I am only posting one "image/piece" for today. Perhaps more will come later this week. I would like to know what you think when you read and observe this piece. In my own opinion I see the difficulty of religion displayed in religious language. For example, the concept of an Omniscient God alongside free will. The two concepts require a lot of maneuvering to present them as mutually compatible.
It is also interesting to see the terms "Omniscient God" and " Free Will" contextualized with "Civil War" and "Junk Bond". The dynamic/tension that is created within the individual phrases, and then within the entire piece becomes the central focus of the piece. What is this tension? How does it operate in your reading of it? Does it work for you?
The image of the flower presents an additional dynamic to the piece. It appears that the flower is absorbing free will through the roots and perhaps using the Omniscient God as the sun to engage in photosynthesis. Can a person be 'fed' through both food sources? Does this appear as a contradictory feature-or does the flower image tell you something else?
As a side note: Those of you who have seen my earlier postings may note that there is no religious quote in the above piece. Do you like it better/less/indifferent this way? I am considering putting all sorts of pieces in the final book with the sole uniting theme of religiosity.
Tim-
ReplyDeleteI want to start by saying I especially like the effect of "Air Freshener" & "Lie Detector" being the first thing I see after "Omniscient God." I think it complicates the image and the message right away. I see this as a good thing. It makes people think about what "Omniscient God" means literally and also personally. To me an "Air Freshener" breathes, it gives a sense of relief, and refreshes something stale or unwanted. A "Lie Detector" is something to be feared, something to be weary of, and to avoid. It is something that gets to the truth through a method of fear. Is that what God is? Something to do "good" by, because of the fear of potential consequences? Or is God a refresher, something that gives us relief in unwanted situations? I think these initial ideas contradict each other in a way that emphasizes two central issues with God and religion.
I also appreciate the flower image. A flower appears simple, but is a complex being that needs nourishment and light. I see the flower as a representation of the human being- we appear simple, but remain complex is our being. We ponder the possibilities of the unknown and the possibility of a "God." Does one exist?
The "Civil War" idea plays into the idea of complexity. Everyone has internal battles that are toyed, compromised, and fought with everyday.
Keep up the good work. I don't think this one needed a quote. It appears simple, yet it is complex in its entity.
Timothy,
ReplyDeleteTo start, I think this piece is pretty fascinating. There are a number of ways one can look at it or interpret it. I noticed that this one didn't have a quote, while the other posts you've put up on blogger that deal with religiosity do contain a quote. I think I actually prefer ones that do not have a quote because quotes sort of serve as a reference point, and without that reference point, one must look closer at the piece.
The image seems to be dealing with cultivation, which I have gathered from your roots leading to the term "F R E E W I L L" So if free will is born from these things, I wonder whether this can be perceived as a lack of free will (as something buried beneath the surface) or Free Will as something that is inevitable as human beings. I think, and am hoping, that it's the latter. As for the term Omniscient God, I think that it's easy to view this image in its stark simplicity, though I get the feeling that there are complex philosophical ideas at work here. I think that the term Omniscient God and the term Free Will exist in an interesting way, because free will is an option we all have, but does God already know what we are going to do before we do it? Does he know our story before it happens?
I would try creating more space in between the words coming off the flower. Visually, it would put more emphasis on each word and force you to think about each word as its own entity. For Phone Book, I at first read it as phone book, but I think you're intent is to pit the word Phone with the word Book in a way that highlights the difference between the two. Continue to play with spacing in forthcoming works, continue to utilize visual contrast (which you have done in this piece with the roots, my personal favorite part of the piece), and keep on finding the soul of your work with and without quotation reference points
I love how much can be drawn out of such a simple picture, with so few words. A plant is a living being, requiring sustinence from both the ground and sky to live. Here, the grounded, earthen aspect of the equatiohn is free-will, something 'of man', of the earth. The Omniscient God, on the other hand, is aloft and airy, intangible, unseeable. A presence or a force.
ReplyDeleteBoth influence the flower, which produces (the petal-words are growing off of it) the different listed concepts. War and communication are among them. And I like Mandy's interpretation of the air freshener/lie detector. Both the flower stem and the petal words also form the shape of a cross, keeping religion a focus in the text.
I don't like the piece any more or less without a connected quote, but I do like the idea of having variation throughtout the book. As long as there is a consistant theme of belief and religiousity, I think you have carte blanche to do what you please and get away with it. :)
Again, excellent work. Looking forward to flipping through the finished book.