 |
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
||||||||||
|
e x h i b i t i o n c a t a l o g u e |
||||||||||
|
The Cross Function in Contemporary Art |
||||||||||
|
introduction |
||||||||||
|
In February 1996, as a part of my Access Course to the university degree pathway, I presented, along with fellow student Karen Quaintmere, M.A., a project, formulated in response to a History, Cultural Theory brief, set by lecturer Jan Jenkins. The title of our presentation was `The Contents of a Cross’1 . The presentation was short, (c.30mins). Previously, Karen and I had been working with symbols, Karen with spirals and I with contour lines or `cursus’. We believed the cross symbol to be worthy of exploration, particularly in relation to art. The following opening paragraph from the session serves to illustrate the nature of our talk: "We have less a presentation and more of a We found a large amount of `cross’ images in our research. Slides were shown ranging through artists Klee, Constable, Vaughn, Cesarino, Spencer, Milow, Mapplethorpe, Dine, Long, Sutherland, Malevich. In fact, during this time, it became apparent that the use of the cross symbol, throughout the history of art, was extensive, vast even. In concluding our presentation, we stated: The time available in 1996, alas, did not permit this work to continue. Our research seemed to leave many questions unanswered about the cross and art; further, these necessitated a more detailed study. I believe personally that the challenge of tackling this `indefinable-ness’ also worthy of research. The current work therefore, is an attempt to refine and narrow the bandwidth of this initial, fascinating area, and, appropriately, to focus upon the `function’ of the cross in contemporary art. I use the word`function' to suggest an innate mechanism, to describe effects, tangible or intangible, that might stem from human interaction with the symbol. The `Cross Function in Contemporary Art' is an attempt to discern this meaning, to place it in a position relative to modern art and to understand the perspective often intimated, but rarely documented, by the artist. This may enable greater understanding of the cross as pictorial and sculptural subject matter. It should also be said, that this is not an attempt, by myself, to re-appropriate the status of the cross symbol. There are artists however, assiduously working to free this ancient symbol from its much damaged political and religious history. This subject matter then, has arisen through discovering a shortage of documentation by artists during research for `The Contents of a Cross'5. This would be unsuitable as a forum through which to present a complete socio-cultural history of the cross; that, would constitute a lifetime's work. The discussion does, by its very nature, encompass a vast arena of fascinating avenues, the strange essence of which, I hope, will become apparent. It is important to explain, that this essay is not a critique of works that contain the cross image. I will not be discussing individual paintings, although works may be referred to as examples. The cross symbol will be the established connection between themes explored in this essay. It is a search for truth, or fragments of truth, which may rest between the layers of subjective discourse herein. It is a journey with unknown destination. I will be exploring a component that appears, and has appeared, throughout many works of art, over a vast period of time and through all history; a symbol which is seen throughout all social and cultural groups. It is a symbol, that belongs to a select group of powerful, (one could almost say`primal'), symbols. I have named this family, for my own reference, the`cosmic toolkit'. These are elements that help us to organise, order, understand and use our environment. They are geometric tools that are used for a broad range of social and cultural applications. These elements, the cross, circle, triangle and square are perfectly integrated into our lives. They ebb and flow between human psyche and human environment. We barely notice their power.Their pervasion, we accept. They are symbols at the core of our very existence: part of our day-to-day lives. I will only look at the cross element in this essay. It could be said that the cross is the most cultural symbol, the most cultural sign. By very small alterations of its geometry, it is able to migrate from ancient Egypt, in the form of the ankh, to the modern Christian church, simply by loosing its upper loop and from ancient Indian solar sign for example, to menacing fascist emblem, by the reversal, in direction, of its arms. I will, in chapter one, dismantle the cross symbol in an attempt to distil its composite parts by drawing from Jungian psychology and religion in a philosophical way. This will take form, by way of a brief review of the cross and its attributes. Chapter two, will look at the primitive cross, through the eyes of the child, with the assistance of Rhoda Kellogg, Rudolf Arnheim and Jean Piaget. We may benefit by looking at the work of children, which may, inturn shed some light upon the cross function in adult art. Chapter Three asks the question: is the cross function in art religious in nature? The introduction to Emile Durkheim's book - Elementary Forms of Religious Life,6 is used here as reference. Finally, I will look at `MANRESA', a chapter from the book:`Joseph Beuys: Diverging Critiques'7. The chapter was written by Friedhelm Mennekes, and discusses the `MANRESA action' performed by Beuys in 1966. Why was Beuys using the Cross? Finally, I will conclude by drawing together the threads of the essay, and try to establish whether forward movement has been achieved. I will attempt to answer the question:`what is the cross function in contemporary art?' I The purpose of chapter one is to dismantle the cross into its component parts. They are few. I will begin, by asserting that the status of the cross, in relation to this The religious icon could be considered an item of content, as opposed to I discovered as a child, that the best way to reveal how a mechanical item worked, was to dismantle it. Unfortunately, once dismantled, and the mysteries of operation and construction had been revealed, the object rarely returned to a complete and functioning state! The components were, however, put to new and creative uses. This deconstructivist approach was hinted at in the title`The Contents of a Cross'1. However, it does seem more appropriate now to ask, not what the contents of the cross are, but rather, what the components of its supportive structure are? What upholds and maintains the cross? If one is to persue the nature of the cross `function' in contemporary art, an overall representation from this perspective is of importance. Here, we will also become acquainted with the language established through psychological and scientific research. In his introduction to Art and Visual Perception, Rudolf Arnheim says that "nobody has ever discussed the process of creating or experiencing art without talking psychology"2. Above all, this language forms an important and established bridge, between science and art, that will be used later, in discussing specific artists' work. The primary visual attribute of the cross then, must be its geometry. In`The Contents of a Cross', we began by asking the question:"When youthink of the cross, what do you see?"3 We engage the symbol firstly in a visual sense, by seeing. The cross itself is known for its striking visual appearance - the horizontal and vertical lines. Its geometry is the mathematical system concerned with points, lines and surfaces. We may analogue the broad interpretation of the cross, its various limb geometeries, to the various metaphysical idioms - states of being, as discussed by Rene Guenon in his book `The Symbolism of the Cross'4. Metaphysics is that area of philosophy, which concerns itself with the nature and structure of reality. It deals with such questions as: Are the objects we perceive real or illusory? Does the external world exist apart from our consciousness of it and, is reality ultimately reducible to a single underlying substance? In a metaphysical sense, the cross represents many things, material, immaterial and abstract. Its status has been attained through centuaries of social and contextual overlay. It is said, that symbols contain a broad association of components relating to the human condition, conscious and unconscious. In the introduction to his book`A Dictionary of Symbols', Tom Chetwynd says that "symbols have always been treasured as a means of releasing sources of energy from the unconscious."5 Should we see the symbol then as content and medium between conscious and unconscious partitions of the psyche?6 `Archetype' was a term used by the founder of analytical psychology. In his book Man and his Symbols,7 Jung refers to archetypes (meaning original model or prototype), as having two aspects: "One can speak of an archetype only when these two aspects (image and emotion) are simultaneous."8 He continues: "It is essential to insist that they are not mere names, or even philosophical concepts. They are pieces of life itself - images that are integrally connected to the living individual by the bridge of the emotions."9 Further, he explains archetypes as "formal factors responsible for the organization of Here, there are many new avenues along which one may travel in relation to the component `archetype'. We must however remain focused, and accept the minimum essence of what Jung says. He talks of image, emotion (psychic energy), and introduces a new term `numinosity' (above). When talking about dreams, Jung states in relation to numinosity and the cross symbol that: "one cannot say that, at all times and in all circumstances, the symbol of the cross has the same meaning. If it were Yet, exactly what is numinosity? The dictionary definition states the following: "numinous adj. Devine; suggesting or revealing the presence or influence of a god. [L numen divine will, divinity]."13 In his paper The Nature of Numinosity and its Museological Reconstruction'14 Michael M. Ames gives a more comprehensive definition: "Numinosity is not a thing, but a process of construction and reconstruction - through the "continua of social time and social space."15 and that numinous objects are: "typifications or conventional representations of symbolic powers." It would seem that numinosity carries with it, a considerable amalgamation of concepts that can be considered appropriate as structural components with reference to the cross discussion. One may conclude from this, that the greater the range of associated `meaning', the greater the nuministic value, and the more dynamic the symbol becomes. Meaning (content) and numinosity, (medium for socially imposed meaning), can then be combined in our refinement. One must, of course, say, that this definition applies to all elementary symbol forms. I will say, in fact, the more simplistic the symbol, the more general its application, and so the more `nuministic' it becomes. In concluding Chapter One then, I will define the cross symbol and its supportive structure as fundamentally a `numinous archetype'.
I would like, in Chapter Two, to introduce the work of the very young artist. I will look particularly at the spontaneous cross drawings produced by young children. And, if I can, try to examine where they come from! In the preface to his book The Innocent Eye, Jonathan Fineberg asks us to: "acknowledge without fear what even The fundamental connection is, that both child and adult are one and the same; human. The intellectual and acedemic distinction made between the two is somewhat odd. Rhoda Kellog has said that "Child art can be a valuable key to adult understanding of the mental growth and educational needs of children."2 It could also be said, if we invert this assumption, (and especially with reference to our discussion) that the study of children's art may lead us toward an understanding of adult art. Furthermore, does the use of the cross in contemporary art expose a return to, or a `revisiting' of, a more primitive process? Persuing this issue still further, will our comprehension of the`cross function' in adult art be enlightened from what is already known, or may be deduced, from the study of children's drawings? It is argued, that one way to examine the historical and evolutionary development of the mind, (as we cannot examine the functions of primitive peoples or tribes) is to study the contemporary. I clearly remember the first markings made by my own three children. Having learnt how to handle crayons, their meaningful works, amongst other drawings, were of crosses (figure 3). This, I am not claiming as my discovery! Research and documentation on child art is widely available; most notable, are the works of Jean Piaget, Rudolf Arnheim and Rhoda Kellogg. Piaget is considered to have made an`outstanding contribution' to developmental psychology, especially with his theory of cognitive development. Arnheim, in his book Art and Visual Perception, has made a systematic attempt to apply gestalt psychology to the visual arts. Kellogg, on the other hand, has made a methodical study of children's art and has catalogued hundreds of scribbles and line types. One of the most sophisticated early diagrams is that, which Kellogg names the "Mandala": a "circle or a square divided into quarters by a Greek cross or a diagonal cross"3. It is interesting to note, that certain diagrams made by children, appear at significant times in relation to the development of the mind. Crosses appear toward the end of what Piaget called the sensorimotor stage (figures 4 & 5): from birth to about 2 years (in other words, from 24 months onwards). "The child comes to know the world in terms of the physical actions she/he can perform. The stage ends with the acquisition of thought and language."4 Kellogg believes that between the ages of two and three years, and "by the time a child is able to make Diagrams, the role of memory and the forethought based on memory is clear."5 Kellogg explains `Diagrams' as: "single lines employed to form crosses and to outline circles, triangles, and other shapes."6 I find this a curious fact, leaving some questions to be answered. Firstly, why does this`symbol' (an adult term) appear in the art of children at such a young age? Secondly, is it significant that the cross symbol is one of, if not, the first `symbol' to appear in children's art? Kellogg believes that "The shapes to be found in children's art evolve from the children's perception of their own scribbling,"7 and "children perceive and remember those scribbles that suggest shapes; scribbles that do not suggest shapes are not easily recalled."8 She concludes that: "the general evolution of shapes in children's art If we consider, from chapter one, the notion that the cross is a`symbol and numinous archetype', would we immediately be at odds with Rudolf Arnheim who dismisses the significance of "symbol" in children's art? "The term`symbol' is used nowadays so generously, Is it something else then, that they are drawing? According to Arnheim, the oldest and most widespread explanation is that "since children are not drawing what they are assumed to see, some other mental activity other than perception is responsible for the modification."12 He dismisses abstract concepts as a "strange theory,"13 simply because there is a "thorough dependence on sensory experiences"14 during the early stages of development of the mind. His message is, that these drawings are derived from non-visual concepts, and are the result, more of primitive intellectual abstraction and representation, than of what is seen by the eyes. Could this be the connection between child and adult representations of the cross? Piaget's theory says that: "intelligence arises neither from the `inside' nor His or her cognitive abilities are refined, through a trial-and-error process, in which physical experiences are converted into symbolic patterns of increasing complexity. Perhaps another clue to the cross function may be found in Rudolf Arnheim's Art and Visual Perception: "the mind, in its struggle for an orderly conception Is the cross a physical manifestation of the gestalt process, a process belonging to this innate scheme, an outward representation of a `mental structure'? I will conclude, that the cross symbol appears in children's art (our art) spontaneously, perhaps as a `meaningful reflex', occurring as reactivity to the stirrings of consciousness, and thus defining, quite literally, the beginnings of pattern recognition and our attempts to exteriorize this in drawing and rendering. The cross symbol, in children's art, has evolved from our innate, shape-making play. This primary scribble is assimilated and used as an early measuring tool, with which other shapes may be identified, replicated and understood. This occurs as a part of the mind's natural development, following the`gestalt' process; i.e., a progressive identification, from "simplest patterns to increasing complexity and order."18 We must remember that our understanding of this developmental process in children is founded, almost exclusively, from an intellectual perspective. Kellogg makes the point, that it is easy for educated adults to superimpose their own considered and intellectualised ideas upon children's art and states, almost as a warning, that "Scarcely anyone shows enough concern for direct observation of the spontaneous work of children."19 I have no reason to doubt Kellogg's research, and her claim that in children's art, the cross and mandala images produced, are a universal and acultural phenomonem. This issue does warrant considerable research, beyond the scope of this essay; however, from Kellogg's point of view, it would place the history of the cross symbol into perspective, with regard to its religious context. Finally, and on this issue, I will leave chapter two with a reply by the artist Anthony Gormley (a contemporary exponent of the cross symbol), to a statement made by arts' writer E.H.Gombrich. Gombrich said "We cannot help seeing the creations of primitive art in terms of an expressiveness, which is not always the one intended by the maker"20 . Gormley replied: "In a certain frame of mind we see everything as III Emile Durkheim offers useful continuity between religious issues and the previous chapter. He stated: "It has long been known that the first systems of representation that man made of the world and himself were religious in origin."1 Durkheim believed, that religion formed a key relationship between the individual and society. In Western society, and when discussing the cross symbol, one's thought must inevitably return to the religious aspects, and to the widely-held misconception (and confusion), that the symbol originated from the story of Christ, the Crucifixion and the Christian church. The historical and cultural influence exerted from this domain is well understood, and will not be discussed here. However, it should be noted, that this is a recent `alliance', the theme of which was captured perceptively by writer Rene Guenon in the `The Symbolism of the Cross': "The cross is a symbol which in its various forms As I have already mentioned, I am not in a position here to plot or research the History of the Cross; however, it is indeed archaic in origin, both historically and, as discussed in chapter two, from the individual human-growth and evolutionary perspectives. Religion is a complex phenomenon, defying definition or summary, and could be described as that, which holds new and difficult concepts (ideas that are not necessarily intelligible). Durkheim quotes Max Muller as having explained religion as "An effort to conceive the inconceivable and to express the inexpressible, an aspiration toward the infinite."4 The cross symbol then, is the ideal of this concept manifest. The Christian church, which, on the other hand, appropriated the cross symbol, has now, as Rene Guenon implied, lost its ability to communicate many of the abstract concepts possessed within the symbol. Above all, the cross, for the Christian church, has become a husk, devoid of its most poignant truths. Durkheim said that: "Religion has not merely enriched a human One may make a provocative and somewhat tongue-in-cheek interpretation of the above, as a metaphor for the Christian death/rebirth story. One may also wonder at the numinous action of a migrating symbol, oscillating, and therefore in constant transit, between religion and art. Perhaps we are unable to decide where the cross truly resides? Or perhaps, as discussed in chapter one, this is a good example of the cross function as `medium'? The artist Anthony Gormley has said, that "Today we have moved from signs that have an ascribed meaning and an iconography that we know how to judge, to a notion of signs that have become liberated."6 This is true for the sign of the Christian church, and also the sign of religious contemplation. The well-known American television series `X-Files' (figure 6), may be described as a contemporary icon of our culture, and where the `X' is valid as a cross. It documents fictional paranornal incidents. The two lead characters, Fox Mulder and Dana Scully investigate, (if not directly, then through a strong subtext), what I would describe as, contemporary religious issues. The simple point being made, is that the `X-Files' stories, are cases of the unknown and tangible intertwined. Is this an example of the cross sign, a numenistic archetype, title and postmodern medium, moving us toward an era of syncretism;7 asking us to accept an amalgamation, a harmonic concurrence of fact and fiction? Are these perhaps words that the cross symbol has always spoken? I believe so. With regard to the `X-Files' television programme, the above does sound as if it were wrought of commercial fabric. However, this does reflect the modern, and now more widely-accepted view, of a 21st century schizophrenic culture: a culture partially relapsed into the collective `bicameral mind'.8 Is this a genuine attempt, by programme makers, to move viewers toward making introspective and religious mental headway? I believe the programmes reflect our culture and are more a synchronistic, as opposed to incidental, phenomenon. Does this, in a convoluted fashion, undermine the innate religious authority bestowed upon the cross symbol by the Christian church? No, if genuine and rational meditations upon the symbol are sought. In that way, its failing credibility may be considered to be restored at some future date. In a`quantum' world, especially today, at the end of the 20th century, I do not believe that we are experiencing a loss of religion or religious thought. As in all areas of life, a fragmentation and diversification is occuring, and there is no exception with regard to this in religion. The `church', and `church attendance' on the other hand is in decline, but that is not religion or indeed, a measure of religious sentiment. Rudolf Durkheim said "There is no religion that is not both a cosmology and speculation about the divine."9 Today, we may consider cosmology and the divine as valid expressions, relating to the exploration of self; this, certainly, is the domain of the artist. Anthony Gormley, when discussing `A Case for an Angel II' said that: "The work comes from the same source as
In Chapter Three, we saw the cross symbol as intimately related to the notion of religion and religious thought. Also, that in two thousand years, Christianity has appropriated and maintained its use of the symbol, almost as a commercial mark or brand. I have made the distinction between the Christian church and religious thought, and will reiterate, that one may meditate upon religious concepts, but not be of the `Christian Religion' per se. The cross is an `omni-cultural' symbol, possibly, the `most cultural' symbol seen throughout time. It is "common to almost all traditions, a fact which would seem to indicate its direct attachment to the great Primordial Tradition."1 It is the graphical representation of an existent, numinous archetype. Joseph Beuys (figure 7), was a German sculptor and avant-garde performance artist. He produced drawings and posters, but it was his temporary installations, in which he composed and performed `actions', that most influenced and inspired his audiences. His sculptures were often made of odd collections of food, dead animals, and bits of metal. Born in 1921, Beuys was an aircraft gunner during the Second World War, and flew for the Luftwaffe, under the ancient and much-corrupted Nazi Swastika. Beuys, having survived a near-fatal aviation accident in his Stuka, proceeded to study art, and came to make extensive use of the cross in his `actions' and performances. Friedhelm Mennekes has documented one such of Beuys's `actions', which, in a joint performance with the Danish composer Henning Christiansen and sculptor Bjorn Norgaard, took place at the Galerie Schmela, Dusseldorf, Germany, on December 15th 1966. It was entitled `MANRESA'.2 MANRESA was the spiritual retreat of Saint Ignatius Loyola, b.1491 d.1556. Loyola was the founder of the Roman Catholic, Society of Jesuits. Beuys studied two of Loyola's texts, 'The Spiritual Exercises' and 'The Autobiography'.3 It was from the latter work, that the action took its title - the name of the Catalonian city in which Loyola become a 'completely new man' - MANRESA. Beuys made explicit references to these works in MANRESA; he was intrigued by two things in the life of Loyola: he "not only rose above adversity" (an accident had shortened and immobilised one leg), but "- then described this triumph in a work of literature from which many have since drawn benefit."4 Could Beuys be closely identified with his own fortunate position here? Mennekes confirms this; "The fascination which Loyola's life-story had for Beuys, may well lie in the parallels of their two lives."5 MANRESA, may be described as having been a collection or sequence of performances, containing various strange activities and articles, including: a recording of text, the use of fat, drawings in chalk, a wooden chest packed with a collection of unrelated items, a plate with a crucifix on it, a small Red Cross toy vehicle, and a wooden cross. Amongst the items Beuys uses, there is an upright wooden cross, halved lengthwise and wrapped in felt, lying against the wall. During part of Beuys's `action', he completes the remaining half-cross using chalk lines. The use of felt is related to Beuys's own life story. It is said that he was fortunate to be thrown clear from a crashing aircraft. He was rescued and nursed by Russian Tartars who wrapped his near-frozen body in fat and felt cloth-substances; these came to represent life-giving warmth in his art. What is the function here of the halved-cross? In Mennekes article, `Joseph Beuys: MANRESA', the explanation of Beuys's work is thorough and elaborate, and starts by explaining the half-cross in MANRESA "as a symbol of Man today."6 Beuys's `actions' were of a very convoluted nature. The viewing public were described as being in "deep concentration"7: not an easy experience to understand. Beuys evidently believed, that to embrace religious symbolism, in the way that he did, was most appropriate to the successful communication of the concepts that he wished to convey. The various elements included within his `actions' combined to focus the public's attention on the importance of the cross symbol. It is possible, that Beuys believed we should endeavour to experience such abstract thought processes, as were represented by each performance in his`actions'. It may be argued in fact, that Beuys' oblique and occult attitude toward the issues of consciousness, may be the only way in which these themes can be successfully worked through. I refer here to the use of metaphor in this work. Mennekes says of the half-cross in MANRESA, that "Through it, Man, robbed of his spirituality by the developments of the present, regains a spiritual awareness of himself." 8 Mennekes text on MANRESA is rather rambling, but on the last few pages, offers some useful insight into the cross function in Beuys' art. During Bueys' `actions', the Cross element undergoes symbolic transformation and re-emerges as the `New Cross'. Mennekes sees MANRESA as "a catalyst for the mediation between historical and cultural opposites: `Thus the cross has become an integral part of our culture'."9 He continues: "In these artistic creations and spiritual exercises Steiner was the originator of the social philosophy called anthroposophy, a Christianized version of Theosophy. The doctrine asserts that humans possess a faculty of spiritual cognition, or pure thought, which functions independently of the senses. These references prompt us to believe that Beuys was deeply knowledgeable, and interested in, the metaphysical. Throughout MANRESA Beuys "demonstrates the presence of invisible energies in the surrounding space"11 by the use of high voltage, electrical sparks. All of these `actions' are transformations. The cross `waits' over these events, as if a physical representation of a doorway or portal: a place from which these transforming energies are emitted, or from which they are emerging. From a personal point of view, there is always the temptation, when trying to analyze events such as Beuys's`actions' to elaborate into the realms of the bizarre. However, this is certainly missing from Mennekes text. It is easy for us to deny the importance of the bizarre. Man tends to rationalise his experience in terms of what is already known or understood, thus neglecting a direct interaction or confrontation, that would, if allowed time for consideration, generate new and creative impulse. Tom Chetwynd said "Only by dislving all rigid intellectual concepts of the conscious Ego- whether for or against the God idea - can the individual let Life speak for itself."12 In MANRESA the "staccato cries of `ich... kann... nicht' (I... can... not')... dramatically underpin the course of the `action' ".13 And in addition, Bjorn Norgaard "smears his feet with soft soap, puts them into two The cross has functioned as a dynamic sign for Beuys: a component, an interactive element which aided his constant "searching for lost social, spiritual and cultural currents."16 "And for him this search is always three-dimensional: As a final word on Mennekes's text, I would say that it does portray Beuys, as somewhat of a `twentieth-century Christian disciple', which I feel he was not. Piaget's theory, which was mentioned in chapter two, talked about intelligence arising "neither from the`inside' nor from the `outside' alone, but from the action of the individual on external objects."18 The function of the cross in Beuys' art was, in addition to that already mentioned, that of a stage prop with which he interacted. We cannot say if, from these `actions', Beuys expanded his own concepts and theories!
Mining academic information on this subject has not been easy; by default, the object of my quarry is transient. The pursuit of documentation, on the subject of the cross, leads back to the difficult themes of philosopy, metaphysics, religion and consciousness. Are these themes the way forward to discover new truths? We say that research is the key to revealing new ideas, lost or hidden facts, unveiling, as it should, fresh and untrodden ways. Yet following the trail of the cross is perplexing, and, to a degree, frustrating. At each junction visited, I was vexed with a feeling of `incompleteness': always that there is something greater, something more to be exposed, and consequently discussed. (another religious metaphor?) To demonstrate proof becomes an absurdity, yet relevance and importance must still be attached to the `insubstantial'. Have we become academically`out-of-balance', and, in our race towards valuation through a capitalistic sense of what is real, neglected to teach the importance of our primal language - symbolism? Yes, I believe to a certain extent we have, and it is the social ideals of `materialistic value' that have led us in a different direction. It is said that we create our own truth, but where is the room for this in modern society? This attitude may be resolved, with the coming-of-age of new terchnologies and cyberspace. The cross, a numinous archetype, points towards a reality, not beyond our current comprehension, but less accessible. A reality, if I may use anology, much like that of the glass fragments of a holographic image: we see the whole in a fragment, but the fragment is not the whole. The cross leads us on a continuous journey during which we build and rebuild a reality, constructed from the shattered fragments of multiple realities: "a construction and reconstruction through the continua of social time and social space."1 During my research, it has disturbed me to open doors that were actually already unlocked; however, that is one of the necessary frustrations of searching. I have talked, in Chapter Four, about the energy-giving impulses, regenerated in each of us, by our receptivity to, our open experience of, and our participation in, creative art, whatever the discipline. We are, consciously or unconsciously, journeying towards these moments of fulfillment. To be creative is to be spiritual. But again, where here is the cross, save in its religious guise? Mennekes, when summerising Joseph Beuys' MANRESA `action' said that: "it is as though the artist is reaching out for On a more practical level, this essay is evidence that postmodernism has invented yet another template through which we may view the cross, and that is one of fracture and fragmentation. As said in Chapter One, the metaphysics of Cross, hovers on a boundary between unconsciousness and consciousness. It could be seen as a model of the dynamics in nature, the rationalisation of `whole' from diometrically opposed systems and forces: perhaps the underlying lost, or as yet unknown, diagram and supertheory? The Cross has appeared, without fail, at times of great upheaval, both at collective and individual levels. It asks us to contemplate religion, or, what Durkheim called our `key relationship' with society. Finally, could the cross function in contempory art be an attempt to remind, and return us, to the psyche of our older,`bicameral' mind? Is it a sign, or a yearning, to return to a primacy of consciousness, that once was part of a complete and non-individualistic mind, undamaged and untamed by the ego? Footnotes & References: Introduction. I draw the readers attention to Appendix`A', p39.`The Contents of a Cross'. The complete text only, has been included for reference purposes. 1) Noctor, A & Quaintmere, K. The Contents of a Cross. 1996. 7) Thistlewood, D. Joseph Beuys:Diverging Critiques. Tate Gallery, Footnotes & References: I 1) Noctor, A & Quaintmere, K. The Contents of a Cross. 1996. 11) Jung, C.G. Man and his Symbols. p96. Footnotes & References: II 1) Fineberg, J. The Innocent Eye. Princetown University Press,1997. pX. Footnotes & References: III 1) Durkhiem, R. Elementary Forms of Religious Life. The Free Press. "assembling from the outside a number of more or less incongruous 11) Hutchinson, J. Antony Gormley. Phaidon Press Ltd. 1995. p120. 1) Guenon, R. Symbolism of the Cross. Luzac & Co Ltd. 1958. p10 Footnotes & References: Conclusion 1) Ames, M.`The Nature of Numinosity and its Museological 2) Thistlewood, D. Joseph Beuys:Diverging Critiques. Tate Gallery, 3) British Telecom. Yellow Pages. Isle of Wight edition 1998/99. p346
Bibliography Books: Arnheim, R. Art and Visual Perception. Faber, 1956. British Telecom. Yellow Pages. Isle of Wight edition 1998/99. p346 Advertisement: Hi-Q Autoservice. Chetwynd, T. A Dictionary for Dreamers. Granada. 1974 Chetwynd, T. A Dictionary os Symbols. Paladin 1982. Durkhiem, R. Elementary Forms of Religious Life. The Free Press. 1995. Original publication 1912. Fineberg, J. The Innocent Eye. Princetown University Press,1997. Guenon, R. Symbolism of the Cross. Luzac & Co Ltd. 1958. Hutchinson, J. Antony Gormley. Phaidon Press Ltd. 1995. Jaynes, J. The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind. Penguin Books. 1990. p.404. Jung, C.G. Man and his Symbols Aldus Books 1964. Jung & Pauli. Interpretation of Nature and the Psyche. 1955. Kellogg, R. Analysing Children's Art. Mayfield Publishing, 1969. Latourette, K. A History of Christianity. HarperBusiness. 1976. Noctor, A & Quaintmere, K. The Contents of a Cross. 1996. Penrose, R. Shadows of the Mind. Vintage Science. 1995 Thistlewood, D. Joseph Beuys:Diverging Critiques. Tate Gallery, Liverpool. 1994. p151-164. Item: Joseph Beuys: MANRESA.
Ames, M.`The Nature of Numinosity and its Museological Reconstruction' in The Journal of the Walters Art Gallery. 52/53,1994/95). p63.
The Contents of a Cross Appendix B. I use the word partition with some reluctance. To reiterate this point, I will draw the reader's attention to the work of Roger Penrose, Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford. In his book `Shadows of the Mind', Vintage Books 1995, he defines, in Chapter 5, `Structure of the Quantum World' a state-vector reduction, or collapse of the wavefunction, by denoting the figure R. This being the point at which the mathematics, at quantum level, collapse to make way for what we know to be `classical' level mathematics. Knowledge retained by an individual is, proportedly, vast. Access to our entire, collective knowledge, on the other hand, is limited. The question to ask must be `why'.`Why' or `?' by default, has become my value, for this, as yet, unfathomable partition: that which equates to Penrose's R. Perhaps a clearer way to imagine this might be to suggest that our memory works at a quantum level, and, that the channel through which memory is retrieved is somewhat limited. Penrose states that we operate at one and the same levels - at a classical (here and now) and at a quantum level (all and everywhere) at the same time, but th the quantum `all and everywhere' cannot function at classical level due to R. This actually begs a question from a new angle:- is memory a social and cultural superimposition, ie, exclusively contained within the domain of physical matter:`things', exterior to the human mind? It is a known fact, that those with well developed memories use exterior symbols as aids to recall large amounts of data. Is consciousness purely memory developed from, and by our ability to use, symbols (exterior reservoirs and symbolic energy)? This is a fascinating area, but outside the scope of this discussion. |
||||||||||