#if it’s for narrative purposes of showing the dichotomy between what their nature is vs what they nurtured themselves to be like | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

dotthings · 5 years

Text

All right here we go, my notes on SPN 14.17 “Game Night,” which gets into parental issues and closure, domesticity on SPN, Cas and loneliness and connections with others, parallels between Dean and Cas, waffles, Dean’s facade, Sam’s heartbreak, my boredom and dislike of villain characters who I am supposed to dislike anyway, the nature of souls, and God as absentee parent.

First off, S14 has to be possibly the most domestic SPN season ever. We’ve had glimpses. But S14 is really digging in showing us this family’s life in the bunker. Add to this, even though Cas wasn’t present for game night, how accepted and normalized it is that Cas lives there. That’s his home. He’s expected and if he goes he at least tells Dean and it’s temporary, it’s assumed he’ll come back. Our bunker family includes 2 characters who aren’t blood related to the Winchesters, Cas and Jack, but they are part of the family nonetheless, something S14 has made abundantly clear.

Why is this domesticity important? Isn’t SPN about killing monsters? It’s important because SPN is about killing monsters. It adds texture and layers to our heroes, makes their lives even more real, and ups the drama factor when we can see them have moments of domesticity and being a family to contrast with the harshness and the monster fights and the darker aspects. SPN from the get-go, has as its primary fuel the bonds between characters. Most of SPN is about Sam, Dean, and Cas as charcters who have MHI and PTSD and how they keep on keeping on, and their bonds with each other and other characters.

We also need to be reminded of the stakes. Our heroes need to be shown living the world they’re trying to save and we need to see why they care if their loved ones are imperiled. We need to see them being a family to understand what could be lost. Remember in ep 300 alternate Sam and alternate Dean we learn are isolated characters and we see Cas devoid of personal attachments, and that was their tragedy.

The monsters are really just a backdrop to explore these characters. Because SPN is a horror/urban fantasy series, we aren’t going to spend a whole lot of time on the domestic stuff, it needs lots of monster-killing action, but all in service of revealing character, and the domesticity needs to be there as part of the emotional weave. It stood out to me how extra domestic the start of Game Night is, with Mary and Jack putting snacks together, Mary trying to talk to Jack, and Dean trying to fix the mouse trap game, they reference that Sam is off getting pizza and will be back shortly, and we have a reason Cas isn’t there but we know if Cas were he’d be right in the thick of the domesticity.

They also did it because of how hurty this ep gets later on, for dramatic contrast.

Dean, our smart little engineer. Dean seems really, really frustrated he can’t fix the mouse trap game which you might think is just there for comedy but it’s not. He’s really minds he can’t fix that mouse trap game. Dean hates it when he can’t fix things, doesn’t he. When someone in his family is hurt or something’s wrong with them and there’s nothing he can do. He’s also not over that PTSD from having Michael screaming and banging in his head. It’s the little things. You think SPN actually forgot he has PTSD, look again.

And where is Cas? Why, he’s off meeting with the angel Anael to get a fix for Jack’s soullessness, without telling Sam and Dean, because Cas...he’s still got issues which I’ll get to a moment.

Interesting Cas orders a waffle he’s apparently not eating. Maybe just to not appear out of place in the diner. While Anael doesn’t even get coffee. Like it’s important to Cas to behave as a human, even if he’s not actually going to eat that waffle. Maybe Cas just wanted a waffle. It’s a really cute waffle, I’d want that waffle. This is reminding me of Cas and the milkshakes in 14.15. Why do they keep showing us Cas and cute milkshakes, Cas and cute waffles. It’s tantalizing. Almost lampshading the fact that this idea of Cas and milkshakes, Cas and waffles, is appealing, the idea of Cas enjoying these things, and maybe Cas would enjoy these things, yet he’s not going to actually consume them.

So Anael was Joshua’s right hand. That was a reveal that shows she was an angel of some importance.

I love the Anael and Cas dialogue. “Ill-conceived lone-wolf desperation.” Anael has seen some things. There’s several moments here where she sees through Cas’s bullshit, and several moments where Cas sees through hers.

Cas is not only hiding his deal with The Empty, he’s gone off to find God to fix Jack’s soul without telling Sam and Dean.

Oh this Dean and Mary scene. I’ve talked about Mary’s arc before, and how purposeful the distance and remoteness is, why the character is meant to be brittle, and wondering what kind of progression we’d see, a softening on that. Here’s another moment of it.

“You’re here, okay?” “But I should’ve been here more. I know I can be closed off, hard.” “That’s where I get it from.”

Oh, this is making me worried for Mary. That’s an awful lot of emotional honesty and softening and I’m thinking about John in ep 300 and closure and how that ended up. Dean got to say what he did to Mary near the end of S12. “I hate you and I love you and I forgive you.” And that was why Dean needed Mary back. But Mary has stuck around for several seasons and there are still unresolved things there. Which this scene offered one step towards a resolution for. How very John paralleling of you, SPN.

Dean relating to Mary’s facade isn’t spn vilifying Dean. SPN doesn’t think Dean is actually closed off and hard, the narrative doesn’t show us that, and the authorial voices don’t believe it. Dean does however construct a facade for himself and I’m not sure how people can claim it’s vilifying Dean for SPN to remember that. (People want consistency and SPN to remember Dean’s characteristics...it does). Dean references his facade here.

Remember that Dean’s perception of himself is that he’s a hardass. The Dean we actually see--and yes SPN is not only aware of that dichotomy but plays with it consistently--is a big-hearted squishy vulnerable softie who outbursts his emotions often and does a terrible job of hiding how much he cares. But in his Dean’s own mind his face is impeccably forged.

He’s acknowledging here he realizes Mary has a facade too and her brittleness and remoteness isn’t because she doesn’t care.

I think also Dean wants to relate himself to his mom. He modeled himself on John much of his life and had to find a way to being his own person away from that shadow, but he’s actually always been more like Mary and he wants to be close to her. So here he purposefully spells out a connection between them, even though Dean isn’t really just like Mary, their facades are still a commonality.

Mary saying “I’m grateful” for all the time she gets to spend with her kids. Her adult kids. Not the babies she lost. Her children as they are.

Ohhhh something bad is going to happen I can feel it.

We get smart researchy Sam, and Mary and Dean mother-son badass hunting team. I’m sorry we haven’t seen more Mary and Dean team-ups, I’ve been waiting for that. (See why I’m nervous? There’s a lot of Dean and Mary stuff in this ep I’ve been waiting for and was denied and now getting it...Marty, I’m scared. I know how SPN operates).

So Nick is basically a complete amoral psychopath now and I am both bored yet weirdly relieved the story isn’t even going close to trying to make him someone relatable or intriguing. Nick is one of the only things most of this fandom in all lanes agrees on: he has to go. And SPN is making him as unpleasant as possible, reflecting that.

Jack and Donatello have no soul and yet they show more conscience and care of others than Nick, who has his soul still, which is raising questions in my head about how souls work on SPN and can empathy be learned even if the soul is gone. It’s not that Jack isn’t incredibly dangerous without his soul, his inner compass is completely borked. But not totally absent. Donatello also has judgment about how to treat others. But Nick...Nick is only murderous.

“Because you’re a good man. You are. It’s one of the reasons I’m so proud of you.”

We are John paralleling like mad here. Sam gets to hear Mary is proud of him. Dean gets an apology for her distance and her letting him know she appreciates being with him.

Closure, closure, closure. Something terrible is going to happen.

These Cas and Anael scenes are utterly delightful. Not just because Misha and Danneel have a great rapport but the themes the dialogue is wading into is making me rub my hands together in metaish glee.

“I believe in Heaven.”

Anael was a believer. Joshua’s right hand. She was a good soldier. Unlike Cas, it doesn’t sound like she had much inclinations to rebel. It seem unlikely Anael ever needed a reset, but like Cas, she eventually did.

“I don’t need Heaven and I don’t need God. I’m happy,” Anael says.

There’s that theme of actual happiness vs. false happiness again.

“Really?” says Cas, who we know has figured out how important bonds with others are. “Because that sounds lonely.”

“We’re all lonely because we’re all alone,” says Anael.

Well this just got deeply philosophical. We can feel alone even when we’re with others. Anael feels God abandoned everyone and she’s not wrong, and she hasn’t found a connection with others the way Cas has. And Cas, even though he has found those connections, is still a lonely figure. Isolation, alienation, feeling he doesn’t belong have been major themes with Cas for years. But Cas knows things Anael doesn’t about how life one earth works.

Oh I so am enjoying Dean kicking the crap out of Nick.

Jack is soulless yet still cares about helping Donatello.

“My father was a monster.” “He loved you...and you broke his heart.”

Shut up Nick, you manipulative psycho. Love isn’t enough. Lucifer “loves” like Thanos “loves.”

Back to Cas and Anael, “I’m doing this for Jack,” Cas says. Which he is, in part, but it’s not the only reason. Anael may have passed on coffee but she’s packing tea. “You’re doing this because you’re afraid. Because in your mind it’d be easier to call God than tell Sam and Dean Winchester the truth. Jack’s soul is gone.”

Here is my whole separate post of its own on over-protective Cas trying to shield Sam and Dean from the storms and while it’s done out love, it’s misguided and his methods of shielding them often end badly.

But if you think Jack is all Cas cares about? Jack is the only reason Cas has done anything lately? You aren’t paying close enough attention (also that’s ignoring big chunks of canon anyway but I’m talking specifically, that even some of Cas’s Jack decisions have been about protecting Sam and Dean from pain...read my post).

There’s another samulet. Cas recognizes the object most likely to be the telephone to God because it’s similar to the Winchester samulet. It’s not identical to Sam and Dean’s. Similar but different design. Slightly different purposes. One glows in the presence of God. Another acts as a voicemail system. Are there others, with other purposes, related to God?

Chuck abandoned humanity and the angels but made sure means of communicating with him were left, perhaps scattered all over the world? In case of emergencies? Was it a full abandonment?

Cas sneaking away from his family to call his father for help out of their sightline because he’s scared and worried, why is that familiar. Where have I seen that before...oh yes, Dean calling John way back in “Home” in season 1.

This while Sam and Dean are going through closure things with the Winchester parents and Cas is again looking for his absent father.

“Go home and tell Sam and Dean the truth.” GOOD PLAN, ANAEL.

I love this exchange with Cas and Anael so much. This is the whole lynchpin of what Cas has learned.

“Just because God’s not with us doesn’t mean we’re alone.” “Why? Because we all have each other?” “Yes.”

Similarly to how Dean had already accepted himself without needing John’s approval to do it, Cas has already figured out he’s not alone even though his father is a chronic abandoner.

Now Sam is beating Nick! It’s the Nick gets beaten up episode and I am so here for it. Sam doesn’t kill him of course because Sam is a good person but I am also sort of sorry Sam doesn’t kill Nick. Which I don’t think is the takeaway they intended and yet.

Sam’s Nickrage. Sam tried to see the good in him and give him the benefit of the doubt. Nick turned out to be completely amoral, and Sam was wrong. And now there’s something wrong with Sam’s shared Team Free Will adoptive child, Jack, who Sam needed to believe in. Sam has had something wrong with him and he’s not all bad, he was worth saving, others are worth it too and Sam needs to believe that. Jack maybe will vindicate Sam in this by the end while Nick is proving to Sam that isn’t always true and I think being faced with that is breaking Sam’s heart. No not everyone is worth saving. Not everyone can be saved.

It’s almost like survivor’s guilt. Sam is a good man. Sam had demon blood in him, he’s made mistakes, he’s done some terrible things, he’s been through some stuff, and he is worth saving. Sam doesn’t seem himself as worth it while others as less worthy, and he’s having trouble not over-identifying on this issue. This is a very long arc for Sam--think back to S8 and Sam talking about knowing as a child he was tainted, that he’d never qualify as a knight, as a pure hero he saw in the books about King Arthur.

But those are idealizations of the heroic paradigm. Someone can still be heroic while being tainted and imperfect. Sam’s figuring this out but he’s still struggling with the object of the proof that not everyone is worth being saved: Nick.

I am not here for Nick beating up Sam. :((((((((((

I am here for badass Dean which is always good to see.

Oh no Sam. :((((((((((((((

“Count with me.” “You always put me first. Your whole life.”

Look I know Sam won’t die-die for good yet but this is still upsetting, Dean trying to keep Sam with him and Sam deciding that should be his final words to Dean, because he’s aware of all Dean took on and he’s grateful. Sam knows. This is also a mirror flip on Dean’s head injury in Ouroboros. This made my heart ache. :(

No can we not have Lucifer back please? I adore 98% of the characters on this show, I’m serious, I am an ensemble gal, but Lucifer’s story has, for reals, played out. Nick is irredeemably awful and dull, Lucifer is boring and selfish and cruel and petulant and I’m bored. Luckily for me neither is being presented as someone I am supposed to or expected to feel sympathy for and I hope it stays that way.

Hey SPN, you’ve successfully made me feel zero sympathy for characters who I clearly am supposed to feel zero sympathy for! You did your job! But do you realize how dull this is? I’m not sure this is supposed to be so dull.

Jack just saying no to Lucifer. Bye, Lucifer! Thank you, Jack!

Thank you Jack for saving Sam!

Hey Jack’s not doing too badly for someone’s who’s soulless...oops wait. No this is not good.

Look I get the way Jack killed Nick is not good and soulless Jack is really dangerous and that was a horrible way to kill someone which Jack didn’t have to do, he could have done it mercifully and didn’t. Of course Mary is horrified witnessing that, and I would be too, but otoh thank you, Jack for dispensing with Nick who is not just murderous. Murderous can be interesting, there are lots of interesting villains out there. But he is just so boring. The drama of Mary’s distress at what Jack did is undercut a bit here because I’m not sorry someone kills Nick. I rarely ever root for any character to die, even ones I dislike (just write them off maybe) but I’m making an exception.

Really Jack’s doing me some solids in this ep.

And then a bad.

Okay, bad Jack. No, Jack, don’t hurt Mary. Which, I been knew, something bad would happen to Mary, telegraphed all ep, and there it is, after all that closure. It’s left ambiguous exactly what happened though. Is she dead? Is she banished to another AU world? Turned into a woodland creature? Was it even Jack who did it? We don’t know what exactly happened yet.

#Sam Winchester #Dean Winchester #Castiel #Jack Kline #supernatural #Mary Winchester #Sam and Dean: a work in progress #Team Free Will 2.0 #anti-Nick #anti-Lucifer #SPN #supernatural spoilers #meta

54 notes · View notes

spirit-science-blog · 3 years

Video

youtube

Is it just me...or is there a distinct lack of great staple Halloween-holiday movies? I mean, sure, we have stuff like Hocus Pocus or the creepy cacophony of horror movies like the Exorcist or the Conjuring to watch while hiding under our blankets and stuffing our faces with candy… I mean… Grapes, and other healthy snacks… But what’s the Spooktober equivalent of A Christmas Carol or It’s a Wonderful Life? ….CUE the Pumpkin King. Ack, but even then, it’s like… this is more of a November movie. What with it being like a smashup betwixt Halloween and Christmas? Anyways, I’m a sucker for Tim Burton and the music of Danny Elfman. When you combine it with Christmas cheer and Halloween gothic macabre, you get one of the most ambitious crossovers since I mixed my orange and apple juice that one time. A Nightmare Before Christmas isn’t just a holiday favorite. It’s a stop motion masterpiece filled with spiritual lore and depth that speaks to Dharma's Vedic concepts, self-love, and coming to terms with your highest and authentic self. So… since covid is coming in for another wave while Biden miraculously comes out with a vaccine the day he’s elected, let’s have a mashup of our own by mixing last month and next month's holidays into the present moment and jump into some spirituality!

So look, this movie is a legend, and it also came out in 1993 - so we’re going to skip the summation and jump straight into the hidden meaning. If you haven’t seen it yet, well, you’re nearly 30 years late to the party, but here's your obligatory spoiler warning.

Subtly echoed in the overall narrative of this film is the Indo-Tibetan concept of Dharma. The wide-ranging belief that every organism has a role to play in a well-ordered cosmos and must play that role and no other, including our duties, rights, laws, conduct, virtues, and "right way of living." Throughout the film, Jack discovers that as wonderful a thing as Christmas is, it is not his thing. He isn’t good at it. It’s not something in accordance with his natural flow... But more importantly, there’s an idea that he can’t give up who he is for who he wants to be. He’s confronted with the fact that he has to discover the inherent value of who he is instead of trying to be something else just because it’s apparently “good” or better.

This may be one of the most powerful truths of this movie. The fact that something is a good thing–whether it is Christmas, a loving nature, or pretty much anything else–doesn’t mean that it is the only good thing. Adding to this is the idea that other things that strike us as scary or deeply uncomfortable can be good too, and this idea is mirrored in the sets. One could argue that Halloweentown and its inhabitants represent the darker or shadow aspects of ourselves, the parts of our being that are seemingly negative and often “scary” to us. Conversely, Christmastown is reminiscent of all the beneficial elements. Much like Yin and Yang, the two towns act as reflections of each other, helping to balance the world they’re in.

When these holidays interact with our world, we embrace them in their appropriate set and setting. But it’s when people expect Christmas and get Halloween that things go haywire… perhaps if each town represents our inner natures, there’s an idea we can take from this about how when our light side and dark side cross into each other, they can cause us some confusion and chaos. Yet, in the end, it’s through that interaction that we grow and learn, and these aspects augment their original power and balance. They learn about each other, discover ways to coexist peacefully, each part of ourselves respecting the other, and their part of the whole.

The challenge arises when Jack feels he’s mastered Halloweentown, his current domain. It’s not just boredom he’s feeling...if you listen to his lament at the beginning, his sentiment echoes one I’m sure most of us on a spiritual path have thought at some point, a yearning for something more significant than the world he’s currently in. His rendition of “Oh, somewhere deep inside of these bones, an emptiness began to grow, there’s something out there, far from home, a longing that I’ve never known” is reminiscent of C.S Lewis’ Mere Christianity “If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another one.”

What’s funny is that Jack is basically like a king in his domain. He’s got it all, he’s the boss of Halloween, but all the acclaim and vindication he gets feels hollow in comparison to his inner search for meaning. Ultimately, his inner knowing that something greater is out there isn’t one that material pleasure can satisfy; it’s spiritual. Something that is seemingly echoed in his little song when he reaches Christmastown, his own Hall of Amenti..he states, “And in my bones, I feel a warmth that’s coming from inside...This empty place inside of me is filling up”.

When Jack finds Christmastown, he is fascinated with this new world's innocence and solace and recognizes that this is what he was being called to experience….Something that is interestingly reminiscent of many people’s first Astral Travel experiences. Funnily enough, his first approach is to study it scientifically and lock himself away in his tower, to find the “Christmas feeling” inside objects. Much like trying to find a feeling or aspect of consciousness within the brain, this approach fails. It points to how the mechanistic approach to the psyche has been unsuccessful in explaining the phenomena arising from brain region correlations. Jack sings, "But what does it all mean?” as he tries to understand an experience, not a thing. And yet, ironically, he’s studying *things* trying to find meaning. He ultimately concludes that "just because I cannot see it doesn't mean I can't believe it."

After Santa is kidnapped, that’s when things start to go down hill...and interestingly, Sally, the rag doll woman who is crushing on Jack, actually has a vision that it’s all going to go wrong. Still, Jack is so blinded by his lust for new experiences that he ignores her. Wait a minute...the dichotomy between action and vision...masculine and feminine...feeling vs. action...sigh...this whole Sacred Masculine/Divine feminine thing is getting easier to spot.

Sally embodies the feminine quite well; she’s wise, understanding, loving, intuitive, and even seemingly taps into the Source to see a future outcome. She loves Jack even before his failed Christmas fiasco, but is primarily locked away -symbolically and physically later on by Oogie Boogie, and also goes often ignored, but is a figure who is ultimately a guiding force and can see the higher perspective of things. Yep, she checks all the boxes for how the divine feminine has appeared in our world… Jack, her counterpart who embodies the Sacred Masculine, and maybe a bit of the King archetype at times - is a leader, has direction, and takes action and initiative. He takes care of his people, and his people help him follow his dreams… No matter how misguided. Albeit, as we explored, he can be stubborn, and when the two can’t work together or largely ignore each other, the natural order is upset, and things descend into Chaos.

And I mean proper Chaos… worldwide panic erupts as children encounter their scary presents, and the armies of the world shoot Jack and his sleigh out of the sky...he’s immortal though, so it’s no biggie. But as he falls into the arms of a Graveyard Angel. This probably signifies his spiritual death pending rebirth as his plans failed and he must evolve his consciousness to move forward; as soon after, he finally sees his blindness, coming to the understanding that he is meant to be the Pumpkin King and will carry out that role even better next year. After Jack’s failed attempt to do Christmas himself, both towns come to appreciate their differences and the good things each holiday has to offer. Jack’s attempts at Christmas were directed mainly toward the symbols and visible elements of the holiday. When he got around to pursuing the real, more profound meaning of it, his search was utterly clouded by his selfishness and perspective of trying to incorporate what he was already familiar with…

In a way, it is kind of like religious syncretism. Jack tries to practice Christmas and Halloween simultaneously. Doing so stays loyal to neither, showing us the dangers of artificially trying to combine cultures and beliefs without fully understanding them both... Despite his endeavor's colossal failure, Jack still sees the value of having experienced everything and regrets nothing. He learns the lesson instead of feeling sorry for himself and dwelling in self-hatred. He is happy he tried and put himself out there, and goes into making things right, even after his mistake, seemingly coming more into alignment with his true self in the process, and eventually finds a renewed love of his role.

It’s also interesting that our hero is flawed and comes from the seemingly “dark” side of things. Even though we all love Jack, he’s an Evil Lord type...and yet, this approach serves to humanize him and his town and what they represent, allowing us to understand where the darker characters and attributes are coming from, see the light in them as well. It teaches that darkness also has some value, and those who are born playing those darker roles in life are fulfilling their role in this life on earth. The Halloweentown’s people are all pretty supportive, caring, and collaborative with each other, not traits you usually associate with monsters and demons. Maybe there’s a lesson here that even the darker aspects of ourselves can still ultimately come from a place of love if we acknowledge their purpose and role in our experience.

After Oogie is unraveled like a ball of yarn, Santa sets off to make things right but leaves the residents of Halloweentown with a parting gift...making it snow, allowing all the residents to experience that same joy that Jack felt when experiencing Christmas for the first time, which in a way fulfills Jack’s original dream of genuinely understanding Christmas.

I’m sure there’s a part of this that speaks to experiencing things to truly understand them, rather than just being told about them by someone else. As he flies away, Santa shouts "Happy Halloween!" and Jack replies by yelling "Merry Christmas!" which is pretty funny, but also serves to show that each side has become more balanced and acknowledges the role each other plays in their world.

All in all, ANBC doesn't fit as a Christmas movie in the conventional sense, but it doesn’t work as a Halloween one either, which is really what makes it so great. It’s a part of both seasons and is itself a pretty balanced movie...which is so meta, I love it. What’s very curious here is that Jack makes the mistake of thinking his calling lies somewhere else, rather than where he already is. Yet, the longing within him for something more compelled him into this search and discovery of something new, even though it wasn’t meant for him to give, it was meant for him to receive. Though his intentions are good, he misses this critical point and nearly ruins himself and the holiday he has come to love. Yet through his failure, he realizes who he is from a different perspective. Perhaps there is an idea here that sometimes we also have to fail to discover who we are….and chances are, we often come back stronger and more in alignment with our goals every time we fall. After all, what is a failure but the opportunity to start over, only wiser?

Until next time, it still kind of feels like October, but then again, this year has blended into one long continuous stream at this point, hasn’t it… So Happy Holidays for whatever season you’re in when you end up watching this video! Toodles.

#spirituality #science #ascension #mystery school #spirit science

1 note · View note

boldtendencies · 7 years

Text

Responding to Ewa Axelrad’s Let’s go. Yes, let’s go. (They do not move), 2017

One of the struggles of working with objects and artworks that have been put on public display is the issue of maintaining them, preserving the created piece, throughout their displayed period. This seems like a straightforward task, as in a traditional gallery this largely involves simply making sure no visitors get too up close and personal with the displays. At Bold Tendencies we face a more challenging setting, which our commissioned works must withstand.

Few artists are faced with the task of creating a piece that sits open to the air on the tenth floor of a car park in south London. Ewa Axelrad’s Lets go, Yes, let’s go. (They Don’t Move) added four large scale Lions, with accompanying makeshift battlements from car tires and sand bags, to this unusual environment. The artist chose thin black aluminium cine foil as the outer material to cover a hollow structure, creating this shadowing parallel of London’s famous Trafalgar square. The resultant outcome is an impressively strong outer appearance, which in reality is deceptively weak. Because of this, our simple task of maintaining these works becomes more complicated.

As the months of this years summer period have gone by the lions have taken some damage. This is partly due to the dangers of having a bar so closely accompany an exhibit and the resulting desire that some members of the public feel to climb the sculptures. It is however the effects of weather that present the most problematic issues to preservation with this work. As part of a characteristic British summer the works on the rooftop have had to contend with high winds and torrential rain. Subsequently, part of our opening duties is to inspect the pervious day and night’s damage, reattaching any loose pieces and patching any visible holes. Although signs of damage are still visible, these base level conservational efforts have allowed the structures to remain fairly stable so far.

These daily preservational interventions into the artwork have altered its original appearance, bringing about questions of how we deal with objects intentionally placed within damaging environments. Should we intervene in the changing condition of an object that is deliberately placed within an environment that subjects it to weather damage?

We can draw comparisons to how heritage institutions deal with much older objects, and the largely on-going debates of preservation vs. original physical context. Pictish cross-slab stones, mostly dating from the 6th to the 9th century are an example of medieval art that faces huge problems due to their location. The Scottish weather is famously harsh and these stones, some in remote coastal locations, have endured this for centuries. As a result many have become worn, with their carved narrative becoming increasingly indiscernible. Many stones have cracked due to the effects of freezing water working its way into holes within the rock and the carved faces become worn due to the erosion from acidic rain. There are two options here: remove the object from its intended environment to somewhere less damaging, or allow it to stay and continue its deterioration.

Arguably the aesthetic quality of the work is one of the most important parts of its value as an object. Preserving the appearance of an object is essential, as it provides cultural information in an almost time capsule like manner. The ability to see an artwork in its ‘finished’ form, as intended by the artist, gives insight to the time and place it was created, providing invaluable historic information. However, no cultural object can really exist within a vacuum and can only allow a glimpse into the worlds of past eras. Everything ages to a certain extent but it is those objects exposed to the outside elements that face the greatest damage from time, in which Ewa Axelrad’s Lions are a clear example of this. Because of this measures are often taken to slow down this process to keep an artwork or object in near enough its original condition for as long as possible. This approach seems logical, as protecting key cultural information is important for continued exploration of heritage and history. The example of Pictish stone monuments, however, highlights the importance of considering objects individually.

One of the exceptional parts of these carved works is their relation to environment. Much research has been done to show how the stones interacted with the changing weather to enhance liturgical practice, bringing to life devotional words. The stone of Meigle II (9th-10th Century) is split between a standard grey that transitions into an almost blood red colour at the bottom of the stone. Although the stone is currently situated inside, in its original position outside, the colours of the stone would have been enhanced by rainfall. This would have created a realistic parallel for the viewer of the blood of Christ, enlivening the didactic quality of these devotional stones. Subsequently, the physical context of these works is hugely important in being able to experience them, as they would have been centuries ago. The movement of the sun and shadows along with the glistening water pockets created by caught rain and ice add another more tangible layer to the works, fundamental for their use by medieval people.

Sueno’s Stone (9th Century) provides an example of varying approaches to preservation. This cross-slab still sits in its original location, near Forres in the north of Scotland, but has had a clear glass case erected around it to act as a protecting barrier. Here a compromise has been reached, where it can exist within the intended landscape, with the intricate carvings protected from further damage. This mid point between two differing approaches has resulted in a stone that sits in a remote location, away from accessible study, retaining only partially its ability to interact with the changing environment. This illustrates how approaches to conservation and preservation need to be carefully considered in regard to the individual components of what makes an object.

In trying to answer the question of how to best preserve an object or artwork what is crucial to determine is how and where to attribute value to said object. Is it more important to retain as much originality as possible in a piece, or allow it to interact with its environment in a natural and more organic way?

So what do we do with these lions? It seems without our efforts to repair them each day that at this point we could have been left with four pretty run down cats. This slow disintegration appears to be part of their continuing process during this summer on the tenth level. On closer inspection we can see that the changes that have occurred are not simply a few flyaway pieces, but additional colour from the rusted patches and mottled salt deposits, along with new textures created in the wrinkling and patching of the cine foil, altering the original appearance. All of this enhances the perceived fragility of the material, creating an intentional dichotomy between the strong visual symbol and practical reality.

Like the Pictish stones, part of the purpose of Axelrad’s lion’s is to interact with the elements. No artist could intend a work made from fragile material, on the top of a London car park, to not incur some changes. This adds an organic nature to the piece, making them more tangible and real. Although today’s audience is perhaps less literal then a medieval one, the additional sound of the rainfall onto the aluminium, the vast shadows the structures create and the developing colour variation across the months adds to the sensory experience of these objects. Therefore, although it may at first seem like protecting a pieces originality is crucial, allowing it to develop with its landscape can create invaluable enhancement to its meaning.

Upper First image: Sueno’s Stone, 9th Century Second image: Meigle II, 9th-10th Century Lower: Details from Eva Axelrad, Let’s go. Yes, let’s go (They do not move). 2017

Art Trainee Joni Mitchell

#artistic responses #2017

0 notes