BOOKS on my bedside table |
Church In The Dark Ages |
| TUNES on itunes |
Songs of Greg Brown |
| Blogs of note |
| WHAT'S UP |
|
| Who am I? |
James (Jim) Janknegt 52 year old, husband of Lissa, father of Emma (almost 11), visual artist, christian (former episcopalian becoming Catholic), operations manager at UT Performing Arts Center, native Austinte, current elginite, and chainsawweilder. everything on this web site copyrighted by
|
Archives |
January
2003
|
/FileMaker%20Pro%204.0%20Folder/Web/blogg/images/smallline.jpg){kind=small}
May 2006
Paul’s Handkerchief
Acts 19:11 & 12 And God wrought special miracles by the hands of Paul, so that handkerchiefs or aprons from his body were brought unto the sick, and the diseases departed from them and the evil spirits went out of them.”
I have a question about art as a secondary cause.
I am aware of a stirring in the church today, a desire to reaffirm the place of art in the church. But much of what I see appears to limit the role of art to something passive, an object to be hung off to the side and meditated upon if the desire strikes a viewer. Church as art gallery.
When I look at the role of art in the pre-reformation church it seems to be much more aggressive. The art did not just sit there as an object of contemplation but was a conduit for the power of God much like Paul’s handkerchief is described in the Book of Acts.
In The Power of Images : Studies in the History and Theory of Response by David Freedberg he has a chapter on the whole concept of a pilgimage. He describes a miracle of healing taken place during the building of a church that was attributed to a painting of the Madonna and Jesus. Once word got out other folks began coming to see the painting and other miracles happened. A whole art industry was generated: prints were made of the painting, pendants, badges and votives all with the image on them. These were taken as souvenirs of the pilgrimage and the power associated with the painting could be taken back home.
This description of pilgrimage was not an isolated incident but an example of paintings as a secondary cause. The focus was on the power of God but always mediated through an image. God, himself, being the first cause but using matter as a conduit to affect his will.
Does anyone see the chance of this sort of thing happening in any of the churches that are attempting to re-integrate art back into the church? Are we too afraid of the power of images? The power of God? Would you, as an artist, approach painting differently if you knew that your work could possibly become such a channel for God’s power?
I just checked out Jacques Maritain's "Art and Scholasticism" out of the library. He has a good definition of art:
"The philosophers tell us that art consists essentially, not in performing a moral act, but in making a thing, a work, in making an object with a view not to the human good of the agent, but to the exigencies and the proper good of the object to be made, and by employing ways of realization predetermined by the nature of the object in question.
Art thus appears as something foreign in itself to the sphere of the human good, almost as something inhuman, and whose exigencies nevertheless are absolute: for, needless to say, there are not two ways of making an object well, of realizing well the work one has conceived -- there is but one way, and it must not be missed.
The philosophers go on to say that this making activity is principally and above all an intellectual activity. Art is a virtue of the intellect, of the practical intellect, and may be termed the virtue proper to working reason.
But then, you will say, if art is nothing other than an intellectual virtue of making, whence comes its dignity and its ascendancy among us? Why does this branch of our activity draw to it so much human sap? Why has one always and in all peoples admired the poet as much as the sage?
It may be answered first that to create, to produce something intellectually, to make an object rationally constructed, is something very great in the world: for man this alone is already a way of imitating God. And I am speaking here of art in general, such as the ancients understood it -- in short, of art as the virtue of the artisan.
But where the maker of works especially becomes an imitator of God, where the virtue of art approaches the nobility of things absolute and self-sufficient, is in that family of arts which by itself alone constitutes a whole spiritual world, namely the fine arts.
There are two things to be considered here. On the one hand, whatever the nature and the utilitarian ends of the art envisaged, it participates by its object in something superhuman, since it has as its object to create beauty. Is not beauty a transcendental, a property of being, one of the Divine Names? "The being of all things derives from the Divine Beauty," says Saint Thomas. In this respect, then, the artist imitates God, Who made the world by communicating to it a likeness of His beauty.
...The architect, by the disposition he knows,
Buildeth the structure of stone like a filter in the waters of the Radiance of God,
And giveth the whole building its sheen as to a pearl.
On the other hand, to create a work of beauty is to create a work on which shines the radiance or the splendor, the mystery of a form, in the metaphysical sense of this word, of a ray of intelligibility and truth, of an irradiation of the primal brilliance. And no doubt the artist perceives this form in the created world, whether exterior or interior: he does not discover it complete in the sole contemplation of his creative spirit, for he is not, like God, the cause of things. But it is his eye and his spirit that have perceived and uncovered it; and it must itself be alive within him, must have taken on human life in him, must live in his intelligence with an intellectual life and in his heart and his flesh with a sensitive life, in order for him to be able to communicate it to matter in the work he makes.
Thus the work bears the mark of the artist; it is the offspring of his soul and his spirit."
It is available on line for anyone intersted in reading the whole enchilada:Art and Scholasticism
I'll see if I can unpack what Mr. Maritain is saying.
1. First art has to be something that is made. The end of art is to make a physical object.
2. And the intrinsic needs of the object determine how it is to be made.
3. But art is primarily an intellectual activity. So the artist must first think of something then create it in physical matter. Sounds very incarnational.
4. In this way the artist becomes an imitator of God
5. The primary need of the object being made is to be beautiful. When it succeeds it participates in the life of God because God is the source of all beauty.
6. So the artist must first see beyond the materiality of the world, see the essence of things the "whatness" of things, the form and internalize them in his intellect. Once the form has become alive in him he can bring it forth in matter himself by creating works of art that are beautiful thus fulfilling the requirements of the thing being made. It is a beautiful object, a work of art that is the offspring of the artist, a combination of matter and spirit.
This reminds me so much of the wrangles of the early church fathers trying to understand the nature of Jesus. Was he human; was he God?
As artist we have to hold in tension the intellectual activity of being an artist with the necessity of creating physical objects. As in heresy, the fault lies in trying to make things less complex by denying one of the two requirements; to make it just about the object of just about the intellect. I think that is why there is no easy, soundbite definition of art.
We had the great fortune of spending some time this weekend with Sister Petra, from the Sisters of Mary. She was Father Kentenich's personal secretary for three years, 1958-1961, before she joined the sisters. She had many wonderful stories to tell about Schoenstatt and Father Kentenich. She told us of one day when she went up to Father Kentenich and said that he was not teaching about Schoenstatt he WAS Schoenstatt. I could say the same about her. She is so full of joy, laughter, purity and wisdom. What an honor to be able to sit at her feet for a few hours.
|
Portrait of YOU as the Good Samaritan
I received an email from a student in Australia requesting an interpretation of this painting. Since I am not in the habit of writing other peoples papers for them I usually ask the student for their interpretation before I givie them mine. The student responded with a very astute observation so I asked her if I could post it on my blog. Here it is:
"Although I am no skilled art critic, here is my interpretation of your painting:
You have portrayed a familiar setting in a modern day suburb, enabling viewers to relate to the parable to our own lives. We can also see that the message of the parable is still as relevant today as it was two thousand years ago.
In the background is a normal neighbourhood with a church- hinting that there are Christians in the town.
You have portrayed yourself as the man who was robbed (I figured it was you because of the paintbrushes in the man’s hand) (why are the only possessions you still have the paintbrushes and the picture?)
As in the bible passage, the robbers are seen fleeing with the victim’s possessions, and the priest and another man have passed by the victim, totally ignoring him. (they appear to be in a hurry- why is this?)
You have left out the character of the “Good Samaritan”. Viewers see that the victim is left suffering and we sympathise for him.
The painting’s title suggests that you are inviting (or even expecting) the viewer to become involved in the painting and we are challenged to be the Good Samaritan, to offer the help we know is needed (and wish to see) in the scenario. As viewers, we are led to reflect on ourselves and question whether we really would be the one to step in and help if this were a real life situation.
I really admire this painting of yours. I think it is very powerful- not only because of the artistic elements, but particularly because of the way it draws the viewer in and challenges us to take up the role of the Good Samaritan and consequently provokes self-reflection. It makes me believe that the victim’s fate depends on me- it makes me feel that only I can help him. You have reminded me that in a world ravaged with so much war and crime, if there is hope of finding peace and harmony, it is up to me (and each individual) to take action myself and help out."
Here is my response:
I beg to differ: you ARE a skilled art critic!! Your interpretaion of my painting is exactly what I hoped viewers would get out of it. I am very pleased that, for you at least, the paintings has communicated what I had intended.
I did portray myself as the man who was robbed and that is why I ma holding the paintbrushes to signify that I am an artist (as well as the other things the thiefs have stolen). The other item left is an icon of Mary and Jesus although I am not holding it I am reaching out for it. To me this means that even in our darkest times when it seems God is absent he is still very near to us.
In the parable it says a priest and a levite passed the beaten man. It is obvious who the priest is: he is carry along with the cross a collection plate full of money. It is my expereince that when priest become too concerned about budgets, stewardship, etc rather than creating disciples it becomes easy to have the wrong focus and pass those by who are most in need because the cannot contribut financially to the church. The other person who passed by was a levite. In my research I found that the Levites served in the Temple and were responsible for the music. When I was young I was a JesusFreak, hippie types who played guitar etc. In the end there was no stamina, or endurance for the JesusFreaks because they sought after religious experience rather than God, himself. So I painted a JesusFreak as the Levite.
And you are right that I left out the Good Samaritan and the title let's you know that that is your role as the viewer, to be the good samaritan and hopefully to feel the feelings and wrestle with the questions: What would I do in these circumstance?
Ultimately, I think the reason Jesus told this parable that for the Samaritan to do what he did, because of the racial tension between Jews and Samaritans would have meant literally riskjing his life for the life of the beaten man. One person said it would be like an American Indian riding up to a Fort with n almost dead calvary soldier. Most likely the indian would have been shot first and ask questions later. So Jesus is saying that to be a good Samaritan requires so much goodnes that pretty much nobody but Jesus could behave in such away. The end reasult is our self rightousness is stripped asway and our total need for a saviour is revealed. We can't pretend to be good because in our human frailty we realized that we don't really have what it takes to be good apart from God's grace. So we throw ourselves on his mercy and ask for his help. And he gives it.
|
I'm finished with the latest painting I have been working on. It is a painting of Father Kentenich, the founder of the Schoenstatt movement. He is holding a pilgrim shrine, with an image of the Mother Thrice Admirable, Queen and Victress of Schoenstatt. Behind him on the left is the famous entry gate to Dachau that says in German "Work Makes You Free" seen from the inside (the letters are backwards). On the right side is a visual interpretation of one of Father's sayings " The boulders hurled at us have become our stairway to heaven. We hope it will be used as an inset into Kathy Kanewske's latest CD project "Heavenwards". She is writing music for the lyrics taken from the prayer book Father Kentenich wrote during his imprisonment in Dachau.
|