Randall
J. Randall Murphy
To create is to be godlike, no? And in that process both the creator and those who behold the crelation are changed.
If we leave the "rigors of religion" out of this picture then we can appreciate how art making, meditation and mystical prayer can move us towards transformative spaces. No matter who your 'god' is the process of transformation is upon you.
What I see in the artist divine is the command over their tools and their need to bring up to the surface our deepest entanglements. They live through it so we can conceptualize it better for ourselves in the gallery hallwyas and our living rooms, and more authority to them for giving us such ritualistic practices.
Sometimes, Randal, words are flexible for the user in order to express their creative ideas. This will often conflict with literalism, something I only pay attention to for a portion of the time. It's not a problem I need to address as that can create conflict between people. But anyways, let us not tangle this thread anymore with such talk. It is what it is. Let go.
Or as my kids like to say to me often, "Don't judge."
Sorry but judgment ( as synonymous with analysis ) is crucial in identifying what is true, and as you know, I'm a truth seeker, not a mystic. I'm also sure you can appreciate that those ( including artists ) who ignore or warp the truth to suit their own personal agendas rank lower on my integrity scale.
I'll repeat again. I appreciated the spirit of your post, but why disregard the facts regarding the origin and usage of the word "imprimatur" when used in the context of the Divine? Do you recognize where the artwork in the example I posted is from, why it most probably has Divine imprimatur, and why other works don't?
I would have thought you would find it at least informative to know what the proper context of usage is. If after that you want to apply it liberally or poetically to express some inner feeling you have, that's fine with me. What artist's ego wouldn't be stroked by someone telling them that what they do is "Divinely sanctioned"?
Personally, my ego doesn't need it. I'm plenty creative without it. In fact it bothers me that anyone should think that they have some special status that grants them some kind of mystical art power, simply because their work has been sanctioned by the church or some other mystical authority, even if all that authority amounts to is their personal ego that feels somehow validated because of this kind of nonsensical rhetoric.
@smcder's comment can most certainly be seen as an expression of this particular truth. The artists and the fools can get away with their portrayals because historically they've been granted permission by the establishments responsible for issuing the imprimatur to them in the fist place. In modern society the fools ( comedians ) are notorious for poking fun at the establishment, and musical groups with a reputation as social rebels have played for Presidents. They appear to be granted some sort of immunity compared to other dissidents, as if granted some sort of "divine" immunity.
Last edited: