www. StrongMeatBibleStudy.vhx.tv
Thursday, November 26, 2020
Sunday, November 22, 2020
Wednesday, August 7, 2013
Definition of Beauty described in Hedda Gabler
Recently, I had a chance to write some essays on classical literature. On a recent reading of Hedda Gabler, I realized that the character was living her life based on same strange twists of definitions --Beauty being one of them.
Thoughts on Henrik Ibsen’s play, Hedda Gabler: Worldviews are framed by how we define ideals. Ideals such as beauty, love, purpose, truth, freedom, and justice provide substance to our daily lives. The literary character Hedda Gabler’s ideals seem to be sliced from the fringe and her distinct definitions provide the catalyst for her character and her actions. Beauty for Hedda Gabler does not have its source in created nature, rather she seems completely indifferent to nature. She complains to her house attendent, Miss Tessman, “Yes, fresh air. That’s what I need with all these flowers all over the place.” (Ibsen 1416) Her strange view of beauty comes up again after she learns of fellow character Eilert’s suicide. Her husband is in shock when she declares, “I’m saying that here, in this—there is beauty.” (Ibsen 1461) Again we see Hedda using self will and self-freedom as her value compass. If something is done from the choice of self will, it is, “something bathed in a bright shaft of sudden beauty.” (Ibsen 1462)
Of course you will have to read the play to get the context of this story. Hedda Gabler is similar to Dostoevsyk's Underground Man in that he is living out an extreme example of the rational, scientific, enlightened man, which if removed of virtuous ideals becomes a shell of humanity. Readers, it is important for us to understand what our life definitions are. Do we define our ideals as God would have us? Do we check back with our Creator to see if our definitions are warped and taken from the fringe? Beauty is an element of God -- and therefore is impossible not to be seen and manifested in his Creation.
Works Cited:
Ibsen, Henrik. "Hedda Gabler." Trans. Rick Davis. Norton Anthology of Western Literature. Ed. Sarah Lawall. 8th. Vol. 2. New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 2006. 1407-1466.
Monday, February 4, 2013
So why is Beauty related to the Glory of God?
From Evernote: |
So why is Beauty related to the Glory of God? |
Now that we have separated beauty from art; my next task is to explain why beauty is related to the glory of God. First let me explain that the aesthetic experience is an experience of "firstness"-- in other words it is an experience that is not related to moral issues, not related to practical application, not connected even necessarily to a concept other than just being. It is not related to any other relational experience other than you and the object of attention --alone. For the Christian aesthetic, that would be an aesthetic experience with the Creator, our God. The most synonymous experience that is described in scripture which mirrors this kind of response is speechless awe. This type of experience has always been described when a person is met face to face with God. The Glory of God has always been part of the description of God's presence. So it is the Glory of God that is most often described in a "visual" encounter with his presence. A visual description of this encounter reflects the "truer" nature of divine presence. This connection between God's glorified presence and the response of the observer is more closely aligned to an aesthetic experience than any other relational experience.
Think of the description from Eden, "they heard God walking in the Garden" (Ge 3:8), Moses at the bush, Moses' face glowing from the presence of the Lord. Elijah hearing "still small" voice while in cave, the disciples being told to "be still" at the transfiguration. John, Isaiah, Ezekiel falling as a dead man when they saw the Lord at his Heavenly throne. The description of Heavenly visions, the throne itself -- full of aesthetic details describing the awe of His Glory. Many adjectives will describe these encounters --awe, fear, crying out (due to Holiness), majesty. God declaring his name I AM THAT I AM. This is God. There is no predicate that can contain God. This is "firstness", this is Truth, this is the Amen. Visit the Lord at his throne. Your holy aesthetic begins right here. Read about these encounters. Isaiah 6, Ezekiel 1, Genesis 1-3, Exodus 3, Revelation 1-2. Later I will try to describe attributes of His presence and Throne that we can include in an aesthetic theory for man's art.
Think of the description from Eden, "they heard God walking in the Garden" (Ge 3:8), Moses at the bush, Moses' face glowing from the presence of the Lord. Elijah hearing "still small" voice while in cave, the disciples being told to "be still" at the transfiguration. John, Isaiah, Ezekiel falling as a dead man when they saw the Lord at his Heavenly throne. The description of Heavenly visions, the throne itself -- full of aesthetic details describing the awe of His Glory. Many adjectives will describe these encounters --awe, fear, crying out (due to Holiness), majesty. God declaring his name I AM THAT I AM. This is God. There is no predicate that can contain God. This is "firstness", this is Truth, this is the Amen. Visit the Lord at his throne. Your holy aesthetic begins right here. Read about these encounters. Isaiah 6, Ezekiel 1, Genesis 1-3, Exodus 3, Revelation 1-2. Later I will try to describe attributes of His presence and Throne that we can include in an aesthetic theory for man's art.
Thursday, January 31, 2013
Why we must separate Art from Beauty
The need to distinguish Art from Beauty is a painful discovery. Because of the abstract nature of securing definitions and criteria for the aesthetic, it is a long and sometimes painful process of philosophical thinking to realize that you must separate these two terms. Kant had the same revelation when he coined the term “sublime” to indicate a higher level of aesthetic experience that went beyond art. The confusing part of this discovery is not helped by society’s habit of talking about many kinds of Art as being beautiful on such a frequent basis. To say “This ___ is beautiful” can sometimes be thrown into a conversation without much thought. . Beautiful here is used as an adjective clearly describing the object of attention as worthy of being called Beautiful. It is the common usage of the term beautiful that leads to confusion and many times encourages a non-reflective attitude. I have mentioned this in previous posts and I hope to elaborate a little here.
The terms Art and Beauty have become blurred. Art itself has criteria that objects would first need to qualify as Art and then they may also qualify as Beautiful -- if they share elements with God’s Glory. Not everything that man creates is Art, though everything that God creates is beautiful. Even Christians have misused these terms and turned them around incorrectly. I have seen church signs that read, “Art is man’s creation, Creation is God’s Art.” This sounds like a lovely saying and may sound very true to the untrained aesthetic mind; however, I will show that this phrase implies the predication of Art to Creation, implying that the logical extension of Art is equal or greater than Creation - which clearly shares God’s quality of Beauty. But art never has greater logical extension than beauty.
Art has also traditionally been limited to man-made objects. Here is the wall that most philosophers eventually run into when trying to describe art and beauty in a related context. The problem with confusing beauty and art is that if beauty is limited to art, what do you do about the awesomeness of Creation and how can you include those elements in an aesthetic criterion? This is a huge puzzle and German Philosopher Immanuel Kant “solved” the stumbling block by using the term “sublime” to identify the kind of aesthetic response that went beyond man’s creation. You’ll even hear people use the term sublime -- It was a sublime experience and chances are they do not even know what it means…You see both art and beauty involve aesthetic responses. In fact, they cry out for an aesthetic response and are a necessary component to each! So when you are trying to study aesthetics it is easy to confuse art and beauty. The stumbling block in the academic study of Aesthetics usually happens when you encounter God’s creation and it is difficult to define the difference between these two aesthetic responses in logical terms.
Therefore beauty cannot be limited within the extension of art. Art might share in beauty, but beauty is not confined within art. That is the difference. The puzzle is not such a difficult one, if you are a Christian. Here is my point and here is where we will avoid the stumbling block of misused terms. The truth of the matter is that beauty, not art, is a quality of God - and it is this declaration that you will not hear from secular philosophers, nor will children learn this from a public institution.
Why is this important? When you study the development of thought and how we learn, the mental acts involved in an aesthetic response will be developed before ethical thought. If a child is not exposed to nature or God's poetry in scripture, he will need to develop his aesthetic response in a different way. Usually this can happen when exposed to man-made art including music and literature. The aesthetic response is not as developed, but it is still important that it develops in some fashion. Now do you begin to understand my concern when the secular world tries to remove art and literature from your child?. A poor mental development which begins with a lack of aesthetic experience and snowballs to incompetent ethical judgments will result in the development of our young people.
The terms Art and Beauty have become blurred. Art itself has criteria that objects would first need to qualify as Art and then they may also qualify as Beautiful -- if they share elements with God’s Glory. Not everything that man creates is Art, though everything that God creates is beautiful. Even Christians have misused these terms and turned them around incorrectly. I have seen church signs that read, “Art is man’s creation, Creation is God’s Art.” This sounds like a lovely saying and may sound very true to the untrained aesthetic mind; however, I will show that this phrase implies the predication of Art to Creation, implying that the logical extension of Art is equal or greater than Creation - which clearly shares God’s quality of Beauty. But art never has greater logical extension than beauty.
Art has also traditionally been limited to man-made objects. Here is the wall that most philosophers eventually run into when trying to describe art and beauty in a related context. The problem with confusing beauty and art is that if beauty is limited to art, what do you do about the awesomeness of Creation and how can you include those elements in an aesthetic criterion? This is a huge puzzle and German Philosopher Immanuel Kant “solved” the stumbling block by using the term “sublime” to identify the kind of aesthetic response that went beyond man’s creation. You’ll even hear people use the term sublime -- It was a sublime experience and chances are they do not even know what it means…You see both art and beauty involve aesthetic responses. In fact, they cry out for an aesthetic response and are a necessary component to each! So when you are trying to study aesthetics it is easy to confuse art and beauty. The stumbling block in the academic study of Aesthetics usually happens when you encounter God’s creation and it is difficult to define the difference between these two aesthetic responses in logical terms.
Therefore beauty cannot be limited within the extension of art. Art might share in beauty, but beauty is not confined within art. That is the difference. The puzzle is not such a difficult one, if you are a Christian. Here is my point and here is where we will avoid the stumbling block of misused terms. The truth of the matter is that beauty, not art, is a quality of God - and it is this declaration that you will not hear from secular philosophers, nor will children learn this from a public institution.
Why is this important? When you study the development of thought and how we learn, the mental acts involved in an aesthetic response will be developed before ethical thought. If a child is not exposed to nature or God's poetry in scripture, he will need to develop his aesthetic response in a different way. Usually this can happen when exposed to man-made art including music and literature. The aesthetic response is not as developed, but it is still important that it develops in some fashion. Now do you begin to understand my concern when the secular world tries to remove art and literature from your child?. A poor mental development which begins with a lack of aesthetic experience and snowballs to incompetent ethical judgments will result in the development of our young people.
Tuesday, January 29, 2013
Color palette
The palette of the Lord is beyond compare. An inherent quality of art (man-made) must reflect an ele... - http://pinterest.com/pin/340232946818917068/
Sent from my MOTOROLA ATRIX™ HD on AT&T
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)