The greatest criticism of dogma is this: creativity needs movement. If you have a fixed notion, then the discussion of it is no more interesting than observing the sky's blueness. If you have a static emotion, then the color of happiness soon grays; the pang of sadness becomes a numb dreariness; the beauty of tranquility is simply uninteresting, and so on. Like that disgusting water stopped up in the corner gutter of your house, it festers.
So, does this mean that opinions are merely fashion? Well, yes. To most people, anyway. But what is missed about dogma is the more subtle beauty of context. If nothing is new under the sun, then this is the only kind of beauty that truly matters, or ultimately exists. Everything else is just illusion. If this is true, as I think can be demonstrated, then it provides the framework for an objective subjectivity in art.
We've all been given rocks, not clay. Certain universals that persist whether we prefer it or not. The only thing we can do is change the context of the rock. With our words or artistic mediums, hide the rock, cast the light so it strikes a different way, or create a beautiful setting for the rock. However, the rock is still the rock. Some people theorize what the actual rock looks like. Some people contextualize the rock in an interesting way before deciding they want to create a new shape for the rock and create another context for it.
Dogma is simply believing that the rock's shape is knowable. Does this mean dogma is inherently better? Of course not. In many cases dogma can be completely wrong and limiting. Other times it's the opposite. It's like scientific theories. Relativity is encountering some bumps, but it's a useful example. Einstein had a theory that he believed described what he was seeing in mathematics. It wasn't something he had yet seen empirically, but it informed what he was looking for empirically. In time, evidence began to accumulate that supported his theory. He believed he understood some shape of the rock, and it predicted what later was observed.
This works because he worked from a set of established opinions: the universe was knowable, it could be explained through mathematical constants and relationships, and that it behaved in a way that could be testable and verified. With these, he was able to understand part of the rock. And with that part of the rock understandable, it could be made beautiful by considering different contexts: how big the universe is, how complex, how bizarre, and how foreign differences of scale can be. Those are contexts that were enabled by a dogma.
Ultimately, everyone has dogma. Everyone has established beliefs. Sometimes they should change. Other times, you must resist fashion and maintain belief. In all circumstances, one should realize that dogma is always belief. It is always faith to believe the rock is knowable. And the more coherently that belief can explain interpreted reality and account for an epistemology, the more beautiful its contexts can be.
My own dogma is that there can be nothing more beautiful than realizing the love and mercy of Christ's sacrifice at Golgotha. It's a beautifully ugly image that sounds like the Alpha for every other story that has existed throughout mankind. And I believe it will be every story's Omega too. It accounts for epistemology in fallen man and allows for a universe that can be knowable through science in the context of God's supernatural über-will, and demands a law of mercy to coexist equally with a law of justice.
If I am able to proclaim that beauty by highlighting it anew in endless contexts, then I am happy. And I can think of no better Aesthetic. Far from being dull, I think the right dogma is the only way art can be endlessly interesting and vibrant.
No comments:
Post a Comment