Microcosm and Myth
Now, we return to the Manifesto and the Art Lover, who tells Pinocchio,
Art cannot imitate life directly – it does it by representation as in a microcosm.
We can look at this statement through the words of Lord Raglan, a philosopher and independent thinker, when he makes the case for the diffusion of culture: Just as stone hand axes were invented in one place and spread throughout the world through the movement of peoples who traded them and perhaps copied them, so did ideas spread. A parallel would be as if today’s soldier had invented his own gun. It is not true that each human mind thinks alike and automatically proceeds towards civilization by inventing the same things or imagining the same stories.
Raglan considers myth to be the litany of a magic ritual, the story that accompanied the action. At a time when ritual went out of use, the story carried on.
There is no evidence to support the belief that myths are historical (most of the Bible is myth). The term ‘folk-memory’ cannot be applied to history; before writing was invented, history was impossible. Amongst illiterate people, facts are not remembered beyond three generations. Examples of this are the neighbouring towns of Pompeii and Herculaneum which were buried by ash from the eruption of Vesuvius in AD 79, then forgotten. Herculaneum was not re-discovered until 1719 and has not been much excavated because a whole mediaeval town, Resina, was built on top of it.
Why were the myths passed on? Raglan doesn’t say. But I suppose it’s because they are great stories, the only stories which existed before books (fairy tales are derivatives of myths), and because they are of a length that can be told. Sorry folks, the battle of Troy never happened.
There are hundreds of myths throughout the world which contain the same elements. By examining these elements in one great group of myths, Raglan tries to work out what possibly took place in the original magic ritual. What is great about him is that he takes into account all the facts – and doesn’t select them to fit his theories.
Raglan proposed: The chosen site had a tree in the middle and a circular trench was dug around the site to separate it from the real world. A young brother and sister were carried to the site in a boat – perhaps they were supposed to have travelled there via the trench. They hid in the tree. A man who had been chosen as king was killed and a new world was made from his body. Clay was mixed with his blood and moulded round two rib bones into a male and a female figure, and brought to life by the appearance of the brother and sister from the tree. They had sex as part of the ritual and then ate the heart of the dead king (which is why we have a wedding cake). The couple became the new king and queen. They were the children of the king because they were made from his body and because the new king had inhaled the last breath of the old king. With this theory, Raglan proposed an explanation as to why the king and queen of Egypt had to be brother and sister (Jocasta’s Crime, 1933).
This is an example of the creation of a microcosm so that the king who represented the old world could be killed and a new world created in the person of the new king who would, in turn, be killed at the end of the year. Raglan says that he has little clue as to the events which led up to this practice and as to why a man should be supposed to epitomize the world. Versions of this myth tell that the king killed himself and made the world from his own body. Don’t forget that the ritual is symbolic and the words which become the myth tell the story of what is actually supposed to happen. I would speculate that the concept of a sky god came from the myth, a being so omnipotent, greater and vaster than the world he created.
Because he sets out possible conclusions Raglan is not fashionable in academic institutions. I’d be interested to know if today’s readers find him exciting.
Hello Vivienne, maybe I’m too naive trying to reach you in here.
I wanted to tell you that your Manifesto really gives much and as i already do what i can, i desided to return here and to tell a thing. Perhaps that’s silly but i was so enlightened with your thoughts about art that i dare to show you something. These are some of my illustrations, collages, photos and badges. A short selection. If there is something you like, i’m ready to develop any idea for you AR collections in any way… really eager to take part in this wonderful important work you do with human conciseness… but i know that’s naive to write what i did =)
http://www.behance.net/gallery/Resistance/1038163 here they are
With love and respect,
Denis from Kiev.
Comment by Denis Kravets on 23/02/2011 at 7:13 pm
Dear Denis
Thank you for your letter, the photographs of your work and for reading the AR Manifesto. The Manifesto is a practice and following it is the greatest thing you can do for me. I am so pleased you got involved – and please keep in touch.
You have talent (I see this most in your drawings).
I want to give you some advice: Most importantly, do not try to cultivate a style. Style kills spontaneity, destroys that live transmission from you, yourself, your spirit, to the work. An artist’s aim is to tell the truth, only that – whether it is something you see or something you want to say. And through technique you find a way to do that, a way to reduce something to its essence. Technique is always trial and error; you learn the rules in order to break them. Rubens, in his fifties, whilst he was Flemish ambassador at the court of Spain, took the opportunity of copying Titian, copy his method. You never stop learning.
Endeavour to become a great artist. Do not chase success. Copy: remember there is no progress in art. Everything depends on drawing, especially if you want to paint. Sketch constantly; for the moment throw away your own style of drawing and copy the great masters (no progress in art, only good art or bad).
You could consider oil painting; you would have to re-discover the technique. It has been re-discovered through modern technology, and there are books, but you would have to study the real thing – the paintings. Apparently Joshua Reynolds stripped Venetian paintings in an attempt to discover the process, how it was built up with different layers. Gainsborough, one of the great geniuses, knew the technique. The technique is achieved by a method of indirect painting. It gives limitless possibility to create an illusion of reality. I’m not sure how much 19th century painters knew of the technique of indirect painting because it seems that Manet and then Matisse each forged their own technique. You, too, would have unlimited means of expression should you labour towards this means of simplification. There would be so much new to discover.
Comment by Vivienne on 02/03/2011 at 10:45 am
I find both your views and those of Raglan fascinating, certainly exciting. I find the concept of myth incredibly interesting.
The historical proof point is worth mentioning. Whilst there is no historical proof whatsoever within myth, essentially this lack of proof can work on both sides of the story. On one hand there is no evidence to suggest that they are 100% true and accurate, yet at the same time there is no historical evidence to suggest that they are NOT 100% true and accurate.
I believe that myths, however, regardless of their legitimacy are a big part of culture. Especially if fairy tales are derivatives of myths. Whilst they are used as stories to entertain, they often tell stories of morality and the conflict between good and bad, right and wrong. Once again though, the way something is defined is raised here. Just as it is difficult to define the legitimacy of a myth or fairy tale, it may be difficult to distinguish between what we may perceive to be right and what actually is right, in whatever terms.
I feel like I may have left my point a little here, but certainly in the phrase
“Art cannot imitate life directly – it does it by representation as in a microcosm”
it is apparent that like theorists like Raglan, artists can only represent life to a certain extent, through a miniature model of something, and it is how we, the art lover, choose to interpret it, exactly like how me may choose to interpret myth or fairy tale.
I apologize for my rant like structure here, I so hope I have made myself at least a little understandable,
James
Comment by James Emmett on 24/02/2011 at 6:51 pm