Went to see The Two Towers last night. Getting out to see a movie is a real treat for us now that we have a 9 month old daughter to look after. To tell the truth, I don't really miss going to the movies that much. If there were more truly good movies, perhaps I would feel different.

The two segments have so far been beautifully filmed. The special effects were well controlled, for the most part. And, in particular, I realized last night just how closely they recreated Alan Lee’s vision of Middle Earth. If I remember correctly he was actually involved in the production of the movies. For those unfamiliar with Alan Lee, he is a talented mixed media artist who created most beautiful illustrations for a special edition of The Lord of the Rings. Very few artists can touch Tolkien’s work without making it seem a bit silly.

( Read more... )

In the Kingdom of Heaven all are taken up in song. It is right that our Faith is sung. Holy, Holy, Holy.

I begin to go deeper into the art of W.B. Yeats’ poetry with the help of A Reader’s Guide to... What I previously read about—that his poems collectively are one work—I now begin to experience. I see how through images these poems dance around the North Star.

The work of the hymnographer was to write the songs which are sung corporately. The work of the poet is to write the songs which are sung by the person. These are not at odds, but complimentary. The image of this is the corporateness of Christ’s work of redemption and that of the tongues of flame, the Holy Spirit, at Pentecost.

My own work must be rooted, grounded in the hymns of the Church. And yet, because it is a personal work, it may also, in fact must, be expressed in my own tongue, from my own experience, through my own heritage.

Intimate knowledge of the hymns will provide a framework and a source of images for my personal expression.

On Wednesday I mentioned Andrei Tarkovsky and his book Sculpting In Time. Following is a quote:

Art is born and takes hold wherever there is a timeless and insatiable longing for the spiritual, for the ideal: that longing which draws people to art. Modern art has taken a wrong turn in abandoning the search for the meaning of existence in order to affirm the value of the individual for its own sake. What purports to be art begins to look like an eccentric occupation for suspect characters who maintain that any personalized action is of intrinsic value simply as a display of self-will. But in artistic creation the personality does not assert itself, it serves another, higher and communal idea. The artist is always a servant, and is perpetually trying to pay for the gift that has been given to him as if by a miracle. Modern man, however, does not want to make any sacrifice, even though true affirmation of self can only be expressed in sacrifice. We are gradually forgetting about this, and at the same time, inevitably, losing all sense of our human calling....

( Read more... )

I was writing yesterday about the relationship between the iconographer and the Church. I think that the nature of the role of artists and audience is much like this. Some hold that art is beyond all moral or ethical consideration--Yeats, Blake, and Pushkin come to mind. Oscar Wilde once wrote, "There is no such thing as a moral book or an immoral book. Books are well written or badly written. That is all." I cannot agree, however.

( Read more... )

To A Mouse. On turning her up in her nest with the plough, November 1785

A Poem by Robert Burns

This poem was just the thing I wanted. I get so caught up in thinking, but finally something gets my attention and speaks to my heart more than my head. It's as if in answer to my questioning, "What is an artist? What is art?" I am given this verse—"This is art."



In reading these verses I am reminded of another Scot... George MacDonald. I cannot help but feel that this man tilled the ground of my heart, preparing it for the beauty of Orthodoxy.

---

One more note... I must relate everything back to how I must live my life within a family—the family of the church, but also more specifically in my own family of flesh and blood. Theory is meaningless in dusty, unlived corners. Everything resolves back to the life of Communion and theosis otherwise it is merely sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal

---

I've been thinking about art and responsibilities—what is the responsibility of the artist; of the audience? In thinking about this I have tried to apply what I know of Orthodox art. At some point, however, there is a disconnect because an Orthodox "artist" is not so much an artist as he is a prophet—not in the foretelling, but in the forthtelling sense. Still, the tradition of the iconographer may prove to be a good example, useful for establishing the foundation upon which may be built the answer to my question.

An iconographer is not allowed any room for individualism, his forms must agree with what has been established by the Church. And his entire work is done with the concentration and focus of prayer. The iconographer is blessed with a tremendous responsibility before God and the Body of Christ, the Church.

At the same time, the Church—both the clergy and the laity—has a responsibility to the iconographer. It must accept or reject what the iconographer offers. It must know itself, it's teachings, it's Tradition and it must constantly engage itself in iconography and theology to ensure that it is healthy and complete, without the poison of individual interpretation or subtle and inappropriate alliances with the "spirit of the age", the Zeitgeist.

But these responsibilities are not held one against the other, for the Church is one Body. The iconographer may be the left hand of the Body, the theologians being the right, the laity the feet, with Christ as the most glorious Head—all are joined by the Head in the Heart. The icon finds its fulfilment by the Communion of all parts of the Body—nothing is separate, nothing is in conflict. When the Church rejects a work as being unworthy, it is that which is flawed which is rejected and not the valid iconography. If anything is rejected it is not the iconographer, the person, that is rejected, but that which fails to be a true expression of that personhood which is in
Communion with Christ and His Body.

But how might this be applied to the arts? I will have to write about this later.