Throughout my explorations of these ancient texts my colloquium theme has evolved and I have expanded my definition of the term "image." My concentration is about communication, telling stories via art, language, writing, and new media. When I speak of images, I refer not only to pictures, graphics and illustrations, but also to literary imagery--the pictures created by language.
The Roman de Renart is a series of tomes or "branches" written by various (usually unknown) authors about a character named Renart. Usually Renart is a fox, but sometimes he is a man. No matter what his form, he is a trickster--a Bugs Bunny type of character. Every child born in France since the 12th century through today has read the Roman de Renart. The story is so popular that the medieval french word for fox, "goupil" was replaced by the word "Renart." The story features two-dimensional characters, usually personifications of animals and, like the Fabliaux, Renart is more or less a peasant hero designed to appeal to the lower classes and expose the clergy who are usually portrayed as villains.
Branche IV--Renart and Isengrin in the well deals heavily in metaphor. Isengrin and Renart both represent poor peasants who are starving because the nearby monks are hording all the food in the region. Using animals instead of people to make this sort of social commentary is a means of sugar-coating the critique of those in power, softening the blow.
The most powerful image in this branche is that of all the monks dressed completely in white (representing innocence and godliness) beating Isengrin the wolf within an inch of his life. The scene uses a marriage of visual and literary language to convey the hypocrisy of the monks and ridicule medieval Catholicism.
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Sunday, July 22, 2007
on "the Prince"
Chapters 15-21 of Machiavelli's controversial work deal with the very modern idea that an exemplary public image is essential to a prince's ability to maintain his power. I agree that a good image is important for all public figures, especially politicians, however I personally am an idealist and I disagree with Machiavelli's assertion throughout these same chapters that a Prince must, if necessary lie, cheat, steal and kill in order to stay in power, all the while projecting the image of a model ruler to his people.
The world as we know it would not exist without public relations firms attempting to govern the thoughts of modern society. Everyone posesses to some extent a public image which is often somewhat different to who they really are. In this way Machiavelli's advice is the direct opposite of Plato's theory of objects, because he insists that all people are basically self-serving and dishonest though they appear to be virtuous and generous. I believe that both points of view are too extreme to be correct.
The world as we know it would not exist without public relations firms attempting to govern the thoughts of modern society. Everyone posesses to some extent a public image which is often somewhat different to who they really are. In this way Machiavelli's advice is the direct opposite of Plato's theory of objects, because he insists that all people are basically self-serving and dishonest though they appear to be virtuous and generous. I believe that both points of view are too extreme to be correct.
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Response to misuse of images
The Lais of Marie de France and Les Fabliaux are French oral traditions that were written down around the 12th century but must have been passed down via jongleurs or minstrels for many years prior. The lais were written by a lady of the Norman court who identified herself only as Marie. Her Lais were dedicated to a king (assumed to be Henry II) and written in French for a French-speaking noble class in England. Her themes often have to do with forbidden love and mismatched marriages but in the end propriety prevails--whether the married woman who is in love with another stays with her husband or the unfaithful wife is banished and her good, honest husband can live his life in peace.
England and France in the 12th century were both Catholic, God-fearing nations yet despite the commandment given to Moses in the book of Exodus, the middle ages saw the creation of some of the most ornate and magnificent churches and cathedrals the world has ever known--complete with depictions of virtually every biblical character in sculpture, painting, and stained glass. Perhaps this is because these "dark ages" were a time when people had lost touch with the true meaning of the Bible, but I feel it is more likely a result of the availability of more diverse interpretations, the idea that the same text can have multiple meanings and should therefore be questioned and considered rather than taken at face value.
In Marie de France's "Bisclavret" the prevailing truth is that "the real" is not always as it appears. This idea is communicated most obviously through the main character, Bisclavret who is a loup-garou or werewolf. When he is a man, he is an honorable noble married to a seemingly honorable and loving wife. When the wife finds out that her husband is a werewolf, she betrays him and her true character is revealed. When the king discovers Bisclavret, on the other hand, he sees nothing more than an unusual animal--he is unaware that despite his appearance, Bisclavret is really a man and his wife is really an abomination. Only when the pieces come together and the truth about Bisclavret and his wife are revealed to the king does he really see the true nature of these two individuals--because they are not what they appear to be. During the climax when the wolf Bisclavret attacks his deceitful wife, he bites off her nose, and to prevent future confusion regarding this woman, all of the females of her lineage from then on are born without noses. This way these otherwise attractive and seemingly kindhearted women will always be seen for what they truly are: thoroughly ugly, inside and out.
The Fabliaux are similar oral traditions written down by unknown poets, designed to present humorous charicatures of the clergy and the lower classes (depending on the audience) rather than share morals and tales of romance. In "Brunain, the Priest's Cow," the humor lay in the priest's selfish interpretation of the Bible and the peasant's gullible response. This relates to my theory that images are not a negative force in society. Though this fabliau doesn't demonstrate that images are a powerful means of communicating ideas, it suggests that the Bible can be interpreted to further one's own goals, and person should make their own decisions regarding God, reality, and appearances.
England and France in the 12th century were both Catholic, God-fearing nations yet despite the commandment given to Moses in the book of Exodus, the middle ages saw the creation of some of the most ornate and magnificent churches and cathedrals the world has ever known--complete with depictions of virtually every biblical character in sculpture, painting, and stained glass. Perhaps this is because these "dark ages" were a time when people had lost touch with the true meaning of the Bible, but I feel it is more likely a result of the availability of more diverse interpretations, the idea that the same text can have multiple meanings and should therefore be questioned and considered rather than taken at face value.
In Marie de France's "Bisclavret" the prevailing truth is that "the real" is not always as it appears. This idea is communicated most obviously through the main character, Bisclavret who is a loup-garou or werewolf. When he is a man, he is an honorable noble married to a seemingly honorable and loving wife. When the wife finds out that her husband is a werewolf, she betrays him and her true character is revealed. When the king discovers Bisclavret, on the other hand, he sees nothing more than an unusual animal--he is unaware that despite his appearance, Bisclavret is really a man and his wife is really an abomination. Only when the pieces come together and the truth about Bisclavret and his wife are revealed to the king does he really see the true nature of these two individuals--because they are not what they appear to be. During the climax when the wolf Bisclavret attacks his deceitful wife, he bites off her nose, and to prevent future confusion regarding this woman, all of the females of her lineage from then on are born without noses. This way these otherwise attractive and seemingly kindhearted women will always be seen for what they truly are: thoroughly ugly, inside and out.
The Fabliaux are similar oral traditions written down by unknown poets, designed to present humorous charicatures of the clergy and the lower classes (depending on the audience) rather than share morals and tales of romance. In "Brunain, the Priest's Cow," the humor lay in the priest's selfish interpretation of the Bible and the peasant's gullible response. This relates to my theory that images are not a negative force in society. Though this fabliau doesn't demonstrate that images are a powerful means of communicating ideas, it suggests that the Bible can be interpreted to further one's own goals, and person should make their own decisions regarding God, reality, and appearances.
Friday, July 06, 2007
On images being bad
At this point my rationale is about images as a means of communication. My personal belief is that images are a completely valid and powerful medium, and in my rationale I am presenting opposing views--in addition to those in support of my position--as proof that images are powerful enough to generate fear in the form of opposition.
Gilgamesh
The Bible decries that man should not create, look at, worship, or have anything to do with images, sculpture or any representational art form. However, in The Epic of Gilgamesh (which predates the Bible by 500+ years) Gilgamesh himself creates images and representations of his deceased friend, Enkidu. He encourages his people to do the same and calls upon all the artisans in the city. There are two main differences between this instance of creating images and those that occur in the Bible. First, the images are created in hommage of a deceased man, not in reverence of a false god. Second, Gilgamesh himself is 2/3 god and 1/3 man, so though the Sumerians, Akkadians and Babylonians were all polytheistic it goes along with the Bible's point that only God (or in this case, a god) can create...anything.
Baudrillard
He states more eloquently my interpretation of the bible. "(The iconoclasts') rage to destroy images arose precisely because they sensed this omnipotence of simulacra, this facility they have of effacing God from the consciousness of men, and the overwhelming, destructive truth which they suggest: that ultimately there has never been any God, that only the simulacrum exists, indeed that God himself has only ever been his own simulacrum."
According to Baudrillard, images are only a simulation of the real thing, yet he asserts that "the divinity that breathes life into nature" can be represented. The problem with the representation of God lay in the fact that there is no "real" version present with which we can compare the image. See, if someone paints or photographs a chair, you know that it is a photograph or a painting of a chair which actually exists because you've seen one. You also know the difference between the real thing, a painting and a photograph. This is troublesome when it comes to God for obvious reasons.
Gilgamesh
The Bible decries that man should not create, look at, worship, or have anything to do with images, sculpture or any representational art form. However, in The Epic of Gilgamesh (which predates the Bible by 500+ years) Gilgamesh himself creates images and representations of his deceased friend, Enkidu. He encourages his people to do the same and calls upon all the artisans in the city. There are two main differences between this instance of creating images and those that occur in the Bible. First, the images are created in hommage of a deceased man, not in reverence of a false god. Second, Gilgamesh himself is 2/3 god and 1/3 man, so though the Sumerians, Akkadians and Babylonians were all polytheistic it goes along with the Bible's point that only God (or in this case, a god) can create...anything.
Baudrillard
He states more eloquently my interpretation of the bible. "(The iconoclasts') rage to destroy images arose precisely because they sensed this omnipotence of simulacra, this facility they have of effacing God from the consciousness of men, and the overwhelming, destructive truth which they suggest: that ultimately there has never been any God, that only the simulacrum exists, indeed that God himself has only ever been his own simulacrum."
According to Baudrillard, images are only a simulation of the real thing, yet he asserts that "the divinity that breathes life into nature" can be represented. The problem with the representation of God lay in the fact that there is no "real" version present with which we can compare the image. See, if someone paints or photographs a chair, you know that it is a photograph or a painting of a chair which actually exists because you've seen one. You also know the difference between the real thing, a painting and a photograph. This is troublesome when it comes to God for obvious reasons.
Sunday, June 24, 2007
Misuse of Images
The Bible and Plato both suggest that images are a negative force in society. According to Plato's "theory of forms" images are merely representations of ideas or copies of the actual form that they depict. He seems to view imagess as a waste of time because they are only shadowy reflections of reality and a person would do better to concern himself merely with actual forms and ideas.
In the book of Genesis 1:26-27, God creates man "in his own image." In Exodus 20:4, Moses gives the people of Israel the second commandment, which forbids them to construct any image or representation of...well, anything. God would view this as proud, vain, and also ungrateful. God created man in his own image, but man is not God--he is not the creator. If man were to create anything in his own image it would be like saying he doesn't need God, and is ungrateful for that which God has given him. Worshipping false idols--though God writes it off as "that would piss me off because I'm jealous", it's really the same as creating something in the image of man. It would be like saying "man invented God" if that makes sense.
This commandment is reiterated many times throughout not only the book of Exodus but the rest of the Bible as well. In Exodus 34:13, the people of Israel are commanded to destroy all remnants of the citizens of Canaan once they have moved in an taken their land. This happens again in Numbers, Deuteronomy, Judges...etc. The lord drives these people from their land so that the Israelis can live there, but any remnant of the previous culture, of these false idols and images is an affront to the "true God" so they must be destroyed.
Though the biblical version of why images are "bad" is more complicated than that of Plato, it's the same idea: we should only be concerned with the thing itself, rather than waste time with mediocre copies.
In the book of Genesis 1:26-27, God creates man "in his own image." In Exodus 20:4, Moses gives the people of Israel the second commandment, which forbids them to construct any image or representation of...well, anything. God would view this as proud, vain, and also ungrateful. God created man in his own image, but man is not God--he is not the creator. If man were to create anything in his own image it would be like saying he doesn't need God, and is ungrateful for that which God has given him. Worshipping false idols--though God writes it off as "that would piss me off because I'm jealous", it's really the same as creating something in the image of man. It would be like saying "man invented God" if that makes sense.
This commandment is reiterated many times throughout not only the book of Exodus but the rest of the Bible as well. In Exodus 34:13, the people of Israel are commanded to destroy all remnants of the citizens of Canaan once they have moved in an taken their land. This happens again in Numbers, Deuteronomy, Judges...etc. The lord drives these people from their land so that the Israelis can live there, but any remnant of the previous culture, of these false idols and images is an affront to the "true God" so they must be destroyed.
Though the biblical version of why images are "bad" is more complicated than that of Plato, it's the same idea: we should only be concerned with the thing itself, rather than waste time with mediocre copies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
