Don't worry, I'm not going to make this all alarmist and heavy, ha. People who know me know that I enjoy arts and crafts, and I sure enjoy being around people who love art, hobby or professional crafting, and who understand the daily urge to buy art supplies ha ha.
I also have observed through my significantly length life, ha... that art has become more intertwined in many people's minds with personal quests for spirituality and mysticism. People who know me know that I have to be honest and point out that a lot of "New Age" thinking is total garbage. However, people who really know me do know that I respect genuine, how shall I phrase this....hmmm....genuine attempts to interact on a deeper level with the materials of one's art, and any spiritual heritage, legit or not. Here is an example of to me the difference. It's one thing to give a nod to birthstones, and so utilize the traditional meanings of birthstones for each month in one's artistic craftings and expressiveness. I would also think there would be room to be quirky and droll, such as how one mixes and matches the supposed assigned months. This, however, is a vast distance from marketing and using stones for their supposed powers and abilities.
Again, I'm not going to be all heavy and school marmish and a party poop and warn about meddling with magic etc. Rather, I'm going to point out that whatever you believe, I am going to give you some tips to make your art genuinely more authentic, and to recognize some misguided thinking that may have affects via your art, unknowingly, on your mood, your outlook, your health and so forth.
Here's my main example. I bought a nifty book today with some cute crafting suggestions, and I'm just beginning to leaf through it. As is so often the case (it's almost trite now, and this is not a criticism of the author, but of the societal mindset) there is the usual construction of a bracelet with "power stones." By the way, I love the bracelet. Anyway, the author reiterates the same old tired stuff about chakras and the "meaning" of colored stones and the "powers" associated with them. So far pretty typical, but while admiring the bracelet (while rolling my eyes over the spiritual psychobabble) I realized how to turn this into a case study.
One of the stones the author uses is "black onyx" for "grounding." (Excuse me while I roll my eyes some more, ha). I see the usual flags of "why" to use this stone because it "has protective qualities," (*roll*) "absorbs and transforms negativity" (*roll roll*) "without storing it" (meaning the negativity). So just to recap: I love the bracelet, each bead is terrific, the color scheme is wonderful.....but then I read how it has this supposed mystical and spiritual function. One runs all the time into this thinking with crystals, which is why I've stopped using crystals in my art as I do not want anyone watching me to think I buy into that bull hockey.
Anyway, here is what I want to point out to you. How logical is it to make permanent in one's art something that should be a temporary or transitory experience in life?
Let's for a moment pretend that black onyx really does "absorb and transform negativity." OK, how often does one really legitimately encounter spiritual negativity in a day? Does one really need to wear a negativity vacuum cleaner on one's wrist all the time? So think of black onyx, particularly the stone in this otherwise beautiful bracelet, as being a miniature vacuum cleaner (I think Brits call it a "hoover") and that the only dust and dirt it sucks up is "negativity." What is it saying about your outlook of life, rather that just enjoying a beautiful black stone for it's color, texture and workability, if you think you need a piece of jewelry that has a vacuum cleaner constantly on?
Work with me on this visualization. In the real world where sure we are bummed out by high petrol prices, traffic jams, nasty bosses, demanding customers, long work hours (or loss of one's job), how much of that is really "spiritual negativity." Please, put Avatar aside just for a moment, LOL, and remember that you are not spiritual warriors wading through a mass of negative spiritual molasses being hurled at you while you wave your vacuum cleaner bracelet around to suck it all up and transform it like some warrior princess. Goodness. But it says a lot about your mindset (which you reinforce every time you wear the bracelet, or tell that to your customer who bought it) that he or she is wading through the slings and arrows of outrageous "spiritual negativity."
So pretend that it is true, that this stone does "absorb spiritual negativity," but if it does, that means it acts like that vacuum cleaner. So you are walking around with a vacuum cleaner on your wrist that is constantly whirring and sucking and swooshing and trying to pull in the dirt it is supposed to clean. Um, are you not attracting the negativity to you that would otherwise have just wisped by you? Remember the cartoon character Pigpen in the Peanuts cartoon strip? If he walked around with a running vacuum cleaner on his head all the time, pointing outward, would he be cleaner? No.... he would actually be dirtier as now all the surrounding dirt would be sucked toward him, adding to what he already has.
Thus, even if you believe in the totally bogus "power" of black onyx, you have a problem. You, rather than ridding yourself of the supposed routine negativity floating out there (that you must be unaware of because if it was directed to you verbally or with someone's bad behavior, you'd deal with it rather than wave your silly wrist at him with your best spirit warrior princess look), would actually be having that "spiritual negativity" attractor on full time. It does not matter that black onyx supposedly "transforms" and "stores" it in a harmless way because just like dirt caught in a really expensive filter in a vacuum cleaner, the dirt still has to be sucked into your face and all around you until it is inside that filter, no? Pigpen would have not only the cloud of his own natural dirt around him as in the cartoon, but with that live vacuum cleaner on his head an extra large cloud of all the passing dirt, including that which was harmlessly on the ground! (read my analysis a few years ago under label "debunking cults" where I explain one reason one knows tarot cards are bogus is that they assume a high percentage of negative events that actual life does not reflect unless one is being bombed in Darfur or something, and even then people would not have 25% or more horrendous days).
This is an example of how art should not codify or make permanent something that is by its natural and ought to be a transitional or transitory part of life. I know that this will be a bit hard to let go of because you've been raised in several generations where people think every burp and fart they make ought to be enshrined in a record of artistic merit for others to either admire, be shocked by, or accept your art authenticity street cred, ha. But I am assuming that artists who try to combine mysticism and spirituality in their art are sincere and well meaning, and thus I am responding to you in kind in an effort to coach you and get you to recognize an error in your logic.
Thus, practically speaking, I would have used the black onyx as it is beautifully worked in that bracelet only for its color and texture, in other word, the aesthetics (and budget) of your materials. I would not use any material that you "believe" has some sort of "power" because legit or bogus you are codifying a percentage of exposure to that supposed spiritual world that does not actually exist in reality. This creates two problems. One is that it occupies space where a genuinely more spiritual and proactive attitude could reside. The other is that it works to keep your unconscious pointed toward the very thing you seek to avoid. It's like the old joke "Don't think about pink elephants" but of course you have to when you hear those words. If you wear something you think is a vacuum cleaner-transformer of "bad things," well, you sure are thinking about bad things and it becomes like a computer virus that makes your computer consume resources and ultimately slow down or crash your meaningful work.
Let's get a little deeper into this, as I envision what someone (and trust me, I know a lot of people who are in that mindset world) might reply. If that person is really caught up in the fantasy that he or she IS indeed walking around in the world "meant to defeat invisible forces of spiritual negativity" and thus must wear the bracelet, um, hold on there. Here's my reply. Look, I studied Chinese spirituality for many years, including tai chi and kung fu. I did not walk around with a photograph of a really good tai chi movement on my wrist, LOL, I learned how to actually do it. Likewise you do not defeat presumed "negative spirituality" in secret by wearing bogus "power bracelets" and letting people continue to have whatever negative thoughts or feelings plague them. You, um, I know this sounds strange, but you actually, um, fight negativity by 1) not encouraging it and 2) learning better real ways of thought, action and prayerfulness.
One of my favorite expressions and one that has profound truth is that "Truth is the greatest antiseptic." If you think there are negative spiritual forces in the world (and there are, but nowhere near as much as people think, since all of God's creation is made in his goodness) the negativity comes from thoughts and deeds of human beings, thoughts and deeds that obviously are able to be identified, discussed and corrected in the light of day and real facts.
When one starts to think that amulets, stones and whatever human made objects, and here we are discussing arts and crafts, have "special powers," one is running from rather than dealing with the presumed issues of the times. I mean, do you think mailing a lot of rose quartz to Darfur would solve anything? *reality phone ringing*
The second thing that I envision someone in dialogue with me would say, "Well, do you mean that people should not capture in art form something they felt very badly about in a moment, but got over. And so are you saying that a really angry, sad or depressive piece should not be made if the person is to transition through that temporary state?" Yes, I am saying that to some degree, and that's the part I know is controversial.
Too much value is falsely ascribed to "venting" and "letting it out." As a counselor I have read the literature and also through my work have witnessed that as satisfying (and addictive) as "venting" or "catharsis" is, it is the least helpful of all the measures of improved mental and emotional health. It's one of those myths of the 1960's, starting with "scream therapy" I reckon. Art that is depressive, venting, cathartic and "letting it out" is codifying and making permanent something that the healthy human brain is supposed to experience, move through and let go of by transforming it to the next step. Art (and now I include music) that puts into concrete and makes viral to the viewers, listeners and purchasers is inadvertently keeping people stuck in the artist's temporary space. The artist, of course, too is likely to remain in that space.
There are obvious exceptions to what I am saying. The great painting Guernica captures the horror of war via a specific war atrocity. This is where art has a huge noble purpose. Art can indeed help to capture and make permanent the expression of something that would otherwise be lost or less understood if it were not on canvas or paper. But you see, that is a world of difference between being an unhappy depressed young person or adult in your personal life and thinking you are "cathartic" and "authentic" via repeated morbid art, versus a thoughtful piece of art that you are using not as catharsis but to snapshot or capture an admittedly transitory event or emotion that you can express with others.
Here's another way to understand the difference. Wyeth has a painting of a dog that is kind of stuck in a sandpit, and you see his or her sad and confused head looking over the rim. That work is brilliant on all levels by expressing alienation, entrapment, confusion, etc. That is a world of difference from painting over and over the body of your pet dog that was put to sleep when you were a teenager! Or of wearing a bracelet that you think invokes the "protector goddess of dead dogs," *gentle ha* or that has a stone that "fights dead dog negative spirits" *goodness gracious.* Genuine art knows the difference between capturing a moment of expressiveness versus getting on an unsatisfactory and even counterproductive supposedly "cathartic" treadmill.
When I select colors for my artwork I do so to 1) make an attractive piece and 2) aid in the expression of what I am trying to depict. I do not choose a color because "Thor's fairy aunt's dogwalker has wings in that color" or "my mom washed my mouth out with soap of that color when I told her to shut up" (ha ha, one of my proudest child warrior moments, true story, the soap I mean, not Thor LOL).
Likewise you need to discern the difference between art that, yes, may express a sad and transitory time, and that can be painted or crafted legit, versus viral "cathartic" art that keeps both you and the viewers stuck in an emotional and mental state that should be progressed through with maturity and left behind or, at the very least, remains in a better holistically integrated state within you.
I hope that you have found this helpful and even droll and amusing :-)
Showing posts with label Art. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Art. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Simple art, collector, aesthetics idea
While I'm not a serious collector, I do have a weakness for vintage pressed glass relish dishes. Not only are they pretty, common, and affordable, but they bring back pleasant memories. Back in the 1950's they were a regular sight at evening dinner or lunch-not just special occasion-as they were filled with raw carrots, celery, pickles and olives. People, including kids, ate simpler and healthier then.
Anyway, I have a pretty round one with one divider down the center and a pretty rather feathery swirl design that I just bought, and it's only about eight inches in diameter. While sorting my small tubes of acrylic paints, getting ready for a little project, it occurred to me that using these relish dishes would be a fun way to keep the paint handy and the dishes in use and on display on my desk. Just thought I'd pass along this "multi-use" idea!
Anyway, I have a pretty round one with one divider down the center and a pretty rather feathery swirl design that I just bought, and it's only about eight inches in diameter. While sorting my small tubes of acrylic paints, getting ready for a little project, it occurred to me that using these relish dishes would be a fun way to keep the paint handy and the dishes in use and on display on my desk. Just thought I'd pass along this "multi-use" idea!
Friday, September 25, 2009
The need for truth in music, the arts.....
This is just a personal and philosophical/theological and factual observation, that is follow up to what I've been blogging where I explain that faith is authentically obtained by seeking the truth, the genuine, absolute truth, rather than "the best" "faith for me." Recalling what I've written that if one really cherishes and seeks the truth, one will inevitably find it-and the one true God-because God and his creation are the truth, let me explain my feelings about music.
I totally love music and as I reckon I've blogged before, I was listening to blues and pop music and rock and roll from the cradle (much helped by my much older brother playing the radio.) I wanted to play an instrument-and sing-but was kept from having any music lessons at all until I was able to pay for them on my own when in college. So I have a very clear love of music.
However, my friends, especially those in the music industry, wonder how I have lived for decades without listening to either current music or replaying those I've enjoyed in the past.
It became painfully obvious to me in the 1980's that almost without exception, all popular music, even the most brilliant of pieces, were written and composed by people who did not believe in the true God. Now, I am not saying I wanted Christian music because, actually, I find the same problem in much of Christian music from around that same time period. Since the 1980's the groundwork for the brainwashing and destruction of faith (genuine, factual, orthodox faith) that had been put in place during the 1960's-1970's started yielding their global bitter fruit. Even though most popular songs have absolutely nothing to do with God or faith as a topic, it was still painfully (and repulsively) obvious to me that the songs were all written in a distorted, God less and nihilistic mindset. Even the "happy" songs were clanging and warped, sometimes subtle, but usually very obvious to me. But it was obvious that ALL genres of music had become pieces of production made in in pained, God less and angry/manic depressive music "factories."
Now, young people especially, here is the crucial point I need to make to you, regarding both this topic of music (and art) and of faith and life in general. You must learn to distinguish between and properly manage, and put respectful boundaries around the two completely different mindsets of "truth" and "validity." Your parents (and many of their parents) combined the two, erroneously, in their minds, and have therefore caused their own mental, spiritual and emotional downfalls. It started with "let it all hang out." That is the philosophy that if you feel a certain way, then it is valid, "authentic" and honorable, and must be shared, even if everyone who listens to it then goes off the deep end and wants to shoot themselves. There is a huge difference between being "valid" (which means that right or wrong that is how you think/feel) and the truth, which is reality, a reality which includes the one true God and his role in this world.
For example, someone can write a miserable song because they feel like shit and they think they are evil reincarnated alien spawn. That's "valid," because that's what they think and feel (usually because they were brought up that way, or fell into the hands of sick "gurus"). But it is not the truth, because they would not feel that way if they were taught and came to believe in the truth of the world, a world that very much includes the one true God.
So sure, I am not against someone who has to do a "core dump" in the form of music of their sadness, anger, alienation, addiction, misery, aimlessness, vengefulness, spite, and so forth, since that is "valid...." that is, indeed, how he or she feels.
The problem is that like building houses on sand foundations, instead of bedrock, I noticed starting in the 1980's that virtually the entire music business prompted songs written, composed and produced by people who had totally lost their footing in the truth. They no longer even believed there is a truth, in the world, in their public lives, or in their private lives. They came to think that the current (or past) "validity" of what they think or feel IS the truth, which it most certainly is not.
So even the most inane and harmless of happy songs (those few there were, especially as rap, metal, angry punk and other genres took over increasing market share) were written by people who thought that the truth was to force out something commercially happy as a product, even though they did not believe in the truth. In other words, unhappy people living with perspectives that lacked recognition of truth were writing both happy and unhappy songs. This means that instead of most houses being built on solid foundations, most houses were now built on sand.
I can hardly listen to anything of the past few decades without seeing directly in the souls of those who produced and wrote these pieces and seeing their alienation, their loss of truth and worst of all, their determination that their "validity" IS the truth, and must be imposed as depressive and warped realities onto each new generation of listener. These adults raised children in the business who completely lost truth about life in the world and yet, brilliant as they are, produced brilliant music that is like a poisoned apple, great to eat but it kills you with each bite. We are on the THIRD decade of this disaster. That is why I cannot listen to music, most music, without pain.
I can even tell you the last song I gave a serious listen to as it came out, the version of "What's the Story (Morning Glory)" by Oasis. That is absolutely the last popular song I listened to and heeded and admired as it was released. Why is that? Of course technically it is wonderful, but more to point, it put into words exactly what I have described above: the disaster of being in a world where all your dreams are made when you're chained to the mirror on your razor blade. I pretty much turned off the radio after a few good listens of that, and that's no lie (as my stalkers can attest!) This is why I cannot listen to even the big hits, the really brilliant songs, even those of great compelling validity, of the late 1980's, the 1990's and the 2000's thus far. ALL of them are only "valid," very, very, VERY few of them are written by people with their heads screwed on properly and who believe in any truth, say nothing of the truth, of life, and of God's role in life.
I wish I could give you a real life example, so instead, imagine along with me the difference in a song about the exact same life experience written by a person who is valid, but does not know about or accept truth, and a person who is valid and is writing from a position of acknowledging the truth. So imagine that each songwriter wants to write about the misery of an addiction and ruined life, for example. One songwriter believes freaky things, nihilistic things, and writes about his or her addiction in that context. Even if they never mention their depressive and nihilistic mindset, that mindset, of course, is the well spring and informs their talent, which shapes their song. The other songwriter writes about the same intense valid misery in their, his or her, own life, but the well spring they have is one that still has at least a foundation in the truthfulness of a world that was created good, where there is a God, but where things go terribly astray. They might even come up with very similar words, and/or the instrumentation and music may be similar. But there would be a profound difference. Like I said, I wish I could give you actual examples but the scale is totally tilted with the bulk of compositions being of the "valid" but not grounded in overall life truth perspective. I'm not as able to access, not being part of the music industry crowd, of course, information where I can make such a real life comparison. The best I can do is point out how the blues, the old, traditional blues, were written by often very sad and afflicted people, and they are powerful and valid, but also honest because they were written by people who were still in touch with truthfulness in the world, including at least a nod toward the reality of God and his goodness, even if that did not comprise any of the song. This is why the old traditional blues are truly treasures of validity and honesty, in addition to their musical craftsmanship.
However, when I have a song recommended to me, which happened quite a bit in the early 2000's when people would email me "OMG I can't believe you never listened to this songwriter or this song or this group or this band" and then attach a link, I do listen and there it is again, but no one else understands what it is, since it's so pervasive. Only someone who grew up in the 1950's and listened to music that was still created on the foundation of truth (even if personal valid experience was miserable) can explain to you that there is a very stark "before" and "after." So after I listen to the song I resist the urge to shoot myself, and then research the artist and his or her other tracks. OMG, it is always the same. You can tell in their discography that they are totally into "validity" while living in a miserable, manic depressive, warped lack of truth. I then have to resist shooting myself after just reading the song titles. Good grief, it is a nightmare.
This really is a topic that lends itself more to face to face discussion (imagine that!) and having the help of a DJ who can pull examples of what I mean. But I thought that many of you, since you are questing, alert, and aware that these are disturbed times, will get the gist of what I mean, and have insight not only into how/why I perceive and do things as I do, but think about the facts as I have presented them and examine your own experiences for further insight.
A person can write the most brilliant piece of music ever, and it still be a wrong thing to do. That is a controversial statement, I know. By wrong I don't mean criminal or necessarily sinful or immoral. But just as products should not be subliminally marketed (the old popcorn hidden in the movie film scam), depressive "validity" that is denial of truth should not be deluging people, as it has for decades now, because that is dishonest. Artists, you must understand that it is possible, very possible, to be "valid" and "authentic," but totally dishonest. That is the boundary you must start to recognize, for the well being of not only your audience, but of your individual self.
I hope you understood as best as I could present these words tonight. I still love music, but for decades, music has not loved me back.
I totally love music and as I reckon I've blogged before, I was listening to blues and pop music and rock and roll from the cradle (much helped by my much older brother playing the radio.) I wanted to play an instrument-and sing-but was kept from having any music lessons at all until I was able to pay for them on my own when in college. So I have a very clear love of music.
However, my friends, especially those in the music industry, wonder how I have lived for decades without listening to either current music or replaying those I've enjoyed in the past.
It became painfully obvious to me in the 1980's that almost without exception, all popular music, even the most brilliant of pieces, were written and composed by people who did not believe in the true God. Now, I am not saying I wanted Christian music because, actually, I find the same problem in much of Christian music from around that same time period. Since the 1980's the groundwork for the brainwashing and destruction of faith (genuine, factual, orthodox faith) that had been put in place during the 1960's-1970's started yielding their global bitter fruit. Even though most popular songs have absolutely nothing to do with God or faith as a topic, it was still painfully (and repulsively) obvious to me that the songs were all written in a distorted, God less and nihilistic mindset. Even the "happy" songs were clanging and warped, sometimes subtle, but usually very obvious to me. But it was obvious that ALL genres of music had become pieces of production made in in pained, God less and angry/manic depressive music "factories."
Now, young people especially, here is the crucial point I need to make to you, regarding both this topic of music (and art) and of faith and life in general. You must learn to distinguish between and properly manage, and put respectful boundaries around the two completely different mindsets of "truth" and "validity." Your parents (and many of their parents) combined the two, erroneously, in their minds, and have therefore caused their own mental, spiritual and emotional downfalls. It started with "let it all hang out." That is the philosophy that if you feel a certain way, then it is valid, "authentic" and honorable, and must be shared, even if everyone who listens to it then goes off the deep end and wants to shoot themselves. There is a huge difference between being "valid" (which means that right or wrong that is how you think/feel) and the truth, which is reality, a reality which includes the one true God and his role in this world.
For example, someone can write a miserable song because they feel like shit and they think they are evil reincarnated alien spawn. That's "valid," because that's what they think and feel (usually because they were brought up that way, or fell into the hands of sick "gurus"). But it is not the truth, because they would not feel that way if they were taught and came to believe in the truth of the world, a world that very much includes the one true God.
So sure, I am not against someone who has to do a "core dump" in the form of music of their sadness, anger, alienation, addiction, misery, aimlessness, vengefulness, spite, and so forth, since that is "valid...." that is, indeed, how he or she feels.
The problem is that like building houses on sand foundations, instead of bedrock, I noticed starting in the 1980's that virtually the entire music business prompted songs written, composed and produced by people who had totally lost their footing in the truth. They no longer even believed there is a truth, in the world, in their public lives, or in their private lives. They came to think that the current (or past) "validity" of what they think or feel IS the truth, which it most certainly is not.
So even the most inane and harmless of happy songs (those few there were, especially as rap, metal, angry punk and other genres took over increasing market share) were written by people who thought that the truth was to force out something commercially happy as a product, even though they did not believe in the truth. In other words, unhappy people living with perspectives that lacked recognition of truth were writing both happy and unhappy songs. This means that instead of most houses being built on solid foundations, most houses were now built on sand.
I can hardly listen to anything of the past few decades without seeing directly in the souls of those who produced and wrote these pieces and seeing their alienation, their loss of truth and worst of all, their determination that their "validity" IS the truth, and must be imposed as depressive and warped realities onto each new generation of listener. These adults raised children in the business who completely lost truth about life in the world and yet, brilliant as they are, produced brilliant music that is like a poisoned apple, great to eat but it kills you with each bite. We are on the THIRD decade of this disaster. That is why I cannot listen to music, most music, without pain.
I can even tell you the last song I gave a serious listen to as it came out, the version of "What's the Story (Morning Glory)" by Oasis. That is absolutely the last popular song I listened to and heeded and admired as it was released. Why is that? Of course technically it is wonderful, but more to point, it put into words exactly what I have described above: the disaster of being in a world where all your dreams are made when you're chained to the mirror on your razor blade. I pretty much turned off the radio after a few good listens of that, and that's no lie (as my stalkers can attest!) This is why I cannot listen to even the big hits, the really brilliant songs, even those of great compelling validity, of the late 1980's, the 1990's and the 2000's thus far. ALL of them are only "valid," very, very, VERY few of them are written by people with their heads screwed on properly and who believe in any truth, say nothing of the truth, of life, and of God's role in life.
I wish I could give you a real life example, so instead, imagine along with me the difference in a song about the exact same life experience written by a person who is valid, but does not know about or accept truth, and a person who is valid and is writing from a position of acknowledging the truth. So imagine that each songwriter wants to write about the misery of an addiction and ruined life, for example. One songwriter believes freaky things, nihilistic things, and writes about his or her addiction in that context. Even if they never mention their depressive and nihilistic mindset, that mindset, of course, is the well spring and informs their talent, which shapes their song. The other songwriter writes about the same intense valid misery in their, his or her, own life, but the well spring they have is one that still has at least a foundation in the truthfulness of a world that was created good, where there is a God, but where things go terribly astray. They might even come up with very similar words, and/or the instrumentation and music may be similar. But there would be a profound difference. Like I said, I wish I could give you actual examples but the scale is totally tilted with the bulk of compositions being of the "valid" but not grounded in overall life truth perspective. I'm not as able to access, not being part of the music industry crowd, of course, information where I can make such a real life comparison. The best I can do is point out how the blues, the old, traditional blues, were written by often very sad and afflicted people, and they are powerful and valid, but also honest because they were written by people who were still in touch with truthfulness in the world, including at least a nod toward the reality of God and his goodness, even if that did not comprise any of the song. This is why the old traditional blues are truly treasures of validity and honesty, in addition to their musical craftsmanship.
However, when I have a song recommended to me, which happened quite a bit in the early 2000's when people would email me "OMG I can't believe you never listened to this songwriter or this song or this group or this band" and then attach a link, I do listen and there it is again, but no one else understands what it is, since it's so pervasive. Only someone who grew up in the 1950's and listened to music that was still created on the foundation of truth (even if personal valid experience was miserable) can explain to you that there is a very stark "before" and "after." So after I listen to the song I resist the urge to shoot myself, and then research the artist and his or her other tracks. OMG, it is always the same. You can tell in their discography that they are totally into "validity" while living in a miserable, manic depressive, warped lack of truth. I then have to resist shooting myself after just reading the song titles. Good grief, it is a nightmare.
This really is a topic that lends itself more to face to face discussion (imagine that!) and having the help of a DJ who can pull examples of what I mean. But I thought that many of you, since you are questing, alert, and aware that these are disturbed times, will get the gist of what I mean, and have insight not only into how/why I perceive and do things as I do, but think about the facts as I have presented them and examine your own experiences for further insight.
A person can write the most brilliant piece of music ever, and it still be a wrong thing to do. That is a controversial statement, I know. By wrong I don't mean criminal or necessarily sinful or immoral. But just as products should not be subliminally marketed (the old popcorn hidden in the movie film scam), depressive "validity" that is denial of truth should not be deluging people, as it has for decades now, because that is dishonest. Artists, you must understand that it is possible, very possible, to be "valid" and "authentic," but totally dishonest. That is the boundary you must start to recognize, for the well being of not only your audience, but of your individual self.
I hope you understood as best as I could present these words tonight. I still love music, but for decades, music has not loved me back.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Understanding the Bible through clothes!
Hey there. Hi again, especially to the younger folks. As part of modern culture becoming so different from Biblical times, even some obvious info is missing nowadays that older folks would have been cool with. So here's a fun and essential part of backfilling that knowledge that you all need to understand a frequent reference in the Bible.
In Biblical times in the Holy Land people basically wore really loose wraps of fabric around their body, held together and in place with a belt. There was usually an under layer of fabric and then an outer layer, often a robe. Most people possessed only one set of clothes! At most they had everyday work outfit and then possibly a ceremonial or good occasion outfit, but that was it.
Thus the belt was really important since it held the fabric close to the body and everything "in place." In Biblical times the belt is called the "girdle." Ah ha! They were not trying to conquer belly fat when they all wore girdles, LOL. A girdle was a belt made out of leather or fabric.
(I've just had to paws, I mean pause, to pet a friend's dog who I am taking care of while she is away. He misses his "mom" and needs lots of attention :)
...
...
...
...voice input would be helpful right now, ha....
...
Here is from a bible dictionary in the back of my 1955 New Standard bible, Authorized King James etc but exceedingly cool because of the beautiful engravings along with comprehensive dictionary.
"Girdle, an essential article of dress in the East, and worn both by men and women. The common girdle was made of leather, like that worn by the Bedouins today. The girdle was fastened by a clasp of gold or silver, or tied in a knot so that the ends hung down in front.
It was worn by men about the loins (Isa, v. 27, xi. 5). The girdle of women was generally looser than that of the men and was worn about the hips, except when they were actively engaged (Proverbs xxxi, 17). The military girdle was worn about the waist; the sword or dagger was suspended from it (Judg. iii. 16; 2 Sam. xx. 8; Ps. xlv. 3). In times of mourning girdles of sackcloth were worn (Isa. iii 24; xxii. 12)."
...the dawg's lonely again and needs more petting..... *saves*.....
....
....
....
...
Thus the normal garment was a loose cloth robe that is floor length held together with the girdle. When the person, man or woman, needed to work in the fields or at other chores, or needs to run, they "girded their loins." This meant that they pulled enough fabric up under the belt and tucked it in so that the floor length robe is shortened to being middle of the leg in length, thus making it easier to work or to "make haste."
Here's the modern equivalent. When someone is ready to "get down to work" they often say they are "rolling up their sleeves." Quite a difference between desk and studio oriented modern life, and active outdoor life of the past, where one today frees up the arms from long sleeved shirts while in the past it was to free up the legs in order to work outdoors or to walk/run in haste!
When one understands the culture it makes the Bible much easier to understand, the messages clearer, and certainly more enjoyable and less mysterious! See, even though one hundred years ago westerners were not wearing robes, being farmers and pasturalists, and other outdoor craftsmen and women, they would have still understood right away when reading the Bible what "girding one's loins" meant and implied since they could envision doing their outdoor work and the difficulties if they were wearing floor length robes. Today young people need to have such things explained, as many good Sunday school teachers do.
A small Christian church in Syria has a girdle that is credibly said to have belonged to Mary, mother of Jesus.
Now you can understand even better the very famous part of Proverbs 31, starting with 10: Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price is far above rubies. Girdles are referenced twice in describing this woman, once figuratively and once literally. She is admired for "making fine linen, and selling it; and delivering girdles unto the merchant" (24). So this proverb admires a woman who makes cloth, a fine cloth, linen, and also items that are the most essential besides the basic garment itself, which is the girdle. Then it is also used figuratively, "She girds her loins with strength, and strengthens her arms" (17). They don't mean just body building strength, LOL, but rather strength of dependability and ability to do what is necessary with wisdom. See, they use the image of the girdle, which prepares one for swift movement, to invite one to imagine a virtuous woman girding her loins (the place a man would wear the actual girdle) and her arms wi
th strength, rather than leather. With one simple image the Proverbs has provided those who get the analogy with a great image of action-oriented and wise dependability of what is still a very feminine figure.
Jesus said in Luke 12:35 Let your loins be girded about, and your lights burning.
St. Peter wrote in 1 Peter 1:13 Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ.
You can thus now understand from knowing the type of clothes and what it meant to gird up to be prepared for action how Jesus warns (in the context of a larger parable) and Peter, who would have heard Jesus discuss this many times, confirms that one has a duty to be constantly prepared for action mentally and spiritually if one expects to receive gifts of grace from God.
Many take this too literally (because they read what Jesus said but miss Peter's practical explanation) to mean "be ready when Jesus comes again in the Second Coming." Um, no, not exactly. Jesus, and thus Peter, are explaining that one must always be in a good state of being to receive from God, and not lolling about with high expectations but low readiness to comprehend God's will and wishes for you. Many people do not hear when God does reply to their prayers because they expect drama or they expect only what they expect, and are not alert to grace that they do receive, which is just about one hundred percent subtle and not glorious drama filled gifts that flood the sky with your radiance, LOL.
People girded their loins when they slogged out into the fields every day to weed (by hand) the food their family depended on, or when they have to run with an important message, or when one must tote or lug heavy things, or clean out the sheep pen.... the normal everyday things. If grace and gifts from God were drama filled and obvious, why would the most humble everyday symbol of garments be used by Jesus, and further explained by Peter? Precisely.
So that is why one cannot even actually substitute "roll up one's sleeves" as an equivalent, since that is mostly for desk jobs and white collar jobs, these days. And the point is missed on the T-shirt generation ha ha.
Rather, when one understands and immerses one's self in reading Bible passages such as these as to understand the lifestyle of those hearing (and speaking), one understands what God, through Jesus, and the prophets and the other holy people of the Bible are truly saying.
Think about what Jesus says to keep "your lights burning." He means your constant receptivity to God's will for you, even if it's not something you expect or like very much. You are not "covered" by leaving a light bulb on in a room all the time, egads. Again, think about those times. No one left a fire or lamp burning in an unattended room. But Jesus is saying that all of you need to keep your lights burning. This means to be serious and in constant attendance to all that God has said and taught you. This is why Peter says to be sober (both literally and figuratively). The bottom line is that these images mean one can never be frivolous and inattentive toward God at all. You are in a mental and spiritual state of having loins girded, not because you are waiting for something to happen, but because you are in the Kingdom of God on earth where continual service to him is required. You are always driving an auto in service to God, to use another modern and more apt analogy, so you can never risk being "asleep at the wheel." Can you say your light is burning if you barely think about God in a day, and do not have a day that is prayerful when one has opportunity?
See, people who think that they just need to noodle along on kind of a cruise control and only pay attention when a crash is imminent 1) probably cause the crash and 2) miss the whole point. Do not be "prepared" for Christ's Second Coming, but be asleep at the wheel of daily service to God.
There is much value in parsing each step of what Peter advises.
1. Gird up the loins of your mind (be knowledgeable and ready to understand God's plan and will for you),
2. Be sober (both literally and figuratively, because no delusion or frivolity must be allowed to distort God's relationship with you),
3. And hope to the end (in other words, live in a constant state of hope, no matter what, and never give up on God because he does not give up on you unless you surrender yourself irrevocably to sin)
4. For the grace that is to be brought unto you (grace is brought to you; you cannot manufacture or create or invoke grace upon yourself)
5. At the revelation of Jesus Christ (grace is brought to you by understanding and obeying what Jesus has said and demonstrated, through faith and belief and all subsequent behaviors that come from having genuine faith and belief).
People like to look for signs and deeper meanings, and here I can oblige you some. Please do not OCD overdose on symbolism though, LOL.
As I've already stated, the girding of the loins is such a humble and lowly, poor man or woman working everyday image, yet it is exalted in the speech of Jesus, of Peter, the first Pope, remember, and throughout the Bible, as we saw in Proverbs. Once again the humble and the everyday is exalted. Not "pretend humility" or "scripted humility," but the real humility of the meaning of girding one's loins. Kings wore decorative girdles of gold and did not gird their loins to work in the muck or to run from the fields in an emergency. The everyday people who were subsistence and poor girded their loins. The genuinely humble and genuinely everyday is always exalted by God.
My second point is to invite you to ponder, is it any coincidence that probably the only preserved girdle from that time in the Holy Land is the one of Mary in Syria? Was there anyone more genuinely humble, pure and non-drama oriented than her? Is it any wonder that the plain brown cloth (as best as I can see in the image) girdle of Mary, left behind at the household of someone in what is now Syria as she accompanied Jesus through all his preaching and ministry, in a small humble church in what is now an Islamic country remains?
God speaks everyday in a "small voice." The Bible records the dozen or so storm and thunders of his great miracles and the Theophany... but 365 days of each year God speaks in small deeds, small graces bestowed, and small opportunities to do his will and to serve him and through him each other.
Matthew 3:4
And the same John [the Baptist] had his raiment of camel's hair, and a leather girdle about his loins.
Ephesians 6:14
Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breast-plate of righteousness; And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace.
Just as an aside, this is another reason why "modernizing" sacred art must be totally resisted. One hardly understands girding if one looks at vulgar "art" that has Bible figures in something like modern clothing. Yes, sure, medieval art clothed the figures in unrealistic rich garments of the time, but they were conveying a spiritual point, not dropping important Bible life imagery. What I mean is that it is important to convey realistic and not modern agenda driven images of Biblical figures. Let me use a quick example. What if some "artist" thought that drawing the occupying Romans in let's say Nazi uniforms for "symbolism" sake was a cute idea? Well, that would deprive, visually, through its erroneous and shocking power, viewers of easy access to the facts that Romans came to Jesus for miracles (the centurion) AND that Roman soldiers often converted enmasse to Christianity, being martyred in the dozens on the spot. Art "symbolism" can be very dangerously misleading. So this is just an educational aside to those of you in the arts, especially young people, that you must not accept the starkness of false, sweeping "symbolic" representations to "make a point," because 1) the point is often totally wrong and 2) the point can be so powerful that it erases the viewers access to the more moderate and more factual, nuanced reality. Artists should not make "points" at the cost of truth.
In Biblical times in the Holy Land people basically wore really loose wraps of fabric around their body, held together and in place with a belt. There was usually an under layer of fabric and then an outer layer, often a robe. Most people possessed only one set of clothes! At most they had everyday work outfit and then possibly a ceremonial or good occasion outfit, but that was it.
Thus the belt was really important since it held the fabric close to the body and everything "in place." In Biblical times the belt is called the "girdle." Ah ha! They were not trying to conquer belly fat when they all wore girdles, LOL. A girdle was a belt made out of leather or fabric.
(I've just had to paws, I mean pause, to pet a friend's dog who I am taking care of while she is away. He misses his "mom" and needs lots of attention :)
...
...
...
...voice input would be helpful right now, ha....
...
Here is from a bible dictionary in the back of my 1955 New Standard bible, Authorized King James etc but exceedingly cool because of the beautiful engravings along with comprehensive dictionary.
"Girdle, an essential article of dress in the East, and worn both by men and women. The common girdle was made of leather, like that worn by the Bedouins today. The girdle was fastened by a clasp of gold or silver, or tied in a knot so that the ends hung down in front.
It was worn by men about the loins (Isa, v. 27, xi. 5). The girdle of women was generally looser than that of the men and was worn about the hips, except when they were actively engaged (Proverbs xxxi, 17). The military girdle was worn about the waist; the sword or dagger was suspended from it (Judg. iii. 16; 2 Sam. xx. 8; Ps. xlv. 3). In times of mourning girdles of sackcloth were worn (Isa. iii 24; xxii. 12)."
...the dawg's lonely again and needs more petting..... *saves*.....
....
....
....
...
Thus the normal garment was a loose cloth robe that is floor length held together with the girdle. When the person, man or woman, needed to work in the fields or at other chores, or needs to run, they "girded their loins." This meant that they pulled enough fabric up under the belt and tucked it in so that the floor length robe is shortened to being middle of the leg in length, thus making it easier to work or to "make haste."
Here's the modern equivalent. When someone is ready to "get down to work" they often say they are "rolling up their sleeves." Quite a difference between desk and studio oriented modern life, and active outdoor life of the past, where one today frees up the arms from long sleeved shirts while in the past it was to free up the legs in order to work outdoors or to walk/run in haste!
When one understands the culture it makes the Bible much easier to understand, the messages clearer, and certainly more enjoyable and less mysterious! See, even though one hundred years ago westerners were not wearing robes, being farmers and pasturalists, and other outdoor craftsmen and women, they would have still understood right away when reading the Bible what "girding one's loins" meant and implied since they could envision doing their outdoor work and the difficulties if they were wearing floor length robes. Today young people need to have such things explained, as many good Sunday school teachers do.
A small Christian church in Syria has a girdle that is credibly said to have belonged to Mary, mother of Jesus.
Now you can understand even better the very famous part of Proverbs 31, starting with 10: Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price is far above rubies. Girdles are referenced twice in describing this woman, once figuratively and once literally. She is admired for "making fine linen, and selling it; and delivering girdles unto the merchant" (24). So this proverb admires a woman who makes cloth, a fine cloth, linen, and also items that are the most essential besides the basic garment itself, which is the girdle. Then it is also used figuratively, "She girds her loins with strength, and strengthens her arms" (17). They don't mean just body building strength, LOL, but rather strength of dependability and ability to do what is necessary with wisdom. See, they use the image of the girdle, which prepares one for swift movement, to invite one to imagine a virtuous woman girding her loins (the place a man would wear the actual girdle) and her arms wi
th strength, rather than leather. With one simple image the Proverbs has provided those who get the analogy with a great image of action-oriented and wise dependability of what is still a very feminine figure.Jesus said in Luke 12:35 Let your loins be girded about, and your lights burning.
St. Peter wrote in 1 Peter 1:13 Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ.
You can thus now understand from knowing the type of clothes and what it meant to gird up to be prepared for action how Jesus warns (in the context of a larger parable) and Peter, who would have heard Jesus discuss this many times, confirms that one has a duty to be constantly prepared for action mentally and spiritually if one expects to receive gifts of grace from God.
Many take this too literally (because they read what Jesus said but miss Peter's practical explanation) to mean "be ready when Jesus comes again in the Second Coming." Um, no, not exactly. Jesus, and thus Peter, are explaining that one must always be in a good state of being to receive from God, and not lolling about with high expectations but low readiness to comprehend God's will and wishes for you. Many people do not hear when God does reply to their prayers because they expect drama or they expect only what they expect, and are not alert to grace that they do receive, which is just about one hundred percent subtle and not glorious drama filled gifts that flood the sky with your radiance, LOL.
People girded their loins when they slogged out into the fields every day to weed (by hand) the food their family depended on, or when they have to run with an important message, or when one must tote or lug heavy things, or clean out the sheep pen.... the normal everyday things. If grace and gifts from God were drama filled and obvious, why would the most humble everyday symbol of garments be used by Jesus, and further explained by Peter? Precisely.
So that is why one cannot even actually substitute "roll up one's sleeves" as an equivalent, since that is mostly for desk jobs and white collar jobs, these days. And the point is missed on the T-shirt generation ha ha.
Rather, when one understands and immerses one's self in reading Bible passages such as these as to understand the lifestyle of those hearing (and speaking), one understands what God, through Jesus, and the prophets and the other holy people of the Bible are truly saying.
Think about what Jesus says to keep "your lights burning." He means your constant receptivity to God's will for you, even if it's not something you expect or like very much. You are not "covered" by leaving a light bulb on in a room all the time, egads. Again, think about those times. No one left a fire or lamp burning in an unattended room. But Jesus is saying that all of you need to keep your lights burning. This means to be serious and in constant attendance to all that God has said and taught you. This is why Peter says to be sober (both literally and figuratively). The bottom line is that these images mean one can never be frivolous and inattentive toward God at all. You are in a mental and spiritual state of having loins girded, not because you are waiting for something to happen, but because you are in the Kingdom of God on earth where continual service to him is required. You are always driving an auto in service to God, to use another modern and more apt analogy, so you can never risk being "asleep at the wheel." Can you say your light is burning if you barely think about God in a day, and do not have a day that is prayerful when one has opportunity?
See, people who think that they just need to noodle along on kind of a cruise control and only pay attention when a crash is imminent 1) probably cause the crash and 2) miss the whole point. Do not be "prepared" for Christ's Second Coming, but be asleep at the wheel of daily service to God.
There is much value in parsing each step of what Peter advises.
1. Gird up the loins of your mind (be knowledgeable and ready to understand God's plan and will for you),
2. Be sober (both literally and figuratively, because no delusion or frivolity must be allowed to distort God's relationship with you),
3. And hope to the end (in other words, live in a constant state of hope, no matter what, and never give up on God because he does not give up on you unless you surrender yourself irrevocably to sin)
4. For the grace that is to be brought unto you (grace is brought to you; you cannot manufacture or create or invoke grace upon yourself)
5. At the revelation of Jesus Christ (grace is brought to you by understanding and obeying what Jesus has said and demonstrated, through faith and belief and all subsequent behaviors that come from having genuine faith and belief).
People like to look for signs and deeper meanings, and here I can oblige you some. Please do not OCD overdose on symbolism though, LOL.
As I've already stated, the girding of the loins is such a humble and lowly, poor man or woman working everyday image, yet it is exalted in the speech of Jesus, of Peter, the first Pope, remember, and throughout the Bible, as we saw in Proverbs. Once again the humble and the everyday is exalted. Not "pretend humility" or "scripted humility," but the real humility of the meaning of girding one's loins. Kings wore decorative girdles of gold and did not gird their loins to work in the muck or to run from the fields in an emergency. The everyday people who were subsistence and poor girded their loins. The genuinely humble and genuinely everyday is always exalted by God.
My second point is to invite you to ponder, is it any coincidence that probably the only preserved girdle from that time in the Holy Land is the one of Mary in Syria? Was there anyone more genuinely humble, pure and non-drama oriented than her? Is it any wonder that the plain brown cloth (as best as I can see in the image) girdle of Mary, left behind at the household of someone in what is now Syria as she accompanied Jesus through all his preaching and ministry, in a small humble church in what is now an Islamic country remains?
God speaks everyday in a "small voice." The Bible records the dozen or so storm and thunders of his great miracles and the Theophany... but 365 days of each year God speaks in small deeds, small graces bestowed, and small opportunities to do his will and to serve him and through him each other.
Matthew 3:4
And the same John [the Baptist] had his raiment of camel's hair, and a leather girdle about his loins.
Ephesians 6:14
Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breast-plate of righteousness; And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace.
Just as an aside, this is another reason why "modernizing" sacred art must be totally resisted. One hardly understands girding if one looks at vulgar "art" that has Bible figures in something like modern clothing. Yes, sure, medieval art clothed the figures in unrealistic rich garments of the time, but they were conveying a spiritual point, not dropping important Bible life imagery. What I mean is that it is important to convey realistic and not modern agenda driven images of Biblical figures. Let me use a quick example. What if some "artist" thought that drawing the occupying Romans in let's say Nazi uniforms for "symbolism" sake was a cute idea? Well, that would deprive, visually, through its erroneous and shocking power, viewers of easy access to the facts that Romans came to Jesus for miracles (the centurion) AND that Roman soldiers often converted enmasse to Christianity, being martyred in the dozens on the spot. Art "symbolism" can be very dangerously misleading. So this is just an educational aside to those of you in the arts, especially young people, that you must not accept the starkness of false, sweeping "symbolic" representations to "make a point," because 1) the point is often totally wrong and 2) the point can be so powerful that it erases the viewers access to the more moderate and more factual, nuanced reality. Artists should not make "points" at the cost of truth.
Monday, August 31, 2009
I love this painting of Christ blessing children
http://www.metmuseum.org/works_of_art/collection_database/european_paintings/christ_blessing_the_children_lucas_cranach_the_elder/objectview_enlarge.aspx?page=103&sort=0&sortdir=asc&keyword=&fp=1&dd1=11&dd2=0&vw=0&collID=11&OID=110000469&vT=1
Here is a note for people who do not know much about sacred or devotional art (or young people, *hi there* who are just beginning to learn about it).
Don't be put off by the fact that the great artists did not even attempt to provide historically authentic costume and settings in their art. Artists for most of human history, but particularly those of sacred subjects, tried more for capturing the essence of the moment being portrayed, rather than whether Jesus, for example, was dressed poorly, average or richly, or if the people are in more of a medieval setting than in the small poor towns or ancient Jerusalem. This picture, for example, is trying to portray tenderness, and also the nobility associated with that feeling which was not, as the Bible explains, common at the time. The disciples tried to shoo the children away, while Jesus insisted they come to him to be blessed. Thus the successful artist portrays to the best of his or her ability the virtue, the teachings and the blessedness of Jesus, and how this was appreciated by the children and their parents, rather than details of authentic historic costume and setting.
So this is one reason I very much like this painting!
:-)
Here is a note for people who do not know much about sacred or devotional art (or young people, *hi there* who are just beginning to learn about it).
Don't be put off by the fact that the great artists did not even attempt to provide historically authentic costume and settings in their art. Artists for most of human history, but particularly those of sacred subjects, tried more for capturing the essence of the moment being portrayed, rather than whether Jesus, for example, was dressed poorly, average or richly, or if the people are in more of a medieval setting than in the small poor towns or ancient Jerusalem. This picture, for example, is trying to portray tenderness, and also the nobility associated with that feeling which was not, as the Bible explains, common at the time. The disciples tried to shoo the children away, while Jesus insisted they come to him to be blessed. Thus the successful artist portrays to the best of his or her ability the virtue, the teachings and the blessedness of Jesus, and how this was appreciated by the children and their parents, rather than details of authentic historic costume and setting.
So this is one reason I very much like this painting!
:-)
Sunday, February 15, 2009
News about my favorite secular painting
http://www.denverpost.com/entertainment/ci_11711613
Am thrilled to read about the new frame faithful to the original, plus the touch up cleaning and varnishing of this magnificent painting.
Am thrilled to read about the new frame faithful to the original, plus the touch up cleaning and varnishing of this magnificent painting.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
I always enjoyed Al Hirschfeld
To cleanse the "mind's palate" after reading the previous post, here is the info about the classic caricature artist Al Hirschfeld, who I really liked, and an explanation of his "Nina" tributes, with samples.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Hirschfeld
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Hirschfeld
Thursday, November 6, 2008
No, "moral atheists" are not "just as virtuous"
I'm tired and a little headachy, so I don't really want to blog much more, but I don't want this one to go by. I just heard someone reference the argument that some atheists make that if they are moral, then their results are "just as good" if not better than people who "behave" "just because they 'fear hell.'" No, that is not correct; "moral atheists" are not "as good" as people who believe in hell for one simple reason. First of all, people who fear hell also, if they believe in hell, obviously believe in God and heaven. People who believe in God have access, whether they use it or not, to what I call an "inspired morality." In other words, they believe that there is a goodness that cannot be easily understood by humans, but which can be accessed and strived toward. If one does not believe in God, one can only envision the factual day to day goodness that one observes by being a secular moralist as being "as good as it gets." People who believe in God believe there is a greater goodness possible to humans than they might be able to picture in the moment of their day to day, and thus have the potential to stretch to a greater goodness during life than do moral atheists, who are confined by mundane examples of morality and goodness.
Here is an art analogy.
Many people admire Vermeer because of his inspired use of lighting in his paintings. I've seen some of his paintings in person and they are extraordinary. The more one looks at his paintings, the more one wonders how he could get the lighting just so right and so inspiring. So let us use the talent of Vermeer in painting his lighting and illumination as being an analogy of a painter who believes in God.
So a painter comes along and does not believe in God, so he paints with equal talent of color and brushstroke as Vermeer, and he copies each painting, but does not include the technique approach to lighting that Vermeer uses. In other words, the painter paints the same scenes, but uses the standard approach to illumination that every other painter uses. He then says that his painting is as good as Vermeer's.
The painting may be just as good, and it may sell for the same amount of money, or be displayed in the same art galleries with distinction. However, without the inspiration, the non God believing painter does not create a legend that inspires and wonders, uplifting the observer, through the ages, as Vermeer has done. That is the difference between a "moral atheist" and a moral believer in God. The moral believer in God is open to the mystery and optimism that something even better exists, both after life and, in extraordinary circumstances, within daily mundane life itself. The classic example is that it was believers who ultimately denounced and overthrew slavery, something that could not even be imagined by a "moral atheist," since entire empire and country economies relied on slavery. No one could envision life without slavery, except through God's inspiration to imagine the unimaginably good.
That's why atheists annoy me but mostly I view them as people who are like color blind people, to use an analogy, that they just can't see some wavelengths of color, but in this case are wavelengths of inspiration potential. Sure, many religious people don't either, but if a religious person believes in God, they would be shocked if, for example, God spoke to them, but they would not be blind to its happening, since belief in God broadens the "wavelengths" of inspiration that one could potentially receive. When believers pray, that is what they are doing, they are believing that they are connecting with something that is good beyond their imagining.
So fine, I say, be happy that you, the "moral atheist" can paint a Vermeer but without his lighting. That's cool. But it is not intellectually correct to say that you are "as good" a painter as Vermeer, if you do not recognize or be able to perform his hallmark legendary technique of lighting.
(Do a Google image search for "Milkmaid" and "Vermeer" and feast your eyes on a truly luminous example of great art.)
Here is an art analogy.
Many people admire Vermeer because of his inspired use of lighting in his paintings. I've seen some of his paintings in person and they are extraordinary. The more one looks at his paintings, the more one wonders how he could get the lighting just so right and so inspiring. So let us use the talent of Vermeer in painting his lighting and illumination as being an analogy of a painter who believes in God.
So a painter comes along and does not believe in God, so he paints with equal talent of color and brushstroke as Vermeer, and he copies each painting, but does not include the technique approach to lighting that Vermeer uses. In other words, the painter paints the same scenes, but uses the standard approach to illumination that every other painter uses. He then says that his painting is as good as Vermeer's.
The painting may be just as good, and it may sell for the same amount of money, or be displayed in the same art galleries with distinction. However, without the inspiration, the non God believing painter does not create a legend that inspires and wonders, uplifting the observer, through the ages, as Vermeer has done. That is the difference between a "moral atheist" and a moral believer in God. The moral believer in God is open to the mystery and optimism that something even better exists, both after life and, in extraordinary circumstances, within daily mundane life itself. The classic example is that it was believers who ultimately denounced and overthrew slavery, something that could not even be imagined by a "moral atheist," since entire empire and country economies relied on slavery. No one could envision life without slavery, except through God's inspiration to imagine the unimaginably good.
That's why atheists annoy me but mostly I view them as people who are like color blind people, to use an analogy, that they just can't see some wavelengths of color, but in this case are wavelengths of inspiration potential. Sure, many religious people don't either, but if a religious person believes in God, they would be shocked if, for example, God spoke to them, but they would not be blind to its happening, since belief in God broadens the "wavelengths" of inspiration that one could potentially receive. When believers pray, that is what they are doing, they are believing that they are connecting with something that is good beyond their imagining.
So fine, I say, be happy that you, the "moral atheist" can paint a Vermeer but without his lighting. That's cool. But it is not intellectually correct to say that you are "as good" a painter as Vermeer, if you do not recognize or be able to perform his hallmark legendary technique of lighting.
(Do a Google image search for "Milkmaid" and "Vermeer" and feast your eyes on a truly luminous example of great art.)
Sunday, August 24, 2008
The link between mindset and your decorations
I’m going to write a bit about art, home decorating and mental health! As usual I have a special interest in addressing young people with fondness, hoping to advise them in ways that they just are not hearing enough of today.
I’ll start by making my overall pitch to you, rather than build gradually up to my point, and then I’ll explain it and give examples. Societal values have changed for the worse, where art and home design have been redefined from what they traditionally have been, and thus have had a very bad effect on mood and mental serenity. Now, I am not talking about being trashy and that being a problem per se. I’m explaining that even “good taste” and “edgy art” have been propagandized in a way that they have been cultivated to have negative responses on the human rather than positive benefits. So here is what I mean in greater detail and with examples.
The most dramatic change in the way that people have viewed art and home decoration is that it has gone from being “what pleases you” to “making a statement.” Societal propaganda and brainwashing have convinced several generations that “making a statement” is the same as feeling good, but it is not, most assuredly it is not. Here is the easiest example to understand. Children, teenagers and young people are encouraged to take what may be a momentary feeling of alienation, depression, anger or existential angst and to “express” that feeling through your room’s decoration. So a phase you may be going through is now codified into a negative poster that you buy or art that you make that now becomes your continual companion. It was not always that way. In fact, if someone, child or adult, had started exhibiting sad or negative art that would have been viewed as a cry for help for a declining mental condition and there would have been a prompt intervention. So if a teenager was going through a bad patch with turmoil at home or inner angst and anger, and he bought and exhibited a poster with skull on it, you better believe that parents would have put an end to that and gotten the child to the doctor or a school counselor, or a sympathetic and wise family member, like a grandfather. See, I’m not being an “authenticity” suppressor here; I’m being “a doctor.”
Generations of humans understood that their home surroundings should not be filled with materials that weaken them and make them feel bad or sad. That does not mean that people were not thoughtful or even edgy, but it was unheard of, and a view as a very serious cry for help, to put in an enduring decorative fashion something that is angry, depressive or negative. Art that one selects that matches one’s worst moods and imaginings is like having a bad cold and then deliberately spreading the cold germs all over your room so you never get over it. No one in their right mind ought to display anything in their room or their home that does not elicit an “Ah,” when you look at it, rather than remind you of the worst of your feelings. It is a fact that people cannot heal from what wounds them if they surround themselves with reinforcements of those feelings and anxieties. It is quite literally like continuing to spread those cold germs so that you never get over your cold, while with time (and maybe interventions) you would have. So I remember the days before the phrase “making a statement” even entered into the mentality of either young people or adults. No one decorated their room or their home to “make a statement,” and certainly not if the statement was of your unhappiness or turmoil of mind. People used to seek relief from the terrible things they have experienced. Let me give you some examples.
Men who came back from war often brought back a souvenir. For example, I have a German iron cross that my German grandfather took from the body of a dead comrade so that it would not be left on the battlefield. So here I am talking about the World War I generation, and believe me, they saw horrible things in the trench and gas warfare of the time. Yet if you looked around my grandfather’s home in Berlin, it’s not like you could spot even a single item reflective of war or sad times. He had pictures of Dutch windmills, of birds and rabbits, of angels, of “Hummel” children. It would never have occurred to my grandfather to plaster some poster of bloodshed or war to “make a statement about what he had seen and ‘gone through.’” Men who went through the worse wars came back with trauma (not him, he was happy go lucky by nature) but they wanted joy and normalcy; they certainly would not even dream of surrounding themselves with depressive objects or art. The iron cross was in a drawer somewhere, rarely even encountered or remembered, and then given to his daughter, my mom, along with other little things that a poor family collected from their history (old coins and bank bills, pretty wine labels, postcards, etc.) Not only would someone like my grandfather never even dream of making himself sad through decorations from the war, who would he be “making a statement” to, since everyone had gone through the same horrible thing? When a war is fought, blood soaking your land and your neighbor’s, no one is looking to “make a statement” about their angst, since it was a shared experience where everyone if probed would have a worse story than the one before. So they returned, even those strong men with traumas, with joy back to life with calendars of cute Hummel children and bunnies with Easter eggs.
This is, incidentally, something that a USA Civil War veteran, if they still lived, would also be able to explain to you. I love arts and crafts, both historic and modern, so I know much about the Civil War era’s decorative and crafting styles. Big strong men coming home with terrible wounds of war did not want their wives to hang skeletons and skulls as a “statement” of what they “went through.” They craved being out of the mud and the horror and seeing the gentle handicrafts of women decorating their home. Rich or poor men wanted to see colorful quilts, religious art, peaceful landscapes done with paint or needlework by their wives or daughters, and touches of “wealth” and being a good provider, such as lace curtains. No man in his right mind wanted morbid war-reminding “decorations.” Part of their healing (in those pre “post traumatic stress disorder” diagnosed times) was a peaceful haven of normal surroundings with “a woman’s touch.” Men craved that in the settling of the west too. They didn’t want bloody carcasses of animals hanging on hooks off of rafters as “a statement of their authentic experience,” they wanted women to bring colorful fabrics and the simple arts of crafts of the time, such as needlework samplers and personal portraits made with outlines of the loved one’s head or hands, or lockets with a lock of hair. Part of the fun was grumbling about women “domesticating” them but men craved goodness and sweetness of decoration provided by “a woman’s touch.”
As the USA, and the world in general, became more prosperous in the mid-1900’s, such as after World War II (after war time rationing was over), another generation o f men sought homes that were normal and decorated in family oriented and traditional ways, not to “make a statement” or to keep examining the navel of their “angst.” So the 1950’s became kind of the golden age of home decorations about sports (and not “memorabilia” but from home town teams), the positive sides of the popular culture, combined with women who began to “style” their homes in modern ways. But it was still a “feel good” way of styling. No one wanted to relax in their home at the end of a tough day in the factory, or taking care of a large family, and then gaze at “art” that memorialized the worst of their feelings. That wasn’t denial; that was being normal and balanced. People knew from generations of common sense experience that you wanted your place to “look nice” and “feel nice,” even if you have experienced some not very nice things in your life. “It looks nice” was very high praise from a man and was sincere and being “touchy feely” in the context of their times. Men, women, teenagers and children wanted their home or room “to be their castle” where it “looked nice.”
For example, I could describe for you in great detail my brother’s room and its “decorations” from the 1950’s. He had bookshelves filled with books, bracketed by model jet planes. He was a three sport “letter man” (basketball, baseball and football) so he displayed his letters. He had (and still does) a shoebox full of baseball cards. “Posters” did not exist back then. What one chose for one’s walls in one’s room came from the family’s collection of traditional things, so he would have landscapes that he liked in there. He had a little statue of a fawn that I now have and prize. His “edginess” was a very cool rare beer can (I forget the brand but I have it somewhere; it has like jaguar spots on it) that he used as his pencil cup. Now, my brother was born in Germany during World War II, his father was killed the week after he was born, and he was a war refugee, surviving being bombed while running to the bomb shelters. It would never occur to him or anyone else of that generation to “make a statement” about “what he had gone through” by creating or displaying depressive “art” that would remind him of those times (which he barely remembered anyway since kids have a healthy ability to move on and thrive if giving half a chance). Oh, and his prize possession: his transistor radio! He was not a phonograph record playing type; his generation loved the radio.
So I think you see what I am getting at. A really creepy cultural shift started in the later 1960’s and has become progressively worse through the 1970’s, 1980’s, 1990’s and now the 2000’s, which is to “adorn” your room, apartment or home with decorations that reinforce and remind you of the worst parts of your life and mindset. Eventually a near total flip has taken place where even children are expected to have “edgy” and “action oriented” surroundings, promoting “adventure” and “fantasy,” and those who stick with the pleasant real life homemaking types of decorations are viewed as being “inauthentic,” “suppressed,” “stuck in the past,” and corny. Isn’t it odd how those who were not stuck in the past, who left war in the battlefield and who looked forward with joy to a “nice house” are now called the ones “stuck in the past?” While any boy or girl who has angst or anger who reinforces it over and over through their surroundings and their music are viewed as “not being stuck in the past?” That shows you the “big lie.” Hitler is famous for that expression. The theory is that the bigger the lie, the better it will stick, and it is often true. Somehow the idea that depressive, gothic and violent art is “good for you” because it “expresses how you feel” has become “the truth” and mindlessly accepted by two generations in a row.
I went to college in the autumn of 1971. I went to an Ivy League university filled with rich kids but rich or poor we both shared a common set of values, which was being very low key and “nice” in our decorations. We were kind of the last bastion before the depressives really took over. Here’s how it worked. You shared a dorm room (and later an apartment) with a roommate. Space was small and everyone was poor (or thrifty) so each person would buy one poster to display in the room, and the poster had to be one that was pleasing also to the roommate. People selected posters and art that you could look up from studying and go “Ah” when you rested your eyes on it. People didn’t want “art” that commemorated your alcoholic parents, or the time you were molested, or heads being blown off in Vietnam (even though that was the era of the actual war). My roommate got one of those “hang in there baby” LOL cat posters, which were brand new and funny back then! I got a poster of the LA Rams quarterback Roman Gabriel cranking up about to make a pass and looking very fine. By fine I mean athletic with great lines, not sexy in the way that celebrity posters are now. We admired kids who could afford lava lamps. The most subversive thing you might see is a poster of Janis Joplin in feathers and pearls, or Jimi Hendrix. We listened to Black Sabbath but no one would ever dream of decorating their dorms in some goth depressive way. The boundaries were still clear; it had not gotten so blurry where the harshest and most depressive artistes were now “speaking for you” and thus you “put on their uniform” of decorations, behavior imitation and self reinforcing lowness. And remember, ours was the generation of Kent State and the ending years of the Vietnam conflict, so people had a lot to feel crappy about. However, the last thing that would occur to anyone would be to wallow in it.
So I’m not going to start bashing individual contemporary expressions because I’m not at all being judgmental, even though it may sound like it. What I am doing instead is trying to free you from the chains of the mindset that so many young people (but especially their slightly older peers) have, which is this whole violent, sad, occult, gothic and desperately “New Age” type of room or home adornment. Again, I’m not some old f*** who does not appreciate edgy art. For example, I loved two vases that I used to have that were shaped like angular volcanoes that flow gold paint lava. But I have to admit, even them I decided were “stylish” rather than positively oriented. I’d look at them and think, “What a cool design,” but they were disquieting to look at. Why have something as “art” or “decoration” that is disquieting? I’m a very firm weeder in that regard, where I will pull like weeds anything within my line of sight that is anything but “nice” feeling. As an artist I’m no ninny using only granny pastels, but I will only use those bright tones of colors to make positive and good feeling works of art. I want to go “Ah” when I look at anything that is decorating my abode (such as it is) and I strongly urge others to do the same. Again, you don’t have to be dull to do that; all I am saying is that your decorations should be uplifting, stabilizing and satisfactory to look at, even if it is edgy. For example, I made a painting/collage of a volcano about to erupt watching on CNN the progress of Hurricane Hugo. That is edgy but it also is in an interesting way fun AND soothing to look at, while still being stimulating in an edgy artistic sense. (It’s in storage; I don’t have it here in my apartment). But it’s one of the best examples I can provide to you out of my portfolio of how I am careful to craft only art that is stimulating in a good way to look at, not stimulating in a bad, anger making or depressive way.
Anyway, do resist the constant propaganda to surround yourself with “art” reminds of your weakest, saddest or most angry experiences because that is truly not “authentic.” Being authentic is surrounding yourself, like those Civil War veterans, with what feels like home and what you want to reach for, not be pulled away from through chains of negativity. I hope this is helpful and that you know what I mean. Take care and be good to yourselves in the ways that you and only you can. I don’t care how “fine” the art is, how expensive, how edgy, how “authentic,” or how “one of a kind,” if you feel angry or deflated whenever your eyes pass over it, get the heck rid of it. Sheesh. Don’t we all have enough to feel bad about without that kind of depressive agenda? Here is an example. I have (in storage) a pewter plate that was recovered from a wreck of a ship. I love the age and looks of the plate and that is all that I think of it when I used to have it on display in my home. But if I knew that some moron member of my family was gazing at it and thinking about “drowned souls” I would have gotten rid of it in a New York minute. You should not have a single thing in your home (except of course things from deceased loved ones) that prompts what I call “optional” thoughts of sadness, anger or depression. That’s REAL Feng Shui by the way. There’s no way that you can have “balance” and “personal power” if you have stuff that creeps or bums you out (or your family or friends when they visit). Get rid of it and don’t buy or make any more of it!!!
I’ll start by making my overall pitch to you, rather than build gradually up to my point, and then I’ll explain it and give examples. Societal values have changed for the worse, where art and home design have been redefined from what they traditionally have been, and thus have had a very bad effect on mood and mental serenity. Now, I am not talking about being trashy and that being a problem per se. I’m explaining that even “good taste” and “edgy art” have been propagandized in a way that they have been cultivated to have negative responses on the human rather than positive benefits. So here is what I mean in greater detail and with examples.
The most dramatic change in the way that people have viewed art and home decoration is that it has gone from being “what pleases you” to “making a statement.” Societal propaganda and brainwashing have convinced several generations that “making a statement” is the same as feeling good, but it is not, most assuredly it is not. Here is the easiest example to understand. Children, teenagers and young people are encouraged to take what may be a momentary feeling of alienation, depression, anger or existential angst and to “express” that feeling through your room’s decoration. So a phase you may be going through is now codified into a negative poster that you buy or art that you make that now becomes your continual companion. It was not always that way. In fact, if someone, child or adult, had started exhibiting sad or negative art that would have been viewed as a cry for help for a declining mental condition and there would have been a prompt intervention. So if a teenager was going through a bad patch with turmoil at home or inner angst and anger, and he bought and exhibited a poster with skull on it, you better believe that parents would have put an end to that and gotten the child to the doctor or a school counselor, or a sympathetic and wise family member, like a grandfather. See, I’m not being an “authenticity” suppressor here; I’m being “a doctor.”
Generations of humans understood that their home surroundings should not be filled with materials that weaken them and make them feel bad or sad. That does not mean that people were not thoughtful or even edgy, but it was unheard of, and a view as a very serious cry for help, to put in an enduring decorative fashion something that is angry, depressive or negative. Art that one selects that matches one’s worst moods and imaginings is like having a bad cold and then deliberately spreading the cold germs all over your room so you never get over it. No one in their right mind ought to display anything in their room or their home that does not elicit an “Ah,” when you look at it, rather than remind you of the worst of your feelings. It is a fact that people cannot heal from what wounds them if they surround themselves with reinforcements of those feelings and anxieties. It is quite literally like continuing to spread those cold germs so that you never get over your cold, while with time (and maybe interventions) you would have. So I remember the days before the phrase “making a statement” even entered into the mentality of either young people or adults. No one decorated their room or their home to “make a statement,” and certainly not if the statement was of your unhappiness or turmoil of mind. People used to seek relief from the terrible things they have experienced. Let me give you some examples.
Men who came back from war often brought back a souvenir. For example, I have a German iron cross that my German grandfather took from the body of a dead comrade so that it would not be left on the battlefield. So here I am talking about the World War I generation, and believe me, they saw horrible things in the trench and gas warfare of the time. Yet if you looked around my grandfather’s home in Berlin, it’s not like you could spot even a single item reflective of war or sad times. He had pictures of Dutch windmills, of birds and rabbits, of angels, of “Hummel” children. It would never have occurred to my grandfather to plaster some poster of bloodshed or war to “make a statement about what he had seen and ‘gone through.’” Men who went through the worse wars came back with trauma (not him, he was happy go lucky by nature) but they wanted joy and normalcy; they certainly would not even dream of surrounding themselves with depressive objects or art. The iron cross was in a drawer somewhere, rarely even encountered or remembered, and then given to his daughter, my mom, along with other little things that a poor family collected from their history (old coins and bank bills, pretty wine labels, postcards, etc.) Not only would someone like my grandfather never even dream of making himself sad through decorations from the war, who would he be “making a statement” to, since everyone had gone through the same horrible thing? When a war is fought, blood soaking your land and your neighbor’s, no one is looking to “make a statement” about their angst, since it was a shared experience where everyone if probed would have a worse story than the one before. So they returned, even those strong men with traumas, with joy back to life with calendars of cute Hummel children and bunnies with Easter eggs.
This is, incidentally, something that a USA Civil War veteran, if they still lived, would also be able to explain to you. I love arts and crafts, both historic and modern, so I know much about the Civil War era’s decorative and crafting styles. Big strong men coming home with terrible wounds of war did not want their wives to hang skeletons and skulls as a “statement” of what they “went through.” They craved being out of the mud and the horror and seeing the gentle handicrafts of women decorating their home. Rich or poor men wanted to see colorful quilts, religious art, peaceful landscapes done with paint or needlework by their wives or daughters, and touches of “wealth” and being a good provider, such as lace curtains. No man in his right mind wanted morbid war-reminding “decorations.” Part of their healing (in those pre “post traumatic stress disorder” diagnosed times) was a peaceful haven of normal surroundings with “a woman’s touch.” Men craved that in the settling of the west too. They didn’t want bloody carcasses of animals hanging on hooks off of rafters as “a statement of their authentic experience,” they wanted women to bring colorful fabrics and the simple arts of crafts of the time, such as needlework samplers and personal portraits made with outlines of the loved one’s head or hands, or lockets with a lock of hair. Part of the fun was grumbling about women “domesticating” them but men craved goodness and sweetness of decoration provided by “a woman’s touch.”
As the USA, and the world in general, became more prosperous in the mid-1900’s, such as after World War II (after war time rationing was over), another generation o f men sought homes that were normal and decorated in family oriented and traditional ways, not to “make a statement” or to keep examining the navel of their “angst.” So the 1950’s became kind of the golden age of home decorations about sports (and not “memorabilia” but from home town teams), the positive sides of the popular culture, combined with women who began to “style” their homes in modern ways. But it was still a “feel good” way of styling. No one wanted to relax in their home at the end of a tough day in the factory, or taking care of a large family, and then gaze at “art” that memorialized the worst of their feelings. That wasn’t denial; that was being normal and balanced. People knew from generations of common sense experience that you wanted your place to “look nice” and “feel nice,” even if you have experienced some not very nice things in your life. “It looks nice” was very high praise from a man and was sincere and being “touchy feely” in the context of their times. Men, women, teenagers and children wanted their home or room “to be their castle” where it “looked nice.”
For example, I could describe for you in great detail my brother’s room and its “decorations” from the 1950’s. He had bookshelves filled with books, bracketed by model jet planes. He was a three sport “letter man” (basketball, baseball and football) so he displayed his letters. He had (and still does) a shoebox full of baseball cards. “Posters” did not exist back then. What one chose for one’s walls in one’s room came from the family’s collection of traditional things, so he would have landscapes that he liked in there. He had a little statue of a fawn that I now have and prize. His “edginess” was a very cool rare beer can (I forget the brand but I have it somewhere; it has like jaguar spots on it) that he used as his pencil cup. Now, my brother was born in Germany during World War II, his father was killed the week after he was born, and he was a war refugee, surviving being bombed while running to the bomb shelters. It would never occur to him or anyone else of that generation to “make a statement” about “what he had gone through” by creating or displaying depressive “art” that would remind him of those times (which he barely remembered anyway since kids have a healthy ability to move on and thrive if giving half a chance). Oh, and his prize possession: his transistor radio! He was not a phonograph record playing type; his generation loved the radio.
So I think you see what I am getting at. A really creepy cultural shift started in the later 1960’s and has become progressively worse through the 1970’s, 1980’s, 1990’s and now the 2000’s, which is to “adorn” your room, apartment or home with decorations that reinforce and remind you of the worst parts of your life and mindset. Eventually a near total flip has taken place where even children are expected to have “edgy” and “action oriented” surroundings, promoting “adventure” and “fantasy,” and those who stick with the pleasant real life homemaking types of decorations are viewed as being “inauthentic,” “suppressed,” “stuck in the past,” and corny. Isn’t it odd how those who were not stuck in the past, who left war in the battlefield and who looked forward with joy to a “nice house” are now called the ones “stuck in the past?” While any boy or girl who has angst or anger who reinforces it over and over through their surroundings and their music are viewed as “not being stuck in the past?” That shows you the “big lie.” Hitler is famous for that expression. The theory is that the bigger the lie, the better it will stick, and it is often true. Somehow the idea that depressive, gothic and violent art is “good for you” because it “expresses how you feel” has become “the truth” and mindlessly accepted by two generations in a row.
I went to college in the autumn of 1971. I went to an Ivy League university filled with rich kids but rich or poor we both shared a common set of values, which was being very low key and “nice” in our decorations. We were kind of the last bastion before the depressives really took over. Here’s how it worked. You shared a dorm room (and later an apartment) with a roommate. Space was small and everyone was poor (or thrifty) so each person would buy one poster to display in the room, and the poster had to be one that was pleasing also to the roommate. People selected posters and art that you could look up from studying and go “Ah” when you rested your eyes on it. People didn’t want “art” that commemorated your alcoholic parents, or the time you were molested, or heads being blown off in Vietnam (even though that was the era of the actual war). My roommate got one of those “hang in there baby” LOL cat posters, which were brand new and funny back then! I got a poster of the LA Rams quarterback Roman Gabriel cranking up about to make a pass and looking very fine. By fine I mean athletic with great lines, not sexy in the way that celebrity posters are now. We admired kids who could afford lava lamps. The most subversive thing you might see is a poster of Janis Joplin in feathers and pearls, or Jimi Hendrix. We listened to Black Sabbath but no one would ever dream of decorating their dorms in some goth depressive way. The boundaries were still clear; it had not gotten so blurry where the harshest and most depressive artistes were now “speaking for you” and thus you “put on their uniform” of decorations, behavior imitation and self reinforcing lowness. And remember, ours was the generation of Kent State and the ending years of the Vietnam conflict, so people had a lot to feel crappy about. However, the last thing that would occur to anyone would be to wallow in it.
So I’m not going to start bashing individual contemporary expressions because I’m not at all being judgmental, even though it may sound like it. What I am doing instead is trying to free you from the chains of the mindset that so many young people (but especially their slightly older peers) have, which is this whole violent, sad, occult, gothic and desperately “New Age” type of room or home adornment. Again, I’m not some old f*** who does not appreciate edgy art. For example, I loved two vases that I used to have that were shaped like angular volcanoes that flow gold paint lava. But I have to admit, even them I decided were “stylish” rather than positively oriented. I’d look at them and think, “What a cool design,” but they were disquieting to look at. Why have something as “art” or “decoration” that is disquieting? I’m a very firm weeder in that regard, where I will pull like weeds anything within my line of sight that is anything but “nice” feeling. As an artist I’m no ninny using only granny pastels, but I will only use those bright tones of colors to make positive and good feeling works of art. I want to go “Ah” when I look at anything that is decorating my abode (such as it is) and I strongly urge others to do the same. Again, you don’t have to be dull to do that; all I am saying is that your decorations should be uplifting, stabilizing and satisfactory to look at, even if it is edgy. For example, I made a painting/collage of a volcano about to erupt watching on CNN the progress of Hurricane Hugo. That is edgy but it also is in an interesting way fun AND soothing to look at, while still being stimulating in an edgy artistic sense. (It’s in storage; I don’t have it here in my apartment). But it’s one of the best examples I can provide to you out of my portfolio of how I am careful to craft only art that is stimulating in a good way to look at, not stimulating in a bad, anger making or depressive way.
Anyway, do resist the constant propaganda to surround yourself with “art” reminds of your weakest, saddest or most angry experiences because that is truly not “authentic.” Being authentic is surrounding yourself, like those Civil War veterans, with what feels like home and what you want to reach for, not be pulled away from through chains of negativity. I hope this is helpful and that you know what I mean. Take care and be good to yourselves in the ways that you and only you can. I don’t care how “fine” the art is, how expensive, how edgy, how “authentic,” or how “one of a kind,” if you feel angry or deflated whenever your eyes pass over it, get the heck rid of it. Sheesh. Don’t we all have enough to feel bad about without that kind of depressive agenda? Here is an example. I have (in storage) a pewter plate that was recovered from a wreck of a ship. I love the age and looks of the plate and that is all that I think of it when I used to have it on display in my home. But if I knew that some moron member of my family was gazing at it and thinking about “drowned souls” I would have gotten rid of it in a New York minute. You should not have a single thing in your home (except of course things from deceased loved ones) that prompts what I call “optional” thoughts of sadness, anger or depression. That’s REAL Feng Shui by the way. There’s no way that you can have “balance” and “personal power” if you have stuff that creeps or bums you out (or your family or friends when they visit). Get rid of it and don’t buy or make any more of it!!!
Monday, May 5, 2008
My feelings about Andy Warhol
I just read a really interesting interview with Berkeley art historian Jane Dillenberger. She mentions a book she had written about Andy Warhol, researching his religious art, which was informed by his Christian Orthodox faith. Here's the link to the interview.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2008/05/05/findrelig.DTL
***
I was a big fan of Andy Warhol. In fact, some of his iconic art has influenced my own art, as I am fond of using an image that repeats with use of different color palettes. I admit, I could not relate to his film work and his celebrity crowd, but that only underscores that one can be faithful and edgy at the same time (though in a violent and crazy society, the edginess is too much of a risk). But I'm sharing my reminiscences and feelings about him to illustrate that a good Christian-a devout person-can also be an edgy artist. And such a person can be admired by, and even influence, someone like me. I was terribly shocked and disappointed when he died in the hospital at such a young age. I'm not one to point fingers, but he is on the list of people I've often thought that "it really should not have gone that way." Hospitals and illnesses have become too much of a random crap shoot in our society. I remember there was a breakthrough book many years ago, before I had personal hospital experience, by a heart doctor who was shocked once HE became a patient and received insensitive, degrading and sometimes quite wrong treatment. As I remember his book was the first popular book on this subject, where "the shoe was on the other foot," where a doctor sees what a patient has to endure. It seems that while many things are better, the bad things are getting worse and worse by the year. So I often think with sadness about Andy Warhol and I do wonder about him.
But I know he'd be pleased that he influenced many of my amateur art efforts!
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2008/05/05/findrelig.DTL
***
I was a big fan of Andy Warhol. In fact, some of his iconic art has influenced my own art, as I am fond of using an image that repeats with use of different color palettes. I admit, I could not relate to his film work and his celebrity crowd, but that only underscores that one can be faithful and edgy at the same time (though in a violent and crazy society, the edginess is too much of a risk). But I'm sharing my reminiscences and feelings about him to illustrate that a good Christian-a devout person-can also be an edgy artist. And such a person can be admired by, and even influence, someone like me. I was terribly shocked and disappointed when he died in the hospital at such a young age. I'm not one to point fingers, but he is on the list of people I've often thought that "it really should not have gone that way." Hospitals and illnesses have become too much of a random crap shoot in our society. I remember there was a breakthrough book many years ago, before I had personal hospital experience, by a heart doctor who was shocked once HE became a patient and received insensitive, degrading and sometimes quite wrong treatment. As I remember his book was the first popular book on this subject, where "the shoe was on the other foot," where a doctor sees what a patient has to endure. It seems that while many things are better, the bad things are getting worse and worse by the year. So I often think with sadness about Andy Warhol and I do wonder about him.
But I know he'd be pleased that he influenced many of my amateur art efforts!
Friday, March 14, 2008
More Devotional Art Ideas
I blogged a while back about how I enjoy making triptychs based on holy themes, and suggest this as a great, easy and thrifty activity to do with children. Here is more about what I’ve been working on and thus some ideas; although I’m sure you have many of your own.
I just did a triptych of Pope John Paul II and I love how it came out. I bought at Wal-Mart a gallery style frame for 3 4x6” photos. I printed 3 photos of JP in the vertical orientation. The first photo is of him leaning on his crosier, eyes shut, when he was older and ailing but still absorbed in prayer. The middle photo is a photo of the younger and strong JP performing the Elevation of the Host in a beautiful monstrance. The third photo is one that had become very well known. It shows the extremely ailing Pope during Mass sprinkling holy water while reading the liturgy while being supported by an aide at one elbow, out of view of the photo, but on the left being observed by the concerned (and ready to intercede) Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. The impact of these three photos is very powerful. I have the framed gallery of photos sitting on an artist easel where I can see it while I’m using this computer.
At Dollar General today I bought a gallery frame for six 4x6” photographs. I made the theme of that display “devotion and piety.” The photos are from top left to right Pope Benedict XVI kneeling in prayer, Cardinal Sean in Boston carrying a candle on the St. Francis feast day, and Archbishop Burke at prayer in his residential chapel. From left to right on the bottom row are a photo of a woman prone in front of the altar in a church in the Holy Land, a brother kneeling in prayer in his room at St. Joseph’s Friary in the Bronx, and an old holy card of a girl child praying before the cross before going to bed. I love how this gallery came out. It would be a wonderful arrangement for a child’s room. It is dark in a comforting way as these are representations of men and a child at prayer in the darkness of their rooms or in a church, and is a great “nighty night” kind of picture for a young child.
When I was a kid and parents decorated a child’s room there were not the hundred percent emphases on an entertainment theme as there is today. While parents would select a theme suitable for children there would also be a crucifix and holy pictures too. This is crucial for young children to be properly formed in love of the Lord. So while I love decorating a child’s nursery or room with a theme (an acquaintance of mine once did a room totally in “the cow jumped over the moon” for her twins, which I thought was creative) there should also be ample representation of the Lord. Children learn that God loves them and to trust him by parents teaching, for example, the child to say “nighty night” to Jesus before bed and knowing Jesus is watching over them. This is why photos of people at prayer before going to bed is also an ideal devotional art form for a young child’s room, especially when they are in their “afraid of the dark” phase.
I’m now collecting photos of antique and current scenes in Syria, a country of which I am very fond. I also have the photos for a triptych of Pope Paul VI.
And I am working on a gallery frame of four 4x6” photos of St Peter the Apostle and Jesus. One of my favorite paintings is a Dutch school of Jesus handing the keys to Peter, so I have that on top in horizontal layout. To the right of it is a painting of St. Peter in vertical layout as he holds the keys and looks heavenward. On the bottom left I have in vertical layout a painting of Jesus walking on water and putting out his hand to rescue the sinking St. Peter. And I’m now going to browse to find a suitable horizontal layout photo for the fourth place in the frame.
I bought two of the above four photo format frames from Dollar General. I just completed one in the theme of “Jesus Christ first priest.” The first photo top left is a church mosaic of Jesus with the Eucharist and chalice. Top right is a black and white holy card of Jesus crowning a priest as the priest performs the elevation of the chalice. Bottom left is a holy card that shows Jesus as priest overlooking a consecration of priests. And the bottom right is a photo of Cardinal Pell raising his arms in front and over the chalice during the celebration of the Mass.
Other obvious ideas for a child’s room would be the theme of the baby Jesus, Jesus as shepherd with lambs (you could include a great photo of the Pope blessing the lambs on the feast of St. Agnes for use in weaving the paliums.
Other ideas, ones that I am working on, include using a six photo frame to create a kind of virtual representation of a specific church building or room. Redemptoris Mater is a Vatican chapel with the most amazing floor to ceiling paintings in the most vivid colors and I’m working on collecting good representations of the walls and close ups of scenes. I’d like to put together a gallery that arranges the photos in a virtual representation of the actual chapel layout. If I had had my head about me back when I visited the Hagia Sophia in Istanbul back in 1995 I would have photographed each wall in order to have created such a virtual reality layout of that amazing place of Christian (and Islam) worship. So when you visit a shrine or a church you might want to photograph layouts with this idea in mind. Hope you find these ideas interesting and inspires your own devotional creativity!
I just did a triptych of Pope John Paul II and I love how it came out. I bought at Wal-Mart a gallery style frame for 3 4x6” photos. I printed 3 photos of JP in the vertical orientation. The first photo is of him leaning on his crosier, eyes shut, when he was older and ailing but still absorbed in prayer. The middle photo is a photo of the younger and strong JP performing the Elevation of the Host in a beautiful monstrance. The third photo is one that had become very well known. It shows the extremely ailing Pope during Mass sprinkling holy water while reading the liturgy while being supported by an aide at one elbow, out of view of the photo, but on the left being observed by the concerned (and ready to intercede) Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. The impact of these three photos is very powerful. I have the framed gallery of photos sitting on an artist easel where I can see it while I’m using this computer.
At Dollar General today I bought a gallery frame for six 4x6” photographs. I made the theme of that display “devotion and piety.” The photos are from top left to right Pope Benedict XVI kneeling in prayer, Cardinal Sean in Boston carrying a candle on the St. Francis feast day, and Archbishop Burke at prayer in his residential chapel. From left to right on the bottom row are a photo of a woman prone in front of the altar in a church in the Holy Land, a brother kneeling in prayer in his room at St. Joseph’s Friary in the Bronx, and an old holy card of a girl child praying before the cross before going to bed. I love how this gallery came out. It would be a wonderful arrangement for a child’s room. It is dark in a comforting way as these are representations of men and a child at prayer in the darkness of their rooms or in a church, and is a great “nighty night” kind of picture for a young child.
When I was a kid and parents decorated a child’s room there were not the hundred percent emphases on an entertainment theme as there is today. While parents would select a theme suitable for children there would also be a crucifix and holy pictures too. This is crucial for young children to be properly formed in love of the Lord. So while I love decorating a child’s nursery or room with a theme (an acquaintance of mine once did a room totally in “the cow jumped over the moon” for her twins, which I thought was creative) there should also be ample representation of the Lord. Children learn that God loves them and to trust him by parents teaching, for example, the child to say “nighty night” to Jesus before bed and knowing Jesus is watching over them. This is why photos of people at prayer before going to bed is also an ideal devotional art form for a young child’s room, especially when they are in their “afraid of the dark” phase.
I’m now collecting photos of antique and current scenes in Syria, a country of which I am very fond. I also have the photos for a triptych of Pope Paul VI.
And I am working on a gallery frame of four 4x6” photos of St Peter the Apostle and Jesus. One of my favorite paintings is a Dutch school of Jesus handing the keys to Peter, so I have that on top in horizontal layout. To the right of it is a painting of St. Peter in vertical layout as he holds the keys and looks heavenward. On the bottom left I have in vertical layout a painting of Jesus walking on water and putting out his hand to rescue the sinking St. Peter. And I’m now going to browse to find a suitable horizontal layout photo for the fourth place in the frame.
I bought two of the above four photo format frames from Dollar General. I just completed one in the theme of “Jesus Christ first priest.” The first photo top left is a church mosaic of Jesus with the Eucharist and chalice. Top right is a black and white holy card of Jesus crowning a priest as the priest performs the elevation of the chalice. Bottom left is a holy card that shows Jesus as priest overlooking a consecration of priests. And the bottom right is a photo of Cardinal Pell raising his arms in front and over the chalice during the celebration of the Mass.
Other obvious ideas for a child’s room would be the theme of the baby Jesus, Jesus as shepherd with lambs (you could include a great photo of the Pope blessing the lambs on the feast of St. Agnes for use in weaving the paliums.
Other ideas, ones that I am working on, include using a six photo frame to create a kind of virtual representation of a specific church building or room. Redemptoris Mater is a Vatican chapel with the most amazing floor to ceiling paintings in the most vivid colors and I’m working on collecting good representations of the walls and close ups of scenes. I’d like to put together a gallery that arranges the photos in a virtual representation of the actual chapel layout. If I had had my head about me back when I visited the Hagia Sophia in Istanbul back in 1995 I would have photographed each wall in order to have created such a virtual reality layout of that amazing place of Christian (and Islam) worship. So when you visit a shrine or a church you might want to photograph layouts with this idea in mind. Hope you find these ideas interesting and inspires your own devotional creativity!
Monday, August 6, 2007
Another Favorite Work of Art
I love Rembrandt, of course, and all his works. His painting "Woman Bathing in a Stream" is also in my top five favorite list.
http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/cgi-bin/WebObjects.dll/CollectionPublisher.woa/wa/largeImage?workNumber=NG54&collectionPublisherSection=work
It is such a humane, loving, and beautiful work. It says much about Rembrandt that he could paint such a painting.
http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/cgi-bin/WebObjects.dll/CollectionPublisher.woa/wa/largeImage?workNumber=NG54&collectionPublisherSection=work
It is such a humane, loving, and beautiful work. It says much about Rembrandt that he could paint such a painting.
One of my Favorite Works of Art
One of my top five or so favorite works of art is da Vinci's cartoon "The Virgin and Child with Saint Anne and Saint John the Baptist" in the National Gallery, London. It is sublime.
http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/cgi-bin/WebObjects.dll/CollectionPublisher.woa/wa/largeImage?workNumber=NG6337&collectionPublisherSection=work
No hidden messages; nothing but sublime mastery of the spirit and the drawing. Do see it if you are in London. Part of the experience is seeing it in the darkness and very dim lighting that is needed to preserve this fragile work.
http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/cgi-bin/WebObjects.dll/CollectionPublisher.woa/wa/largeImage?workNumber=NG6337&collectionPublisherSection=work
No hidden messages; nothing but sublime mastery of the spirit and the drawing. Do see it if you are in London. Part of the experience is seeing it in the darkness and very dim lighting that is needed to preserve this fragile work.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
