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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Art History: Labyrinth

As a child of pop-culture, I thought that a labyrinth was like what we see in the movies; a tall, stone or hedge maze with turns and dead ends, pitfalls and obstacles. Imagine my surprise when I discovered that our town had at least three of them for patrons to enjoy. In fact, a labyrinth and a maze are different, though the terms are often used loosely. The thing that I had in mind was a puzzle, a maze, which is a left brain task to be solved with logic and problem solving skills. A labyrinth is symbol of the path of life. It has no blind alleys and has only one path, the way in is the way out. The labyrinth is about meditation and imagery, a right brain task that leads you to get out of it only what you put in.

The labyrinth has been a part of history since the time of the Egyptians where the labyrinth housed the bodies of kings and was intended to be completed in darkness. The most famous labyrinth was probably that of the Minotaur in Crete and was depicted as a maze. It is ironic that, although the palace there is full of complicated levels of stairs and chambers, and quite possibly the source of this story, no actual labyrinth was ever found under the city as the legend dictates.

Today the labyrinth is most often found in churches and is of the sort that has no way to get lost. These labyrinths arose in the middle ages when the crusades made pilgrimages difficult. Christians were expected to make a journey to the holy land in their lifetimes but war made these trips hazardous. The labyrinth was created in churches as a substitute. Christians would travel to these churches and perform the circuit in prayer as a symbol of the longer journey to Jerusalem. The labyrinth could also be used as a penance for sin or as a sort if guided meditation, much as the rosary is used today.

I took this whole idea of the meditative labyrinth with some trepidation. I have to admit that I was a little disappointed to learn that I wouldn't be walking a maze and struggled with how I could do this task with an open mind. Personally, meditation for me is much more structured. I never approach a problem with the intent of sitting quietly and directing my thoughts to not wander from the task at hand. I generally approach problems with a much more concrete and left brained method. I am a list maker and when I have something that I need to discover a solution to, I write a list of the pros and cons of each option. To try to focus on a single issue to the exclusion of all else, without a pen in hand, generally doesn't work for me and I end up thinking only about what is making me mad about the situation.

I began to wonder if my idea of mediation wasn't skewed just as my perception of labyrinths was. I did some additional research on meditation techniques specific to the labyrinth. In Dan Johnston's 101 Ways to Use a Labyrinth, I found a whole list of different ways to approach the meditative path. As you may imagine, the list was quite lengthy, ranging from using the labyrinth as a team building exercise to helping someone through the grieving process. The option that most appealed to me, ironically, should have been the one that was apparent without ever reading Johnston's paper. This method was entitled, The Journey of Life. The entire idea of the labyrinth is that it is a representation of the path of life and Johnston suggests entering a meditation while focusing on this metaphor. He believes that the labyrinth should be entered, not while trying to discern "what does it mean?", but trying to understand what it means to you. Because the path of the labyrinth has no dead ends you can realize that you are exactly where you are supposed to be on the road of life and will never get lost.

I went to Shove Chapel and walked the labyrinth there on a warm but not hot day, well into the afternoon when I thought I would be likely to have it mostly to myself. I entered in with the idea of trying to relate the path with my life, where am I now, where am I going? Those thoughts immediately took me to the very place that I didn't want to go which was the anxiety of uncertainty, particularly the fear of change. I stopped and looked at where I was physically standing. I was perhaps one step from the first turn of the path. I tried to clear my mind and tell myself that change is the only way to move on in life just as the first turn in the labyrinth is necessary to completing the whole.

I walked on and soon realized that I was no longer thinking about the labyrinth or life at all but was watching my feet and increasing my pace as though rushing to complete the task. Again I stopped and contemplated, was this how I walked through life? With my head down and my blinders on, ignoring my surroundings? In truth, I think that I sometimes do. But is this really a bad thing? I think that at times it is better to focus on the completion of a task rather than the distractions of the moment.

I took a deep breath, refocused and kept my head up, trying to use all of my senses. After a short time I realized that I was uncomfortable. My clothing (work uniform) was too warm for the weather, the sound of the street and other people, distracting. I wished I had my sunglasses. I also realized that the bag I was carrying was heavy and unnecessary. I had left my car thinking I might go into the library and do some homework afterward and didn't want to have to walk back to my car to get my books, so I had everything with me. This realization made me laugh out loud! Here I was, on the symbolic path of life carrying the reality of life with me. The clothes on my back were the reality of my job, and the bag of books was the reality of school. The very fact that I had decided to consolidate the trip to include study time and completion on the way to work was the very essence of the hectic pace and rigorous schedule that I am forced to keep to find enough hours in the day.

Since I was alone in the labyrinth I decided to leave my bag there and removed the heavy work shirt, leaving myself in a more weather appropriate tank top. I walked on and felt much better. Unencumbered and cool I was able to appreciate my surroundings much more. While I admit that the rest of the walk had very little focused thought to it, I was enjoying the experience on a different level. I returned to reclaim my belongings and left the labyrinth to contemplate the experience. I came to realize that the point where I shucked my things to continue the walk was a representation of my idealistic perception that when I finish school and get a real job, things will be so much better. Logically, I know that there will undoubtedly be new burdens on the way but it is still a symbol of reaching a goal and leaving behind the trappings of the process needed to get there.

On the whole I found the experience amusing. I wouldn't say that I was skeptical of the experience but I certainly didn't expect to find such a concrete relationship between the symbol and the reality. Even after this experience I don't know that I wouldn't have preferred the maze. I have always pictured life as something that does have dead ends and choices to make. The very fact that I am still trying to get a degree after eleven years in and out of school proves that I have gone down more than one dead end and had to back-track to find the correct path. While the idea that the labyrinths path of life shows you that you are always where you are supposed to be, it is not mutually exclusive with the idea that you can sometimes get lost.

2:22 PM - 0 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment

Cedar Point: Put-in-Bay/Wine tour

After spending a full day at Cedar Point, you may want to take a break and visit some of the other sites in the area. My favorite non-Cedar Point day trip was spent visiting the local wineries and taking the ferry to Put-in-Bay Island. The Put-in-Bay Island is advertised as being a night time hot-spot but honestly, I’ve never tried it for the late night bar scene. When we went it was during the day and boy did we have fun.

We started on the mainland and picked up brochures for the local wineries at the diner we had breakfast at. It doesn’t matter where you start, all of the wine sucks but it was still fun to see the wineries and take the tours. Most of the wineries had deals where you could pay less than ten dollars and try a selection of the different wines. If sweet is your thing, then Ohio wineries will be a great experience. For the more educated palate, get ready to drink a lot of fancy grape juice.

Among the wineries we toured were the Firelands Winery, the Mon Ami Restaurant and Historic Winery, the Sand Hill Winery, and the Heineman Winery. The Heineman Winery is located on Put-in-Bay Island and is also the home of the World’s Largest Geode which you can tour for $7 per person. Along with your ticket to the geode you get a complementary glass of wine. When my friend and I went, we didn’t feel that the tour was worth $7 but when we decided against going the management insisted that we take the tour for free since we had traveled so far. If standing in a big rock for a few minutes and drinking a small glass of sickeningly sweet grape juice is your bag, then by all means, pay for the tour. Otherwise, pretend like you are leaving and maybe you will get to go for free!

I should rewind a bit and tell you how to get to Put-in-Bay. There are two ferries available to get you from the mainland to the islands. The Jet Express is the best advertised and incredibly expensive. To get from Sandusky to Put-in-Bay and back on the Jet Express, you will pay an astounding $32 per person. Don’t be duped! The ferry that you want to take leaves from Catawba which is quite close to Sandusky. Miller Ferry is the ferry that the natives who live on the islands use. It costs just $12 per person for a round trip! With that kind of savings you can afford to rent a golf cart once you reach the island, a plan that I highly recommend.

Aside from the World’s Largest Geode and the Heineman Winery, Put-in-Bay also has the World’s Longest Bar! There are other small bars, ice cream joints and at least one brewery mixed in among the tourist traps and souvenir shops. The thing that was great about having a golf cart was that there are no (or very few) cars on the island. We drove all over Put-in-Bay, visited some of the bars and restaurants, went to a baseball game, and generally just had a great time. It might have been all that grape juice we drank, but I would do it all over again in a heartbeat.