The Redemptive Power of Art

[waxwing]

Art and redemption.

Without asserting that all art is redemptive, I would like to suggest that art possesses the potential to not only redeem life experience, but to redeem both the artist and the viewer. Redeem, in the dictionary, has several variations. I'm not referring to the Christian term of redemption, but rather a more generic type. A sort of metaphorical exchange. A way of making right that which is severely wrong. It might be understood as a process. Intolerable suffering is made more tolerable as a work of art is created. Art can transport and transform. Why can't it redeem?

Clearly, a person may never be able to understand why he has suffered losses. Art, however, if viewed in a certain light, can render terror (loss) as beauty (gain). It's still terrible, you see, but now the content can be seen from a greater vantage point. Perhaps this type of redemption has to do also with rendition. A photographer renders a slice of the world in such a way that what amounts to pain and suffering in real life is exchanged for a far more beautiful, even comprehensible, suffering.

So, what is this exchange that occurs? Does a work of art level the playing ground, so to speak? If I write a poem that renders my painful experience in a new light, can that be a form of redemption?

Additionally, there is another facet. People speak of art of therapeutic, but that is a separate topic. Nonetheless, I'm mostly convinced that art can actually bridge the gap between creation and unexplainable suffering. I'm not suggesting that art eliminates pain, or makes everything all right in the end (It seems that would be a cheap notion of suffering and art). What I am saying, though, is that art can become that powerful medium by which pain/suffering is illuminated. Through illumination, then, a few things potentially happen:

1. The experience is universalized, or, in other words, the suffering is dispersed among all who partake in the art

2. Through the act of creation, and dispersion, the artist is redeemed by his own work of art.

3. The viewer/listener is redeemed by virtue of the initial (and ongoing) universalization of life experience.

In short, an artistic creation opens the door for a whole network of creative acts; these creative acts, spawned one from another, in sum, equal redemption.

What do you think?

[Hypnos]

[...] Art, however, if viewed in a certain light, can render terror (loss) as beauty (gain). It's still terrible, you see, but now the content can be seen from a greater vantage point. [...]
How, exactly, does the artist do this?


[...] A photographer renders a slice of the world in such a way that what amounts to pain and suffering in real life is exchanged for a far more beautiful, even comprehensible, suffering.
Is the beauty in the comprehension?

I think it's a bit a more stark, that what I understand you to be describing. I've been playing with the idea of art as a negotiation with a reality, and not simply a realization/exploration of values or escapist displacement of terrible events or ideas. Sometimes, the best art distills the emotional content of a concept, and the artist expresses it out of sheer need for empathy or catharsis, rather than to mobilize the community.

Edward Munch's The Scream comes to mind.

[ApeTheDog]

There is a therapy by which a person can learn to get over a painful memory by repeatedly thinking about it. There is something about mending an experience together in a thought that makes it less frightening/less real.

Once you've said something out loud, it is a lot easier for you to accept it as truth. This I think is also observed, in children in the youngest years of school when they learn the tables of mathematics to older people shouting nazistic slogans.

I think art functions in a same way. It compounds the experience into one image, and as such acts as a way for the author to not have to live through/with the experience anymore. It is out there, it has been said. More importantly, it can never be forgotten anymore.

Art, in the form of tattoos, exists in many tribes and serves a similar meaning. What is on your body (a scar for example for every enemy you've killed) can never be erased.

What the artist has made, can never be erased. It makes the experience, the emotion real for him or her - and everybody else. Edward Munch painting the scream fits into this.

[Pan]

One mechanism:

- An artist suffers or witnesses suffering.
- The artist uses the suffering as the starting point to create a piece of art.
- The artwork holds some positive value, which helps offset the negative value of the original suffering.

So, regardless of the artist's motivation, the art created can be said to be "redemptive" in that sense.

In the example of the Munch, the existential loneliness of the artist has been captured in an image which is a powerful work of art. Perhaps the "redemptive" value of the work is that it can help mitigate the viewer's own loneliness by demonstrating that loneliness is shared, but I think it's just as acceptable to say that the intrinsic value of the image helps "justify" the suffering of the artist. I'm not sure I like the idea of calling it "redemption", though... it evokes concepts of sin that I prefer not to entertain.

How about an ethically more challenging example...

Haydn enjoyed lifelong patronage from the Esterhazy family, who were extremely enlightened patrons of the arts, but infamously tyrannical rulers. Is the suffering of their peasantry redeemed by the genius of Haydn's music?

[Hypnos]

Haydn enjoyed lifelong patronage from the Esterhazy family, who were extremely enlightened patrons of the arts, but infamously tyrannical rulers. Is the suffering of their peasantry redeemed by the genius of Haydn's music?
IMHO, as far as the music itself is concerned, the question is irrelevant. Munch's painting and or Haydn's composition are residues of whatever negotiation they did with reality. Whatever prompted the emotion they so eloquently rendered in tangible form, it's the emotional resonance one has that makes the tangible form valuable.

A more pointed example might be Wagner. Is his music marred because he was an anti-semite? I don't think so.

[Pan]

A more pointed example might be Wagner. Is his music marred because he was an anti-semite? I don't think so.
Or does his musical achievement help redeem the artist from his less endearing qualities?

I actually agree with you that a work of art should always be judged on its own merits, not least because the whole concept of redemption implies somehow that the artist needs to atone for something. I don't think artists should ever need to justify themselves in such guilt-ridden Catholic fashion.

However, on a very personal level, an artist who suffers can find solace in transforming his painful experiences into something beautiful or meangingful.

Not redemption, but mitigation.

[Hypnos]

In the case of Wagner, the heroic themes of his music speak directly towards his anti-semitism -- this was no Catholic confession. Still, the music resonates with us for its heroic themes.

It's true that it balances his legacy for the better, but it has nothing to do with him personally.

I do understand that you're asking the human question, not an aesthetic one: is an artist redeemed, or at least understood, if his expression is cast from suffering? Yes, I would say so.

[MuseedesBeauxArts]

I need to think more on these ideas, but a few initial things.

First, I was reminded of a quote you gave me from The Good Husband by Gail Godwin that goes like this: "We can't grow up, we can't escape our tormenters, we can't be free, until we can express ourselves well enough to be heard by others, can we? Only then can we tell our story. And only by convincingly telling our story can each of us do our bit to help the world grow up."

Second, I'm going to digress a tad. Reading your idea that "The experience is universalized, or, in other words, the suffering is dispersed among all who partake in the art," I thought of my man in Budapest. To explain: you have expressed before the idea that (correct me if I'm mis-stating this) suffering, when shared (via art or merely by someone's witness), has the potential to be helped somehow merely by this dispersion. Do you think that the presence of art in this process makes a difference, or is it merely the witness that matters? (that's a half-baked question, but go with it where you will)


A photographer renders a slice of the world in such a way that what amounts to pain and suffering in real life is exchanged for a far more beautiful, even comprehensible, suffering.

On the other side, I believe that sometimes art illuminates the beauty in suffering in part by showing its incomprehensibility--how paradoxical or ironic the suffering actually is. Hmmmmmm.......

Also, I think that creating something beautiful out of horror or despair or anger has a "redemptive" power because the person creating is reclaiming that experience in a different light--they have discovered the suffering in their pain (meaning: they have discovered the meaningful part of their pain from which they can learn something).

[waxwing]

How, exactly, does the artist do this?It would depend on the medium, I think. But generally, I think the artist makes that exchange through the creative process itself (and whatever that entails from artist to artist).



Is the beauty in the comprehension?No, not necessarily. I think the beauty is in the potential for comprehension. By comprehension, I don't mean complete understanding, but rather a way to see through the actual experience to something beneath the surface.



I think it's a bit a more stark, that what I understand you to be describing. I've been playing with the idea of art as a negotiation with a reality, and not simply a realization/exploration of values or escapist displacement of terrible events or ideas. Sometimes, the best art distills the emotional content of a concept, and the artist expresses it out of sheer need for empathy or catharsis, rather than to mobilize the community.Yes, I agree with what you've said. I, too, would not limit this redemption to terrible events and ideas. I am talking in more general terms about an exchange of loss for gain. That, clearly, would be subject to varied perception. I like the idea of "art as a negotion with reality." In large part, this redemption I suggest is due to art's potential to transport the viewer (and the artist himself) from the realm of experience to the realm of a higher symbolism. Could the catharsis occur as part of the transformation/transportation into that symbolic/metaphorical realm?

[Pan]

In the case of Wagner, the heroic themes of his music speak directly towards his anti-semitism -- this was no Catholic confession. Still, the music resonates with us for its heroic themes.
Actually, the concept of christian redemption is deeply entrenched in Wagner's dramas... Parsifal is probably the clearest example. The heroic themes, while philosophically linked to Wagner's antisemitism, are not inseparable from it.. you can have a theoretical Uberman without denigrating any one race in particular, and Siegfried would be what he is whether or not the Nibelungen are "really" jews.

Anyway, all I really meant by bringing up catholicism is that the use of the word "redemption" is a very theologically loaded term; it implies some manner of sin on the part of the artist. On that level I simply don't agree with art as redemption, because I don't agree with the concept of sin.

[Hypnos]

[...] Could the catharsis occur as part of the transformation/transportation into that symbolic/metaphorical realm?
In a sense. The symbolism in the tangible form the artist creates pushes the feelings outward, into some artifact he can ponder in sensory/intellectual terms, or by the same means share the feelings with others. Like Ape says, it makes it more "real" and not just a gnawing echo. This is the beginning of understanding and accepting it, and perhaps even doing something about it.

[waxwing]

Actually, the concept of christian redemption is deeply entrenched in Wagner's dramas... Parsifal is probably the clearest example. The heroic themes, while philosophically linked to Wagner's antisemitism, are not inseparable from it.. you can have a theoretical Uberman without denigrating any one race in particular, and Siegfried would be what he is whether or not the Nibelungen are "really" jews.

Anyway, all I really meant by bringing up catholicism is that the use of the word "redemption" is a very theologically loaded term; it implies some manner of sin on the part of the artist. On that level I simply don't agree with art as redemption, because I don't agree with the concept of sin.I did say I wasn't talking about Christian redemption, though. It's only one of several definitions. I find your argument fascinating, however, especially since I was a heavily churched child.

[Hypnos]

Pan:

Yes, and I was referring to Wagner's music not being a confessional specifically for his antisemitism.

I guess we got off track :)

[kendoiwan]

You can see the stress in my face the pain in my eyes
I'm aging fast, cause I wasn't born to slave for cash
Ya see my innocence is fading fast, the hotseat
without a lifeline, I take drugs and write rhymes
I'm only tryna maintain, cause everyday it's like the same thang
and it's enough to drive you insane, make you wanna blow out ya brains
make you open up a window and scream, but don't nobody hear ya voice
it's like ya stuck in a dream, more like a nightmare
feel the pressure all in my chest, my head is pounding
no wonder why they say I'm depressed
I'm feeling violent, seems like the stress is getting the best...

[kendoiwan]

Mommy and Daddy always fighting
the reason why is a riddle
the only thing I know is I'm always stuck in the middle
and to be honest witcha it bothers me more than alittle
I wish that I could solve it or maybe they could resolve it
makes me wanna put a gun to my head and revolve it
they tell me I'm to young to really understand the conflict
I feel it's nonsense they not respecting my stress
and when they beef they always scream and leave the house in a mess
Call me little boy blue cause I'm always depressed
just give me a couple years and I'll be smoking the seis
and drinking heavily maybe cause I can't afford the therapy
I need it though cause pain is all I'm finding in my memories

(Hook)

Ready to die I cry but I shed no tears
you told me you would dead those fears
it's been years...

[kendoiwan]

when I write like that, or whenever I recite those and others like it
I feel clean... sometimes it brings me to tears... but I feel cleansed...

[nonsequitur]

Speaking in generics, and without any specific examples, I think art provides the possibility of moving on. As Ape said, it provides a form of articulation for something that was previously only present as a distant memory, which could help one work on looking towards something else.

In my mind, art acts as a sort of bridging, a connection between people than can transcend the actual work and the medium. Speaking from personal experience, attending an art exhibition that featured the great impressionists' works was far more than examining paintwork on the wall. The art gave me an idea of the people behind it, linking myself to them in some way. It works as history does, I guess, bringing people together across time, and space, and enabling the viewer/reader/listener to gain insight into themselves, their lives and the people around them.

It's often been said that appreciation of art, and definitions of art depend on who is the viewer/reader/listener. The inference from this is that there is some sort of a connection between the artist and the one who is viewing it, be it common experience, or feeling, or existentialist depression. Perhaps it is through the expression of this common humanity that we gain understanding. This is opposed to, perhaps, a refusal to face one's past monsters. Again, this is just my personal understanding.

[kuranes]

"Catharsis" has always been one of my favorite words. Strangely it's one of those words, like "improvise", "triage", and "pro-rate" that i have a hard time remembering how to say. I'll know the concept I'm trying to speak to someone, but will have forgotten the word.

I know this one guy who does Munch-like pieces that he calls his "suicide" series. Because doing them helped him avoid suicide. I bought a couple from him.

There's another guy I know who is a sort of Henry Darger type. Very dark, though, unlike Darger's oddly twisted childhood scenes.

[kendoiwan]

"Catharsis" has always been one of my favorite words. Strangely it's one of those words, like "improvise", "triage", and "pro-rate" that i have a hard time remembering how to say. I'll know the concept I'm trying to speak to someone, but will have forgotten the word.


Yeah that thing... :whistle: