Amanda- The Art of Dance

Sacred and profane beauty goes into great detail about the imperialistic nature of religious art, and the overpowering presence of the religious standpoint over all other life views held by science, art and ethics. I thought Van Der Leew’s definition of the word ‘beautiful’ was very interesting, focusing more on the personal reaction to a particular object or experience, rather than the thing itself. His definition of culture works off of this and is then defined as ‘the movement of man through nature.’ I found the introduction laid out by Van Der Leeuw to be very insightful and vitally important to understanding the direction of his writing in the following chapters.
I have a hard time entertaining the idea that art can be separated from some form of religion or spirituality, but have had trouble personally articulating this crucial connection. This is why I was very interested to see how this distinction between holy and profane art was going to be made in the course, specifically dealing with the first topic laid out in the text, dance. Dance is probably one of the last forms that come to mind when I think of the word ‘art,’ and is probably the one I relate to the least. Although I do understand that there is a stark difference between the current popularity of people grinding on each other in a club and ancient tribal fertility dances, I was a bit skeptical that this distinction could be clearly defined in words based around the idea of the holy.
At the beginning of his text, I found Van Der Leew’s claims about dance to be a bit outlandish and although his examples supported his writing, it didn’t mean I was going to agree with him. In particular, his use of the quotation from The Would-be Gentleman made me wonder what planet this man was living on: “all human unhappiness, all blows of fortune which history reports to us, all mistakes of politics, all defeats of the great commanders result solely from the fact that the dance is not understood”(p. 20). Not only did he start his text about religious art with the topic of dance, he was now claiming that everything negative that occurs is due to an inability to understand dance? But as I read more, the use of this quotation became quite apparent.
The first piece of background information provided that pushed me closer to understanding this ‘unity of dance and religion,’ was the idea of dance not only being a form of prayer, and worship, but also as a form of work. The example of Indians in Mexico who have one word for dancing and working, and who give an individual the specific job of dancing all day was a whole new concept for me. This is certainly very far from the current view of dance, and this separation between dance as an expression of the holy, as an intense, necessary experience of worshiping and losing oneself in sacred communication, rather than recreation or entertainment, became clearer to me.
As I continued reading, and we talked about sacred art in class, I realized why I had such a hard time with the beginning of the text, and the overall distinction between sacred and profane. My schema for language is very dependent on my own culture and experience, and in this case my understanding of the word ‘dance’ is very far from what Van Der Leew was trying to express. My inability to initially understand is a perfect example of this ‘break-up of unity’ talked about in the text. The ‘rhythm of life’ which allows for the unification of the mind, body and soul is dependent on dance. Dance is the requirement for us to be in many domains in once, not to compartmentalize our lives into academics, business, religion, and recreation. This is what is meant by the quote above, that the fluidity of life must continue in order for anything to become a success. I think that Van Der Leew’s biggest points is, once religion is set aside and made it’s own aspect of a person’s life, rather than an all-encompassing factor of being, they have lost touch with the ‘unity of life’ which can only be unified by coming to know the power and intoxication of the dance. When this information clicked in my mind, I suddenly got the image of David dancing before the Lord with all his might, and suddenly this all made sense. "When dance is genuine, one can no longer speak of an action which one performs, but of a dance which sweeps one away." (p. 29)

Jesus In Art

Jenna Wynn


There are so many things I feel that I could say about the film we watched during class. It was captivating to see the progression of Jesus in art throughout history. Every piece of artwork showed the artist's own interpretation of the face of Christ. Some of the paintings were beautiful, but did not capture my emotions completely. Then there were others that had my full attention, and had me feeling as if the artist wanted to fully comprehend the pain that Jesus went through in his sacrifice. Those were the paintings that caused me to sit in deep thought about my beliefs and my own faith. This is where the argument between iconoclasts and iconophile can begin. Some believe that these artist's interpretation are incorrect, are unholy and should not be shown. Others believe that these paintings allow people to become closer to Jesus, to understand his sacrifice and to bring them closer to the holy. It is hard to say whether I am an iconoclast or an iconophile because each side, in my opinion, gives a valid point. Should we have artists depict their own version of Jesus? Is artwork truly the way to be closer to God?

It can be difficult to wrap one's head around the arguments that can follow religious art. On one hand, I can understand why people would not want art to depict Jesus. In my opinion, almost every single face of Jesus looked the same. White male, long brownish-blond hair, beard, piercing eyes. How can someone have their own personal relationship with Jesus, if in every painting he's the same? Art shouldn't dictate how someone thinks about Jesus...everyone should be able to have their own relationship with Jesus whether he has blond hair, black hair etc...

Another argument though, is that art can bring people closer to their faith and Jesus. I personally think that this is true. We as human beings have a natural longing to grasp something a bit more concrete, something we can conceptualize. Some of the paintings remind us of Jesus's sacrifice and the pain he must have felt. Just reading it in the text might not do it justice. Seeing the expression on his face, the wounds on his hands and face...those are the things that gave me the strongest impression.

I think it all comes down to the person. That is why religious art is so controversial, is because people usually take it as one extreme or the other. They over-analyze what the artist is trying to depict, then either get angry, or get inspired. I'm sure artists do want people to contemplate certain aspects when they view their work, but I'm sure they also want people to enjoy it just for the sake of enjoying it. If people wish to see it as a way to understand their own faith more completely, than that is what they will get out of it. I think religious art should be both contemplated and enjoyed, just because it is that...art.

Obsession By Garrett

Obsession

Garrett Lambur

September 14, 2008

Think of the face of Jesus.  Alright, what do you see?  Something strikingly similar to the image posted here?  One of the most striking things from the video to me was the obsession with the face of Jesus.  Perhaps because I have grown up surrounded by the idyllic face of Jesus (example pictured right).  This picture is an atypical representation of Jesus in America.  The picture was taken off of google images.  In fact, go to Google Image search and type in Jesus Face, the first 20 or so results are all some slight variation of this representation.  They all have similar features especially the long flowing hair and the beard.  Other images will include the crown of thorns, usually piercing the skin with blood dripping down.  How is there such a strong obsession with knowing the face of Jesus when most artists or people already accept a image similar to the one here?

There seems to be very little variation in people's imagination of what his face looks like.  This is one of the easiest images to recognize.  It is easy to recognize because all the images of Jesus have a very similar likeness.  Most of this image is based off of guess work driven in large part by historical context.  So what would happen if we found a picture of the real face of Jesus?  If it was no different from the common context today then not much changes.  Yet if it is strikingly different, what happens to all of the art depicting that face?  Would people accept the picture or would they deny it?  Would images of Jesus in churches that are over a millennia old be changed?  Would the human race again lose part of its history over disputes in religion as in Constantinople?

Perhaps it would be wonderful to gaze upon the true face of Jesus in a picture.  But I feel the impact of such a thing upon the world would be more harmful than wonderful.  We have the teachings of Jesus, is that not what is truly important?  This all leads back to my wonderment at the obsession with the Face of Jesus.  Personally I do not have a great desire to see the true face of Jesus and I recognize that many will disagree with me but I see the repercussions doing more harm to the world than good.

Lauren-What Jesus Really Looks Like

Lauren Brooks

What Jesus really looks like

9-14-2008

It’s weird to think that one can make a whole film on different images of Jesus, but watching barely half of the film I was amazed to see the extreme contrasts of these images. I was really fascinated to find out when, where, and what these first images of Jesus really looked liked. I was shocked that they weren’t even a depiction of his face. I guess part of me was expecting a crude depiction similar to that of a stick figure, but instead he was shown using popular symbols. Anchors, vines, sheppards, and fish filled the screen and then it made sense. The majority of these symbols came straight out of Jesus’ teachings and were familiar to the people at the time. My favorite depiction of Jesus was as a grape vine, which comes from his teaching that He is the vine and we are the branches.

I know I also made a comment in class about how disappointed I was in the fact that we have no real likeness of Jesus; the majority of the depictions of his face are submerged into the culture or time period of the artist. It makes me wonder why someone during Jesus’ time did not realize the importance of knowing what he looks like, or maybe the point is that we can’t really know what he looks, or maybe he looks different to different people. I think I will have to go with the latter. I remember one time when I picked my niece up from Sunday School, she was about 5 at the time, she asked what Jesus looked like, and I asked her what she thought Jesus looked like. I don’t think she liked that answer, but after a second she finally told me that she thought he looked like Santa Claus (it was around Christmas time). I guess in some small part, my niece isn’t that far off.

As I reflect on all the images we saw in the movie from Jesus as a baby, to suffering on the cross, to rising to heaven, I find myself asking “What does Jesus really look like to me?” Unfortunately, this is a tough question to answer and can not simply be answered in a single blog entry. I guess when I see that one picture, or drawing that I connect with I will finally know what Jesus’ face really looks like.

Faces of Christ - Andrew

Firstly, I would like to note that the film did not include my favorite depiction of Jesus, that of "Buddy Christ", from the movie Dogma. I see Buddy Christ's omission as an extremely irresponsible act on the part of the filmmakers of "Faces of Christ", and so I have done my part to remedy this mistake by adding the image you see here.

To be honest I have very little taste for the religious art that I have been exposed to. At art galleries I generally make a quick retreat away from the many images of Christ, Madonna, the disciples and so forth. To be sure, many brilliant artists have contributed to these portrayals and it is staggering to think about how universal such images are and how frequently they are produced. The narrator touched on the reason for this when he noted that we desire to have the spiritual become concrete in a way that we can easily relate to. The correlative problem is that it is difficult to reveal the divine in this way without causing it to lose everything that makes it HOLY in the first place. I find that a lot of religious art makes Christ seem even more mysterious and distant than he is in any other setting. Part of this may be the stylistic approach of the artists. Scenes of Christ from many time periods follow a pretty typical formula that tends to look contrived.

The questions my mind is revolving around are chiefly these:
Is it possible to produce religious art (or written works for that matter) that enhance the divinity of god? Do all our efforts only serve to limit and distort Christ by attempting to express that which cannot be expressed? If the original intent of religious art was to help the illiterate, is there any reason to still keep it and treasure it? Am I just an unappreciative and cold human being (slightly kidding)?

I have a lot of other thoughts on this but they simply feel to disorganized to be written now.

amy - iconoclast or iconophile

I suppose when you hold certain ideas so deeply within your heart, you tend to examine all information given about these topics with a critical fervor that may seem excessive. Art and 'religion' are both topics which I hold deeply within the core of my being, so if my writing seems a bit excessive at times it is a break-down in my attempts to taper this fervor.

After a class period dealing with iconography, watching the Faces of Jesus film really sharpened the pragmatic side of my faith. I love art and I have never made a large distinction between "religious art" and "otherart." Both contain themes that the artist is trying to convey, whether it be Jesus' suffering or humanity, or simply the artist trying to convey his own silent suffering.

I watched the film and was saddened to see the art I love turned into an item of worship, or propagandizing for a certain medieval nobleman walking hand in hand with Jesus to show the nobleman's righteousness. The point of art that depicts the Bible- I dislike the phrase "religious art-" is for a better relation and depth of understanding with Christ. Worst yet, turning this art into a type of idol for worship simply degrades the art itself and mocks the original Creator and Artist.

These thoughts were present when the narrators of the movie started speaking on the iconoclasts who destroyed the art because they believed that any image of Christ was wrong. I do not believe these overly zealous priests and religious leaders were that black and white. Perhaps I am wrong and they were just fools who hated art and anything aesthetically depicting the spiritual, but I would like to believe that there were at least some really trying to do the right thing, though in the wrong manner.
In my own faith, I find my beliefs offended by a strain of Christianity that has anything other than Jesus as its axis mundi. Icons may be a good reminder or an effective way to be drawn to Christ, but they should never serve as more than symbols for the salvation that is Jesus. Only Jesus.
Just because a piece of art is made in a certain way does not give it some kind of mystical power. When has art, true art, ever succombed to formulaic mass production? And why on earth would that give more "power" to a piece of art?

I can understand the offense of the iconoclasts. Worshipping these little statues or emblems successfully profanes both art and religion in one foul sweep: Art, through the lack of artistry and originality, and religion through the disrespect of the call to singularly worship that which deserves our adoration.

Elise: Faces of Jesus

Elise Sjogren

Faces of Jesus Film

14.09.2008

Some of the religions art shown in the Faces of Jesus film was beautiful. Some of it was even moving with its aesthetic appeal and display of craftsmanship. When the documentary showed one of the ornate cathedrals, however, I wondered if this is what God intended. I consider the time, money, and effort that went into creating these richly decorated buildings, and wonder if the time, money, and effort of those professing to follow Christ could have been spent more wisely. Would not God rather his followers use such things to help the poor and widows and maintain justice? 

The message of Christ was not concerned with material things, and even his apostles didn't focus their letters or lives on anything physically concrete. I feel like we, as flawed people, have created a materialistic side of the religion because we are so concerned with material things, but that is wasn't originally there. I'm then led to wonder if this evolution of the religion is a natural change that God is okay with, or if it is contrary to His perfect will. How much glory does He receive from elaborate buildings, or gold plated larger-than-life statues? I realize that some people are led into spiritual experiences from the architecture of the cathedral, or the religions icons, but I guess I think a better balance needs to be found. 

The early church didn't possess buildings or artwork, and yet flourished because those in the religion genuinely loved one another and took care of each other. I think the materialistic drive of the later years has proved more detrimental than beneficial to the religion, as it has taken a lot of the focus away from the teachings of Christ. I realize that because I was not raised Roman Catholic nor Orthodox I have a different perspective on religious art and icons than many Christians, and I am looking forward to better understanding what they can mean to people, but in general I am still struggling with the value of using such resources for these purposes. 

Amanda-- The faces of Jesus

Amanda Rocabado

"The faces of Jesus"

9.14.08

I found the film on the many faces of Jesus to be incredibly fascinating. It was amazing to see all of the different depictions of what Jesus looked like throughout history, and I was interested to explore reasons behind creating the images of Jesus in the first place. I understand that stained glass murals and paintings in churches provided a visual for the illiterate as well as serve to strengthen the faith of believers, but I am not convinced that these reasons are sufficient in explaining why they vary so much, and why they suddenly became popular. Could it be that the sudden rise in images of Jesus hundreds of years after his death were due to other factors beyond finding another way to make Jesus relatable? The film briefly touched on some of these factors, but it is interesting to explore them further.

I think a large factor that may contribute to the popularity of these images of Jesus may be to suggest that the idea of Jesus should be put into the context of each culture, rather than to force the culture of Jesus’ time on others. We talked about Paul taking Christianity to the Greeks several times in class, and how he did this by connecting the idea of Jesus with their existing idea of religion, rather than introducing a whole new concept. Making Jesus look and seem like the people you see around you everyday does much more than make him relatable, it also suggests that he could have just as well come today, and live in the context of your culture. Certainly the fundamental teachings of Jesus would not be altered, but it is interesting to explore the idea of how Jesus would interact with your own time in history.

This is often a fundamental struggle with modern Christians, trying to interpret how Jesus would act today based on the record of his life in the bible, and ultimately why there are so many different denominations. Perhaps artists throughout history have chosen to depict Christ in a familiar form in order to provoke these thoughts further. This current Jesus also becomes more real, more present, and the visual leads us to think that God is all around us… so we better be on our best behavior. This can also lead the viewer to think that since Jesus is not bound by time and history he could very well return today, couldn’t he? Is that what the church is trying to communicate by housing all these images of Jesus?

What did the creators of these images really think about when they were painting?
And a better question, what did they want you to think when you looked at them?

Ok, maybe none of this makes sense and the real inconsistency of Jesus’ appearance in artwork just goes to show that man is incapable of accurately showing what it is to be both fully human and fully God. This may be more likely… but who really knows?

Kip Introduction

Start blogging, write something about the Faces of Jesus film and our discussion.