“There is always a tragic discrepancy between the burning heat of the creative fire in which the artistic image is conceived, and the cold of its formal realization. Every book, picture, statue, good work, social institution is an instance of this cooling down of the original flame… This is the tragedy of human creativeness and its limitation. Its results are a terrible condemnation of it.” --Nicholai Berdayev, The Destiny of Man
Berdayev seemed to see a sort of perfection in the idea of a creative thought that, once expressed outwardly, subject to the limitations of the material world, is inevitably lost. Nothing can manifest itself physically in the way it is originally imagined. And yet we hear the expression all the time: “That came out better than I could ever have dreamed!†“Better,†I would imagine, would be, according to Berdayev, a completely subjective term, and therefore an irrelevant one to describe the physical representation of something which cannot ever reach the perfection of the objective thing in its original form, i.e. as thought or idea.
Is this as depressing as it sounds?
And, if we extend this thinking theologically, what does it say about God’s creation? Is the creation necessarily an imperfect manifestation of the perfection intended by the creator?
When I have time I enjoy painting and writing stories. I tend to enjoy sci-fi and fantasy themes that have a philosophical point to them. Especially with paintings, it’s true that the image is never as amazing as the vision in the mind. The medium of paint just isn’t that kind. However, some like Rembrandt created glowing paintings that showed little room for improvement, but he was pretty special.
Recently, I’ve been learning some web design and animation programs and pretty much believe that one can produce what one imagines using those tools, but I’m probably wrong there too.
I wonder how film makers view all of this. From what I’ve seen they make a comic book and then turn the panels into a movie. That seems doable.
It’s a good topic and I think the overall message is that the mind can be a very rich place.
As a person who messes about with ‘stuff’ in an attempt to explore my visions and emotions, I find the question to miss the point. If I show you an ‘artifact’ that is the result of my messing around, what you see will be your vision, your emotions. The correlation between whatever I felt compelled to express and the actual artifact is mine alone. Is there always a loss of one to one in the act of creating? Berdayev can speak for himself, but not for me. His definition of creativity implies the ability to reach into the mind and heart of the creator - something I would suggest is a bit of a reach. No matter how close our understanding or feelings, there is no direct transfer among any of us. Never has been, never will be. Infinestibly close is possible, but exact? We are each a unique perspectival point, and that is unalterable.
Are we an imperfect manifestion of creation? The only way we could possibly answer that is to have been that which created us. After all the pretty metaphors that would suggest that each is the sum of all that is, it belies our knowing. Those who would claim that we can know the unknowable are caught up in an illusion of their own ego. Our ability to generate questions does not mean that there are definitive answers. Sometimes, “I don’t know” is the only honest answer.
I don’t find Berdayev’s statement to be depressing, rather I find it to be misplaced. To suggest that there is something inherently wrong with human limitations is to make the false assumption that all is somehow knowable. It appears to me more of a complaint than a description of human reality.
This question has always interested me since "art"is a part of my heredity and a large part of the attraction of my path for me.
Appreciating the universe as layered but related as Hermes described: "as above, so below. makes this a lot easier to comprehend for me.
Where what we call art normally expresses our subjective interpretations of the living experience, Sacred Art is mathematical. It is a way of inducing sacred emotions in the one experiencing such a work of art, provided of course, that they are open to it.
As I’ve learned it, such art is like a text book in physics for example. A person needs a certain quality of knowledge to understand it but the purpose of the book is to build on this level of knowledge.
Sacred art is the same except it is an emotional text book where a higher quality of emotion temporarily replaces our normal reactive emotion. We need a certain amount of sensitivity to the experience of higher emotion to begin with.
There is a quality of geometry associated with this for example and was the basis of certain old churches built on these geometric principles. The experience inside was a powerful aid for opening a person to the untainted spiritual experience.
So the question for me becomes the nature of the “creative fire” If its purpose is just self affirming subjective expression, then it cannot be anything other than this cooling down of the original flame. However, if this art is consciously motivated and with knowledge of “vibrations”, to create this qualitative emotional experience, then it stands with the purpose of providing the means for the temporary emotional experience of uniting the higher with the lower or "as is above, so below in the viewer. This is the experience of the inner spiritual direction.
So there is art and there is art. No art as we appreciate it can touch the highest but Sacred art serves to unite the inner psychological higher and lower levels within our common presence which serves as a real help for those interested in experiencing “meaning” of a higher order.
I believe Simone has witnessed this. At a certain level of mathematical perfection, a person feels as though there is more in it then the subjective artist and the knowledge for it came from above and beyond the artist’s subjectivity. At least, this has been my experience with “sacred space” for example.
So art for me can be both a terrible condemnation and a valuable tool for experiential emotional revelation and education. It is up to us for those in search of meaning beyond the norm, to become able to discriminate.
when the very core of your deepest thoughts is an idea so abstract that it can only be defined by its side effects,… you have to further define the core to add to the whole.
Hi JT. I agree. But Berdayev seems to be saying that not only is there no direct transfer possible among us, but not even between the artist’s mind and the artist’s brush. I extended the thought thinking of God, but am inclined to side with you on the unknowability.
Yes, Nick. Excellent. I quite agree. I think Berdayev is a bit depressing in his outlook of art. Considering it as not a failure to reach physically what one conceives mentally, but rather as a means by which to express that which is inside which wants to be expressed leaves one regarding it quite positively. “Providing the means for the temporary emotional experience of uniting the higher with the lower…†Yes, I like that.