Show, don’t tell: Round 1 9 July 2009
Posted by pcNielsen in Art, Art and faith, Christianity, Criticism, Illustration, Painting.4 comments
Round 1 in the Show, don’t tell showdown: Patty Wickman versus ubiquitous Christian painting hanging in most every American baptist church.
Above is Patty Wickman’s surreal A Thief in the Night. Wickman, an art professor at UCLA, is a master (in my opinion) of turning beautifully simple subjects into powerful metaphors.
Which do you think is more powerful imagery? Which is more likely to cause the viewer to more deeply engage the subject matter? Which one employs imagination? Which one tells and which one shows? And (ironically) which one is more likely to change a person’s attitude or worldview?
Christians in the past 100 years seem to have forgotten how to be creative, use our imaginations, when communicating visually. For some reason we feel the need to reduce the Gospel (and any other theological tenets we hold dear) to what is more or less propaganda. We obviously aren’t reading our Gospels very closely. The parables are a prime example of using art — storytelling — to show people an idea or principle rather than just saying it out loud. Granted, the culture was different then than now, and we may not be able to do exactly as Jesus did, but the point remains: People won’t respond to a direct statement in the same manner as they will to something that is illustrated, painted, drawn out.
And, for what it’s worth, the painting of Jesus knocking at the door (of your heart as so many mistakenly believe) is based on a verse, as far as I know, that’s almost always taken out of context. The imagery is generally used to appeal to non-believers. In reality, the verse is speaking to the church of Laodicea in the context of repentance.
When it comes to art, show, don’t tell 8 July 2009
Posted by pcNielsen in Art, Criticism.add a comment
Don’t say the old lady screamed. Bring her on and let her scream.
- Mark Twain (via my wife’s blog)
One of the things attendees to IAM Encounter 09 received in the obligatory bag of conference goodies was an audio CD with an interview of Steve Turner. Turner wrote a book titled Imagine: A vision for Christians in the arts. The interview is a stellar listen.
I can’t find the CD at the moment — in the chaos that is packing up a house — so can’t quote Turner, but the crux of what caught my attention in the interview is summed up in three words: Show, don’t tell. This is apparently a maxim of the theater world in particular.
In one sense, the idea is very simple. At the same time it’s probably worthy of a thesis. I tried and tried again over the past two weeks to turn this post into an essay worthy of this topic, to no avail. Instead, I’m going to follow up with a series of posts comparing images. One image will show, the other will tell.
True, noble, right, pure, lovely and admirable 14 May 2009
Posted by pcNielsen in Art, Art and faith, Christianity, Criticism.1 comment so far
This is the second interesting article in the last month to come out of a web journal called The Other Journal. The teaser below is from an article in their Aesthetics issue, written by Daniel Siedell and titled Altars to Unknown Gods: A Christian approach to contemporary art.
Dostoyevsky once said that beauty would save the world. Most Christian writing on the visual arts, however, is a betrayal of the depth and profundity of the Christian tradition that Dostoyevsky represents. It reflects the negativity and superficiality of contemporary cultural discourse rather than the living tradition of the church as Christ’s presence in the world.
Saint Paul tells us to embrace “whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable [. . . .]” (Phil. 4: 8). We are called to embrace, not merely to reject in the name of Christ. Too often Christian writing on contemporary art is a litany of rejections and, at times, even appears to take pleasure in drawing our attention to those characteristics and qualities that contradict Saint Paul.
It’s a very good article (only three pages long), in my opinion, that puts into clear language thoughts I’ve had in the past ten years but may not have been able to articulate. Read it in its entirety via the link above. I plan to reread it a few times in order to thoroughly digest his words.
Does subject dictate message in an artwork? 11 May 2009
Posted by pcNielsen in Art, Ceramics, Criticism, Realism, Sculpture.4 comments
Cinnamon Soup’s question of the week is as follows:
-
What do you consider to be more important, the subject matter of an art work or the message it conveys?
My response to that question, which touches on something that’s been in the back of my mind for the past few weeks anyway, is below:
An artwork’s message is contingent to a large degree (but not entirely) on its subject, isn’t it? Then again, messages aren’t always received by viewers as artists intend, even in the case of realism.
For years now ,clouds (mainly thunderstorms, but some more of the fluffly kind recently) have been a significant part of my inspiration and subject matter. When I’m crafting storms or clouds from clay or wood I have my own reasons and hopes for how a viewer will receive that message, but I’m fully aware that’s often not the case. People see whatever they want to in clouds — bunnies, ducks, firearms. In fact, we [Americans] expect to see things in clouds that aren’t there.
And here I am creating fairly realistic sculptures of thunderstorms and fluffy cumulus clouds hoping the viewers see, at the outset, storms and clouds. This paradox intrigues me, and is, perhaps, itself becoming part of the subject matter in my sculptures the more I continue in this atmospheric vein.
Adding: Thought this related to the question above:
Art is not merely or even partly a “communication” of “messages.” It is not a visual illustration of a philosophy, idea, or sign. It is not a preformed idea that is wrapped up in artistic material that the viewer then unwraps to “get.” As I never tire of telling my students, art is a complex and tense hypostatic union of form and content; it is about its “howness” (form) as much as its “whatness” (content). There is nothing to unwrap. This is why art should not be “read,” “decoded,” or otherwise considered to be the sum of its constituent parts. It is to be experienced—contemplated and communed with, dwelt upon. This of course is dangerous, because an aesthetic experience can do unexpected things to you. And given our own differences in experience that the work of art engages, our responses to the work will be different.
From The Other Journal
God in the Gallery 30 April 2009
Posted by pcNielsen in Art, Art and faith, Business of art, Christianity, Criticism.1 comment so far
There’s a new book out titled God in the Gallery, written by Daniel Seidell. I intend to read the the book at some point; it’s already on my Amazon wish list.
Seidell was curator of The Sheldon when I was a studio art student at the University of Nebraska at Lincoln. Heather Goodman reviews the book over at L’Chaim. It’s a good review which includes the following quote:
The church, with its liturgical practice, is most definitely not the place to incorporate art that forces the worshiper to ‘ask tough questions,’ ‘challenge previously held beliefs,’ and so on. Those are absolutely important practices, but not in liturgy.
Bear in mind that Seidell is a curator, not an artist or clergyman.
I’m not sure what I think of this particular statement. As someone who thinks often and in detail about the space I visit for regular corporate worship, I can see his point. However, as a visual artist I think I have to disagree. Goodman’s own comments might sum up this discord as well as I can (emphasis mine):
I don’t agree. To be fair, Siedell doesn’t believe that the church stymies imagination but can inspire the imagination, especially through engagement with Nicene theology. But I don’t like this separation of art for the church and art for the world. First, in our teaching (sermons, Bible studies, Sunday schools, small groups), we “ask tough questions” and “challenge previously held beliefs,” so why not in our art in the church? Second, if drawing into the church encourages and prepares us to go out into the world, why should we compartmentalize aspects of our life? Shouldn’t it all flow together?
(I want to note that in addition to stimulating the imagination, Siedell also believes the church can patron the arts and should, not just through funding, but through training the artist spiritually. I wholeheartedly agree with this.)
I allow that there’s an expectation level. You don’t want to shock the worshiper so that they can’t worship. This requires discernment, gentleness, and education. I’ll also allow that not every bit of art is appropriate because it may not be an art that a particular culture engages in. Sometimes this should be challenged, but sometimes it is in line with contextualization. But art that a culture engages in as part of their everyday lives is fair game.
All in all Goodman thoroughly enjoyed God in the Gallery and recommends it for anyone interested in the conversation between art and faith. I’ll add that I’m glad Seidell took the time to write the book from his point of view as a curator.
LinkLuv: Hitler, R.C. Sproul and Obama in art news 28 April 2009
Posted by pcNielsen in Art, Art and faith, Christianity, Criticism, Painting, Portraiture.1 comment so far
Hitler paintings sell for combined $143,000 at British auction house. Yes, Hitler was an aspiring artist before he was a cruel dictator. I’m still surprised at how many people don’t know this bit of trivia. The watercolor below went for $10,000 and is believed to be a self-portrait.
R.C. Sproul talked about how Christians perceive the arts in 1986. Not a terrible or terribly fascinating article, but the source and the date combined made the case to post this link.
A new painting of Obama scheduled to be unveiled in New York City on the 100th day of the new president’s term has now been canceled. Apparently this image caused an uproar similar to that of Serrano’s Piss Christ, Cavallaro’s Chocolate Jesus, Brack’s Bearded Orientals etc etc. People seem to forget that one valid function of the arts is to raise questions about culture. They also seem to forget that, per the childhood platitude, “you can’t please all of the people all of the time.”
R.I.P. Andrew Wyeth 16 January 2009
Posted by pcNielsen in Art, Artist profile, Criticism, Drawing, Illustration, Painting, Realism.4 comments
This isn’t something I normally do, mark the death of a significant artist (Of course, I’ve only been blogging for three years or so, and perhaps there haven’t been very many notable artists who’ve passed in this time.), but I thought I’d make a note of it this morning.
Andrew Wyeth died today at the age of 91. Wyeth was an American realist known for Christina’s World (1948, above) and a series of studies of his neighbor Helga (below, 1971-1985). Critics have long complained that his work is little more than illustration, although shows of the artist’s paintings often draw record crowds.
Not knowing much more than I’ve already stated about the artist, I still disagree with this recurring criticism. There is, in my opinion, a depth of content by means of his composition and subject matter that I don’t generally associate with mere illustration. While not quite as surreal and evocative as, say, contemporary realist works by the likes of Patty Wickman, Wyeth’s paintings draw out a contemplative emotion far beyond a Rockwellian nostalgia — who’s works aren’t really contemplative at all. Wyeth’s painting was, probably, poorly received simply because he happened to be a realist in a Modernist world.
Creativity, the arts and Obama 15 January 2009
Posted by pcNielsen in Art, Art education, Business of art, Criticism, Modern culture.1 comment so far
Tech Crunch pointed to the Citizen’s Briefing Book on President Elect Barack Obama’s website Change.gov. The ideas presented in the book are open to be voted on by readers, and will be compiled into a book to be presented to the new President after he’s sworn into office. (Whether or not he’ll read it is, I suppose, another matter entirely.)
I searched the pool of entries in the Book for “Art” and discovered a few relevant results, including one called Focus on the art[s] and creativity. The very brief suggestion, by someone using the handle Maples, is short enough I’ll just quote it here:
It is always the arts that are first to be cut back in our schools and communities, yet the arts are at the very center of creativity. This is where creative skills are born, not just for artists and musicians, but for scientists, engineers, researchers, innovators, and all thinking peoples. Now, if ever, is the time when we need creative thought and creative action to find the means and the human energy and spirit to find our way out of the problems that face us.
This sounds somewhat similar to Huckabee’s position on the arts, which I pointed out in 2007. “Art and music are as important as math and science because the dreamers and visionaries among us take the rough straw of an idea and spin it into the gold of new businesses and jobs,” he said on his website. “Our future economy depends on a creative generation.”
They’re both right.
Creativity is not just artistic, and being able to think critically about the arts will improve a person’s mental faculties in general. Some Americans — many of them, probably — don’t realize the importance of the arts. Our culture (and subsequently our cultural mindset) is overly zealous for efficiency, productivity and profitability. In and of themselves these are fine ideals, but American culture has elevated said corporate gods to the point that competing cultural interests are looked down upon. One of the detracting responses, by one Kevin J. Kauth, to Maples’ suggestion is textbook:
Arts are great but math and science are more important to survival. Arts impove quality of life, but don’t help us make food, medicine, technology ect. They are right to be the first to go. Mandating that they come back is not the way to responsibly get them back. Improving a school to the point that it can afford the arts on its own is the onl way to go. [sic, all]
The fine arts may not directly result in food or technology, but they are grounded in crafts which act as the cornerstone to many basic aspects of life. Without metal smiths we wouldn’t have plows to till the dirt. Without potters we wouldn’t have plates to eat food from those fields. Without carpenters and stone masons there wouldn’t be shelter from the 10 degree weather, like I woke up to this morning. And without the craft of writing we would be prone to forget the many practical, political, technological and philosophical lessons our forefathers figured out for us.
Further, if we forgo the creative aspects of our educations — whether formal or informal schooling — there won’t be the same advances in other aspects of our culture. As an example, the connection between music and mathematics goes back to the 5th century B.C. and Pythagoras of Samos. Art is communication. Art is educating. Art is an extension of a God-ordained human culture, and we would be amiss to ignore any one part of that divine culture.
That said, what do you think Obama’s best move is with respect to the arts? Should he ignore them? Should he endorse them without taking any action? Three or four posts on the Citizen’s Briefing Book suggest establishing a Secretary of Arts and Culture. Should he throw money at artists? I read at least three entries in the Citizen’s book suggesting a resurrection of the WPA (Read more about the failure of this Depression era approach — specifically as it relates to architecture — in this Architecture + Morality post.). Should he create opportunities for them?
Cute or not 23 September 2008
Posted by pcNielsen in Aesthetics, Beauty, Criticism.add a comment
“Cute” is a word people (read “my wife”) use to describe all kinds of things, and I’m constantly trying to decipher what she really means when she applies it something or someone.
For a while it seemed a fair bet that anything small and not an insect had great potential to be cute. Baby shoes are, apparently, cute enough to make a person giddy. Most puppies and kittens are cute, but not so much dogs and cats (with some exceptions, including big, furry Old English Sheep dogs).
Apparently this isn’t all that far off. Among the phrases used to define cuteness is “attractive by means of smallness or prettiness.” Another common way to describe the cute employs the word “dainty.”
There are other applications of this adjective, however, including my wife’s use of it to describe a new pair of my shoes. Men’s shoes are cute? Our feet are anything but dainty in most cases, and that’s exactly how most of us would have it. So what in a pair of men’s shoes constitutes cuteness?
Can anyone clarify this aesthetic term for me?
Art for Art’s Sake: Enjoying it 18 September 2008
Posted by pcNielsen in Art, Art for art's sake, Artist as genius, Business of art, Criticism, Intentional observation, Living incarnationally, Modern culture, Painting, Sculpture.4 comments
I’m resurrecting this draft in light of a Telegraph article that laments the commercial nature of the art market in 2008. In the article, Australian critic Robert Hughes claims that the price of a work of art is, unfortunately, more significant than its meaning. He’s speaking specifically of Damien Hirst, whose auction at Sotheby’s this week exceeded all expectations by garnering something like $222,000,000.00. That’s two-hundred twenty-two million clams.
“The idea that there is some special magic attached to Hirst’s work that shoves it into the multimillion [dollar] realm is ludicrous,” Hughes says. “[The price] has to do with promotion and publicity and not with the quality of the works themselves.”
Amen to that. Hughes traces this Mona Lisa Curse, as he calls it, to the 1960s when da Vinci’s Mona Lisa visited the U.S. People came to see the painting not to see the painting, Hughes claims, but in order to say that they’d seen the painting. From then on collectors began to buy art as an investment, not because they necessarily liked the sculpture or canvas.
Collectors these days are driven by the almighty dollar, and way too much emphasis is placed on trendiness and novelty in art. Can I get another amen. I haven’t liked everything I’ve read from Hughes, but he’s pretty much spot on as portrayed in the Telegraph’s article. These same investor-collectors bid up new works by artists whose works they already own in order to drive up prices. A fine business tactic, I suppose, but one that rightly creates a foul odor among art critics. Further, such practices put the price of new art out of the reach of public museums.
It seems all too easy to fall into the mentality described above, even for those of us who are merely artists or connoisseurs.
Art junky #1: “Sure, I’ve seen that Monet.”
Art junky #2: “Yeah, well I’ve licked that monet.”
Art junky #3: “Ha! My uncle’s cousin’s brother’s niece bought that Monet at Christie’s for more money than the GDP of your stupid little country.”
Apparently this super-riche portion of the art market is quite the juggernaut. Investors seem, Hughes suggests, to possess an eternally optimistic outlook on their purchases. They believe the art they buy will only increase in value. Golly-gee, sounds a little bit like how people thought of real estate two years ago, dunnit? The Australian critic doesn’t fail to point out one Guido Reni, an Italian renaissance painter. Reni was considered by the late 18th century to be near or equal in greatness to Michelangelo. By the 1950s, however, you could buy a ten-foot Reni canvas for a scant $600.
How can we get back into enjoying art? Can we? Or is art just another commodity in our capitalist cultures? Writer and philosopher Francis Schaeffer, in his powerful little treatise Art and the Bible, said plainly that art should be enjoyed.
This is, as I already eluded to, difficult for us. We move too fast. We don’t stop and smell the roses; in fact we mock such platitudes, despite the truth in them. We’re afraid the world is going to pass us by. We need more beer gardens in America, with sculpture in the midst of them.
While there’s certainly something to be said for the industriousness and work ethic of our culture, we lack balance. Regardless of the silly art market and it’s millions of dollars, those of us clinging to the bottom rungs of the economic ladder are equally as guilty as those at the top — those taking part in the Sotheby’s auctions and trading paintings like stock certificates of yore. We’re caught up in our digital technology, making money, advancing our careers or social status etc.
How do we manage to take back the skill of intentional observation? How do we get out of the technology zone in order to slow life down?
There are, of course, multiple answers to those questions. Simply, thus, I end here with a solemn and earnest plea to myself and anyone who ever happens to read this post: Stop and smell the roses. Stop in the park and run your fingers over the stone on the fountain or the bronze sculpture. Maybe you don’t even like the sculpture. Take a break and give it a once-over anyway. Take the time to look at the brushstrokes on the painting in your living room.
And if the painting in your living room doesn’t have tactile brushstrokes, go out and buy one that does.
