What is a dream? What purpose do they serve? Dreams are a random dumping of leftover thoughts, sometimes frightening, sometimes comic and sometimes prophetic. I find it hilarious how the most interesting dream in the mind of its bearer will bore a listener to tears and yet we all feel compelled to share these stories with our friends or, in this case, our readers.
I have felt for quite some time that dreams are often a window into thoughts and feelings that the conscious mind is unwilling to express. Careful consideration of an unusual dream can lead you to an unexpected epiphany and can be quite enlightening. For the sake of simplicity, I will group some of my most typical dreams and describe the understanding, or lack thereof, that I have gained through my unschooled and amateur analysis.
Group One- Reoccurring Dreams and Dream Themes
When I was little, I would have reoccurring dreams that were like television episodes. They were always the same, with the same characters and sequence of events. Having these dreams was somewhat like visiting an old friend. There is one that particularly come to mind:
Episode One- In which the Super Friends help me to escape my house where I am in danger due to a volcano that is erupting in my backyard.
To this day, I still remember snippets of this dream. It is unfortunate that I cannot remember what events were occurring in the real world that may have been responsible for the dream's frequent visit.
As an adult, my reoccurring dreams have a slightly different flavor. Rather than precise repeats, I enjoy repetitive dream themes. For example:
Episode Two- In which I am exploring a huge house with many bathrooms, each bathroom being more wondrous and elaborate than the last.
and...
Episode Three- in which I am being chased or racing against someone through a house, the goal being to reach the highest pinnacle first - this almost always involves finding a secret stairway that appears to go in the wrong direction but eventually leads to the goal.
Note: This dream theme actually evolved from a childhood dream that invariably took place in the church I used to attend but now takes place in houses or castles that only exist in my imagination.
and...
Episode Four- in which I must baracade the house against infiltration by zombies with special consideration regarding water supply, bathroom facilities and what to do about the cats.
All of these dreams are "good" dreams that I wake from happy, this is especially true of the "dream of the house of 1000 bathrooms" and its variation, "dream of the house of 1000 bedrooms". I don't know exactly why but these themes always leave me feeling satisfied. This dream, I have learned to associate with time in my life that there is positive change about to occur. Times in which I feel good about a choice and the different options that will come from it. I almost always have this dream right before I go to more into a new place and right around the time that I complete a significant goal.
In regard to the dream in which I must reach the highest point of the building, I associate this one with the fear of change or coping with a difficult decision that I am faced with. I think it leaves me feeling satisfied because I (a) always find the correct route, (b) always win the race and, (c)it places the variable change into a region of familiarity and comfort. It's kind of like a subconscious pep talk, my way of telling myself that the real world is manageable.
Now the zombie dream. This one may be out of a desire for safety or control but I think it is more likely about my intense love for zombies. That would mean that this dream also falls into the second group:
Group Two- Face Value Dreams
Episode Six- in which I am at Cedar Point riding lots of roller coasters.
This is a dream that I have any time that I think about roller coasters too much.
and...
Episode Seven- in which I either drink and drink without slacking my thirst ot pee and pee without feeling relief.
Obviously exhibiting that I have gone to sleep thirty or with a full bladder.
and...
Episode Eight- in which I am returning to school after a break only to discover that I can't remember where the classrooms are.
This dream is exhibiting my desire to remain on break or my anxiety over not having done enough over the break. This seems like a natural place to start our next group:
Group Three- What the Fuck Dreams
I think that everyone has these types of dreams, I'm sure they have deeper meanings but I prefer to just laugh at the absurdity.
Dreams in which doors do not fit in their frames, crutches bend, punches have no impact and running happens in slow motion.
Dreams in which you go to school or work in a towel or completely naked.
Dreams in which you are trying to use the bathroom but people keep coming in or the toilet is located in a large room with no privacy.
I'm starting to realize that this post could go on and on so I'm going to wrap up with a dream I had a few months ago that is definitely a "what the fuck" dream but was also unique. Maybe you can help me figure out the deeper meaning.
Episode Nine- in which I receive a package with a bazaar assortment of items.
I had this dream after a good friend of mine and her boyfriend broke up. The background that you need is that I suspected that the boyfriend disliked me. He was also a very solitary kind of guy without many interests outside of video games and maybe guns.
The dream went as follows: I was having a conversation with this guy on the phone, a friendly chat that would never have happened in real life. During the course of this conversation, he asked me if I had even seen the movie Hellraiser. I told him that I had not so he said he would mail it to me. I later received a package at my house (which incidentally was not a house that I have ever lived in or been to as far as I can remember). Inside the package were the following items:
A birdhouse
A "learn to drum" instructional book with drumsticks
A framed painting by Georgia O'Keefe
The movie Hellraiser
There were other item as well but those are the ones that I remember as being particularly odd and memorable. I should point out that none of these items are in any way connected to either him or I or anything that we ever discussed together.
So take your best shot, what does this dream mean? Where did it come from? Is there any significance whatsoever?
Sunday, March 2, 2008
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
Humor: Mayhem- Great Hunter of Wet Socks
Originally posted on January 23, 2006
I hate socks. Aside from the fact that my dryer is a portal to Narnia from which Mr. Tumnus has obviously acquired one half of all the sock pairings that I own, I just hate that no matter how frequently I buy socks I never have enough to last until the next laundry day. To compound this problem, I also live with Mayhem-Great Hunter of Wet Socks.
My cat, Mayhem, has developed a behavior which entails the hunting of anything small enough for him to carry usually, but not limited to, socks. First he finds a sock, takes it to the water dish or toilet, soaks it thoroughly, then brings it to me for inspection. I don't know what instinct this behavior grew from but it is endlessly entertaining to his little kitty mind. If I make sure that no socks are available from my drawer or laundry he still manages to bring one from his secret stash or he brings anything else he can find, sweaters, tank tops, etc. I feel sure that one day I am going to come home to find my bedroom comforter stuffed in the toilet.
I can understand that as an indoor cat he feels compelled to exercise his hunter instinct but as neither of my other two indoor cats have ever done anything of the sort, I wonder what sets him apart. And what is the deal with getting them wet before bringing them to me? It isn't something that he does every time, I often get dry socks offered as a gift, but I sometimes think that there is kitty humor involved. Is it possible that this is a primitive sense of the ridiculous? When he drops a toilet-sock on my face while I am sleeping or leaves one in the middle of the stairs or on the seat of the couch, is he seeking a reaction and laughing in his kitty-heart while I rant and sputter?
Am I anthropomorphizing his ability to see and appreciate humor? Cats are not supposed to be smart enough to indulge in such things, and yet... Dogs are not either, but I am sure that I have seen a dog laugh. Cats are so stoic that one could never know what goes on in their heads. Incidentally, Mayhem also likes to chew out the nipple area on all of my roommate's wife beaters... is this coincidence? That every tank top she owns has this area and no other nibbled out? That seems even more far fetched as it would include an understanding of the human sense of modesty as well as result in a reaction that he would not be there to witness (she always discovers them when she gets changed at the gym to work out).
As an owner of three cats I can vouch for the fact that all cats (and other animals) have distinctive personalities regardless of the environment that they grew up in. That isn't to say that they aren't often altered by their environment, especially as kittens, but even with fairly consistent conditions they develop their own quirks and attitudes. Doesn't the evolution of a distinct personality speak toward a certain understanding of their environment and their role within it?
My aunt owns two cats that are vicious and horrible to any but their owners. I used to think that this was because they have never lived with children. My cats, however, are very lovable to all strangers and, although they have never lived with a child, they find children particularly interesting... they even put up with a different sort of play and handling from a child than they are willing to put up with from me. If a cat can sense that a child is to be treated gently and tolerantly, regardless of the fact that they have never come in contact with one before, wouldn't that say that they understand much more than we give them credit for?
I read once that cats do not "recognize" us or each other visually but rely purely on olfactory cues. Cat's are also supposed to have very poor memory. This is not true. My cats most certainly recognize each other regardless of scent and have the abillity to tell the difference between a cat they don't know and one that they do even after a great deal of time being separated.
One day one of my cats got outside without me realizing it. The other two were staring out the sliding glass door the next morning but not with the typical posture they take with a strange animal. I wasn't even sure it was my cat as they don't wear tags and he is just a garden-variety all black cat. But they knew. The same was true when my ex-husband took one of the cats when he moved out then needed me to take him back after a six-month period. I brought him in and all of the cats were completely comfortable, as if he had never left. I found additional evidence of this when I watched a cat for a friend. This cat was one that I had fostered in my home when she was just 6 weeks old. When she came back all of my cats recognized her... That was particularly surprising as a kitten smells different to me than a full grown cat, is there a deeper scent that humans don't detect but cats do that is present throughout life or did they recognize her despite the change in size?
The whole point here is that I suspect that animals are capable of much more than we think. Humor would seem to be a stretch for this theory but sometimes it's just hard to tell for sure. If you have a story about witnessing an animal appreciating humor, please respond.
I hate socks. Aside from the fact that my dryer is a portal to Narnia from which Mr. Tumnus has obviously acquired one half of all the sock pairings that I own, I just hate that no matter how frequently I buy socks I never have enough to last until the next laundry day. To compound this problem, I also live with Mayhem-Great Hunter of Wet Socks.
My cat, Mayhem, has developed a behavior which entails the hunting of anything small enough for him to carry usually, but not limited to, socks. First he finds a sock, takes it to the water dish or toilet, soaks it thoroughly, then brings it to me for inspection. I don't know what instinct this behavior grew from but it is endlessly entertaining to his little kitty mind. If I make sure that no socks are available from my drawer or laundry he still manages to bring one from his secret stash or he brings anything else he can find, sweaters, tank tops, etc. I feel sure that one day I am going to come home to find my bedroom comforter stuffed in the toilet.
I can understand that as an indoor cat he feels compelled to exercise his hunter instinct but as neither of my other two indoor cats have ever done anything of the sort, I wonder what sets him apart. And what is the deal with getting them wet before bringing them to me? It isn't something that he does every time, I often get dry socks offered as a gift, but I sometimes think that there is kitty humor involved. Is it possible that this is a primitive sense of the ridiculous? When he drops a toilet-sock on my face while I am sleeping or leaves one in the middle of the stairs or on the seat of the couch, is he seeking a reaction and laughing in his kitty-heart while I rant and sputter?
Am I anthropomorphizing his ability to see and appreciate humor? Cats are not supposed to be smart enough to indulge in such things, and yet... Dogs are not either, but I am sure that I have seen a dog laugh. Cats are so stoic that one could never know what goes on in their heads. Incidentally, Mayhem also likes to chew out the nipple area on all of my roommate's wife beaters... is this coincidence? That every tank top she owns has this area and no other nibbled out? That seems even more far fetched as it would include an understanding of the human sense of modesty as well as result in a reaction that he would not be there to witness (she always discovers them when she gets changed at the gym to work out).
As an owner of three cats I can vouch for the fact that all cats (and other animals) have distinctive personalities regardless of the environment that they grew up in. That isn't to say that they aren't often altered by their environment, especially as kittens, but even with fairly consistent conditions they develop their own quirks and attitudes. Doesn't the evolution of a distinct personality speak toward a certain understanding of their environment and their role within it?
My aunt owns two cats that are vicious and horrible to any but their owners. I used to think that this was because they have never lived with children. My cats, however, are very lovable to all strangers and, although they have never lived with a child, they find children particularly interesting... they even put up with a different sort of play and handling from a child than they are willing to put up with from me. If a cat can sense that a child is to be treated gently and tolerantly, regardless of the fact that they have never come in contact with one before, wouldn't that say that they understand much more than we give them credit for?
I read once that cats do not "recognize" us or each other visually but rely purely on olfactory cues. Cat's are also supposed to have very poor memory. This is not true. My cats most certainly recognize each other regardless of scent and have the abillity to tell the difference between a cat they don't know and one that they do even after a great deal of time being separated.
One day one of my cats got outside without me realizing it. The other two were staring out the sliding glass door the next morning but not with the typical posture they take with a strange animal. I wasn't even sure it was my cat as they don't wear tags and he is just a garden-variety all black cat. But they knew. The same was true when my ex-husband took one of the cats when he moved out then needed me to take him back after a six-month period. I brought him in and all of the cats were completely comfortable, as if he had never left. I found additional evidence of this when I watched a cat for a friend. This cat was one that I had fostered in my home when she was just 6 weeks old. When she came back all of my cats recognized her... That was particularly surprising as a kitten smells different to me than a full grown cat, is there a deeper scent that humans don't detect but cats do that is present throughout life or did they recognize her despite the change in size?
The whole point here is that I suspect that animals are capable of much more than we think. Humor would seem to be a stretch for this theory but sometimes it's just hard to tell for sure. If you have a story about witnessing an animal appreciating humor, please respond.
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
Spirituality: Astrotheology: Jesus the Sun of God
Once upon a time, an angel visited the Virgin Mary and asked her to accept the Holy Spirit and be impregnated by God; and so, Jesus was conceived of a virgin and God. When the time of birth neared, Joseph and Mary traveled to Bethlehem and on December 25th, Jesus was born. His birth was announced by a star in the east which three kings followed to the place of his birth to bring him gifts and adore him.
When Jesus turned twelve he began teaching in the temple. He eventually acquired twelve disciples and roamed around teaching and performing miracles. As an adult he was captured by the Romans and crucified. He died on the cross and was placed in a tomb where he stayed for three days, then was resurrected and ascended into heaven.
Throughout the New Testament, Jesus and Christianity are represented by the symbol of the fish. Moses is likewise represented by the ram in the Old Testament. This is evident through the Jewish tradition of blowing the ram’s horn. So what we have here is a bare-bones look at the life of Jesus and the acknowledgment that he followed Moses as the central figure of Judea-Christian religions. Fair enough?
I am not writing this to argue whether or not Jesus existed. What I am going to tell you is how the details of his life are a fabrication, modeled entirely on older religions which are actually stories detailing the movement of the stars. Jesus was indeed the Sun of God, as were many before him.
First of all, let us take a look at the zodiac. The zodiac is a calendar that represents the sun, the solstices, the equinoxes, and the twelve months of the year. Each month is represented by a constellation such as Aquarius who brings water in the spring or Virgo who represents the harvest in the fall. In addition to representing individual months, the signs of the zodiac also represent different ages. Ages occur approximately every 2150 years and are determined by the procession of the equinoxes, meaning that every 2150 years, the morning of the spring equinox occurs under a different constellation of the zodiac calendar. This is due to an angular wobble in the earth’s rotation.
If we look at the ages as they have passed through history, we can see that from 4300-2150 BC, earth was experiencing the age of Taurus the Bull. From 2150 BC-1 AD, it was the age of the Aries the Ram. We already discussed the idea that Moses is represented by the symbol of the ram. Do you remember when Moses descended from the mountain with the Ten Commandments and found that his followers had constructed a golden calf? He becomes enraged, right? It seems reasonable that the Ram would be a little ticked off that his people were still honoring the Bull. If we take it a step further we find that the next age is the age of Pisces the Fish which lasts from 1 AD-2150 AD. Pisces, the fish, is the symbol of Jesus. The twelve disciples of Jesus are also representative of the twelve months of the year and the twelve signs of the zodiac.
Now let us take a closer look at the details of the life of Jesus. The birth of Jesus is heralded by a star in the east which three kings followed to find him. The star in the east is Sirius, the brightest star in the night sky on December 24th. On this night, Sirius falls directly in line with the three stars in Orion’s Belt which are called the Three Kings. If you draw a line, through the Three Kings and Sirius down to the horizon, you will be pointing directly to the point at which the sun rises on December 25th. Therefore, Three Kings follow the star in the east to the place of the birth of the Sun.
So why was this an important enough date to be immortalized by an elaborate story, told and retold throughout history? There is another interesting phenomenon that occurs at this time of year. As the seasons progress, the sun, as visible from the northern hemisphere, proceeds south across the horizon. This occurs gradually over a period of six months until December 22nd. On this day, the sun stops moving perceptively to the south and appears to stay in place for a period of three days before beginning its journey back. For these three days of immobility, the sun is located directly beneath the Southern Cross. Therefore, the sun dies on the cross and is dead for three days before being resurrected and ascending into the heavens.
This would have been very important to the ancient people of the world because it heralded the gradual lengthening of the days and the symbolic winning of the light over darkness. We celebrate this event at Easter because Easter occurs at the Spring Equinox, the time of year when day is finally longer then night.
The story of Jesus is based on the story of sun gods that stretch all the way back through recorded history. The Egyptians had Horace, who was the Son of God, born of a virgin on December 25th, was dead for three days and was resurrected. In addition to the Egyptians, the Greeks, Romans and Indians all had figures in their beliefs that followed this same archetype. So either history has been repeating itself with eerie specificity or humanity has simply found new ways to relate the same story. The purpose of which was to remember an important movement in the heavens.
Sources:
http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/
http://jesusastrotheology.netfirms.com/4_areas_study.htm
When Jesus turned twelve he began teaching in the temple. He eventually acquired twelve disciples and roamed around teaching and performing miracles. As an adult he was captured by the Romans and crucified. He died on the cross and was placed in a tomb where he stayed for three days, then was resurrected and ascended into heaven.
Throughout the New Testament, Jesus and Christianity are represented by the symbol of the fish. Moses is likewise represented by the ram in the Old Testament. This is evident through the Jewish tradition of blowing the ram’s horn. So what we have here is a bare-bones look at the life of Jesus and the acknowledgment that he followed Moses as the central figure of Judea-Christian religions. Fair enough?
I am not writing this to argue whether or not Jesus existed. What I am going to tell you is how the details of his life are a fabrication, modeled entirely on older religions which are actually stories detailing the movement of the stars. Jesus was indeed the Sun of God, as were many before him.
First of all, let us take a look at the zodiac. The zodiac is a calendar that represents the sun, the solstices, the equinoxes, and the twelve months of the year. Each month is represented by a constellation such as Aquarius who brings water in the spring or Virgo who represents the harvest in the fall. In addition to representing individual months, the signs of the zodiac also represent different ages. Ages occur approximately every 2150 years and are determined by the procession of the equinoxes, meaning that every 2150 years, the morning of the spring equinox occurs under a different constellation of the zodiac calendar. This is due to an angular wobble in the earth’s rotation.
If we look at the ages as they have passed through history, we can see that from 4300-2150 BC, earth was experiencing the age of Taurus the Bull. From 2150 BC-1 AD, it was the age of the Aries the Ram. We already discussed the idea that Moses is represented by the symbol of the ram. Do you remember when Moses descended from the mountain with the Ten Commandments and found that his followers had constructed a golden calf? He becomes enraged, right? It seems reasonable that the Ram would be a little ticked off that his people were still honoring the Bull. If we take it a step further we find that the next age is the age of Pisces the Fish which lasts from 1 AD-2150 AD. Pisces, the fish, is the symbol of Jesus. The twelve disciples of Jesus are also representative of the twelve months of the year and the twelve signs of the zodiac.
Now let us take a closer look at the details of the life of Jesus. The birth of Jesus is heralded by a star in the east which three kings followed to find him. The star in the east is Sirius, the brightest star in the night sky on December 24th. On this night, Sirius falls directly in line with the three stars in Orion’s Belt which are called the Three Kings. If you draw a line, through the Three Kings and Sirius down to the horizon, you will be pointing directly to the point at which the sun rises on December 25th. Therefore, Three Kings follow the star in the east to the place of the birth of the Sun.
So why was this an important enough date to be immortalized by an elaborate story, told and retold throughout history? There is another interesting phenomenon that occurs at this time of year. As the seasons progress, the sun, as visible from the northern hemisphere, proceeds south across the horizon. This occurs gradually over a period of six months until December 22nd. On this day, the sun stops moving perceptively to the south and appears to stay in place for a period of three days before beginning its journey back. For these three days of immobility, the sun is located directly beneath the Southern Cross. Therefore, the sun dies on the cross and is dead for three days before being resurrected and ascending into the heavens.
This would have been very important to the ancient people of the world because it heralded the gradual lengthening of the days and the symbolic winning of the light over darkness. We celebrate this event at Easter because Easter occurs at the Spring Equinox, the time of year when day is finally longer then night.
The story of Jesus is based on the story of sun gods that stretch all the way back through recorded history. The Egyptians had Horace, who was the Son of God, born of a virgin on December 25th, was dead for three days and was resurrected. In addition to the Egyptians, the Greeks, Romans and Indians all had figures in their beliefs that followed this same archetype. So either history has been repeating itself with eerie specificity or humanity has simply found new ways to relate the same story. The purpose of which was to remember an important movement in the heavens.
Sources:
http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/
http://jesusastrotheology.netfirms.com/4_areas_study.htm
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Spirituality: Exploring the Concept of God
I have given a great deal of thought recently to religion and spirituality. As a former Christian, I have the benefit of knowing a great deal about the foundation and morals contained within the Christian religion; however, I have never felt comfortable with the concept of an omnipotent higher power.
I believe that religion serves an important purpose in society. Historically as well as modernly, religion creates community, gives people hope, and promotes morality. Unfortunately, it also promotes mob mentality, an inability to think for yourself, and war. I am talking in extremes here. I’m not saying that everyone who believes in God is a stupid sheep bent on killing those who don’t agree with them, but more people have died in religious wars than for any other cause and many Christians that I have spoken to do not understand the purpose or basis for their own beliefs.
In my opinion, finding religion should be a very personal spiritual journey that is about finding out both who you are, and who you are not. I find that many Christians, and assumedly other religions, have not done much in the way of self discovery regarding their beliefs. They believe because they were raised to believe but not because of any personal connection with their doctrine and condone their ignorance with blind faith.
I would encourage anyone to investigate their beliefs. Whether this means deep introspection or theological study, it is important that you fully understand where your loyalties lay and why you believe what you say you believe. The Christians believe that Adam and Eve ate of the tree of knowledge. Because of this, we lost our innocence. We learned the difference between right and wrong and we developed a questioning mind capable of higher thought and understanding. As a result, it is our duty to utilize these skills to make the understanding of our place in the universe a constant learning experience.
Whether you are Christian, Muslim, Jewish or Agnostic, the consideration of a higher power has entered your life at some point. One of the most profound questions that man asks himself and the universe is, “Where did we come from?” Humans have bantered about this unfathomable conundrum for countless centuries. From the first person who looked up at the stars and wondered what they were to the most devote holy man today, we are forever contemplating this question of infinity. Whether from a Big Bang or a benevolent hand, there is always that follow-up question of who created the creator.
In ancient Greece, man assigned gods to every event or unexplainable occurrence. The sun was a flaming chariot and lightening bolts were thrown from the hand of Zeus. Today, we have learned more about our universe and the idea of flaming chariots seems absurd. To me, the same concept is applicable to the questions we still have about the universe around us. When I think about the creation of the universe I don’t see an all powerful, all knowing presence handling the controls. All I know is that the universe is and its origin is a question that is beyond our sight. I agree that a force had a place in the creation but that the force is more like physics or gravity than Jehovah or Zeus.
I don’t believe that religion and science are opposite sides of the same coin. There is no reason why God couldn’t be responsible for the harmony of chemistry that gives us life or the mathematics that rule the paths of the planets. We, as humans, are notorious for anthropomorphizing our surroundings. We see patterns in the stars, faces in rock formations, we blame a chair for tripping us and think our pets are smarter than they could possibly be. We also feel more comfortable putting a face and name to the forces of the universe. The difference between me and someone who believes in God is simply that I have chosen to leave my higher power nameless and to not grant it intelligence but instead, to simply accept it as a force that I would like to know more about and learn how to become more in tune with the effect it has on me.
I believe that religion serves an important purpose in society. Historically as well as modernly, religion creates community, gives people hope, and promotes morality. Unfortunately, it also promotes mob mentality, an inability to think for yourself, and war. I am talking in extremes here. I’m not saying that everyone who believes in God is a stupid sheep bent on killing those who don’t agree with them, but more people have died in religious wars than for any other cause and many Christians that I have spoken to do not understand the purpose or basis for their own beliefs.
In my opinion, finding religion should be a very personal spiritual journey that is about finding out both who you are, and who you are not. I find that many Christians, and assumedly other religions, have not done much in the way of self discovery regarding their beliefs. They believe because they were raised to believe but not because of any personal connection with their doctrine and condone their ignorance with blind faith.
I would encourage anyone to investigate their beliefs. Whether this means deep introspection or theological study, it is important that you fully understand where your loyalties lay and why you believe what you say you believe. The Christians believe that Adam and Eve ate of the tree of knowledge. Because of this, we lost our innocence. We learned the difference between right and wrong and we developed a questioning mind capable of higher thought and understanding. As a result, it is our duty to utilize these skills to make the understanding of our place in the universe a constant learning experience.
Whether you are Christian, Muslim, Jewish or Agnostic, the consideration of a higher power has entered your life at some point. One of the most profound questions that man asks himself and the universe is, “Where did we come from?” Humans have bantered about this unfathomable conundrum for countless centuries. From the first person who looked up at the stars and wondered what they were to the most devote holy man today, we are forever contemplating this question of infinity. Whether from a Big Bang or a benevolent hand, there is always that follow-up question of who created the creator.
In ancient Greece, man assigned gods to every event or unexplainable occurrence. The sun was a flaming chariot and lightening bolts were thrown from the hand of Zeus. Today, we have learned more about our universe and the idea of flaming chariots seems absurd. To me, the same concept is applicable to the questions we still have about the universe around us. When I think about the creation of the universe I don’t see an all powerful, all knowing presence handling the controls. All I know is that the universe is and its origin is a question that is beyond our sight. I agree that a force had a place in the creation but that the force is more like physics or gravity than Jehovah or Zeus.
I don’t believe that religion and science are opposite sides of the same coin. There is no reason why God couldn’t be responsible for the harmony of chemistry that gives us life or the mathematics that rule the paths of the planets. We, as humans, are notorious for anthropomorphizing our surroundings. We see patterns in the stars, faces in rock formations, we blame a chair for tripping us and think our pets are smarter than they could possibly be. We also feel more comfortable putting a face and name to the forces of the universe. The difference between me and someone who believes in God is simply that I have chosen to leave my higher power nameless and to not grant it intelligence but instead, to simply accept it as a force that I would like to know more about and learn how to become more in tune with the effect it has on me.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Art History: Contemporary: Bouguereau vs. Freud
William Bouguereau’s Tight Brushwork Meets Lucian Freud’s Tormented Reality in the Form of a Self Portrait.
William Adolf Bouguereau and Lucian Freud were and are both artists of the human figure. Although they focused on the same subject, their works are dramatically different. Bouguereau’s fine brush work and technical mastery of the human anatomy combined to create an idealized view of rural life. Bouguereau’s works focus on beauty, innocence and youth. Freud, on the other hand, focuses his portrait work on inner turmoil, sexuality and personal pain. He often works on multiple planes which gives his works a skewed appearance though it is obvious that he too has a strong grasp of the human figure. Though very different, these two artists are undoubtedly both masters of the human figure.
Bouguereau’s Self Portrait, which he completed in 1879, demonstrates his fine brush control in a close-up portrait style. Unlike most of his work, which includes full-body representation, his Self Portrait is one of the few pieces with a primary focus on portraiture. Also uncommon to Bouguereau's normal formula, it depicts a single adult figure. This presents a strong contrast to Lucian Freud’s self portrait. The piece is oil on canvas and measures 46 x 38cm; it was completed when Bouguereau was 54 year old.
Lucian Freud’s Man’s Head (self-portrait) presents a unique angle untypical to portraiture, and is a great example of the candid expressions so common in Lucian's work. While it is not as repulsive as some of his other works, it still holds a quality that is definitively Freud. Freud’s ability to paint emotion and to contort his subject without flattening the picture plane is worthy of further study. The piece is also oil on canvas and measures 53.3 x 50.8cm; it was completed when Freud was 41 years old.
These two works are dramatic in their differences for all that they are both self portraits. Bouguereau was a purest, an advocate of the Old Masters and it shows in his composition (Ross 2). His portrait is a straight view, formal and picturesque. Freud’s, alternately, takes the viewpoint from an untraditional angle and is a close-up of the head only. Freud focuses on creating an image that is real as opposed to realistic. The difference is that Bouguereau creates images that look like people while Freud creates images that look like how a person feels (Johnson 17).
Bouguereau was a French Academy painter who worked in at a time that the art world was undergoing some big changes. The artists that preceded him had focused on the religious and mythological scenes that had dominated the art world for so long and were a particular focus of the Academy itself. The artists that followed Bouguereau were the Impressionists and Modernists who vehemently opposed this academic type of work. Bouguereau’s art shows the transitional aspects of the changing art world (Ross 3). Half of his work is in the old style, depicting nymphs and angels, while the other half focuses on children in candid scenes of rural life. (Ross 1).
Lucian Freud was born in 1922 and entered art school at age seventeen where he quickly gained a reputation as a prodigy (Penny 7). Sigmund Freud, his grandfather, had a profound impact on his adult work. Sigmund Freud believed that in order to treat a patient you must first "strip him emotionally naked". Lucian's works depict his models stripped of their "power of censorship," meaning they are un-self conscious or, more specifically, wallowing in self-suffering. While his sketch work shows this fly-on-the-wall view of his models, his painting is where the true genius comes through. Ironically it wasn’t until much later in his career that he began painting and although his primary emphasis was in drawing he never draws in preparation for a painting (Penny 9).
While Lucian Freud's work stands out as being unique and emotional, Bouguereau shows such mind blowing skill that it would be difficult to say who had more talent. The beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Bouguereau's mastery cannot be challenged but many find his work uninspired. Freud has both talent and inspiration but many may find his imagery upsetting or repulsive. It is like comparing apples and oranges, they may both be fruit but the similarities end there.
Bibliography
Hughes, Robert. Lucian Freud Paintings. New York: Thames and Hudson, 1987.
Penny, Nicholas., and Johnson, Robert Flynn., comps. Lucian Freud Works on Paper. New York: Thames and Hudson, 1988.
William Bouguereau 1825-1905. Fred Ross. 2002. Art Renewal Center. 1 Oct 2006. http://www.artrenewal.org/museum/b/Bouguereau_William/bio1.asp.
Bouguereau and the Real 19th Century. Fred Ross. 4 Jan 2002. Art Renewal Center. 1 Oct 2006. http://www.artrenewal.org/articles/2002/NYSOPA_speech/bouguereau1.asp.
The Great Bouguereau Debate. Yoder, Shapiro, Junge, and Elliot. 6 Jun 2006. Art Renewal Center. 1 Oct 2006. http://www.artrenewal.org/articles/2006/Bouguereau_Debate/bouguereaudebate1.asp.
William Adolf Bouguereau and Lucian Freud were and are both artists of the human figure. Although they focused on the same subject, their works are dramatically different. Bouguereau’s fine brush work and technical mastery of the human anatomy combined to create an idealized view of rural life. Bouguereau’s works focus on beauty, innocence and youth. Freud, on the other hand, focuses his portrait work on inner turmoil, sexuality and personal pain. He often works on multiple planes which gives his works a skewed appearance though it is obvious that he too has a strong grasp of the human figure. Though very different, these two artists are undoubtedly both masters of the human figure.
Bouguereau’s Self Portrait, which he completed in 1879, demonstrates his fine brush control in a close-up portrait style. Unlike most of his work, which includes full-body representation, his Self Portrait is one of the few pieces with a primary focus on portraiture. Also uncommon to Bouguereau's normal formula, it depicts a single adult figure. This presents a strong contrast to Lucian Freud’s self portrait. The piece is oil on canvas and measures 46 x 38cm; it was completed when Bouguereau was 54 year old.
Lucian Freud’s Man’s Head (self-portrait) presents a unique angle untypical to portraiture, and is a great example of the candid expressions so common in Lucian's work. While it is not as repulsive as some of his other works, it still holds a quality that is definitively Freud. Freud’s ability to paint emotion and to contort his subject without flattening the picture plane is worthy of further study. The piece is also oil on canvas and measures 53.3 x 50.8cm; it was completed when Freud was 41 years old.
These two works are dramatic in their differences for all that they are both self portraits. Bouguereau was a purest, an advocate of the Old Masters and it shows in his composition (Ross 2). His portrait is a straight view, formal and picturesque. Freud’s, alternately, takes the viewpoint from an untraditional angle and is a close-up of the head only. Freud focuses on creating an image that is real as opposed to realistic. The difference is that Bouguereau creates images that look like people while Freud creates images that look like how a person feels (Johnson 17).
Bouguereau was a French Academy painter who worked in at a time that the art world was undergoing some big changes. The artists that preceded him had focused on the religious and mythological scenes that had dominated the art world for so long and were a particular focus of the Academy itself. The artists that followed Bouguereau were the Impressionists and Modernists who vehemently opposed this academic type of work. Bouguereau’s art shows the transitional aspects of the changing art world (Ross 3). Half of his work is in the old style, depicting nymphs and angels, while the other half focuses on children in candid scenes of rural life. (Ross 1).
Lucian Freud was born in 1922 and entered art school at age seventeen where he quickly gained a reputation as a prodigy (Penny 7). Sigmund Freud, his grandfather, had a profound impact on his adult work. Sigmund Freud believed that in order to treat a patient you must first "strip him emotionally naked". Lucian's works depict his models stripped of their "power of censorship," meaning they are un-self conscious or, more specifically, wallowing in self-suffering. While his sketch work shows this fly-on-the-wall view of his models, his painting is where the true genius comes through. Ironically it wasn’t until much later in his career that he began painting and although his primary emphasis was in drawing he never draws in preparation for a painting (Penny 9).
While Lucian Freud's work stands out as being unique and emotional, Bouguereau shows such mind blowing skill that it would be difficult to say who had more talent. The beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Bouguereau's mastery cannot be challenged but many find his work uninspired. Freud has both talent and inspiration but many may find his imagery upsetting or repulsive. It is like comparing apples and oranges, they may both be fruit but the similarities end there.
Bibliography
Hughes, Robert. Lucian Freud Paintings. New York: Thames and Hudson, 1987.
Penny, Nicholas., and Johnson, Robert Flynn., comps. Lucian Freud Works on Paper. New York: Thames and Hudson, 1988.
William Bouguereau 1825-1905. Fred Ross. 2002. Art Renewal Center. 1 Oct 2006. http://www.artrenewal.org/museum/b/Bouguereau_William/bio1.asp.
Bouguereau and the Real 19th Century. Fred Ross. 4 Jan 2002. Art Renewal Center. 1 Oct 2006. http://www.artrenewal.org/articles/2002/NYSOPA_speech/bouguereau1.asp.
The Great Bouguereau Debate. Yoder, Shapiro, Junge, and Elliot. 6 Jun 2006. Art Renewal Center. 1 Oct 2006. http://www.artrenewal.org/articles/2006/Bouguereau_Debate/bouguereaudebate1.asp.
Art History: Contemporary: Duchamp vs. Boccioni
Modernist Approach to the Comparison of Duchamp’s Bicycle Wheel and Boccioni’s Unique Forms of Continuity in Space.
In both, Bicycle Wheel and Unique Forms of Continuity in Space, the primary focus is movement, either actual or implied. What separates them from each other is the intent that drove the artist. While both artists fall under the Futurist Movement, there was a distinct difference in their motivation.
Duchamp and Boccioni are both considered futurists and true to that movement, they are interested in the idea of motion in art. The futurists were enthralled with the idea of the mechanical as both beautiful and progressive. They saw the art world as stagnant and in need of revolution. Their “out with the old-in with the new” approach embraced the development of found object and collage art. Whether they succeeded in abandoning the work and views of the old masters is open to interpretation. What isn’t in question is that their destructive, violent viewpoint eventually led to Fascism and WWI, which they wholeheartedly embraced.
Like most futurists, Duchamp sought to change the face and definition of art. The avenue that he took was to disrupt the relationship between the idea and the actuality of what we conceive art to be. This abandonment and destruction of established signs was tantamount to the movement of the day. Bicycle Wheel was the first of Duchamp’s Readymade pieces, in which he took found objects and with very little alteration, simply called them art. It is helpful to know, when considering this particular piece, that Duchamp did not have an artistic intent when he created it. This knowledge makes the piece more valid to me then his other Readymade pieces. I can appreciate the idea that Bicycle Wheel was created very much in the spirit of what the futurists believed in, the love of the mechanical, the appreciation of motion, the recycling of everyday materials and, that Duchamp created it out of a love for the components, to please only himself and no one else.
Boccioni took a different approach to the incorporation of motion to a work of art. Instead of tackling the problem literally like Duchamp did, Boccioni uses a fluid, wind blown look which depicts the rapid motion of the stationary figure very well. It is interesting that although Boccioni believed in the futuristic idea of the destruction of all art before it and a separation from the masters, he chose to cast the figure in bronze which I feel is much more of a “masters technique” than the more mundane methods that the futurists were typically using. The choice of bronze was perhaps to aid in the appearance of a mechanical-man, shiny and beautiful as the futurists must have dreamed such a being would be. I believe this piece is highly successful if utterly different from Bicycle Wheel, however, one wonders which piece more closely achieved the artist intent.
From a modernist standpoint I would be inclined to choose Bicycle Wheel because it more closely represents the views outlined in the Futurist Manifesto. However, as a viewer without knowledge of the intent, a post-modernist viewpoint, I would say that Unique Forms of Continuity in Space is more successful because it combines the concept of motion into an otherwise stationary piece. In that way Duchamp kind of cheated by making his piece literally mobile.
In either case, the art of the futurists was a direct response and rebellion against all art before it. I find it inconceivable that any artist would not only want to abandon what others had learned but to actually destroy the art of others in order to make theirs more important. Iconoclasm was certainly something that had occurred before but this may have been the first time that such an action was supported by the media, art world, and government. It is interesting to look at the fact that the art world was indeed somewhat stagnant at the time and the futurist, German expressionists, and cubists were the ones that changed everything. Without these innovators opening the door there may never have been dada, surrealism or, in fact, any of what we consider contemporary art and everyone might still be painting Venus on the half shell and dancing fates.
In both, Bicycle Wheel and Unique Forms of Continuity in Space, the primary focus is movement, either actual or implied. What separates them from each other is the intent that drove the artist. While both artists fall under the Futurist Movement, there was a distinct difference in their motivation.
Duchamp and Boccioni are both considered futurists and true to that movement, they are interested in the idea of motion in art. The futurists were enthralled with the idea of the mechanical as both beautiful and progressive. They saw the art world as stagnant and in need of revolution. Their “out with the old-in with the new” approach embraced the development of found object and collage art. Whether they succeeded in abandoning the work and views of the old masters is open to interpretation. What isn’t in question is that their destructive, violent viewpoint eventually led to Fascism and WWI, which they wholeheartedly embraced.
Like most futurists, Duchamp sought to change the face and definition of art. The avenue that he took was to disrupt the relationship between the idea and the actuality of what we conceive art to be. This abandonment and destruction of established signs was tantamount to the movement of the day. Bicycle Wheel was the first of Duchamp’s Readymade pieces, in which he took found objects and with very little alteration, simply called them art. It is helpful to know, when considering this particular piece, that Duchamp did not have an artistic intent when he created it. This knowledge makes the piece more valid to me then his other Readymade pieces. I can appreciate the idea that Bicycle Wheel was created very much in the spirit of what the futurists believed in, the love of the mechanical, the appreciation of motion, the recycling of everyday materials and, that Duchamp created it out of a love for the components, to please only himself and no one else.
Boccioni took a different approach to the incorporation of motion to a work of art. Instead of tackling the problem literally like Duchamp did, Boccioni uses a fluid, wind blown look which depicts the rapid motion of the stationary figure very well. It is interesting that although Boccioni believed in the futuristic idea of the destruction of all art before it and a separation from the masters, he chose to cast the figure in bronze which I feel is much more of a “masters technique” than the more mundane methods that the futurists were typically using. The choice of bronze was perhaps to aid in the appearance of a mechanical-man, shiny and beautiful as the futurists must have dreamed such a being would be. I believe this piece is highly successful if utterly different from Bicycle Wheel, however, one wonders which piece more closely achieved the artist intent.
From a modernist standpoint I would be inclined to choose Bicycle Wheel because it more closely represents the views outlined in the Futurist Manifesto. However, as a viewer without knowledge of the intent, a post-modernist viewpoint, I would say that Unique Forms of Continuity in Space is more successful because it combines the concept of motion into an otherwise stationary piece. In that way Duchamp kind of cheated by making his piece literally mobile.
In either case, the art of the futurists was a direct response and rebellion against all art before it. I find it inconceivable that any artist would not only want to abandon what others had learned but to actually destroy the art of others in order to make theirs more important. Iconoclasm was certainly something that had occurred before but this may have been the first time that such an action was supported by the media, art world, and government. It is interesting to look at the fact that the art world was indeed somewhat stagnant at the time and the futurist, German expressionists, and cubists were the ones that changed everything. Without these innovators opening the door there may never have been dada, surrealism or, in fact, any of what we consider contemporary art and everyone might still be painting Venus on the half shell and dancing fates.
Art History: Contemporary: Indecency of Children in Fine Art
The following is an academic paper dealing with the subject of censorship. Due to the sensitive nature of the topic, I have omitted the images that were originally included. All images were found using Google image search despite their graphic nature.
Child Pornography is a subject that has become a serious topic of debate in the last thirty years. Before 1977 publications that would be considered pornographic today, were still legal in the United States. Even today, the laws are ever fluctuating and differ wildly internationally. While child pornography is a topic that few would openly defend, there is an ever growing need for stricter laws to quell a growing industry that forever seeks out loop holes. With the laws and definitions regarding what constitutes a lewd image getting ever tighter, there is a very real danger for valid artistic expression. What was once considered a beautiful image of innocence may now be viewed as dangerous and detrimental. Photographers have born the brunt of legal scrutiny as there is concern over the adverse effect such art may have on the
child models. Unfortunately, censorship walks a dangerous line that can step on the toes of personal freedom while trying to protect the innocent. Intent has become the deciding factor for determining whether an image is appropriate or not, but there is
still the ever present problem of deciding where the line should be drawn.
In 1977, child pornography was first made illegal in the United States through the Kildee-Murphy proposal (Wikipedea, Indecent). Currently, in the United States, when concerning child pornography, there is no difference whether the depiction is a photograph or a painting. This is a definition that has flip-flopped considerably in recent years (Laws). Recent legislation has added images that do not use children at all in the production. This is to combat the advent of virtual-pornography (Cisneros). Any image of a child (or adult that is put forth as being a minor) that is engaged in a sexually explicit act or is obscene and does not hold valid artistic or medical merit is considered to be pornography (Laws). When a picture is under question it is evaluated with six criteria:
• whether the focal point of the visual depiction is on the child's genitalia or pubic area
• whether the setting of the visual depiction is sexually suggestive, i.e., in a place or pose generally associated with sexual activity
• whether the child is depicted in an unnatural pose, or in inappropriate attire, considering the age of a child
• whether the child is fully or partially clothed, or nude
• whether the visual depiction suggests sexual coyness or a willingness to engage in sexual activity
• whether the visual depiction is intended or designed to elicit a sexual response in the viewer (Utah v. Morrison)
The criteria are necessarily loose yet comprehensive in order to throw a net over any possibly lewd imagery as needed. But who is to decide whether an image holds artistic merit? In general, it comes down to determining intent, a sort of "I'll know it when I see it" approach.
The laws in this country are maintaining a middle-ground when compared to laws worldwide. The United Kingdom, for instance, defines any indecent depiction of a child as pornography and makes no special requirement for sexual content. Nudity alone can make an image indecent (Wordnet, child). In the world of fine art this is unnecessarily restricting and works such as Bouguereau's Cupidon may never have been created if they had been subjected to such legislation. Most would consider this work to be fine art and not pornographic yet when viewed through the eye of a pedophile, this child is nude and even provocative. If one imagines this same image but with an adult subject, the position and expression can very easily appear coy and seductive rather than full of youthful innocence.
Japan did not outlaw child pornography until 1999 and still does not include anything but actual photographs in its definition. Lolicon publications, which are cartoons of prepubescent girls involved in sexually explicit acts, are perfectly legal and sold openly at newsstands there (Wikipedia, Lolicon). Lolicon and Shotacon (its male equivalent) are currently illegal in the United States but only recently so.
It is the very fact that adult sexuality attempts to approach child-like imagery that children appear sexual when that may not be the intent (Bertin). Innocence and youth have always been sexually appealing and it is therefore not surprising that this appeal has crossed over to include that which adult women are attempting to emulate. If a grown woman dresses up in a school girl uniform to appear younger and more desirable it is not considered abhorrent but a thirteen year old girl in the same outfit has naturally what that woman is attempting to emulate. In addition to this, the idea of the forbidden fruit that is adolescent sexuality is hardly a new or unheard of theme in modern culture. The 1999 film American Beauty, which won the Oscar for Best Picture that year, dealt heavily with the idea of an adult man becoming infatuated with a young girl. It is by this argument that Cupidon's decency can be questioned. Even with this understanding, however, should a borderline image be condemned because a pedophile somewhere might see it and act on an impulse that said image helped to generate? The world would be poorer for the loss of these images.
There is also the question of the difference between paint and film. Would Cupidon have the same meaning if it was a photograph rather than a painting, but otherwise exactly the same? With the use of paint, an image gains some opacity that a photograph does not contain. As a viewer of a painting, you know that you are not looking at a real child and possibly not even a painting of a real child as it is, in most cases, unknown whether the artist used a live model. Even if you are not consciously thinking about this difference when you view the picture, subconsciously you are making a decision whether the image is acceptable or not in part based on this very difference. Gauguin created the Spirit of the Dead is Watching while married to a pre-adolescent in Tahiti. It is evident in the positioning of the figure that it is meant to be subservient if not openly erotic, and the proportions are indicative of a girl nearing puberty. Despite the knowledge that this work was likely to have been created using a live model, and one that was in a sexual relationship with a much older man, it still holds a different level of impact than that of a photograph. For years it was perfectly acceptable for children to be exposed to violence in cartoons because of this same effect. Watching a cartoon cat getting hit by a sledge hammer is funny; watching a film of a cat getting hit by a sledge hammer is horrifying.
Lucian Freud is a contemporary painter that is known to work exclusively from live models. In his painting, Large Interior, Paddington, the subject looks distraught and uncomfortable in her nudity. Considering that Freud intentionally portrayed his subjects emotionally rather than realistically, it is difficult to determine whether this child actually felt anxiety over the conditions she was being subjected to but it is likely that if this painting had been created today rather than the late 60's, it would likely have received negative attention (Hughes).
Many contemporary photographers have been investigated for their use of nude children in their work. Jock Sturges and Sally Mann are two examples, though there are many others. Jock Sturges uses nude children as models and claims to do so in an effort to portray innocence, not sexuality. His subjects are primarily photographed at clothing optional beaches and resorts with the permission of their parents. Sally Mann, another photographer working with children, uses her own children as models and also claims to be depicting innocence rather than eroticism. Both artists have been investigated in regard to the appropriateness of their work and both have been cleared of guilt (Wahmond).
The United States Supreme Court has deemed it unconstitutional to ban an image based solely on the possible interpretation by a person of lewd intent (Rossen). One cannot condemn an image for possibly contributing to the possible abuse of a child at a possible future time by an imaginary criminal. Besides, by that argument, who are we to say that these images aren't preventing a would-be criminal from acting out impulses, perhaps the images are enough to quell the desire to act on a desire to sexually abuse children (Bertin). After this consideration, all that is left is to determine whether there is a danger to the child that has been photographed. If a child has not been posed in a way that is lewd or graphic then it can be truly accepted that the image is made innocently and not intended to elicit a sexual reaction and therefore legal. Conversely, even a picture of a clothed child that is posed in a lewd manner intended to be arousing should be considered pornographic and indecent apart from the presence of nudity.
Even if you take the nudity out of the equation there are still grey areas that come down to intent. Child-supermodel sites are easy to find and are often full of erotically posed preteens. Is an erotically posed child with clothes on better or worse than an innocently posed nude child? Sparkle is a child model whose site has a members-only area with promises of more evocative images than the comparatively innocent picture like the one shown here. Sparkle's site is also the launching pad for other similar sites which contain girls as young as five in positions that leave no room for doubt as to their intent. Though the primary question would be whether these children are being abused, even if they are not they are producing images that are aimed to appeal to the lewd eye of deviants and spawn the debate regarding whether they may somehow encourage pedophiles to abuse other children. This is the same controversy that we see regarding violence in video games. Does the media encourage the action or does the sick mind seek out the media?
To take it a step further, what if we take the child out of the equation? The concern here is not over the banning of sexually explicit photographs or videos but about fine art and virtual art that does not harm children mentally or physically as well as what the definition of "sexually explicit" really is. Computer generated child pornography, like Lolicon, depicts children in sexually compromising positions but does not use children in the production process (Cisneros). If someone creates an image of a child that is either sexually explicit but does not use a real child as a model, or is of a child but is not intended to be sexual, the line of censorship is very hard to define. The whole reason that these laws are in place is to protect children. If child pornography becomes victimless, there may cease to be a reason for it to be illegal. It is frightening that there is even a market for this and it is unfortunate that this far end of the spectrum is causing other pieces with obvious artistic merit to be scrutinized. This is where giving censorship free reign can turn into something very dangerous. Today it may be Lolicon and virtual pornography; tomorrow it may be Cupidon or even other unrelated personal freedoms that we are setting precedent for in the future.
Those that would accept the infringement on their personal rights in exchange for a more conservative stance on child pornography may be giving up more than they know. Since before recorded history, man has connected nudity with sexuality and because of this, found reason to condemn it. Americans may be appalled by the practice in some countries of keeping their women covered from head to toe but this is simply the opposite end of the spectrum from what we have become accustomed to here in the States. The battle over pornography, regardless of age, has been raging for centuries. Although it is unclear who was responsible, (the Dan Brown Theory being popular but unsupported), it is a fact that Vatican art was castrated en masse at some point after the painting of the Sistine Chapel ceiling. Michael Angelo's figures were defaced, their genitals covered over with fig leafs. The statuary throughout the city were quite literally castrated with hammer and chisel then repaired with plaster leaves. The probable reasoning was that the nude statues and paintings may have inspired lewd thoughts among the otherwise pious clergy and were therefore defaced. It would appear that at one time this iconoclasm was acceptable, at least for long enough for the deed to be done; all in the name of saving adults from the crudeness of their own thoughts. Let's just hope that no one decides to save us from any more masterpieces. This is merely another example of censorship at its worst and something that we ought to be aware of as a possible outcome to the baby steps we are taking in that direction.
We must be given the right to chose without overshadowing that choice with fear. The laws surrounding child pornography should be restricted to photographs or images of children that are lewd in nature and intent whether clothed or not that used a child in the production of that image. All other images, as repulsive as they may be to some of us, are not harmful to children and therefore the censorship of these images is an infringement on the rights of artists and patrons. This avenue of censorship goes down a dangerous path that can only lead to inhibition and blatant violation of our rights. Art must have boundaries to its definition and it is often difficult to name where these boundaries belong. However, it is never appropriate to confine art due to fear, to define creative expression by turning a blind eye to that which we find distasteful.
Bibliography
Bertin, Joan E. "Pornography Law Goes Too Far." Los Angeles Times. 1997. "Why Defend Child Pornography." Los Angeles Times. 1998. NCAC Resources Online. http://www.ncac.org/media/19971017~USA~Pornography_Law_Goes_too_Far.cfm
"child pornography." WordNet 1.7.1. Princeton University, 2001. Answers.com 14 Dec. 2006. http://www.answers.com/topic/child-pornography-1
Cisneros, Dannielle. "Virtual Child Pornography on the Internet: a Virtual Victim." Duke Law and Tech Rev. 2002. iBrief Media and Communuications. 12 Nov 2006. http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dltr/articles/2002dltr0019.html.
Eichenwald, Kurt. "With Child Sex Sites on the Run, Nearly Nude Photos Hit the Web." The New York Times. 2006. Lexis-Nexis. 12 Nov 2006. http://0-web.lexis-nexis.com.source.unco.edu/universe/document?_m=clfa7b7a1de54941.
Flam, Faye. "Is Nudity Profanity? The Fine Art of Perception." Philadelphia Inquirer. 2006. Lexis-Nexis. 12 Nov 2006. http://0-web.lexis-nexis.com.source.unco.edu/universe/document?_m=clfa7b7a1de54941.
Hughes, Robert. Lucian Freud Paintings. New York: Thames and Hudson, 1987.
Hutsul, Christopher. "Child Porn Bill Disaster." Toronto Star. 2004. 9 Dec 2006. http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1078787413058&call_pageid=968867495754&col=969483191630.
"Indecent Pseudo-Photograph of a Child." "Lolicon." "Shotacon." "Nudity in Fine Art." Wikipedia Free Encyclopedia. 2006. 10 Nov 2006. http://en.wikipedia.org.
"Laws Concerning Child Pornography." National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. 2006. Federal and State Law. 8 Nov 2006. http://www.missingkids.com/missingkids/servlet/PageServlet?LanguageCountry=en_US&PageId=1476#4.
Rossen, Benjamin and Schuijer, Jan. "The Trade in Child Pornography." IPT Journal 4.4 (1992). The Institute for Psychological Therapies. http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume4/j4_2_1.htm.
Whamond, Ashley. "Seeing Bettina." Faculty of Education Arts. 2004. University of Newcastle Australia. 8 Nov 2006. http://www.newcastle.edu.au/school/fine-art/arttheoryessaywritingguide/bettina.html.
Child Pornography is a subject that has become a serious topic of debate in the last thirty years. Before 1977 publications that would be considered pornographic today, were still legal in the United States. Even today, the laws are ever fluctuating and differ wildly internationally. While child pornography is a topic that few would openly defend, there is an ever growing need for stricter laws to quell a growing industry that forever seeks out loop holes. With the laws and definitions regarding what constitutes a lewd image getting ever tighter, there is a very real danger for valid artistic expression. What was once considered a beautiful image of innocence may now be viewed as dangerous and detrimental. Photographers have born the brunt of legal scrutiny as there is concern over the adverse effect such art may have on the
child models. Unfortunately, censorship walks a dangerous line that can step on the toes of personal freedom while trying to protect the innocent. Intent has become the deciding factor for determining whether an image is appropriate or not, but there is
still the ever present problem of deciding where the line should be drawn.
In 1977, child pornography was first made illegal in the United States through the Kildee-Murphy proposal (Wikipedea, Indecent). Currently, in the United States, when concerning child pornography, there is no difference whether the depiction is a photograph or a painting. This is a definition that has flip-flopped considerably in recent years (Laws). Recent legislation has added images that do not use children at all in the production. This is to combat the advent of virtual-pornography (Cisneros). Any image of a child (or adult that is put forth as being a minor) that is engaged in a sexually explicit act or is obscene and does not hold valid artistic or medical merit is considered to be pornography (Laws). When a picture is under question it is evaluated with six criteria:
• whether the focal point of the visual depiction is on the child's genitalia or pubic area
• whether the setting of the visual depiction is sexually suggestive, i.e., in a place or pose generally associated with sexual activity
• whether the child is depicted in an unnatural pose, or in inappropriate attire, considering the age of a child
• whether the child is fully or partially clothed, or nude
• whether the visual depiction suggests sexual coyness or a willingness to engage in sexual activity
• whether the visual depiction is intended or designed to elicit a sexual response in the viewer (Utah v. Morrison)
The criteria are necessarily loose yet comprehensive in order to throw a net over any possibly lewd imagery as needed. But who is to decide whether an image holds artistic merit? In general, it comes down to determining intent, a sort of "I'll know it when I see it" approach.
The laws in this country are maintaining a middle-ground when compared to laws worldwide. The United Kingdom, for instance, defines any indecent depiction of a child as pornography and makes no special requirement for sexual content. Nudity alone can make an image indecent (Wordnet, child). In the world of fine art this is unnecessarily restricting and works such as Bouguereau's Cupidon may never have been created if they had been subjected to such legislation. Most would consider this work to be fine art and not pornographic yet when viewed through the eye of a pedophile, this child is nude and even provocative. If one imagines this same image but with an adult subject, the position and expression can very easily appear coy and seductive rather than full of youthful innocence.
Japan did not outlaw child pornography until 1999 and still does not include anything but actual photographs in its definition. Lolicon publications, which are cartoons of prepubescent girls involved in sexually explicit acts, are perfectly legal and sold openly at newsstands there (Wikipedia, Lolicon). Lolicon and Shotacon (its male equivalent) are currently illegal in the United States but only recently so.
It is the very fact that adult sexuality attempts to approach child-like imagery that children appear sexual when that may not be the intent (Bertin). Innocence and youth have always been sexually appealing and it is therefore not surprising that this appeal has crossed over to include that which adult women are attempting to emulate. If a grown woman dresses up in a school girl uniform to appear younger and more desirable it is not considered abhorrent but a thirteen year old girl in the same outfit has naturally what that woman is attempting to emulate. In addition to this, the idea of the forbidden fruit that is adolescent sexuality is hardly a new or unheard of theme in modern culture. The 1999 film American Beauty, which won the Oscar for Best Picture that year, dealt heavily with the idea of an adult man becoming infatuated with a young girl. It is by this argument that Cupidon's decency can be questioned. Even with this understanding, however, should a borderline image be condemned because a pedophile somewhere might see it and act on an impulse that said image helped to generate? The world would be poorer for the loss of these images.
There is also the question of the difference between paint and film. Would Cupidon have the same meaning if it was a photograph rather than a painting, but otherwise exactly the same? With the use of paint, an image gains some opacity that a photograph does not contain. As a viewer of a painting, you know that you are not looking at a real child and possibly not even a painting of a real child as it is, in most cases, unknown whether the artist used a live model. Even if you are not consciously thinking about this difference when you view the picture, subconsciously you are making a decision whether the image is acceptable or not in part based on this very difference. Gauguin created the Spirit of the Dead is Watching while married to a pre-adolescent in Tahiti. It is evident in the positioning of the figure that it is meant to be subservient if not openly erotic, and the proportions are indicative of a girl nearing puberty. Despite the knowledge that this work was likely to have been created using a live model, and one that was in a sexual relationship with a much older man, it still holds a different level of impact than that of a photograph. For years it was perfectly acceptable for children to be exposed to violence in cartoons because of this same effect. Watching a cartoon cat getting hit by a sledge hammer is funny; watching a film of a cat getting hit by a sledge hammer is horrifying.
Lucian Freud is a contemporary painter that is known to work exclusively from live models. In his painting, Large Interior, Paddington, the subject looks distraught and uncomfortable in her nudity. Considering that Freud intentionally portrayed his subjects emotionally rather than realistically, it is difficult to determine whether this child actually felt anxiety over the conditions she was being subjected to but it is likely that if this painting had been created today rather than the late 60's, it would likely have received negative attention (Hughes).
Many contemporary photographers have been investigated for their use of nude children in their work. Jock Sturges and Sally Mann are two examples, though there are many others. Jock Sturges uses nude children as models and claims to do so in an effort to portray innocence, not sexuality. His subjects are primarily photographed at clothing optional beaches and resorts with the permission of their parents. Sally Mann, another photographer working with children, uses her own children as models and also claims to be depicting innocence rather than eroticism. Both artists have been investigated in regard to the appropriateness of their work and both have been cleared of guilt (Wahmond).
The United States Supreme Court has deemed it unconstitutional to ban an image based solely on the possible interpretation by a person of lewd intent (Rossen). One cannot condemn an image for possibly contributing to the possible abuse of a child at a possible future time by an imaginary criminal. Besides, by that argument, who are we to say that these images aren't preventing a would-be criminal from acting out impulses, perhaps the images are enough to quell the desire to act on a desire to sexually abuse children (Bertin). After this consideration, all that is left is to determine whether there is a danger to the child that has been photographed. If a child has not been posed in a way that is lewd or graphic then it can be truly accepted that the image is made innocently and not intended to elicit a sexual reaction and therefore legal. Conversely, even a picture of a clothed child that is posed in a lewd manner intended to be arousing should be considered pornographic and indecent apart from the presence of nudity.
Even if you take the nudity out of the equation there are still grey areas that come down to intent. Child-supermodel sites are easy to find and are often full of erotically posed preteens. Is an erotically posed child with clothes on better or worse than an innocently posed nude child? Sparkle is a child model whose site has a members-only area with promises of more evocative images than the comparatively innocent picture like the one shown here. Sparkle's site is also the launching pad for other similar sites which contain girls as young as five in positions that leave no room for doubt as to their intent. Though the primary question would be whether these children are being abused, even if they are not they are producing images that are aimed to appeal to the lewd eye of deviants and spawn the debate regarding whether they may somehow encourage pedophiles to abuse other children. This is the same controversy that we see regarding violence in video games. Does the media encourage the action or does the sick mind seek out the media?
To take it a step further, what if we take the child out of the equation? The concern here is not over the banning of sexually explicit photographs or videos but about fine art and virtual art that does not harm children mentally or physically as well as what the definition of "sexually explicit" really is. Computer generated child pornography, like Lolicon, depicts children in sexually compromising positions but does not use children in the production process (Cisneros). If someone creates an image of a child that is either sexually explicit but does not use a real child as a model, or is of a child but is not intended to be sexual, the line of censorship is very hard to define. The whole reason that these laws are in place is to protect children. If child pornography becomes victimless, there may cease to be a reason for it to be illegal. It is frightening that there is even a market for this and it is unfortunate that this far end of the spectrum is causing other pieces with obvious artistic merit to be scrutinized. This is where giving censorship free reign can turn into something very dangerous. Today it may be Lolicon and virtual pornography; tomorrow it may be Cupidon or even other unrelated personal freedoms that we are setting precedent for in the future.
Those that would accept the infringement on their personal rights in exchange for a more conservative stance on child pornography may be giving up more than they know. Since before recorded history, man has connected nudity with sexuality and because of this, found reason to condemn it. Americans may be appalled by the practice in some countries of keeping their women covered from head to toe but this is simply the opposite end of the spectrum from what we have become accustomed to here in the States. The battle over pornography, regardless of age, has been raging for centuries. Although it is unclear who was responsible, (the Dan Brown Theory being popular but unsupported), it is a fact that Vatican art was castrated en masse at some point after the painting of the Sistine Chapel ceiling. Michael Angelo's figures were defaced, their genitals covered over with fig leafs. The statuary throughout the city were quite literally castrated with hammer and chisel then repaired with plaster leaves. The probable reasoning was that the nude statues and paintings may have inspired lewd thoughts among the otherwise pious clergy and were therefore defaced. It would appear that at one time this iconoclasm was acceptable, at least for long enough for the deed to be done; all in the name of saving adults from the crudeness of their own thoughts. Let's just hope that no one decides to save us from any more masterpieces. This is merely another example of censorship at its worst and something that we ought to be aware of as a possible outcome to the baby steps we are taking in that direction.
We must be given the right to chose without overshadowing that choice with fear. The laws surrounding child pornography should be restricted to photographs or images of children that are lewd in nature and intent whether clothed or not that used a child in the production of that image. All other images, as repulsive as they may be to some of us, are not harmful to children and therefore the censorship of these images is an infringement on the rights of artists and patrons. This avenue of censorship goes down a dangerous path that can only lead to inhibition and blatant violation of our rights. Art must have boundaries to its definition and it is often difficult to name where these boundaries belong. However, it is never appropriate to confine art due to fear, to define creative expression by turning a blind eye to that which we find distasteful.
Bibliography
Bertin, Joan E. "Pornography Law Goes Too Far." Los Angeles Times. 1997. "Why Defend Child Pornography." Los Angeles Times. 1998. NCAC Resources Online. http://www.ncac.org/media/19971017~USA~Pornography_Law_Goes_too_Far.cfm
"child pornography." WordNet 1.7.1. Princeton University, 2001. Answers.com 14 Dec. 2006. http://www.answers.com/topic/child-pornography-1
Cisneros, Dannielle. "Virtual Child Pornography on the Internet: a Virtual Victim." Duke Law and Tech Rev. 2002. iBrief Media and Communuications. 12 Nov 2006. http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dltr/articles/2002dltr0019.html.
Eichenwald, Kurt. "With Child Sex Sites on the Run, Nearly Nude Photos Hit the Web." The New York Times. 2006. Lexis-Nexis. 12 Nov 2006. http://0-web.lexis-nexis.com.source.unco.edu/universe/document?_m=clfa7b7a1de54941.
Flam, Faye. "Is Nudity Profanity? The Fine Art of Perception." Philadelphia Inquirer. 2006. Lexis-Nexis. 12 Nov 2006. http://0-web.lexis-nexis.com.source.unco.edu/universe/document?_m=clfa7b7a1de54941.
Hughes, Robert. Lucian Freud Paintings. New York: Thames and Hudson, 1987.
Hutsul, Christopher. "Child Porn Bill Disaster." Toronto Star. 2004. 9 Dec 2006. http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1078787413058&call_pageid=968867495754&col=969483191630.
"Indecent Pseudo-Photograph of a Child." "Lolicon." "Shotacon." "Nudity in Fine Art." Wikipedia Free Encyclopedia. 2006. 10 Nov 2006. http://en.wikipedia.org.
"Laws Concerning Child Pornography." National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. 2006. Federal and State Law. 8 Nov 2006. http://www.missingkids.com/missingkids/servlet/PageServlet?LanguageCountry=en_US&PageId=1476#4.
Rossen, Benjamin and Schuijer, Jan. "The Trade in Child Pornography." IPT Journal 4.4 (1992). The Institute for Psychological Therapies. http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume4/j4_2_1.htm.
Whamond, Ashley. "Seeing Bettina." Faculty of Education Arts. 2004. University of Newcastle Australia. 8 Nov 2006. http://www.newcastle.edu.au/school/fine-art/arttheoryessaywritingguide/bettina.html.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
