Negative isn’t necessarily bad or evil, right? It implies absence. Something missing, something which left a hole behind, like a dinosaur footprint or an impression on a cushion.

But at the same time, Paul seems to employ via negativa in teaching about the next life: “Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.”

When describing the glory of God or the condition of exaltation, that method is used a lot in the scriptures. Perhaps part of the reason is to pull our practical focus to this mortal sphere, while engaging our imaginations to aspire beyond themselves in conceptualizing the things for which we strive and the greatness of the being we serve.

I also think the reason I thought of the painting I linked to above is because of its title. By definition, a theophany is a manifestation of God that is perceivable by the senses, but not necessarily of the material world. The painting (3rd from the bottom on that page) defies a simple explanation and yet doesn’t require one. It just looks like God. And yet, it’s not God. It’s just the sun above the trees. But it’s a moment that witnesses of God by it’s perfect organization.

In some ways, that’s directly opposite to via negativa. But in others, it’s similar to the mystical elements of that approach.

I wouldn’t call it without darkness, but what do you think?

For example. No darkness. Pure light.

(I will think of some real examples … busy this morning …)

You are evil.

(I will think of some real examples … busy this morning …)

On the other hand, it may be substantially harder to succeed with work that lacks a certain amount of darkness. Mormons are subjected to a lot of stuff that is plenty bright and cheerful but that leaves me completely flat and uninspired. And yet I can think of devotional works that don’t need darkness to work. (The world is dark enough. These works are pure light.) I am mainly thinking of religious classical music and architecture, though.

I take it on a work-by-work basis. I suppose I ask questions like what effect did this work make of its darkness? Did it earn its darkness or lack thereof? What was the ultimate effect?

Absolutely there is — and that’s why I think this needs further discussion and thought (and experimentation) and why reading the interview with Glen Hansard unspooled some things for me.

I also think that it’s easy to go for the dramatic, grotesque and/or violent depictions of imperfection — it’s the finer gradations that I find more interesting and fruitful.

In addition, I wonder if what matters about the via negativa is less the depiction of evil and more God’s response to that. That brings to mind things like England’s The Weeping God of Mormonism and that Joseph Smith quote about the deepest abyss (8th quote or so in that section). And is also why I liked that Hansard brings in the idea of melancholy.

Just for my clarification, isn’t there a difference between via negativa and the depiction/description of evil? As I understand it, the first attempts to describe God in terms of can’t be said about Him – by which I mean things like God’s being unchanging, limitless, beyond man’s comprehension, etc. But I would think that art based on this approach doesn’t require the depiction of polar opposites to God. I wouldn’t think sinful darkness is essential, only the ignorant darkness caused by man’s imperfection. But I can see how portrayals of evil could be included in such a method.