Sept. 6, 2010

Q: We must reconstruct on the evidence of the images themselves the spectrum of messages that were likely to be received by the worshippers who lived with them in vitally interested contemplation on a daily basis throughout their lives. Our job is thus complex and somewhat frightening, protected from guess-work only by an educated eye trained by long and patient looking. Moreover, we must be content with working hypotheses, suggestions, and the description of a range of probable interpretations rather than "proof" for a single meaning identical for all persons who had access to the image.

C:

This quote is a nice change in perspective: it argues that we should try to view religious arts/visualizations within the context of the worshipper; that we must preserve their religious nature. The author admits that this is hard, as religious/anthropological studies can only work with this visual media with their own theories, which can only create a generalized interpretation. In truth, there really is no way to find “a single meaning identical for all persons who had access to the image,” as each person who came in contact with that image was very different.

However, what is refreshing is the way the writer acknowledges that we must try to relate religious iconography back to the religious, and try not to view it from the religious-hermetically sealed position where we often view religion nowadays in our very secular culture. Morgan does a good job of bridging this gap in his chapter, as he uses individual, personal examples and accounts to show a broader perspective, as in having quote by Buddhists about their relation to the image of the Buddha as a way of showing how people relate to iconography.