[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: JIN-ROH and LoTR



>On Thu, 28 Mar 2002, I wrote:
> > I think we create or partake of art to "escpae" the pain of everyday
> > existence in a constructive or intellectual manner.

Peter responded with:
>And now I've got John Lennon's 'God' going through my brain ("God is a
>concept / By which we measure our pain...").  Not to mention Karl Marx's
>comment that religion was the "opiate of the masses" (and the Calvin &
>Hobbes cartoon in which the TV says "Marx hadn't seen anything yet").

Well, I've recently been to Good Friday services, and I don't feel high in 
the slightest.  I fact, I feel terrible.

Honestly, Peter, I know you know I don't think like this, which is likely 
why you've choosen these examples to illustrate to me the error of my 
thinking.  Right?  Well, I don't see it.  I mean, you could argue that 
religion was essentially "created" by man, despite the fact that the truths 
which form it's basis weren't, and, in that context, your analogy may make 
sense as a reaction to what I've written.  However, since Don has called my 
"escapist" view of art "reductionist", I also feel free to call your view of 
religion the same.  Religion and art do not exist on the same level.  Its 
more than a bit like when I wondered why the Bible wasn't chosen as 
everyone's favorite book, and they replied with "I regard it as much more 
than a mere book".  Religion is more than art, more than a man-made 
creation, and more than an opiate.  (Though, especially for us Catholics, 
religion and art do intersect at some point.)

As for the quote about God, I REALLY don't see the connection.  God created 
man, not the other way around.  As an analogy to my statement about art, it 
seems inappropriate.  Did I miss your point?  Am I reading too deeply into 
this?

The statement I made to which you are responding is also the only one from 
this thread that I didn't qualify with some phrase along the lines of "more 
or less" or "to a degree".  Of course, I don't believe art exists 
exclusively or even primarily for escapist purposes, let alone as a 
temporary refuge from reality.  (Much of pop-art, yes, but even then...)  I 
do believe it serves this function this to an extent, as it helps us channel 
our emotions into the realm of the tangible.  We could wallow in our pain, 
or let it provide an impetus to create.  If we choose the latter, we focus 
on our creation more and our misery less, even if the creation exists (in 
whole or in part) to explore said misery.  In that very shallow, diluted 
sense, art is escapist.  Perhaps that is not escapist in the truest sense.  
I never said it was.

Dictionary time : escapism n. - a desie or tendency to escape unpleasant 
reality by resorting to diversions, or by indulging in daydreaming - 
behavior marked by or orginating from this desire or tendency

Given the above, if an artist's behavior entails making a film or writing a 
song or book about the suffering that is "the human condition", and, in so 
doing, is informed by his or her own humanity, he or she is both focusing on 
pain AND diverting it at the same time.  (The alternative being to wallow in 
it, allowing it to induce paralysis.)  The same holds true for the auidence. 
  In this regard, I see the creative impulse as "escapist."

That's all.  We may never agree, but I respect your views, and Don's and 
Kevin's.  Its good to "know" ya'all.

Sorry if you feel as if you're engaged in a battle of wits with an unarmed 
person.  I am what I am...

and that's all that I am,

Matt





_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com

---------------
Unsubscribe by going to http://www.actwin.com/OtR/
Follow-Ups: