The more I think about this thesis, the more I wonder if it is even appropriate for me to have myself in the work. The reason I say this is because of how avatars work in both the religious world and in the contemporary world.
In the old world, any god or divine being that would form a mortal shell as an avatar for their power would never look like what they are suppose to look like. That's why God doesn't have a face despite being constantly painted and characterized as some balding white man with a flowing gray beard. I believe the movie Dogma has a line saying that to see and hear the true form and voice of God would cause mortals to explode due to the sheer magnitude of not being able to comprehend the awesome power of the universe that is spilling forth before them. Or something like that. So what does God do? He gives us Jesus in order for Him to communicate with us in one sense or another. Or an angel, or some other sign that is normally accompanied with bright lights. You know the kind. There is no physical feature in any of his diplomats He sends down that is exclusive to God, mostly because we don't know what He looks like.
I think it is just human nature to want to put a face to a name. Disney's Gargoyles even questions why we name things, which was borrowed from Shakespeare's "A rose by any other name would smell just as sweet" line from Romeo & Juliet. That's why when you talk about Buddha, most people associate it with the fat and joyful incarnation of the Buddha. But when you mention that Buddha was a monkey at one point in his many lives, people go "What?"
Meanwhile, you have the contemporary idea of the avatar, which for argument's sake is more of an icon than it is the actual person it is representing. There is a parody of Norman Rockwell's--the title of I can never remember--where he is painting himself looking into the mirror. The most famous one is that of Walt Disney in the same pose drawing Mickey looking back in the mirror. The equally famous opposite (Mickey drawing a picture of Walt looking back in the mirror) has been seen almost just as widely as the one I recently saw advertising laser eye surgery (Rockwell with glasses drawing a picture of him with no glasses looking back at himself in the mirror). Yet people will continue to look at Mickey Mouse and see Walt Disney. At least until that part of history ends up becoming lost to memory.
It seems almost ironic that Halloween will occur during this thesis exploration. You have the casual trick-or-treater who doesn't care if the neighbors know it is them. They just like to dress up, and that's fine. But what makes Halloween really fun for some people are when they get to dress up and completely own the character they are dressed up as. We are talking about those people who change the way they walk, moan and groan at anyone that talks to them, and actually become whatever they are dressed up as. Their true identity is only known to the friends that saw and/or helped them dress up. This is what separates cosplayers from role-players.
Knowing this, (well, more like after I discovered this) I can't help but wonder why I need to interject myself into the work now. I mean, these are self representations of myself if not my alter ego Zeek Slider. And Zeek doesn't look a thing like me, nor does he act like me. And yet, much like an incarnation of Vishnu, we share a common bond. I didn't just create him so that he can be some kind of internet identity or whatever Zeek ended up being. Zeek is a vessel for the things that I cannot do. He can be a wizard when I want to be, or as he is right now, he can talk to alien races from beyond the stars. But Zeek can't do what I can. For some reason, as adaptable and mutable as he is, he can't create things. I've never given him that ability to be imaginative. That's my job.
In some strange logic, the relationship I have with my alter ego is that bridge between the old world and the new world definition of the word "Avatar." I created Zeek in order to do the things I could not do for one reason or another, very similar to how the gods would create beings to interact among us mortals. I gave Zeek special abilities for the world you can find him in, very much how the gods would give their incarnations special abilities and how contemporary costume role players in the park would roll dice to determine the various statistics of their characters own abilities. But at the same time, Zeek cannot do what I can do, exactly how most mortal incarnations of gods in classic myths are set up.
He isn't me. He doesn't act like me or look like me. But he is me in a form that I cannot take. I cannot become him, so he is me for as long as I need him to be me. And though him and his abilities, I'm able to be something that I cannot be on my own. But he'll still never be me. He didn't create me; I created him. I act as his god, and he acts like what I want to be.
1 comment:
Jon,
It seems to me that this post is a sort of summary of your thesis but that you have refused to accept it as such. There is the "real" you which we won't ever know, the "mirror" you which you see when you look at images of yourself which we also can never know because we can't be inside your eyes, and then there is the artwork you create which we may never see as you see it but it's the only thing we will ever have to go on. So on it we must go.
By my argument above, there can't be anything else in your work except yourself put forth in the various ways you see both yourself and the things surround you, both inside and outside.
You say about Zeek: "He doesn't act like me or look like me," but since he is not creative, his actions are your would be actions and his looks are your would be looks.
Robert
Post a Comment