And lets not forget this one...

Thousand-hand Bodhisattva

The African snake lady was interesting, but she didn't connect with me the way Neon did. I had two different experiences watching each. Here’s something I’m thinking about. What ‘connects’ with me on a non-cognitive (aesthetic) level is the symmetry within the combination of movement, rhythm, pace, form, etc. on the one hand, and the intentionality and content of the message on the other. (I’m struggling to put it into words.). What I mean is, what overwhelms me about Neon’s dancing is the high degree of difficulty obvious in her art (she’s taking the body to the limits of its capacities) on the one hand, and on the other hand what I perceive as her intentions and message. She’s not intending to seduce, be sleazy, or otherwise still up an infidelity within the minds of those who watch her. It’s all about the art and perfecting the symmetry of all the elements into a creative act. That’s it. We’ve watched some belly-dancers that really turned us off because we ‘sensed’ (on an aesthetic level) that the art was compromised by the artist’s intention to seduce. That poisons creativity and ends up stulifying art.

On another note—

If free creativity results from being rightly related to God, then we have to assume that Satan is the least creative being there is. This is interesting, because on the one hand we’ve said (to Greg) that all existing beings are sustained by the creative presence of a loving God. God is there, in Satan, in grace and love, sustaining Satan’s very existence in all his genocidal choices and plans. And we said that this means there are attributes which are in themselves—what shall I say?---beautful (purposefulness, organization, intentionality, communication, adroitness, concentration) which we see in Satan. Greg balked at this.

But maybe Greg has a point, because what we don’t see in Satan is ‘free creativity’. Satan is not an ‘artist’ in any sense of the word, because that sort of creative expression comes from ‘connecting’ on some level to the sustaining presence of God within and that’s not part of Satan’s self-perceiving act. The divine, the beautiful, the creative, none of the things that fuel the artist’s creative act, appear anywhere on the horizon of Satan’s perception of things. Even if one wants to hold out hope that Satan can once again become an artist, he’s not one now. So sentience doesn’t guarantee art. Sentience is related to ‘nature’. Art is related to ‘personal being’. (Or perhaps this last claim of mine is the real issue for discussion.) What it is we ought to admire and find aesthetically pleasing is whatever reflects ‘personal’ being AS a creative act and not the sheer power of givenness, of natural capacities void of any free, personal creative act. So I’ll agree with Greg and withhold my admiration of those natural capacities (purposefulness, organization, intentionality, communication, adroitness, concentration) which are in Satan sustained by God but which are utterly intended by Satan for evil and ugly ends. Satan continues to receive the grace of existence from God and pervert every potentiality it offers. And what we ought to admire in created being is what one freely makes of his/her potentialities, not the presence of those potentialities. So ART is the only genuinely admirable act. This is the problem I have with beauty competitions and the modeling industry. It worships 'givenness'--the giveness of a particular shape or form as if it was itself art. In my view this is a great perversion because the shape and form in question are only given to a few.

Tom

Post Edited (Tom) : 7/21/2008 5:38:34 AM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (Shekinah) : 7/21/2008 6:16:18 AM (GMT-5)

Again, is this "art"?  Is there any "creativity" or "beauty" in this for Christians at all?

Post Edited (Shekinah) : 7/21/2008 6:45:56 AM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (Shekinah) : 7/21/2008 6:46:43 AM (GMT-5)

D: And I would also say that 1 Corinthians 13 factors in here. To the extent that ANY artistic attempt is not grounded in love of God, self, and neighbor...human egoic intentions WILL find themselves in the artistic display MASQUERADING as true creativity. Existential despair WILL take the human display and drag it towards ennui and nothingness.

T: Yes. We’ve been both saying this for six months.

And this brings up the VERY important question of just what it is you and I think we’re appreciating in Neon’s dance. Is it a REAL creative personal act? Or is it a despairing ego in search of fulfillment? 1Cor 13 says WE CAN’T TELL FROM JUST OBSERVING THE OUTWARD ACT. So we either discern it spiritually/aesthetically or withhold all judgment while admiring the ‘form’ itself (which may be an expression of despair or personal creativity). I think in as much as we’re all aestheticians, we’re bound to ‘evaluate’. But wouldn’t Greg argue this is just ‘eating at the tree of the knowledge of good/evil’?

Tom

PS I was just thinking of Paul’s statement that “to the pure all things are pure.” Hmmm. I’m afraid to even go near that one!

Now, regarding Mariah’s song, personally it does just what I said I’m uncomfortable with, namely, worship the ‘givenness’ of physical form, and that takes us down to the lowest level of appreciation, like SK talked about three levels of perception and appreciation, right (physical, moral, aesthetic). I don’t get the sense in Mariah’s song that there’s a message over and above the merely physical (as I do with, say, Neon, and to some extent with The Dream). Don’t you get the same vibe?

So some education might be needed. Should teach our kids SK’s three levels of appreciation/perception, teach ‘em to appreciate the value of lifting their gaze to the appreciation of the aesthetic, artistic, accomplishment and not settle for the givenness of the merely physical. Personhood is a creative achievement, and we ought to look for THAT in all forms of artistic expression.

Just thinking out loud.

Tom

See, Tom, I don't know how you can say:  "...that sort of creative expression comes from ‘connecting’ on some level to the sustaining presence of God within and that’s not part of Satan’s self-perceiving act."  Why should we believe that God would somehow remove the giftings and callings of his creatures because they are not rightly aligned with God?

Second, there is the subject matter, the perspective of the individual creator of the art and the audience which are all part determiner of the morality of the art. 

Lastly, I thought that Falsetto ROCKED.  When D said his parents do the wild thing to that song, I was like, "THAT is such a beautiful thaaaang!"  Christians might bulk at the idea that the couple in the vid are not married (I mean that's what they will think) but why can't Christians assimilate a work of art in a positive way contrary to the artist's intention?  So when you say: "Satan continues to receive the grace of existence from God and pervert every potentiality it offers. And what we ought to admire in created being is what one freely makes of his/her potentialities, not the presence of those potentialities. So ART is the only genuinely admirable act. This is the problem I have with beauty competitions and the modeling industry. It worships 'givenness'--the giveness of a particular shape or form as if it was itself art. In my view this is a great perversion because the shape and form in question are only given to a few."

and

"Does the fact that there is SOME beauty in it legitimize the fact that there might be something illicit in it? Art isn't always and all or nothing (all good, no evil) thing. If it's a mixture, what do we do?"

You seem to want to give way too much power over to Satan.  What do you mean by Satan perverting every potentiality?  Is not the piece of art itself and expression of the potential?  If what we ought to admire is what one makes of his/her potentialities (the art itself) then what would be problematic with the givenness of something?