Exploring Pedagogical Issues in Volume One

JournaloftheResearch
InstituteforIntegrated
BrainStudies
March 2005
Volume
1

L AY, P RO F E S S I O N A L , A N D S C H O L A R LY J O U R N A L
Exploring Pedagogical Issues
Volume One:
ATTENTION
Quotetoconsider:
“ PerhapsthesinglebiggestreasonforADDandADHDinAmerica
todayisboringteachers.”
ProfessorDanielCataneo,TheJuilliardSchool
Whatkindof teacherareyou? Howdoyoukeepstudents’
attention?
© Research Institute for Integrated Brain Studies
1590 Madison Avenue • Suite 3C
New York NY 10029
Phone 212.289.5561 • 402.342.4170 • Fax 402.731.7052
I

www.riibs.org www.jriibs.org
EndowmentsandResearchGrantsDesired!
If you would like to support research in the areas broadly covered by this Journal, you may establish an endowment that
awards grants for scholarship in an area of special interest to you. Your gift can help a needy scholar to continue his or her
research, deliver a paper, or travel to a scholarly conference and advance his or her work. To lend your name or that of a
loved one to special research, travel, or paper grant, contact RIIBS at the address listed above, or at our web address
www.jriibs.org. Some areas the Journal Editorial Board currently focuses on include:
• Education
• Development (Both childhood and adult)
• Brain Research
• Movement
• Somatic Education
• Standardized Testing
• Intelligence
• Spirituality, Philosophy, and Religion
• Creativity and Art
• Classics
• Culture
• Integrated Learning
• Ethics and Morality
• Music
• Discipline
• Communication, Psychology, and Neurology
• Qualitative and Quantitative Research
• Humor
I I

E D I T O R I A L B OA R D A N D S TA F F
E d i t o r i a l B o a r d :
P r o f e s s o r H a r r y W i n g f i e l d , P r o f e s s o r C h a r l e s J. Z a b r o w s k i , P r o f e s s o r R i ch a r d W h i t e, P r o f e s s o r
S u z a n n e B u r g oy n e, P r o f e s s o r K en n e t h W i s e, P r o f e s s o r W i l l i a m H u t s o n , D r. D ’ A n n J i m m a r,
P r o f e s s o r K a t h r y n T h o m a s, A d j u n c t - I n s t r u c t o r K e n t o n B r u c e A n d e r s o n , M s. C l a r i n d a K a r p o v,
Re ve r e n d S k y S t . Jo h n , Re v e r e n d N a n c y B r i n k , M r s. K a t h r y n D o u g h e r t y - S u t h e r l a n d , M r s. G r e t ch e n
M a c C a l l u m .
S t a f f :
P u b l i s h e r : K e n t o n B r u c e A n d e r s o n , BA , M A
E d i t o r : K e n t o n B r u c e A n d e r s o n , BA , M A
I n t e r i m E d i t o r i a l A s s i s t a n t : M r s. R i k k i W i l l e r t o n
AC K N OW L E D G E M E N T S
S p e c i a l T h a n k s To : A l l w h o h a ve s u p p o r t e d t h e s e e f f o r t s, s o m e a n o n y m o u s l y a n d o t h e r s i n c l u d i n g :
M a r i l y n a n d We n d e l A n d e r s o n , K e y s t o n e D i e s, I n c. ; K a r e n a n d T i m o t hy A d k i n s ; K el v i n A n d e r s o n ;
Au b r e y N y e, Au b r e y N y e Pe r s o n a l C o m m u n i c a t i o n ; L i n d a Tr o u t , W. D a l e C l a r k O m a h a P u b l i c
L i b r a r y ; M a r y a n d B i l l A p p l e g a t e ; M r s. M a r y H e l e n E h r e s m a n ; M r s. Joy R a ch oy a n d Fa m i l y ; D a v i d
a n d N a n c y E h r e s m a n a n d Fa m i l y ; D i a m o n d D i e C o m p a n y ; Je r r y ’s Wa t e r p r o o f i n g ; A n d r e a M c K i n l e y ;
L a d y C a r o l i n e ’s B r i t i s h Te a S h o p ; Ja ck N e p p e r a n d Fa m i l y ; D e s i g n P l a s t i c s C o m p a n y ; V i c t o r i a
H a g g e ; S t u d e n t s a n d A p p r e n t i c e s o f K BA S t u d i o s, LT D ; Fr a t e r n a l O r d e r o f E a g l e s, A e r i e # 3 8 .
T H A N K S A L S O T O : A L E X B O I C E L ; A F R I C A M O N D O P RO D U C T I O N S ; RO B E R T M . A B R A M S O N
DA L C RO Z E I N S T I T U T E ; J O E - PAU L W I L L I A M S - S A N C H E Z , T H E D E L S A R T E P RO J E C T;
R I C H A R D, M A R L E N E , A N D E R I C M A I T L A N D ; C L A R I N DA K A R P OV; T H E P R I N C E T O N
R E V I E W S TA F F A N D T E AC H E R S — E S P E C I A L LY K E N D R A ; A N D A L L T H E S P O N S O R S,
E D I T O R S, A N D C O N T R I BU T O R S L I S T E D H E R E I N.
I I I

THE CONCHITA JOHNSON-CORBINO-ST. JAMES
INSPIRING VISION AWARD
ESTABLISHED IN MEMORY OF CONCHITA JOHNSON-CORBINO-ST. JAMES, THIS
AWARD RECOGNIZES PERSONS WHO HAVE CONTRIBUTED IN SOME MEANINGFUL
WAY TOWARD RAISING THE LEVEL OF VISION AND INSPIRATION IN THE COMMUNITY.
CONCHITA JOHNSON-CORBINO-ST.JAMES WAS A HIGH SCHOOL AND COLLEGE
BASKETBALL CHAMPION FROM SIOUX CITY, IOWA AND OMAHA, NEBRASKA. SHE
WENT ON IN HER LIFE TO BECOME A PROMOTER OF VARIOUS CAUSES, PEOPLE AND
ACTIVITIES IN HER COMMUNITIES. SHE PROMOTED AFRICAN AMERICAN CULTURE,
AMERICAN CULTURE, FAMILY, FRIENDS, INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS, MUSIC,
FASHION, BEAUTY, CHILDREN, HARD WORK, DISCIPLINE, ART, AND, IN GENERAL, THE
SPECIAL POTENTIAL OF EVERY INDIVIDUAL SHE MET. SHE HAD AN INFECTIOUS
LAUGH, A SCREAM OF DELIGHT, AND AN UNPARALLELED GRACE AND APLOMB. SHE
WAS A 6’-4” WOMAN OF RARE BEAUTY WHO RELISHED ADORNMENT AND
UNIQUENESS. PERHAPS HER GREATEST CHARACTERISTIC WAS HER WILLINGNESS TO
BELIEVE IN THE EFFORTS OF THOSE AROUND HER. SHE COULD CREATE HER OWN
VISION OR PARTICIPATE IN THAT OF OTHERS; EITHER WAY, SHE NEVER STOPPED
WORKING. SHE NEVER SHIED AWAY FROM APPROACHING A PERSON OF FAME OR
ACCOMPLISHMENT. AS SHE MIGHT HAVE PUT IT, “THEY PUT THEIR PANTS ON ONE
LEG AT A TIME. I, HOWEVER, CAN ALSO WEAR A DRESS!” SHE GLORIED IN BEING A
WOMAN, LOVING CHILDREN, AND WORSHIPPING GOD.
We are now taking nominations for this award. Currently, it is a recognition-only award, with no financial
compensation. However, if you or someone you know would like to cosponsor the award, you can help
it become endowed with a financial award attached to it. An essay submission on the life and importance
of Conchita Johnson-Corbino-St. James and others of her quality is highly recommended for
consideration for this award.
I V

Table of Contents
Introduction:
Publisher’s Notes VIII
Editor’s Thoughts IX
C H A P T E R 1
The First Annual Creativity Symposium 2000
Elizabeth Eynon–Kokrda, J.D. 1
Aspiration, Failure, and Triumph:
The Heracles Motif in Classical Myth
And Modern Glass Art
Professor Charles J. Zabrowski, Ph.D. 3
Classical Inferences in the Art of
Leonard Baskin
Professor Katherine Thomas, Ph.D. 19
The Art of Politics: Play, Power, and Myth
Professor Kenneth Wise, Ph.D 26
Conflict and Art: The Importance of Conflict in Art, Education, and Life
Professor William Hutson, Ph.D. 36
The Provocation of Art
Professor Richard White, Ph.D. 40
C H A P T E R 2
Mary Helen Ehresman Creativity Symposium 2001 46
V

Rediscovering the Ancient Art and Science of Rhythmic Brain Integration
Adjunct Professor Kenton Bruce Anderson, M.A. 49
Ancient Greek Mousike and Modern Eurhythmics: The Educational Uses of Greek
Mousike According to Plato and Aristotle
Debriefing Theater Rehearsals: A Grounded Theory Study
Professors Suzanne Burgoyne, Ph.D., Karen Poulin, Ph.D., and Christopher R. Hodson, Ph.D.
79
Reflections on the Scream: The Art of Francis Bacon
Finding Resources for Educating Gifted, Challenged Children in an Unenlightened
Establishment
Mrs. Kathryn Dougherty-Sutherland, B.A. 100
C H A P T E R 3
Mary Helen Ehresman Creativity Symposium 2002 108
The Somatic Techniques of Dalcroze Eurhythmics
Adjunct-Professor Kenton Bruce Anderson, M.A. 111
Dalcroze Eurhythmics: Educating the Brain through Rhythm, Movement, and
Musicality.
Professor Robert M. Abramson, Ph.D. 116
Folktale Motifs in Herodotus: Historic Myths in Rhythmic Prose (Headless Thieves
and Handy Reminders, Peppered With a Dash of Voyeur-ism
The DEREPOP Idea: My Limitations and Obstacles Became My Educational
Testimony
Dr. D’Ann Jimmar, Ph.D. Emeritus 142
The Education of Love
Contributor Information 156
V I

Publisher’s Thoughts:
Professor Cataneo’s words in the frontispiece may be controversial,
but their importance cannot be underscored enough. They serve here as
the touchstone for an argument about who is responsible for the state of
education in the United States today. Not everyone will agree with
Professor Cataneo. Yet, in the true Socratic tradition, the greatest truth
might come from the debate his remarks can inspire.
Thus, Mrs. Sutherland writes in her article about the need for
teachers and parents to coordinate their efforts in the classroom, with the
individuality of each child being paramount. When I brought up these
ideas in a recent conversation, teacher Shirley Perkins, P.S. 98, New York
City--Inwood, mentioned that kids gravitate toward the stronger “beat” in
the classroom. That could be the rhythmic “beat” of the teacher; but for
highly disturbed, mainstreamed students, it may be that of their peers.
Mary Guthrie, teacher at Elysian Charter School of Hoboken, NJ, also
reminded me that disturbed or marginal students might be wonderful one-
on-one, but in the classroom engage in “tempo wars” vis-à-vis their
teacher or other students.
Finally, teacher Francine Weinstein, Columbus Magnet Elementary
School, New Rochelle, NY, pointed out that this rhythmic beat of the
teacher is an important controlling element in the classroom, but one that
students must become sensitized to. She suggested games such as one
in which students are told in a “gamelike” tone: “You have 10 counts to get
into a standing circle—without touching or bumping each other.” One
class of children required seven repetitions before they could achieve the
circle successfully. Boys found the game especially challenging.
(Professor Robert M. Abramson proposes that muscle development in
boys and girls is distinct, with young boys tending toward grabbing and
young girls tending toward releasing.)
This first Volume of the Journal thus introduces several research
themes of importance. In addition to Mrs. Sutherland’s parental
perspective, Professors Zabrowski and Thomas give a sense of the
ancient interconnectedness of education, the arts, musicality, and rhythm.
Professor White explores the many ways art provokes us, while Professor
Abramson and myself elaborate upon how that provocation originates in or
is instilled in us at every age. This development is not a peaceful one,
cautions Professor Hutson, as he explores the centrality of conflict in art
and education. Professor Burgoyne introduces the often overlooked topic
of ethics. With her DeRe-POP Idea, Dr. Jimmar emphasizes the
importance of proposing practical solutions for classroom problems.
Professor Kenneth Wise writes in this Journal about the importance
of myth and group vision. I encourage you to present Professor Cataneo’s
remarks (whether fact or myth) and the responses mentioned above to
your own groups of visionaries as a way of encouraging a new framework
V I I

for discussing an ever-present problem—motivating under-motivated
students.
Editor’s Notes:
This effort has been the dream of several people. Twenty years
ago, Professor Charles J. Zabrowski (now of Gettysburg College) whose
work is presented herein, first told me of his dream to establish a “school
under the trees” in the manner called for by the ancient Greeks. His
picture of the informal nature of optimal education stuck in my mind. Artist
Mrs. DeLoris Bedrosky, widely respected artist and founder of the “Omaha
School” of Midwestern art, imbued me with her love of all forms of art and
a sense of their importance in education. My aunt, Mrs. Mary Helen
Ehresman (sponsor herein), sensitized me to the belief that we can learn
something from every person we meet—no matter how different he or she
is from ourselves. My parents and family have been teachers for many
generations and have imbued me with the profound respect for education
as both a discipline and a calling.
Professor Robert M. Abramson is responsible for the title having an
integration message in it, since he has emphasized in my study with him
the training and exploring of both hemispheres of the brain. Modern
neurology also explores the ramifications of not just inter-hemispheric
coordination, but also multipart cooperation, in which each region of the
brain participates in every activity. Dr. D’Ann Jimmar and I spent a lovely
evening developing the acronym RIIBS which reflects her delightful
southern drawl.
This Journal is largely the published papers and presentations from
the first three annual Symposiums of the Research Institute for Integrated
Brain Studies (RIIBS). The journey of this Journal began in 2000 at the
W. Dale Clark Omaha Public Library through the cooperation of Mrs. Linda
Trout and the library staff. It was a grass-roots effort to integrate not only
findings on the brain, but also the voices of several strata of concerned
people—laity, professionals/practitioners, and research scholars. The
entries in this journal reflect the tenuous nature of those early
presentations. (The first year we offered to transcribe the talks for the
speakers—not realizing this would prove impractical.)
So, while this early Journal may show the stretch marks of its
laborious birth, I invite you to explore the important contributions of these
laypersons, professional practitioners, and scholars, each of whom shared
in the vision of bringing their findings to you, the final reader. All their
voices come together in the agenda-setting, issue exploring, and fact-
finding mission that we call the Journal of the Research Institute for
Integrated Brain Studies. Enjoy!
V I I I

Creativity Symposium
October 8, 2000
Elizabeth Eynon-Kokrda:
I am Elizabeth Eynon-Kokrda, a long,
complicated name, and I am primarily by day an
attorney. I work for Baird-Holm, McEachen,
Pedersen, Hamann & Strasheim here in
Omaha. I have to say that it's precisely Kenton's
creativity and abstract thinking that causes me to
be here today for this symposium on creativity.
It was just a few short months ago that I was walking through the
Old Market, just kind of wandering along and saw that Kenton had this
Chapter
1
A D J U N C T -
P R O F E
S S O R
E L I Z A
B E T H
E Y N O N
-
K O K R D
A ,
J . J . ,
E S Q .
Attorney, Baird-Holm,
McEachen,Pedersen,
HamannandStrasheim,
Omaha NE.
I X

sign outside his glassblowing studio that said, "Hot Glass Classes." As I
said, you might think my creativity is pretty limited, and for the last
couple years it has been. It's been limited to creativity in writing
contracts, creativity in legal research; and perhaps not what we
traditionally think of at least artistic. But I decided “what the heck, it's
time for me to get kind of out there and try and do some things.” Of
course, hot glass is beautiful and Kenton's work - which is upstairs and
which I would encourage anybody that hasn't gone and looked at it to go
see - is absolutely beautiful and stunning and so I thought, “why not
take a class?” I signed up with Kenton.
For those of you who know Kent, it's not as simple as signing up
for a class and sitting down and doing one's class. Which kind of gets to
the creativity and perhaps the right brained subject. I think that what I'm
here for is because Kent inspires us, as art does, to draw inward on
what's inside of ourselves to give an outward expression about what
we're feeling and put that into our art. So Kent drew upon me and,
sooner rather than later, we were talking about what I did for a living and
how that applied.
What was exciting was, I discovered that I had something to offer
to Kent as well as Kent had to offer me. Therefore - and what my
primary goal here today is – I want to talk a little bit about a Foundation
that Kent is putting up. He hopes to bring, through the structure of both
a scholarly and an educational facility, exploration of art to those whom
he terms, "the creatively disenfranchised." My secret fear is he thinks
I'm creatively disenfranchised. But notwithstanding that, I think it's a
forum to explore the various creative resources that we have within
ourselves. As an attorney, what I can bring to the effort is the various
legal considerations necessary to walk him through putting up a
foundation. So we found something that we can trade upon.
But it is Kenton's enthusiasm for projects and his ability to pull
people- such as yourselves and myself - together from different walks of
life into this forum for this symposium (and its resultant journal
publications which are planned to be an offshoot of the Foundation) that
make me pleased to be a part of this project and pleased to open this
particular event.
I would like to encourage you to speak directly with Kenton about
his Foundation, his plans, and how you can be involved. Those of you
who are familiar with sitting on boards and putting up something new
such as a Foundation know that seeking grants, seeking insight, looking
to what the Foundation can be, what it can bring to the public, who that
public is, and what those public needs are, takes more than one brain.
Everybody here has probably the creativity and at least the interest to
have some input to help us as we put together this Foundation.
That being said, and that being my role, I want to tell you who will
be here today. Today we will have speaking: first, Professor Charles
Zabrowski, who is Chairman of the Department of Classics at
X

Gettysburg College in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania; Dr. Kathryn Thomas,
Associate Professor of Classics at Creighton University; Dr. Richard
White, Associate Professor of Philosophy at Creighton; Dr. Kenneth
Wise, Associate Professor and Acting Chair of the Department of
Political Science at Creighton; and Dr. William Hutson, Associate
Professor, Department of Theatre at Creighton University.
Aspiration, Failure, and Triumph:
The Heracles Motif in Classical Myth
And Modern Glass Art
Professor Charles J. Zabrowski:
P R O F E S S O R
C H A R L
E S J .
Z A B R O
W S K I ,
P H . D .
Chairman, Department of
Classics, Gettysburg
College
X I

[Given the difficulty for Professor Zabrowski of transcribing his
Greek quotations into a standard document, JRIIBS agreed to accept
his papers in the following pdf format.]
X I I

KentonBruceAnderson:
I would like to now introduce to you Dr. Kathryn
Thomas, who is Associate Professor in the
Department of Classics at Creighton University.
And she will be speaking today on - I hope I've got
the title right - Inferences on the Art of Leonard
Baskin. Thank you.
InferencesontheArtofLeonardBaskin
By Dr. Kathryn Thomas [Thefollowing
transcribedpaperhasmanyunfinished
edits,duetotheprolongedillnessofthe
writer.]
Thank you, Kent. The title isn't quite right,
and that's my fault because I never e-mailed you
back. I'm rather right brained! (laughter) I'm still
suffering from the toxic fumes. But that's okay
because once I received this (holds up program) if I
had... I mean, I've been thinking about the paper
quite a bit, but then I changed it completely
because I said if this is part of a right-brain
creativity project then we need to be right brained.
And so I said what could be more right-brained than
to give a talk about an artist and not have slides!
(laughter) So, there are none.
I will have to talk a little bit about some
myths, so I hope you're not mythed out but I won't
talk much about (inaudible) at all. My other
justification for not having slides comes from Plato
P R O F E S S O R
K A T H R
Y N
T H O M A
S ,
P H . D .
Associate Professor,
Department of Classics
Creighton University
Omaha NE

who, of course, says that any kind of an artist is a...
you know, a forgery, you know, it's a copy of the
copy of the copy of the copy. And so a slide of a
bronze that is copy of something that was inspired
by a Greek bronze that was inspired by a Greek
myth. I mean, how much further can you get,
Richard, right? (laughter) Richard: The self is a
paled reflection of the raw truth. Dr. Thomas: And
I have a third excuse - everything's in threes, like
Cicero. My third excuse is that if you hear a paper
delivered about an artist with slides and you've
seen them all, you have no excuse to go to the
museum. (laughter) You have no excuse to go
upstairs and see the art that Kent has created for
us.
So, I will only tell you that much of what I'd
like to share with you has to do in two pieces in the
Joslyn Museum here in Omaha. Two pieces that I
find totally fascinating, but when I ask people, "Oh,
are you familiar with Leonard Baskin's work in the
Joslyn?" They say, "Who? What?" How many of
you know what I'm talking about? Kent might
because I clued you in. How many of you have
never been to the Joslyn? How many of you have
never been to the Joslyn Art Museum? You've all
been and yet you are not familiar with two of the
largest pieces in the museum? Well, you're not
familiar with his name. I think when I start talking
about them you might remember them but maybe
not. We shall see.
You can also go to Ann Arbor, Michigan, if
you're so inspired, to see one of Leonard Baskin's
more controversial pieces. You can go any of the
major museums in the United States and you will
find Leonard Baskin's art. It's just that outside the
centers of art criticism, I don't think the name is well
known. But I will tell you that thousands and
thousands and thousands and thousands and
thousands and thousands and thousands of people
since 1997 have seen Leonard Baskin's work. And I
imagine one or two of them might even know his
name. Because anybody who has been to
Washington, DC, to the Franklin Delano Roosevelt
monument - how many of you have been there? Oh

Kent, this is inexcusable that you don't know his
work. The funeral procession - the wonderful 30-
foot long funeral procession in front - that was done
by Leonard Baskin. So now you know who I'm
talking about. Okay, so I don't have any slides
because I'm tempting you to maybe just go and find
the art. So who is this man? I will warn you, part of
the point of saying that you've all seen his work but
don't know who he is... let me share with you a little
bit of a story that's a little bit of an aside. Leonard's
work - if I can call him by his first name, he's an
older man, I think he'd let me. Leonard's work is
disturbing. It's disturbing because he's fascinated
by Greek philosophy, art, history - but more the
darker, mysterious sides of the Greek world.
Similarly, another artist whom I have tried to
track down in the past - well, not physically,
because before I started trying to track him down
he was dead, so I'm not in that big of a hurry -
(laughter) is the Greek artist named [inaudible-
artist]. And Charlie may remember this. Our friend
and colleague, Father Roland (Rolly) Reichmuth, in
his later priestly life, became enamored with this
artist named [inaudible-artist], and even had a
correspondence only, mind you, a very close
relationship with the artist's widow. Well, [inaudible-
artist], similarly, is a rather disturbing artist but for
other reasons. He was a surrealist artist very active
in the 30's and 40's who also took much of his
inspiration from mythology. But his interpretation
was more sensual. And so it was sort of cute to
have this older Jesuit chasing after the art by this
sensual artist. But anyway, I tried to help Rolly out
and went in search of anything I could find by
[inaudible-artist] on one trip to Athens. And I went in
to the National Gallery of Art in Annapolis and I
knew I had seen three of [inaudible-artist]'s large
paintings in the museum. But I was in a hurry so I
asked at the front desk if they could tell me which
gallery the [inaudible-artist]'s were in. And they
said, "Oh, we don't have anything by [inaudible-
artist]." And I said, "I know you do because I've
seen them here." "No, no we don't. We do not have
[inaudible-artist]." So just out of this side of my eye,

I saw one of them - it was in the third gallery over,
yes, but I could see it. And I said, "Well, never
mind." I chased back there, got the information I
needed for Roland, headed back out of the
museum and lo and behold, right behind the head
of this woman who was telling me they don't have
any [inaudible-artist] was a poster for an exhibit that
they had for [inaudible-artist], which I then
purchased. Then I went to the bookstores, and the
best quote that I can share with you is, I finally
found a young man in a bookstore who admitted to
knowing who [inaudible-artist] was and he said,
"You know, he doesn't have much favor in Greece;
you're going to have to go to London if you want to
find anything." So it might not be easy for you to
track down Leonard Baskin. That much sort of by
way of introduction.
So who is this man? Well, he was born in
1922 - I'm going to get left-brained here, I'll be
really fast. Born in 1922, the son of Rabbi Samuel
Baskin and May Gus Baskin - I love that name, May
Gus Baskin. He worked in woodcuts, originally, a lot
of woodcuts. But then I think around 1970, I think,
was probably his most creative period - But I
certainly am not going to put down the piece at the
Roosevelt Monument. He moved into sculptures -
and I'll refer back to this in a minute - but his
sculpture work is done in what they call sandcast,
which is a very twentieth century way of doing
things. It's the way bronze is worked for industrial
purposes. Through this process it comes out very
rough and then he needs to polish it, but he can
choose what parts he wants to polish and what he
doesn't, because it has a very grainy surface when
it's first cast. And he also worked a lot and works in
watercolors. He was educated at New York
University, Yale and then also in Paris and
Florence. His academic life was spent teaching at
Smith College.
I might be able to embarrass Ken - not that
Kent, but Ken - one more time. When did you come
to Creighton? Answer: Just about the same time
you did. Dr. Thomas: I came in 1947 so think
again... (laughter) Answer: About 20 years later,

'67. Dr. Thomas: That's what I thought. You were a
little bit earlier than me, depending on which of my
reincarnations you want to talk about. There
actually was an exhibit of Leonard Baskin's work at
the Joslyn - primarily his woodcuts - in 1970, largely
organized by (inaudible), whom many of you know.
Those are the facts.
All right, we'll try to get it interesting, but I'm
going to have to start telling myth stories in a
minute here, I don't want to lose you. The two
works that are at the Joslyn are the ones I mainly
want to talk about - the myths behind them and the
pieces themselves. I became interested in his work
from those two pieces. And, in fact, when I was in
Washington, DC, the first time - I was there actually
on the week for Roosevelt, but I didn't go to see
Baskin. I had not realized that the artist was one
and the same; but as I studied the artist more and
more the image occurred to me that one could take
the funeral procession relief sculpture from the
Roosevelt monument and wrap it around a Grecian
urn and it would be perfectly at home, perfectly at
home. So both his style and his subject matter is
inspired. I have a couple quotes. John Whitney did
write a book about this artist; it's not easy to find
literature about him. But a rather wonderful book
called Angel to the Jews, it came out in '91. And he
says, "The link between Baskin's images is his
humanism. His sculptures of the human figure
depict the grace and mystery of woman..." Now,
abbreviating here, "...and pay homage to man, the
individual." We are fortunate to have one female
and one male sculpture in the Joslyn. Whitney
continues, "Although Baskin treats the frailties and
injustice of humankind, his caring for human beings
and human condition is ever present." I think that
fits nicely with Elizabeth's opening comments to the
"it's all about survival." Baskin himself has asserted,
"My sculptures are memorials to ordinary beings,
gigantic monuments to the unnoticed dead."
Gigantic monuments to the unnoticed dead. He
writes other things in that same vein but he
captures it all beautifully in that one quote.

As far as style goes, the human figure, both
in his two-dimensional and in his three-dimensional
work, is monumental and (inaudible). It's very
classical. Drapery is secondary to the human form.
And he indicates the importance of individual parts
by size and isolation. For example, I'll talk a little bit
later about his birds, but many of his birds have
extremely exaggerated talons. The claws are as big
as the bird. Or a piece which is similar to one that
we have in the Joslyn - I wish we had this one.
There isn't anybody from the Joslyn around here
today, is there? I was hoping. He has wonderful
(inaudible) with all this (inaudible) which has this
one eye just peering out at you. And it just captures
everything, just that one eye. You'll have to seek
that one out, too, on your Baskin search.
So what are the myths I want to talk about?
What are the myths that are connected to the two
Joslyn pieces? Well, Baskin was influenced by
tragedy, more than (inaudible). And you know,
there has yet to be written a child's garden of Greek
tragedy. It's not exactly children's material, so
when I saw some of the children walking in the
(inaudible).
Let me talk first about Phaedra. And by the
way, this is a Halloween topic, this is an October
talk, the timing is perfect. Phaedra, P-H-A-E-D-R-
A, also you hear her called Phedra. Her name
actually means "the shiny one." The mountains that
overlook Delphi the oracle, the most famous oracle
(inaudible) Phaedriatic city is "the shiny ones" and
Phaedra is the shiny one. But she and her family,
by the ways that we usually think of things, was not
shiny. Let's go back a generation. There was a
woman named Pasiphae. It means "shiny to all."
(inaudible)
Pasiphae was the daughter of the sun god,
Helius and a nymph named Crete. So naturally as
daughter of the sun, she would have to be shiny.
Pasiphae married good old king Minos and the two
of them had two daughters, Ariadne and Phaedra,
and several other children that we don't have to
worry about. But to fully understand the daughters,
we have to know more about the mother. Pasiphae

got sort of tired of Minos - you know this happens in
marriages sometimes. And she fell in love with
great, big, white bull, B-U-L-L. Bull. And there just
happened to be on the site, a wonderful artist,
Daedalus. Curiously enough, Daedalus is the man
that's credited in ancient times with the invention of
sculpture, probably came up with the (inaudible)
method of bronze sculpting, bronze casting. And
also was credited with the earliest of the stone
sculptures. I think there's a connection here with
Baskin, probably, because Baskin clearly was
fascinated with this myth.
Anyway, Daedalus said, "Well, you know, if
you really want to get it on with this bull, I could
fashion a nice wooden cow and you could just get
inside the cow and the bull would probably fall for it
because art is larger than life and the bull would be
fooled and so this happened. And, of course, this is
how the Minotaur was born - the half-bull, half-man
thing.
I only tell you that part of the story because
this is the mother of this Phaedra and the mother of
Ariadne. And there seems to be a theme in this
family of women having sort of strange desires. So
Ariadne, briefly - you probably know that story -
Theseus whom Charlie mentioned briefly, Prince of
Athens and his family is full of all sorts of difficulties
- these two women are part of it. But anyway, he
thought that he could help his city by going off and
killing this Minotaur because the people of Crete -
where this family of strange women lived - were
holding Athens in hostage and requiring that the
Athenians send their best young men and women
on an annual basis to feed to this half-man, half-bull
Minotaur. And actually it was quite successful but
only because Ariadne betrayed her father and her
kingdom and helped him get into the labyrinth
which Daedalus had also created to house this
creature. And then helped him get out of there as
the typical daughter-betrays-her-father-and-
kingdom story. Theseus is sailing back to Athens
with Ariadne. And the next time you're cruising in
the Greek Islands, be sure you go to (inaudible) -
it's one of the most beautiful of the satellite islands.

But when Theseus got that far he decided he really
wasn't too crazy about Ariadne - I don't know why, it
was probably because she had (inaudible) or
something. And he just dumped her.
Now, the reason I wanted to tell the story of
Ariadne is that she was dumped by Theseus but,
guess what? She was picked up by the god
Dionysus, the god who releases us from all our
worries and trials and troubles with the gift of lying
and wine and also with the gift of tragedy, which
cleanses us from all those emotions which get
backed up in us that we really can't stand. So
there's a happy ending in this family of difficulties.
So what happens with Phaedra? Well, leave
it to Theseus. Later on - and he's got a long story
that I'm not going to tell you - but at a certain point
he decides to go back and marry Phaedra. If I were
she, I would have said, "After what you did to my
sister?" Anyway. So Phaedra and Theseus get
married. Now there are some problems, and one
big problem is a young man named Hippolytus,
Theseus' legitimate son - or illegitimate, actually -
but still the son who was there first. And so
Theseus decides to send this son, Hippolytus, off to
Troezen where he can inherit the kingdom by some
interesting negotiations that Theseus pulled off. But
Phaedra, meanwhile, has fallen in love with her
stepson, Hippolytus. And so she does everything
both in Troezen - she thinks up a reason why she
has to go visit there - and Athens and everything to
try to get this young boy to have sex with her.
That's why I said I don't want (inaudible).
And ultimately... and he refuses because he
actually, his mother was a firm follower of Artemis,
an Amazon. So he refuses but then Phaedra finally
screams and yells and hangs herself after leaving a
death notice that she has committed suicide
because Hippolytus has violated her. And then
Theseus curses his son. He has three wishes from
Poseidon that he can fulfill. There is a big bull that
comes in from the sea and attacks the chariot that
Hippolytus is fleeing in and he is killed.
Now, I said there was a Halloween
connection. The Halloween connection is this: this

is one of about 80 Greek myths, all of which reflect
the belief in ancient Greece that in order to keep
agriculture going, in order to keep humankind
going, even, the king must die. They must sacrifice
the king in order for the female regenerative powers
to continue. Now the anthropologists say that over
time this got to be rather nasty for a lot of kings,
after all. And so then you have surrogate kings. But
there was a nice, clean murder of - or assassination
of - king on an annual basis. It is the same theme
that is in a movie that at least one of the cable
channels picks up every year about this time, called
Harvest Home. Having said that, I've heard
some, "Um-hmm's." If you know the movie - I'm not
going to tell you the movie, I'm going to make you
search out the movie, too. I think you can get it from
most of the video places - if you know the movie
you can then understand why there's also a
connection with Oedipus. And if you know Oedipus
- let me just finish my sentence about Phaedra. If
you could borrow it from the Joslyn, it would be
perfect in your Halloween entry. .
Now, Oedipus. Everybody knows the story of
Oedipus blinding himself. That's not the Oedipus
that Baskin related to. He tends to choose the
lesser known myths, like the story of Phaedra, or
lesser-known parts of major myths, as with
Oedipus. He has one monumental Oedipus in exile
and the one that's at the Joslyn is Oedipus at
(inaudible).
After Oedipus blinded himself he went into
exile. He had committed himself for that. But
ultimately he doesn't die. He ends up with his
daughter, Antigone in a suburb of Athens called
Colonus, which curiously enough - this is
Sophocles' version of the myth - that was
Sophocles' hometown. And Sophocles wrote this
play when he was in his 90's. This is his last play
and he is giving a tribute to his hometown, which I
think is pretty special. According to this, Oedipus
actually becomes, he refuses to go back to Thebes
and he becomes a patron hero of Athens. And
we're told that he just goes into a sacred room and
disappears into a crevice. So he doesn't die. He is

heroized. He rises from what is probably one of the
worst tragic stories in Greek mythology to become
a hero. And I'm going to just close with a challenge
to you to stretch the right sides of your brains. The
play that is more frequently read and studied and
performed is the Oedipus the king, (inaudible) and it
ends with the chorus saying, "Call no one... call no
man blessed until he is dead." That’s a common
theme. Herodotus has one of the rich Asian kings
cite that to (inaudible), one of the seven wise men
(inaudible) king of Athens.
It is, I think, almost invariably assumed that
those lines refer to Oedipus. I have never thought
so. Because to me Oedipus is the most blessed
man at the end of that play and he continues to be
because he is the only one who really knows who
he is. I think it referred, rather, to his brother-in-law,
Creon, who appears to be on top of things, who
appears to be blessed and happy at the time
because he has just become king. But he will live to
see his wife, his son, his son's betrothed, all die
around him and the kingdom collapse.
.
So if we are talking about new beginnings
and rising from ashes or rising from nothing, I think
that the two works by Baskin at the Joslyn gives
you a good starting place. Thank you.
Kenton Anderson:
Our next speaker today is Dr. Kenneth Wise,
and he is speaking on the Art of Politics, Power,
Play and Myth. By the way, Dr. Wise is the acting
chairman of the Department of Political Science at
Creighton University and associate professor at
Creighton University.

The Art of Politics: Play,
Power, and Myth
By Dr. Kenneth Wise
Kent called a while back and said, "I've
never forgotten the final exam you made me take in
U.S. Foreign Policy." This is his revenge. (laughter)
Professor Zabrowski was asked to speak, Dr.
Thomas to discuss, Dr. White to touch upon, and I,
I get to address! (laughter)
Let me tell you what I'm not going to talk
about. You saw "Politics" on the program and you
all got scared, you got freaked out. Well, I'm not
going to talk about funding of the National
Foundation for the Arts and the Humanities.
(laughter)
Audience member: What funding?
(laughter)
Dr. Wise: The issue! I'm not going to talk about the
quadrennial political circus in which the United
States now finds itself engaged -- or at least the
candidates. And I'm not going to talk about how
nasty, mean, cruel, brutish -- and sometimes short
-- all politicians are, except our own, of course.
(laughter)
What I am going to talk about is the art of
politics. What you and I do and what leaders do and
what we do to each other, especially certain ideas
that I find important when we think about politics as
it is and as we might think it ought to be. In
particular, I want to talk about play, power, and
myth -- about our need for playful myths to assure
that we use power productively, use power to
P R O F E S S O R
K E N N E
T H
W I S E ,
P H . D .
ActingChairman,
Department of Political
Science
Omaha NE

survive the crashing of fractured myths of glass
around us. I was especially taken with Kent's
“Morning of the Doves” (in the exhibit upstairs)
rising from the chaos. This work of his might serve
as our image for my goals here. Forgive me, if need
be, for all my illustrations will come from the realm
of global politics; that's where I live.
Play is essential to the work of politics. Play
is our imaginative capacity to create something that
has never been; it is where we form our images of
the possible. We move these images from inside
ourselves to the outside, to share with a hearer.
We open a dialogue by making a public
representation of our tentative idea. This dialogue
can produce surprises much like the happy
accidents Kent Anderson no doubt has when he
manipulates the molecules of silicon in the material
realm. In one way of looking at our political action,
we are engaged in a craft – a very serious
business, rationally matching ends and means.
However, in another way, probably more real way,
we usually are artists at play, discovering our goals
during this dialogue while navigating by our values
in a sea of experience.
Our fellow players in politics, the actors, are
persons and groups. They play the game by the
rules or else they pay penalties. They make
choices, that is, they gamble on the future. Some
players are leaders; they perform, subject to our
judgments. However, the people always rule, not
because of democracy in form but because of their
ability to withhold cooperation in the game.
Play connotes discipline and skill as well as
fun, moving with alacrity, sometimes having wiles.
One crucial skill, one nearly impossible to teach --
and I have tried for 30-some years to do so -- is
timing. Timing is being able to spot that place in the
run of sand where one will have the greatest
opportunity to affect what comes after. Where that
point is depends on the cost of a particular choice.
That is where you and I always affect politics. We
are part of the cost and we can raise or lower the
costs of the options from which leaders choose.
That is where our image of the future contributes to

the actual future: when we act to cooperate or to
refuse.
Play sometimes is the finding of relationships
outside of the rules, using one’s senses to find a
new fit among various parts of social life. Then
together we can design and implement new rules.
Of course, this is not a free for all. We learn to
work within the constraints of the material world,
aware that not every question or problem has a
single right answer.
Others’ images of the future become part of
the reality too. We do not construct reality alone. If
our appetite for diversity is keen, we can shift goals
to exploit the unexpected. The joy of this journey is
in finding how to say some of the much we
understand but do not know how to say. He who
bottles up this playfulness, in the name of “the
practical,” suffers, and the rest of us lose too. The
“practical one” sacrifices the poetry of the soul for
the misery of certainty.
In this journey we “fit” means to ends, rules
to goals. All politics is ultimately about ends –
futures – and not about means, despite much of our
dialogue’s seeming to be about means. Without
ends we have no gauge of our power, our means.
Power is a core idea in the study of politics.
Power, for me, is ability to achieve goals, ability to
influence. It is only ever means, in service to ends.
Power as “an end in itself” is a logical impossibility.
Without goals, we cannot achieve. Yet, without
power, we cannot play. This is where many say
they are “powerless.” To overcome this untruth we
need to understand that everyone alive has at
minimum a goal of staying alive; thus everyone
alive obviously has and is exercising power – to
stay alive. This linking of goal and power is critical
to our having a healthy, playful approach to politics.
Those who absolutize power –confusing means for
ends -- lose touch with life’s game quality and inject
the negative. Given the technological realities of
our day, negative politics can spark a conflagration
that wipes out stage, players, and, certainly, joy.
In dichotomizing “play” and “practical,”
positive politics and negative politics, I am

illustrating that we have important differences in
perspective between us. The existence of these
differences, in fact, is the reason we have politics.
Some of us look at the world and respond to it in a
fashion political scientists call “realism.” This is not
quite what philosophers mean by “realism,” I should
note. What political scientists call “realist” I dub
contentionist, to avoid the connotation that “realism”
might be more “realistic” than the opposite
perspective. Power to the realist or the
contentionist is the capacity to impose a future. Yet
coercion does not begin to exhaust the inventory of
power for the other perspective. Those of us who
are not “realist” the political scientist calls “idealist”
or “liberal”; I dub us harmonists. Harmonists see
power as persons working together to achieve
goals; power uses the tactic of cooperation, not
coercion. Stereotypically, we in our culture
sometimes identify these perspectives -- the realist
and the idealist – as contentionist-male and
harmonist-female versions of power; in actual
distribution they do not fall together this way.
Because these differing perspectives of
contention and harmony have important impact in
political life, we need to ask: “What happens when
we lose our sense of play in politics, especially in
using power?” When not playful, a realist tends to
think of cooperation as something that is outside of
politics. Or, if the realist admits that cooperation
occurs, it is only a product of coercion, someone’s
use of or threat of force. Thus the realist tends to
act in ways that prevent us from reaching
agreements that will last. Idealists, when they are
not playful, tend to overlook interests that are
compatible but not identical. So they miss chances
to reach agreements by trading interests, by
matching complementary interests.
Power of the group is most important in
politics. A group that has power is a group that has
enough agreement within it on what it wants to
accomplish that it can choose reasonably what to
do to accomplish it. Power is the means for
pursuing ends that we agree upon in our collective
life. In the United States, in our political culture, we

say that our highest ends are “life, liberty and the
pursuit of happiness.” We want maximum
enjoyment of these ends at minimum cost. We seek
this through politics – selecting goals, refining the
rules, and exercising power.
The challenge for leaders in politics is to
attract and keep members in a group. They do this
by rendering service and offering incentives to meet
persons’ needs and wants but on the condition that
these persons become or remain members of that
group. Leaders seal allegiance and loyalty by
giving persons an identity.
The leader’s art in politics--the product of the
playful mind, whether realist or idealist--is to use
myths to get realists and idealists to work together.
Since, as our contrasting perspectives of contention
and harmony show, we do not live in the same
worlds, politicians strive to create a virtual world for
us. They indite myths, they reinvent myths, and
sometimes they destroy myths. They turn to right-
brain thinkers to help them do this! (laughter) That's
the vision thing! (laughter) Without it, no politician
succeeds.
Myths spell out for us our identity. They
generally serve as our history, telling us where we
came from. Often they lay down for us a pallet for
our future by denoting our shared purpose and
reminding us of our need to act together. Myths
evoke shared emotions; they arouse our idealism or
our fears. Myths, as I continually remind
undergraduates, are not necessarily untruths.
Instead, they may speak from such deep truths--
even sacred truths--that they enable us to hold in
one hand conflicting facts without noticing that they
conflict. That is their secret political power.
In a negotiating situation, one who knows the
other’s myths has insight into the interests of that
group that lay behind the group's public
pronouncements. Such knowledge facilitates one’s
changing the ground of the discussion by moving it
away from the immediate disagreement to a place
closer to principles on which both parties might
agree. Thus myths have a reality that one tries to

cash in on when negotiating to end conflict or
prevent conflict.
Crafting myth is an art form that combines
word, image, emotions, symbols -- like Kent's work.
The myth has to evoke trust, especially -- though it
sometimes pains me to say this -- trust in authority.
It requires getting members of a group to ask the
questions the leader wants them to ask so that the
leader's answers become the ones the leader
wants widely known. It requires getting members of
the group not to ask the “other questions,” the ones
that leaders do not want to answer.
Working their magic, then, myths can
prevent revolutions or they can foment them.
Myths can improve the decisions we make as
groups or they can set us blindly onto roads of self-
destruction. That is, myths combined with play can
help us work together productively. Without the
sense of play, they lead us astray.
Here are some illustrations. Students
continually ask me, "Give us illustrations." And I
say, "But I've given you the abstract. What more do
you need?" Right, Kent? (laughter) I have laid out
some theory; let's try some illustrations. Let's look
at what happens when we put these components of
politics together: when they combine well and
when they do not combine well. Usually I start with
a “don't combine well” side of the illustration. I want
to unpack the notion of history first, then some of
our Cold War experiences, then the Balkans
situation --oh, no... I'll try to be short. (laughter).
Finally, I’ll look at challenges of the future. No, I'm
not running for office.
"History shows..." seems a convincing way to
open or cinch an argument. Any student who starts
a sentence in my class with "History shows..." gets
shot down before word three! What does history
show that is not a product of the historian? Nothing!
Thus, history cannot be more than what one
historian has seen because of the questions that
the historian asked. If one accepts majority rule,
then one might accept as “the facts of history” what
the majority of historians agree is history. But is the
majority always right? What about the vital personal

insight that we might lose in an homogenized work
done by a committee of historians. Or, worse,
history written or approved by bureaucrats or other
self-appointed monitors of what is good for us.
History shows what? Does it show constant
warfare? That the strong survive and the weak
perish? That to avoid a war we should prepare to
fight it? That one should always negotiate only from
a position of strength? That we should always
support our allies and our troops, no matter what?
How often have we heard this? Indeed, historians
often depict human beings as in endless series of
battles, wars, and upheavals. Given the
technological realities of our era, our ultimate
collective end could soon come with either a bang
of Wagnerian immolation or a suffocating whimper
of environmental collapse.
Not all historians focus on violence as the
human constant. Some see over time greater unity
in larger and larger groups. Or the unfolding of tides
of religious thought and faith. Or evolving
technology that breaks down barriers of
communication. Or the universal recognition of
human rights: civil, political, social, economic,
cultural, even the human right to peace and a
healthy environment and having a say in one’s
future.
Thus, the wall between the present and the
solution of difficulties of our era is not necessarily
lack of data, lack of facts, American tastes
notwithstanding. It may be that we are not asking
the right questions, the ones that will help us
escape from the present.
History is. Only questions open the door for
choice and for a different future.
We can apply this approach to history to
analyzing contemporary events and thereby
produce what I call the soap opera dimension of
myths and politics. Political leaders sometimes
manage relations the way scriptwriters in Hollywood
put together soap operas for us on television.
These soapie’s actors, like our leaders, try to draw
us into their lives and loves by all manner of
stratagems. They cry, they worry, they emote, they

argue. They make ignoring them difficult. They may
distract us from other tasks or, more importantly,
from our own worries. They try to control the
parameters of our worry.
Compare a soap episode to the cold war. If
one can focus on whether Marcia still loves John
after Matilda's surgery is botched by a power
outage caused by Kevin's sports car hitting a power
pole outside Bruce's house while John is inside with
Bruce's wife, consoling her for Bruce’s having
bailed Marcia out of jail for having attacked Matilda
for running around with Bruce after Kevin had left
her… our anxieties over a family budget might be
lower. (laughter) During the Cold War, if leaders
could heighten the public's tension and worry over
whether the world was about to explode itself to
kingdom come, followers would be less critical of
the price of healthcare, energy, and food. Of
course, the explosion would have ended the soap
opera, but the actors tried to keep the tension high
enough that we viewers would tune in tomorrow to
learn whether the next missile in the inventory
would mate with or divorce from the strategic triad
to continue the global love affair of nuclear war
preparation.
One of the more interesting things that
occurred involving this notion of play and changing
a myth in our Cold War era was the Kennedy
experiment. Most of us in this room, with a few
exceptions, lived through the Cuban missile crisis in
1961. I am not sure how many of us have thought
about what happened in the subsequent year or so.
Quiet negotiations began between the two who
could not be caught talking to each other: the
United States and the Soviet Union. Their talks
produced the partial test ban treaty. The Kennedy
administration systematically, playfully, set out to
crack the Cold War mold in our brains sufficiently
that the United States could sign publicly such an
agreement. Members of the administration,
following a careful score, flew hither and yon over
the country giving speeches that sounded
discordant if one listened to all of them. Officials
contradicted each other, without acknowledging

doing so. This introduced cognitive dissonance into
our hearing and our brains. The administration
gained maneuvering room, the wiggle space to
arrive at an agreement that would begin to
undermine myths such as, "You can't trust the
Russians." That was a long time ago, 1963. The
erosion took a bit of time, but it succeeded.
Let me give you a peek inside where I have
spent a very long time. I have taught for more than
30 years at the Strategic Air Command -- or today,
STRATCOM -- and I want to take you there to
witness another example of how we can change a
myth.
During the October war of '73 in the Middle
East, the Joint Strategic Target Planning Staff went
on special alert status, as did nearly all the military
sites of our government. Because the unplayful cold
war myths molded the targeting staff's thinking, the
staff spent its time during the alert -- responding to
the president's request to be ready -- re-examining,
one by one, with great care, all the targets in the
Soviet Union, the People's Republic of China,
Cuba, and Eastern Europe. (laughter) You got it,
didn't you? They made no official attempt, nor did
any other part of Strategic Air Command, to
investigate potential targets in the Middle East
where the problem was. The Middle East was
outside SAC jurisdiction. SAC merely assured itself
that it was ready to fight its prescribed war: all-out
insensate thermonuclear suicide. So much for a
playful use of power or a willingness to challenge
existing myths.
By contrast, when the United States was
weighing whether to take on the second of the three
menaces that the 1990 National Strategy Review
predicted the United States would face – North
Korea (we had already taken on the first, Iraq; and
Iran lay in the future) – StratCom Commander
Butler told me the following one evening: “Today I
put on the President’s desk options for nuclear
release that we are prepared to undertake against
North Korea. I recommended that he exercise
none of them.” Here was an intelligent officer who
had reexamined the world (he visited the USSR in

30 years at the Strategic Air Command -- or today,
STRATCOM -- and I want to take you there to
witness another example of how we can change a
myth.
During the October war of '73 in the Middle
East, the Joint Strategic Target Planning Staff went
on special alert status, as did nearly all the military
sites of our government. Because the unplayful cold
war myths molded the targeting staff's thinking, the
staff spent its time during the alert -- responding to
the president's request to be ready -- re-examining,
one by one, with great care, all the targets in the
Soviet Union, the People's Republic of China,
Cuba, and Eastern Europe. (laughter) You got it,
didn't you? They made no official attempt, nor did
any other part of Strategic Air Command, to
investigate potential targets in the Middle East
where the problem was. The Middle East was
outside SAC jurisdiction. SAC merely assured itself
that it was ready to fight its prescribed war: all-out
insensate thermonuclear suicide. So much for a
playful use of power or a willingness to challenge
existing myths.
By contrast, when the United States was
weighing whether to take on the second of the three
menaces that the 1990 National Strategy Review
predicted the United States would face – North
Korea (we had already taken on the first, Iraq; and
Iran lay in the future) – StratCom Commander
Butler told me the following one evening: “Today I
put on the President’s desk options for nuclear
release that we are prepared to undertake against
North Korea. I recommended that he exercise
none of them.” Here was an intelligent officer who
had reexamined the world (he visited the USSR in
1987), redesigned the Command, and was trying to
help form new controlling myths.
Our next example is China: From the “Red
Menace” to the “China Card” to “constructive
engagement.” China and the United States
carefully worked out behind the scenes a series of
steps, starting in the Kennedy Administration,
leading to Ping Pong diplomacy and then President
Nixon’s visit, and, under President Carter, to normal

relations. Many called this “playing the China card”
(against the USSR). Now that the USSR is gone
and with it any credible threat from the Russian
Federation, those who cannot seem to figure out
the running of politics without having an enemy
want to create a new myth. Theirs is, in my
judgment, far removed from reality. They want
China as the “new enemy.” By contrast, play and
power suggest that U.S. interests call for a myth of
China as a “strategic partner.”
In the Balkans situation unplayful myths and
hard realities led to uses of power by otherwise
powerful governments and to the worst fighting in
Europe since World War II. Taking note of the
myths leading to this destruction cautions us
against unwisdom many places on Earth.
Myth: that this fighting in the Balkans was a
“religious war” or “civil war” or an “ethnic war.” Yes,
the words of those doing the fighting could lead one
to believe these “explanations.” However, the
distance of these not so true myths from reality was
substantial. While these groups fought amongst
themselves during World War II -- often cited as
evidence of these myths – invaders provoke it.
Borders of newly declared states in 1991 in the
Balkans were not “artificial,” as many supposed.
Rather (with only minor alterations) they were less
in scale than changes across Europe over the
centuries. These were entities that had existed for
centuries off and on: legally, politically, and
culturally.
Myth: The Balkans conflict arose because of
the collapse of the USSR. Reality is that it began
during the personal physical decline of Tito, the
leader of post World War II Yugoslavia. That was
in the late 1970s, well before the USSR’s collapse.
Milosevic began maneuvering politically in 1980 to
replace Tito. Seeing in Tito’s weakness and
Milosovic’s growing strength an opportunity and a
defensive need, Izetbegovic in Bosnia and Tudjman
in Croatia sought positions of rule for themselves.
All three leaders hired academicians and other
myth makers to stir up their populations. All three
used historical cries of “ancient wrongs” and of

“ethnic uniqueness” as bases for their claims to the
right to rule.
What really happened to bring on that fight?
Answer number one: policies of megalomaniac,
ruthless, stupid, demagogic leaders seeking bases
(a way) to legitimize their rule. They created
bleating, competing, nationalist myths--cultural
constructions serving their governments whose
jurisdictional claims overlap. Answer number two:
the myth of the homogenous state, that is, of the
single-nation-per-state, emerged in 1648 at the
Treaty of Westphalia. The U.S. experience
reinforced this myth by saying that we have here in
the States the strongest possible political
community because we have a single nation
attached to a single state. In the twentieth century
the U.S. example fruited as the myth of self-
determination, the claim that every group should be
its own state. Since geographically this was not
possible in the Balkans -- each new state
dominated by a single ethnic group left its new
minorities feeling at risk -- each minority then
sought a state of its own. The overlapping of the
groups made actualizing this myth impossible.
Added to this harsh reality was a political culture
practice of “winner take all.” This reinforced each
majority’s lording it over its minorities who, then,
believed that they stood no chance of having
political influence.
Other realities at the time kept outsiders from
helping form playful myths to overcome these
scourges. First, the European Union was striving to
adjust its integrating project to accommodate the
collapse of the USSR. Second, the newborn
Organization for Security and Cooperation in
Europe was not up yet to operating as a viable
multilateral organization. OECD leader Hans van
der Brooke campaigned almost literally around the
clock on the eve of the war to get the OSCE to
maneuver the competing leaders into cooperating.
However, he failed. I met him at the end of a 36-
hour stint to hear firsthand how fragile was the
OSCE. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization was
consumed with trying to absorb the former Warsaw

Pact countries which had not been integral parts of
the USSR and to set up institutions of cooperation
with the newly independent parts of the former
USSR. In the United States, 1992, candidates for
president, robbed of the Cold War myths,
vigorously proclaimed, “I’m less interested in
foreign policy than my opponent.” Thus, while the
collapse of the USSR does not explain the outbreak
of fighting in the Balkans, it does help explain the
international community’s impotence in coping with
it.
Yet a playful post Cold War myth, which
began during our war with Iraq, got its second trial
during the fighting in the Balkans. It is a myth to
which we should give some serious attention. It
was not then fully in place, and it is not now fully in
place. I call it the “Four C's Myth.” This myth has
global utility, but I will apply it here in the Balkans.
“C” number one, the top of the hierarchy governing
our action in anything below, is "cooperation" of the
United States with functional multilateral
organizations such as NATO and with leading
regional powers. In the case of the Balkans, the
latter would be the European Union and Russia.
Thinking globally, my question is whether a
“community of the north” cooperation (which I
proposed to NATO in 1991 and might prevent
future Balkans-like events) will eventually include
China. Second “C”: That done, we move on to
"containing" whatever fighting might be going on --
as in the Balkans or Iraq or Israel and its neighbors
-- to keep it from spinning out of control. This spiral
most certainly was in prospect in Iraq (1991) and
the Balkans given the alliances that were piling up
on the various sides. That done, the third “C” is
"constraint": having something to say about and
doing something to keep the nature of the fighting
under control, to reduce the harm to persons,
institutions, and infrastructure. The fourth “C”
comes either when the fighting is over or, if
possible, before it can occur: “conciliation." This is
bringing order to political communities through
routine use of multilateral institutions operating
under international law. In the Balkans this has

meant long term policing and institution building
through the United Nations, the Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development, the
OSCE, and U.S. peacekeeping.
For our future, where do we go? We need a
playful new myth. However, we have a problem.
The Presidential Campaign of the World 2000 had
its first face-to-face debate of the major factions'
candidates. In that debate, the parties spent 7 of 90
minutes on foreign affairs. And that on only one
question: whether to coerce Yugoslavia’s leader to
accept an election. We have not come far from the
1992 election campaign in which each candidate
sought to convince voters he had "less interest in
foreign affairs than my opponent." Here we are,
citizens of the United States, electing the president
of the world, but so sorely divided that we have lost
our sense of play.
We need a view able to take a leap
comparable to that that our ancestors took back in
the 17th
century (creating states) and in the 18th
century (creating nation states). We are still in love
with the nation state -- supposedly for protection.
Despite the nation-states’ having developed the
ability to kill us all, we keep them, supposedly for
the common achievement that we can't achieve in
any other way. The myth of state sovereignty
disserves our security. States, individually or
collectively, no longer are capable of making and
pursuing decisions about economy, human rights,
or our global environment. States simply cannot do
that effectively, though they continue to try!
The leap we need is to new images, new
symbols, and new myths – a different future. Life
on the Internet is preparing us to see ourselves as
a single, globe-wide political community. This does
not require institutions of one world government
that demigods in the United States profess to fear.
We can see, if we look for it, that the planet already
governs itself. One may argue, "Not very well!" But
how are we going to improve it if we do not study
this governance? I think the globe does rather a
good job. In some ways, I think the planet does
better than do most individual states.

We need a new myth to help us see. This
then will help us think very differently about
government and to ask important questions. It will
help us use our power more effectively, maybe
building our legitimacy here in the United States, as
the globe's leader. For example, we will have to
confront the hypocrisy that lets us be outraged at
the possibility that agents sympathizing with China
might have contributed to political campaigns in the
United States. While at the same time, the
government of the United States funds the
overthrow or attempted overthrow of governments
around the world, funded the opposition that won
against Milosevic in Yugoslavia, paid the top
military salaries and the nuclear science payroll of
Russia. Why not permit foreigners to contribute to
our election expense, on the condition that the
contribution activity is transparent? After all, our
president affects everyone. This is the world we
live in now. We need a myth that makes sense of it
for us.
Maybe the Four “Cs” applied globally will
work as that myth and help us regain our sense of
play. We have to decide. We are in position to
decide which future we want, to build the myth that
makes the world make sense – to the global polity
as well as ourselves. Do we want a future in which
we lead the world skillfully, manage it humanely,
and develop it so that it has institutions of
conciliation at a local level throughout the planet?
Or, do we want a world in which we turn leadership
and management over to global institutions which
we have carefully constructed and nurtured? Do we
want to wreak havoc with existing norms of
cooperation and constraint by acting unilaterally?
Or, do we want out of the global job entirely? Do we
want to turn it over to another country, have the
planet led by another country and all of us start to
learn to speak and read Chinese (since that is the
likely replacement)? Or, we have a fourth option:
simply continue to do what we're doing, that is,
ignore our responsibility and condemn our offspring
to lifetimes of war and tragedy.

I hope we will accept the spirit of play in
politics, will get involved, will learn the rules, and
will use the power wisely.
Kenton Anderson:
Thank you Dr. Wise, Dr. Kenneth Wise of
Creighton University. Our final speaker this evening
is Dr. William Hutson, and he is an Associate
Professor in the Creighton Theatre Department. He
is here to talk upon the topic of Art and Conflict,
The Importance of Conflict in Art, Education and...
something else! There's always three, I forget the
last one.
Dr. Hutson: Life.
Kenton Anderson: Life!
Conflict and Art: The
Importance of Conflict in
Art, Education, and Life
Dr. William Hutson
Thank you, Kent. Kent asked me to talk
about conflict and art, conflict in art. He also added
a subtitle there: Conflict in Education - which I know
nothing about, teaching at Creighton University.
(laughter) And Conflict in Life, which I seem to
know a lot about.
Our society today seems to think it's a good
idea not to have conflict. We seek a society without
conflict, and we're constantly bombarded with
advertisements and all sorts of media saying if you
buy this, if you try this, you will not have conflict,
you will not have any hassles, you will not have any
kind of problems at all in your life. So this seems to
be the ideal. We want what is known as the good
life, especially here in Nebraska. And by conflict I
mean troubles of any kind. But I want you to
imagine - along with John Lennon for a moment -
P R O F E S S O R
W I L L I
A M
H U T S O
N ,
P H . D .
AssociateProfessor,
Department of Theater
Omaha NE

with me a world without conflict; a world without any
kind of problems. No war, no legal problems, no
personal problems, no time constraints, no stress,
no cancer, no tooth decay, no plaque build-up.
(laughter) You get the idea. Such a utopia may
seem desirable but would it really be the good life?
More importantly, would it be good for us?
My emphasis here today is conflict in art, but
I do want to touch upon conflict of life itself because
art is a reflection of life. And conflict in education
briefly, too.
More specifically, I deal daily with conflict in
dramatic arts. And in trying to teach my students
acting and directing, we're constantly dealing with
conflict. But let me touch upon the other subjects
first.
To talk about the relationship between
conflict and art, one has to assume that there is
conflict in life - and I think we can all agree that
there is. It's inevitable. But also, many times it can
be positive. Life itself is conflict. If you break life
down into one of its smallest beats, which is a
breath, and you think about that breath as an inhale
of air and an exhale, there's a moment between the
two which is the struggle for life, which is the spark
of life. And it's that moment which is most
important. The same is true in art and acting, in
particular. The moment in between - and it's not just
the struggle - it is that moment of decision: what will
happen next? Will the breath continue? Will you
inhale, will you exhale? When will you exhale
again? It's that moment in between, that moment of
decision which is most important. So I think we can
conclude that conflict exists in life in the smallest
particles, in the smallest beats; it exists in our
everyday struggles.
Therefore, not only does life necessarily
contain conflict, life is conflict—from our first breath,
to the most momentous decisions of our lives.
Conflict sustains life; conflict enriches existence.
It is the struggle and our response to the
struggle which is most important. The crucial
moment is the moment of decision. Will she or
won't she? Should I get out of bed now, should I

sleep five more minutes? Should I stop and help
this stranded motorist or should I drive on? I'm not
here today to talk about moral decisions or which
decision is more appropriate, given the
circumstances, the important thing here is the
decision itself and your response to it.
Conflict in education. I think those of us who
are in higher education are constantly being asked,
Why educate? What is the purpose of education
today and what is the purpose of higher education,
in particular? The degree today seems to be
synonymous with a salary; and how can the student
increase their potential for money? I'm constantly
getting this in my class, you know, it's, "Am I going
to get an "A" on this project?" And I know the
concern is so that they can get into medical school
or go on to law school. That is the concern. That's
the last thing I want to hear in a class is what kind
of grade they're getting. And what their ultimate
goal is - which is usually to... usually money. So I
think that's our biggest conflict in education. And in
my particular field, I'm constantly hearing people
ask, "Why do we teach theatre in higher education?
What's the point of theatre?" People always ask
me, "What do you do?" "Well, I'm an associate
professor at Creighton." "Oh, what do you teach?" "I
teach Theatre Arts." There's always this pause, it's
like, "Oh." And then the response is trying to be
very positive, "Oh, that must be wonderfully
interesting. How fun for you!" (laughter) And I have
to admit, it is fun and it is terribly interesting, but it's
that pause that bothers me. (laughter) That's the
conflict, that little pause there.
Part of my job at Creighton is to open
students up to the possibilities of life and their
experiences in life, because theatre, to me, is our
response to life and how we approach it, how we
live it, how we view it. Theatre is learning more
about yourself as well as others and our life on this
planet. So that's my goal in my classes.
Conflict in art - and conflict in drama, in
particular - I think we can all agree that there is
conflict in drama, in the dramatic script itself. There

is always a protagonist and an antagonist.
Sometimes the protagonist... [End of video tape #2)
The conflict in the process of creativity is
very much a part of the rehearsal process. An
actor must find a creative way to solve the actor’s
block. Actors experience blocks very much in the
same way that writers do. There are many ways to
solve these problems, but most resolutions involve
improvisation. As I tell my actors, and especially
my young directors, any acting problem one
encounters can be solved with the appropriate
improvisation. This is why the art of improvisation
is an essential part of a theater curriculum.
Beginning actors usually question the importance of
improvisation. Aren’t the characters and their lives
given by the playwright? Doesn’t the director
provide the blocking and the movement patterns of
the play? Then why improvise? Because the skill
of improvisation is the very heart--or should I say
breath--of good acting. It is the decision-making
process. The audience has come to watch this
process, not the words of the play. Let us use the
following dialogue as an example:
Bill: Kent, would you like to go out tonight?
Kent: Yes, Bill, that would be great!
What is the most important part of this scene?
Oddly enough, it is not the question, not is it the
answer. It is the moment after the question is
posed and before the answer is given; that moment
when everything hangs in the balance. The
audience will hear the question, then look to Kent
for the answer; it is that moment of decision-making
which arouses in the audience the most anticipation
and interest. Once the answer has begun, it
becomes anti-climactic. Actually, it doesn’t matter
how interesting the dialogue may be. The question
and response could be:
Bill: Kent, would you like to go skinny-
dipping in the Missouri River at midnight?
Kent: Yes, can I bring my friend Gina,
Playboy’s “Miss July?”
The moment of decision-making is always
the most fascinating for the audience. Dialogue is
like a game of ping-pong. The server delivers a line

and we the audience follow the ball to see if the
receiver will make a hit or a miss. Once the
receiver does either, the mystery is gone. A good
playwright knows this. Dialogue is secondary to the
inner conflict of the characters, even with a familiar
story; perhaps especially with a familiar story.
Consider the plays of the ancient Greeks. The
plots were already familiar to the audiences. The
Greeks attended their theatre to see and hear how
the story would be told, and more specifically, how
the characters would react this time. Again, the
moments of decision become the most interesting
elements.
Hamlet is always new with each generation
and with each production because each actor’s
Hamlet is different. We will never know the Hamlet
Shakespeare had in mind. We are always viewing
an actor’s interpretation of the character—Olivier’s
Hamlet, Gielgud’s Hamlet, Bernhardt’s Hamlet.
That is the fascinating aspect of this portrait. Each
of us is Hamlet and each interpretation is as valid
as any. Any individual would contribute his or her
own reactions to the circumstances of the play.
Those subtle moments of pauses, reactions, and
decision-making keep our interest as an audience
and keep the play constantly and eternally new.
The same is true of all art. We are all artists;
it is in those moments of conflict in our lives that our
creativity is allowed to flow. It is then that our
artistic essence shines brightest. Conflict in art, in
education, and in life is not only important, it is
essential. Only by recognizing this fact can we
make conflict a healthy and manageable part of the
growth and flowering of all three.

The Provocation of Art
By Dr. Richard White
Anything can become a provocation to
thinking. This means that anything can become
an object or a theme of philosophical enquiry.
This is important, because we typically think that
philosophy is only concerned with the most
abstract or abstruse problems which go beyond
our routine existence: Is there a god?, for
example; How should I live?; and, What is the
meaning of life? But philosophical reflection also
emerges within our everyday experience as an
attempt to grasp its significance and meaning. It is
not just focused on grand or otherworldly themes,
but looks to the everyday world--the profane as well
as the sacred--for its inspiration and content.
Since we are here today to celebrate
creativity and the modern glass artist, let us begin
with the example of glass. Let us try to focus upon
our most ordinary and typical experiences of this
material. Glass is, paradoxically enough,
something that we don’t usually see. For the most
part it is something that we literally look through in
order to view the world around us. We don’t usually
grasp it for itself or contemplate its own nature as
glass—unless it should happen, perhaps, that the
window is broken or the mirror is cracked. Glass
seems to be an unremarkable material and a fairly
ordinary feature of our everyday experience of the
world. For the most part, along with stones and
wood, water and air, it does not force itself upon our
attention. It withdraws and recedes from us so that
we can experience the world through it.
Having said this much, however, I think we
may also allow that there is at least one exceptional
encounter with glass that must also be described.
We don’t need to limit this discussion to the
Christian tradition, but it is certainly the case that in
P R O F E S S O R
R I C H A
R D
W H I T E
,
P H . D .
Department ofPhilosophy
Omaha NE
rwhite@creighton.edu

churches and other sacred spaces, stained glass
has frequently been used to celebrate the glory of
God, and to focus the thoughts and feelings of the
worshipper upon the realm of the holy and a higher
order of things. In this case, as before, the stained
glass serves as a window onto a particular order of
being—although it’s not the one that we usually
encounter. There is a difference; for, in this case
alone, the window also draws attention to itself, as
a privileged node of being and a point of
transcendence. Indeed, it is that which seems to
reveal and clarify the nature of the sacred itself.
Our encounter with the stained glass window will
usually involve an appreciation of the light and color
which it frames and reveals to us; we will enjoy the
artist’s skill and craftsmanship; and we will be
inspired to a thoughtful reflection upon the themes
or patterns that the window contains—whether or
not it represents a particular subject, like St.
George and the Dragon, or even “represents”
anything at all. The point is that the stained glass
window provokes reflection. [Ed. Is this intended
as a pun? Perhaps this is an eschatological theme
worth developing.] While a particular subject or
even a title may help to organize and focus our
thinking, the reflection is ultimately unconstrained
and even infinite.
Thus, beginning with the everyday, we have
tried to clarify and illuminate our ordinary
experience of glass in the same way that glass
helps to clarify our own experience of the world.
While all of this remains very speculative, it can be
said that so far, in our meditations upon glass, three
themes or paths of thinking have begun to emerge.
Turning specifically now to glass as an art object—
or glass as an aesthetic phenomenon—I want to
use these three themes as a guiding thread that will
help us to organize our thoughts. In brief, the three
themes are materiality (or thinghood), reflection,
and the sacred. In what follows, I will use these
three themes—materiality, reflection, and the
sacred—as the most important currents or vectors
that will help us to apprehend the artistic activity
which we are here to celebrate today.

First I will address materiality or what is
sometimes referred to as the “thingly” character of
the work of art. As we have already observed, for
the most part and for most of the time, we don’t
usually see glass as glass. Instead, we see it only
as an intermediary form that allows us to grasp the
world. [Ed. In this way, doesn’t it function as a
reflective surface? Perhaps it even functions as a
reflexive material?] But glass is itself an object and
a material form within the world. We tend not to
notice that which is typically transparent and
translucent. But the artist in glass is the one who
makes us aware of its very material nature.
As the glass artist shows us, in pieces like
“For Purple Mountains’ Majesty” or “The Soul in the
Window,” glass captures all of the different
modalities of light. It seems to absorb light or else it
shimmers with an excess of luminescence. It holds
different colors against themselves and makes us
intensely aware of their existence and the
differences between them. Glass is a multifarious
material. It can be smooth or mottled, translucent
or opaque, massive, enframing or just a slither. In
all these respects, the artist in glass makes us
aware of the thingly character of glass or glass as a
material phenomenon. This is especially the case
when the glass artist, through his or her own
expertise and technical skill, is able to educe the
inherent qualities of glass to an astonishing point.
Perhaps it would be better to say that the artist
liberates the potency or the potential of glass and
allows it to be itself. We are usually preoccupied
with forms and representation: What do I see out of
the window? How do I look? But the artist--and not
just the glass artist—is the one who celebrates and
gives testimony to the material character of the
world--insofar as he or she reveals the very
stoniness of the stone, the thick luster of oil paint,
or the shimmering essence of glass. All of this is
really to affirm the goodness of the world and the
sacred character of that which is simply here—and
now. Likewise, it is to allow us to see what is
normally hidden from us, because, paradoxically, it
lies too close for us to really notice.

The second theme that seemed to emerge
from our earlier deliberation was that of reflection.
Of course, glass and reflection go together in a very
obvious sense. But more profoundly, I think it is the
case that every work of art serves as a stimulus or
as a provocation to reflection and thought. Why is
this? For one thing, the work of art does not
possess its own world. The art work is not a part of
the ordinary world that we encounter and use
because such a world continually recedes from us.
In using it and manipulating it we tend not to see it
for itself. Philosophers like Schopenhauer, Kant,
and Husserl have taught us, however, that when we
look at a work of art, or, rather, when we view an
object aesthetically, we are abstracting away from
all of our practical concerns. We may want to know
how expensive a house is or whether it is big
enough for us to live in. But obviously such
practical and interested questions are entirely
inappropriate if it is the artistic representation of a
house that we are considering and the latter kind of
a house, the artistic representation of a house, is
without a world as its surrounding context. It does
not slip away from us, but as a discrete and
uncanny presence it forces itself upon our attention
as a demand and a provocation for which reflection
can be the only response.
Looking now at some of the glass art pieces
that are on display today—“Grapes of Wrath in
Repose,” “Knowing of the Spirit,” “Our Shadow
Meets its Heavenly Fruit,”—there is by no means
an obvious connection between the title and the
work that it is meant to describe. The relationship
between an object and its name may finally be
arbitrary. [Ed. Certainly it may seem so to a viewer
lacking or unable to discover the ‘key’ to the title
possessed by the artist.] But here, at least,
reflection is offered a place to begin. As we have
seen, in ordinary work the meaning of something is
often swallowed up by its use. But the art work has
no use. [Ah, I emphatically disagree and challenge
you on this assertion. Some functions include:
education, communication, socialization, and
propaganda.] So it poses itself as a question—

What am I?—that inspires our thinking along paths
that lead us beyond the ordinary horizon.
Now this brings us to the third theme that we
anticipated above. Art is not simply a part of the
everyday world. For in this sense it goes beyond
the everyday horizon to illuminate what is normally
considered sacred. Presumably, this is why art can
be so inspiring. Inspiring, yes, but also, I think, it
can be overwhelming because it cannot be grasped
by the ordinary categories of our understanding.
Indeed it threatens theses categories and calls
them into question by announcing the advent of
another order of being--the sacred—that is normally
hidden from us. But let us think for a moment or
two about exactly what we mean here. More
usually than not, the sacred and the profane have
been contrasted as two radically discontinuous
orders of being, as in “earth or heaven,” or in the
contrasting vision of this vale of tears and the life
everlasting. The problem with this formulation is
that it makes the sacred into a completely
otherworldly phenomenon and at the same time it
destroys all of the value that this world possesses
in itself.
Earlier, however, when I discussed the
materiality of art, I pointed out that the art work is
really what allows us to see and celebrate the
thingly character of existence and the beauty of
material forms such as stone, wood, or glass. So,
yes, there is a sense in which the art work forces us
beyond our everyday perceptions and towards a
more exalted region of being—presumably this is
what the stained glass window achieves. [Ed. I,
however, would note that this occurs when the
viewer discovers the intangible “key” of the artist.
Exaltation and transcendence are part of the
intention of the artist. He or she achieves that
either by design or promotion.] But at the same
time, the art work also reveals the absolutely
sacred character of everyday existence itself, its
splendor and its power. Whether in the humble
materials that it uses—wood, glass, or stone—or
the themes that it reflects upon, [Ed. Or that reflect
through IT.] which, however high-minded, are all

grounded in the givenness of everyday life. The
proof of all this is that through art the world is re-
enchanted. As Shelley puts it, poetry, or we would
say art in general, creates the world anew. It does
so not necessarily in moments of tremendous
enthusiasm that would mirror religious rapture, but
in the luminous power of the art work and the
splendor that it provides through the absolute
generosity of its being.
For better or for worse, these very
speculative meditations must end, as all
meditations must end, arbitrarily. We looked at
glass, an ordinary thing, and we discerned three
points that elicited thought: materiality, reflection,
and the sacred. Turning to the work of art, and
especially the work in glass, we used these three
points as a clue in our attempt to understand the
work of art in general. We found that the artist is
the one who liberates the materiality of his or her
medium and allows it to show itself. The artist in
glass, for example, allows us to notice glass for the
first time and reveals all of its inherent qualities.
Likewise, the art work also promotes reflection. It is
not just another piece of the world, but in a real
sense, it has been snatched out of this world. The
work of art is worldless, and as such it poses itself
as an enigma and as a problem for thought. The
artist begins a meditation upon the work, even in
the very act of providing a title or talking about it to
others. But in the end the art work provokes a
conversation with the spectator that the artist
cannot control. [Ed. A social critical thinker might
argue that by framing it as art, the artist ultimately
controls the conversation. This assumes that to
“control a conversation” one need not predict or
paint every word that comes out of one’s
conversant’s mouth, but merely steer the outcome
to one favorable to the initiator—in this case, the
artist.] This conversation cannot be limited, except
by death. [Ed. It is, however, delimited, by the
framing of the conversation as an aesthetic one.
Ultimately, that is perhaps enough of a “control” for
an artist.] Finally, we saw how art is related to the
sacred and to transcendence. But here, I want to

emphasize that in spite of the religious connection
with art, in the historical relationship between
stained glass and the church for example, the
sacred realm that art discloses, and which it is itself
a part of, is actually this world itself. The art work
shows and illuminates the luster of this world, its
goodness, and its power—although this is
something that usually goes unnoticed until the
artist discloses it to us.
Finally, I wondered whether there was
anything that I could say or do that would allow me
to gather all of these reflections together into a
single form. Of course, we face an obvious
problem of translation whenever we try to use one
language in order to describe the forms of another.
In this paper, too, I have had to use words and
literary effect to describe the artistry of glass. In the
end, perhaps showing would be much better than
saying. All the same, as a philosopher, I do
obviously believe in the efficacy of thoughtful
reflection, and I think that thought can illuminate
whatever it is that we are trying to describe. In
spite of all the obvious differences between painting
and sculpture, music, poetry, and modern glass art,
I think it is likely that all art, as art, possesses a
common intention and form.
If what I have suggested today is in any
sense close to the truth of things, then art itself
cannot be understood without reference to the three
dimensions that we have described. They are, to
reiterate: materiality, reflection, and the sacred. In
conclusion, I would like to quote here a favorite
poem of mine, written by Rainer Maria Rilke in the
early years of the twentieth century. In this poem,
“Archaic Torso of Apollo,” all three of these aspects
are clearly present and they help us to understand
the total power of the poem itself. Materiality is
present in the form of the stone, but also in the very
words that Rilke uses and which call attention to
themselves. Reflection is present in the challenge
to thought that this uncanny relic (and the poem
itself) creates. The sacred is also present in the
sense that here we are in the presence of the god
and of something that forces us beyond the

ordinary character of our lives. This life must be
reverenced. Through the poem we are taken away
from our selfish concerns. Culminating in the final
line, we are forced into the deepest encounter with
ourselves. Here is the poem: “Archaischer Torso
Apollos”—“Archaic Torso of Apollo”—which I offer
as a final illustration, and as a most lucid example,
of the provocation of art:
We cannot know his legendary head
with eyes like ripening fruit. And yet his
torso
is still suffused with brilliance from inside,
like a lamp, in which his gaze, now turned so
low.
gleams in all its power. Otherwise
the curved breast could not dazzle you so,
could not
a smile run through the placid hips and
thighs
to that dark center where procreation flared.
Otherwise this stone would seem defaced
beneath the translucent cascade of the
shoulders
and would not glisten like a wild beast’s fur:
would not, from all the borders of itself,
burst like a star: for here there is no place
that does not see you. You must change
your life.*
In a sense, and at some level, all of the art works
present today share exactly the same structure and
intention of this poem.
*Translated by Stephen Mitchell in The Selected
Poetry of Rainer Maria Rilke (New York: Vintage,
1989) p. 61.

Mary Helen Ehresman Creativity
Symposium 2001
Presenters Convene for 2001
Symposium on Creativity
(Sponsored through the generosity of Mrs. Mary Helen
Ehresman)
Omaha's W. Dale Clark Library (Downtown), 215 So
15th
ST, was the setting for a Sunday, October 7, 2001
gathering of nationally known scholars, professionals,
educators, and laypersons to discuss issues of creativity,
Chapter
2

abstract thinking, education and other "right-brain"
topics.
2:00pm INTRODUCTION: Mrs. Elizabeth Eynon-
Kokrda, J. D., Periodic Adjunct Professor, Creighton
University School of Law; Attorney: Baird, Holm,
McEachen, Pedersen, Hamann, and Strasheim.
2:05pm: Mr. Kenton Bruce Anderson, Graduate Fellow,
Department of Communications at University of Nebraska
at Omaha, and Graduate Student of Dalcroze at Juilliard
School, New York City. “Talking Does Not Teach”:
Somatic Education and Flow States.
2:35pm: Professor Charles J. Zabrowski, Ph. D.,
Chairman of the Department of Classics at Gettysburg
College, Gettysburg, PA. Ancient Greek Mousike and
Modern Eurhythmics: The Educational Uses of Greek
Mousike According to Plato and Aristotle, followed by a
brief musical performance.
3:05pm: Lady Caroline's British Tea Shop of Dundee
served refreshments.
3:05pm: Dr. Suzanne Burgoyne, Ph. D., Associate
Professor of Theater, University of Missouri at Columbia.
Debriefing Theatre Rehearsals: A Grounded Theory
Study.
3:35pm: Dr. Richard White, Ph. D., Associate Professor
of Philosophy, Creighton University. Reflections on the
Scream: The Art of Francis Bacon.

4:05pm: Mrs. Kathryn Dougherty-Sutherland, Alumna,
Summa Cum Laude, Honors Program, Creighton
University. Finding Resources for Educating Gifted,
Challenged Children in an Unenlightened Establishment.
This Sunday afternoon event (2:00PM - 5:00PM) was part of
the establishment of a non-profit educational foundation, "The
Institute for Right Brain Research." The public was cordially
invited to this free symposium.

Rediscovering The Ancient Art of Rhythmic
Brain Integration
By Adjunct-Professor Kenton Bruce Anderson,
M.A.
According to Campbell (1997), Plato said
about music that it ‘is a more potent instrument
than any other for education.’(p. 10) Campbell
says that musically trained children scored 80%
higher than their classmates on spatial
intelligence. This intelligence later becomes the
ability for complex math and engineering.
Parents observe not only these higher scores,
but also observe more organization and
discipline in kids’ approach to learning overall.
She says it is reported that children respond to
music even before birth. She says many
consider Emile Jaques-Dalcroze to be the father
of modern music education. His Eurhythmics
pedagogy centers on the body as an instrument.
She quotes Parker at the Longy School of Music
who says Dalcroze Eurhythmics’ theatrical and
playful approach nourishes the creativity of both
students and teachers while building awareness
of phrasing, notation, pitch, harmony.
The Dalcroze Eurhythmics methodology was founded on the
principles of pedagogues and psychologists such as Johann Heinrich
Pestalozzi, Edouard Claparede, and Mathis Lussy. (Caldwell, 1995,
p.14) Lussy’s contribution was the emphasis on expressiveness and
rhythm; he believed that teachers should teach expressiveness, words,
form and melody simultaneously. Teachers must build in
expressiveness as part of the technique.
(http://musikas.net/portfolio/htm/musi/dalcroze.htm accessed 2/28/03)
Swiss psychologist Edouard Claparede, founder of the Institut Jean-
Jacques Rousseau for child development, contributed his expertise to
make the method systematic and complete. (Ibid.) Claparede was also
A D J U N C T -
P R O F E
S S O R
K E N T O
N
B R U C E
A N D E R
S O N ,
B . A . ,
M . A .
UniversityNebraska atOmaha
Department of
Communication
Omaha NE
Robert M. Abramson
Dalcroze Academy
The Princeton Review,
New York City

Exploring Pedagogical Issues in Volume One

Exploring Pedagogical Issues in Volume One

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Andere mochten auch

Andere mochten auch (11)

Ähnlich wie Exploring Pedagogical Issues in Volume One

Ähnlich wie Exploring Pedagogical Issues in Volume One (20)

Exploring Pedagogical Issues in Volume One