Christ in Hyperreality

Matthew Paul Turner posted this advertisement for Christ in the Smokies, a wax museum and tourist trap in Gatlinburg, Tennessee.

This should really be paired with Umberto Eco’s essay, Travels in Hyperreality. Sometime in the early 1970′s Eco traveled the United States, stopping by museums and tourist attractions. He toured a number of wax museums, including “Christ in the Smokies.” He witnessed many instances of what he called “hyperreality,” a simulation of reality that exceeds and distorts the actual reality.

It’s a dense piece, so pulling out a few pithy quotes isn’t going to work. So here’s a big chunk about his experience with wax museums:

The whole of the United States is spangled with wax museums, advertised in every hotel—in other words, attractions of considerable importance. The Los Angeles area includes the Movieland Wax Museum and the Palace of Living Arts; in New Orleans you find the Musee Conti; in Florida there is the Miami Wax Museum, Potter’s Wax Museum of St. Augustine, the Stars Hall of Fame in Orlando, the Tussaud Wax Museum in St. Petersburg. Others are located in Gatlinburg, Tennessee, Atlantic City, New Jersey, Estes Park, Colorado, Chicago, and so on.

The contents of a European wax museum are well-known: “live” speaking images, from Julius Caesar to Pope John XXIII, in various settings. As a rule, the environment is squalid, always subdued, diffident. Their American counterparts are loud and aggressive, they assail you with big billboards on the freeway miles in advance, they announce themselves from the distance with glowing signs, shafts of light in the dark sky. The moment you enter you are alerted that you are about to have one of the most thrilling experiences of your life; they comment on the various scenes with long captions in sensational tones; they combine historical reconstruction with religious celebration, glorification of movie celebrities, and themes of famous fairytales and adventure stories; they dwell on the horrible, the bloody;
their concern with authenticity reaches the point of reconstructive neurosis. [...]

Between San Francisco and Los Angeles I was able to visit seven wax versions of Leonardo’s Last Supper. Some are crude and unwittingly caricatural; others are more accurate though no less unhappy in their violent colors, their chilling demolition of what had been Leonardo’s vibrance. Each is displayed next to a version of the original. And you would naturally—but naively—suppose that this reference image, given the development of color photo reproduction, would be a copy of the original. Wrong: because, if compared to the original, the three-dimensional creation might come off second-best. So, in one museum after the other, the waxwork scene is compared to a reduced reproduction carved in wood, a nineteenth-century engraving, a modern tapestry, or a bronze, as the commenting voice insistently urges us to note the resemblance of the waxwork, and against such insufficient models, the waxwork, of course, wins. The falsehood has a certain justification, since the criterion of likeness, amply described and analyzed, never applies to the formal execution, but rather to the subject: “Observe how Judas is in the same position, and how Saint Matthew . . .” etc., etc.

As a rule the Last Supper is displayed in the final room, with symphonic background music and a son et lumiere atmosphere. Not infrequently you are admitted to a room where the waxwork Supper is behind a curtain that slowly parts, as the taped voice, in deep and emotional tones, simultaneously informs you that you are having the most extraordinary spiritual experience of your life, and that you must tell your friends and acquaintances about it. Then comes some information about the redeeming mission of Christ and the exceptional character of the great event portrayed, summarized in evangelical phrases. Finally, information about Leonardo, all permeated with the intense emotion inspired by the mystery of art. At Santa Cruz the Last Supper is actually on its own, the sole attraction, in a kind of chapel erected by a committee of citizens, with the twofold aim of spiritual uplift and celebration of the glories of art. Here there are six reproductions with which to compare the waxworks (an engraving, a copperplate, a color copy, a reconstruction “in a single block of wood,” a tapestry, and a printed reproduction of a reproduction on glass). There is sacred music, an emotional voice, a prim little old lady with eyeglasses to collect the visitor’s offering, sales of printed reproductions of the reproduction in wax of the reproduction in wood, metal, glass. Then you step out into the sunshine of the Pacific beach, nature dazzles you, Coca-Cola invites you, the freeway awaits you with its five lanes, on the car radio Olivia Newton-John is singing Please, Mister, Please; but you have been touched by the thrill of artistic greatness, you have had the most stirring spiritual emotion of your life and seen the most artistic work of art in the world. It is far away, in Milan, which is a place, like Florence, all Renaissance; you may never get there, but the voice has warned you that the original fresco is by now ruined, almost invisible, unable to give you the emotion you have received from the three-dimensional wax, which is more real, and there is more of it.

Posted in Christianity, Culture | 8 Comments

Fred Peeps

Courtesy of Stuff Fundies Like. It looks like an entry in the Washington Post Peeps Show, but I can’t find the specific entry.

Posted in Humor, Pictures | 10 Comments

Religion does not always correlate with ethics. Get over it.

there are good christians and bad christians. good muslims and evil muslims. there are ethical people who live without religion. and evil people who live without religion. religion does not always correlate with ethics. get over it.

Posted in Atheism, Christianity, Morality, Religion | 34 Comments

As Jesus Said About Gay People…

bank sign protestor: as jesus said about gay people man

[via]

Posted in Christianity, Jesus, Sexuality | 9 Comments

Atheist Tattoo

What do you think?

woman atheist tattoo god is an imaginary friend for grown ups

Posted in Atheism | 17 Comments

Church of Science-Fiction

I found this review of Hugh Urban’s The Church of Scientology to be very interesting. Urban seems to be a qualified analyst of minority religions and esoteric traditions, with previous works on Tantra and American esoteric traditions in India and America. He also seems to have some works on the political uses of fundamentalism in America which I should probably check out.

The whole review was interesting, but this passage stood out to me:

Hubbard had frequently compared life to a game, and he didn’t want to be ‘playing some minor game in Scientology. It isn’t cute or something to do for lack of something better.’ The game hinged on the idea that we can choose what we perceive to be ‘true’, and discard everything else as an illusion. Yet soon Hubbard’s postmodern religion strove to become a ‘real’ one. His followers – among them hippies as well as educated and ambitious young people – surprised him with the intensity of their belief. Hubbard told a group of doctoral students in Philadelphia in 1954 that his followers were more convinced of Scientology’s cosmology than he was. ‘I’m just kidding you mostly,’ he said. ‘I don’t believe any of these things and I don’t want to be agreed with about them … All I’m asking is that we take a look at this information, and … let’s see if we can’t disagree with this universe, just a little bit.’

That’s a very different way of looking at Hubbard than I’m used to, and that quote is very telling. I’m used to seeing Hubbard and his followers as either scammers, lunatics or dupes. But if you are (for lack of a better word) postmodern enough to believe that you can create your own reality, then what better way to shape this new reality than by creating a religion?

And this might go some way towards explaining why so many of Scientology’s most prominent followers are actors or authors. These are people who work at creating a new reality for their audience.

Posted in Books, Cults | 11 Comments

Killer Cone Snails

Here’s a sea snail that’s armed with over 100 toxins:

Posted in Biology, Science, Videos | 6 Comments

The Man with Three Wives

Posted in Islam, Videos | 21 Comments

All Aboard the Ignorance Car

I always assume if a person’s car is full of bumper stickers, they’re usually a bit crazy.

(click on picture to zoom)

Posted in Christianity, Fundamentalism, Humor | 25 Comments

Answering the Star Tribune

From The Lead blog, I see that the Star Tribune has an article asking “Why should I accept same-sex couples?” They chose the responses of Rev. Lisa Cressman, an Episcopalian priest who answers quite well. Still, there are a few cases where I’d answer differently.

1) Were our ancestors all dumb and bigoted because they thought homosexuality was wrong? Some may think that accepting homosexuality is innovative and progressive, but others say abandoning our previous norm may be presumptuous on our part. In other words, our ancestors might have been right, and we might be wrong.

Our ancestors thought no such thing. Our ancestors did not even have the word “homosexuality,” nor did they understand the modern concept of “sexual orientation.” The most we can say is that some of our ancestors – the ones who wrote the Hebrew Testament at least – thought that penetration between men was against the will of God. That’s quite different from saying that same-sex marriage is immoral.

Richard Fellows, who blogs at Paul and his Co-workers, has a good breakdown of how our Greco-Roman ancestors understood sexuality and how our early Christian ancestors felt about it. Neither side can be said to think that “homosexuality is wrong” in the way we understand the phrase.

2) Don’t our sexual organs exist for reproduction? How does homosexuality square with that?

This line of questioning has always baffled me. As an evolutionist, I do not believe that purpose is a useful way of finding natural morality. In an evolutionary understanding, function follows form. Purpose is something that humans assign to the form after the fact.

At some point in history, a proto-giraffe was born with a long neck. It must have been useful for reaching leaves, but also in getting a higher vantage point to see predators and (for males) in mating combat. None of these functions were assigned to the giraffe’s neck by nature, and we can hardly say that the neck has only one purpose and all the other uses are sinful.

Would anybody follow this line of reasoning to other aspects of the human body? We clearly have an omnivore’s digestive system, but are we willing to say that a meat heavy diet or strict vegetarianism are sinful lifestyles?

3) It is no secret that the human sex drive is a lot stronger than is needed for reproduction. Do we just give into those desires, or do we try to control them?

Obviously we try to control our drives and emotions. We learn at an early age that we have to control anger, jealousy and other emotions. We Americans have learned that the basic drive to eat can lead us to consuming more than our bodies can process or consuming things that are ultimately unhealthy, hence our expanding national waistline.

But saying this isn’t actually an argument. If I were to tell you that you must restrain your emotional affection for your children, I’m sure you’d insist that I give a reason why you should. How are displays of affection harmful? And so I return the question: so what? Why should some couples control their love and attraction, simply because they are both of the same gender?

And of course it should be said that same-gender marriage is more than an outlet for the sex drive, just as heteronormative marriage is more than just about producing children. The fact that we have to keep pointing out that this is more than just a matter of men having sex with other men is disquieting. It says bad things about our understanding of married relationships.

[summation]4. Adultery, pedophilia and bestiality are wrong. So homosexuality?

I think this just goes back to my above points. Rev. Cressman answers this in a straght-forward way.

5)Prevalent homosexuality has made its appearance in human history before and has never lasted. Why is it going to work this time when all the other appearances failed? Changes in norms require universal acceptance. Why should we go down this road again when many, probably a majority, will always see homosexuality as going against nature, not normal? Can’t we learn from the past that prevalent homosexuality will not work in society?

I have no examples of “prevalent homosexuality” making an appearance. As Richard Fellows points out in the link above, the ancient idea of sexuality is very different from the modern idea. I honestly don’t see a way to make a historical argument for or against gay marriage without comparing apples to oranges, and everybody knows how much I love historical arguments.

As for the idea that changes require consensus, this is obviously false. In America, major changes in our society have frequently been unpopular. Segregation and anti-miscegenation laws were all popular in certain regions. Contrary to Gov. Christie’s comments, a referendum on civil rights would not have created equality between the races.

Further, this is an issue of rights. In our system, the purpose of a right is to protect the minority from the majority. If what we’re arguing for is unpopular, then that just means we’re doing it right. Requiring majority consensus on a matter of rights completely misses the point.

Posted in Sexuality | 3 Comments