We naturally think of art when we think of imagination and so it is a reasonable place to start. The thing about the arts is not that they are imaginary but their reality. When we look at a work of art (or listen to it, even taste it) we relate to what we recognise in it. So, when I look at a Caravaggio painting I see something I can relate to. The theme might be biblical, even mythical, but I find real people struggling with real lives. The same themes in a baroque style leave me cold; I recognise less in a baroque painting.
I've always had a fondness for science fiction and so permit me to illustrate what I mean through a brief review of the recent series of Dr Who on BBC 1. I have followed Dr Who, with a break for the period when I was a grown up, since I was 9, when it started in 1963. It is interesting to see how each era is reflected in the stories and in the way they are told.
Recent episodes have made me uneasy and I think the reason is that I am not recognising in them a reality I can relate to. Let me go back to the final episode that featured David Tenant as the Doctor. In that episode he fell out of a spacecraft, crashed through a glass ceiling and landed on a marble floor. He sustained a few cuts but was otherwise unscathed. The problem is, this was lazy writing but you can get away with it, if the story is strong.
The story was not strong. The whole universe was under threat (again). The jeopardy was ramped up to such a degree that the writers only option was to hit the reset button and use what used to be called deus ex machina to restore the status quo ante.
The same problem can be found in the finale of the most recent series. The cliffhanger at the end of the penultimate episode included all of the Doctors enemies ganging up on him, imprisoning him in a prison designed so no-one could get out of it, meanwhile the Tardis exploded, bringing the entirety of space and time to a halt.
The final episode was full of neat tricks but to me was unconvincing. I couldn't relate to the premise of the end of universe (again). Contrast this with an earlier episode about Vincent Van Gogh. Here the Doctor was unable to prevent Van Gogh's suicide. It was written by Richard Curtis and featured reproductions of Van Gogh's paintings as sets. Much of this was convincing even though it was also fantastic. The episode featured a most unconvincing monster and it didn't matter at all. The monster had a function to enable a bigger story to be told.
Now, I appreciate Dr Who is not high art but its popularity suggests it touches on themes that have meaning for people. It is fantastic but also familiar. Works of the imagination function best when rooted in reality. Pure fantasy becomes boring because it has no meaning for us.
Applied imagination can speak to us through art. Imagination left to its own devices, connected to nothing, does not make connections to what we know.
Comments