Beauty and the Transcendent

A plea from Pope Benedict XVI

The Sistine Chapel

Pope Benedict XVI recently addressed  a group of invited artists assembled at the Sistine Chapel. He said:

Beauty, whether that of the natural universe or that expressed in art, precisely because it opens up and broadens the horizons of human awareness, pointing us beyond ourselves, bringing us face to face with the abyss of Infinity, can become a path towards the transcendent, towards the ultimate Mystery, towards God. [1]

Through a dogged study of film art, I have tried to show the inevitable relationship between art and the transcendent. I have also demonstrated, I hope successfully, that artists are free to chose their own transcendent, even to make it up to suit their perceived needs, but that deviations from the true transcendent degenerates into chaos, like Bruce Elder's films, or forces the artist to construct his own demise, like Rothko. Clever artists who manage to avoid some of these pratfalls simply end up making mediocre, unambitious works.

But, I kept trying to put beauty into my analyses. Elder's films have moments of illuminating beauty, which I think Pope Benedict correctly calls "a seductive but hypocritical beauty." The sordid chaos in Elders' films is so overwhelming that the predominant imagery that remains is one of ugliness and not of beauty. Rothko couldn't make discernible, understandable imagery; he was the master of illusions. So his work shone because he refrained from adding real elements to his work, and relied on paint: its substance, texture, light and tones. It's like someone trying to make beauty out of fireworks. If he had put real figures into his paintings, I bet they would have taken the forms of the devils of his psyche.

Pope Benedict quotes another pope in his speech, Paul VI, who addressed artists in 1964 pleading with them to join forces with the true transcendental God in their creations. Pope Paul VI says:

We need you. We need your collaboration in order to carry out our ministry, which consists, as you know, in preaching and rendering accessible and comprehensible to the minds and hearts of our people the things of the spirit, the invisible, the ineffable, the things of God himself. And in this activity … you are masters. It is your task, your mission, and your art consists in grasping treasures from the heavenly realm of the spirit and clothing them in words, colours, forms – making them accessible.

This has always been the case. Christianity has always needed its artists, not just to disseminate its teachings in image form, but to capture the essence, the transcendence, of those messages. Even at the level of simple inquiry, Pope Benedict affirms that this journey is "a path of beauty which is at the same time an artistic and aesthetic journey, a journey of faith, of theological enquiry." Faith, inquiry and beauty are intertwined. He continues: "The way of beauty leads us, then, to grasp the Whole in the fragment, the Infinite in the finite, God in the history of humanity." Beauty leads to knowledge, to discernment and revelation, to truth.

Pope Benedict invited this current crop of world-famous artists to join him in this trajectory of art through beauty to the true God. My pessimism in this subject forces me to say that artists will not heed much of what he says, being so focused on their own needs and "visions." But, if one or two listen and respond, then perhaps his speech will not be in vain.

But, Pope Benedict’s efforts to connect with artists at their den of the infamous 2011 Venice Biennale leads to precisely the kind of place where beauty is "seductive but hypocritical…[a beauty] that rekindles desire, the will to power, to possess, and to dominate others… A beauty which soon turns into its opposite, taking on the guise of indecency, transgression or gratuitous provocation."

It is better for him to seek true artists and bring them to him, rather than he compromise and hope to meet them at the biennale lair.

[1] Full Text of Pope Benedict XVI's Address to Artists

Who is the Real Antidote to Sarah?

Could it be Hillary?


The media are abuzz with comparisons of Palin with Obama. I agree with many of them, especially the uncanny mirror-image, least of which are the black male/white female and the ephemeral Barack vs. down-to-earth Palin ones. But the symmetry goes a little askew when we realize that Palin is more liberal than conservative, whereas there is no doubt of Obama's left-leanings. And one would think that true conservatives would go for the real deal - a conservative white male - rather than a neo-connish white female. But, Obama's awful moment saying that small town people bitterly cling to their guns and religion has hit deep and hard. I'm not surprised that Palin's clear, unapologetic embrace of these things that Obama scorned has won her so many followers. That is certainly a great part of her appeal.

But, is Obama her true challenger? If Obama squeaks through to another presidential run, if Palin decides to go for 2012, and if the famously cautious Hillary Clinton tries her luck again (a lot of ifs, I know), I predict that Palin's true nemesis will be Clinton, not Obama.

Clinton has been going through months of grinding work traveling the world as Secretary of State. She shows surprising moments of bluntness, clarity and forthrightness. One of which is when she challenged the Pakistani government of not doing all it can to find bin Laden. This Vanity Fair article on her, albeit very positive and glowing (something I doubt the magazine would acquiesce to for Palin), describes her as a dedicated, focused and hardworking politician, who genuinely wants to do something positive for her country. She also comes across as surprisingly kind and considerate, as well as showing the occasional good-will to party with her (lesser?) colleagues.

I think she will be the formidable foe for Palin. They probably hold similar views on many things, seeing that Palin shifts center right, while Clinton is center-left, and both edging more towards the center as time goes on. Clinton may be the surprise deal coming closer to conservatism than expected.

I think also, despite Obama’s offer of the post of Secreteray of State to Clinton, she has been bounced around and bruised quite a bit by Obama and his entourage. The strange betrayal over her husband’s “racist” remarks in South Carolina during her presidential campaign, her humbling performance of campaigning for Obama after her defeat, and now her almost thankless job of putting American on a positive, if not leadership, role for the rest of the world, is going more-or-less unnoticed. But, this is the kind of work, hard and dedicated, that Palin shunned when she left her governorship. The kind of work which would have seasoned her well for what could be the fight of her life in 2012. Clinton might just be that competitor.

The World Keeps Turning

Even if we stop for a short while

Sorry for the hiatus, dear readers, but there is a lot to report on. Starting with my review of a documentary on the Sherman brothers who wrote some of the most memorable children's musicals, the Pope on beauty, Sarah and Hillary, and Martha on Rachel. And many more to follow in this fascinating world of ours.

Still a No for Palin's Book

After reviewing two more reviews


A couple of days ago, I commented on the shallowness of Sarah Palin's book, where I deduced from reading reviews and articles that it doesn't tell us much about her political ideas, philosophies and future aspirations.

Here is a very good article at Pajamas Media (what kind of name is that!) where Rick Moran voices my concerns.

At another post, I talked about Peter Brimelow of Vdare commenting that he was "impressed," but all he provided was a quote from the book. Recently, he has written a full op-ed (a rambling 1,700 words) on the whole book, and he couldn't convince me of the impressiveness of the book. In fact, he says very little about the book (is that because it has very little content?), and devotes his article to trying to explain the Palin phenomenon.

Some clarification. I mention Brimelow and Vdare because they purport to be some sort of conservative site which is fighting for national integrity (mostly through immigration restriction). So their opinions should have some weight, more so than other sites. I find in this article, that it isn’t necessarily so.

Mainly Brimelow reiterates that Palin’s appeals to the public is her small town, gun-toting, blue-collar, church-attending background, with a son in the military.

Brimelow writes sympathetically about Palin's resignation from Alaska's governorship. I remain skeptical. Politics is a grueling game. If she can't handle the fight up there in Alaska, how does she think she can take on Washington?

Brimelow makes too much of Palin's understanding of the mortgage induced recession. From the quotes Brimelow provides, Palin never connected this with minorities. Whether she's being politically correct or she's unable to see it, it is still an important omission on her part.

Since Vdare is dedicated to immigration restriction, of course Brimelow has to bring up Palin's position on immigration. He writes "The issue is completely unmentioned in Going Rogue." Yet, didn't her presidential candidate team member have a strong position on immigration, going for the "comprehensive immigration reform" platform? How could Palin leave this crucial national issue "completely unmentioned?"

To make up for this, Brimelow resorts to a November 17, 2009 Rush Limbaugh interview of Palin where he asks her about immigration. Palin mentions border security briefly - but doesn't elaborate on "comprehensive immigration reform" that McCain was so adamant about. Either she doesn't want to bring up the controversial issue, which might hurt her book, or she doesn't think it is important enough.

All-in-all, based on Brimelow’s long but insubstantial review, and Rich Moran’s much more lucid one, I will hold my original view that Palin’s book gives us nothing important about her politics, and I will refrain from buying it.

Michelle Obama's non-Fashion Sense Spilling Over

To other first ladies

Laureen Harper, Prime Minister Stephen Harper's wife, was with Harper on his Asian tour this month, and this is what she looked like descending from the airplane in India.


Is she channelling Michelle Obama's "too-small sweater with belt" novelty? If she had left that sweater behind, and certainly the belt too, she would have shown the reasonably elegant blue dress underneath it. But of course, it is a little rumpled. Why not opt for a sturdy wool/cotton blend which would have wrinkled less during this long flight? These days, women never think ahead when it comes to normal, feminine things. They've lost the touch of practicality combined with attractiveness.

Laureen Harper opted for a dubious fashion trend, with a dress not conducive to long travel. But then, I had reason to doubt her judgment at this post, where she makes a show of being a Harley rider, amongst other things.

Sarah Palin's Memoir

Does she deserve one?


Laura Wood, at The Thinking Housewife, posted my comments on Sarah Palin's book, and here is our email interaction.

Kidist:

Do you think I was too harsh? I found that Sarah's puffed up hair - lighter and high-lightened - and her contrasting dark eye make-up didn't suit her face. Her previous darker, swooped up hairstyle gave her face more balance. Also her make-up was less glaring with her darker hair, maybe because her overall look was darker. They are trying to over-glamorize her now, I think. Oprah looked simpler and prettier.

But, what irritated me was that she came to the interview with nothing to offer. It was clearly a big publicity stunt, and a gossipy one at that. Even country music stars have their music to offer. Oprah's questions came off as much more leveled and realistic, as you mentioned, which Sarah should heed. Also, why be so coy about her political aspirations? Why not just say that she hopes to develop herself as a viable candidate for office in some capacity? People would appreciate that. The whole point of her presence is still unclear to me, but then, her book is strange. Still, she certainly has caused an uproar!

Laura:

No, I don’t think you were too harsh at all. I think it was spot-on and hilarious.

I thought her hair was very inappropriate for an aspiring national leader. Too sexual. She should have left it up as she had it before, which looked more serious.

The lipstick was way too glossy. It looked ridiculous (I'm thinking of her Barbara Walters interview - its was much more glossy than with Oprah. You almost needed sunglasses to look at her.).

I think your points about her book being unserious were the bottom line in this whole thing. I was busy reacting to her personal revelations, which are also important, and am so glad you addressed this issue.

Did you see the Barbara Walters interview? I missed this morning's portion but saw the first day. There was a scene where Barbara interviews Piper and Willow in front of Sarah. Barbara asks little Piper, "So how do you feel when people criticize your Mommy?"To ask such a thing of an eight-year-old is sickening. Then she asked, "Do you want your Mommy to become president?"

Well, what can you say? Does this country have the slightest understanding of child psychology?

Appearances tell a lot. Other small interpersonal interactions are also important, like how a mother relates to her children. Although Palin appears to be a comforting mother, there is something amiss with the way she actually treats her children.

Kidist:

Yes, also why is Sarah traveling with her kids? Shouldn't they be in school? And isn't it a difficult and tiring journey for them, especially little Piper? I saw that excerpt with Barbara Walters on YouTube. I found it disconcerting. I felt sorry for the kids. It looked like the RNC all over again.

Peter Brimelow at Vdare finds some parts of her book to his liking. He says he's read the whole book, but he doesn't comment on its totality. He just quotes an analysis that Palin made that he likes. I think she's just giving out teasers, anyone can make analyses. But as a memoir, which essentially looks back and is descriptive of a life, I don't see any real political meat in it, where she could concretely tell us who she is politically and what she plans. That is surely more important right now for the public. I might pick it up in the bookstores...

Memoirs used to be for people with substance, age and wisdom. People used to earn their memoirs. I don't see how Sarah has earned hers.

Laura replies:

"Memoirs used to be for people with substance, age and wisdom. People used to earn their memoirs. I don't see how Sarah has earned hers."

Absolutely. Why are people buying this thing? It's such a publicity stunt. But then Sarah is more than just a politician. She is the embodiment of Republican hopes that somehow conservatism and liberalism can be painlessly reconciled.

Brimelow, who’s impressed with the book (is it the (aging) rock star-like author that has impressed him?) fails to notice one thing. Palin doesn't mention that the mortgage meltdown was almost wholly caused by minorities, so her conclusions, as far as that quote is concerned, do not see this as a "diversity recession" as Brimelow writes.

I think this is significant, because it relates to Palin's positions on important national policies on immigration, which she has either been silent about, or she follows her presidential team McCain's positions. I expect more of this in Palin's book: unresolved ideas, with good beginnings. True conservatives would go all the way.

Sarah Palin's Book

A tell-all


The most revealing thing about Palin's re-emergence as an author is that the book, from the many reviews and critiques about it, says very little about her political aspirations. Instead, it seems replete with petty personal grievances about her botched vice presidential campaign, and attacks at her grandson's father.

A serious person, who has spent years in public office, would surely dedicate the majority of his book to his political work, his political philosophy, and his future aspirations in politics – although not necessarily as a president.

Instead, Palin produces a "tell-all" type of book. And still more revealing was what she said on her recent Oprah interview. We see her driving to her mansion (how come she still lives there?) and says she feels really free to go where she wants and do what she wants.

Yes, after resigning her governorship, which included responsibilities and grueling work, she is now free to hop on a bus and do a tour for a book which has no political significance whatsoever.

This, I think, confirms the shallowness of Palin.

I wrote about her in a previous post looking like an aging country music star. Maybe that is the image she wants to convey - a type of rock star politician, complete with a tour bus. But I wonder how long that will last until she is required to fill in the blanks.

Carrie Prejean's Simply Stated Truth About Marriage

Too much for the sophisticates

Is it now shameful to hold a Bible and
read from it in public, especially
if you are blonde and beautiful?

Carrie Prejean, the beautiful pageant participant who is caught up in her past errors and honest rebuttals said these simple, true and pure words about marriage at an ad campaign for the National Organization for Marriage:

Marriage is good. There is something special about unions of husband and wife. Unless we bring men and women together, children will not have mothers and fathers.

She has made some terrible choices in her young age. But, I have never heard an argument for marriage said in such a succinct way. Yes, unless we bring men and women together, children will not have mothers and fathers.

I guess this is too simplistic for libertarian sophisticates. I would think as someone of age to be at least a mother to this young girl, describing her as a cretin is particularly venomous on Mercer's part. I wonder why such disdain for the girl? I think Carrie's crime is her basic, unsophisticated Christianity - too much for this "rational" atheist. Perhaps Carrie struck a chord, like I think I did those emails ago when I challenged Mercer about nationality.

And what about Yeagley the conservative American Indian, who says white women are the most beautiful in the world, but when one stands in front of him, a little tarnished it is true, he seems to happily magnify the faults?

Hmmm, non-Christians, non-Westerners? I always find they come out with their own (pure) opinions, exactly describing their own backgrounds.

But, more to the point, if nitpicking adult pundits are not willing to help Carrie Prejean, a young woman caught up the world she has inherited from these adults, that is the tragedy. People should save their acerbic remarks for the old fogies who willingly commit their sins, not young women trying to expiate theirs.

Give the young a chance, and a helping hand.

Obama's Stick It In Your Face Anti-Americanism

He's getting bolder by the day

I've written before about Obama's deep bow to the King of Saudi Arabia, and found it eerie and frightening. That is because I think it was an automatic action. All those years Obama spent in Indonesia, living as young Muslim boy, manifested themselves in one sweep and bow in front of this leader of the Muslim world. Obama's true picture was prostrate for all to see. Images don't lie.

What about his Japanese bow? I think that was just to stick it into our faces. It was deliberately antagonistic to America, which has no protocol of bowing to any monarch. And bowing to a non-Western monarch was another dig at the ribs. He and his wife never gave that same deference to the Queen of England. In fact his wife treated her like an elderly biddy, rubbing her back and acting superior and condescending towards her.

I think I am more angry at Obama's bow to Emperor Akihito, who to his credit looked on rather embarrassedly, and certainly never reciprocated the behavior. Here, like Michelle's deliberately ugly fashion choices, it is a case of "I don't care what you think. I'm going to bow to whomever I want. But that means no deference to white monarchs."

Yes, anti-American and anti-Western behavior coming directly from the American President, and his wife. They will use any method to stab the American public; him with his increasingly bold and antagonistic public behavior, she with her aggressive and insulting fashion choices.

New Design Website

Well-Patterned


I have replaced Kidist Designs with a new design website "Well-Patterned" at Wellpatterned.com. It focuses on my original works.

Here is my "About" page:

Textile designers have a wealth of design tradition to draw on. Patterning our designs after our heritage is about pursuing excellence.

Past designs nourish our present ones. Tradition provides a launching board for our own innovations and creations. Tradition is the basis for the patterns of our thoughts and our ideas. It is ultimately the basis for the patterns on our designs. Thus, Kidist Paulos Asrat uses such guidance and examples to shape her patterns. She looks to the past to direct her to the present, with the ardent hope that her designs will in turn positively influence hers, and others’, future endeavors.

Well-followed, well-conceived, well-designed. That is the goal of "Well-Patterned."

Carrie Prejean's Mission

To redeem herself and other "lost" girls


Carrie Prejean, the pageant model who was asked if she believed in same-sex marriage, and answered in front of millions of viewers that marriage is between men and women, has written a book about her ordeals.

She is a conservative Christian girl, twenty-two years old, and has already garnered her share of controversy. She has also become the target of hate and defamation by gays, liberals and non-Christians.

Her story is perhaps more ordinary than people realize. I think many young girls, when asked difficult questions about marriage, child bearing, abortion, having families, are actually more conservative than expected. I strongly believe that ordinary people intuitively (and practically) know that the sexes are different, marriage is an ancient tradition between men and women, abortion incurs life-long suffering, and families are the basis of society.

It is the incessantly human-hostile media and the elite liberal cabal who keep throwing contrary views out at us, and arranging society so that we have to obey and observe them.

Carrie's brave battle has another dimension. Like many young girls who are brought up on the pornographic entertainment media, she taped various "sex tapes" at seventeen, and sent them to her then boyfriend. These tapes of course became available once she got some fame. She said she sent them before she became a committed Christian, and that they are the biggest mistake of her life.

I don't know how far Carrie will go with her battle to redeem conservatism and Christianity, and herself. She is on a tall mission. She needs all the help she can get, in every way. Least of all not to get confused by the rampantly sexualized culture and the shamefully permissive churches into entering the traps of the evil liberal world.

Unlike the other "lost girls" of the cruel entertainment media, she understands that she needs a force bigger than her self-control to make it through this society as a young and attractive (although I say she is beautiful) girl. May God help her to overcome this, and to be a true model to all those girls searching for direction.

Sarah, Oprah and Hillary

Let the battles begin!


Sarah Palin and Oprah will finally meet. Palin is scheduled to be on Oprah next Monday, but as always, these interviews are pre-taped and the "trailer" is circulating all over YouTube.

Palin has to address the "bad boy" Levi Johnston, the young man she groomed to comfort her daughter by allowing him to spend nights in her daughter's bedroom, and later on putting him on show as the fiancé at the Republican National Convention. Johnston is set to pose for Playgirl, and is threatening Palin with damaging information, and tells her to just "shut up."

This seems to be the tragedy of the modern family. Mothers who are unavailable, children running amok, out-of-wedlock (i.e. illegitimate) grandkids, and now rumors of divorce which Johnston says is an ongoing affair between Palin and her husband.

People will just say that is the cost of a woman running for public office. But is it really worth it? Has Sarah really something extraordinary to offer? We'll have to wait and see, but I think she (or more like her family) has paid too much for her ambitions.

Of course, I cannot avoid commenting on her appearance - public figures are shown no mercy in that regard. Sarah looks like an aging country music star on her interview with Oprah, with her big hair, over-done makeup and those glasses which give that air of sophistication which many older stars are now sporting. I never saw the beauty in her.

Now, someone who really has paid her dues, and who seems to be battling the callous Obama in her own capacity, is Hillary Clinton. It would indeed be a match to see the young and ruthless Palin against the seasoned and humbled Clinton in the next elections. But have we really come such a long way?

Manufactured Transcendence by Modern Artists

And the search goes on


As a culmination of my points on modern artists and the transcendent (for now, since this is an ongoing investigation), here is a quote which I had previously posted, from Bruce Elder's new book Harmony and Dissent: Film and Avant-garde Art Movements in the Early Twentieth Century on avant-garde artists and their their manufactured transcendence. Elder states clearly that artists knew what they were doing and pursuing. The search for transcendence was, and still is, a major component of their art.

Vanguard artists proposed that a universal transcendent art might come forth, might yet unite the arts, might yet re-enchant the world of nature and even of ordinary objects by treating them as hieroglyphs of an invisible reality, and so sway the mind toward a creator-unity immanent in nature. That new art might yet come forth that could fully express the artist's mind. At the beginning of the twentieth century, cinema seemed to many that most closely approximated this ideal. Furthermore... they believed that since it was a synthetic art that exemplified the best attributes of each of the other arts, it was the Ottima Arte.

Interview with Filmmaker Bruce Elder

And the method behind his films

Still from Bruce Elder's The Young Prince.
Colour film, 16 mm, 125 min. 2007.

Here is a very readable interview (not too obscure or arcane, considering it is experimental film that is the subject) with prolific filmmaker Bruce Elder, who has been the subject of my last several posts on artists and the transcendent. It supports many of the positions I propose about film, and modern art in general.

Modern Artists' Spiritual Journeys

The influence of Islamic art

Matisse, Still Life with Blue Tablecloth, 1909

Here is a blog post I wrote about a year ago on the spiritual in Islamic and modern art. This is a quote from the post:

The same spirit that produced Islamic "art" - which is really a profusion of ornamentation and decoration - is the same spirit that produced, eventually, abstract and non-representational art. That spirit is the disinclination to reproduce representational art, since non-representational art is believed (by these [modern] art practitioners) to be more pure and more spiritual.

The rest is a description of the influence of textile art in these artists' non-Christian spiritual journey, and especially of Matisse's.

Muslims and Their Path to Their God

Same methods as modern artists

Tiles at the Friday Mosque in Herat, Afghanistan.
Photo by E.Andersen

(Note: I have updated my post on Rothko to make a better argument for the (false) transcendentalism in his art.)

Over the last couple of days, I have tried to show how modern artists build a parallel universe for us to take us down their transcendental paths. I started off with the experimental films of Bruce Elder, then I described the methods of the well-known painter Mark Rothko.

For a little while, I was intrigued by the design and architecture of Islam. I was interested mostly because I felt that many of their innovative works were actually copies of European, Byzantine or Roman endeavors. As I studied this a little more, I was struck by the "tricks" they used to lure their believers (and even non-believers) into their fold. They do this in almost the same methods that I have described Elder and Rothko using, namely: a disorienting of our senses to have them open and receptive to this "other world."

I sent some of these thoughts to View From the Right a while ago.

After spending some time with Elder's and Rothko's works, I am struck by the similarities of methods that Islamic art uses.

* Like Rothko’s huge canvases, they use unexpected proportions and sizes.

* As in Elder's editing methods, Islamic designs are a chaotic juxtaposition of patterns and shapes.

* There is an incessant repetition of forms (the arches in the Great Mosque of Cordoba - now a cathedral, for example) as though to induce trance-like conditions. Similarly with the muezzin’s repetitive chants (wails). Elder’s film uses repetition of imagery throughout.

Great Mosque of Cordoba, now a cathedral, from Wikipedia

* There is very little empty space in the wall tile patterns. The huge courtyards in the mosques fill up to the maximum with bodies, so they are always densely packed when in full function. Even the arches and pillars in the Cordoba (former) mosque show this relentless avoidance of empty space.

Rothko’s canvases appear empty but are writhing with life under the monochromes, which cover the whole canvas.

Elder's fast-paced editing allows for very little "down" time, forcing on us an incessant cacophony of disorienting images.

In my assessment of Islamic art, I said that these methods were an attempt to find god and the transcendent, which seem ever-elusive. But an astute commentator at VFR said:

I suspect, contra Miss Asrat, that they [the tiling patterns] represent less an attempt to "barge in on Allah" than a psychological device for triggering an inescapable sense of "Allah barging in" on the observer, particularly for an infidel.

I think, after these few days of figuring out these mesmerizing artworks, it is a mixture of both. It is a fervent attempt by these artists (and Muslims) to find a god through these "occult" means. But this god remains elusive and the artists (and Muslims) never cease in searching, and wailing, for him. And secondly, as the VFR commentator says and I have written these past couple of days, there is some force that is twisting our perceptions (via the artists and designers) to lure us into his unholy kingdom.

In any case, the force and power of art cannot be undermined where the transcendent is concerned.

The Constructed Transcendence of Mark Rothko

Spirits in the shadows and lights

Mark Rothko, No. 9 (Dark over light Earth/violet
and yellow in Rose), 1954

I posted earlier how experimental filmmaker Bruce Elder has carefully constructed a passage for his audience to travel through “to the other side.” He has chosen strange and unusual images, juxtaposed them in incoherent (he calls it random) sequences with the help of his software, and edited them together in a relentlessly fast-paced pulse to help him achieve this. I wrote:

[E]xperimental films are always disturbing. They don’t attempt to guide the person through a path of coherence, but through a path of incoherence.

I concluded that such artists are discontent with the world around them, and unable to represent it authentically. They also strain for the transcendent, not to reach God, but a god of their own making. Through their creative acts, they themselves also become gods, guiding and pulling their audience through to their netherworld.

Experimental filmmakers are an obscure group and few see their films, mostly a clique of other filmmakers. But, other artists aim for the same goals, and have much larger audiences, and are much more famous. One such is Mark Rothko.

The first time I saw a Rothko, I was mesmerized and at the same time detachedly intrigued at how an artist could have me stand in front of his "monochromatic" canvas for twenty minutes. I was not fooled. I realized something big and strange was in front of me.

Rothko’s paintings are as painstakingly constructed as Elder’s films. What looks like a plain canvas is actually a subtle play of shadow and light behind the color, almost as though there were invisible shapes hiding underneath the bright monochrome.

There is also a luminescence to Rothko’s paintings. It's within the canvas, and also at the edges of the large rectangular shapes, with this light (these spirits?) leaking out of the canvas across to us.

Finally, Rothko achieves his "path of incoherence" through his huge paintings, strangely so because there appears to be nothing in them. But, as I said, on closer investigation, there is a heaving of matter going on; invisible shapes with their own light and shadow.

Like Elder, Rothko has created his own closed world, separate and different from the one we live in. Elder uses fast editing, random juxtaposition of images, and strange and unusual (often manipulated) images to achieve his effect. Rothko paints huge, seemingly empty pieces, into which we are invited (enticed). And he uses painterly techniques of subtle shadows and highlights to suggest an invisibly seething life in this vast emptiness. He also gives a luminescence to his paintings like some kind of exalted space – Elder also makes use of light in such a manner, although film has the element of light already built into it.

Still from Bruce Elder's The Young Prince.
Colour film, 16 mm, 125 min. 2007.

Artists in the modern age are at a loss on how to include the transcendent into their works. The only solution they seem to find is to create their own transcendence, making their own god (or devil) as they continue to create.

Rothko finally committed suicide. When I read of his method, I had the same intrigued, yet strangely detached and unimpressed, response. He cut his wrist in his white handbasin. I can only imagine the bright red against the stark white. Surely that was the effect he wanted.

Mark Rothko, White over Red, 1957

Malvern Town Centre Medicine Shoppe

Harmony And Dissent

And a descent into the netherworlds

Front cover of Bruce Elder's new book
Harmony and Dissent: Film and Avant-garde
Art Movements in the Early Twentieth Century

There are many things to decipher about Bruce Elder's fascinating presentation on his film, which I attended this past summer. I have seen his latest 2 1/2 hour film The Young Prince, which was a visceral cacophony of images, with some recurring themes. It was a kind of ode to modernism with many recognizable modern paintings (Mondrian, Braque), it used occult and alchemic imagery as some kind of symbolism, and many images were computer manipulated. It is in that way an erudite film, encompassing the arts and sciences (one obvious theme was in squaring the circle, which is an impossibility, but I saw it as the ultimate attempt for perfection - a kind of utopia - and an aim at infinity, all impossible), and modern technology was an important theme. In the realm of experimental films, you could call it a magnum opus.

But, as I wrote earlier, experimental films are always disturbing. They don’t attempt to guide the person through a path of coherence, but through a path of incoherence.

These are not naïve or haphazard films. There is much thought, strategy and filmic manipulation that goes on to get these effects. And there are a couple of strategies Elder uses in his filmmaking system for The Young Prince.

- Juxtaposing different or contrary images together, to arrive at a new synthesis.

- Allowing chance (or randomness) into the process.

At this presentation, he talked about a software he developed which “randomly” placed strips of images (or single images) together that were similar.

My question to him at the end of the presentation was two-fold:

1. If his aim is to put unconnected images together to build a new synthesis, then his software is not doing the trick, since it is randomly putting together images that are similar.

2. His software is not really random, because he has already picked the images that are to be used and has programmed them into his software. More precisely, his software is working within a non-random system of his own chosen images.

His answers were not satisfactory since he dwelt on the random process of choosing images, and not on the closed system he had already built for that randomness.

And about similar images being at the core of the software, unlike his stated goal of bringing different images together, he said that since there is such a variety of images in the database, eventually a juxtaposition differences will occur in the overall film to give that new synthesis.

I am writing this long piece to show the cracks and faults in experimental filmmakers. I am surprised that they never catch themselves out.

1. His strategy of juxtaposing differences to make a coherent whole failed because of the software.

2. He may be using chance, but his film is really a piecing of his very carefully chosen images – of modern paintings, alchemic and occult signs, computer graphic manipulations, and of course sound which is as “experimental” as the images.

What do experimental filmmakers want, for us and for them?

First, I think they want to forfeit responsibility over the image. I think that is why Elder is insisting on “chance” and randomness, all the time. Whereas in fact, he controls very carefully what images are subjected to this “chance.”

Secondly, they want the unusual, the unexpected, the uncanny and in their eyes, the new. Hence the title “experimental.” Elder thinks he can achieve it with his (failed) juxtaposition of unexpected and unconnected images. But, like he said, the overall film does focus on strangeness and difference, simply because the images he chose were different and often strange. It wasn't in the impersonal software, but in his own personal choices that this strangeness comes out.

What they want from the us in the audience is to be perturbed and disconcerted. They want to take us out of our ordinary world and into their own constructed ones. Carefully constructed, as I have shown. Despite all claims of non-responsibility toward the images (i.e. emphasis on chance), Elder is actually making very conscious decisions about his images. But he doesn't want the responsibility of their weirdness, and would rather attribute them to chance, or a computer software, or his unconscious self, or some other force.

Why this alienation from this world? Well, they are unhappy with it. Elder unabashedly used the occult and alchemic symbols in his film, and he quoted from the apocryphal Acts of St. John at the end of the film. Their quest is ultimately a spiritual one, to take us out of this world and into another. My final thoughts before I left that discipline was that they were trying to take us down into some strange abyss. And this became more evident with this last film.

Elder is saying: “I have no responsibility over the images, they are being generated by a force other than my own (e.g. chance, a god, the devil)." And with his editing system and his choice of strange images and effects, he is disjoining our thought processes, making them incoherent and out of our control, so it becomes easier for us to enter, or be coerced into, this other world.

I hate to conclude it like this, but I have finally come to a decisive conclusion that such filmmakers, and Elder in particular, have nowhere positive to take us.

Here are short reviews I did of Elder’s latest book Harmony and Dissent: Film and Avant-garde Art Movements in the Early Twentieth Century, and on his film The Young Prince.:
- New Books on Art: Beauty, Dissent and Wreckage
- The Destruction of Art by Artists: Comment on Bruce Elder's film "The Young Prince"

And my comparison of painter Mark Rothko's work with Elder's filmmaking:
- The Constructed Transcendence of Mark Rothko

The Law of Nature and the Demise of Liberalism

Jim Kalb's calm assessment

Jim Kalb has a great article up of his speech at the recent conservative convention, the H.L. Mencken Club 2009 Conference. I mention the conference briefly here. Noteworthy was the title of the conference "We Are Doomed!" with an exclamation mark, no less.

Kalb's presentation was about the global ambitions of liberalism, and how that is moving forward in this century with the ascension of the European Union. I won't go into more details. I recommend reading the clear and concise article and also getting a hold of Kalb's recent book The Tyranny of Liberalism.

But this is what set Kalb apart from the rest. He writes of the horrendous power the EU is amassing, and predicts that all this will inevitably collapse since the principles that liberalism abides by are built in to cause that collapse.

His final statement is a matter-of-fact

So if you don't like it [liberalism], you should feel free to oppose it. It is not a law of nature that you lose. In fact, in the long run it's a law of nature that they lose.

That was what I was really trying to say in a previous post that conservatives should continue to be conservatives, since they have nothing to lose, and everything to gain. I wrote:

But, one important thing is to DO things...where small steps a movement make. This is where each individual behaves like a conservative, and not just talks about it.

Later on, I write how the traditional world is actually more innovative and more progressive than the modern one:

The funny thing about tradition is that it changes subtly through time. Innovations happen by building the new from the old; by adapting the past into our own present environments. This is what modern artists just don’t get. They are stuck in a rut with their experimentations and self-expression. The true inspiration and, paradoxically, change comes by pursuing tradition.

So while liberals stay "stuck in a rut," true conservatives are actually able to build a better future, which the conservative system allows, and which the liberal system doesn't, to its ultimate demise.

By Giving Up the Burdensome and the False

We end up with the true and the beautiful

I wrote in my previous post how doing things (being active, constructive) and pursuing excellence are the sure things to combat the liberal hegemony step-by-step. Each little step has exponential repercussions down the road, is my firm belief.

By pursuing true and good things, I think we reach unexpectedly (since we often cannot predict them) the right goals.

Please excuse reverting to my story, which I told a little of in the past post.

It is tempting to be with the "in" artsy crowd. A tiny, two minute film is watched and inspected with awe and admiration - irrespective of what it means or even if it is any good artistically. Reasonably artistic people can make such films, they are inexpensive, and totally idiosyncratic. You can make them mean whatever you wish.

I have had classmates who got sucked into this world. And when I watch what they do now (at the few occasions), I wonder and say: all that effort, all that posing, for this! Do they not realize how empty it is?

When I ask them what their purpose is, what it is they think they’re doing in this discipline, what they want the rest of the world to know, they always come up either with a nihilistic answer like: “well, we just want to fight against the system,”or a cop-out one of “we are only interested in art, and that is hard to explain.” One woman actually said that she wanted people to make sloppy, badly constructed, non-Hollywood films to show the individual artist’s mark against the “capitalist” hegemony of Hollywood.

So, it is with some wonder, and great pleasure that by consciously abandoning a nihilistic and dark discipline, I have entered into a light and open field, a field which gives me contact with true humanity (home, family, beauty, patterns), and where creativity is not a heavy burden (like my former film colleagues always complain) but a new shape and form to capture.

By giving up the burdensome and the false, we will always end up with the true and the beautiful. That is the faith people should have.

Doing Things

And finding excellence

I post this with some trepidation, since I don't want it to be misconstrued as an unnecessary focus on myself. But, I have no one else that I can use for this particular kind of example, so here goes.

I've talked extensively about various conservative groups and individuals in the past few months. I've also become aware that some who call themselves conservative are only so in a few (of their favorite) points. Some are outright libertarians, others have crossed the other side to liberalism

I think we spend an inordinate amount of time talking about, berating, criticising and moaning about liberals. Many conservatives have made this their mission (see Michelle Malkin here, who has a new book out on Obama).

I've always refrained from using my blogs as my sounding boards against liberals. I think it is far more important to put conservatives on track, or to point out their errors. This way, a real conservative body can be built. If we blatantly follow every conservative, just because he is not a liberal, then we have short-changed ourselves and the movement too.

But, one important thing is to DO things, as I wrote in a previous post on traditionalism, where small steps a movement make. This is where each individual behaves like a conservative, and not just talks about it. And since this world is a liberal world, that becomes much more difficult than it sounds. But, therein lies the challenge, and not only that, our very survival.

If I can use myself as an example:

I started out in experimental film. I loved handling celluloid. I would shoot, process and edit all my (very short) films myself. But, I found "art" film to be a dead-end. Rather than glorify art, it has become a hotbed for self-expression of the worst sort. Many (the majority) of the films I watched were, well, unwatchable. Aggressively so.

So, I left, rather than fight the failing system. I found textile design, which ironically attracted me because of the same hands-on, textural effect that I liked about film. Then I encountered another problem. I had very little drawing and painting background, and to my great surprise, our design instructors were just not willing (or able) to teach us those fundamentals. I started taking courses at various school boards, where I discovered a hidden gem of true artists, who I believe have been pushed out of the non-art culture prevalent in colleges and universities.

But what about design? Again, I found a vindictive hate of non-weird, non-edgy designs. Also, anything that looked like it had not been done using the much-touted photocopier or computer graphics, was frowned upon. It is too “old-fashioned” was the phrase. And all we want to be is modern, no?

In the end, I even left that group – psychologically, at least. Ordinary people seem to appreciate my efforts. Women like birds and flowers on their furniture fabric. Color and texture are always welcome. I hardly get a “what is that” when I show my work. I think that is the biggest compliment. My colleagues would beg to differ, of course.

My point is that all this is not a matter of perseverance; it is also a matter of pursuing excellence. If we give up on that, no matter how stubborn and persistent we may be, it will all come out wrong. We have to keep these traditions going strong, we have to learn them and learn how to use them. And then use them.

The funny thing about tradition is that it changes subtly through time. Innovations happen by building the new from the old; by adapting the past into our own present environments. This is what modern artists just don’t get. They are stuck in a rut with their experimentations and self-expression. The true inspiration and, paradoxically, change comes by pursuing tradition.

Photo-Op for the Obama Family

And the mother-daughter dynamics

Official Obama family photo taken by Annie Leibovitz

I have sworn off writing about the arrogant, ugly and unstylish sense of fashion Michelle Obama insists on displaying periodically (does the woman have no shame?). My most recent post on her clothing was on how she was using her daughter Malia to advance hers and her husband's leftist views.

I am here to point out another disrespectful (to Americans and to the rest of the world) behavior, again concerning her daughter.

Family snap shots show playful and informal poses, usually to elicit happy memories for later years. But, once in a photography studio, formal is the rule. In fact most photographers have a series of shots they propose for these sittings, which are anything but casual.

At the top is the latest official photo of the Obama family taken by Anne Leibovitz. It has an odd informal style to it and Malia's pose almost looks playful, but I think there's more to it than that.

Part of the problem is the photographer, who manages to get sixteen-year-old stars to pose like 35-year-old sluts. But, there is a strange dynamic between mother and daughter, which we should have been spared had this been an ordinary woman (i.e., we wouldn't have these photos to look at).

Why does Michelle allow her daughter to wrap herself around her like that? What kind of daughter anyway (except for these self-conscious "low-self-esteem" types, who are always looking for attention) behaves like that? I think that is where the problem lies. I think Michelle must be a distant, and not very affectionate mother, for all the talk she does about her daughters. And I think that Malia has to seek that affection.

Could it be that Michelle is jealous of her own daughter? Malia is clearly a smart and pretty girl (smarter and prettier than her mother, it seems to me) and possibley outshines her mother. I've already written about Michelle's self-conscious reaction to an attractive Latina pop star dancing with her husband, where she was clearly jealous - to use a direct description.

Below is another photo of Michelle Obama with her arm wrapped around Malia's neck (they're walking on the White House lawn), as though she's doing a stranglehold on her. It is an insidiously aggressive clasp, and Malia seems to be laughing to make a joke of it - maybe she's in pain, or mildy irritated by it. But, it doesn't look like a "fun" pose.

Michelle Obama and daughter Malia

I can't find the other example I was looking for, but it shows Michelle standing with a stunned look on her face, and Malia walking off, as though she'd just made a riposte. It didn't look good.

This family put itself (forced itself) onto our screens, and not only that, it keeps on insisting that we see its weirdness as well. In any case, other than feeling sorry for Malia, all I can say is that we have a strange one in the White House.