Wow. I do not know if I
shall be able to look passed the last three minutes of the video series
objectively enough to give credit to all the truth it contained. Even writing
the end of that sentence made me a little ill. Shake it off….whew. So first you
tell me that when beauty was based upon the principles of beauty as defined by
Christian religion (yes, mr. video-man, you did mention other religions, but
your screenshots only showed churches and cathedrals – I can only assume that
Christianity is the one you meant to highlight) that it was done right. You say that the moral and
spiritual needs of man fulfilled in man-made beauty (art) were grasped
completely when God was the standard upon which that pursuit was based. Then
you tell me that when science got in the way and people became skeptical of
those bases, that art turned to ugliness and real beauty was forgotten. Then you
tell me that beauty is a SUBSTITUTE for this religion that captured and DEFINED
it?!?! What the….?!?!?! I’m sorry, but did you just miss everything else you
just said?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? Really?! Seriously ?! a SUBSTITUTE?!?! Up to this point, the video described an inherent connection
between what real beauty is and an attempt to connect to, reflect, and reveal
some sort of “God”. How could beauty as defined in the video even exist apart from
that, if all of beauty’s standards were written with that connection! Really,
how could “religion” be a “beauty-substitute”? If this incredible heaven-beauty
connection that video-man was pushing is true, then beauty serves to prove
religion just as much as religion serves to define it. Religion cannot stand
alone as something put in place of beauty – the beauty of God is intrinsic to
that which truly is Christianity! Not only was that statement so contradictory
to the rest of the video(s) that it made me ill, it reveals an awful
understanding of religion and horrible, horrible logic!
Okay, I feel I just repeated the same thing like, four
times, but that took me so completely aback that I cannot bother to care.
Anyway, up until the end, I believe that the essay and the video were in pretty
strong accord, save for the fact that the essay acknowledged the hand (and
duty) of Christianity in regards to beauty, rather than the hand of beauty in regards
to religion. The essay was pretty spot-on I believe. I myself have heard of the
contrasting symphonies of which it speaks, some completely insane and some very
orderly and graceful. What I feel was not defined enough (in either the essay
or the video) was the delineation between “truly creative” and “ugly”. This is something
I have struggled with quite often. Even though the symphony in complete discord
does not perhaps reflect “Christian beauty”, but the understanding of music,
the vision, the talent….everything that went into just how bizarre it was…can
be incredibly imaginative! Those sorts of pieces require a vision that so few
in this world could ever even dream of. Real, quality instruments, put to
unique tempo and unique sound…there is something to be said for those pieces by
those who understand what the composer is doing. It may not be the most
seamless song, but there is something there. And no, I’m not describing trash that
is just sound. These sounds had a purpose.
Like…hm…better example: contemporary art is mostly crap. However, if an artist
can take something normal and beautiful and do something completely different
with it, something unique, something with a real vision and use of talent through
whatever medium, that doesn’t make it ugly. That doesn’t mean it is valueless
just because it’s in pieces. I mean, Venus de Milo has no arms, but she’s “beautiful”.
Michelangelo’s David’s hands, head,
and feet are not true to real human proportion, but it’s still “beautiful”. There
is a certain type of artistic license that can be had with nature and its
beauty, but this fine line between inventive/unique/creative and ugly I feel
was not addressed. I mean, I sculpted an iguana once. It’s a pretty awesome
iguana - really accurate and well done - however just because I can replicate
nature, to me doesn’t feel like I’m actually an “artist” (although some would
think I am). Some people think I’m a musician too, but I am not. So I know a
few chords and can appreciate the more intricate things in music that others
may not recognize. So what? …We addressed this in class, when Mr. Dyck spoke
about his nephew that can play music
vs. his niece that can “play” music, but I just felt like the essay and videos didn’t.
Those who can actually “do” will do something more.
The video and the essay did both talk about uplifting the
mundane though, and I suppose they had a point there: putting the simpler
things into certain lights so that we will appreciate the truth and beauty
behind them. So cool, my iguana is a “beautiful” iguana. Maybe, maybe not. Perhaps
it is that I think more in terms of music. That song of Mary’s mourning at the
end of the video series really spoke to that for me, as do many string-based
symphonies: There is a story behind them that can only be shown by a particular
manipulation of the music; one that writing is just so beyond me in grasping. I
mean, if you want to make something sound sad, use minor chords. Twinkle
Twinkle Little Star in a minor key is incredibly depressing. Thank you Bryan. But
to turn a story into sound requires a level of real vision and composing
ability that absolutely boggles my mind. To me, THAT is creating real art. That is abstract in the most beautiful form.
Soooo beyond me. I wish both the video and essay would have spent more time on
music….
Overall, the way by which art should reflect real beauty
and truth as expressed by the essay and (most of) the video I agreed with. Sometimes
I struggle with what real creativity is, however….for myself, it is often times
the creativity and ingenuity behind the work that is more beautiful and fascinating
than the end product.
No comments:
Post a Comment