| Author | Message | ||
  Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 300 Registered: 8-2006 |
Please move on to the thread "Religion and Art II" | ||
Suzy Member Username: Suzy Post Number: 31 Registered: 8-2006 |
I actually like posts that go long. They are meaty. Plus it is fun to scroll back through them and read how they evolved. | ||
Rekha Senior Member Username: Rekha Post Number: 292 Registered: 8-2006 |
Your turn griz | ||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 216 Registered: 8-2006 |
Rekha, Point well taken! Who has the right (or responsibility) for starting a second thread on the same topic -- the originator, or can any of us? In the case of this thread, it would be George, but I think he is on a "sabbatical" at the present. If he, you or nobody else objects, I'll start a sequel. If this is free game, why don't all of us look for threads that we feel are still relevant and interesting but have grown "long in the tooth" (over 70 posts?) and start sequels. | ||
Rekha Senior Member Username: Rekha Post Number: 289 Registered: 8-2006 |
Griz just for information this thread has reached past 70 and will soon be bulky; you might think of starting another thread | ||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 215 Registered: 8-2006 |
Here is an interesting discussion of the relationship of "form and content" in painting from a spiritual or philosophical point of view. It has relevance to our use of styles of painting to achieve our intended purpose: http://wittingshire.blogspot.com/2006/12/art-form-and-content.html | ||
Rekha Senior Member Username: Rekha Post Number: 220 Registered: 8-2006 |
It is available at amazon www_amazon.com/Making-watercolor-behave-reproductions-demonstrating/dp/B00087A5K0/ref=sr_1_1/102-3978097-3771309?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1173641156&sr=1-1 ISBN/ASIN, a uniqued number for a book such as B00087A5K0 for Making watercolor behave is usually located on the inside of the first page where the date of publication is located I have had to retype the whole message 3 times because the server has stopped accepting links to other webpages | ||
Whitewatercolor Senior Member Username: Whitewatercolor Post Number: 209 Registered: 10-2006 |
I couldnt' find a copy of "Making Watercolor Behave." I will keep looking. The copyright on this book is 1938, it is used and was an absolute treasure at $6.00. What is an ISBN? What does that stand for? There isn't one on the book. | ||
Rekha Senior Member Username: Rekha Post Number: 218 Registered: 8-2006 |
Bonnie, is there any particular reason that you chose 'Watercolor Fares Forth' over 'Making Watercolor Behave' May I have the ISBN for the book you bought? | ||
Whitewatercolor Senior Member Username: Whitewatercolor Post Number: 205 Registered: 10-2006 |
It is a used book. I actually did an internet search and traveled 180 miles round trip to pick it up. It is great. It is really a very small book 6x8 and 175 pages, but it is packed full of simple, direct, principles--those kind of principles that I mentioned earlier than I try to keep in mind when I pick up my brush to paint, since I usually don't draw a lot on the paper, in an attempt to keep my thoughts loose. Example: "Give 3 or more bad faults in composition. A. Equal qantities in color areas. B. Absence of center of interest. C. Diagonals to a corner. D. Strong object or line in the center of the picture. E. Lack of balance. (There are many more)" unflortunately he doesn't list them here. | ||
Eugene Senior Member Username: Eugene Post Number: 228 Registered: 8-2006 |
Bonnie, is the O'Hara book a reprint or a used? | ||
Grizrev Advanced Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 187 Registered: 8-2006 |
Whitewatercolor, The site I posted demonstrates how art can be used helpfully to better express religious concepts and concerns, so I have no apology for how the thread moves in and out of the area of religion as well as art. In starting this thread, I was interested in how art and religion have related over the centuries (which is quite clear, for example, in Renaissance art in Italy)as well how religion and art relate today. I was thinking of organized religion, not the more subjectively spiritual, though I have no objection to exploring that as well. If you would rather ignore the use of art by various religions and exclusively explore the more general area of the "spiritual," you might want to start a thread like "Spirituality in Art." | ||
Whitewatercolor Senior Member Username: Whitewatercolor Post Number: 201 Registered: 10-2006 |
It is a new book, copyright 2006. I found it on the new book shelf two days ago and it can be read in a day. It is best read. I couldn't do it justice. By the way, I was at the store picking up a copy of "Watercolor Fares Forth" by Eliot O'Hara. Great book. The first words in the book are: "When 'Making Watercolor Behave' was written in 1932, it was intended to interest more people in the medium as a serious branch of art rather than as a lighter sister to oil painting, and to point out its merits as an equally important form of expression." And to think, we are already allowing acrylic because there aren't enough serious watercolor artists to keep societies going... They said the same thing about organic agriculture a few years ago (a very few years ago). Some of us paved the way, wouldn't give up, the public got involved when the competition attempted to dilute us out of existence, by lowering the standards and now, wal-mart and Safeway are even joining the parade. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
I've not read the book. Please tell us about it. | ||
Whitewatercolor Advanced Member Username: Whitewatercolor Post Number: 197 Registered: 10-2006 |
This thread started out with spiritual content in art and quickly distilled to religion. When talking about the spiritual and art, I'm not sure it is confined to religion, per se. A book I picked up recently that I would think might help some understand the separation of the spiritual and religion and will certainly trigger a great deal of debate in our society (and others) is "Letter to a Christian Nation" by Sam Harris. Has anyone read this book? Is this something we could debate in the broader context of spiritual expression and art? | ||
Grizrev Advanced Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 180 Registered: 8-2006 |
Here's an interesting web blog for those interested in relating religion and the arts: http://www.churchforstarvingartists.blogspot.com/ | ||
Joe Junior Member Username: Joe Post Number: 21 Registered: 2-2007 |
George it would be nice to see it in color but I am sure it is good. I stumbled into a w/c site yesterday that was covered in very realistic looking watercolors. It seems they used them more like Zorne. Kind of a gouache effect done in a semi-impressionistic effect. They stillread pretty realistic. Good stuff. I can't remembeer where or I would post an addy. Thanks by the way. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Joe, you wanted to see religious art done in watercolor. This is for you. William Holman Hunt. Christ amongst the Doctors. 1869-73. Watercolor on paper (proposed design for a mosiac).  | ||
Raliegh Intermediate Member Username: Raliegh Post Number: 86 Registered: 8-2006 |
The Rembrandt is a beautiful painting, George you have a great eye for design. It's very helpful when you point out different design elements. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Jack, I saw the one in the rope, but I missed the one in the wave. There are also additional triangles too (Jack knows this, but for others who may not know, the triangle is a symbol of the Trinity). All the S-curves and triangles are not only symbolic but provide repetition and therefore movement. | ||
Grizrev Advanced Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 131 Registered: 8-2006 |
George, In the Rembrandt painting, did you notice that the S-curve is repeated in the line that has broken free, and again in the curve of the wave? That's three S-curves -- another Trinity! | ||
Joe Junior Member Username: Joe Post Number: 20 Registered: 2-2007 |
I have a book on Rembrandt's paintings and somehow I missed this one. It is really nice. I think you have to tie early art endeavors and religion together because the church funded so many projects for the cathedrals. If you go back to the original question of best style, technique and so on I think you have to allow a lot of room for personal interpretation. I don't know that I have evr seen religious art done in watercolor. Egg tempra, maybe gouache, but almost always oil. If you want to look at contemporary religious art you might try cross.com. There is a lot of art there. I have not been there in a couple of years but it was loaded. It would certainly be interesting to see what we could conceive and execute in watercolor. Religious art that is. I have painted and do occasionally paint religious art. As to styles of painting pertaining to religious art I think it would be fun to do some in more broken and impressionistic style. It would allow for a greater interpretation. You are giving me some ideas here. My mind keeps coming back to this Rembrandt picture. What a great piece. | ||
Grizrev Advanced Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 129 Registered: 8-2006 |
George, This is beautiful, as is the use of light and the suggestion of the Trinity! | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Small correction! The upper loop in the S-curve really runs along the base of the dark cloud, but when I put my white line up there it was difficult to see so I dropped the upper loop to the darker edge of the top sail. I only mention it now because the true position of the upper loop shows the perfect symmetry in the design. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
If you don't see the triangle - here it is!  | ||
George Unregistered guest |
The triangle is not only visually stable, but it is also the strongest and most stable structural shape in engineering. But, the triangle is too boring for this subject, so the artist included an S-curve (see attachment). You remember the S-curve in the circle of the yin and yang symbol? In a way this S-curve is the yin and yang symbol in a rectangle. Christ is centered in the center of the lower loop, and the source of the light is centered in the center of the upper loop. THAT’S ART AT IT’S BEST!!  | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Do you suppose when boat passes into the light filled hole in the clouds that it’s aimed at (like an arrow at a target) the boatmen will then be Wanderers above the Sea of Fog. I guess it’s no surprise both artists used the triangular composition (because of its symbolism). | ||
George Unregistered guest |
No one understood the use of light better than Rembrandt! The boat is sailing straight into the light. That’s using visual symbolism to compliment written symbolism. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Rembrandt Paintings Christ in the Storm  | ||
Grizrev Advanced Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 125 Registered: 8-2006 |
Raliegh, The Bible surely speaks clearly for itself in that passage, and it is one I choose to believe. However, I also believe John 10:16 and look for ways to build bridges to all the sheep out there. If God is indeed the origin and creator of all, and all humans bear the mark of the same creator, then all must have at least a partial grasp of the same great truths. After all, truth is truth. Those points of common grasp may allow bridges to be built. That having been said, I don't want other readers to think that this will just be a religion discussion -- or a narrow discussion of religion in any event. I still would like to invite thoughts on how religion and art relate. Certainly there was no doubt that a relationship existed in the time of the Renaissance, though no doubt much of the subject matter was dictated by church commissions. | ||
Raliegh Intermediate Member Username: Raliegh Post Number: 85 Registered: 8-2006 |
Grizrev, Romans 10:9 - 17 | ||
Grizrev Advanced Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 109 Registered: 8-2006 |
Thanks, Raliegh. I hope that removes the offense I caused earlier. I surely am sorry that you had difficulty with a religion and art forum once before. My sense is that this forum is much more gracious and members more willing to listen to each other. By the way, when I have cited the Bible in previous posts, I don't mean to imply that this is necessarily the only possible view of the way things are -- I'm just identifying what the Bible, as a source book on religion, says, letting it speak for itself. I have been interested in the way it dovetails with other philosophies and religious views, such as the "yin/yang" George introduced in one of his comments. | ||
Raliegh Intermediate Member Username: Raliegh Post Number: 84 Registered: 8-2006 |
Grizrev, regarding your last 2 posts, I agree 100%. | ||
Grizrev Advanced Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 104 Registered: 8-2006 |
Raliegh, I'm feeling badly about not acknowledging that you want light taken seriously in connection with God. I do want to affirm that light is presented in the Bible as one of the essential attributes of the nature of God. God gives off light. Not only Revelation, but the account of the transfiguration of Jesus, seem to stress that reality. But there is a difference between saying that "God is light, (and in him is no darkness at all)" -- and Light is God. Jesus also said "I am the door" as well as some other "I am" comments (linking him to what God said to Moses: "I am that I am."). But he didn't mean his comment to be understood literally. He, obviously, wasn't a door. God's nature is truly complex and multi-faceted, as intended in the "I am that I am" declaration, and light is certainly one of the real attributes of God! | ||
Grizrev Advanced Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 102 Registered: 8-2006 |
Raleigh, Just like the discussion about acrylics and watercolor on "Question Authority," discussion of religion, whether in relation to art or not, is never easy -- but it is important. We obviously get a little emotional just talking about watercolor and acrylics, so it's not surprising that the same would happen as ideas on religion and art are shared. The important thing is to be kind and respectful to one another. I still think, if you read all the way through John's gospel, that it becomes clear that in John 1 he was using light as a metaphor to speak of Jesus bringing the light of the revelation of who God is into the world. In his total gospel, John wanted to present Jesus as the incarnation, or "enfleshment," of God -- the unique being in whom the nature of God and human nature were miraculously joined in one living person (that's where I picked up on George's interest in the "yin and yang)." John didn't want us literally to think of God or Jesus as simply a ball of physical energy giving off light. The Bible, including Revelation (though it too is highly metaphorical), seems to me consistently to present the essential nature of God as a supreme spiritual personality, not simply the impersonal energy source we know as light. That's all I meant to say. At any rate, Bonnie clarified the Turner quote as "The Sun is God," not "God is light." This still requires us to understand that Turner, too, probably didn't mean his comment to be understood literally. He didn't necessarily mean that he was a nature worshipper, but perhaps simply that the Sun and its light meant everything to him and his painting. That's why I suggested we understand his comment metaphorically and not literally. | ||
Raliegh Intermediate Member Username: Raliegh Post Number: 82 Registered: 8-2006 |
Grizrev, you beckon others to join Religion and Art thread and the reason I've held my tongue would be your post "Getting back to Turner's reference to the Bible's affirmation that "God is light" ... I hope he wasn't falling into the fundamentalist trap of often insisting on understanding the Bible literally and not figuratively. I think "God is light" was intended to be understood metaphorically. What do you think?" I understand this literally: Revelation chapters 19, 20 and in Revelation 21:23,24 & 27 there one finds 'The Word's', John 1:1, definition of the light. As Terry well said, there are 12 notes in the musical scale but lots of tunes. My husband and I've had our own forum before, we had to close it down due to the "religion" threads. | ||
Grizrev Intermediate Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 98 Registered: 8-2006 |
Valerie, I don't know anything about Berg's or Northrup's paintings that would enable me to comment, but, if your main interest is in calligraphy, I'll repeat a response to you I posted on "Who Are Your Mentors?": "Valerie, There is a topic under "Cheap Joe's Artist Forum" called "Ink Artists Topics" that has threads discussing "Sumi-e" and "Calligraphy" that may have more discussions related to your specific interests." | ||
Valerie_norberry New member Username: Valerie_norberry Post Number: 9 Registered: 10-2006 |
Okay, I just have to get in here. I am a Christian, born again, fundy, and here is what 2 Cor. 4:18 says "For we do not look at the things that are seen, for the things that are seen are temporary, but the things that are not seen are eternal" talking about affliction and perserverence, character qualities. It's interesting that one icon painter, Michael Berg, out of Santa Fe, paints nudes in his time when he's not painting icons. He does practice a meditative form of brush work using egg tempra, you'd have to ask him more about it. I have a teacher at Glen Oaks, Michael Northrup by name, a former Nazarene Pastor, who has some religious art, but also did himself nude in oil for his master's degree exhibition at Western Mich Univ. You'd have to ask him about that too, Glen Oaks Community College, contact faculty tab. Personally, I really enjoy doing scripture in calligraphy. It enhances walls, and it feeds and encourages the giver as much as the receiver. Otherwise, I would not have been able to quote the above scripture to you without my bible handy (I am at work in hospital now, med records), if I hadn't done the above scripture in calligraphy earlier this week for a friend who is grieving for his wife who died of breast cancer 1/24/07. I like to do postcards (shrink my calligraphy down from 11 x 14 to 4 x 6) and send them through the mail. Only God knows how many hands the artwork passes through and who sees it.  | ||
Grizrev Intermediate Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 95 Registered: 8-2006 |
George, Thanks for your wonderfully illustrative painting, as well as your earlier thoughts on cumulative brushstrokes. You offer good and reasonable things for thought and contemplation! Perhaps you are closer to Aristotle and Schaeffer than you know. After all, the "Enlightenment," which greatly illumined our world, was also known as "The Age of Reason." | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Jack, I agree that the metaphysical ceiling, also known as the dark night of the soul (from John of the Cross), is distressing. It’s a feeling captured somewhat well in Caspar Friedrich’s “Wanderer above the Sea of Fog”. http://www.artchive.com/artchive/F/friedrich/sea_of_fog.jpg.html | ||
Grizrev Intermediate Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 93 Registered: 8-2006 |
George, I was thinking of Thomas Merton in connection with the discussion on the "Question Authority" thread. Merton was greatly disturbed about the alienations of the 20th century that resulted in violence that took 500 million lives. He felt the root of that alienation was our alienation from God, and began to pursue the road back through explorations of prayer and finally to contemplation of common ground with Eastern religions. He kept hitting the metaphysical ceiling that Schaeffer refers to as "the line of despair." The attempts of "religion" to breach that line of despair from our side is often distressing (as it was for Paul, Luther, and many others), and most success has come in identifying the places where "the light" has broken through to us (sound like Turner?). I think that is the quest that motivated Paul's theological contemplations in the first chapters of Romans. (I note also that Paul was greatly disturbed in chapter one by what he saw as a violation of the yin/yang principle as applied to sexual union, which to him was an example of other forms of our transgression of divine principles and the intended unity between humans and God.) Since Merton's father was an artist, I wonder if Merton was unconsciously considering whether or not we had lost or violated the principle of unity in the area of theology! | ||
Grizrev Intermediate Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 88 Registered: 8-2006 |
George, You and I may be the only ones reading this thread, or we may have bored everyone else to tears -- but I've really enjoyed your responses. Turner is truly the master of light, as your post surely reveals -- it captures what takes your breath away in Venice when you look out over the lagoon or Grand Canal! Maybe we'll even make a category on the use of light in watercolor in Marie's new index -- if she can create an "index" button on the menu bar, we'll be able to find our way back someday! | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Or this painting by Alfred Vance Churchill (1864 - 1949). Its not very well composed but it has great light in it. http://www.eastsideartandantiques.com/art/churchill.jpg Sorry about posting twice in a row, but two links on one post is not allowed. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Speaking of light in painting, I personally think watercolor is best suited to showing light (as opposed to oil or acrylic paint). For example this painting done by Turner. This is perhaps his most famous watercolor. http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/turner/i/maggiore.jpg | ||
Grizrev Intermediate Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 87 Registered: 8-2006 |
George, Precisely what Turner must have felt in his siutation! Great post. Thinking of Turner and light, I saw the exhibition of his Venice paintings when I last visited Venice, and I have seen his works at the Tate in London, but I don't normally think of him in Paris (other than in museums)-- the city of art, also known as "the city of light." | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Jack, I agree, the light metaphor in John 1 (as well as the Word metaphor - Logos in Greek) is often misunderstood. I think the Message translation (not necessarily my favorite translation) explains the light metaphor well; “The Life-Light blazed out of the darkness; the darkness couldn't put it out”. Also, the Message translation is clear about verse 9; “The Life-Light was the real thing: Every person entering Life he brings into Light.” That’s also not a bad description `for/of Turner’s painting; “The Life-Light blazed out of the darkness; the darkness couldn't put it out” http://history.hanover.edu/courses/art/turnss.html | ||
Grizrev Intermediate Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 86 Registered: 8-2006 |
Again, pardon me!!! I meant to say Romans 1:19,20! | ||
Grizrev Intermediate Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 85 Registered: 8-2006 |
I apologize for so many posts on so many threads. I'll try to contain my enthusiasm and try to be less intrusive. However, I do need to make a correction, George -- I should have said "South Korean flag," instead of "Korean flag." On yin and yang, and the joining of the duality (as in divine-human), isn't it interesting that there is an interface of this philosophy and the idea of incarnation (the Word being joined to flesh) in John 1? All humans seem to have an innate sense of the same truth when it comes to religion. Maybe that was what Paul was after in Romans 1. | ||
Grizrev Intermediate Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 84 Registered: 8-2006 |
George, It is the uniting of the duality into a whole (the joining without mixing of the divine and the human)that is the perfection or wholeness indicated by the Yin and Yang. The Korean flag contains a beautiful example. | ||
Grizrev Intermediate Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 83 Registered: 8-2006 |
George, The parallelism in regard to description of origins in Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1 ("in the beginning...") is interesting. My real interest in John 1, however, was the use of the light metaphor to speak of the human-divine relationship -- particularly in verses 4,5 and 9. In regard to the discussion we were having about Turner relating light to God, I particularly like the New Jerusalem Bible's translation of verses 4 and 5: "What has come into being in him was life, life that was the light of men; and light shines in darkness, and darkness could not overpower it." (most translations did not bother to explain that by "men" they intended all human beings.) The New American Standard (1977) translation does a fair job of verse 9, though no single translation seems to me to capture the full meaning of the original Koine Greek: "There was the true light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man." (again, we have to help these old translations make it clear that "man" meeans "human being.") The bottom line is the crucial importance of light to life, the durability of light, and its availability to everyone. Light, and the use of light, seems also to be a critical factor in good paintings. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Bonnie, now that you explain how Turner used the quote it makes more sense. As Jack suggests, the strong symbolic division (contrast) between God and man in the painting is in keeping with the message found in both Genesis 1 and John 1. - That is, the division of the one into the two (interestingly also the meaning of the Yin and Yang symbol found in eastern religions). In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. – Genesis 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God - John 1 Of course the purpose of all religions is to help humans understand the truth that the two are in fact the one (the Word was God). Maybe that’s why so many westerners love the Yin and Yang symbol as it beautifully illustrates the; two in one, one in two, concept found in all religions. And, as you say Bonnie, Turner’s Slave Ship painting illustrates this same truth as well. The one in Turner’s painting being the harmony in the scene. | ||
Grizrev Intermediate Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 82 Registered: 8-2006 |
Thanks, George, and you too, Bonnie. I'm glad to have the clarification of the Turner quote. Again, obviously the sun is part of the inanimate material universe, but strategic to sustaining life. I don't think I would say that "the Sun is God." But you are right, Bonnie, in thinking Turner found hope from its existence and expressed that hope metaphorically. I believe you are also right in saying that there must be a source of life, and that source would be God. The Bible begins with the words: "in the beginning, God..." It goes on to say that "God said, 'let there be light', and there was light." It's also interesting to read the gospel writer John's words relating light to deity (John 1) | ||
Whitewatercolor Advanced Member Username: Whitewatercolor Post Number: 160 Registered: 10-2006 |
I just did a google search on "J.M.W. Turner God" and his actual statement was "The Sun is God." If you read that with the rest of my original statement, it makes more sense. Together with his quote of "I did not paint it to be understood, but I wished to show what such a scene was like." What I think draws me to Turner is that I feel he attempted to share those moments that he felt closest to God. Experiences that were so incredible to him that he wanted others to understand them. I've read that he painted "God" overlooking his slave ship. Here are some thoughts his slave ship paintings bring to mind. While he is documenting probably the most incredible horror that took place during his lifetime, he has done it with great beauty by showing it through the eyes of his God, the very thing that brings all life to the planet--the sun. By placing a symbol of what we are taught God may look like, overlooking this most horrific scene, is he questioning the very existence, reality, or rationality of that most commonly held deity? Would God be that which brings life and incredible emotional joy, or could God bring beliefs that enable us to give ourselves superior standing to other life by establishing rules that we call beliefs. To me religion cannot be so simple as who says what or what belief one person has over another. Religion would have to be supportive of all living things. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Jack, I read the Manifesto itself. I agree with you that it was overly emotional. I’ll take your word for it that Schaeffer’s Trilogy is better, and therefore will add the Trilogy to my future reading list. The Turner quote was posted by Bonnie and I don’t know enough about Turner to say how he (Turner) meant it to be taken. I agree with you that it is best to understand it as a metaphor. | ||
Grizrev Intermediate Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 80 Registered: 8-2006 |
George, Blessings on you for reading some of Schaeffer -- or were you reading some kind of review of his "Christian Manifesto" that may have lifted some things out of context? Unfortunately, I believe Schaeffer in his "Christian Manifesto" was responding emotionally (and perhaps inaccurately at times) to things he felt were contributing to the culture war battles of our time. His earlier writings -- particularly his "trilogy" -- contain nothing of that and are very thoughtful, even "radical" in the true sense of the word. Getting back to Turner's reference to the Bible's affirmation that "God is light" ... I hope he wasn't falling into the fundamentalist trap of often insisting on understanding the Bible literally and not figuratively. I think "God is light" was intended to be understood metaphorically. What do you think? | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Hi Jack; I don’t confine my reading to any safe corner. When you first mentioned Schaeffer I looked up “A Christian Manifesto” on the internet and by reading it realized that the author’s mind is not of interest to me. Many of his statements seemed to me to be full of assumptions, stereo-types, and false facts. Take as one example this statement from the Manifesto; “It's illegal, in many places, for youngsters to merely meet and pray on the geographical location of the public schools.” That’s just completely false! There are no laws that make prayer illegal anywhere in this country, and there never have been. Some of the points behind his arguments are fine, but he makes them in such a disagreeable way that I find myself being turned off by his tone. I’m sorry Jack, I know you have respect for this man, but you keep recommending that I read more of his works; therefore I thought I owed you an explanation as to why I am not interested. Concerning the Inness quote, I read it in much the same way as you do. I would think most artists attempt to record the very essence, or the very life force, of the objects depicted. How is this done? Well….painting is all about relationships! In a great painting there are thousands of small relationships. Some time ago I wrote an explanation of these relationships. I’ll insert it here: If you make a hundred brushstrokes you learn that the appearance of the brushstroke is the result of the speed, angle, pressure and direction of the stroke. If you make a thousand brushstrokes you learn that the appearance of the brushstroke is also the result of the exact water content in the paper, brush and paint. If you make ten thousand brushstrokes you learn that the appearance of the brushstroke is also the result of the brushstrokes that lie next to it. If you make one hundred thousand brushstrokes you learn that the appearance of the brushstroke is also the result of the brushstrokes that lie on the opposite side of the page. Now you can make just one brushstroke! But, the result can be one of one hundred thousand different possible appearances. A painting is made up of many brushstrokes. If you make one hundred paintings you learn that every brushstroke has a relationship of color, value, and texture to all the other brushstrokes on the page. If you make one thousand paintings you learn that every brushstroke has a relationship of size, position and orientation to all the other brushstrokes on the page. If you make ten thousand paintings you learn that every brushstroke has a relationship of emotional expression and individual meaning to all the other brushstrokes that lie near it on the page. If you make one hundred thousand paintings you learn that every brushstroke has a relationship of emotional expression and individual meaning to all the other brushstrokes that lie on the opposite side of the page. Now you can make just one painting and all the individual brushstrokes will vanish. Now one brushstroke by itself is a meaningless and dead thing. Now when you make one brushstroke, you no longer see it. You see the whole! Now back to the question; how does an artist illustrate the very life force of the objects depicted? When we view a great painting in which all the relationships are in perfect harmony we sense the connection between its pattern of relationships and the pattern of relationships responsible for the very life force, or “living motion” that animates the objects depicted. In art we call it unity. Unity is oneness. | ||
Grizrev Intermediate Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 78 Registered: 8-2006 |
George, Inness seems to encourage us to capture and convey the "spirit" of what is seen, not just record the material substance (facts). Is that what you understand? If so, how do you go about that task when you paint? | ||
Grizrev Intermediate Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 77 Registered: 8-2006 |
George, Turner's quote references the Bible (I John 1:5) -- "God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all." I guess we humans provide the contrast! By the way, George, in reference to Merton and Schaeffer - if we confine our reading to our own safe corners of preference in the realm of religion, how can we ever stretch ourselves and grow? | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Thank you for the recommendation, but I believe I’ll stick with Merton. On another thread Bonnie mentioned her admiration for the Turner quote, “God is light”. It made me think of a similar quote I’ve always admired concerning the relationship between religion and art. So, I dug around in some old papers I had stacked in a closet and found it. “The true end of Art is not to imitate a fixed material condition, but to represent a living motion.” - George Inness | ||
Grizrev Intermediate Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 68 Registered: 8-2006 |
George, Thanks for your last post, but no apology at all was needed -- your thoughts and observations are cogent and correct! Schaeffer did indeed have very distinct origins and associations, but he was not intellectually confined by those. He challenged people he met to think. He was a truly independent thinker, hard to "pigeonhole" or categorize. He was not a rigid rationalist -- just advocated an intelligent conversation between religious and secular thought. He really was interested in building bridges, which he felt Christians were not doing in the troubled culture of his time. George, you come across as a very intelligent and well-educated man. I think you would enjoy reading Schaeffer and would find him thought-provoking, whatever your religious and philosophical preferences. I, too, like Thomas Merton! | ||
Terry Intermediate Member Username: Terry Post Number: 58 Registered: 8-2006 |
When we get into things "Spiritual" I am once again reminded how diverse we are in our thoughts and opinions. I guess we live (I live) life not really giving much thought to this until a subject comes up that galvanizes this process. Transparent WC...to use or not use black, etc. comes to mind. I read many of Schaeffer's books years ago and quote him often. Not that I am in that stream or agree with everything he says or even pretend to comprehend what he was all about. I do know that he and his son believed that art, music, dance, etc. was given to man by God. They were radical in thinking that Christians needed to exercise more influence in these areas. In "The Great Evangelical Disaster" he postulated that mainstream chrisitanity had missed it when they elevated the clergy to the point that becoming a priest (etc.) was the only way, or best way to serve God. His thought was that a Christian that became the editor of the New York Times would have more influence than a pastor of 50 people in small country church somewhere. But becoming a laywer or editor was not what most parents would see as a Christian calling and therefore not direct their children in this way. Like I said: even though there are only 12 notes in the musical scale (based on the Pythagorean Theorem) there are a lot of tunes out there. Some resonate within me and some do not. I guess it would be similar within the art world as well. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Gary, Kinkaid claims to be “The Painter of Light”. He uses that title to claim that he is a direct spokesman for, and communicator of, the light of God. His sales corporation does heavy promotional ads in the fundamentalist Christian journals to sell this belief to his Christian buyers. As I said in another post, many other Christians believe Kinkaid is being sacrilegious. | ||
Garydoc Intermediate Member Username: Garydoc Post Number: 82 Registered: 8-2006 |
I have never figured out what is so "religious" about Kincaid's art. The one's of churches are obviously of churches, but what is the 'spiritual' component of the rest of his stuff? I find the compositions somewhat treackly and sweet, but that is my taste talking. I don't see overt symbols of a religious nature in the pictures. Am I missing something? (or is it the problem of the outsider looking in?) Gary | ||
George Unregistered guest |
I’m sorry Jack, you’re right of course, whether he is minority or majority in religious thought is not relevant to anything being discussed here. I apologize! I read your link and found this; “Francis Schaeffer was skeptical of the increase of Platonism in culture (identified with mysticism) and leaned more towards an Aristotelian view of reality (identified with rationalism).” That’s about as far distant as one Christian can be from the kind of Christian writings I prefer. Personally, I lean toward the writings of Thomas Merton (1915-1968). He was one of the most influential Catholic authors of the 20th century. I’m not saying Merton was a better author that Schaeffer, only that they are on different sides of a philosophical fence that separates Christian from Christian. It’s a lot like a preference for different painting styles in art. One isn’t necessarily better than another, just different. | ||
Grizrev Intermediate Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 66 Registered: 8-2006 |
George, Besides Schaeffer's "triology," the essential writings about his philosophic and apologetic approach to the conversation -- you would probably appreciate his "Art and the Bible," and Edith Schaeffer's (his wife) "Hidden Art." Available on Amazon. | ||
Grizrev Intermediate Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 65 Registered: 8-2006 |
George, Schaeffer was not into rifts and movements -- he really wanted to be an intelligent bridge in encouraging a conversation between the religious and secular realms. Whether he is minority or majority in religious thought is not especially relevant. Take a closer look at his writings -- perhaps some of those mentioned by the young man who reviews some of his thought at http://www.next-wave.org/dec99/francis_schaeffer.htm | ||
undertherock Unregistered guest |
Isn't the very attempt to elicit an emotional response from another person and act of spirtuality? By creating art we are literally attempting to breath life into paper to make an emotional bond or share part of our experience with others. When I read Turner's declaration that "God is Light" to me that means that he felt the spirtual connection of all things, connected by light or the sun, very much like quantum physics, as described in recent years in documentaries such as "What the Bleep Do We Know." | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Jack, I looked up Schaeffer to find out more about him. He’s the author of “A Christian Manifesto” published in 1982. From what I understand he was a part of the movement that caused the current riff between Mainline Christians and Fundamentalist Christians. Therefore his views would represent a minority opinion in the Christian community. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
I’m not familiar with Francis Schaeffer. But, there have been many changes in the relationship between art and religion over the years. I don’t think it’s accurate to say that nature itself became a religious object of worship and devotion, but rather nature became a symbol of a higher truth. As Asher Durand, the Hudson River school artist put it; "The external appearance of this our dwelling place is fraught with lessons of high and holy meaning, only surpassed by the light of Revelation." | ||
Grizrev Intermediate Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 64 Registered: 8-2006 |
George, Just a quick P.S. Schaeffer saw the philosophical shift in art as a shift to considering humans to be just a small part and product of nature, with no transcendent connections. Mother Earth or Mother Nature became the explanation for our origins, meaning, and significance, and object of almost religious devotion. | ||
Grizrev Intermediate Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 55 Registered: 8-2006 |
George, Francis Schaeffer (now deceased) of L'Abri in Switzerland said that he noted as faith lost its influence to secular forces following the Renaissance, that humans (who were large size in "religious" art of the classical period) began to disappear and be replaced by large natural landscapes. In other words, the supposed human interactions with deity portrayed in religious art were displaced by nature itself as almost a religious object of worship and devotion. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
William, When you say, "religious messages posing as art", I think of Kinkade. Many, I’ll include myself among them, believe Kinkade’s art is sacreligious. What if the artist includes a religious context but doesn’t tell the viewer? Does it then serve the “purpose of art?” On a side note, here’s an Inness; http://www.dangheno.net/pwritingspg2.htm | ||
Landscaper Member Username: Landscaper Post Number: 26 Registered: 12-2006 |
George, I'm with Eugene. I see a great scene and go for it. When I was a teenager, fifty years ago or so, I would copy some religious art; but I was naive and my sense of art was immature. I think, anyone who paints religious art paints to express a belief or send a message. I do not believe one who paints religious art today does so for the purpose of art, itself. I personally reject religious messages of that sort posing as art. They appear as advertisements to my sensibilities. | ||
Eugene Advanced Member Username: Eugene Post Number: 190 Registered: 8-2006 |
Interesting topic George. I’m afraid my works have no “message” or purpose other than to show others the beauty I see in our surroundings. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Religion came up in another thread and it caused me to think about the relationship between religion and art throughout history. Art has been an important part of all the world’s religions. In the western culture the majority of the art produced was used to illustrate scripture. But, in recent centuries the spiritual content in art moved beyond the Church. Many nineteenth century artists attempted to infuse their art with spiritual symbols or meanings that were in addition to, or beyond, the standard Christian symbols and painting styles. For example; Caspar Friedrich’s and George Inness’s paintings were meant to be expressions of a religious mysticism (Inness in his late period). The question is; do any of you attempt to capture, construct or communicate a spiritual context in your style of painting? Do you know of other artists (especially watercolor artists) who do? Are there certain painting styles that are more conducive to the expression of spiritual communication? Are there painting styles that are less useful for this purpose (Photorealism perhaps?). |
