Living Arts1
Windows to the soul
Mark Louis Uhrich
In classical times, the definition of “the arts” was narrower — the Liberal Arts. They were defined as seven and were considered to be the traditional and sacred sciences. Traditionally, they were described in two groupings:
- Grammar, dialectic, and rhetoric. These allow the mastery of language and logic, which is necessary to advance toward knowledge.
- Arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, and music2. These allow access to cosmic harmony by deepening the notions of number, rhythm, and measurement. As for music, in classical studies, the emphasis was on the science of notation and harmony — and not on expression.
This definition can be found in the fifth-century work, “Septem Artes Liberales3, by Martianus Capella.
The mastery of the liberal arts was judged necessary for someone to be considered “educated” — to be cultivated. Remember that, at that time, education of the general population was not yet the practice. General or universal education is a relatively recent development. Before then, the general population had only limited capability to read and do basic calculations. The ability to read, write, and calculate was reserved for the privileged. In that context, one can see how the idea of “liberal arts” became the definition of the required education for someone of influence and power.
This idea continues today with the general higher education programs — “a liberal arts education.”
But that is too limited. One needs to look at “the arts” in a larger sense.
The Living Arts:
In addition to the liberal arts found in the classic definitions, one needs to consider the living arts.
It’s a vast area that includes dance, music, painting, sculpture, writing, theater, poetry, and others — all the domains of creative expression.
Living arts are the expression of the spirit. If one considers the senses to be like windows to let us perceive the external world and to let it enter into us, one can consider the living arts as windows to let the spirit of the soul shine out to the external world.
One finds many examples of this expression of the spirit in all the domains of the living arts.
The expression of the spirit is evident in painting — especially in modern art. The famous painter Claude Monet sought to express what he could see. Even near the end of his life and with sight difficulties, he continued to paint because, even though he was almost blind, he could still see — inside his mind. That expression of the spirit is equally evident in the works of Auguste Renoir, Pablo Picasso, Jean Miro, and others — the list is long.
The sculptor Camile Claudel is, possibly, not sufficiently appreciated. In her works, one sees an intensity of emotion.
Standing before a large painting of Pierre Soulages – all in black – or the abstract colors of Mark Rothko or a painting of Auguste Renoir – lively with red and blue colors – one can take the time to enter into the work and contemplate what the artist sought to express.
One is not limited to famous artists. Recently, during our visit to Washington, we visited the National Gallery of Art and saw an exposition of works by native American Indians. One piece caught my attention: “Access Denied” by the artist Melissa Melero-Moose of the Fallon Paiute-Shoshone tribe. I spent some time in front of her painting, seeking to feel and understand the sentiments that she was expressing.
We certainly find sentiments expressed in music — in both classical and contemporary music. The composer expresses their feelings in their work. Those who perform the work add their own emotions — with the pleasure of the performance or simply the joy of making music. (One can detect a performance that is lacking feeling.)
I appreciate a good number of composers and contemporary performers. Among them is the composer and singer Sting 4- possibly well-known by you. His songs are often intimate in expressing his personal feelings. His song “Shape of My Heart” is a good example.
Very often, music performed by the composers carries more intensity of feelings than the interpretations by others because the composer expresses their personal feelings. However, that is not always the case. In his song “Nothing Compares 2 U”, the artist Prince could not fully let out his feelings — maybe too intense and intimate.
It’s the version by the Irish singer Sinéad O’Connor that achieved success — you know it well. She captured the intensity of the feelings in the song — probably adding her own.
There are many other examples.
I don’t care for rap and that type of music. It’s not me. But I can appreciate that the artists are expressing their feelings. (And, I can appreciate the quality of poetry in some.)
And definitely, we must not forget dance — classical ballet or contemporary. I never had the occasion to see Rudolf Nureyev dance, but in the films about him, one can feel the intensity of emotions coming from him. During our visits to Nice, we attended ballet performances and appreciated their quality — carrying the beauty and expression of feelings.
To conclude:
In all living arts, in all fields, the works are the expression of the spirit - of the soul - of the creators and of those who perform.
Therefore, I encourage you, when you are in front of a work of art or attending a performance, to take the time to really look at it, to feel it, to really listen to it, because …
A spirit is speaking to you.
17 February 2024
Maisons-Laffitte, France
——————————————————
© 2024, Mark Louis Uhrich
1. Essay originally written in French and delivered on January 5th, 2024. (Version française disponible sur demande.)
2. Music, included in the liberal arts is equally considered as a living art.
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_arts_education
4. Gordon Matthew Thomas Summur. CBE known as Sting.
5. https://www.melissamelero.com
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––—–––––
What if?©
Reflections on the ability to doubt and question for making belief stronger.
By Mark Louis Uhrich(1)
Why do you believe what you believe? How do you know that it is true? What if things were different?
I enjoy reading the Irish author Charles Handy. He examines the question of how we will work in the future. In many of his books, he starts out by playing with us, the reader. He reminds us of history, where people knew what was true. People knew that the world was flat. People knew that the sun rotated around the earth. People knew that the universe was fixed. People knew. But then, someone dared to doubt. They dared to ask, what if things were different? What would that mean? Many times, they were persecuted, put on trial, or killed for daring to ask, “What if?” They dared to examine how things might be. Today, we accept their alternative views as the truth. In his writing, Charles Handy is seeking to soften us up – to prepare us to explore new ideas.
Why do we believe what we believe? Where do our beliefs come from?
In many cases, our beliefs come from our family upbringing — or from our cultural or religious background. As children, we are taught how things are. We are taught what to believe and the norms of behavior. This is good. This gives us structure and allows us to know how to behave within our society.
But how do we know that it is true? Do we believe something to be true because someone told us that it is?
We see photographs that are simply amazing — maybe too amazing to be true. Is it true, or is it a tricked photo? It can be really hard to tell the difference. Or what if the photo is true?
Why do we believe? Do we believe because some authority figure told us what to believe? Do we believe because some political leader or trusted commentator told us on television — told us what to believe? If it is true, then good. All is right in the world. Belief gives us a sense of security.
But what if we later discover that it is not true — and, in fact, never was? What if we later discover that reality is different from what we had been taught and told to believe? What does that do to us? What will that do to you? Will it destroy your world?
In the past, people believed the world to be flat. They were absolutely sure of their belief. We now know that the world is (somewhat) round.
Today, there are many people who firmly adhere to a literal version of the creation of the world as related in Genesis — on day 1, on day 2, etc. But is that how it happened? Observable evidence says otherwise. Others (myself included) believe that the universe began with a creation event – the “Big Bang”. Regardless of which view one holds, what happens when evidence puts their views into question? How are those people impacted? Are their worlds destroyed, or do they choose to ignore the growing evidence of reality — a head-in-the-sand mentality?
As for myself, when there is information that challenges my belief, I say, “Hmm. That’s interesting. Let me think. How might that be? What might that mean? What if?”.
It is good to believe. It is good to trust. But, it is also good to be open to question. It is important to be able to doubt and to be willing to challenge, to be willing to pose questions, to be willing to move out of the security of “known truths” and to examine evidence. It is good to be able to be open to asking “what if?” and exploring “if so, what might that imply?”.
I find that being able to accept doubt has important benefits. The first benefit is that accepting doubt is liberating. I do not suffer from anxiety (or guilt) over the fact that I have doubts. I know that I do not understand everything and that I have doubts. But, I also know that it is not necessary that I understand everything. What is important is that I allow myself to think and continue to examine.
Secondly, being able to accept doubt gives a sense of openness. It reduces rigidity and gives flexibility to consider ideas — even those that challenge or might be disturbing.
And finally, as a result, my beliefs are stronger — even with the flexibility to be able to reexamine as necessary.
Here’s my point.
In the end, reality is truth and truth is reality. It is comfortable to stay in our beliefs that we have been taught — or told to believe. But if these are not well based on reality, they are like houses built on sand and can collapse with the arrival of events and new information. Do we want to live in houses built on sand?
Dare to doubt. Even, embrace doubt. Do not be afraid to challenge and examine — even if doing so threatens long-held beliefs. Yes, it can be uncomfortable to challenge. But, it is precisely in that way that we can define and affirm beliefs that are our own and are solid. These will be stronger because they are built on strong foundations of reality. And, if there is new information, we are better able to examine, re-evaluate, and either affirm or modify views as appropriate.
In the end, be open to the question; “What if?”.
—————————
© Copyright Mark Louis Uhrich 2016, 2018
1. Development from a talk originally given at Toastmasters Busy Professionals in Paris on 24 March 2014. First published 27 March 2016, Trinity Times — Quarterly of Holy Trinity Church, Maisons-Laffitte, France. Republished here as part of the collection.
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––—–––––
Resolving Science and Genesis©
Two regards on the same question
By Mark Louis Uhrich (1)
Some months ago, in Trinity Times(2), an article was reprinted concerning Genesis and the Big Bang Theory. The writer of the article took a strictly literal version of creation and claimed that the Big Bang Theory could not be true because it conflicts with the account in Genesis.
I would like to offer a differing view.
In my view, the book of Genesis and science – and specifically the Big Bang Theory – are not incompatible – and indeed cannot be. What is needed is a correct understanding of the role of Genesis and the role of science.
The book of Genesis, the first book of our Bible, is a very important work written at a very significant time. It recounts the story of a people who come to the realization of two important facts:
• That there is one Supreme Being – God – and not the multiple gods that people believed in up to then.
• That this God is responsible for all that is.
The problem is how to tell this in a way that can be understood by the people of the time – a people who, while intelligent, did not have the tools and knowledge that we have today.
How to explain this? I would tell a story. You would probably do the same.
And that is what Genesis is – the story of how things came to be and the important realization that there is one God who is responsible for all that is, visible and invisible – written in a way that the people of that time will understand.
The book of Genesis then goes on to recount the history of these people as they live their lives in a relationship with God – sometimes well and sometimes not. It is followed by the other books of the Old Testament that continue with the history of this people and with the inspired writings of the prophets.
What then of science and, in particular, the Big Bang Theory?
The role of science is to observe and measure what can be seen (or detected) and to try to understand how things work and how they developed. In science, we observe and measure and calculate. With this, we create hypotheses(3) — possible explanations of how things work. We test these hypotheses and try to disprove them. As they withstand test, they become known as theories(4). With enough evidence, they are accepted as facts.
As we observe, measure, and develop theories, we may challenge commonly held beliefs — including the “truths” that we are told by authorities or experts. This may be disturbing to us because they challenge our beliefs. It is certainly disturbing to the authorities or experts.
There was a time when people believed that the earth was flat. Then, some people began to hypothesize, “What if the earth were not flat?”. We can well imagine that this idea was found to be shocking – and disturbing to experts and authorities – because it challenged the established order of beliefs. We now know (and most people accept) that the earth is not flat. It is round - roughly.
Before the 1500s, the belief in the Western world was that the Earth was fixed and unmovable and was the center of the universe. The sun was believed to rotate around the earth. This view was supported by several passages in the Bible(5). Then Copernicus and Galileo postulated differently. Galileo had developed more advanced telescopes and could observe the reality of the movement of the sun, planets, and stars. His proposal that the earth rotated around the sun was, as we know, not at all appreciated by the established authorities and, especially, the Roman Church. He was tried as a heretic, forbidden to publish, and condemned to house arrest and penance until his death. His ideas, although based on observed reality, were too threatening to conventional belief and the established authorities. We now know and accept that our Earth rotates around the Sun (even if we say that “the Sun rises in the east.”).
We must be careful not to repeat the same errors that led to the rejection of Galileo. Saint Augustine, the great Doctor of the Church, wrote that we are not to take every passage of scripture literally – that it is not an instruction book or history book.
We now have more advanced telescopes and measurement instrumentation – including telescopes in space. We can observe and measure that the universe is in motion. Scientists can measure that the universe is expanding outward. They can observe that this expansion appears to be coming from a single point – and through their calculations, can roughly estimate the central point from which the universe is expanding. It is as if there had been some gigantic explosion – a “Big Bang” – and that everything is still expanding outward from that event. That gigantic explosion may be the creation event.
But that Big Bang does not explain from where things originated. It does not challenge the existence of God nor God as the origin of all. It is an attempt to explain the mechanics of things – although in an admittedly less poetic manner than in Genesis(6).
It is important that we are not locked into literal and rigid views based on past perceptions. It is important that we accept the reality of what is observed.
For, if we profess that God is the single and supreme entity, and if we profess that God is the creator of all – visible and invisible, then to deny the reality of what is observed is to deny what God hath wrought. (And, who are we to do that?)
For this reason, there can be no conflict between Genesis and science – including the Big Bang Theory and evolution. They are two approaches to understanding the same question. Genesis conveys the important realization that there is one God and that God is responsible for all. Science seeks to understand the mechanics of how things work and how we might make use of them.
In all this, however, the important point is not the debate about creationism and science. The important question is, are we living as God would have us live? Are we listening to the message of Christ and following it in our lives?
—————————
© Copyright Mark Louis Uhrich 2013, 2018, 2024
1. This is an essay that I wrote in 2013 and originally published in “Trinity Times”, our church parish quarterly, in that year. The background is that someone republished an article claiming that science could not possibly be wrong because it “conflicted” with the Bible. That got a reaction from me (probably their intention) and got me writing. I was pleased with the positive response that I received for my essay. This is a reposting — with a small update to the final footnote. — plus some grammar corrections in 2024
2. “The Bible and the Big Bang”, Trinity Times, Christmas 2012
3. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis
4. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
5.Some examples include Psalms 93:1, 96:10, 104:5, Chronicles 16:30, Ecclesiastes 1:5. These make reference to the world as being firmly established, fixed, and unmovable with the sun rising and setting.
6.The English theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking postulated that, at some point, the expansion of the universe will slow down and, attracted by the gravity of the black hole at the center, the universe will be drawn back in to the center where it will explode and continue again – for a repeating cycle of events. More recently, there even postulations that there might be “parallel universes” — other universes that co-exist but that we cannot see. If so, that would still not contradict God as the creator of all – although it would certainly challenge our perception of things.
You may not agree with me, but, That is how I see things.
