do we imagine weeds and thorns to have suddenly sprung up to torture Adam? More likely, Adam's sufferings tied to weeds and thorns reflects his subjective experience as a person who is suffering spiritually. Spiritually defunct, Adam experiences the world as one of frustrations and suffering, the wages of an unrealized spiritual life.
As Adams perception of the world has changed, his perception of the world reflects his inner, spiritual loss. Consider also his progeny. Both Cain and Able are farmers, and both have very different perceptions of their relationship with God, Cain looks for acceptance from God while Able seems to have already found his. Again their relationships with God seem to be reflected in their relationships with the earth. Abel praises the Lord and cultivates an abundant harvest while Cain has an adversarial relation and is cursed from the earth. (Gen. 4.11)
Finally, consider the words of the Lord. "From dust you came, and from dust you will return." This passage seems to make the connection that our relationship with God is mirrored in our relationship with the earth. We often think of death as a return to heaven, and substitute the word "dust" for "god" or "heaven" as in "from god you came, and from god you will return." But this is not what God says; rather our suffering and our death are uniquely tied to our existence on the earth. Another way of looking at it is, you will suffer, but you will not suffer forever, you will die, and your death will end your suffering. Our mortality and suffering, then, is not the result of sin, but of nature. And our death will relieve us of this suffering, just as our body will dissolve back into the earth, not from sin, but by our own mortal nature.
Then what of Eve’s plight? What I think is being described is nothing short of the ugly conflict between the male and female that has marked so much of human history. Previously I mentioned Cain and Able, look at the parallel between Gen. 3:16 and Gen. 4:7. This comparison is not new, people have noted the similarities between these passages for ages. In 3:16 God says to the woman, "Your desire is for your husband, and he shall rule over you." In 4:7 God says to Cain, "Sin's desire is for you, and you shall rule over it." The desire in 3:16 might be read as sin, especially when compared to 4:7. Desire in the Hebrew might be translated meaning, "to urge, drive on, or impel. 4:7 says that the sin in Cain's heart threatens to overpower him. Likewise in 3:16 we see something similar. "Your desire shall be for your husband," suggests that sexual union has been tainted by their sin of disobedience to God, sexual union will be both painful and oppressive, whether in the form of a woman's desire for her man or a man's desire to rule over her. Both Men and Women have become depraved and corrupted by sin, first in rebellion against God, and then in exploitation of each other.
I agree that this passage is troubling, and it continues to trouble me, even as the grief it has caused many has certainly taken its toll. Perhaps it is because this passage points out our vulnerability that we in turn should become so vulnerable to it.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
The Enlightenment- Or what I thought about at the gym
I was startled one morning, not very long ago, to wake up and discover that middle age is rapidly encroaching on my everyday life. It isn't that I think I will die tomorrow, or that I dread looking in the mirror for fear of more grey hairs, or even that the aches and pains of everyday activities seem to linger. Actually I like the feeling of growing old for the most part. I am seldom self-conscious, I don't feel so ignorant of the world all the time, and I enjoy being on my own. In short, I find the gifts of self reliance that accompany middle age extremely satisfying.
What is so strange then about middle age? For one I recently noticed that I am more comfortable relying on my intuition, that I don't need to investigate every facet of this or that thing in order to come to some decision. Not that I was particularly fastidious about research, but that I am simply more comfortable making decisions "from the gut"
What is the opposite of intuition? Reason I suppose. At least that is what I was always taught in college, studying western philosophy. Reason is fixed and certain and with that, there is no truth that is undiscoverable when held before the light of reason. It reminds me of a discussion I lead in class the other night on the Age of Enlightenment, an 18th century movement fueled in part by the Reformation, the philosophy of classic Antiquity, and optimistic Humanist thought that recognized the sad state of the human condition under authoritarian rule of church and state.
During the Age of Enlightenment, Reason, in the guise of modern philosophy and scientific method, was used to overturn superstitious, dogmatic or irrational beliefs. It is important for me to remember that reason was a very different faculty in the 17th and 18th century than it is today, for it was only in this time that people began to imagine reason as a faculty with the unaided ability (unaided by god or diving inspiration) to form concepts. At the same time it was a reason that was used to discern the inalienable rights of mankind, namely liberty, justice, and equality as the natural rights of man. Reason, as it was, was combined with humanist thought, and gave rise to a revolution in thinking that would reshape the world.
As time went by I suppose we forgot that there was once a time when there was no place in the world in which these things existed. Science became the unquestioned master of progress and industry created the unending supply that fed our unwhetted appetites. Superstition became the stuff of fancy and myth and in time, intuition became a bad thing; the stuff of Hysterical, feminine thinking that had no place in the halls of science. Alas the poor goddess Athena herself must have rolled in her grave.
What is the extreme of Reason? Well, if science fiction has taught me anything it is that reason at its extreme seems to be cold, even ruthless in its single-mindedness. While emotion, intuition, seems vague, even uncertain at times in its methods, it can be learned, but seldom taught. I suppose both reason and intuition can have their faults, while those in reason's camp will argue that reason, when properly applied is faultless, there are few that are always faultless, and intuition might argue that emotion is more human, there are few that can say they are always altruistic in their motives.
Nowadays it seems that whenever humanism encroaches on reason it is always isolated, that it seldom takes root and is often dismissed. The green movement might be an example of this, or amnesty international. The most horrific thing about Guantanamo is the suspension of Habeas Corpus, the instrument safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary actions of the state. Habeas Corpus, a sacred instrument of our constitution, itself a product of The Age of Enlightenment, suspended for individuals held against their will. It is not my place to argue their innocence, only my place to argue their right to have a chance to voice it.
Does intuition fare any better? We seem to be on a slippery scale here, one that I cannot quantify, because I have come to rely on intuition, and have not my research. It seems like we as a people have moved away from trusting our intuition, we have become more dispassionate, though we long for the days when once we were. Individually, I think people are more diverse in their day to day actions, sometimes trusting in intuition, other times in reason. Relieving stress has become a mantra of every day living, one that reason, medicine and scientific thought cannot cure, mostly because it is likely so much the cause. So I found myself at the gym today, running my ass off and wondering about the way in which middle age has encroached itself onto my everyday living and what that really means...
What is so strange then about middle age? For one I recently noticed that I am more comfortable relying on my intuition, that I don't need to investigate every facet of this or that thing in order to come to some decision. Not that I was particularly fastidious about research, but that I am simply more comfortable making decisions "from the gut"
What is the opposite of intuition? Reason I suppose. At least that is what I was always taught in college, studying western philosophy. Reason is fixed and certain and with that, there is no truth that is undiscoverable when held before the light of reason. It reminds me of a discussion I lead in class the other night on the Age of Enlightenment, an 18th century movement fueled in part by the Reformation, the philosophy of classic Antiquity, and optimistic Humanist thought that recognized the sad state of the human condition under authoritarian rule of church and state.
During the Age of Enlightenment, Reason, in the guise of modern philosophy and scientific method, was used to overturn superstitious, dogmatic or irrational beliefs. It is important for me to remember that reason was a very different faculty in the 17th and 18th century than it is today, for it was only in this time that people began to imagine reason as a faculty with the unaided ability (unaided by god or diving inspiration) to form concepts. At the same time it was a reason that was used to discern the inalienable rights of mankind, namely liberty, justice, and equality as the natural rights of man. Reason, as it was, was combined with humanist thought, and gave rise to a revolution in thinking that would reshape the world.
As time went by I suppose we forgot that there was once a time when there was no place in the world in which these things existed. Science became the unquestioned master of progress and industry created the unending supply that fed our unwhetted appetites. Superstition became the stuff of fancy and myth and in time, intuition became a bad thing; the stuff of Hysterical, feminine thinking that had no place in the halls of science. Alas the poor goddess Athena herself must have rolled in her grave.
What is the extreme of Reason? Well, if science fiction has taught me anything it is that reason at its extreme seems to be cold, even ruthless in its single-mindedness. While emotion, intuition, seems vague, even uncertain at times in its methods, it can be learned, but seldom taught. I suppose both reason and intuition can have their faults, while those in reason's camp will argue that reason, when properly applied is faultless, there are few that are always faultless, and intuition might argue that emotion is more human, there are few that can say they are always altruistic in their motives.
Nowadays it seems that whenever humanism encroaches on reason it is always isolated, that it seldom takes root and is often dismissed. The green movement might be an example of this, or amnesty international. The most horrific thing about Guantanamo is the suspension of Habeas Corpus, the instrument safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary actions of the state. Habeas Corpus, a sacred instrument of our constitution, itself a product of The Age of Enlightenment, suspended for individuals held against their will. It is not my place to argue their innocence, only my place to argue their right to have a chance to voice it.
Does intuition fare any better? We seem to be on a slippery scale here, one that I cannot quantify, because I have come to rely on intuition, and have not my research. It seems like we as a people have moved away from trusting our intuition, we have become more dispassionate, though we long for the days when once we were. Individually, I think people are more diverse in their day to day actions, sometimes trusting in intuition, other times in reason. Relieving stress has become a mantra of every day living, one that reason, medicine and scientific thought cannot cure, mostly because it is likely so much the cause. So I found myself at the gym today, running my ass off and wondering about the way in which middle age has encroached itself onto my everyday living and what that really means...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)