Can we talk about creativity, imagination and discipline in the arts without religion? That is not the question since it seems obvious that they survive and flourish without religion. The question I'm asking is: how is the mind and soul of men and women fired by religious inspiration? Or, to put it another way: can one deny that religion hasn't in the past vivified human beings' creativity and imagination? If one were to look at some beautiful Kufic manuscripts with their condensed, reserved lettering (as if to say: truth can only be told slowly) or if one were to sense the peace of the interior space of a simple Church, or listen to Bach across the centuries reminding you of something-even though you're not sure of quite what-or contemplate the dark, time-worn Russian icons, or marvel at the tile-work at the Rustum Pasha mosque in Istanbul, could one really say that these were simply the product of a human endeavour and that religious sensibilities played no part? Really?
It's an uncomfortable truth for religious people that religion has produced so much bloodshed and barbarism. But, equally, for the non-religious it is an inconvenient fact that religion has been so deeply wedded to the beautiful and the sublime.
'The austerity, gravity, sobriety, and strength of Gregorian chant, of twelfth century Cistercian architecture, of Carolingian minuscule script, have much to say about the life of prayer and the religious consciousness of saints'.
---Thomas Merton.
4 comments:
i was so sure you would make a post along these lines, i was thinking of this when i was writing that comment :-P
you know, Roxana, it's the most difficult thing, the thing we always come unstuck on, and are at always at odds with one another over...the question of religion.
I don't think i can even articulate my incomprehension. I guess we all have things which seem "obvious" to them. Religious truth has always been one such thing for me since it's always been lurking there in the background in one form or another.
The gift of life itself, of friends and loved ones and so much beauty.
Anyways...
Take care,
K.
yes, one can't argue for or against it as it is useless, it is a question of intimate belief, no?
for me, it is more like in that Milosz quote i agreed to: "But poetry in its very essence has always been on the side of life. Faith in life everlasting has accompanied man in his wanderings through time, and it has always been larger and deeper than religious or philosophical creeds which expressed only one of its forms."
i think that the poetical, or artistic urge is essential for human nature, and that religious creations are only one form this impulse has taken. of course given the way societies were organized, it was the dominant one for so long, and many other expressions were not allowed, or only in coded forms, like love poetry. love is an equally essential topic and inspiration source, no? though nobody would have dared (or even thought) to build cathedrals to celebrate the beloved. anyway, what i want to say is that, for me, this artistic urge is the essential one, humankind is bound to struggle to express itself artistically, it would seem, and this need finds its inspiration in many ways and sources.
Stop the press! I think our views are a lot closer than I thought. If you say that religion is or can be just one form this impulse can take then I'll take that and keep my differences to myself.
On love...will try and answer later or via email. Theek?
B.
Post a Comment