The Sacred in Art.
Iian Neill
skill, craftsmanship, aesthetic and taste - we have to ask ourselves
this: "Why value realism over abstract expressionism?" For some time now
I have taken the approach of attempting to prove the superiority of
representationalism on its own terms - that is, I have claimed (with
some justification) that it allows the artist to express himself (or
herself) more clearly, powerfully, effectively - that it allows his
"message" to go beyond the limitations of subjectivity. To put it
another way: representationalism allows the artist's concept to be
understood, appreciated and enjoyed by others. This argument, however,
is unsatisfactory. One can argue that cartoons transmit "artistic
intention" as clearly as a painting by Raphael or Bouguereau - and yet,
there is clearly a qualitative difference between Donald Duck and
Michelangelo's David. Both of these works, though, are representational
in their own way, and are immediately approachable by anyone.
So what makes the "realism" of Bouguereau or Raphael more desirable
than, say, Matisse, or Gaugin? Surely something more than narrative
communication is taking place, or else a Gaugin would suffice as well as
a Bouguereau to tell a story. If not communication, what then? Something
else that is intrinsic to the painting, something aesthetic, something
abstract, "pure", like classical music? A harmony, a symphonic interplay
of forms and colours? Very well - if this is so, then why not enshrine a
Pollock or a Picasso in the same temple as Leighton or Leonardo? Because
Picasso or Pollock did not achieve the balance, the beauty of the
others? But are balance and beauty necessary? According to some of the
Romantics, it was the dramatic impact of a painting which counted more
than its classical perfection; vibrancy of colour above clarity of form.
If we accept the Romantics into our temple, we must cut our theory to
include them as well.
If it is not the narrative clarity that is important, and it is not
the classical perfection of proportion and form that is vital, and if we
have agreed that it is something abstract, something akin to harmony -
then why do we reject Picasso and Rothko? We reject them because their
works are - more often than not - ugly and brutal without any redeeming
intellectual-aesthetic qualities. But what *are* these qualities? And
what makes one man more fit to judge them than any other? Experience?
Teaching? Inspiration? Let us say that it is all three. It now seems
that only painters are fit to judge painting - and what is a painting in
this day and age? Why, it seems to be whatever a painter says it is. And
what is a painter? - A person who makes paintings.
Yet, surely this too is an unsatisfactory explanation. Painting is a
profession in much the same way that engineering is - yet we do not
quibble over the definition of an engineer; perhaps this is because if
the engineer's bridge collapses he can't claim that you don't
"understand" him, or that he is "ahead of his time". We can all see the
ruins of the bridge, and we all acknowledge the inexorable law of
gravity, and the engineer's failure to overcome it. Paintings, too, are
objects, and some paintings are also failures - except that if we point
to the wreck and castigate the engineer, we are told that we are blind,
or stupid, or ignorant. Why so? Because the painting exists as much in
the human mind as it does in reality. And in this century there is no
longer a metaphysical law of gravity that all men accept - and that is
where I have always failed in my defence of representationalism.
There are, potentially, ways out. All one need to do is show that
beauty is not "in the eye of the beholder", but in fact something as
quantifiable as mass, length and velocity. Yet to merely claim that
subjectivity plays no part in art at all is to err grossly. We cannot
deny that even our own reactions to a work vary over time - one is
reminded of Nietzsche's comment that we get out of art (or writing) what
we bring to it. This is where we differ with the Modernists: they claim
that we bring nothing to Picasso, or that we have stunted our ability to
appreciate his genius through over-emphasis on an out-moded aesthetic.
Leaving aside for the moment that there is no such thing as an
"out-moded aesthetic" - merely an unfashionable one -, how can we truly
argue against them without resorting to an appeal on expert knowledge?
We say that a "true painter" deplores Modernist tendencies in art - the
Modernists claim the reverse. This does not, however, solve the question
of what a "true painter" is.
I will admit that I do not know how to answer this question. All I can
offer you are my thoughts. To the question of, "What is good art?" (and
therefore, "what is a good artist?") I would respond:
"Good art is sacred."
All great art, for me, is a spiritual experience; it evokes the eternal,
deals with archetypes. The true test of great art is whether it survives
generations of criticism and public acclaim - perhaps we might even dare
to say that great art is that which outlives its own popularity. When I
say that great art is sacred, I do not imply that the artist believes in
a religion, or has even consciously set out to create a work based on a
religious theme - but I do think that it stems from what one might call
a "religious impulse". It is this impulse which has faith in life's
meaning - that we are not all just sacks of chemicals bred from random
interactions of molecules. I do not deny that this may be the physical
reality of our existence - but *it is not our spiritual reality*. The
mistake of Modernism was in insisting that one conform to the other -
that the Earth be literally created by an omnipotent God, that absolutes
have a real, physical existence; in this sense Modernism is merely a
symptom of fundamental materialism, the disbelief in soul. Modernism is
the child of Christianity with its insistence on a dual reality of
matter and spirit - Modernism is the disillusionment of Christianity. It
is a reaction against absolutes, an overwhelming feeling of horror and
hopelessness and a distrust of absolute values.
It is ironic to suggest that Modernism is really the bitter brother of
Christianity (and Scientism), but it seems to me that this would explain
the continued existence of the movement, as well as its almost religious
intensity. Modernism does not necessarily reject realism - it rejects
the old application of realism. It rejects classical order, beauty, the
portrayal of Man as a confident, righteous being in an intelligible
universe. Modernism is in this sense similar to the art of the Middle
Ages - and yet it is also symptomatic of our own era and its
apprehensions. In one sense Modernism is right in claiming that its art
represents our times - where it errors is in claiming that ONLY ITS ART
can represent our time. To me this seems very similar to Christianity,
as well as Science, which insisted on the absolutely validity of only
ONE viewpoint - One True God, One True Art.
Perhaps the defining characteristic of these movements is a monomania,
an absolute faith in binary oppositions. Modernism flattered itself that
it was superior to an older, more naive paradigm - I would argue that it
was merely a continuation of it.
Post-Modernism contains remnants of Modernism and its distrust of
spiritual absolutes - but it is at least a positive omen, an indication
that the wretched, dis-sheveled creature is withdrawing from the cave
and sniffing the air tentatively - it still whimpers at sunlight and
clings to the shadows, but it at least realizes that the air in the cave
was rank and conducive to pessimistic hallucinations. Even the old
Descartesian world-view is being eroded, as the gurus of science embrace
concepts almost mystical in nature.
The seeds of Classicism's destruction were embedded in its own nature.
Modernism is a grotesque parody of Classicism, in its belief in a divine
mathematical order, a harmony which resided "behind the paint" and which
only the educated could penetrate. Classicism, too, believed in a
mathematical order, in the importance of Ideas over Forms. Impressionism
was a reaction against this sometimes too ethereal abstraction of life,
and sought to remind the world of the lure of the senses - if its
proponents resorted to exaggeration or eventually become over-powered by
these senses, was it so much the fault of their original impulse, or the
peril inherent in too great an abandon to the senses?
This letter reveals my own bias: I am by nature a Symbolist, a man who
finds himself drawn to obscure mythological subjects that evoke intense
spiritual states. It is not surprising, therefore, that I understand all
great art to be sacred, and would indeed go so far as to say that art
needs more than anything else to regain this sacredness. If I had to
explain what that is, I would say that it is the knowledge one has that
the world is more than a whirling chaos of molecules. I say "knowledge",
because a mere belief in a deity is not necessarily equivalent to the
certainty that such "knowledge" bestows. This certainty illuminates all
of one's art - the more intense, effulgent manifestations of this we
call "sacred". It logically follows that the greater one's technique,
the more clearly this "sacredness" can be expressed - indeed, the
*technique itself is an aspect of the sacredness, and is not divorced
from it*. This explains our instinctive revulsion against *deliberately
bad* technique. Deliberately bad technique is not merely incompetence -
it is incompetence with malicious intent. In that sense it is not
incompetence at all, but the perfect expression of the Modernist
mind-set - the evokation of a world of disease and decay, of paranoia
and paralysing doubt. We reject Modernism in just the same way as we
avoid a pathologically depressed man - one whose view on the world is
unremittingly gloomy, hostile and hopeless. We do not quite know how to
articulate our disgust, and so we fix on tangible things like his
physical appearance - the shoes he wears, the rumpled, unwashed coat,
his yellow teeth, frown-wrinkled forehead - in just the same way we
attack a Pollock for being an ugly splatter of paint, lacking in all
finesse and crafstmanship. But herein lies the problem - *we attack the
clothes that the man wears, but not the reason for his wearing them*. We
construct countless arguments for the superiority of our wardrobe, but
our opponent merely quips: "Taste is subjective", or, "Your clothes are
out of fashion". The poor fool doesn't realize that he is as absolutist
as the Christian, as the Classicist, indeed, that he is merely a
disenchanted, pessimistic version of him.
Christianity is the youth of materialism - Modernism its old age.
Modernism isn't so much a disease of art as a disease of soul, the fever
which arises out of the decomposition of materialism. The great art of
the future will resemble its equivalent in the past in essentials, if
not in form. This great art will be neither Christian, nor Jewish, nor
Buddhist, nor Islamic - it will simply be sacred.
Indeed, this is what it has always been.
Regards,
Iian Neill.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
steph...@my-deja.com
It would seem to me that two World Wars plus the extermination of
millions of innocent people on a scale unparalleled in history might be
enough grounds to reject most of what the western world considers as
it's greatest achievements.
Art does not always need to solicit admiration to have significance.
Abstract Expressionism has a positive place in the history of art as
does it's greatest mentor, Picasso.
Only a brief acquaintance with the works of the German Expressionists
and anyone can read their social barometer.
Andre Breton sensed this century's paradoxes long before the atomic
bomb was dropped on Hiroshima.
Even some of this century's best realist Wyeth and Hopper convey the
same feeling of estrangement that early deChiricos display in more
abstracted terms.
For me, the issue is not abstraction vs realism but rather
relevancy.
In article <7kv62v$rg0$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
Iian Neill
Hello Stephen,
> It would seem to me that two World Wars plus the extermination of
> millions of innocent people on a scale unparalleled in history might
> be enough grounds to reject most of what the western world considers
> as it's greatest achievements.
I ought to emphasise from the outset that my analysis of the role of
Modernism in history is not a reflection on the horrific events that
took place in our century; what I mean to say is, do not think that it
is my intention to belittle the suffering of those who endured the
Holocaust or the World Wars.
That said, I do not think that this is what you meant. You postulate
that the horrific impact of the World Wars is perhaps sufficient grounds
for rejecting the artistic productions of previous generations - or, at
the very least, that the aesthetic standards that applied then are no
longer relevant now. Not surprisingly, my views differ.
To even begin a case against the "traditional art" of our time (ie.,
representational work that follows the canons, uses the subjects, or
generally has the "flavour" of the works of another period), we would
need to show a direct link between philosophy and aesthetic merit. One
might argue that just as our age has "progressed" philosophically, so
must the art of our time reflect the new paradigms, and not endlessly
repeat the old ones in some attempt to "pastiche". This argument ignores
the fact that the art of the Old Masters is very popular today - if the
collective consciousness of our time had "grown beyond" an older
metaphysics, we might expect the people of our time to value
contemporary art over that of, say, Leonardo da Vinci, Raphael,
Rembrandt or Monet - men who were not even of this century. This is one
easily identifiable area where a pro-Modernist case falls flat - if
classical representationalism is really so irrelevant to our times, then
why do people continue to admire it and buy works from that period? This
does, at the very least, suggest that there is some enduring value to
these works, one which transcends the effects of two World Wars and a
Holocaust. But this disproves nothing.
In my previous post I called Modernism the "disillusionment of
Christianity". I intimated that the movement's innate flaw was its
consciously anti-spiritual approach, which was in reality a masked
yearning for faith. If I could anthropomorphize the movement, I would
characterise it in this way: "Modernism begin life as a confident
Christian, sure in his belief that the world is explicable, that there
are certain inviolable laws - moral, physical, and aesthetic. This
confidence was shattered, however, when various discoveries and events
occured which demanded the faith to have literal justification. It was
no longer enough to believe in Truth, Beauty and Goodness - one had to
prove these things *in reality*, to find some physical evidence for
them. You might say that this was Modernism's crisis of faith. When
concrete proof for the Ideals was not forthcoming, Modernism became
disenchanted with absolutes, disillusioned. Therefore, those art-works
that embodied the old values were suspect; indeed, perhaps Modernists
could not help even seeing them as 'dishonest'."
Modernism, like Christianity, like Scientism, expected the proof of
soul to be found in matter - it rode the wave of scientific optimism.
When this wave came crashing down, how could there but help arise a
sense of abandonment, hopelessness, bitterness and depression? This is
why I call Modernism the old age of materialism. The art produced in the
Modernist period reflects the crisis in faith - not merely the disblief
in a God, but the disbelief in the *values that God represented* - this
included the "sacredness" I referred to, the common denominator of
religion, and some philosophies.
> Art does not always need to solicit admiration to have significance.
Neither does war. Your point is taken.
> Abstract Expressionism has a positive place in the history of art as
> does it's greatest mentor, Picasso.
The chances are that Modernism will have a positive place in history -
although I disagree about its ultimate artistic importance. Modernism -
to me - represents more of a spiritual crisis than an artistic one; the
latter merely echoed the former. When one doubts that there is meaning
in life, when one sees only the worm, the grave, or the gas-chamber,
then one's art too must reflect this desolation. Not "must" as in
"should", but "must" as in "it logically follows that it will". For
those who feel that they are no more than sacks of chemicals in a
predatory universe, that sacredness is at best unrealistic - and at
worst a cynical deception - then how can one NOT castigate the
practitioners of an art that rejects these notions?
> Only a brief acquaintance with the works of the German Expressionists
> and anyone can read their social barometer.
> Andre Breton sensed this century's paradoxes long before the atomic
> bomb was dropped on Hiroshima.
> Even some of this century's best realist Wyeth and Hopper convey the
> same feeling of estrangement that early deChiricos display in more
> abstracted terms.
> For me, the issue is not abstraction vs realism but rather
> relevancy.
For me, also, the issue of asbtraction vs realism is not so important in
itself as what it represents. I understand Modernism to be the dying
gasp of materialism - a final death rattle. The patient has by no means
expired yet, but there are already signs of the budding of a new spring.
For there to be regeneration there must be death - the old paradigm was
no longer satisfactory - it was choking Man's spirituality.
Modernism is the natural outcome of the old system - but even as one
knows that the old system must perish before a better one can be born,
one does not wish to prolong the agony of the death-throes; or worse, to
mistake the death-throes for our own destiny. Just as a World War of
some sort may have been inevitable had the two not occured as history
relates, one still does not wish to prolong the suffering, to glorify in
the disease and the decay.
The same applies to Modernism. It's morbidness and fury may have been
inevitable - but to walk down that road forever will lead to
self-destruction. The art of our time is a painful documentary of the
spiritual crisis the century went through - but it is not an excuse for
it, it is not an argument in favour of it. Just as a World War may have
been an inevitable result of the decay of an older philosophical system,
it still does not justify further world wars.
When Modernism realizes that spiritually can't be found in the atom,
that morality is not found in the jungle, but that *spirituality is
nonetheless real* - when it realizes this, its art will change utterly.
It will no longer reflect decay, disease, pessimism. Perhaps this is
happening even now - what I do know is that the sacred in art never
perished - it was merely suppressed, driven underground. In that sense,
also, Modernism is the child of Christianity - when it does not
understand its opponents, it demonizes them.
Sacred art is relevant to all periods, because it springs from something
that is eternal to Mankind. A Jungian might call it the collective
unconscious, that resouvior of symbols and myths that we all share on an
impersonal level. Certain forms of Modernism rejected the sacred, and
will therefore probably not be remembered or admired in the centuries to
come. It is not merely an issue of style, as some have claimed the
realism vs abstract expressionism issue to be. Realism can be used to
express Modernist ideas as vigorously as Classicist ones; indeed, some
Photo-Realist work does precisely that. Technique is itself part of the
sacredness, as it is the vehicle and expression of the aesthetic
intention. To those who express the sacred in art, technique has never
been the issue - skill has been something they take as a given. If they
found it hard to justify themselves verbally for their own strengths,
then this is due only to the elusive nature of the subject. How do you
explain to someone why you love the beauty of a rose or an anemone? - Of
course, you do not need to do. And neither do the Old Masters.
Bouguereau, Gerome, Leighton and all the others need no philosophical
justification for their work - their work already supplies all of that.
The fact that a new generation - one by education not at all
well-disposed to the 19th century - can find delight and joy in it is
proof enough for me.
her...@linknet.com.au
----------
> and if we
> have agreed that it is something abstract, something akin to harmony -
> then why do we reject Picasso and Rothko? We reject them because their
> works are - more often than not - ugly and brutal without any redeeming
> intellectual-aesthetic qualities.
> "Good art is sacred."
> All great art, for me, is a spiritual experience; it evokes the eternal,
> deals with archetypes.
>... but I do think that it stems from what one might call
> a "religious impulse". It is this impulse which has faith in life's
> meaning - that we are not all just sacks of chemicals bred from random
> interactions of molecules. I do not deny that this may be the physical
> reality of our existence - but *it is not our spiritual reality*.
> finds himself drawn to obscure mythological subjects that evoke intense
> spiritual states. It is not surprising, therefore, that I understand all
> great art to be sacred, and would indeed go so far as to say that art
> The great art of
> the future will resemble its equivalent in the past in essentials, if
> not in form. This great art will be neither Christian, nor Jewish, nor
> Buddhist, nor Islamic - it will simply be sacred.
What do you think of this quote, from A Portrait of a Young Man by James Joyce;
"'proper' as opposed to 'improper art' (art serving ends, that is to say, that are proper to art itself) is static not kinetic. The feelings excited by improper art are kinetic, desire or loathing. Desire urges us to possess, to go to something; loathing urges us to abandon, to go from something. The arts which excite them, pornographic or didactic, are therefore improper arts. The esthetic emotion... is therefore static. The mind is arrested and raised above desire and loathing.
"Compare the state of the Buddha at the time of his awakening on the 'Immobile Spot', moved neither by desire nor by fear."
_ You have to keep in mind it is spoken through a victorian mindset. You can see what I'm getting at though, can't you?
Zom
Iian Neill
- Is that Hermes Trismegistus, or the Greek messenger God?
> > "Why value realism over abstract expressionism?"
>
> Although I paint in a style called realism, I see no need to get into
> a debate of which style is better.
That's fair enough. I see no cause for argument.
> > and if we
> > have agreed that it is something abstract, something akin to harmony
-
> > then why do we reject Picasso and Rothko? We reject them because
their
> > works are - more often than not - ugly and brutal without any
redeeming
> > intellectual-aesthetic qualities.
>
> I certainly wouldn't reject all the works of either of these painters.
To reject unilaterally without closer inspection is not wise, certainly.
> I must confess that analyzing moderism doesn't hold great interest for
> me. But certainly I agree with your definition of great art. You speak
> to my heart.
I must make a confession to: I am curious about your work. Have you
exhibited it on the internet?
>What do you think of this quote, from A Portrait of a Young Man by
> James Joyce;
> "'proper' as opposed to 'improper art' (art serving ends, that is
> to say, that are proper to art itself) is static not kinetic. The
> feelings excited by improper art are kinetic, desire or loathing. > >
> Desire urges us to possess, to go to something; loathing urges us to
> abandon, to go from something. The arts which excite them,
> pornographic or didactic, are
> therefore improper arts. The esthetic emotion... is therefore static.
> The mind is arrested and raised above desire and loathing.
> "Compare the state of the Buddha at the time of his awakening on
> the 'Immobile Spot', moved neither by desire nor by fear."
> _ You have to keep in mind it is spoken through a victorian mindset.
> You can see what I'm getting at though, can't you?
I believe that I understand what you are getting at, yes. I have to say
that this quote sounds awfully familiar, except that I associate it with
Emmanuel Kant, for some reason, and not James Joyce! I don't question
your memory at all - rather, I question my own. The quote reminds me of
something I thought Kant would have said: that proper art appeals to the
intellect, and is by nature not sensually excitable.
Joyce advocates a serene, aristocractic art, one free of vulgarity and
neuroticism, and for that I tip my hat to him. Whether sacred art is
entirely free of the emotions, however, is not so clear to me. To a
Buddhist what Joyce says would make sense, but perhaps not so much to a
Romantic like Byron or Coleridge. Could it be that by rejecting loathing
as a component of great art, Joyce also felt compelled to eject desire
as well? But is desire profane? Should the Song of Songs be stricken
from the Old Testament?
It's a matter of perspective - your own taste and experience will
suggest to you whether sacredness is above the passions. From my point
of view, they aren't mutually exclusive.
Thank you for your thoughtful reponse.
Regards,
Iian
mark webber
(snip)
> >What do you think of this quote, from A Portrait of a Young Man by
> > James Joyce;
> > "'proper' as opposed to 'improper art' (art serving ends, that is
> > to say, that are proper to art itself) is static not kinetic. The
> > feelings excited by improper art are kinetic, desire or loathing. > >
> > Desire urges us to possess, to go to something; loathing urges us to
> > abandon, to go from something. The arts which excite them,
> > pornographic or didactic, are
> > therefore improper arts. The esthetic emotion... is therefore static.
> > The mind is arrested and raised above desire and loathing.
> > "Compare the state of the Buddha at the time of his awakening on
> > the 'Immobile Spot', moved neither by desire nor by fear."
> > _ You have to keep in mind it is spoken through a victorian mindset.
> > You can see what I'm getting at though, can't you?
>
> I believe that I understand what you are getting at, yes. I have to say
> that this quote sounds awfully familiar, except that I associate it with
> Emmanuel Kant, for some reason, and not James Joyce! I don't question
> your memory at all - rather, I question my own. The quote reminds me of
> something I thought Kant would have said: that proper art appeals to the
> intellect, and is by nature not sensually excitable.
>
> Joyce advocates a serene, aristocractic art, one free of vulgarity and
> neuroticism, and for that I tip my hat to him.
Pardon my intrusion, but I'm just wondering, Iian, if you've read any
Joyce? Ulysses, for instance?
I'm wondering in particular where the notion of a serene, aristocratic,
vulgarity-free art can be found in Joyce.
Tip away your hat, but are you aware that Joyce is a modernist?
Speaking of Ulysses, was anyone watching the United States Congress
yesterday? One representative, from Maryland I believe, was speaking about
the separation of church and state and he has the most remarkably Joycian
name: Elija Cummings. Readers of Ulysses will understand.
> Whether sacred art is
> entirely free of the emotions, however, is not so clear to me. To a
> Buddhist what Joyce says would make sense, but perhaps not so much to a
> Romantic like Byron or Coleridge. Could it be that by rejecting loathing
> as a component of great art, Joyce also felt compelled to eject desire
> as well? But is desire profane? Should the Song of Songs be stricken
> from the Old Testament?
A useful distinction is the difference between the emotion present in the
artist while making the work and that which may be elicited in the viewer.
Mark
Marilyn
>
> On Wed, 30 Jun 1999, Iian Neill wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
> > > James Joyce;
> > > "'proper' as opposed to 'improper art' (art serving ends, that is
> > > to say, that are proper to art itself) is static not kinetic. The
> > > feelings excited by improper art are kinetic, desire or loathing. > >
> > > Desire urges us to possess, to go to something; loathing urges us to
> > > abandon, to go from something. The arts which excite them,
> > > pornographic or didactic, are
> > > therefore improper arts. The esthetic emotion... is therefore static.
> > > The mind is arrested and raised above desire and loathing.
> > > "Compare the state of the Buddha at the time of his awakening on
> > > the 'Immobile Spot', moved neither by desire nor by fear."
> > > _ You have to keep in mind it is spoken through a victorian mindset.
> > > You can see what I'm getting at though, can't you?
> >
JAMES JOYCE
In a man's single day are all the days
of time from that unimaginable
first day, when a terrible God marked out
the days and agonies, to that other,
when the ubiquitious flow of earthly
time goes back to its source, Eternity,
and flickers out in the present, the past,
and the future - what now belongs to me.
Between dawn and dark lies the history
of the world. From the vault of night I see
at my feet the wanderings of the Jew,
Carthage put to the sword, Heaven and Hell.
Grant me, O Lord, the courage and the joy
to ascend to the summit of this day.
by Jorge Luis Borges
Yes, Joyce was a modernist who lived in the present each day.
Marilyn
mark webber
On Wed, 30 Jun 1999, Marilyn wrote:
>
> JAMES JOYCE
> In a man's single day are all the days
> of time from that unimaginable
> first day, when a terrible God marked out
> the days and agonies, to that other,
> when the ubiquitious flow of earthly
> time goes back to its source, Eternity,
> and flickers out in the present, the past,
> and the future - what now belongs to me.
> Between dawn and dark lies the history
> of the world. From the vault of night I see
> at my feet the wanderings of the Jew,
> Carthage put to the sword, Heaven and Hell.
> Grant me, O Lord, the courage and the joy
> to ascend to the summit of this day.
>
> by Jorge Luis Borges
>
> Yes, Joyce was a modernist who lived in the present each day.
>
> Marilyn
>
>
Thanks for that - I'd never seen it. Well, Borges clearly read Joyce. A
shame that some people willing to catagorize him have not. And the shame
is that he his still worth reading. He endures.
Marilyn
A Giant!
M.
Dhanyo Osborne
----------
In article <7ldfgg$ibm$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Iian Neill
<nei...@kraz.tafe.tas.edu.au> wrote:
> - Is that Hermes Trismegistus, or the Greek messenger God?
>
hermes the messenger god, I'm not familiar with the other.
> I must make a confession to: I am curious about your work. Have you
> exhibited it on the internet?
>
No I don't exibit on the internet. Is there any reason that I should?
>>What do you think of this quote, from A Portrait of a Young Man by
>> James Joyce;
>> "'proper' as opposed to 'improper art' (art serving ends, that is
>> to say, that are proper to art itself) is static not kinetic. The
>> feelings excited by improper art are kinetic, desire or loathing. > >
>> Desire urges us to possess, to go to something; loathing urges us to
>> abandon, to go from something. The arts which excite them,
>> pornographic or didactic, are
>> therefore improper arts. The esthetic emotion... is therefore static.
>> The mind is arrested and raised above desire and loathing.
>> "Compare the state of the Buddha at the time of his awakening on
>> the 'Immobile Spot', moved neither by desire nor by fear."
>> _ You have to keep in mind it is spoken through a victorian mindset.
>> You can see what I'm getting at though, can't you?
>
> I believe that I understand what you are getting at, yes. I have to say
> that this quote sounds awfully familiar, except that I associate it with
> Emmanuel Kant, for some reason, and not James Joyce! I don't question
> your memory at all - rather, I question my own. The quote reminds me of
> something I thought Kant would have said: that proper art appeals to the
> intellect, and is by nature not sensually excitable.
>
When I read this, I was not understanding it as appealing to the intellect
or even precluding the sensual, as in appealing to the senses.
> Joyce advocates a serene, aristocractic art, one free of vulgarity and
> neuroticism, and for that I tip my hat to him. Whether sacred art is
> entirely free of the emotions, however, is not so clear to me.
No, I agree it is not necessarily free of the emotions but perhaps takes one
beyond them.
To a
> Buddhist what Joyce says would make sense, but perhaps not so much to a
> Romantic like Byron or Coleridge. Could it be that by rejecting loathing
> as a component of great art, Joyce also felt compelled to eject desire
> as well? But is desire profane? Should the Song of Songs be stricken
> from the Old Testament?
Certainly desire is not necessarily profane. I think what I was trying to
express through this perhaps imperfectly chosen quote, is that sacred art
has the capacity to take us beyond emotion to either the gateway to God,
which could be the desire that you spoke of, or to that stillness that is
the experience of God, however modest and unrecognized.
Perhaps the most prized (by me) response that I have received for a painting
was that it had caused the viewer's mind to go quiet.
hermes
rdav...@my-deja.com
"Dhanyo Osborne" <her...@linknet.com.au> wrote:
>
> Certainly desire is not necessarily profane. I think what I was trying
to
> express through this perhaps imperfectly chosen quote, is that sacred
art
> has the capacity to take us beyond emotion to either the gateway to
God,
> which could be the desire that you spoke of, or to that stillness that
is
> the experience of God, however modest and unrecognized.
> Perhaps the most prized (by me) response that I have received for a
painting
> was that it had caused the viewer's mind to go quiet.
> hermes
Can a painting cause an experience of God? I believe it can. The act of
painting is after all a form of creation and we as artists are therefore
able to understand bringing something to life out of nothingness.
We can share in this mystery. I think at best we can be offered just a
glimpse of paradise but like Cezanne said will we be allowed to enter
it?
I heard on the news that during the bombing in Yugoslavia the safest
place for Milosovic was in the Imperial Palace. This was because there
was a painting by Rembrant inside and Nato would therefore not bomb it.
That would be an example of Art be sacred would it not?
seeing is believing
Ardee
Iian Neill
> > >What do you think of this quote, from A Portrait of a Young Man by
> > > James Joyce;
> > > "'proper' as opposed to 'improper art' (art serving ends,
that is
> > > to say, that are proper to art itself) is static not kinetic. The
> > > feelings excited by improper art are kinetic, desire or loathing.
> >
> > > Desire urges us to possess, to go to something; loathing urges us
to
> > > abandon, to go from something. The arts which excite them,
> > > pornographic or didactic, are
> > > therefore improper arts. The esthetic emotion... is therefore
static.
> > > The mind is arrested and raised above desire and loathing.
> > > "Compare the state of the Buddha at the time of his awakening
on
> > > the 'Immobile Spot', moved neither by desire nor by fear."
> > > _ You have to keep in mind it is spoken through a victorian
mindset.
> > > You can see what I'm getting at though, can't you?
> >
say
> > that this quote sounds awfully familiar, except that I associate it
with
> > Emmanuel Kant, for some reason, and not James Joyce! I don't
question
> > your memory at all - rather, I question my own. The quote reminds me
of
> > something I thought Kant would have said: that proper art appeals to
the
> > intellect, and is by nature not sensually excitable.
> >
and
> > neuroticism, and for that I tip my hat to him.
>
> Joyce? Ulysses, for instance?
I have not read a complete work of Joyce's, no, merely a fragment from a
"notorious" section of _Ulysses_ (notorious for its use of punctuation,
if I remember rightly).
> I'm wondering in particular where the notion of a serene,
> aristocratic, vulgarity-free art can be found in Joyce.
Your point is well taken; from what I have heard of Joyce's style and
his place in the literature of our century, I was somewhat taken aback
that he would make a statement like the one quoted to me - as I said, I
had associated those sentiments more with Kant than with Joyce. But even
if Joyce himself did not embody this aesthetic in his work, it is still
a concept worth tipping one's hat to.
> Tip away your hat, but are you aware that Joyce is a modernist?
Certainly. It does make the "Modernist issue" more interesting though,
doesn't it?
> > Whether sacred art is
> > entirely free of the emotions, however, is not so clear to me. To a
> > Buddhist what Joyce says would make sense, but perhaps not so much
to a
> > Romantic like Byron or Coleridge. Could it be that by rejecting
loathing
> > as a component of great art, Joyce also felt compelled to eject
desire
> > as well? But is desire profane? Should the Song of Songs be stricken
> > from the Old Testament?
>
> A useful distinction is the difference between the emotion present in
> the artist while making the work and that which may be elicited in the
> viewer.
It would be a lot easier for critics if the emotion present in the
artist could be ascertained with accuracy - one would then have a hope
of judging the "success" of a work based on its intentions. In short,
does it fulfill the intentions of the artist?
But there are other criteria, more formal than emotional.
Regards,
Iian
Iian Neill
> JAMES JOYCE
> In a man's single day are all the days
> of time from that unimaginable
> first day, when a terrible God marked out
> the days and agonies, to that other,
> when the ubiquitious flow of earthly
> time goes back to its source, Eternity,
> and flickers out in the present, the past,
> and the future - what now belongs to me.
> Between dawn and dark lies the history
> of the world. From the vault of night I see
> at my feet the wanderings of the Jew,
> Carthage put to the sword, Heaven and Hell.
> Grant me, O Lord, the courage and the joy
> to ascend to the summit of this day.
>
> by Jorge Luis Borges
Thank you for sharing this poem with us, Marilyn. Whatever criticisms
one might level at its form, it transcends them with its powerful and
imaginative treatment of the subject. However others categorize it, I
would be tempted to call it "Symbolist", although it may not strictly be
so with regard to style and the obscurity some associate with that
movement.
Regards,
Iian
Iian Neill
> > - Is that Hermes Trismegistus, or the Greek messenger God?
> >
> hermes the messenger god, I'm not familiar with the other.
I remember reading somewhere that Hermest Trismegistus was a founder of
alchemy - or at least a noted practitioner of it. Perhaps the
association with Hermes the deity is not that inappropriate after all
...
> > I must make a confession to: I am curious about your work. Have you
> > exhibited it on the internet?
> >
> No I don't exibit on the internet. Is there any reason that I should?
There are reasons for and against. I asked only out of curiousity to see
your work.
> >>What do you think of this quote, from A Portrait of a Young Man by
> >> James Joyce;
> >> "'proper' as opposed to 'improper art' (art serving ends, that
is
> >> to say, that are proper to art itself) is static not kinetic. The
> >> feelings excited by improper art are kinetic, desire or loathing. >
>
> >> Desire urges us to possess, to go to something; loathing urges us
to
> >> abandon, to go from something. The arts which excite them,
> >> pornographic or didactic, are
> >> therefore improper arts. The esthetic emotion... is therefore
static.
> >> The mind is arrested and raised above desire and loathing.
> >> "Compare the state of the Buddha at the time of his awakening
on
> >> the 'Immobile Spot', moved neither by desire nor by fear."
> >> _ You have to keep in mind it is spoken through a victorian
mindset.
> >> You can see what I'm getting at though, can't you?
> >
> > I believe that I understand what you are getting at, yes. I have to
say
> > that this quote sounds awfully familiar, except that I associate it
with
> > Emmanuel Kant, for some reason, and not James Joyce! I don't
question
> > your memory at all - rather, I question my own. The quote reminds me
of
> > something I thought Kant would have said: that proper art appeals to
the
> > intellect, and is by nature not sensually excitable.
> >
> When I read this, I was not understanding it as appealing to the
intellect
> or even precluding the sensual, as in appealing to the senses.
>
> > Joyce advocates a serene, aristocractic art, one free of vulgarity
and
> > neuroticism, and for that I tip my hat to him. Whether sacred art is
> > entirely free of the emotions, however, is not so clear to me.
>
> No, I agree it is not necessarily free of the emotions but perhaps
> takes one beyond them.
Ahh, I think I see what you mean.
> To a
> > Buddhist what Joyce says would make sense, but perhaps not so much
to a
> > Romantic like Byron or Coleridge. Could it be that by rejecting
loathing
> > as a component of great art, Joyce also felt compelled to eject
desire
> > as well? But is desire profane? Should the Song of Songs be stricken
> > from the Old Testament?
>
> Certainly desire is not necessarily profane. I think what I was trying
to
> express through this perhaps imperfectly chosen quote, is that sacred
art
> has the capacity to take us beyond emotion to either the gateway to
God,
> which could be the desire that you spoke of, or to that stillness that
is
> the experience of God, however modest and unrecognized.
> Perhaps the most prized (by me) response that I have received for a
painting
> was that it had caused the viewer's mind to go quiet.
> hermes
Your quote was not ill-chosen in that regard - I did not follow the
logic of it entirely at the time, but understand better now. And, yes,
the stillness you have mentioned does seem to be an aspect of many
sacred works - I particularly liked your phrase, "gateway to God",
although I would pantheize it to, "gateway to the gods". The distinction
is not an important one; the experience is basically the same.
Regards,
Iian
Iian Neill
> Can a painting cause an experience of God? I believe it can. The act
of
> painting is after all a form of creation and we as artists are
therefore
> able to understand bringing something to life out of nothingness.
I remember that Leonardo da Vinci held the act of painting to be
synonomous to the creation of the world as exemplified in the Old
Testament. Reading this statement literally it seems a little ludicrous,
but if you look a bit further into it, it not only makes sense, it is a
profound comment on the mystery that is art. Leonardo was
extraordinarily sensitive to light, and his observations of the visual
world were correspondingly subtle - he once wrote: "Close your eyes, and
open them again. The light that hits you is completely new..." - or
something like this. This indicates to me that da Vinci associated light
with creation (with a vital force in nature), and that the painter as a
dabbler in light also partakes of God-hood. "Let there be light!" the
deity in the Old Testament proclaims - can one read a similar
spiritual aspect to Leonardo's attitude towards light, and therefore
painting in general?
> We can share in this mystery. I think at best we can be offered just a
> glimpse of paradise but like Cezanne said will we be allowed to enter
> it?
We must not forget that the viewer brings something of himself to every
art-work he experiences - which is why one's own reaction to art changes
over time as you become spiritually enriched, or impoverished. Not that
it is simply a matter of scale: "I am more spiritual than you are" -
might we not suppose that there are as many kinds of spirituality,
levels, trenches, and peaks as there are kinds of people. That even two
people who are "spiritually enriched" could still be rather different in
personality and temperament, just as there are many variations of roses?
To assume that there is only one type of "highest art" would suggest
one's metaphysical premises are dualistic.
> I heard on the news that during the bombing in Yugoslavia the safest
> place for Milosovic was in the Imperial Palace. This was because there
> was a painting by Rembrant inside and Nato would therefore not bomb
it.
> That would be an example of Art be sacred would it not?
It reminds me of a Middle Ages tradition: apparently fugitives could
seek sanctuary from the law in churches. How often this sanctuary was
offered or upheld is beyond my knowledge.
Regards,
Iian Neill
rdav...@my-deja.com
Iian Neill <nei...@kraz.tafe.tas.edu.au> wrote:
>
> I remember that Leonardo da Vinci held the act of painting to be
> synonomous to the creation of the world as exemplified in the Old
> Testament. Reading this statement literally it seems a little
ludicrous,
> but if you look a bit further into it, it not only makes sense, it is
a
> profound comment on the mystery that is art. Leonardo was
> extraordinarily sensitive to light, and his observations of the visual
> world were correspondingly subtle - he once wrote: "Close your eyes,
and
> open them again. The light that hits you is completely new..." - or
> something like this.
Light in this case I think could mean anything and everything. As we
open our eyes the whole world comes flooding in. It could also be
thought of as raw data that our brain or mind must then mold into some
kind of meaning. I think our normal everyday brain must somehow delete
the newness aspect so that we don't go around looking goofy and feeling
awestruct. Pity.
This indicates to me that da Vinci associated
light
> with creation (with a vital force in nature), and that the painter as
a
> dabbler in light also partakes of God-hood. "Let there be light!" the
> deity in the Old Testament proclaims - can one read a similar
> spiritual aspect to Leonardo's attitude towards light, and therefore
> painting in general?
>
Leonardos understanding of light I think as you say went beyond the
materialistic ( can you call light materialistic). I am thinking in
particular of his painting of St. John the Baptist. Has there ever been
another painting that can so evoke the feeling of pure spirit.
>
> We must not forget that the viewer brings something of himself to
every
> art-work he experiences - which is why one's own reaction to art
changes
> over time as you become spiritually enriched, or impoverished. Not
that
> it is simply a matter of scale: "I am more spiritual than you are" -
> might we not suppose that there are as many kinds of spirituality,
> levels, trenches, and peaks as there are kinds of people. That even
two
> people who are "spiritually enriched" could still be rather different
in
> personality and temperament, just as there are many variations of
roses?
Being spiritually enriched could mean a clearer view of our true nature
and also the uniqueness of each self. Perhaps our true selves are
continuosly being reborn and always new just like Leonardo's light.
> To assume that there is only one type of "highest art" would suggest
> one's metaphysical premises are dualistic.
I think my premises are dualistic. For Art as you say always must have a
viewer and a work. It is possible however to get "lost" in a painting,
become one with it so to speak.
> > I heard on the news that during the bombing in Yugoslavia the safest
> > place for Milosovic was in the Imperial Palace. This was because
there
> > was a painting by Rembrant inside and Nato would therefore not bomb
> it.
> > That would be an example of Art be sacred would it not?
It also makes me wonder how many lives is a work of Art worth.
>
> It reminds me of a Middle Ages tradition: apparently fugitives could
> seek sanctuary from the law in churches. How often this sanctuary was
> offered or upheld is beyond my knowledge.
>
> Regards,
>
> Iian Neill
waiting for the moon to rise
ARdee
mark webber
(snip)
> >
> > A useful distinction is the difference between the emotion present in
> > the artist while making the work and that which may be elicited in the
> > viewer.
>
> It would be a lot easier for critics if the emotion present in the
> artist could be ascertained with accuracy - one would then have a hope
> of judging the "success" of a work based on its intentions. In short,
> does it fulfill the intentions of the artist?
Do you think the emotions present in an artist are synonymous with the
artist's intent?
Should the artist's intent be a criteria for success? Are there more
important/more effective/more valid criteria?
Should things be easier for critics?
Is it possible for a highly regarded work to have been misunderstood
while evaluating it?
Does the emotion of the artist matter a damn if the work succeeds?
>
> But there are other criteria, more formal than emotional.
So are you suddenly studying form? May I ask which estheticians and/or
formalists you are reading?
Mark
Irish...@webtv.net
must put in the exact subject heading in order to be in the thread.
There are two posts up there in the latest posts, The sacred in art, in
which I addressed both Lian and Zon (hermes), if either of you are
interested.
I have found Lian's Joyce quote on page 473 of
the 1949 Viking Portable Library edition. It is Stephen, as i thought
it might be if it were anyone, speaking--but (this gets me off the hook
for saying it did not sound Joycean), not only is Stephen quoting
several others; but, the post was more condensed, which made it seem
unJoycean.
(i.e., "--He uses the word visa, said Stephen, to cover esthetic
apprehensions of all kinds, whether through sight or hearing or through
any other avenue of apprehension. This word, though it is vague, is
clear enough to keep away good and evil, which excite desire and
loathing. It means certainly a stasis, not a kinesis." This dialogue
between Stephen and Lynch actually covers several pages.
Irish...@webtv.net
put a smiley at the end of the last paragraph.
I meant to. I was being humorous (or trying to).
I reread it, and it looked as if I were lecturing you, for which I
apologize. I just read that you are new too. This does take awhile
to get used to. I like this site, and I hope you do.
I have a question. In my letter on Jung's aeons, I forgot the de
Medicis and their revival of Greek myth, which also challenged the
authority of the Church. The de Medicis embraced Plato, did they not?
Yet, I have often heard the
association...deMedicis...Aristotle...rationalism. I guess it is that
Plato, considered a mystic by us now, was a rationalist compared to
the Church. i keep thinking of how Botticelli's paintings became more
dense and square and severe with the Inquisition, and he lost his
curviness.
I have another correction--I did not mean to imply that modern art is a
degradation. As I said, I love it, particularly Modi and Klee and many
others. I meant, as an historical reference, that modern art would be
the natural outcome of an excess of rationality. That does sound much
nicer :).
I(f Jung is right, we are due for another vast spiritual change.
Interesting to see what direction art takes. Oh well, about 200 years
to
watch the change.
Irish...@webtv.net
<I'm wondering in particular where the notion of a serene, aristocratic,
vulgarity-free art can be found in Joyce.>
Mark, I can understand that Joyce might not be considered vulgarity-free
(unless you think of the literal translation of vulgar), but how can you
possibly not find the serene and aristocratic in him? Perhaps I am
taking you wrong.
<A useful distinction is the difference between the emotion present in
the artist while making the work and that which may be elicited in the
viewer>
I am interested in what you said here, but I do not think i understand
it. Could you expand more?
Thanks.