Do I get credit?

It has been brought to my attention in a few essays recently read and in a few conversations with people that there are many of my fellow artists upset that they as artist have been taken out of the equation with regards to the interpretation of their works of art. People have decided to appreciate and interpret art devoid of what the artist intended the art to communicate. Is this wrong? In any normal conversation it is pretty important when, for example, I tell someone, "The movie was great because of yada yada..." My intention in communicating my feelings perhaps are important to interpreting this statement. But then we get into the question of whether or not art is the same kind of communication as verbal communication. And most would perhaps say nay. There are three things to take into consideration -- the artist, the artwork, and the interpreter. In this arrangement the artwork tends to upset direct communication between artist and interpreter. This kind of communication is sometimes not always apparent within the artwork itself. Does this make the piece a "bad" work of art if the intentions of the artist are not somewhat apparent in the piece so that onlookers have a grasp as to what the intentions are? Or is the work of art valuable despite whether or not we as the audience can infer or grasp the intentions of the artist. I would suggest that when possible, knowledge of context and perhaps authorial intent is beneficient to more deeply interpreting a work of art rather than merely walking up to it without the knowledge. But this is in no way a denial of the power of a work of art without knowing anything about the author or context. "Art" most characteristically is art precisely because it is designated as such. If it somehow were to lose it's artistic title, then was it ever art to begin with or merely a fad? From the previous statement perhaps "art" is something timeless which remains art because it continues to give meaning to human beings across cultures and time. Without fitting this criteria is it art? So an original artwork is selling for $6 million down the street (an original Picasso cubist painting let's say). Can you say this is art because it still gives meaning to people, or is it merely a historical artifact with worth, given that Picasso will not be painting anymore (at least I don't think so). Do people really care about Picasso's intent? And then there is another question that arises. Perhaps an artist decides to paint a painting bright blue -- a study of color. Is one going to wonder of the artist's intent or even understand how to begin an interpretation of the work? Let's compare this to one of Gaugin's scenes. We tend to need a little more help interpreting art with representations of people-like things and scenery (context, intent, etc). On the other hand, is the significance of authorial intent merely a product of our culture? What about those works of art in which we know nothing about the artist? Do they lose credibility as art? I don't personally think so. Perhaps a richer and more broad range of interpretive lenses are missing, but the credibility is in tact if the art is in fact art. Why is the artist unappreciated then in most cases? Precisely because true art takes on a life of its own when the artist let's it loose. This is not to deny that the authorial intent is embedded within the work itself in just such a way that perhaps one is able to tap it. Since true art has it's value in the meaning it gives to the lives of human beings, it is the human elements that are remembered and interpreted: those elements that point to possibilities not yet realized in the present. But when I say true art this is in contrast with commercial art, which I would suggest occupies many galleries, museums, homes, etc...even some of the paintings of "masters artists." Forgive the cynicism , but the worth of original artworks nowadays is pushing the limits of an elitism that is just ridiculous. These pieces of sh** are being sold for millions of dollars while some of the true artists I know are working 9 to 5 jobs with the real talent to create masterpieces (David don't give up hope).

Random Thought on Meaning with little to no coherence

I don't know what love is...I have been married for a couple years, I have a one-year-old son, a "loving" family, caring friends, and many who enjoy talking about and expressing their ideas of what love is and how much it means in their life. For those of you who do this I commend you on discussing an issue that gives meaning to so many people's lives, and at the same time confusing the hell out of people (to be frank). For my Christian friends, I know this would be a prime opportunity to point to Scriptural formulations and examples of God's love for humanity; but pointing to it is one thing, while "knowing" it another. The mystery that encapsulates the holistic response to the term "love" is both where I find comfort and where that comfort is ripped away. Why trust something paradoxical to begin with? Why risk losing oneself in love? It is this mystery that taps into the deep caverns of human pain and suffering, but also the mountains of beautiful, sensuous human pleasure -- It is extremely human, sacred, and unpredictable. Boxing in our love we mold it into something like love, but without love's true paradoxical nature (using societal regulations, values, etc). If love only brings comfort though, is it really love? Unless a society were built on pure love, how could it bring anything but both extremes (comfort and pain)? We must box in our love to keep it from breaking completely into the world suddenly and upsetting human order. We marry into little communities of love -- pleasurable and painful -- and sort them out on a miniature scale (but with extreme emotions, thoughts, actions and reactions). And where we seek to control love feeling that we have a grasp on what it is, we can fail and a marriage can become merely a societal norm devoid of love. Embracing the mystery, embracing the fact that we do not know what love is, that we never have, and never fully will is a good realization to have in a marriage where love is the primary claim and basis for such a commitment. As love's ambiguity and mystery unfolds, a person's grasp on love can fade as well as their marriage. Why would you love someone? What does it mean to love someone? The question is a lifetime in the making, and the someone is a part of the mystery of love. I don't think it's just because we make each other laugh, just because we talk, just because we have similarities. To love a person is to love them for who they are becoming. The someone is always an end in themselves, a person who loves deeply -- who hurts, who bleeds darkening the sky, but whose happiness ushers in a swift sunrise. Why do we love and choose to marry a single person? What leads us to make that judgment about someone? Do they fit categories that we expect them to fit into? Not always? But neither does love fit into our categories. Could it be that we see the face of love in these people? What does it look like? Why are we drawn to it? Why risk it? Because we're human?...

It's been quite a while

In the past few days, while busily parading about in the image of good seminarian, I need to vent a bit. If "good" entails no cursing, no vices, no false motives, no dishonesty, and conformity of beliefs in dialogue then I've finally tipped in favor of "bad." But just enough to hang onto the fence like a child pushing (or hanging on to) his limits. Okay, perhaps I've crossed the line a bit into full blown "bad" but I dart back to the fence. Interesting how we straddle the fence of "good" and "bad." (People work with me; I know there is no real fence and I'm in danger of categorically misconstruing the idea of one fence, but it just so happens to be the way I'm thinking right now; deal). Anyway, I prance around seminary putting on smart Tim, carrying my morning, afternoon, evening coffee with me, chit-chatting with acquaintances, taking notes, making comments, studying...But when I get home seminary Tim wears off and I slip into real Tim. But in case people from the seminary are reading, I'll spare the details, but for those of you who know me...try not to reveal anything; we wouldn't want to scare people, pervert them, or lead them to our straying from reality into something else. YOU Guys know what I mean!! David, don't say anything! Anyway, seminary has been an interesting experience. Towards conclusion my motivation has receded and I find myself studying fewer and fewer each week. Hebrew, unfortunately has taken the brunt of my lack of work. This is not to belittle the seminary experience or those going into pastoral ministry; in fact I commend pastoral candidates and tip my hat to them for their sense of calling. But it is hard to reconcile my previous and current grip on reality and the seminary teaching. Never once have we satiated basic questions, concerns before stepping into the more advanced questions -- in my opinion, poor handling. Must go, class.

The Digital Image

Pixels -- plain and plaid are pooled, portioned and partitioned -- flickering flagrantly, wildly flashing to fool the fools that find faith in fallacious fane. Attracted assiduously, adoringly the artificial artist amuses the music of muses -- tone-deaf tyrants titillating, two-faced scoundrels intoxicated to the time and tune of trickery and treachery. Bliss and belligerence both beguile and bewitch with bestial yet furtive faces. Freedom fails, fiction flatters, flexibility falters forsaking any finesse when what matters most -- when the wight waters of wit and willful wonder wake and wish upon winds of weird -- mimics mannerly meaning -- a meandering match -- and commercial commodity. Can contemporary connoiseurs consciously contain and control their computative creativity, critically counted, conditioned, and capitalized? Do originality and ontology order according to obviously objective ornamenting which ordain origins as obituary by outlawing potentiality? Pregant and potent the replete possibilities in the pithy play of pure professionals present a promise-full prayer to put faith in the assured return of the rambunctious artist.

Power and Reality

I can still remember the days when one of my favorite childhood cartoons came on television: He-Man. I can still remember him holding up his sword and thundering, "By the power of Grayskull, I have the power!" What a powerful statement I used to think to myself. In fact, the statement still gives me goosebumps to this day. What it must be like to have that kind of power at my disposal...I can think of a hundred things I'd do with it (none of which particularly beneficent, though not altogether selfish). To be powerful, for me then involves having some kind of advantage that others do not have satisfying my need for speciality in and amongst my peers (especially my family and friends to whom I find an embarassing need to show-off, which does become rather embarassing at times). I want to be powerful enough to care for my son, love my wife and make my life easier. And so then another aspect of the power I want is that it makes life easier. But of course I would also want to impress the world with my power if possible...the more time in the spotlight the more inflated my ego becomes, the less stress I have, and the more I seem like that interesting person I always find on television.

In the last paragraph the word "I" and "me" appeared 25 times in a description of the kind of power I have been attracted to in my life. Thus, the power I want is an individual power that aids me and gives me an advantage in life, more 'freedom' to choose possibilities not available to others.

Again, I'm reminded of yet another superhero -- Superman. Now Superman has the possibility of flying, zapping things with his eye lasers, seeing through most objects, picking up objects too heavy for human beings, and going back in time -- all of which are possibilities not available to us naturally (as of yet at least). [And no I'm not going into a debate on what is and what is not natural...that's a few volumes of books]. Superman has the autonomous decision to use this advantage for his advantage or for others advantage. Of course, Superman is selfless, choosing the corporate good at all turns unless prevented by Kryptonite or other manipulation of his advantage.

Interesting, that when I think of power my mind surfs the array of superheroes first. Why? Is it because I was "glued to the tube" as a child and loved cartoons so much and so often that the memory stuck in the back of my mind so that it gets recalled at will? Perhaps. Is it because I imagined myself as a ninja turtle, as luke skywalker, as ender, as Aragorn, Wolverine, He-Man, a transformer, Captain Picard, Spock while I was growing up? Perhaps. Is it because all of my friends were interested in many of the same things, that I gravitated to these particular manifestations of power? Was it the yearning for acceptance that motivated me? Perhaps. Or more than likely all of these played a part in my perception of who and what is powerful and what manifestations power can take that I perceive to contain that power. It is then significant to note the social nature of human beings, and thus the social construction of what is powerful and what holds power.

Most nations hold America to be a nation more powerful than others, right? Not always. It depends upon your particular view of power. Returning to my first comments, the individualistic power that I grew up with informs me that indeed America is extremely powerful: we have an abundance of resources, wealth, autonomous freedom to choose within the parameters of the law, education, democracy, and the ability to destroy the world a thousand times over (or something like that). This is the power that gives Americans their perceived advantage over those in the rest of the world. We ignore the rest of the world because we know we are better than they are. Or we give the rest of the world charity while we stuff our faces, shop, buy, buy, buy, and indulge not in our ignorance concerning the condition of others but in our ignoring of them while masking with ignorance. Concerning the American mindset, I am not going to criticize it much more than I already have, but I would like to point out that it is our perceived advantage, our perceived power, that contributes to global strife because we tend to universalize our perception for the rest of the globe. And yes, the globe has conformed somewhat to the predictable advantage of the West, but because it is predictable, because it is physical and tangible -- something available to the senses that answers many questions. What is more powerful to us than the advantages we can see, touch and experience? That which we do not experience -- what I will refer to as the sacred?

What is powerful about a man who dies by having his hands and feet nailed to a tree where he slowly suffocates? What is powerful in this image? Is this merely a cathartic, experiential sort of empathy we have for a person who has committed no crime to die such a horrible death? I can still here my high school english grammar professor telling the class about the Bible as a good work of literature, utilizing rhetorical devices and grammar constructions uniquely to evoke certain emotions and create an ambiguity that lends it its power to transcend the ages (thus far). The sacred was not something embodied within the text, but mere rhetorical ambiguity to excite the weak-minded. Of course I believed him...his reasoning was sound, but more importantly he had answers, he had an empirical advantage over the religion to which I associated myself, which merely offered idealistic ambiguity (I thought at the time). How could Christianity, seemingly large and powerful, claim a power that revolves around a man that died on a tree and claim a power in faith that cannot be empirically verified? Faith could be merely explained away in terms of a psychological need, while the power in the crucifixion could be explained away as an event that embodies certain possibilities not available to human beings to which human beings find hope that one day they might be more than who and what they are. Is it the need of human beings to redefine power so that we are not bound by our temporal and humanly limitations? Is this why religion exists? So that human beings have the power, the advantage to cope with their existence in the empirical?

There are two powers at work here: the power of the sacred (mysterious advantage), and the power of empirical advantage. It is important to note this because both exist in our society.

Let's look at a metaphor: power as art. But what do I mean? Well, art can be powerful in a number of ways. It could be that art has its power in and among the cliques that auction it off and buy it. Or it could be that art has its power merely in an aesthetic sense. Or it could be that it has power psychologically. Or it could be that it has its power in human nature? Art can derive its power as communication? My point is that the power inherent in a work of art depends upon where a person or community stands at any given point in time. There are cultural factors that play a part, religious factors, etc. Isn't it interesting that we create art, which then takes on a life of its own, and then we exploit it to fulfill our own advantage. Art is then very powerful in an infinite number of ways. This is why it must be controlled. Granted this is a bit simplistic and not a complete analysis, but brevity is my goal: the power in art is balanced by sacred advantage and empirical advantage; in other words, power exists in art, but that power is sacred. But what is sacred cannot be so without control, otherwise society would fall apart. When what is sacred breaks loose, violence ensues (i've said this before). I would elaborate on these examples, but here are a few that I find relevant: The French Revolution, Protestant Reformation, Evolution...

What is sacred is institutionalized by religions to control it...but institutions, utilizing an empirical advantage cannot always contain the sacred advantage because the sacred is not always predictable. The empirical advantage only stands the test of time if something is predictable. But the sacred advantage points to something inexplicable, something not static that violates the empirical advantage we cling to in the West as what is powerful. Art is exploited as an empirical advantage, bought and sold, but again when the sacred advantage breaks free, it will violently re-emerge and redefine itself as art -- and this is true art.

Returning to the power of the cross that the Apostle Paul vehemently clings to in the letters attributed to him within the New Testament of the Bible, this is the power of the sacred with a temporal face, a promise, a hope, and an example for all of humanity. Understanding that human beings do not have access to understanding such power he relies on the grace of God to reveal such things to he and his brothers and sisters in Christ. As theologians put it, he sees through the lens of the cross revealing true power for what it is. And for Paul true power is God, the Sacred. But because human beings are limited beings in time, we can recognize true power when we see the world through the lens of Jesus' crucifixion, and as such focus the power of the sacred on its true origin. Christianity is not then something that one chooses, but is a reflection of how one perceives the power of the sacred given by God. But this perception of the sacred advantage is not unique to Christianity.

This power is institutionalized and focused in a number of ways by many people -- the world's religions, et al. Who has pegged the perception of the sacred that is more right? Christians, Jews, Muslims, Taoists, Atheists, Scientists? Though I hate to brave a discussion of faith, this would be a logical place to do so. To start, the Muslim faith involves a numerical system wherein for every good act, certain numbers of eternal years of salvation are added into one's overall salvation; and for every bad act, a subtraction of years of eternal life? Christianity suggests that what we do has no effect on our eternal life, but rather God graciously gives all the possibility of eternal life (and no I will not go into a theological debate on election here -- I find it pointless and a Scriptural stalemate -- the point is that only God is responsible for human salvation). Comparing these two religions is walking a fine line here and I do not do justice to either...but what this illustrates is a difference in how the sacred is identified. In one, we have an empircal advantage still that seeps into eternal life, and in the other, we have an advantage that is not in our hands. Is the power of the sacred ours to control outside the temporal or not? Granted, this is of course conjecture, but it could be that we try to attribute the dominating perception of empirical power as more powerful into what we consider the power of the sacred. But if the power of the sacred is more powerful than the empirical advantage, then I have an ontological problem in attributing my socially conditioned empirical advantage to that of the sacred.

Returning to art, if buying and selling it as a commodity and the aesthetic value are together the socially constructed empirical advantage and human beings try to transpose this power onto the sacred power of the art, the empirical power falters every time because of its limited nature being imposed on something pointing to what is transcendent. But art, whether created as such or not, is not static or necessarily specific to a particular time period...

Here is where real power dynamics come into play and they have to do with a deeply-rooted metaphysical question: what is real? Reality over the years has been vastly interpreted in a broad range of ways...from Plato's forms, Aristotle's observation (potentiality and actuality), Bacon's induction, etc, etc...however the work does not stop with them (yes, I know I'm holding an allegiance with existentialism) but is a process of defining in our own lives. What is real to me, a social being (another assumption, I know), in a community with others? Or to phrase it another way, how do others reflect what is real? Because this question is processual and ongoing in our lives with no clear-cut definition given our temporal existence, then power struggles will always be a part of temporal humanity. In other words, while the good Muslim in Iraq holds that what is in the Quran is real, then any other possibility of what is real is automatically excluded from the discussion. Or if a Christian holds that what Scripture says is real, then this also excludes other possible definitions of reality. Absolutist, monopoly claims on reality are bound to cause tension and conflict where belief and faith are concerned because conviction does not change I have come to realize among many people I admire and respect.

Faith is something inherent within human nature that is generally characterized in the West in one of two ways: 1) true human nature is purely deterministic and physical and thus faith can be explained genetically as an evolutionary survival mechanism, or 2) true human nature is not yet realized and mystery is still in the equation leaving much conjecture. Scientist' allegiance to 1) pose the possibility of ending much tension and conflict with the correction of the misunderstanding that has long plagued humanity by means of de-mystifying the universe and the human being.

As such, I might add, 1) is attractive to me, in my experience and interactions with others, but 2) is more real. This could be because mystery plays a large role in my social life, or it could be that in my interactions and yearning for knowledge I have been unsatisfied with how much I can learn and retain from a broad spectrum of categories. Or it could be that my religious upbringing plays a large role in my perception of reality. Who knows? But what I do know is that historically, when scientists, Christians, whoever thinks they have everything almost figured out, more questions arise, and more questions arise until the questions far surpass the answers. And even when answers "solve" questions, the questions still remains with addendum questions. And when paradigms come crashing down at the introduction of a "better" one, the questions are continually being re-asked in different ways for purposes defined by the culture asking the questions. Thus the questions and the answers are both culturally conditioned and culturally limited.

What is real and what is powerful? What lens do you look through to answer this question? Paul used the criterion of the cross, the scientist the criterion of the scientific method, and the list goes on.

Rambling on and on is really a process of thinking through and re-assessing the lens through which I see because it makes no sense. I find power in what is seemingly unpowerful as a Christian and as such find myself always in tension (a concept I blogged on before). There are no assurances other than a deeply rooted faith I have for seeing the world the way I do and the community of friends and family that continually inform, encourage, challenge, and love me.

Though I did not discuss love here in this discussion, perhaps it deserves mention because for me it exhibits what is sacred and powerful. And that power is not a dominating one, not an advantageous one. Power is not advantage in the sense that we define it, but power is advantage in serving others through love. It is perhaps this deeply rooted faith in love that undergirds this discussion. It is this criterion that institutionalizes the sacred for Christians rather than the political organizations of the church that rest on this foundation. Traditionally, since Martin Luther the emphasis for Protestant Christians has been on grace and faith. But there is always a danger in holding to faith alone when the ambiguity of the term has historically led to very individual interpretations of it. Faith, hope and love are inextricably linked or a Christian has merely succumbed to empirical advantage over sacred advantage thus claiming grace alone as a means of human salvation but denying it at the same time.

To conclude this discussion of power, it is important to note that this discussion by no means limits anyone's perception of power. It is merely a little chunk to contribute to a conversation that is normatively significant.

An Ethical Criterion

That which contributes positively to positive relationships is right, while anything that detracts from positive relationships is wrong. Simple, no? Encompassing? Time will tell.

Formlessness and Time

Further exploring a previous short inquiry, some-thing or perhaps a non-thing, most people would admit to knowing what 'it' is yet fail to adequately explain 'it.' Here is perhaps more to ponder and less to understand.

What stuff existed before the Big Bang, if in fact the Big Bang describes the prime event that kick-started those changes that we now observe and measure 'in time.' What existed, what matter existed 'before' this particular event...how 'old' is it, does it have an 'origin' or has it always 'been?' What sort of make-up in this matter conditions it to evolve if in fact it does evolve? So far all of these questions involve a perception of time as being in existence. Though if time is not an actual 'thing' in and of itself, it is definately a category ascribed to the observance of the changeability of matter, or changeability of forms. Human beings have been witnessing the repetition of day and night since it has had the ability to perceive repetition. Other living organisms recognize such as well IThis is not to suggest that the universe has a particular function, only that properties go through a series of changes exhibiting energy, and other visible, measurable phenomena that science seeks to categorize and one day control. In other words, how our universe works...putting a face to mystery and miracle.

We categorize time, or perhaps began to categorize time based on the revolution of the sun (viewing the repetition of the 24-hour day [+ or -]). And from this very primordial method, we perhaps began to break down even that interval of change into smaller parts and expand it into larger parts. Reduction has its forecasting capability, yet trying to understand using the method of fragmentation fails to adequately explain the relational function of a conglomerate form with another conglomerate form when that relationship defies predictability...

...Time could be an evolved construct of the human brain to further survival of our species on earth as is evident throughout human history...I say this to make unqualified sociological claims (unprofessionally of course). Time is pertinent to epistemology and ontology and metaphysics and science. Without an understanding of it, humanity fades back into oblivion -- though it does not substantially exist...It also functions after being conceived -- a ticking time bomb which tickles one to violence, and kills one to beneficence...It is a local construct if it is a construct at all -- human beings perceive time as such due to the local change in forms, or perhaps the local perception of the changeability of forms -- though if other life exists outside of this world, then perhaps our perception of time is moot or needs redaction.

Here is a note with regard to imagination and time. Many human beings perceive time as such because they have a perception of non-time within time. Sometimes I wonder where this dualistic sort of thinking comes from (spirit/body, time/non-time, etc) and then I thought to myself... When one thinks, their perception of self, of ontology, is split. Thinking is not equated with the physical life of being, and is perceived transcendent to what is physical, though perhaps not intentionally. It is because of this tension that human individuals grapple with that imaginative ideas are brought to life -- ideas within time to defy time -- whole persons rather than split persons. After reading a special edition of Time magazine on 'Time' I read an article concerning time travel and time machines which really inspired this speculation. We live as split persons struggling to be whole in a busy world with others -- what 'time' do we live in? Perhaps this is the wrong way to phrase the question. What non-time do we live in struggling to get in time? Or vice versa? (depending on the person and their perception).

Now what if there was a time when there was no time, no form, no order? Who formed matter so that it had order? Who sustains ordered matter? Order and time, in this scenario would be inextricably linked...there can be no time without changeability of forms. Just because forms or primordial stuff existed, this does not necessarily suggest that time existed, if time is dependent upon change. If one suggests that evolutionary processes dictate the order of the universe, then time exists only because of the changes involved in those processes. Can anything be apart from time? Off hand my answer would be 'no.' Though if there is "something(s)" which existed before the changeability of forms consistently and unchanging, then perhaps in time and among our perceptions of change we would not be able to analyze it, or even comprehend it since we are limited in our own changeability and think only in time, curious about non-time.

Existentially does past, present and future really exist? The past is only a memory, the future an anticipation. As soon as the future comes, in an instant it becomes the past. If one could find the point at which the three concepts converge, then that person finds eternity and rest. Even if one were to travel 'in time' (though 'travel' is not necessarily the best-fitting term) then the present would still always be the only existing time...only the human concept of time would evolve into a more complex understanding of the changeability of forms. Though human beings would still be limited by those changes, still only think in terms of form changes...