One more post, the last one!
I was in a lecture called "Same but different: how media morph narratives." The lecturer led us through a passage from "The Lord of The Rings" in three different media formats. (the book, the movie, and a video game)
At some point, the lecturer made the comment that "film killed myth." (Whether this is his perspective or someone else's I am not sure) Its kind of a "video killed the radio star" idea. The idea is that stories or myths - whether we're talking about actual epic myths like Gilgamesh, The Iliad, Beowulf, anything really, all the way up to books and stories of the 20th century such as Lord of The Rings - cause us to use our imaginations and to essentially put together the story in our minds and, therefore, they contain an element of mystery. In these mediums, the author can give vague, evocative descriptions of places or people, and leave it up to the audience to co-create with him and decide what these evocative descriptions actually look like. This way, if something is supposed to be scary, it is definitely scary, because each person can picture what would scare them the most. If it's meant to be beautiful beyond description, then the audience all have the ability to create in their minds the place or person that they would find to be beautiful. There is no prescription of "scary" or "beautiful" because it is given to the audience to see it however it is most effective for them.
Then film came along and started to prescribe, more or less. Film has the ability to very easily take away these vague, evocative imaginings and replace them with the director's idea of scary or beautiful and leave it at that. The audience can't participate in a film, they can't contribute their own ideas, they can't help co-create the people and the setting, etc.
The example he gave was this: In the Lord of the Rings there is a creature called the Balrog. (this is the big demonic creature that Gandalf confronts on the bridge in the mines of Moria in the first book/film) The book describes this creature in very vague terms. More or less, all that we have are Gandalf's words: "it is a creature of shadow and fire." This description can mean all sorts of things to all sorts of people, and carries an incredible depth of mystery. However, if we have seen the Balrog in Peter Jackson's film, we have a pretty clear picture of what it looks like. That image was only one man's (or one creative team's) vision of the Balrog, but now most of everyone sees the same thing when they read the words "creature of shadow and fire."
So did film kill myth? What does it do to our collective imaginations to have most of our stories shown to us, instead of co-creating with the myth-tellers and story-writers?
Now I love a good film as much as anyone. For those of you who are film-makers, come to the defence of your medium. What can film do for the story that print cannot? Are there examples of directors who seemed to be aware of their ability to kill the imagination and were very conscious of this in their work? Alfred Hitchcock perhaps (because he left the horror to the imagination)?
I don't know that much about film history. Tell me.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Friday, September 18, 2009
The Big Empty
Next Thought.
"Cities: the Big Empty", OR "Lectures about Cities: The Big Empty". Alright, that's a little cheeky but I will get to the point soon enough.
On Tuesday I attended a lecture called "Cities: The Big Empty". In it, the lecturer presented the ideas of a few different theologians/philosophers - Jacques Ellul, a Reformed Christian sociologist who is highly critical of technology; Paul Shepard, and William Desmond. The idea was to view cities as a large scale human-made technology. Jacques Ellul had come up with the idea that cities are a bad thing, and here's why.
When God found Cain after killing Abel, and banished him, God put a mark on Cain as a sign that he would avenge him if anyone hurt him. The Bible says Cain went off and built a city. Ellul's idea is that the spirit embodied in city-building is one of distrust in the protection of God. He says Cain didn't figure God was actually going to do a good job of protecting him, so he put up some walls, got some people together, and then set out to create a secure, ordered community where he could shelter himself. THEREFORE, Ellul says, the concept of city, the origin of city, is based on idolatry. A trusting of oneself before God. It goes further.
He maps out a trajectory of the city. It starts with Cain, then climbs until the tower of Babel, and from then on, Babylon (= Babel) is considered the ultimate of idolatrous cities, and the trajectory starts to decline from there until the end of time. I wasn't quite sure if this meant the importance of cities as symbols of idolatry declined or what, but that's my guess. So all cities since then are a model of Babylon, (even Rome is just a copy, and is referred to as Babylon in the NT) and Babylon, in trying to ascend to the heavens, embodies a direct challenge to God.
All of this seems to me to be a very serious judgment of one of the most unavoidable building blocks of our world, based on a massive "reading-into" of one little bit of Scripture.
If Ellul's thoughts are at all credible these are my questions: How do we respond to the imagery of the book of Revelation, which portrays heaven (largely) as a city? Is this a representation of God's ability to redeem something totally idolatrous, or is the point that God's trajectory has always included human technological contributions, including the city? Also, since heaven (in the book of Revelation) is portrayed as part city, but also part Garden, are there some practical ways that we should be bringing this future vision into reality by intermingling garden with our cities? (e.g. are urban vegetable gardens biblical? haha)
To close... an explanation of my cheeky comment at the beginning. In pondering the content of this lecture, and the possible implications of what Ellul says, I have also been pondering this: "So what?" If cities are a representation of Cain's idolatry, if they are a model of Babylon, if they're evil... so what? We all live in them, society is built on them, reality can't avoid them. All of Ellul's ideas can't really call us to any reasonable action. The only response to his statements would be to cut oneself off from cities, to cease to participate. So what's the point in a theory that puts us in the place of believing something that cannot shape our actions except to make us feel bad for participating?
Talk to me.
"Cities: the Big Empty", OR "Lectures about Cities: The Big Empty". Alright, that's a little cheeky but I will get to the point soon enough.
On Tuesday I attended a lecture called "Cities: The Big Empty". In it, the lecturer presented the ideas of a few different theologians/philosophers - Jacques Ellul, a Reformed Christian sociologist who is highly critical of technology; Paul Shepard, and William Desmond. The idea was to view cities as a large scale human-made technology. Jacques Ellul had come up with the idea that cities are a bad thing, and here's why.
When God found Cain after killing Abel, and banished him, God put a mark on Cain as a sign that he would avenge him if anyone hurt him. The Bible says Cain went off and built a city. Ellul's idea is that the spirit embodied in city-building is one of distrust in the protection of God. He says Cain didn't figure God was actually going to do a good job of protecting him, so he put up some walls, got some people together, and then set out to create a secure, ordered community where he could shelter himself. THEREFORE, Ellul says, the concept of city, the origin of city, is based on idolatry. A trusting of oneself before God. It goes further.
He maps out a trajectory of the city. It starts with Cain, then climbs until the tower of Babel, and from then on, Babylon (= Babel) is considered the ultimate of idolatrous cities, and the trajectory starts to decline from there until the end of time. I wasn't quite sure if this meant the importance of cities as symbols of idolatry declined or what, but that's my guess. So all cities since then are a model of Babylon, (even Rome is just a copy, and is referred to as Babylon in the NT) and Babylon, in trying to ascend to the heavens, embodies a direct challenge to God.
All of this seems to me to be a very serious judgment of one of the most unavoidable building blocks of our world, based on a massive "reading-into" of one little bit of Scripture.
If Ellul's thoughts are at all credible these are my questions: How do we respond to the imagery of the book of Revelation, which portrays heaven (largely) as a city? Is this a representation of God's ability to redeem something totally idolatrous, or is the point that God's trajectory has always included human technological contributions, including the city? Also, since heaven (in the book of Revelation) is portrayed as part city, but also part Garden, are there some practical ways that we should be bringing this future vision into reality by intermingling garden with our cities? (e.g. are urban vegetable gardens biblical? haha)
To close... an explanation of my cheeky comment at the beginning. In pondering the content of this lecture, and the possible implications of what Ellul says, I have also been pondering this: "So what?" If cities are a representation of Cain's idolatry, if they are a model of Babylon, if they're evil... so what? We all live in them, society is built on them, reality can't avoid them. All of Ellul's ideas can't really call us to any reasonable action. The only response to his statements would be to cut oneself off from cities, to cease to participate. So what's the point in a theory that puts us in the place of believing something that cannot shape our actions except to make us feel bad for participating?
Talk to me.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Alone Together
Welcome to my blog about the ideas that I am finding especially interesting during the Interdisciplinary Conference that is currently taking place at King's University College. I will attempt to strike a balance between the things that are being said in the sessions and the thoughts they are stimulating in my head, though I believe I will tend to express my own ideas more fully.
Alright.
My best thought of the day occurred during the first lecture (Quentin Schultze, "We Are Multimedia") as a result of Schultze's comments about technology needing to "fit" the context it is introduced into. He made an example of how we would decide to add a certain technology to a worship setting. In this case we should ask: does the technology fit? Does it naturally complement and add to the worship experience and the elements already in place to create a worship service? He warned against fitting the worship into the technology. He made it clear that a technology should never be served but should do the serving.
This is a bit of a loose link, but here's what I began to mull over, and what I asked him at the end of the session. It seems to me that technology (especially technologies such as Facebook, Twitter, Instant Messaging, Online Dating Interfaces and so on) is consistently moving towards an attempted simulation of human intimacy. These communication tools are the distributors of personal information to the point where a status update is something the users are often needing to perform multiple times per day. There seems to be an inherent ideology that it is possible to actually share your day with someone, to actually get to know someone, to actually commune with another human being if only enough information is shared consistently. I can personally see these technologies developing to include multi-sensory experience and even more frequent sharing of personal experience in an attempt to actually simulate real life human intimacy. My main concern is that it might follow for these technologies to replace face to face human interaction.
My question is this: If technology really is moving in this direction, is there something inherently wrong or anti-gospel about relationships based in simulated intimacy and closeness replacing real flesh and blood, voices and eyes, fingers and skin, hearts and bones human interaction? As Christians, do we have a responsibility to interact with these technologies and use them as they "fit" in order to enhance relationships in whatever way possible? Or do we have a responsibility to decry technologies which may damage our society's relational abilities? Should Christians concern themselves primarily with creating alternate opportunities for real human interaction?
It seems to me at first glance that the premise for technologies that attempt to simulate intimate relationships is fear. After all, real human interaction puts us all in a place of vulnerability. In my mind, the extent to which technologies are used to bridge relationships would indicate the extent to which a person has withdrawn into fear of this vulnerability. It is the example Jesus set by making himself vulnerable and coming to the world to pursue real flesh and blood human relationships that causes me to question any compatibility or "fit" between technologies of this nature and a Christian worldview.
To sum up: Is attempted technological intimacy - the idea of having a felt reality of being "together" with others while actually being alone - in its very nature an aim that is opposed to the gospel of Christ? Your thoughts please.
P.S. I should mention that Quentin Schultze was actually delivering his lecture and responding to my question from Michigan via a satellite connection. As it happens I really liked what he had to say and who he seemed to be and I realized after the lecture that I had a craving to get to know him more and to continue the brief conversation we had started about this. In other words, I felt I wanted a real relationship with him. You could keep in mind and perhaps comment on the fact that I would never have met Quentin or wanted to pursue a relationship with him further if it weren't for a technology that is getting very close to creating a simulated experience of "closeness".
Alright.
My best thought of the day occurred during the first lecture (Quentin Schultze, "We Are Multimedia") as a result of Schultze's comments about technology needing to "fit" the context it is introduced into. He made an example of how we would decide to add a certain technology to a worship setting. In this case we should ask: does the technology fit? Does it naturally complement and add to the worship experience and the elements already in place to create a worship service? He warned against fitting the worship into the technology. He made it clear that a technology should never be served but should do the serving.
This is a bit of a loose link, but here's what I began to mull over, and what I asked him at the end of the session. It seems to me that technology (especially technologies such as Facebook, Twitter, Instant Messaging, Online Dating Interfaces and so on) is consistently moving towards an attempted simulation of human intimacy. These communication tools are the distributors of personal information to the point where a status update is something the users are often needing to perform multiple times per day. There seems to be an inherent ideology that it is possible to actually share your day with someone, to actually get to know someone, to actually commune with another human being if only enough information is shared consistently. I can personally see these technologies developing to include multi-sensory experience and even more frequent sharing of personal experience in an attempt to actually simulate real life human intimacy. My main concern is that it might follow for these technologies to replace face to face human interaction.
My question is this: If technology really is moving in this direction, is there something inherently wrong or anti-gospel about relationships based in simulated intimacy and closeness replacing real flesh and blood, voices and eyes, fingers and skin, hearts and bones human interaction? As Christians, do we have a responsibility to interact with these technologies and use them as they "fit" in order to enhance relationships in whatever way possible? Or do we have a responsibility to decry technologies which may damage our society's relational abilities? Should Christians concern themselves primarily with creating alternate opportunities for real human interaction?
It seems to me at first glance that the premise for technologies that attempt to simulate intimate relationships is fear. After all, real human interaction puts us all in a place of vulnerability. In my mind, the extent to which technologies are used to bridge relationships would indicate the extent to which a person has withdrawn into fear of this vulnerability. It is the example Jesus set by making himself vulnerable and coming to the world to pursue real flesh and blood human relationships that causes me to question any compatibility or "fit" between technologies of this nature and a Christian worldview.
To sum up: Is attempted technological intimacy - the idea of having a felt reality of being "together" with others while actually being alone - in its very nature an aim that is opposed to the gospel of Christ? Your thoughts please.
P.S. I should mention that Quentin Schultze was actually delivering his lecture and responding to my question from Michigan via a satellite connection. As it happens I really liked what he had to say and who he seemed to be and I realized after the lecture that I had a craving to get to know him more and to continue the brief conversation we had started about this. In other words, I felt I wanted a real relationship with him. You could keep in mind and perhaps comment on the fact that I would never have met Quentin or wanted to pursue a relationship with him further if it weren't for a technology that is getting very close to creating a simulated experience of "closeness".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)