The Politics of Design

The Design of Politics
William Morris, Jasmine Wallpaper

Politics is a popular occupation. By that I mean it requires a mingling with the general public. Even at its most elitist, when Kings and Queens were born into that specific family, its whole being depended on the people. Which went from the lowly peasant who shouted "God save the King" to the conspiring attendants in court. Without people, there would be no politics.

This is the same with art and design. Artists and designers these days conveniently forget this.

William Morris was one such designer who combined his art and his politics almost leaving no discernible line between the two.

He was one of the founders of the British Arts and Crafts movement, which eventually also influenced American designers. He made wallpapers, fabric, carpets, and even published poems and novels.

His lofty insistence on making only hand-crafted objects, eschewing the machine-made demands of the day, earned him a great reputation.

His designs are still popular today.

---

Blurring God

Through imagery

The Evangelical Outpost has some insights on the importance of the image. The Reuters debacle, with the photoshopped smokes (rubber stamp tool) sent a wave of skepticism about newspapers and their photographs. There is really nothing new in this. Images have been used as much to instruct and inform as to manipulate and deceive.

But, the blogger goes on to quote David Boorstein, author of "The Image":

By a diabolical irony the very facsimiles of the world which we make on purpose to bring it within our grasp, to make it less elusive, have transported us into a new world of blurs.

In other words, do images make the world more real to us, or less so? Does a photograph of Niagara Falls replace the real thing? Does it bring it closer to us?

More interestingly, though, something which The Evangelical Outposter didn't pick up on, how about all those Christian imagery we have, all the pietas, all the crucifixions, all the scenes from the Gospels? This is very different from idolatry, since these images are not to be worshipped, but act as a way of reminding us of those stories and episodes of the New and Old Testaments.

But do they bring us closer to God, or are they mere blurring effects?

The evolution in Christianity has always been to have less and less representational imagery, and depend more on the experienced reality of Christ.

I'm not sure if this is a good thing, since the efforts of a great artist who depicts these scenes is not only to represent reality, but to transmit some of its holiness and awesomeness as well.

But, maybe, just a simple, undecorated, unglamorous Church does a better job of allowing us to experience that reality. Perhaps praying in the Sistine Chapel could be a challenge – the beauty of those paintings might actually blur and compete with our real experience of God.

---

Sketches of Ontario

The Simcoes of Upper Canada


Niagara Falls, Elizabeth Simcoe

"... These scenes have afforded me so much delight that I class this day with those in which I remember to have felt the greatest pleasure from fine objects, whether of Art or Nature ... " Elizabeth Simcoe, 1793

Summer is scattered with holidays. This Monday is Simcoe Day, or Civic Holiday, for most Ontarians, named in honour of the first Lieutenant-Governor, John Graves Simcoe, of Upper Canada (1791-1796.)

His wife, Elizabeth Simcoe, recorded her impressions of Canada through a diary, sketches and watercolors.

The Simcoes returned to England, in 1796.

---

Heresy, Donkey Style

Bresson’s contempt for Christ

Final scene from "Pickpocket"

I've noticed that many non-Christians have a Jesus complex. John Lennon was famous for saying that the Beatles were "more popular than Jesus." And I've heard artists say things like "I am god", when they really mean "I am God." In other words, supreme creators.

Well, after seeing several Bresson films, and reviewing both internet and book sources about his views, methods and background, I can only conclude that Bresson himself has a Christ complex.

This is most apparent in his film about a donkey "Au Hazard Balthazar."

As one writer put it:

The Christ-like nature [of Balthazar's suffering] is particularly evident in the scenes where Balthazar is baptized, where he leads the funeral cortege, and where he dies among a flock of sheep, a Lamb of God.1

Bresson seems to confuse the donkey with the humble beast that carried Mary to the stable, and Jesus through Jerusalem. But just as those who mean "I am God", when they actually say "I am god", I think Bresson is clear about his intentions. He doesn’t mean the beast of burden, he means Christ himself.

Now, why should it bother me that Bresson uses a lowly donkey to present a Christ-like figure?

Because he has the behavior all wrong.

Christ was never meek, silent nor submissive, like this donkey is portrayed. Yes, the donkey gallops off once in a while (maybe just once) at the atrocities performed against him, but for the most part, he just stays and bears it.

Christ came to suffer, with fellow-men, certainly. But he also came to teach, and to provide a point for salvation. And He wasn't a meek secondary character who silently watched humanity move in its destructive course.

So, what's Bresson's point?

Subtly, by playing at our emotions, Bresson is trying to capture our sympathy for this innocuous donkey.

By implication, this then means that Jesus, who is as "lovable" as this donkey, is also as ineffective.

Therefore, the most we can feel for this donkey/Christ is a sense of pity, and eventually, like I did, contempt.

Bresson’s heretic message, by making us subliminally dislike this little beast, is actually that Christ is as equally offensive and ineffective.

And worse. Bresson might indeed have this Christ complex where he deems himself and his creations greater than the Son of God Himself. And he has to find a way to diminish Him.

------------------------------------------------------
¹ Lindley Hanlon. Fragments: Bresson's Film Style. Rutherford [N.J.]Press, c1986.

---