I found Grey’s article, The Mission of Art, most eye opening. He focuses on how looking and seeing differ. ‘Looking’ is turning one’s eyes to a certain object while ‘seeing’ is the perception of an object or how a person determines what he is looking at. This idea also applies in a second way because, ‘looking’ can also refer to appearance while ‘seeing’ can be defined as an act or physical activity. We look at things and evaluate them in our minds every day. We often tend to overlook the depth or meaning of the word or actions s we use and say, which makes it quite easy to blend the two as one meaning. This is especially true with terms that have similar meanings like ‘looking’ and ‘seeing.’ Both involve using the eyes and sense of sight, but upon closer examination it will reveal what makes one different from the other. Seeing is the effect of looking. For instance, if you want to see something you must look at it first. It differs from the explanation of “to see” as we see something only when it comes into our sight by chance. Looking can be seeing, but seeing is also about knowing. Grey helps to describe the three eyes of knowing in which we can truly see people, objects and places: “Saint Bonaventure’s three eyes of knowing: the eye of flesh sees the “outer” realm of material objects; the eye of reason sees symbolically, drawing distinctions and making conceptual relationships; and the mystic eye of contemplation sees the luminous transcendental realms” (The Mission of Art, 74). I agree that it is important for artist to be able to see on each level in order understand the “technical beauty, archetypal beauty, and spiritual beauty” and use the three different understandings in their work. (The Mission of Art, 74). These three types of beauty captures a sophisticated piece of art. Therefore, items that we may look at on the daily are not sophisticated enough to capture our attention until emotions are involved with our looking, then we are truly seeing when thought interferes.
I enjoyed your post about Alex Grey’s passage and creative spirituality. As opposed to my discussion post, you talked more about ‘looking’ and ‘seeing’, which I wish I added more of that into mine. I liked your quote and agreed with it fully “Looking can be seeing, but seeing is also about knowing.” After reading your full post and reflecting on it, I believe that ‘looking’ can be misinterpreted into more of a sophomoric way of observing something. When you ‘see’ things, you know and understand them in a way that is unique to yourself. Which is why I think it connects with spirituality and creativity more than looking does. You see things, you connect them to your feelings and knowledge.
I like how you described that, “‘looking’ can be misinterpreted into a sophomoric way of observing something.” This gives me a more complex evaluation between ‘looking’ and ‘seeing’. People probably even misuse the word, ‘seeing’, when they’re actually just looking at something. Possibly similar to how people overuse or misuse the word ‘love’. There is a difference because seeing can be used loosely and out of context today that it signifies to them anything other than its real meaning and content.
Thanks for sharing this amazing content I want to add some value in your post, The eye, in its various forms – natural, mental, and spiritual, serves as our unique window to different realms of reality. It allows us to perceive and experience the world around us, from the tangible to the spiritual. Just as our physical eyes bring us awareness of the physical world, our spiritual eye connects us to the realm of divine and unseen realities. It’s through these eyes that we gain profound insights and experiences, transcending the boundaries of the ordinary.