Sunday, April 8, 2007

Decorating the Egg (with Seed)


My daughter had some questions today about Easter. She's justifiably skeptical about what this egg-painting business is all about, in the context of what she's heard about Jesus. I told her that it's really a springtime fertility ritual, in which people reflect on the way of Nature: the man decorates the woman's egg with his seed, in the hope of creating new life; the farmer decorates the field with the seed that will become food for the coming winter. And so it goes with virtually all forms of life at this time of year. So we decorate eggs as a symbol of that dance of fertility and birth that happens in Nature's spring.

For more on Easter and its roots, see our prior post on the topic.

By the way, my kid's still skeptical—and who can blame her? So, for those of you who observe it, Happy Easter. And to everyone alive and conscious at this time in our human history: Question everything.

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

hi Brian (it's your fellow blogger). i wouldn't necessarily rely on your suggestion re the egg symbolism. yes, the egg is a symbol of fertility (also of a successful yield) but as far as why they were painted, that's more complicated. eggs after all have hard surfaces, and if you hard boil them, you suddenly have a bunch of white or light brown near orbs. that you decide to add color could be just a way to make them special for the holiday - in the same way the cooks might draw a swirl in cake icing.

Brian Donohue said...

That's why I've taught the child to ask questions, especially of me. For me, it's all about the metaphor of the event, which is what we've lost track of amid our culture marked by the reification of every word in an old black book full of evil and the most destructive pedantry imaginable. When questions like this are asked, the best we can do as parents is to respond as honestly as we can, and then leave the door of inquiry wide open for the kid to find her own truth.

Anonymous said...

With my background in the arts (and 6 post high school years pondering the "meaning" of all manner of works of art, i've become suspicious of symbolism. not that it does not abound, but too often, the symbolism lies on the eyes of the beholder.

Brian Donohue said...

That's always been our point of divergence, partner, and incidentally a general area of marginalization for me. I happen to feel that a poet can deliver data and analysis that is every bit as valid and useful as anything a scientist can give us. It's a different kind of insight that draws on a broader array of inner resources, but time and again, poets and artists with their silly heart-based metaphors have shown us a truer, clearer insight into human affairs than any paradigm of mere intellect in isolation. Here's an very handy example: the guy we wrote about on Friday, in the very same book discussed there, describes how his character (Colonel Aureliano Buendia) discovered that ending a war is far more difficult than starting one. This is from a poetic novelist whose only equals in the 20th century are Joyce and Kafka. But what if I recommended such insight to world leaders and policy planners? "Oh no, that's not scientific, it's only metaphor...a story..."

Brian Donohue said...

By the way, speaking of art, here's a blast from the past: remember how the Karl Rove scene designers covered up Guernica when they were trotting out their photo-op announcements of their "proof" for the invasion of Iraq? Hmmm, it's almost as if they were unconsciously acknowledging the fact that the artist was there, silently witnessing their deceit and calling them on it. So the Bushies cleverly tossed a flag or a banner over that visual metaphor on the reality of war, just so no one would be distracted by the truth.

Anonymous said...

again, i don't disregard the value of symbols, nor of what artists do. in fact, i've devoted much of my time to the creation of art. but sometimes the artist's intent is not clear even (or especially) to the artist - yet the art historians and critics ramble on.