BarryTaylorBlog

the next day or bowie's ascension

 

There was a brilliant response to David Bowie's latest music video, The Next Day, from the Catholic league. Bill Donohue, president of said organization declared it the work of a "switch-hitting, bisexual senior citizen from London" that "is strewn with characteristic excess." A little dose of the pot calling the kettle black in terms of excess I think, but whenever religious or catholic images and ideas are addressed in these ways we shouldn't be surprised. On one level this video is predictable and trite--transfer sacred imagery into profane space and you have enough controversy to generate comments like those from the Catholic League.

Mieke Bal, the Dutch cultural theorist makes some key insights about Western society. She declares that there are three important considerations that must be taken into account when examining what is happening within western society. Christianity is there, meaning that it is impossible to begin to think about cultural analysis without acknowledging the theological underpinning of the western world. Secondly, Christianity is a cultural structure that informs the cultural imaginary whether one believes it or not, and finally, that Christianity is just one of the structures, it is not the only cultural structure, nor the only religious structure that underpins who we are or have come to be.

I think her theory helps to explain the ongoing appropriation of Christian imagery in contemporary culture, be it via the work of Damien Hirst or Bowie, Christianity was one of the interlocking structures that formed our world and it remains, even as a ghost in the machine if you will.

So Bowie creates a critique of religion and presents himself as a sort of 'prophet,' which is echoed by Gary Oldman in the video, and eventually 'ascends'--technically disappearing from their midst, but if we take the imagery to logical extensions that's what we are seeing realized. There are the usual madonnas, stigmatas, bishops and clergy, all of them inhabiting, perhaps running a brothel of sorts. On the one hand it is a classic and almost tired stereotypical critique of religion's hypocrisy, unfortunately it remains a prescient critique because of on-going scandals and revelations about sexual activities amongst relgious communities that claim the moral high ground with regard to sexuality and other issues in life. The video enacts a sort of battle between the sacred and the profane and perhaps raising questions as to whether or not the truly sacred is the profane.

The treatment for the video apparently came from Bowie himself but was realized with the help of photogrpaher and director Floria Sigismondi, who has worked with a lot of edgy musicians--Marilyn Manson, Bjork, The Cure, as well as more mainstream artists like Justin Timberlake and Katy Perry. She has a signature style, developed out of her art and sculptural interests which she defines as "entropic underworlds inhabited by tortured souls and omnipotent beings," much of which could be seen in this video. The collapse of sacred and prfoane boundaries can be provocative stuff by itself, when it gets charged erotically, as in the case of this video, you can see why people might get incensed.

I think Bowie raises issues about the sacred in this video, issues that I myself am asking in a world where ideas of sacredness are dramatically shifting and seldom tied exclusively to religious environments anymore, as Gordon Lynch writes in his book, On The Sacred, "the sacred in our contemporary Western world is neither synonymous with "religion", nor has it completely shifted beyond it. It forms the symbolic and moral terrian within which religious and secular lives are lived out."

death is not the end: belfast 2.0

"Lilies that fester smell far worse than weeds," declares William Shakespseare in Sonnet 94. I was going to use this as the starting place for some of my thinking at the Idolatry of God event in Belfast. Pete had written to me and outlined some ideas for conversations around the idea of death and decay. Well, who would you turn to first for thoughts on death and particualrly decay but WS? He can be a starting place for many issues pertaining to material existence and death is one he handles well. The idea of rotting lilies in this sonnet, one of the 'fair youth' series, which explores his love for a young man, is aimed at the thought that the fairest things are meant to remain fair always, but the surprise is often that those things which seem so fair and beautiful can, when they begin to decay, smell far worse than the things we expect to stink--if you've ever let flower water go unchanged for a while, you'll understand the reference.

I was going to stretch this thought and use it to encompass a conversation about church/religion/belief, and the surprise to many, that our experience of it can, and actually must, undergo a decay, if there is to be any hope of something other in terms of the sacred experience. This is a necessary part of the death process--as Pete himself says, decay is a must--the structure is enacting the death, or words to that effect. The rotting, the festering is the post-death move--its where things really start to smell, to challenge the senses. For me it represents a key theological move, one in which the death is only the beginning of a new process. I think that often the death of god/radical theology movement is viewed as a completely nihilisitc affair--it may be for some but as Dylan declares, for me, death is not the end. More on all this later, just finding moments here and there in the meantime, Here's a very decayed version of Dylans song featuring Cave, McGowan and Minogue:).

 

belfast and the idolatry of god

I was in Belfast, mystic city haunted by the horrors of sectarian violence and the spirit of Van Morrison last week, spending time with my friend Pete and a group of people from various spots around the globe, all gathered to explore some of Pete's theological ideas in the setting and environment that gave rise to them.

It was a few days of intense conversation and engagement with ideas that seek to extend the radical theology conversation into the 21st century, by taking into account the cultural, philosophical and religious shifts that invite new reflections on what it means to talk about God, belief, faith, church etc. The mix of people was something of a surprise to me at first. I think I imagined that it would draw an entirely different group, don't know why just did. But it was a great group, and I think, the right kind of group. There was openness and willingness and desire to not only express concerns and worries, but also to seriously consider some radical departures from conventional wisdom. It also provided an opportuntiy to think out loud and almost 'refine the ideas' in public. Sometimes people ask questions that demand you make sure that you aren't simply sloganeering, that there is substance beyond the provocative statement or theory. The practitioner experience demands an entirely different perspective than theoretical ideas--can they, do they work on the ground? what good is a theory if it cannot be lived out? I have never doubted Pete's work because I knew it came from somewhere concrete, that it was birthed in a community of people attempting to live something out, but it was a good reminder of that, and it was great to be in Belfast and meeting again with some of those people.

There were all kinds of events--lots of talking without a doubt, but enough art, food, music, magicians, experiences a d tours of the city, to keep things fresh and alive. I talked a bit about cultural moments and contexts, about sacredness and the profane, about holy ideas and wholly other views of the divine and Pete and I talked together about re-thinking Paul--something that philosophers are doing in earnest, and something I feel that theologians and practitioners need to be engaged in with similar intenstiy and focus.

I came back on Saturday and jumped back into my regualr life at full speed, so more thoughts later--but it was good.

crooked trees and twisted theology

I've been travelling a bit and busy when I havent been and the blogging has suffered because of it. ots to write about, but I need to carve out a bit of time to catch up on some thoughts and ideas. But I thought i'd share this little piece of Tom Waits. I've spent a bit of time with Mr. Waits lately as I am thinking of using some of his ideas for a conference talk or two. I am particiapting in Subverting the Norm II in a couple of weeks and my main talk is taken from a Waits quote-his quote: 'there ain't no devil, just god when he's drunk.,' mine is an inversion, 'there ain't no god just the devil when he's drunk.' We'll have to see how close I stay with Waitisms, but for now I'm enjoying exploring his thinking.

“My kids are starting to notice I'm a little different from the other dads. "Why don't you have a straight job like everyone else?" they asked me the other day. I told them this story:
In the forest, there was a crooked tree and a straight tree. Every day, the straight tree would say to the crooked tree, "Look at me...I'm tall, and I'm straight, and I'm handsome. Look at you...you're all crooked and bent over. No one wants to look at you." And they grew up in that forest together. And then one day the loggers came, and they saw the crooked tree and the straight tree, and they said, "Just cut the straight trees and leave the rest." So the loggers turned all the straight trees into lumber and toothpicks and paper. And the crooked tree is still there, growing stronger and stranger every day.”

Sometimes being straight gets you into trouble:)

extracting the stone of madness

There's little doubt in my mind that Heironymus Bosch would be a very interesting dinner guest. his paintings are mind-blowing on so many levels. I have been spending a lot of time with art lately, I do anyway, but I am currently teaching a class on art, cinema and theology--exploring how these three meaning making media intersect and invite us to think about what it means to be human.

I am not teaching on Bosch, although were there a film about him (which I don't think there is, I don't mean documentary but biographical film which is what I am using in the class) I certainly would. There is very little known about him; no letters or diaries, nothing but the barest biographical information and only about twenty-five paintings have been attirbuted to him. Rumours and opinions about his trippy content and painting style. Some say that his works were inspired by heretical religious views on certain heremetic practices-nobody really knows because he didn't say.

The painting above depicts a supposedly hypothetical 15th century medical practice, in which a stone, which was thought to be the cause of madness, was extracted by essentially digging a hole through the scalp and skull until the dura was exposed and the 'stone' could be extracted, thereby bringing healing. The medical practitioner wears a funnel hat, very reminiscent of the Tin Man, and the woman watching has ahuge book resting on her head! This topic isn't exclusive to bosch, others depicted it as well.

But Bosch's work offers some slightly different commentary I think. Rather than a stone, the doctor in the painting extracts a flower bulb, and there is another on the table in front. It could be quite simply that what Bosch is aiming for is a critique on those who would substitute the search for wisdom with foolish shrotcuts. A big idea of the period concerned the relationship between chemistry and alchemy--the sort of magical approach to life and science that was conducted principally vis the religious communities--the highest goal of which was the production of a transmuted lealing property known as the philosopher's stone--it was often called the 'flower of wisdom'and was depicted as a golden flower, which is exactly what bosch creates here. The golden flowers of chemistry were not easily discovered, and they were the result of great learning, endless patience, hard work, and suffering (in the service of God). However, Bosch’s patient, Lubbert (we know his name from the inscription and it is a dutch name for a fool) wants it extracted 'quickly,' and would rather submit to painful surgery than endure the long hours of study and repeated failures required for success.

The other two characters are a monk and a nun, the nun wearing a big red book on her head. there was apparently a flemish practice of wrapping oneslef with pieces of text, kind of like phylacteries, the idea being that the wisdom could be transmitted by osmosis rather than study--the nun is gooing for it big time and has put the whole book on here brain! And she is perhaps even worse because there is a golden flower on the table in front of her, right under her nose (i.e. within her religion?).

foucault wrote about this painting and of it he said that, "Bosch's famous doctor is far more insane than the patient he is attempting to cure, and his false knowledge does nothing more than reveal the worst excesses of a madness immediately apparent to all but himself." The doctor is a bigger fool than the patient, false wisdom is a greater folly than foolishness and we are awash in it these days. I think the apostle paul talked about that somewhere.

 

nakedness, nudity and other forms of flesh

I'm a couple of weeks into a new term at the theology school and the class is beginning to unfold. This term it is Art, Cinema and Theology--a simple premise--you take ten films about artists and consider how the artists is represented to the wider public through film-you explore the work of those ten artists and consider how they represent themselves, the world and others and you invite those two elements into conversation with a third meaning-making system, theology and see where you get.

I have sat with these films a number of times now, with all three components actually, and find myself continually moving in new directions as my understanding and interests morph and go in new, as well as familiar, directions. this term I am fascinated with the body, with physicality, and how it is dealt with in the three m/m systems. I've been reading a couple of interesting books by Umberto Eco--The History of Beauty and On Ugliness, and have added a new one--Nudities, by Giorgio Agamben.

Agamben's book is quite revelatory, some great quotes and insights. It is not directly a book about nudity, well, it is, but it has a higher philosophical aim than just dealing with nudity-he is scratching at the idea that if nudity is understtod as unconcealment, or the absence of all veils or coverings, that this is analogous to the stripping away of layers to get at the truth of something. But here is an interesting quote from the chapter entitled, Nudity,

"Nudity, in our culture, is inseparable from a theological significance." The eyes of Adam+Eve are opened and they become aware of their nakedness only after the entrance of sin--before that they were not naked, they were clothed with grace...He goes on to quote extensively from theologian Erik Peterson who has written on the Theology of Clothing. Peterson argues that this awareness of nudity could only occur if "man's being had changed...there must have been..a metaphysical transformation, affecting man's mode of being, rather than merely a moral change...Man was created without clothes--which means that he had a nature of his own, distinct from divine nature..."

In light of this Agamben claims that the problem of nudity is thus a problem of human nature in its relationship with grace--thats some heavy ideas, and I'm still processing the implications and my responses. I like the idea that the 'fall' is more than an issue of morality, which I have never bought, it's not enough, and it doesn't square with the gospel, because i don't believe that jesus came to be a moral policeman as some seem to present him.

falling in and out of love

"Few people would fall in love had they never heard about it."

Francois de la Rouchefoucauld.

I participated in a conference in Memphis last week. It was, as most conferences are, a way to connect with friends that I don't see enough, get a break from routine, visit another city, and hopefully be stimulated intellectually, creatively and emotionally. Fortunately, it accomplished most of those things, thanks in part to the people who were there--to me, it's never the stated purpose of the event, it is the alchemy of the attendees that makes it work.

I did a panel thing and particiapted in a PechaKucha event each day of the conference. PK is a fun way to present work and ideas, it emerged in Tokyo as a way for designers to get their ideas out to each other--essentially it is a presentation that demands economy, things reduced to bare, concise essentials--twenty images and twenty seconds to comment--it's a challenge but it's also great fun.

But of course it is introductory, you can't dig too deep really. The image at the top is one I used. There were many ways to go with it and many potential ideas at work in my choice. I went with the broad statement that the challenge is not in coming up with new ideas so much as shaking off the old ones. The tyranny of the past, the way it can literally hold us hostage, is I think, a particularl challenge in the realms of doctrine and dogma--these elements are, of course, the means by which an ideology survives the ages, giving shape and contour to the particularities of faith--but they can also prevent advancement, movement forward, when it is necessary.

ideas, in my mind, are, at least in main part, a product and invention of both culture and history--the times so often determine how we think about certain things--the limits of our knowledge, our understanding of ourselves and the world about us, our concpetions of cosmology, of biology, all these things contribute to the generation of certain idea in every realm as far as I'm concerned.

Francois de la Rouchfoucauld, the 17th century French writerof maxoms and aphorisms, makes a great point, quoted here. 'Falling in Love' is so central to our understanding of romance and relationship that it is hard to imagine even the beginnings of a relationship between two lovers without the idea--we are addicted to the concept in the west--it's the backbone of novels, cinema, music, that addressess issues of romance and love--but there was a time, and there are places, where falling in love is not part of the equation. Not only that, it is an idea that developed and evolved over time--courtly love, for instance, may have been a precursor.

When it comes to theology, the same is true. Theological ideas, do not fall out of heaven, they emerge out of cultural moments and contexts, and those things can, and do, change. One age has central idea that may become peripheral in another. I realize that this presents challenges, particularly when we begin to think about things such as religious orthodoxy and the like, but I am not advocating abandonment as much as awareness really.

What Rochefoucauld's quote really invites us to is humility, to hold things a little lighter in our grasp, prepared to amend and shift and change as information, knowledge, wisdom comes to us.

The past is a gift and a curse, and it can hold us hostage or liberate us, it can be a wall or a springboard--I hope it is always the latter...but it often isn't
 

between heresy and non-belief

Slavoj Zizek has a post-election (U.S.) piece in The Guardian in which he declares that there is something to Obama which makes him more than Bush-with-a-human face. He talks about the "stabilising class," those within society  who are "committed to the stability and continuity of the existing social, economic and political order – the class of those who, even when they call for a change, do so to ensure that nothing really will change." This can be taken as quite a cynical repsonse to the current state of affairs, but I must admit that I find it mostly to seem true. It is decidedly true in the religious environs that I work in--both church and educational--where the talk of changeis always freighted or slanted towards the preservation of what already is--it is the bane of my existence at times--most of the time to be honest--this assumption that the best is what we have, that to re-think it fully or completely would somehow be a detriment, so let's just tweak here and there. i got really pissed off listening to a sermon recently when a quote was relayed from another clergy-person that essentially declared that new forms of church didn'thave the substance, the wieght, to support the church---i.e. yes, the church needs to change but lets not get too carried away, we have what we need already it just needs to be rediscovered or supported by a few additonal bits and bobs so that it might appeal--meanwhile the writing is on the wall, in CAPITAL FUCKING LETTERS--the component with the inability to carry the day, is the very one you continue to champion.

I am writing this in the midst of a post-migraine melancholia, so by all means, read a little heavy-handedness in my comments, but don't mistake my critique for little more than frustration or disgruntledness--there is a problem here, its similar to the one Zizek names in his essay on the political world, different insititutional mechanism, same challenge.

of course, i must point th efinger firstly at my self--I have been asking myself what i'm doing lately, because I am part of the very thing that I think needs to be torn down--the reasons for that are complex (i.e. money/life/career etc.) but no longer to be ignored--time for hard questions of myself.

Zizke wrote,

"In his Notes Towards a Definition of Culture, the great British conservative TS Eliot remarked that there are moments when the only choice is between heresy and non-belief, when the only way to keep a religion alive is to perform a sectarian split from its corpse. Something like this is needed to break out of the debilitating crisis of western societies – here Obama clearly did not deliver. Many disappointed by his presidency held against him precisely the fact that the core of his much-publicised "hope" proved to be that the system can survive with modest changes." I might say that an heretical belief or a believing non-believing might be tweaks on those binaries, but I get his point. Is it possible?  Well, as John Caputo might say, the impossible is what gives life salt, but it is in the separation from its corpse that this impossible salt might be found.

"our democracy effectively has to be reinvented. Every opening should be exploited to bring us closer to this goal, even the tiny cracks through which some light shone in Obama's first term. Our task in his second term is to maintain constant pressure to widen these cracks."

The same perhaps could be true for religion--pressure those cracks, maintain constant pressure, and in the meantime, practice a little herectical non-believing, and see if the bastard will give way.

theology and media culture

Just over halfway through the course and today we finished up the television section. In honour of Halloween we spent some time exploring otherness--strangers and monsters. We looked at The Walking Dead and True Blood using some of Richard Kearney's thinking on Strangers, Gods and Monsters, which I have found insightful along the way in thinking about the ways in which we (various and diverse cultures and societies) process and manage our fears, anxieties and concerns.

"There are monsters on the prowl whose form changes with the history of knowledge," declared Foucault and I think these shows, and others like them, give some examples of how our monsters have changed over the past decades. The fact that both zombies and vampires have traction in the culture is interesting to me. Those characters first appeared out of the underbelly of the enlightenment project, the 19th century churning with change and looking for new maps, manifested its anxieties in the tales of Frankenstein and Dracula--today we seem to have come back around to these symbols and are using them again, in modified forms, to attempt to find new pathways, to handle our present challenges and fears in this time when of not-knowing--when once again, the maps that have brought us thus far, seem insufficient.

Next week we are turning our attention toward digital culture and entering the world of new technologies, social media and all that. Geert Lovink's book on Network Culture is strong critique of post-desktop digitality, the world of mobile digitality, but along with critique he does open up some great questions about things like anonymity, connectivity, sociality, which I hope will give the students plenty to wrestle with. I must say that this particualr class has been very engaged thus far and I have heard and learnt a lot from them.

love is blindness and other tales from the dark side

Saul of Tarsus goes off in rage to root out the followers of the upstart Jesus and encounters the sacred in unexpected ways. It may have been Caputo who said that falling off a horse can sometimes be a mark of progress, this is certainly the case with Saul. What's interesting to me is that his encounter initially results in darkness not light. For three days he sits in complete blindness(his rage had already blinded him anyway, so in some sense it is an outward symbolism of the internal), not eating or drinking, suddenly changed from the fire-breathing persecutor to a man who must be led by the hand. It's his darkness, his false desire and drive have brought him face to face with what he wants but he cannot see it and must live with his own blackness before the scales can be lifted. The three days often get linked to the three days between the cross and resurrection, but I think it is bigger than that--that it is about coming to the real, the substantial, the essential if you will.

After all this saul gets a new name-Paul-which means small or humble-the big man has become the small man, but now he can see and he moves in the same direction but with renewed purpose, not to extinguish this fire but to fan its flames. He also lives in weakness the rest of his days, thereby providing philosophers and theologians with a hook to hang weak theology upon