Speaker 1: Welcome to Stuff to Blow Your Mind, the production of
Speaker 1: My Heart Radio. Hey you welcome to Stuff to Blow
Speaker 1: your Mind. My name is Robert Land, and I'm Joe McCormick.
Speaker 1: And today we're picking up with part two of our
Speaker 1: talk about an iconism in the history of art and religion.
Speaker 1: An Iconism, as we described in the first episode, is
Speaker 1: the demarcation of divine presence without figural representation. Uh. And
Speaker 1: that that was a definition that was given in an
Speaker 1: essay that I talked about in the last episode from
Speaker 1: the Journal Religion in seventeen by the Yale University art
Speaker 1: historian Milette Gaffman. And so in the last episode we
Speaker 1: talked about some issues with defining the concept of an iconism,
Speaker 1: and we talked about some specific examples from Greek religion
Speaker 1: and from Hindu religion. And we're back today to keep
Speaker 1: exploring more on the topic. So, but if you if
Speaker 1: you haven't listened to the first episode, you probably really
Speaker 1: should go back and check that one out first, because
Speaker 1: that lays a lot of the groundwork for what we're
Speaker 1: talking about today. Yeah, and I do want to remind
Speaker 1: everybody that that, again, this is a topic where it
Speaker 1: ultimately touches on an array of different cultures, different moments
Speaker 1: in time, different places around the world, and it's not
Speaker 1: something where you can really just you know, boil it
Speaker 1: all down to, you know, a universal law or too
Speaker 1: concerning like why um an iconism is utilized and you
Speaker 1: know what its values are, what it's you know, the
Speaker 1: pros are, the cons etcetera. It's going to vary from
Speaker 1: culture to culture UM And and likewise, a lot of
Speaker 1: our I guess bigger questions about it, like what does
Speaker 1: it do? What? You know? Those two are are going
Speaker 1: to be elusive. You know, you're not gonna really be
Speaker 1: able to come up with like one solid answer UM
Speaker 1: that is going to cover everything. Though in the last
Speaker 1: episode we did talk about some specific studies of anichonism
Speaker 1: that tried to identify some trends that again are probably
Speaker 1: not going to be universal. But for example, one of
Speaker 1: the payers we looked at last time was by a
Speaker 1: scholar named Haberman that looked at a sort of spectrum
Speaker 1: of iconicity in the religious significance of trees and stones
Speaker 1: in some Indian rituals. And one of the trends that
Speaker 1: was extrapolated from that at least as Haberman argued was
Speaker 1: that it seems, especially devotional religious practices or religious practices
Speaker 1: that put a lot of emphasis on the relationship between
Speaker 1: the person and the god tend over time often to
Speaker 1: transform originally an iconic images such as just unadorned rocks
Speaker 1: and trees as symbols of divine presence into more iconic
Speaker 1: versions of themselves. So you might end up decorating those
Speaker 1: rocks and trees with clothing or with masks that have
Speaker 1: a face on them. Yeah. I particularly like Haberman's ideas
Speaker 1: regarding what happens when you put a face on a god,
Speaker 1: you know, and uh, and he brought up like facial
Speaker 1: recognition and and and and how you know that leaning
Speaker 1: into personific patian an anthropomorphism regarding these intangible you know,
Speaker 1: mythic ideas and about how you know. Ultimately it makes
Speaker 1: something more uh you know, tangible for your your brain
Speaker 1: to lock onto. So I wanted to start off today
Speaker 1: with an example of of an iconic religious representation that
Speaker 1: is sometimes known in the scholarship as divine emptiness. And
Speaker 1: this is held up in contrast to material anchionism, where
Speaker 1: you uh, you know, where where you have an object
Speaker 1: that is the marker of divine presence. But it is
Speaker 1: in itself an object. It might be a large stone
Speaker 1: or a tree, or you know, a big sphere or
Speaker 1: something like that, or a pillar, but it's not it's
Speaker 1: not anthropomorphic, it's not theeomorphic, but it is still a
Speaker 1: material object. Is it possible to signal divine presence by
Speaker 1: calling attention to an empty space? At least in some
Speaker 1: cases it is? And uh, the first example I want
Speaker 1: to look at is a monument on the small island
Speaker 1: known as Hulky that is spelled sometimes C H A
Speaker 1: l K E, sometimes H l k I. It's a
Speaker 1: small island off the coast of roads in the A,
Speaker 1: G and C. And here I'd like to read from
Speaker 1: that essay by Millet Gateman that I introduced in the
Speaker 1: last episode. Quote. In the late nineteenth century, Friedrich Hiller
Speaker 1: von Gertringen visited the slopes of the acropolis of the island,
Speaker 1: and as he climbed up the hill, he came across
Speaker 1: a boulder with two rock cut seats. Upon close inspection,
Speaker 1: he noticed that each of the two seats was labeled
Speaker 1: with a divinity's name. In the genitive case, the name
Speaker 1: of Zeus appears on the left and that of Hecate
Speaker 1: on the right. And this really got the gears turning
Speaker 1: in my brain. That connects to a lot of things,
Speaker 1: including some things in Christian art that I'll mention in
Speaker 1: a second here. But um, yeah, this is very interesting.
Speaker 1: So there are some obvious limitations on what information we
Speaker 1: can we can draw from this, like the lack of
Speaker 1: archaeological record from the site, coupled with the lack of
Speaker 1: other evidence, makes it hard to determine whether this monument
Speaker 1: was ever the object of rituals or of worship. You know,
Speaker 1: people stand before it and bow down. But the fact
Speaker 1: that the empty stone thrones are labeled with the names
Speaker 1: of God's seems like at least pretty good evidence that
Speaker 1: this is a type of an iconic monument if we
Speaker 1: go with the index of divine presence definition, because of
Speaker 1: course it in a way notes the potential presence of
Speaker 1: a divine power without showing them in human or an
Speaker 1: animal form. Uh. And this would be an example of
Speaker 1: empty space and iconism because the actual icon you are
Speaker 1: imagining here is the God sitting within the throne, but
Speaker 1: they're not there. It's an empty chair. And this is
Speaker 1: by no means the only example of the empty throne
Speaker 1: is an index of divine presence. This is actually he
Speaker 1: found all throughout different religions of the world. Uh, the
Speaker 1: empty throne of the Buddha, and some Buddhist start rob.
Speaker 1: I think you've got some information on that in a minute.
Speaker 1: But they're all kinds of divine furniture. It's sometimes called
Speaker 1: in Greek religion, where this is a thing that the
Speaker 1: God will sit upon or stand upon, a footstool of
Speaker 1: the God, a throne of the God, but the God
Speaker 1: isn't in it. And a big example that came to
Speaker 1: my mind is the prepared empty throne from Christian art,
Speaker 1: which is often understood to be waiting in preparation for
Speaker 1: the second coming of Christ, so when Christ comes back,
Speaker 1: he'll sit here. This imagery seems especially common in the
Speaker 1: Eastern Orthodox Church. I was looking up some materials on
Speaker 1: this and I found a short book published by the
Speaker 1: JP Getty Museum that was by Alfredo Tradigo and translated
Speaker 1: by Steven sarter Relli, and it's writing generally about the
Speaker 1: prepared throne tradition, but with specific attention to one icon
Speaker 1: and particular that's known as the heat toy masia, which
Speaker 1: is also a general term that's applied to a lot
Speaker 1: of this artwork. I think it means like prepared throne
Speaker 1: or preparedness, something like that. But this particular icon that
Speaker 1: is being examined in this book is the back half
Speaker 1: of a two sided icon from Athens of the fourteenth
Speaker 1: century that's kept in the Byzantine Museum. And there are
Speaker 1: some pretty interesting common features that you find on a
Speaker 1: lot of these prepared throne artworks from Christian history. So
Speaker 1: for one thing, Tridigo writes, quote, few individual icons are
Speaker 1: devoted to this subject. It is more often inserted into
Speaker 1: complex compositions such as The Last Judgment and Sophia the
Speaker 1: Wisdom of God. The image of the preparation of the
Speaker 1: throne or heat toy masia is usually found on the
Speaker 1: backs of icons of other subjects, such as the famous
Speaker 1: icon of the Virgin of Vladimir. The throne being prepared
Speaker 1: is that on which Christ will sit during the Last Judgment,
Speaker 1: lying upon the empty throne or the cloak of Christ
Speaker 1: the judge, and a closed book in the icon on
Speaker 1: this page, however, the book is open to a passage
Speaker 1: in the Gospel quote, come oh, blessed of my father,
Speaker 1: for I was hungry, and you gave me food, which
Speaker 1: is a quote from the Gospel of Matthew. Behind the
Speaker 1: throne stands across the lance, and the cane with the
Speaker 1: sponge drenched in vinegar lean against it, while the crown
Speaker 1: of thorns hangs from it. On the fourth step of
Speaker 1: the throne stands a vase with the nails. And so
Speaker 1: you've got a lot of this, uh, this this imagery
Speaker 1: that's charged imagery having to do with the passion narrative
Speaker 1: and Christianity and other visions of the Last Judgment. But
Speaker 1: I also find it interesting that this prepared throne of
Speaker 1: the Last Judgment, this empty chair that Christ will sit in, uh,
Speaker 1: he says, is often not the center of a religious
Speaker 1: work of art, but it's so maybe somewhere off in
Speaker 1: the corner or on the back side of an icon.
Speaker 1: I'm not quite sure what to make of that, but
Speaker 1: that that seems interesting to me. It um, you know,
Speaker 1: I was thinking it It's like, okay, it's this what
Speaker 1: it sounds like. It has all the an iconic paraphernalia,
Speaker 1: you know. Uh, And in a sense, it almost it
Speaker 1: reminds me a bit of hoarding. It's like a hoarding
Speaker 1: of an iconic symbols. And I mean you think of
Speaker 1: why do people hold onto objects and things because of
Speaker 1: their association with with with times and places and people.
Speaker 1: You know, so perhaps a similar energy going on there.
Speaker 1: And certainly, yeah, if you if you are disinclined to
Speaker 1: show a human form or a humanoid form in the art,
Speaker 1: you have all of these additional things to draw from
Speaker 1: places that the individual was, things that interacted with the
Speaker 1: individual's history or the myths concerning them. Yeah, that's right,
Speaker 1: but it also highlights of course, you know, one of
Speaker 1: the things we mentioned in the last episode is that
Speaker 1: certainly within the history of Christianity, there is not a
Speaker 1: lot of strict an iconism throughout its history. There's there's
Speaker 1: a pretty uh pretty complete blending of iconic and an
Speaker 1: iconic traditions throughout the centuries of the Christian Church. But
Speaker 1: part of this idea is that like this is a
Speaker 1: place where Christ is not yet but will be. This
Speaker 1: is a kind that has not occurred yet but will occur. Uh.
Speaker 1: So it makes sense that it's unoccupied, that it's unlived in.
Speaker 1: It's like you know, it's like like the like the
Speaker 1: airport and the langal ears right. Yeah, yeah, I think
Speaker 1: that's right. So the empty throne here would seem to
Speaker 1: me to take on a special meaning in the Christian
Speaker 1: context versus say, the Greek context, which I'll come back
Speaker 1: to in just a second, because Christianity has elements of
Speaker 1: apocalyptic eschatology, which Greek religion usually doesn't. Maybe you could
Speaker 1: find some elements of it, but it's certainly not as prominent.
Speaker 1: So in the Christian context, an empty throne prepared for
Speaker 1: Christ has a special significance, meaning like, our Savior isn't
Speaker 1: here yet, and that's why everything is so bad. Everything
Speaker 1: is messed up in his absence, but he's coming back
Speaker 1: soon and then everything will be made right. So it's
Speaker 1: actually saying something about the world, not just by pointing
Speaker 1: to the figure of Christ, but specifically by being currently empty.
Speaker 1: The current temporary absence of the thrones occupant is in
Speaker 1: itself theologically meaningful. I was thinking about how the television
Speaker 1: series Game of Thrones leaned in either intentionally or sort
Speaker 1: of accidentally or just through you know, cultural um awareness
Speaker 1: of the trope into this by by promoting at least
Speaker 1: one season of the show with just an image of
Speaker 1: the iron throne unoccupied. Yes, yes, And and the emptiness
Speaker 1: of the throne actually says something about the show like
Speaker 1: that that's very up for grabs. It's not just a
Speaker 1: symbol of the kingship, but a symbol of the sort
Speaker 1: of open potential. Yeah. Yeah, And and if you lean
Speaker 1: into it the right way, the hope that someone will
Speaker 1: set upon it and set things right right. But to
Speaker 1: come back to the example I started with the empty
Speaker 1: thrones of Zeus and Hecate. One thing I wanted to
Speaker 1: mention is that it has been argued that the Christian
Speaker 1: tradition of empty throne, uh would you say iconography or
Speaker 1: an iconography, uh, is at least to some extent derived
Speaker 1: from the empty throne imagery in Greek religion before it,
Speaker 1: which which brings us back to those rock cut thrones
Speaker 1: from the island of hulky Um. So this, this monument
Speaker 1: on the island, raises all kinds of interesting questions about
Speaker 1: how people think of God's when they engage in religious practices. Uh.
Speaker 1: Thinking back to the first episode, if that that cone
Speaker 1: of the cult of Aphrodite and Pathos indicates the presence
Speaker 1: of divine power without showing the goddess having a body.
Speaker 1: I guess it is in that case. In the case
Speaker 1: of the cone left ambiguous, whether the worshipers were picturing
Speaker 1: Aphrodite as having a body at all like it, it's
Speaker 1: not clear what they were thinking about, or whether they
Speaker 1: thought of her as something more more abstract, more disembobied, audied,
Speaker 1: and so forth. But the empty thrones of Zeus and Hecate,
Speaker 1: they are thrones. Thrones are made for bodies to sit on,
Speaker 1: and they're basically human sized, So you could argue that
Speaker 1: these thrones are indications of a figural representation without including
Speaker 1: the representation. They do ask you to picture Zeus and
Speaker 1: Hecate as essentially bipedal hominids. They indicate that Zeus and
Speaker 1: Hecate have butts, and the butts could sit in those thrones,
Speaker 1: but they don't show them to you. The iconicity is
Speaker 1: implied and it happens in your imagination. And I do
Speaker 1: wonder how in general this would this would tend to
Speaker 1: change the religious experience. Is this somehow is this closer
Speaker 1: to the experience of the anthropomorphic icon just a straight
Speaker 1: up statue of a god, or is it closer to
Speaker 1: the non figural symbol of divine presence, like the cone
Speaker 1: of Aphrodite, or is it something something totally different altogether. Yeah.
Speaker 1: When you start, you know, considering the idea that it's
Speaker 1: that it's that it's telling you this is a place
Speaker 1: where the gods have set or will set or can set.
Speaker 1: It raises so many questions about like why I can't
Speaker 1: see them right now? Why am I beholding an empty
Speaker 1: throne now? Is it? Is it tied to some legacy
Speaker 1: of of the like some story about the gods having
Speaker 1: appeared here or having set here in the past and
Speaker 1: therefore thrones were built, or you know, there was a
Speaker 1: you know, you know, hallucinations of the gods occurred here
Speaker 1: and therefore these things were built. Or is it the
Speaker 1: idea that sometimes the gods can be reached and therefore
Speaker 1: this is a place prepared for them, This is a
Speaker 1: place where they can be at home. Yeah, all really
Speaker 1: good questions. And and the one I come back to
Speaker 1: is I wonder if there is any theological significance to
Speaker 1: the current emptiness of the thrones, like you could argue
Speaker 1: there is in the Christian context. You know that Christ
Speaker 1: is not on the world right now, so it is
Speaker 1: appointedly currently empty but he will be coming. Is the
Speaker 1: current emptiness of the Zeus and hecateate throwne. It all
Speaker 1: like that, Yeah, And then of course it also probably
Speaker 1: draws in questions about like, well, okay, if this is
Speaker 1: a place for the gods, I'm assuming humans are not
Speaker 1: allowed to sit here. Uh. So you know, there's some
Speaker 1: level perhaps of of the forbidden there as well. This
Speaker 1: is a place set aside for the gods, This is
Speaker 1: not a place for humans, right. But of course, even
Speaker 1: though it has been argued that the Christian prepared throwne
Speaker 1: tradition could be derived from the traditions in Greek art
Speaker 1: of you know, furniture for the Greek gods, uh, it's
Speaker 1: clear that this is a motif that appears independently in
Speaker 1: other religions as well, like because there are empty thrones
Speaker 1: in Buddhist start work. That's right. There's a great deal
Speaker 1: of Anichonism and early Buddhism so prior to the first
Speaker 1: century CE, which you know might seem surprising, you know,
Speaker 1: to to a lot of people, because when you think
Speaker 1: about Buddhism, certainly when I think about Buddhism, one of
Speaker 1: the things I think about are those of those various
Speaker 1: images of the Buddha. You know all these fabulous works
Speaker 1: of art um you know, paintings, and you know, inscriptions
Speaker 1: and sculptures and various reproductions of a of a human form.
Speaker 1: But as Susan L. Huntington's pointed out in early Buddhist
Speaker 1: art in the Theory of an Iconism in Art Journal
Speaker 1: in nineteen nine, early images and seem to have avoided
Speaker 1: showing depictions of the historical Buddha or the the or
Speaker 1: Buddha Sakyamuni, this is a Siddharta Gattama said to have
Speaker 1: lived fifth to the fourth century BC. So instead of
Speaker 1: depicting that individual or some version of that individual in
Speaker 1: these these early settings, there seem to have been a
Speaker 1: strong emphasis instead on showing trees and wheels, um stupas
Speaker 1: and thrones, and those of course can be deeply tied
Speaker 1: into the story of the Buddha as well. For example,
Speaker 1: I know, one of the biggest images in in Buddhism,
Speaker 1: other than the Buddha himself embodied, is say the Bodhi tree,
Speaker 1: which it has said that the Buddhist sat underneath, right,
Speaker 1: And that's that's uh, that's definitely connected also to this
Speaker 1: idea of of the throne um, particularly at the diamond
Speaker 1: throne or of Vadrasana, the enlightenment throne of the Buddha.
Speaker 1: And this is um uh. This is an example of
Speaker 1: an actual empty throne, that that is that is still
Speaker 1: still around. You can go and see this. It's located
Speaker 1: at at a Maha Bodhi temple at bowd Gaya in India.
Speaker 1: So it is a stone slab installed beside the Bodhi tree,
Speaker 1: and this is said to be where the Buddha attained
Speaker 1: enlightenment in five BC. Now the slab itself is thought
Speaker 1: to have been built by the emperor Asoka around two
Speaker 1: fifty or two two thirty three b C. And the
Speaker 1: tree there, the Bodhi tree, is not the original Bodhi tree,
Speaker 1: but it is said to be an offspring of that tree. Uh.
Speaker 1: And this the current tree is estimated to have been
Speaker 1: planted around two fifty b C, or at least it's
Speaker 1: been it's been said to have been planted there, So
Speaker 1: not the original tree, but it's said to be the offspring.
Speaker 1: And anyway you look at it, potentially a very old tree. UH.
Speaker 1: The sacred fig or Um or Ficus religiosa. Can live
Speaker 1: in estimated nine hundred to fifteen hundred years, and some
Speaker 1: specimens are said to be much older. So even if
Speaker 1: this is you know, this is not the original Bodhi tree,
Speaker 1: if it's you know, some descendant of the Bodhi Tree,
Speaker 1: it's still like a really old, really impressive tree. So
Speaker 1: you can look up images of this. But the Diamond
Speaker 1: throne is this essentially this stone platform that is then decorated. Uh.
Speaker 1: Sometimes there is like this um this parasol there as well,
Speaker 1: uh and various other um you know, iconic implements. But
Speaker 1: there is no individual on the throne. There's no statue
Speaker 1: of the Buddha on the throne. And basically, you know,
Speaker 1: I mean we have to come back at the end
Speaker 1: of the idea that this is something from a particular
Speaker 1: moment in the story of the boot of the idea
Speaker 1: that they have achieved enlightenment, that ultimately the Buddha has
Speaker 1: um you know, has has has has moved on into
Speaker 1: Nirvana and you know, is beyond you know, the limitations
Speaker 1: of the physical form in this life, etcetera. And so
Speaker 1: there's a lot of that in the an iconic aspects
Speaker 1: of the image. Oh that almost seems an inverse of
Speaker 1: the Christian prepared throne, right like if the if the
Speaker 1: empty throne of Jesus is that, well it's empty now,
Speaker 1: but he's coming back and he'll sit in it. The
Speaker 1: empty platform here is almost like, well he was here,
Speaker 1: but he left. Yeah, I mean, I guess if I
Speaker 1: was going to to compare it to something in Christianity,
Speaker 1: I would I would think about the empty tomb right
Speaker 1: with the stone rolled aside, you know, the idea of
Speaker 1: being what he is not in here. He's gone on,
Speaker 1: He's moved on to other things, a sign of what
Speaker 1: he transcended right now. The author of this paper, I
Speaker 1: should I should point out Susan L. Huntington's um. They
Speaker 1: argued that such an iconic images in Buddhism are quote,
Speaker 1: not substitutes or symbols for something else, but are important
Speaker 1: emblems of Buddhist devotion in their own right. And and
Speaker 1: they argue that that these are not indicative of an
Speaker 1: quote unquote an iconic period during which there were laws
Speaker 1: or you know, pressure against the icons of the Buddha. Uh.
Speaker 1: This was apparently not the predominant interpretation prior to that,
Speaker 1: but I I am to understand it. You know, like
Speaker 1: basically Susan Ol Huntington's was was kind of a well
Speaker 1: dare I say, an iconoclast in uh in bringing around
Speaker 1: this this new understanding. And certainly I think there have
Speaker 1: been there's been various um, you know, findings that backed
Speaker 1: this up as well. Like it's not like there were
Speaker 1: no images of the Buddha prior to this. Um it
Speaker 1: was you know, it was it was, you know, certainly
Speaker 1: a trend in depicting um the you know, the the
Speaker 1: the story of Buddha and uh and and you know,
Speaker 1: various aspects of of of Buddhist belief. Uh. But uh,
Speaker 1: but again a lot I think it seems to be
Speaker 1: tied more to that story of the Buddha. Again, like
Speaker 1: this is a this is a this is an actual
Speaker 1: place in the history of the Buddha. This is a
Speaker 1: time in the history of Buddha, and this is what happened.
Speaker 1: So it's not empty as a result of a prohibition
Speaker 1: on depiction of the Buddha, but it's empty as a
Speaker 1: result of a deliberate choice stemming from the story that
Speaker 1: it's based on. I guess it's kind of like if
Speaker 1: you go to a museum, say it's a historic house
Speaker 1: or something. They may have, Hey, here's the writing desk
Speaker 1: desk of this individual. Now sometimes they might have a
Speaker 1: wax version of that, you know, like founding Father or whatever,
Speaker 1: setting at the desk, But plenty of times you're not
Speaker 1: going to encounter that. It's just going to be here's
Speaker 1: the desk where they set. Imagine what that was like,
Speaker 1: if you will. So I don't think it's particularly you know,
Speaker 1: like lofty theological concept for us to wrap our heads around,
Speaker 1: because I think if anybody who's gone to a museum
Speaker 1: or historic location has encountered something of this nature, it just,
Speaker 1: you know, is inevitably not as as sacred a story
Speaker 1: and sacred a figure. So in looking at these examples
Speaker 1: in particular, a question that really interests me is is
Speaker 1: there any difference on average for the mental experience of
Speaker 1: a religious adherent of occult with a figural icon like
Speaker 1: a statue of Zeus or something versus an empty space
Speaker 1: icon like these examples of sacred furniture, you know, the
Speaker 1: diamond throne or the empty throne of Zeus and Hecate.
Speaker 1: I was trying to see if I could find any
Speaker 1: possibly applicable scientific research here. I did find something that
Speaker 1: might tell us something interesting, though I want to be
Speaker 1: careful not to over interpret. But we'll see if this
Speaker 1: seems at all relevant. So I did find a study
Speaker 1: from the Journal of Cognitive Psychology in two thousand eleven
Speaker 1: by William L. Thompson, Yawling Siao, and Stephen M. Koslin
Speaker 1: called Dissociation between visual attention and visual mental imagery. And
Speaker 1: this study addressed the question what is the difference in
Speaker 1: the brain between focused visual attention and mental imagery? In
Speaker 1: other words, what is the actual difference between seeing and imagining?
Speaker 1: And in a way, this paper is responding to some
Speaker 1: some theorists who had said they're actually in many ways
Speaker 1: the same thing. And we've known for a long time
Speaker 1: that there is clearly some overlap between visual perception and
Speaker 1: mental imagery. For example, there are experiments that show that
Speaker 1: they make use of some of the same parts of
Speaker 1: the brain and compete for some of the same resources,
Speaker 1: so that one can potentially be mistaken for the other,
Speaker 1: and they can sometimes interfere with one another. But despite
Speaker 1: this overlap, there are also indications that visual perception and
Speaker 1: visual imagination are not exactly the same thing. There are
Speaker 1: some differences in how they usually function, and the authors
Speaker 1: here are responding to theories that mental imagery might be
Speaker 1: nothing more than a specific form of actual visual perception
Speaker 1: of visual attention specifically, and so the article tried to
Speaker 1: demonstrate that difference and explore one of the ways that
Speaker 1: these two processes are different. So in reading their them
Speaker 1: describing their experimental process, they say, quote in this study,
Speaker 1: we used a size manipulation to demonstrate that imagery and
Speaker 1: attention are distinct processes. We reasoned that if participants are
Speaker 1: asked to perform each function, both imagery and attention, using
Speaker 1: stimuli of two different sizes, large and small, and that
Speaker 1: stimulus size effects two functions differently, than we could conclude
Speaker 1: that imagery and attention are distinct cognitive processes. Our analyzes
Speaker 1: showed that participants performed the imagery task with greater facility
Speaker 1: at large size, whereas attention was performed more easily using
Speaker 1: smaller stimuli. This finding demonstrates that imagery and attention are
Speaker 1: distinct cognitive processes. So the task involved them like trying
Speaker 1: to notice the appearance of small dots within differently sized
Speaker 1: spaces and then uh contract the contrasting test groups. There
Speaker 1: were sometimes those spaces were occupied by a shape where
Speaker 1: they were applying visual attention, and other times those spaces
Speaker 1: were occupied by something on which they were asked to
Speaker 1: project mental imagery. And what they found was that the
Speaker 1: people were better at the attention task, meaning actually looking
Speaker 1: visual perception when they were dealing with a smaller space,
Speaker 1: a smaller square, and they were better at the imagery task,
Speaker 1: the the imagination task when they were dealing with a
Speaker 1: larger square. So I'm not sure this tells us anything
Speaker 1: about empty space anichonism versus direct iconic representation, but it might.
Speaker 1: I mean, I wonder if this this has something to
Speaker 1: do with like feelings of a sort of spatial expansiveness
Speaker 1: in in how you manipulate imagined imagery versus how you
Speaker 1: would actually respond to a physical statue that's right in
Speaker 1: front of you and you're looking at it, focusing your
Speaker 1: actual visual attention on it when you're concentrating on the divine. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean, I think these these findings are really interesting,
Speaker 1: But yeah, I feel like you could kind of cherry
Speaker 1: pick them and apply them all over the place to
Speaker 1: some of these examples we've looked at, you know, because
Speaker 1: I'm I'm tempted for example to you know, come back
Speaker 1: to what Ekartole said about, you know, find this small
Speaker 1: piece of nature and focus on it, you know, focus
Speaker 1: your attention on this bird or um you know, or
Speaker 1: this uh, this this crystal or whatever. Um. You know.
Speaker 1: I'm thinking about the you know, the the idea of
Speaker 1: using the Christna stone and focusing on that as opposed
Speaker 1: to the mountain that is also Krishna out of which
Speaker 1: the stone was was harvested, you know. Um, like you
Speaker 1: know both, I can see sort of see the value
Speaker 1: of both, you know, and and sort of the largeness
Speaker 1: of a god or a goddess or the relatability of
Speaker 1: a god or a goddess, the the the you know,
Speaker 1: at what points is it more advantageous or desired to
Speaker 1: feel a sense of of like personal connection and concentration
Speaker 1: regarding a divine figure And other times is it better,
Speaker 1: you know, to have that sort of awe moment like
Speaker 1: just thinking about Buddha imagery, you know, uh is it
Speaker 1: that you know what if it's one You have the
Speaker 1: Buddhas of all sizes, right, you have Buddhis that tiny
Speaker 1: little statues that you carry in your pocket. You have
Speaker 1: Buddhas that are are human side you have Buddhas that
Speaker 1: are carved out of mountains and are like titanic and
Speaker 1: inspiring works to look at. Well, I think about the
Speaker 1: ways that different sizes of the same icon are I
Speaker 1: think supposed to target people different emotions in in believers.
Speaker 1: For example, the tiny crucifix that somebody wears around their
Speaker 1: neck versus the Christ their redeemer statue in Brazil, which
Speaker 1: is gigantic, you know, I think those are supposed to
Speaker 1: create different feelings. One is a feeling of all, you know,
Speaker 1: that that you are small and that God is big
Speaker 1: and uh, and that you can kind of surrender yourself
Speaker 1: to this gigantic, awesome power with the you know, with
Speaker 1: the big statue versus the crucifix that you wear around
Speaker 1: your neck. I often take as a sign of intimacy,
Speaker 1: like closeness with God what sometimes Christians would call the
Speaker 1: personal relationship. That that's probably not a term that that
Speaker 1: everybody who wears a crucifix would use. Yeah, this is
Speaker 1: all interesting, this will be something well well to hear
Speaker 1: from listeners about as well. But but on the subject
Speaker 1: of of mental images and visual images, um I started
Speaker 1: thinking about this question of of you know, again, what's
Speaker 1: what's the difference, what how do you compare the two?
Speaker 1: And in looking into this, I I ran across an
Speaker 1: interesting article by David van Drounen and it's titled Pictures
Speaker 1: of Jesus and the Sovereignty of Divine Revelation, published in
Speaker 1: the Confessional Presbyterian in twenty nineteen. So this is like
Speaker 1: a theological journal where like there it's for for people
Speaker 1: within the church discussing church matters. Yeah, but I found
Speaker 1: it pretty relatable though, and what they're talking about here
Speaker 1: because they're not really like diving deep into theology here,
Speaker 1: They're just they're ultimately ultimately asking like, what's what's the
Speaker 1: difference between these two and observing like sort of the
Speaker 1: push and pull of an iconism and iconism um and
Speaker 1: within this tradition all right, pointing out a quote many
Speaker 1: traditional reform discussions of the Second Commandment, again referring to
Speaker 1: the Ten Commandments idea of you know, graving images and
Speaker 1: all have clearly taught that it prohibits forming mental images
Speaker 1: of God as well as representing him artistically, which I
Speaker 1: found really really fascinating because so much of what we've
Speaker 1: been discussing so far, as you know, especially when we
Speaker 1: were talking about the Christian example earlier, the idea that
Speaker 1: if you have a very anichonistic medium with which to
Speaker 1: um engage with, you know, this this stone that does
Speaker 1: not look like a person, then you can kind of
Speaker 1: summon whatever anthropomorphized incarnation of Krishna you want, you know. Uh.
Speaker 1: And so basically, you know, I end up just sort
Speaker 1: of taking the mental image portion of that for granted, Like,
Speaker 1: of course you're going to then imagine Krishna in whichever
Speaker 1: form relates to your your current circumstances or you know,
Speaker 1: or you know what what you are looking for most
Speaker 1: out of your religious life. Likewise, we were talking about
Speaker 1: about God images of God when we're just asked, you know,
Speaker 1: god reaction, what does God look like? And you end
Speaker 1: up picturing the sky God from the Sistine Chapel or
Speaker 1: from Monty Python or whatever. Yeah, and I alluded to
Speaker 1: this in the last episode. But there there's actually tons
Speaker 1: of debate among Jewish scholars about how best to interpret
Speaker 1: the second commandment, you know, thou shalt not make under
Speaker 1: the any grave and images. What exactly does that mean?
Speaker 1: What are the limits of that? I mean, I think
Speaker 1: it's clear from the historical context that one big thing
Speaker 1: was that many of the other tribes of ancient canaan
Speaker 1: Uh they had religious practices that would be centered around
Speaker 1: a central cult icon. So they would have an idol
Speaker 1: that would be a statue of some kind, and their
Speaker 1: worship in some way was was around that or directed
Speaker 1: toward it, And so the banning of idols was in
Speaker 1: in one sense, I think you could interpret that as
Speaker 1: just a way of saying, hey, we're not like any
Speaker 1: of these other religions around us. They've all got idols,
Speaker 1: but we don't. But that's kind of interesting because one
Speaker 1: way that the ban on grave and images has been
Speaker 1: in herported is not just like, don't make idols of
Speaker 1: other gods and worship them, but also don't make idols
Speaker 1: of me, the god who is speaking this commandment to you.
Speaker 1: I do I do not want to be represented in
Speaker 1: a in an animal form, say as a golden calf. Yeah,
Speaker 1: so I was, But I was kind of surprised when
Speaker 1: we reach the level where where some people take it
Speaker 1: in the next phase and say, do not form a
Speaker 1: mental image of the god in question, don't even do
Speaker 1: it in your head. Yeah, which you know, and we'll
Speaker 1: get into the like the major I guess arguments against that,
Speaker 1: but it makes me think again of that this the
Speaker 1: idea of the monty Python God, where if there's nothing
Speaker 1: else to draw on, I'm going to draw on that
Speaker 1: that one image, you know. Um. But but yeah, but
Speaker 1: basically you reach the point in the argument where you
Speaker 1: have to deal with the inevitability of mental images. It's
Speaker 1: just hard to ignore. Um that this is one of
Speaker 1: the points that Van Dronna makes in this is like
Speaker 1: it's just something that happens automatically. It's that that gut
Speaker 1: instinct imagining of the Monty pythe on God again. Uh.
Speaker 1: And so critics of this have argued that if mental
Speaker 1: images are inevitable, well then that means visual images are
Speaker 1: perhaps permissible as well, like people, which I think that
Speaker 1: that I can understand that argument. It's like people are
Speaker 1: going to imagine what Christ looks like, and if we
Speaker 1: don't give them some guidance, then then you know they're
Speaker 1: gonna cling to something or another, you know, which I
Speaker 1: feel like is kind of the case with these images
Speaker 1: of the Dao Christian God, where it's like you didn't
Speaker 1: give me anything to picture, so I'm only going to
Speaker 1: picture the sustained chapel. I'm only going to picture of
Speaker 1: Stephen Colbert skit or or the Monty Python depiction of
Speaker 1: the Almighty. But then Van Drummond points out that that
Speaker 1: it has gone in the opposite direction as well, people
Speaker 1: saying well, if visual images are not allowed, then we
Speaker 1: cannot have mental images either. Why on earth would we allow?
Speaker 1: Would we wed said? Would we say no visual images?
Speaker 1: If we're going to still let people have mental images? Though, again,
Speaker 1: how do you enforce them? Well, this kind of reminds
Speaker 1: me of some of the teachings of Christ about how
Speaker 1: to obey the Torah, and I think this was something
Speaker 1: that was taught by other rabbis. Well that you have
Speaker 1: heard thou shalt not commit murder, but in fact, if
Speaker 1: you're angry with someone, you've committed murder in your heart.
Speaker 1: So it's like, not only don't do it physically, don't
Speaker 1: even go there mentally, which I think you could. You
Speaker 1: could look at that multiple ways, but one way to
Speaker 1: look at it is that's a sort of like extra
Speaker 1: safety valve. Right, It's like, if you can't even go
Speaker 1: that far, then you're not even going to get close
Speaker 1: to committing a physical murder. Yeah, yeah, I can definitely
Speaker 1: see the connective tissue between those two concepts. Yeah, um,
Speaker 1: which I mean ultimately, I guess this is something that
Speaker 1: you get at in any of these religious traditions. It's
Speaker 1: like there's there's the external world of symbols and imagery
Speaker 1: and literature and and and so forth, but then there
Speaker 1: is there is inevitably the inner experience as well, and um,
Speaker 1: you know the two are connected, but they are also
Speaker 1: these these walls between them and and and at various
Speaker 1: points in history people have really gotten caught up on
Speaker 1: that that inner world, Like how to I mean, ultimately,
Speaker 1: that's where we all are, Like, that's where that's where
Speaker 1: all the main battles are taking place, right, That's where
Speaker 1: you're trying to to enter some sort of meditative state.
Speaker 1: That's where you're trying to obtain peace. So I think
Speaker 1: it's interesting to note that there have been strong trends
Speaker 1: not just of an iconism, but sometimes of pronounced actual
Speaker 1: anti iconism in all three of the major Abrahamic religions.
Speaker 1: And remember in the first episode we made the distinction there.
Speaker 1: Just because a religion is largely an iconic, say, they
Speaker 1: don't use figural representations of the divine presence doesn't mean
Speaker 1: they're necessarily anti iconic. It wouldn't necessarily imply that they
Speaker 1: think figural representations are bad, though sometimes in some religions
Speaker 1: that the figural representations are prohibited or are preached against. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and in this we we really get into the subject
Speaker 1: of of iconoclasm and iconoclass, which we well we touched
Speaker 1: on already, I believe. But uh, you know, all of
Speaker 1: this is very much tied to the discussion of an iconism.
Speaker 1: Now a lot of you've probably heard various are and
Speaker 1: thinkers referred to broadly as iconoclass. I say, unfortunately, like
Speaker 1: that's the thing that comes to my mind first, instead
Speaker 1: of like examples from Byzantine history. It's more, uh, you know,
Speaker 1: various Rolling Stone headlines. And in fact, I did a
Speaker 1: search for iconoclass on Rolling Stones website. Okay, here just
Speaker 1: a few of the people that come up being described
Speaker 1: as iconoclass or being mentioned in articles where the word
Speaker 1: iconoclass is used. So Anthony Bourdain, Noel Gallagher, Justin Thurreau, Golfer,
Speaker 1: David Ferret, I believe that's Ferret, and I don't know this, Golfer,
Speaker 1: Lady Gaga, Tom Petty Chance, the Rapper, Frank Zappa, Amy Winehouse,
Speaker 1: Iggy Pop York, George Romero, slipnot slip not so just
Speaker 1: just to name of you, now I should say, like
Speaker 1: this is all perfectly fair, because iconoclass has come to
Speaker 1: mean anyone who attacks or breaks down cherished beliefs or institutions.
Speaker 1: You know, someone who says, you might think rock and
Speaker 1: roll is this, but it's actually this. It's often synonymous
Speaker 1: with rebel or contrarian. Maybe yeah, and it's it's you know,
Speaker 1: there's sometimes I think where it's an overstatement an artist contribution,
Speaker 1: but I don't know. It's ultimately all fair in the
Speaker 1: in the game of like rock and roll pr right.
Speaker 1: But more specifically, an iconoclassed is a supporter of the
Speaker 1: eighth and ninth century movements in the Byzantine Church who
Speaker 1: sought to abolish the veneration of icons in other religious imagery.
Speaker 1: But we see iconoclasms in plenty of other religions as well,
Speaker 1: And I think this might be you know, the better
Speaker 1: way to think about an iconism in a way, you know,
Speaker 1: outburst movements and crisis points in uh an iconism that
Speaker 1: leave lasting effects on the culture. Um. We can see
Speaker 1: examples of this of iconoclass them in ancient Egypt for instance. Okay,
Speaker 1: so with like the the Akanatan movement, the pushed towards
Speaker 1: something like a monotheism way in in ancient Egypt. Yeah,
Speaker 1: with the Sun disc and and autonism and so forth.
Speaker 1: Um you know, the shift to that and then the
Speaker 1: subsequent return to um Uh to the familiar Egyptian pantheon.
Speaker 1: Both shifts involved iconoclasm. Now, and as far as Islam
Speaker 1: is concerned, first, let's just provide a brief overview of
Speaker 1: the importance of an iconism in Islam as outlined and
Speaker 1: and the Hadith a collection of traditions containing sayings of
Speaker 1: the prophet Muhammad. So my main source on this is
Speaker 1: a really excellent paper Between Cult and Culture bombyan Islamic
Speaker 1: Iconoclasm and the Museum by finnbar Berry Flood of n
Speaker 1: y U, an expert in Islamic art, and it was
Speaker 1: published in The Art Bolton in two thousand and two.
Speaker 1: So Flood points out that the two main arguments against
Speaker 1: figuration in the prescriptive texts are that we should not
Speaker 1: usurp divine creative power and that we should avoid polytheism
Speaker 1: and idolatry, and in both of these flood rights there's
Speaker 1: a strong concern with the materialistic worship found in non
Speaker 1: Islamic traditions at the time. He also points out that
Speaker 1: this was this was also a common move among both
Speaker 1: Christians and Jews as well in considering the religion of others,
Speaker 1: like look to what other faiths are doing and interpret
Speaker 1: it as polytheism. Yes, this reminds me of things I
Speaker 1: remember encountering in in my childhood in Tennessee, where conservative
Speaker 1: Protestants would accuse Catholics of being polytheists. Right, yeah, I
Speaker 1: think that that's very much an example of this sort
Speaker 1: of thing. Now, the general consensus in the Hadith flood
Speaker 1: rights is that one should not depict anything that has
Speaker 1: a shadow. Thus we see this rich artistic history that
Speaker 1: depends instead on abstraction geometry and script coinage for example,
Speaker 1: that depends on script not figures. But here's the really
Speaker 1: important take home them from flood. While Western commentators often
Speaker 1: fall into this trap, you can't look two moments of
Speaker 1: iconoclasm by particular sects or actors, such as the destruction
Speaker 1: of the Buddhas at Bombayan by the Taliban. Uh In
Speaker 1: Afghanistan as evidence of a fixed, sweeping and essential example
Speaker 1: of broad Islamic culture. Instead, we're looking at a great
Speaker 1: deal of variation, complexity, and sophistication in the Muslim response
Speaker 1: to images, which entail varying attitudes over time and space.
Speaker 1: Any points out that, you know, there's a lot to
Speaker 1: gain from looking at iconoclastic moments in Islamic history, but
Speaker 1: you can't classify them all under a single rubric for iconoclasm,
Speaker 1: no more than you can do it for Christian iconoclasm
Speaker 1: by looking at these moments, because you do see, uh,
Speaker 1: you know, the issues shift around a bit in Islamic history.
Speaker 1: So Flood points out that um the the the Umiad
Speaker 1: Caliphate established an enduring precedent for an iconic coins in
Speaker 1: six but quote even after this date, however, variations and
Speaker 1: attitudes to figuration existed. For some later Islamic rulers issued
Speaker 1: coins bearing figural imagery. He also points out that you
Speaker 1: find Islamic palaces that were lavishly decorated with sculpture and
Speaker 1: paintings that had anthropomorphic elements that were in stark craft
Speaker 1: contrast to religious architecture of the same period. So, especially
Speaker 1: during the seventh century, you would find this divide between
Speaker 1: the way secular and religious buildings were designed and decorated. Okay,
Speaker 1: so there could also be a distinction there between religious
Speaker 1: art and UH and secular art within Islamic cultures, right,
Speaker 1: and of for instance, just in the secular arts. He
Speaker 1: mentions that anthropomorphic and zoom morphic images proliferated in that
Speaker 1: realm again, the secular world outside of the religious sphere,
Speaker 1: and that ultimately attitudes quote carried from individual to individual
Speaker 1: and could change over time or with the advent of
Speaker 1: political regimes with different cultural values. And that's one of
Speaker 1: those statements that I think it may seem like an
Speaker 1: overstatement of the obvious, but oftentimes outside of the Islamic world,
Speaker 1: it's it's it's easy to just like look at it
Speaker 1: as a monolith and not not you know, acknowledge that
Speaker 1: that reality. Now this, uh, this gets interesting as well.
Speaker 1: There were sometimes workarounds, such as the re contextualization of
Speaker 1: the particular text or work or decapitation UH an item
Speaker 1: or work, be it two D or three D, no
Speaker 1: distinction was apparently made, it might remain on, you know, untarnished, unaltered, undestroyed.
Speaker 1: If context showed that it wasn't being venerated, or if
Speaker 1: you removed the head or the face from the work,
Speaker 1: thus making it inanimate and devoid of a soul, Flood
Speaker 1: rights and uh and this is interesting because you know,
Speaker 1: I think outside observers, they might tend to just you
Speaker 1: immediately think of like, okay, the decapitation or the defacement
Speaker 1: as like a severe example of iconic class them. But
Speaker 1: it's Flood points out there actually quote a type of
Speaker 1: instrumental iconoclasm, as it permitted the rest of the work
Speaker 1: to survive in an altered form. It's ultimately a creative strategy.
Speaker 1: So if you have a say you have an illuminated text, uh,
Speaker 1: you know, with the illustrations and the text is is value,
Speaker 1: it's valuable knowledge. Do you destroy the whole text or
Speaker 1: do you you know, you rip out the pages that
Speaker 1: have illustrations, or do you just deface the images? And
Speaker 1: therefore the the majority of the text remains, but it
Speaker 1: has been brought, uh, you know, into um into the
Speaker 1: room where it's going to be accepted by those that
Speaker 1: would be critical of its use of imagery. So you
Speaker 1: you get into you know, these various scenarios when you
Speaker 1: get outside, you know, increasingly outside of the religious world
Speaker 1: and you get more into the secular world. But avoidance
Speaker 1: of divine images in Islam, flood Rights was pretty much universal.
Speaker 1: And I've got I've got one more quote I want
Speaker 1: to read from Flood here. Quote. There is no evidence
Speaker 1: to suggest that the divine image was represented in the
Speaker 1: Islamic world, despite occasional tendencies towards anthropomorphism. But in the
Speaker 1: Eastern Islamic world, depictions of the prophet Muhammad survived from
Speaker 1: the thirteenth century on. In later paintings, the prophet is
Speaker 1: sometimes but not always, portrayed with his face veiled or
Speaker 1: otherwise obscured. This reticence about the face finds a counterpart
Speaker 1: in the activities of medieval iconoclass in the Islamic world. Okay,
Speaker 1: so that would go along with the the depictions of
Speaker 1: secular artwork that we were talking about to say, if you, um,
Speaker 1: the artist might think that if you obscure the face
Speaker 1: of the prophet, you're not inviting anyone to view him
Speaker 1: as divine. Yes. But but I again, I think it's
Speaker 1: important to drive home that in this example, really all
Speaker 1: the examples we've been discussing here is that it's more
Speaker 1: a story of different um movements of an iconism, uh,
Speaker 1: you know, outbursts of an iconism and uh in the
Speaker 1: ebb and flow across. You know, the centuries are longer
Speaker 1: than you know. I've been having a thought as we've
Speaker 1: been looking at a lot of these examples about a
Speaker 1: general trend of a common back and forth. I wonder
Speaker 1: to what extent this is true that I also want
Speaker 1: to be careful not to just like gut feel my
Speaker 1: way into problem, you know, over generalizations. But I kind
Speaker 1: of wonder if there is often in religion a general
Speaker 1: trend toward more iconic artistic representations of religious uh subjects,
Speaker 1: as there is increased emphasis on familiarity and relationship in
Speaker 1: in the religious practice, you know, the familiarity between the
Speaker 1: God and the worshiper. And then there's a backlash that
Speaker 1: goes against iconism when there's sort of a return to
Speaker 1: purity movement that emphasizes something less individual, less relational, and
Speaker 1: more more abstract. Yeah, yeah, I can see where that
Speaker 1: could certainly be a part of it. I mean there's
Speaker 1: also a frequent trend is like what you make these
Speaker 1: these images out of? You know, you're making them in
Speaker 1: their fine works of art, their their material possessions. So
Speaker 1: I feel like there's the material uh, and the and
Speaker 1: the rebellion against the material world that it takes place
Speaker 1: in all of this as well, again across various cultures. Now,
Speaker 1: almost everything we've talked about so far has been in
Speaker 1: the context of religion, but of course some of these
Speaker 1: same ideas about iconic representation versus an iconism could be
Speaker 1: applied outside the context of religion. Yeah, I was thinking,
Speaker 1: for instance, about the Muppet Babies. Um, you remember you
Speaker 1: ever watched the Muppet Babies? Joe? Oh, yeah, I did?
Speaker 1: I remember? Yeah, Well you remember we never saw the
Speaker 1: nanny's face. Right, Oh, that's interesting. I mean we did
Speaker 1: see legs. Does that count? I guess that's part of
Speaker 1: the spectrum. Right, we talked about the spectrum in the
Speaker 1: last episode that just seeing the legs and the sneakers
Speaker 1: and the and the striped socks does seem less figural
Speaker 1: than showing the whole body. Yeah. She she's kind of
Speaker 1: the goddess of the Muppet Babies and we we never
Speaker 1: see her face. What does it mean is is she
Speaker 1: is she like a god? Can we not imagine what
Speaker 1: her face is? Can they not see her face because
Speaker 1: they have uh, you know, their their vision is not
Speaker 1: good enough because she's pretty tall. But but this also
Speaker 1: made me think of various franchises where there are particular
Speaker 1: types of franchises, like the Star Wars sort of franchise
Speaker 1: where it's it's been created, it's been you know, embellished
Speaker 1: and built upon, and then you end up with a
Speaker 1: certain set of guidelines, usually internal guidelines, for what can
Speaker 1: and cannot be done within this fictional universe. Like the
Speaker 1: main example that comes to mind is they like the
Speaker 1: longstanding mandate that you're not supposed to give a name
Speaker 1: to the species of Yoda. You know that Yoda Yoda's Yoda,
Speaker 1: and you just can't talk about like what he is
Speaker 1: or where it comes from. And a large part of
Speaker 1: that is like you want some sort of mystery in
Speaker 1: your expansive world. If you don't have mysterious gaps in it,
Speaker 1: it will all feel too small. I am. I just
Speaker 1: feel or that somebody has broken that rule at some point.
Speaker 1: There's got to be like an expanded universe novel that
Speaker 1: said what species Yoda was? They went to the Yota planet?
Speaker 1: Am I wrong? I mean it's possible, I would I
Speaker 1: would like to hear more about it, if that's the case.
Speaker 1: But I feel like it was. It was pretty strongly
Speaker 1: enforced or at least honored by people who were playing
Speaker 1: in the Lucas sandbox. But but it but it made
Speaker 1: me wonder, Okay, well what about you know, what else
Speaker 1: is there, say, within the Star Wars world. Well, I
Speaker 1: guess there's obviously there's the Clone Wars. Uh. When you know,
Speaker 1: after the first trilogy came out, Lucas knew that he
Speaker 1: wanted to do something with the Clone Wars eventually, so
Speaker 1: there was a prohibition against prequel matters because he knew
Speaker 1: he wanted to do his own prequel. Um. But but
Speaker 1: I made me think about um visual depictions like it,
Speaker 1: And again this would largely be a matter of like
Speaker 1: internal um uh, you know mandates and you know, internal
Speaker 1: statements about what can and cannot be depicted. But I
Speaker 1: wonder if there are any you know, largish fictional universes
Speaker 1: where there is some sort of prohibition against visualizing certain
Speaker 1: characters or entities. The only example, possible example that came
Speaker 1: to mind. I was thinking about this, and again I
Speaker 1: have no access to internal documents. So is it all
Speaker 1: just meet guessing. But I know, in the The Warhammer
Speaker 1: forty thousand universe, I don't think you ever see depictions
Speaker 1: of the chaos gods that are you know, the you
Speaker 1: know that are trying to bring about the ruination of
Speaker 1: the galaxy. And I wonder how much of that is
Speaker 1: there being a mandate that says, hey, you shouldn't actually
Speaker 1: illustrate what these things look like, or is it just
Speaker 1: simply a matter of like professional artists working within that
Speaker 1: realm and being inspired by by you know, you know,
Speaker 1: a legacy of artists working in the weird and the
Speaker 1: dark if they just instinctively know that. Okay, if you
Speaker 1: have some sort of dark elder god, if you actually
Speaker 1: draw it, you will diminish it in some fashion, and
Speaker 1: it needs to be this sort of big, scary concept
Speaker 1: as opposed to something that fits on a single page.
Speaker 1: I've got one. What's that? Never see Dr Claw? Do you?
Speaker 1: You never see his face? Just the glove. Not in
Speaker 1: the the the actual series. I mean, I'm sure they
Speaker 1: broke this rule into the the live action films, but yeah,
Speaker 1: in the old cartoon he was he was. Yeah, you
Speaker 1: never saw his face, just that clawed high hand, and
Speaker 1: you saw his cat right right. Though apparently at some
Speaker 1: point there was an action figure, because ultimately the purpose
Speaker 1: of every cartoon is to sell toys, and so you've
Speaker 1: got to have action figures. And what would have been
Speaker 1: great is if the action figure had just been an
Speaker 1: optical illusion. It's like a chair with an arm from
Speaker 1: no matter what angle you look at it. I would
Speaker 1: have given them credit on that. But no, there is
Speaker 1: an action figure. That's just he's plastic. He's just got
Speaker 1: gray hair, and he looks angry and he's wearing on
Speaker 1: my black jacket. Can you look this up and find it?
Speaker 1: I will look it up. But while I'm looking it up,
Speaker 1: I think you've really touched upon You've basically answered the question.
Speaker 1: Like all these things I've mentioned, Star Wars, Warhammer, even
Speaker 1: Muppet Babies, I guess you know, these are all about
Speaker 1: creating icons, mass producing icons and selling them, uh to children,
Speaker 1: you know. So if there's an iconism within Star Wars,
Speaker 1: that's to its detriment, because that's one less thing that
Speaker 1: you can make into a figure and then start somebody.
Speaker 1: But I gotta have you look at up, Rob, put
Speaker 1: this put this stuff in your head. Oh now, the
Speaker 1: first thing that comes up is is the toy, but
Speaker 1: its face is obscured, So I mean as part of
Speaker 1: the packaging, like the original packaging, you would have to
Speaker 1: buy him to see what his face looked like. Oh
Speaker 1: that's a good gimmick. But I still don't find another image. Okay,
Speaker 1: here it is now I see it. Uh yeah, that's
Speaker 1: not Dr Claw. That doesn't that's not him. Why does
Speaker 1: he have such big teeth he has like he's gritting
Speaker 1: his teeth and his mouth is opened, like his lips
Speaker 1: are open very wide, but his teeth are clenched together. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's that's Dr Claw. What does his hair look like? What?
Speaker 1: Who else has that three spiked hair? Is that like
Speaker 1: go coup hair? I'm looking at kind of a thumbnail
Speaker 1: of it, But I get strong, I get strong David
Speaker 1: Lynch and David Cronenberg vibes, you know that like kind
Speaker 1: of kind of white, impressive hair that kind of sticks up.
Speaker 1: But still he looks angrier than either of those two individuals.
Speaker 1: So I don't really don't know what to make of this.
Speaker 1: This Doctor Claw here. Also huge belt, a gigantic belt
Speaker 1: buckle that's as big as his face. Oh, not quite
Speaker 1: as big, but it's it's a that's a big buckle.
Speaker 1: Did we ever see what Cobra Commander looked like on
Speaker 1: the old G I. Joe cartoons? Seems like that might
Speaker 1: have been been another area where you were not permitted
Speaker 1: to see, like what was under the mask. You just
Speaker 1: had to imagine it. Oh, well, this actually does kind
Speaker 1: of this connects to an area that I know, you know, well,
Speaker 1: I wonder if masked characters in the desire to keep
Speaker 1: the mask on. Obviously they're still anthropomorphic because they're in
Speaker 1: their bodies. I mean, they're pretty much fully embodied. But
Speaker 1: the hiding of the face does in a way seem
Speaker 1: maybe lightly analogous to a type of light and I
Speaker 1: can is um you know, it's obscuring one of the
Speaker 1: most important parts of the human figure. Yeah. So if
Speaker 1: you can never see cover Commander's face, like you can
Speaker 1: never um like see him as a full human, you know,
Speaker 1: like he's always going to retain a certain mystique and
Speaker 1: in humanity. Yeah. So anyway, that that's all I have,
Speaker 1: not not really much in the way of answers on
Speaker 1: that on all of that, but just sort of questions,
Speaker 1: um and and I guess that kind of that's kind
Speaker 1: of the truth unnel on. Pretty much every example of
Speaker 1: an echonism that we've discussed here is like it ultimately
Speaker 1: raises more questions than we have real answers too, and
Speaker 1: just kind of makes you think and ponder, Like our
Speaker 1: relationship with images. Yeah, this is one where Uh, I've
Speaker 1: really enjoyed this pair of episodes. You got into a
Speaker 1: lot of interesting history and religious art and stuff. But
Speaker 1: I do feel like I've kind of failed. I failed
Speaker 1: to find like a good a good way to frame
Speaker 1: this in a psychological or neuroscientific theory. Um. So I
Speaker 1: don't know, maybe maybe listeners could help us out with that.
Speaker 1: What does this bring to mind for you in in
Speaker 1: those worlds? Yeah, we're a bit like Brother William at
Speaker 1: the end of the Name of the Rose, where we
Speaker 1: feel like that, you know that these ladders that we've
Speaker 1: built and used and inherited have failed us in arriving
Speaker 1: at the truth. We haven't when the library is burned, um,
Speaker 1: and we just have to walk away from it. Well,
Speaker 1: let's not die wedged in that secret passageway. No, no,
Speaker 1: all right? Uh yeah, So once again we'd love to
Speaker 1: hear from everybody out there your thoughts on you know,
Speaker 1: especially any kind of um an chonism that you have
Speaker 1: grown up in or you know, have a cultural connection to.
Speaker 1: I'd love to hear from you on that. Certainly, anything
Speaker 1: in the art world is fair a game, right in
Speaker 1: let us know. In the meantime, if you want to
Speaker 1: listen to other episodes of Stuff to Blow Your Mind,
Speaker 1: you can find us wherever you get your podcasts and
Speaker 1: wherever that happens to be. We just asked the you rate,
Speaker 1: review and subscribe huge things. As always to our excellent
Speaker 1: audio producer Seth Nicholas Johnson. If you would like to
Speaker 1: get in touch with us with feedback on this episode
Speaker 1: or any other, to suggest a topic for the future,
Speaker 1: just to say hello, you can email us at contact
Speaker 1: at stuff to blow your Mind dot com. Stuff to
Speaker 1: Blow Your Mind is production of I Heart Radio. For
Speaker 1: more podcasts for my Heart Radio, visit the iHeart Radio app,
Speaker 1: Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listening to your favorite shows.