A Link to Arundathi Roy's brilliant essay... (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article23092.htm)
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Tiatriste and Jungian archetypes
Origins of Archetypes
The word archetype appeared in European texts as early as 1545, It derives from the Latin noun archetypum and that from the Greek noun (archetypon), meaning "first-moulded". An archetype is an original model of a person, ideal example, or a prototype after which others are copied, patterned, or emulated; a symbol universally recognized by all. In psychology, an archetype is a model of a person, personality, or behavior. A stereotype on the other hand is a personality type observed multiple times, especially an oversimplification of such a type
The origins of the archetypal hypothesis date back as far as Plato. ‘The Theory of Forms’ typically refers to Plato's belief that the material world as it seems to us is not the real world, but only a shadow of the real world. The forms, according to Plato, are roughly speaking archetypes or abstract representations of the many types and properties of things we see all around us.
Swiss psychiatrist Carl Jung *compared archetypes to Platonic ideas. Archetypes, according to Jung were…innate universal psychic dispositions that form the ‘substrate’ from which the basic themes of human life emerge. Being universal and innate, their influence can be detected in the form of myths, symbols, rituals and instincts of human beings. Archetypes are components of the collective unconscious and serve to organize, direct and inform human thought and behavior.
Jung also realized the reality of psyche and thought the mythic archetype contained in the psyche had autonomy, an agency beyond the individual. He proposed that the archetype had a dual nature; it exists both in the psyche and in the world at large. Jung introduced the notion of a race mind, racial consciousness archetypes.
Archetypal psychology was developed by James Hillman in the second half of the 20th century attempts to recognize the myriad fantasies and myths—gods, goddesses, demigods, mortals and animals—that shape and are shaped by our psychological lives, that the ego is but one psychological fantasy within an assemblage of fantasies.
Archetypes are ontological manifestations of the creative Ground of Being-itself (Paul Tillich), essentially divine thought forms. Whitehead called them “complex eternal objects.”
The archetypal forms behind all myths belong to the mystery of the creative ground of everything that is.”
Tillich clearly saw the archetypes as ontological structures. What this means in his own philosophical system is that since Being (ontos) = the Divine, the archetypes are essences or thoughts forms in the Divine Life, to put it symbolically rather than in ontological language. Put alternatively, archetypes arise from within the creative Ground of Being-itself.
Experiencing the Archetype (The Psychologist perspective)
The Value of the Archetype
Archetypes can be found in nearly all forms of literature, with their motifs being predominantly rooted in folklore. All the most powerful ideas in history go back to archetypes. This is particularly true not only of religious ideas; even the central concepts of science, philosophy, and ethics are no exception to this rule. In their present form they are variants of archetypal ideas created by consciously applying and adapting these ideas to reality.
‘Tiatriste’ as the Archetypal image. Click here to view slide show
As a second generation Goan born in Dhobitalo, Mumbai, I had spent all of my adult life being disassociated from mainstream Goan culture. I spoke Konkani only with my Grandmother and English was the primary language of conversation at home and elsewhere. The cosmopolitan life in Mumbai exposed me to various influences and I was never really a ‘Tiatre’ fan, but living in ‘Dhobitalo’ one would often bump into famous ‘Tiatriste’, most of them lived in close proximity to Sonapur Church and were a common sight after Sunday mass. ‘Dhobitalao’, was described by many as the “Goan enclave of Mumbai”.
The ‘Tiatriste’ portraits confirm to the Jungian perspective of archetypal images for various reasons. Susan Sontag talks about a three way relationship between the photographer, the object of the photograph and the viewer of the same. Me being a photographer of Goan origin, the “object”/ ‘Tiatriste’ in their exaggerated stage garbs, and the viewer’s involvement (particularly the Goan race mind) that create this ‘identifiable fantasy’.
Though it sounds like a big, fancy word, an "archetype" is something we all experience and know intimately from the inside. Indefinable, an archetype is like a psychological instinct or informational field of influence which patterns our psyche, our experience of the world around us and how we experience ourselves. Archetypes are the image-making factor in the psyche, informing and giving shape to the images in our mind and the dreams of our soul, and as such, they insist on being approached imaginatively.
Somewhere in the Goan psyche we have Archetypal figures of who we were as a race, a culture and this is from where we draw from to express our fantasy. We even recognize fictional characters as entities for whom we might predict behavior and sympathize. (What makes the character of Ganesh recognizable to worshipers as a god, for instance?)Ironically, archetypes are not learned. They are inborn tendencies to experience the world. This imagery I believe comes from a Universal experience. Strictly speaking, archetypal figures such as the Bhatkar, the Sasumai, the fisherwoman etc are not archetypes, but archetypal images which have crystallised out of the archetypes. The images are objective, but universal.
Ranjit Hoskote, poet, cultural theorist, curator, and my friend writes “Unlike the caricatures that the popular Hindi cinema employs to represent regional cultures – such figures are stereotypes, not archetypes – the ‘Tiatristes’ play out readily identifiable personae in whom the audience has strong emotional investments, at a personal as well as a collective level. Through their interpretations, they can exteriorise and provide a safety valve for the potentially disruptive energies of resentment and mutiny that every hierarchically ordered society would nourish; they also allow for the genial confrontation of problems that afflict the body collective, and for the anticipation and recognition of crisis in the public sphere”. (See Ranjit Hoskote’s essay http://www.alexfernandesportraits.com/hoskote.html also Alex Fernandes in conversation with Ranjit Hoskote)
Strangely enough the great Goan cartoonist, Mario de Miranda in his drawings had almost identical archetypal images of Goans to my ‘Tiatrise’ portraits. Though I had been influenced by Mario’s work right from my early years, (I was particularly fond of his Goan caricatures) I had not intended to emulate Mario’s figures in any way.
Prior to photographing the ‘Tiatriste’, I had instructed the actors to dress in the stage garbs of the characters that they best portrayed on stage. As I was shooting the portraits, I realized that I was getting images that looked very similar to Mario’s Goan characters, right down to the almost identical costumes worn by Mario’s characters and the ‘Tiatriste’. Somehow even with an exaggerated stage costume, the ‘Tiatriste’ was transformed into easily identifiable archetypal image before the camera.
I do not look on my portraits as just an illustration of ‘Tiatriste’ or ‘Tiatre’ but I always felt it has much broader implications. In a lecture entitled ‘Portraits of our people' at the Xavier’s History Research Centre in Porvorim, Goa, I had tried to explain the impact from the Archetype on my portraits. A view that both Ranjit Hoskote and myself share, but unfortunately one that somehow seems to be obscured.
The Goan portraits as a series have a temporal dimension and semiotic context. They are visual symbols that tell a story of a people in a certain time. The archetypes form a dynamic substratum common to the Goan “race mind”. The various parts that represent the whole entity for example, like their stage names, body shapes, postures, clothing etc that represents the content, the collection of ideas and perceptions that we circle in a metaphysical Venn diagram to delineate exactly what constitutes a particular entity. The collective ideas that lie within within the circle as in the hand that pushes the pen to draw it (in Mario's case) or that presses the shutter release (in my case) – or rather in the mind that guides that hand.
The archetypes had synchronastically manifested themselves in Mario’s work, in ‘Tiatre’ and my portraits. Synchronicities are those moments of "meaningful coincidence" when the boundary dissolves between the inner and the outer. Synchronicities occur when we step out of the personal dimension of our experience and access what is called the archetypal dimension of experience. An archetype synchronistically revealing itself in the outside world is a reflection that this same condition is in the process of being inwardly realized.
Thus, while archetypes themselves may be conceived as a relative few innate nebulous forms, from these may arise innumerable images, symbols and patterns of behavior. While the emerging images and forms are apprehended consciously, the archetypes which inform them are elementary structures which are unconscious and more difficult to apprehend. Being unconscious, the existence of archetypes can only be deduced indirectly by examining behavior, images, art, myths, etc. They are inherited potentials which are actualized when they enter consciousness as images or manifest in behavior on interaction with the outside world.
Alex A. A. Fernandes.
see related article by Cecil Pinto : http://alexfernandesphotography.blogspot.com/2011/01/stereotyping-goan-they-never-get-it.html
* Myth imparts structure to space and time; myth weaves the world into being. According to the perspective of the Swiss psychoanalyst Carl Jung, the structure of myth is buried deep in hidden process of the psyche, and this structure recurs universally in individuals and across all human societies. From his own dreams, cross-cultural studies, and the material provided by his patients, Jung developed the theory of “collective consciousness”, a repository of myth, symbol and archetypes that emanates from a source beyond the individual mind. Jung describes the archetypes of the collective unconscious as “spontaneous phenomenon which are not subject to our will, and we are therefore justified in ascribing to them a certain autonomy”. A mythological or archetypal complex- such as Judeo – Christian Apocalypse – is, from this Jungian perspective, ultimately a psychic event that can take material manifestation, like a collective dream coming to life. - From Daniel Pinchbeck's 'The Return of Quetzalcoatl'
The word archetype appeared in European texts as early as 1545, It derives from the Latin noun archetypum and that from the Greek noun (archetypon), meaning "first-moulded". An archetype is an original model of a person, ideal example, or a prototype after which others are copied, patterned, or emulated; a symbol universally recognized by all. In psychology, an archetype is a model of a person, personality, or behavior. A stereotype on the other hand is a personality type observed multiple times, especially an oversimplification of such a type
The origins of the archetypal hypothesis date back as far as Plato. ‘The Theory of Forms’ typically refers to Plato's belief that the material world as it seems to us is not the real world, but only a shadow of the real world. The forms, according to Plato, are roughly speaking archetypes or abstract representations of the many types and properties of things we see all around us.
Swiss psychiatrist Carl Jung *compared archetypes to Platonic ideas. Archetypes, according to Jung were…innate universal psychic dispositions that form the ‘substrate’ from which the basic themes of human life emerge. Being universal and innate, their influence can be detected in the form of myths, symbols, rituals and instincts of human beings. Archetypes are components of the collective unconscious and serve to organize, direct and inform human thought and behavior.
Jung also realized the reality of psyche and thought the mythic archetype contained in the psyche had autonomy, an agency beyond the individual. He proposed that the archetype had a dual nature; it exists both in the psyche and in the world at large. Jung introduced the notion of a race mind, racial consciousness archetypes.
Archetypal psychology was developed by James Hillman in the second half of the 20th century attempts to recognize the myriad fantasies and myths—gods, goddesses, demigods, mortals and animals—that shape and are shaped by our psychological lives, that the ego is but one psychological fantasy within an assemblage of fantasies.
Archetypes are ontological manifestations of the creative Ground of Being-itself (Paul Tillich), essentially divine thought forms. Whitehead called them “complex eternal objects.”
The archetypal forms behind all myths belong to the mystery of the creative ground of everything that is.”
Tillich clearly saw the archetypes as ontological structures. What this means in his own philosophical system is that since Being (ontos) = the Divine, the archetypes are essences or thoughts forms in the Divine Life, to put it symbolically rather than in ontological language. Put alternatively, archetypes arise from within the creative Ground of Being-itself.
Experiencing the Archetype (The Psychologist perspective)
The Value of the Archetype
Archetypes can be found in nearly all forms of literature, with their motifs being predominantly rooted in folklore. All the most powerful ideas in history go back to archetypes. This is particularly true not only of religious ideas; even the central concepts of science, philosophy, and ethics are no exception to this rule. In their present form they are variants of archetypal ideas created by consciously applying and adapting these ideas to reality.
‘Tiatriste’ as the Archetypal image. Click here to view slide show
As a second generation Goan born in Dhobitalo, Mumbai, I had spent all of my adult life being disassociated from mainstream Goan culture. I spoke Konkani only with my Grandmother and English was the primary language of conversation at home and elsewhere. The cosmopolitan life in Mumbai exposed me to various influences and I was never really a ‘Tiatre’ fan, but living in ‘Dhobitalo’ one would often bump into famous ‘Tiatriste’, most of them lived in close proximity to Sonapur Church and were a common sight after Sunday mass. ‘Dhobitalao’, was described by many as the “Goan enclave of Mumbai”.
The ‘Tiatriste’ portraits confirm to the Jungian perspective of archetypal images for various reasons. Susan Sontag talks about a three way relationship between the photographer, the object of the photograph and the viewer of the same. Me being a photographer of Goan origin, the “object”/ ‘Tiatriste’ in their exaggerated stage garbs, and the viewer’s involvement (particularly the Goan race mind) that create this ‘identifiable fantasy’.
Though it sounds like a big, fancy word, an "archetype" is something we all experience and know intimately from the inside. Indefinable, an archetype is like a psychological instinct or informational field of influence which patterns our psyche, our experience of the world around us and how we experience ourselves. Archetypes are the image-making factor in the psyche, informing and giving shape to the images in our mind and the dreams of our soul, and as such, they insist on being approached imaginatively.
Somewhere in the Goan psyche we have Archetypal figures of who we were as a race, a culture and this is from where we draw from to express our fantasy. We even recognize fictional characters as entities for whom we might predict behavior and sympathize. (What makes the character of Ganesh recognizable to worshipers as a god, for instance?)Ironically, archetypes are not learned. They are inborn tendencies to experience the world. This imagery I believe comes from a Universal experience. Strictly speaking, archetypal figures such as the Bhatkar, the Sasumai, the fisherwoman etc are not archetypes, but archetypal images which have crystallised out of the archetypes. The images are objective, but universal.
Ranjit Hoskote, poet, cultural theorist, curator, and my friend writes “Unlike the caricatures that the popular Hindi cinema employs to represent regional cultures – such figures are stereotypes, not archetypes – the ‘Tiatristes’ play out readily identifiable personae in whom the audience has strong emotional investments, at a personal as well as a collective level. Through their interpretations, they can exteriorise and provide a safety valve for the potentially disruptive energies of resentment and mutiny that every hierarchically ordered society would nourish; they also allow for the genial confrontation of problems that afflict the body collective, and for the anticipation and recognition of crisis in the public sphere”. (See Ranjit Hoskote’s essay http://www.alexfernandesportraits.com/hoskote.html also Alex Fernandes in conversation with Ranjit Hoskote)
Strangely enough the great Goan cartoonist, Mario de Miranda in his drawings had almost identical archetypal images of Goans to my ‘Tiatrise’ portraits. Though I had been influenced by Mario’s work right from my early years, (I was particularly fond of his Goan caricatures) I had not intended to emulate Mario’s figures in any way.
Prior to photographing the ‘Tiatriste’, I had instructed the actors to dress in the stage garbs of the characters that they best portrayed on stage. As I was shooting the portraits, I realized that I was getting images that looked very similar to Mario’s Goan characters, right down to the almost identical costumes worn by Mario’s characters and the ‘Tiatriste’. Somehow even with an exaggerated stage costume, the ‘Tiatriste’ was transformed into easily identifiable archetypal image before the camera.
I do not look on my portraits as just an illustration of ‘Tiatriste’ or ‘Tiatre’ but I always felt it has much broader implications. In a lecture entitled ‘Portraits of our people' at the Xavier’s History Research Centre in Porvorim, Goa, I had tried to explain the impact from the Archetype on my portraits. A view that both Ranjit Hoskote and myself share, but unfortunately one that somehow seems to be obscured.
The Goan portraits as a series have a temporal dimension and semiotic context. They are visual symbols that tell a story of a people in a certain time. The archetypes form a dynamic substratum common to the Goan “race mind”. The various parts that represent the whole entity for example, like their stage names, body shapes, postures, clothing etc that represents the content, the collection of ideas and perceptions that we circle in a metaphysical Venn diagram to delineate exactly what constitutes a particular entity. The collective ideas that lie within within the circle as in the hand that pushes the pen to draw it (in Mario's case) or that presses the shutter release (in my case) – or rather in the mind that guides that hand.
The archetypes had synchronastically manifested themselves in Mario’s work, in ‘Tiatre’ and my portraits. Synchronicities are those moments of "meaningful coincidence" when the boundary dissolves between the inner and the outer. Synchronicities occur when we step out of the personal dimension of our experience and access what is called the archetypal dimension of experience. An archetype synchronistically revealing itself in the outside world is a reflection that this same condition is in the process of being inwardly realized.
Thus, while archetypes themselves may be conceived as a relative few innate nebulous forms, from these may arise innumerable images, symbols and patterns of behavior. While the emerging images and forms are apprehended consciously, the archetypes which inform them are elementary structures which are unconscious and more difficult to apprehend. Being unconscious, the existence of archetypes can only be deduced indirectly by examining behavior, images, art, myths, etc. They are inherited potentials which are actualized when they enter consciousness as images or manifest in behavior on interaction with the outside world.
Alex A. A. Fernandes.
see related article by Cecil Pinto : http://alexfernandesphotography.blogspot.com/2011/01/stereotyping-goan-they-never-get-it.html
* Myth imparts structure to space and time; myth weaves the world into being. According to the perspective of the Swiss psychoanalyst Carl Jung, the structure of myth is buried deep in hidden process of the psyche, and this structure recurs universally in individuals and across all human societies. From his own dreams, cross-cultural studies, and the material provided by his patients, Jung developed the theory of “collective consciousness”, a repository of myth, symbol and archetypes that emanates from a source beyond the individual mind. Jung describes the archetypes of the collective unconscious as “spontaneous phenomenon which are not subject to our will, and we are therefore justified in ascribing to them a certain autonomy”. A mythological or archetypal complex- such as Judeo – Christian Apocalypse – is, from this Jungian perspective, ultimately a psychic event that can take material manifestation, like a collective dream coming to life. - From Daniel Pinchbeck's 'The Return of Quetzalcoatl'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)