assigned books or journal articles:Mircea Eliade "Myth and Reality"
"Coincidence of opposites" Eliade explains that many myths, rituals, and mystical experiences involve a coincidentia oppositorum (or mythical pattern). What caught my eye most was the expression of two divine figures, each sprung from the same principle and destined to be reconciled. So the divinity shows itself, yet in a benevolent and terrible, creative and destructive way. So there can be actuality and destruction in the same instance. I found this to be interesting because if you can be both destructive and creative, how do we ever define something as real? Or does everything have a supernatural aspect to it? He goes on relating the coincidential oppositorum to humans by explaining the dissatisfaction of the actual situation to the human condition. When I thought about it, this seems to be true in everyday life. I believe we surround ourselves by the myth and when this isn't the actual case, we are not happy with the reality of things.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Kara Walling blog 6
assigned class journal article/book: Mircea Eliade "Images and Symbols"
Mircea Eliade discusses symbolism of the center of the world as a reoccurring theme. Eliade believes the cosmic center is a necessary corollary to the division of reality into the sacred and the profane. The sacred is discussed as containing all value through which the world gains purpose and meaning through. There was one quote I found that goes along with what we talk about in class, "In the homogeneous and infinite expanse, in which no point of reference is possible and hence no orientation is established, the hierophany reveals an absolute fixed point, a center"(87). In class we are constantly discussing the sacred and profane. In this article the center is where the sacred lies, because this is where man can orient himself. Profane gives man no orientation in his life, so the sacred must create a space for man to relate to, to reject the profane. The center is said to be the connection between Heaven, Earth, and the underworld. I think this aspect is very true. We depend on what we can relate to, so explaining the center of the world as sacred allows us to explore representation and reflection on Earth. One thing I was wondering, is if the sacred is the center of the Earth and therefore creates order as Eliade states in the book, but what about what lies beyond the center? Can the sacred be present in areas that are unknown to man and have no order? If it is completely unknown, what does that make it?
Mircea Eliade discusses symbolism of the center of the world as a reoccurring theme. Eliade believes the cosmic center is a necessary corollary to the division of reality into the sacred and the profane. The sacred is discussed as containing all value through which the world gains purpose and meaning through. There was one quote I found that goes along with what we talk about in class, "In the homogeneous and infinite expanse, in which no point of reference is possible and hence no orientation is established, the hierophany reveals an absolute fixed point, a center"(87). In class we are constantly discussing the sacred and profane. In this article the center is where the sacred lies, because this is where man can orient himself. Profane gives man no orientation in his life, so the sacred must create a space for man to relate to, to reject the profane. The center is said to be the connection between Heaven, Earth, and the underworld. I think this aspect is very true. We depend on what we can relate to, so explaining the center of the world as sacred allows us to explore representation and reflection on Earth. One thing I was wondering, is if the sacred is the center of the Earth and therefore creates order as Eliade states in the book, but what about what lies beyond the center? Can the sacred be present in areas that are unknown to man and have no order? If it is completely unknown, what does that make it?
kara walling blog 5
topic of choice: Places of worship
12/1/09
Religion is something I have always been a part of growing up. I would go to church every Sunday, say my prayers with my family before bed, and say a blessing before dinner. Those were the only aspects I really knew of religion. I really enjoyed the different presentations that showed worship doesn't have to be held in the family or in the church. Different people find the holy and the divine in different places. I think this really shows how art and religion go together. Art is self-expression, therefore you express emotions, insecurities, and experiences in different ways and in different places. Just embracing nature can be a holy or religious experience. Also witnessing architecture that is so overpowering leaves you with the "awe" aspect. I guess I just like how you can reflect on basically anything and you don't need to be in a certain setting to accomplish it. In class this quote really stuck with me: "religion gives you a world, it doesn't explain the world." I think embracing in everyday activities or even a hike can give you a religious connection. Places of worship are everywhere.
12/1/09
Religion is something I have always been a part of growing up. I would go to church every Sunday, say my prayers with my family before bed, and say a blessing before dinner. Those were the only aspects I really knew of religion. I really enjoyed the different presentations that showed worship doesn't have to be held in the family or in the church. Different people find the holy and the divine in different places. I think this really shows how art and religion go together. Art is self-expression, therefore you express emotions, insecurities, and experiences in different ways and in different places. Just embracing nature can be a holy or religious experience. Also witnessing architecture that is so overpowering leaves you with the "awe" aspect. I guess I just like how you can reflect on basically anything and you don't need to be in a certain setting to accomplish it. In class this quote really stuck with me: "religion gives you a world, it doesn't explain the world." I think embracing in everyday activities or even a hike can give you a religious connection. Places of worship are everywhere.
kara walling blog 4
Topic of choice: The "I" and the "other"
12/1/09
Discussing the "i" and the "other" in class was something I found interesting, yet somewhat confusing at the same time. We talked about how on one side it turns into "thou", which translates to communion. Then on the other side it turns into "it", which translates to manipulation through explanation. In a sense this is the process that happens when humans have the (thought) between impulse and reaction. Art then is the symbolic action that communicates the power felt in the relation of the "i" and the "other". When the "other" transforms to the "it" its a math/science power-changing of the world. When the "other" turns into "thou" its an aesthetic expression-beauty and more of an emotional expression of power. All of these comparisons confused me, but it was Kips example that made the most sense to me. When he talked about one of his personal experiences dancing with these two girls and being part of this religious experience with them represents how art communicates beauty. This would be the expression of "thou". The girls dancing formed a rhythm that he thought about before his reaction to join them. I have had a similar experience, but I never looked at how it could be transformed into an art or a beauty. It was very interesting to separate yourself from the "i" and transform into the "other" in an act of art.
12/1/09
Discussing the "i" and the "other" in class was something I found interesting, yet somewhat confusing at the same time. We talked about how on one side it turns into "thou", which translates to communion. Then on the other side it turns into "it", which translates to manipulation through explanation. In a sense this is the process that happens when humans have the (thought) between impulse and reaction. Art then is the symbolic action that communicates the power felt in the relation of the "i" and the "other". When the "other" transforms to the "it" its a math/science power-changing of the world. When the "other" turns into "thou" its an aesthetic expression-beauty and more of an emotional expression of power. All of these comparisons confused me, but it was Kips example that made the most sense to me. When he talked about one of his personal experiences dancing with these two girls and being part of this religious experience with them represents how art communicates beauty. This would be the expression of "thou". The girls dancing formed a rhythm that he thought about before his reaction to join them. I have had a similar experience, but I never looked at how it could be transformed into an art or a beauty. It was very interesting to separate yourself from the "i" and transform into the "other" in an act of art.
kara walling blog 3
Topic of my choice: Impulse & Instinct
12/1/09
The difference in impulse and instinct. We posed this question in class first relating humans to animals, and then relating it to Van der Leeuw's theology of the arts within dance. We talked about how animals have an impulse, which leads strait to a reaction. Humans on the other hand have impulse(thought)and then reaction. I remember when he was going over this asking, what takes place in the "thought" to make us so different from animals? Thought is: creative hole=world making=2nd spirit, where we can reflect on self outside of the self. So to me this is saying when we don't respond to an impulse this is when art comes in. One of my favorite examples was when Dr. Redick told us the story about him making his military bed. He eventually realized what was going on because he thought about it and changed his reaction. Animals don't have that. When relating this to dance Van der Leeuw says animals have "instinctive, automotive movement, so there therefore not a dance at all." Dance within humans on the other hand is purposeful: man discovered rhythm and then invents a response to it. I think this is true. We as humans impose a certain rhythm on the environment, which changes the world. The movements or dance within animals are therefore in our world and what we create. So would it be true to say that animals only act in the world, not create it? Just a few thoughts. I feel like impulse, instinct, and dance can be tricky because they intersect with one another.
12/1/09
The difference in impulse and instinct. We posed this question in class first relating humans to animals, and then relating it to Van der Leeuw's theology of the arts within dance. We talked about how animals have an impulse, which leads strait to a reaction. Humans on the other hand have impulse(thought)and then reaction. I remember when he was going over this asking, what takes place in the "thought" to make us so different from animals? Thought is: creative hole=world making=2nd spirit, where we can reflect on self outside of the self. So to me this is saying when we don't respond to an impulse this is when art comes in. One of my favorite examples was when Dr. Redick told us the story about him making his military bed. He eventually realized what was going on because he thought about it and changed his reaction. Animals don't have that. When relating this to dance Van der Leeuw says animals have "instinctive, automotive movement, so there therefore not a dance at all." Dance within humans on the other hand is purposeful: man discovered rhythm and then invents a response to it. I think this is true. We as humans impose a certain rhythm on the environment, which changes the world. The movements or dance within animals are therefore in our world and what we create. So would it be true to say that animals only act in the world, not create it? Just a few thoughts. I feel like impulse, instinct, and dance can be tricky because they intersect with one another.
kara walling blog 2
Topic of my choice:Modern Art vs. Religious Art
12/1/09
This is one of the first things we discussed in class. Modern Art and Religious Art are used in two different ways. Modern Art, for example a museum, is never allowed to be tampered with or touched. Usually it is framed with a glass casing or has a rope surrounding it, preventing those observing the art from touching it or altering it in any way. Religious Art however traces back to when tribes would create paintings. The interesting aspect here is art is never preserved. Each great work that is created is pained over by another work. This to me serves more meaning than Modern Art because the intention seems to be more about expression, than restoring the art. In a sense, no piece of art is more important than the other, because one great work is done after another, each serving a special purpose. When we asked the question, "what is art" someone in class said it can depend on who has the power to define art. I believe this is true. Also art is a form of self-expression, not directly self-expression. If these two statement are true, does that mean Modern Art is tamed in a sense? I just feel like Religious Art has more meaning behind it because there are no rules or guidelines in a sense. When we were younger we were allowed to finger paint and it was looked upon as a piece of art, a form of self-expression. Over the years it seems as though it is self-expression, but only to a certain extend. I don't know, it was just something I thought about.
12/1/09
This is one of the first things we discussed in class. Modern Art and Religious Art are used in two different ways. Modern Art, for example a museum, is never allowed to be tampered with or touched. Usually it is framed with a glass casing or has a rope surrounding it, preventing those observing the art from touching it or altering it in any way. Religious Art however traces back to when tribes would create paintings. The interesting aspect here is art is never preserved. Each great work that is created is pained over by another work. This to me serves more meaning than Modern Art because the intention seems to be more about expression, than restoring the art. In a sense, no piece of art is more important than the other, because one great work is done after another, each serving a special purpose. When we asked the question, "what is art" someone in class said it can depend on who has the power to define art. I believe this is true. Also art is a form of self-expression, not directly self-expression. If these two statement are true, does that mean Modern Art is tamed in a sense? I just feel like Religious Art has more meaning behind it because there are no rules or guidelines in a sense. When we were younger we were allowed to finger paint and it was looked upon as a piece of art, a form of self-expression. Over the years it seems as though it is self-expression, but only to a certain extend. I don't know, it was just something I thought about.
kara walling blog 1
Topic of my choice: Lions Bridge
12/1/09
I wanted to reflect on the day we were supposed to do the drum circle, but instead decided to gather as a class and discuss the statue by the Lions Bridge and what we thought it represented. This was one of the most beneficial lectures, I feel like, because I was able to reflect on a piece of art directly in front of me, while being surrounded by the harmony of nature. What really interested me about the statue was when we were talking about domestication. The horse seems to be wild, as the man is holding his weight against him, but horses now can never be entirely wild. Even the ones that are "wild" on the beach are still around humans and in a sense domesticated. I think this shows how we have over the years manipulated what nature has become. I found this relevant because even a piece of art or a photograph is only a representation. We are seeing what someone else created and each individuals interpretation of that will differ.I also felt like there was an extreme amount of power behind this piece of art. The horse represents strength and dominance, yet it can still be tamed by a human. Overall it was just very interesting to embrace a statue of its size and discuss what meanings are behind it.
12/1/09
I wanted to reflect on the day we were supposed to do the drum circle, but instead decided to gather as a class and discuss the statue by the Lions Bridge and what we thought it represented. This was one of the most beneficial lectures, I feel like, because I was able to reflect on a piece of art directly in front of me, while being surrounded by the harmony of nature. What really interested me about the statue was when we were talking about domestication. The horse seems to be wild, as the man is holding his weight against him, but horses now can never be entirely wild. Even the ones that are "wild" on the beach are still around humans and in a sense domesticated. I think this shows how we have over the years manipulated what nature has become. I found this relevant because even a piece of art or a photograph is only a representation. We are seeing what someone else created and each individuals interpretation of that will differ.I also felt like there was an extreme amount of power behind this piece of art. The horse represents strength and dominance, yet it can still be tamed by a human. Overall it was just very interesting to embrace a statue of its size and discuss what meanings are behind it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
