First, I'm very slowly beginning to read the early twentieth century French philosopher Henri Bergson (1859-1941). I'm digitizing an introductory monograph of his for inclusion in Project Gutenberg. Bergson's works were published in French just before the turn of the century and, up until WWI, he was a world-star of academia. A 1913 announcement that Bergson would be lecturing caused the New York's Times Square's first traffic jam. Indeed, Bergson is experiencing a renaissance in phenomenology circles, and especially among film theorists such as Gilles Deleuze. French thinkers as Merleau-Ponty, Sartre, and Lévinas acknowledge his influence on their thought. There is something in him about the image and its permanence through change. I don't know enough to even know why I want to know. I'm just following the tip of my nose and seeing where it all goes.
Martin Heidegger, on the other hand, is beautiful! He is to the twentieth century what Kant and Hegel are to the nineteenth. I'm teasing apart the eleventh edition of his 1929 address "Was ist Metaphysik?" In eight or nine pages, he overthrows the Enlightenment projects "certainty" and announces the hermeneutical nature of theology up to the present day. Marvelous! In that one essay--as fundamental as Renee Descartes's Meditations on First Philosophy--Heidegger cracks the solid wall of modernism and opens a space for the suspicion-of-supicion called postmodernism. It is really exciting, but slow going. I only have a few minutes a day to devote to the few pages a day I can cover. And it is not uncommon to review.
Additionally I'm discovering what I believe could be the beginning of my first pursued publication/article. The theme is the nakedness of Christ. I believe that research will show that Christ was crucified naked, yet the Gospels do not directly mention this, nor does any treatment in art or film of which I am aware. Being the second Adam, there is something here, a parallel to the innocent nudity of our first parents. And, note that he appears clothed after the resurrection. Paul, too, talks about our present nakedness and a longing to be clothed. Nakedness in the OT is always bad, connected to adultery (idolatry), but it seems that there is a change in that--a restoration of it. And this theme can easily branch out into discussions of the human gaze, our own embodiedness (and shame), even philosophically there is a motive of conceal/reveal; known/unknown; there is something about the difference between voyeurism and the gaze of love. I mentioned to L/ the other day, thinking about this, that Jesus's nakedness (for I am assuming at this point, albeit prematurely, that he was naked on the cross) was the nakedness of a groom who presents his body lovingly to his bride, whereas the world sees through the eyes of humiliation and rejection. It quakes with fear at the exposure of its own nakedness. [A later addition: this would also figure into media studies where people reveal and conceal themselves through media.]
I'm also playing with ideas about a unique method for writing theology modeled on the improvisational community-making methods of jazz. As in music composition, I would like to propose a fundamental motive and build my paper out of its development just as if it were a musical composition. I want to think of theology from the perspective of the liberal arts, rather than syllogistically like a math problem or taking a cue from Quintillian's rhetoric. I want it to welcome, receive, and serve as a vehicle for the opening up and uncovering of human being-ness (there's the Heidegger.) We should read a theological text as much like a work of art or a musical score as a "logical argument." People are not argued into the Kingdom as much as they are drawn as the Spirit opens their eyes to the beauty of the gospel. In that case, the choice is obvious. It is the choice for oneself as one was created to be, and the giving up of fantasies about personal divinity.
Anyway, as soon as I'm done with this review, I'm going to get back into Greek during the day and devote next Tuesday to beginning the Biblical/exegetical historical-critical research on the nakedness of Christ. Since the gospels do not say (they turn away, really, viewing the crucifixion with their eyes shut to a large extent), I have to be able to build a pretty solid case if I'm going to rest an entire argument on the nakedness of Jesus. As to why this theme comes to me--this theme of the nakedness of Christ--I have no idea. It just bubbled up two or three weeks ago.
See, my heart says that I'm tired of reading secondary sources. I need to stop "throat clearing" as Dr. Lim calls it, and pick up my own pen, whether I'm totally ready or not. I will even go so far as to say I'm "called" to this, like a missionary is called overseas. It burns away in my mind and my heart night and day, and even obstructs my reading: "Why are you reading this? This is not your work. Why are you following this argument? It is not your argument. It is time, time to find out who you are. What do you have to say for yourself? It is time: do it now, before you become forever lost to yourself and become a parrot and a servant of the ideas that others are having. You will be forever reading, forever questioning, but arriving nowhere. You will be growing, but to where? From where? What is your offering? What do you bring? Do you even have your own questions any longer? Do it now."
Thom, an interesting notion about the nakedness of Christ. Even more interesting is your feeling/thought that it is time to speak in your own voice rather than ape those around. I too find myself at this sort of juncture although obviously in a different venue. The thought that occurs to me is that I want to clarify rather than obsfucate.
ReplyDeleteThe past history of man and the procession of western thought seems to me nothing more than the shifting of paradigms when, as Victor Hugo said, their time had come. This isn't always the best of things, however, and often times seems to result in a worsening of the societal understanding of...you name the topic..., but atleast we strive to move forward. One more voice might or might not be of service depending upon what it adds to the already full chorus. We must do something however, it is the male imperative to make a mark. That too seems to be a lesson of history. "All is permissable but not all is beneficial."
This thought leads me to ask the question......'Are you wanting to clear away the embelishments that have hidden the truth of God or add some of your own?' A little blunt, but one that searches the heart and soul...if we are saved. This is the question I ask myself. In looking at the state of art and its role in culture...I believe it is due to the mostly meaningless or morally ambiguous quality of its message. This of course results from the triumph of 'Self', the fallen man, the flesh, etc.... How then to avoid the stumbling block of intellectual pride? As they say...a picture's worth a thousand words, but if the picture is merely more noise?....so I want the imagery that I create to be a conduit to understanding instead of a blockage.
How do you...and do you deal with this as a problem? I would like to hear your thoughts.
Hope you had a good Christmas and New Year.
The thought that occurs to me is that I want to clarify rather than obsfucate.
ReplyDeleteYes, the pieces are there already, they only need to be put together in a process of finding connections.
This thought leads me to ask the question......'Are you wanting to clear away the embelishments that have hidden the truth of God or add some of your own?'
I don't really think of it like that. I don't think about it either in the sense of clearing away accretions or adding some of my own. Certainly I need to be careful of the latter. I have no problem with meditations on Scripture, even free-meditation, as long as the author is being clear about what he is doing. In my case, an exploration of some of the deeper questions that keep coming up leads me to themes of revealing and concealing/fantasy and reality/shadow and reality, all of which seem to be grounded in the naked revelation of the crucified Messiah. For me, it is more like I hit something and now I'm looking all about to see what sort of thing this is. Of course, all of this is totally on hold with the recent move.
In looking at the state of art and its role in culture...I believe it is due to the mostly meaningless or morally ambiguous quality of its message. This of course results from the triumph of 'Self', the fallen man, the flesh, etc.... How then to avoid the stumbling block of intellectual pride? I want the imagery that I create to be a conduit to understanding instead of a blockage.
In my limited understanding, I see the state of modern fine art as such. With the elimination of transcendence, of belief in any reality beyond ourselves, including an elimination of anything supernatural or other-than-flesh-and-bone in our understanding of human beingness, then art, rather than an exploration of human transcendence, becomes a kind of depth psychology, a projection of the inner psychic life of human beings. If all that is is all there is, if we live in a world defined according to naturalism, then as art explores what it means to be human, psychology and fantasy, eros pure or manaical, is all that is left.
Over and against this, the Christian confesses "I believe in the Holy Spirit." In other words, Christians do not end the definition of human beings at the border of the natural, but confess a transcendent reality to which human beings are open, not only by accident, but by the original design of their maker. Human beingness, that which is explored and expressed in the fine arts, is an exploration and celebration, an archeological dig and a quest, of a much larger, much richer (imho) kind of being - for the Christian anyway. The Scripture tells us that human beings are priests of the creation, given voice and expression in order to praise and glorify and image the Triune Godhead as a function of their very essence. Such expression can occur in innumerable ways, using innumerable media (the search for new media is even part of that mandate!) The artist-as-creature, the artist-as-speaker-of-human-beings-as-created-in-the-image-of-God, such a one avoids intellectual pride, but does not limit the reach of their artistic impulse. They are people always moving further and further into wonder, and all to the pleasure and for the pleasure of the Trinity. The artist not only acts as priest to God, praising the Godhead, but fulfills the great commandment by loving her neighbor. Her neighbor, through the gifts of the artist, is inducted further into praise and understanding. The artist serves the neighbor by the art. In this way, art is connected both to the vertical and to the horizontal. And, the Christian artist cannot forget that redemption includes confession of the way things are: an exploration of the sinfulness of sin, the suffering of suffering, the poverty of the poor, and the remedy of the life, death and resurrection of God-the-Son, Jesus Christ.
Changing the subject slightly. I really think that as an artist you should, and I know this is a difficult thing to say, but you should wrestle with Hegel. It will take you a long time, but an understanding of Hegel will enrich your thinking - historical progression keeps coming up and up in your speech. You really need to read Hegel if you are going to do art that interacts intelligently with this aspect of your thinking.
The Nakedness of Adam/Christ is a clarifying theme -- as in a leitmotif which can pull together or "cover" many topics.
ReplyDeleteAlso, the times have created a kind of opportunity to raise this float over the storm-surge of pornography which fills, and actually enables, this Web.
You need never mention it -- the storm-surge -- it is so widespread and ironically boring. Pornography so widespread as to be a self-UNfulfilling desire, a prophesy of the Past.
For heaven's sake do not be fettered by the historical detail of whether JC was crucified en flagrante. Or whether we could ever know from any amount of "research" from this stage, these foot lights, and our sensitivities.
Rudolf Bernet, Rudolf, "A Present Folded Back on the Past (Bergson)" Research in Phenomenology Vol. 35 No. 1 (Sept 2005), 55 - 76.
ReplyDeleteIn Matter and Memory, Bergson examines the relationship between perception and memory, the status of consciousness in its relation to the brain, and more generally, a possible conjunction of matter and mind. Our reading focuses in particular on his understanding of the evanescent presence of the present and of its debt vis-à-vis the “unconscious” consciousness of a “virtual” past. We wish to show that the Bergsonian version of a critique of “the metaphysics of presence” is, for all that, an offshoot of a Platonic type of metaphysics. It is true that Bergson departs from traditional standpoints on the side of a self-sufficient and original present and a form of presence to which the transparency of consciousness would confer the character of immediate evidence. All the same, it can hardly be claimed that his rehabilitation of the past and the unconscious opens up new perspectives on how forgetting and death are bound up with the work of memory.
"Giacometti had begun his career as a surrealist. Starting in the mid-1920s, he made quasi-abstract, erotically charged figures and objects whose forms were drawn entirely from his imagination and dreams. He made a respectable living and a considerable reputation with these sculptures. Then, in the mid-1930s, believing such works were becoming glib and superficial, he began working from nature, primarily from live models. He was after something more elusive than a faithful record of a person’s physical attributes. He wanted to explore how we see and understand reality – reality in this case being defined as the appearance of a person within his spatial environment in a moment of perception.
ReplyDeleteIt should have been a simple matter. After all, artists had been working from nature for millennia. Indeed, so fundamental was the idea of “I paint what I see” that, in art circles in Paris in the 1930s, it was deemed passé. As a result, the art world regarded Giacometti (as they did Matisse) as a burned-out case at best and at worst a traitor, someone who had turned his back on the ideals of advanced art in favor of the comforting certainties of conventional representation. Photography, the argument went, had eliminated the need to replicate nature, so the artist was now free to articulate deeper levels of reality through his own invented language of forms. Indeed, if he was to be considered truly “modern,” he was required to. To do otherwise was to be a bourgeois reactionary."
Eric Gibson, "Can Artists Ever Truly Be Modest?" incharacter (http://www.incharacter.org/article.php?article=54 accessed March 8, 2006).