Spirituality and Art
-
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
@RobertAllen said
"This topic could go almost anywhere"
I'm gonna go ahead and run with that for a minute then.
For me, the words "art" and "artist" have always had a meaning that reaches beyond the familiar mediums of expression we all know and love. I like to think we are all artists in that there is always an art to what we do: anything can be used to express our deepest convictions, our highest aspirations.
The most determining factor for me as far as whether or not an artist is skilled in his art is if one has learned to accept what comes naturally to them. A spiritual artist is one who lets inspiration happen, the vessel of the body acting as a passive host for what's coming through. If the art requires any effort on the part of the artist, I can't help but think that effort will be plain to see in the finished product, hindering from view the source that spawned the piece to begin with.
I sometimes wonder if uninspired art is even worthy of the word.
Cool thread! I'd like to contribute more to this discussion later on.
Love is the law, love under will.
-
@Zalthos said
"
The most determining factor for me as far as whether or not an artist is skilled in his art is if one has learned to accept what comes naturally to them. A spiritual artist is one who lets inspiration happen, the vessel of the body acting as a passive host for what's coming through. If the art requires any effort on the part of the artist, I can't help but think that effort will be plain to see in the finished product, hindering from view the source that spawned the piece to begin with.."
This is great! I'm going to challenge it, complicate it if I can. So please, don't misinterpret my comments as unfeeling criticism.
A few anecdotes from the world of art:
One of the first things a ballet dancer learns is to pull their shoulders down, and keep them down! This gives the impression that what they are doing is 'easy.' It isn't easy, believe me.
Matisse, the French painter from the turn of the last century used to torture his canvases, hacking away at them until he resolved various problems he was struggling with. It was an ordeal, a fight, definitely not easy! But then he would use turpentine to wash the away all his effort and in one sitting re-paint the picture, lightly, to give the impression that his composition was the easiest thing in the world.
Michael Chekhov, probably the greatest actor to come out of the Moscow Art Theater of Stanislavski claimed that the quality of ease, one of the 'four brother in art' according to him, could, and should be faked! Chekhov was also a follower of Rudolf Steiner and confessed to numerous mystical experiences throughout his career.
Zalthos, you seem to be singling out the quality we tend to associate with mastery as an important. And I would agree with you on this point, I think it is important.
But as a theater director who lives within a stones throw of Hollywood, I can provide examples where this hs become a problematic virtue. Hollywood is filled with millions of unemployed actors many of whom have this idea that the best acting is simply them being themselves, that no effort is required.
The greatest works of art probably do just flow, without apparent effort, but maybe this is only possible after many sleepless nights of sweat and tears.
Could we make a similar claim about spiritual progress? Does it make sense to say you can do whatever makes you feel good, and is easy, or is a culture of work needed before real rewards are to be expected?
Saturn is exalted in Libra!
love and will
-
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
@RobertAllen said
"
This is great! I'm going to challenge it, complicate it if I can. So please, don't misinterpret my comments as unfeeling criticism.
"I welcome your response, sir.
@RobertAllen said
"
It isn't easy, believe me.
"If I may be so bold, I think you're misinterpretting my post: I in no way meant to insinuate that any of what I said was "easy."
@RobertAllen said
"
Hollywood is filled with millions of unemployed actors many of whom have this idea that the best acting is simply them being themselves, that no effort is required.
"Again, I can't help but feel like you're getting the impression that I believe what I described above doesn't require any effort. Notice I said, "The most determining factor for me as far as whether or not an artist is skilled in his art is if one has learned to accept what comes naturally to them."
Obviously, there are some exceptions to the rule: there are some genius prodigies out there who take to their medium with no formal training and immediately begin to set the standard for their field as they begin to produce their own body of work (i.e. William Blake).
The amount of effort that precludes this ability to host inspiration without mucking it up is obviously relative to each individual. What I have a problem with is the assertion (not that you're making it) that formal training is a necessity to artistic expression. It can be a help or a hinderance, but again, this is a subjective and relative piece of this picture we're painting here.
@RobertAllen said
"
The greatest works of art probably do just flow, without apparent effort, but maybe this is only possible after many sleepless nights of sweat and tears.
"You're telling me...
-
Robert 93,
I'm not sure about the Michael Maier books. If they were printed by De Bry, which was drawn deep into the Rosicrucian publishing field then yes, Merien (sometimes spelled Merian - he was a French Protestant who moved to Germany) was the engraver. Frances Yates traced some of this activity in The Rosicrucian Enlightenment and Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition.
"So, following up on your first comment, do you think my assertion that many mystics were also artists is incorrect?"
No, I think many mystics try to use the arts for self-expression. In just the last century, Thomas Merton was a poet, Jung painted a lot (for himself) and we had people like the composers Messiaen and Taverner who were mystically inclined. Sometimes the mystic doesn't have the skill, or feel s/he has, to present his/her output to the world, so it remains unknown, but the desire to express the inexpressible through non-verbal means, or non-linear writing, is very strong.
93 93/93
Edward
-
@Zalthos said
"
Again, I can't help but feel like you're getting the impression that I believe what I described above doesn't require any effort. Notice I said, "The most determining factor for me as far as whether or not an artist is skilled in his art is if one has learned to accept what comes naturally to them."
Obviously, there are some exceptions to the rule: there are some genius prodigies out there who take to their medium with no formal training and immediately begin to set the standard for their field as they begin to produce their own body of work (i.e. William Blake).
The amount of effort that precludes this ability to host inspiration without mucking it up is obviously relative to each individual. What I have a problem with is the assertion (not that you're making it) that formal training is a necessity to artistic expression. It can be a help or a hinderance, but again, this is a subjective and relative piece of this picture we're painting here. :"
I will confess that I tweaked your comments a bit, in my mind, because it allowed me to talk abut an idea that is important to me. Sorry for that. I knew you were not asserting that art was easy. But you go on, above, and actually refer to my notion more explicitly. If we believe the stories there are in fact those individuals who turn up with ready-made talent waiting to pour out of them. Though a little research is usually enough to dispel the myth in many instances—perhaps another instance where the artists feels the need to project the impression of absolute mastery, hiding the true cost of their talents. Still, I agree, there are probably two kinds of Genius we can point to. The kind that is born, and the one that develops his abilities over time.
A parallel in the spiritual realm might be those individuals who, we are told, are born enlightened, having achieved liberation in previous life-times; and the rest of us working on the 'next step' in the here and now.
I don't have much to say about the born geniuses and enlightened masters because I don't understand them, and don't think I can have much sympathy for them for that reason; they lack the kind of humanity that I can easily connect with. This isn't a rejection, I'm not being mean spirited when I say that, just honest. I have received darshan from so-called avatars, and I've sat in the presence of individuals who had supposedly attained with the hope of getting anything I could from the contact. And maybe I did, but it is the story of the person who struggled an overcame that speaks the most to me. For this reason I tend to gravitate to an artists later work as being the most profound and moving of their career.
"One must have a mind of Winter" —Wallace Stevens
I believe Wallace is talking about the genius that grows over time, the Eros of age.
love and will
-
93,
I think the key thing here is that great art comes through from beyond the personal consciousness of the individual who produces it. That accounts for its power to move us.
Some years ago, a close friend took me to see Gaudi's Sagrada Familia church in Barcelona. She asked me not to go on my own, but to go with her at night, when the facade was floodlit. The lights came on, fortuitously, just as we arrived, and I spent maybe half an hour gazing into God - Guadi did that well with how the figures in his design all swirl in a vortex that converges on the Unutterable. It was quite terrifying, and wonderful, the floodlights intensifying the shadows beyond what's visible in daytime.
Gaudi himself is a mystery. We know very little of how he really thought and felt, other than ostensibly, he was a devout Catholic and has, perhaps unfortunately, been beatified. But he was tuned into nature and natural form in an amazing way, and immersed himself in studying the curving of shells and bones. Looking at the Sagrada Familia and other buildings he designed, I didn't find it hard to acknowledge that he was more than just a designer in stone - he had a creative force working through him that forced me to acknowledge him as a mystic. An Adept, even.
The poet Robert Graves used to speak of Goddess poems, which could be recognized from how they make the hairs on the back of your neck tingle. There's a lot of good art out there, but the "big" stuff has that effect. It's so good, it's scary.
93 93/93,
Edward
-
@Edward Mason said
"93,
Some years ago, a close friend took me to see Gaudi's Sagrada Familia church in Barcelona. She asked me not to go on my own, but to go with her at night, when the facade was floodlit. The lights came on, fortuitously, just as we arrived, and I spent maybe half an hour gazing into God - Guadi did that well with how the figures in his design all swirl in a vortex that converges on the Unutterable. It was quite terrifying, and wonderful, the floodlights intensifying the shadows beyond what's visible in daytime."James Joyce in Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man lays out an interesting theory of art. There is kinetic art, and then there is static art. Simplifying: kinetic art makes you do something, like opening your wallet to make a donation to help famine victims in Somalia; static art does the opposite, it stops you—you are, for the duration of the relationship, not trying to get laid, not surviving, not saving the word. In effect, you have stepped outside of time and the normal demands of the world. By his definition, kinetic art is bad (though it might be good activism or some other thing), and static art is good.
When you spend time with a work of art and it seemingly sustains itself, and is enough for the moment, this is when static art happens. It rehearses timelessness. For me, the experience is always marked by a profound sense of liberation, though your description clearly emphasizes the full, four-pack of L's.
love and will
-
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
@RobertAllen said
"I will confess that I tweaked your comments a bit, in my mind, because it allowed me to talk abut an idea that is important to me. Sorry for that. I knew you were not asserting that art was easy."
That's fine; I appreciate your maturity.
@RobertAllen said
"But you go on, above, and actually refer to my notion more explicitly. If we believe the stories there are in fact those individuals who turn up with ready-made talent waiting to pour out of them. Though a little research is usually enough to dispel the myth in many instances—perhaps another instance where the artists feels the need to project the impression of absolute mastery, hiding the true cost of their talents."
I can't bring myself to separate art from the concept of inspiration or, as Edward put it (although my use here is slightly out of context) what "comes through from beyond the personal consciousness of the individual." It seems to me like you're replacing this key ingredient with the skillset of the individual, their "talent," and I have to say that doesn't sit well with me at all. The fundamental principle I'm trying to present here is that great art is an expression of inspiration, not the expression of an artist.
@RobertAllen said
"I don't have much to say about the born geniuses and enlightened masters because I don't understand them and don't think I can have much sympathy for them for that reason; they lack the kind of humanity that I can easily connect with. "
I make no claims to "understand" any individual, really. In any attempt to, I do little more than experience the words or art they choose to share with me. I cannot comfortably allow that to constitute the understanding of an entire human being since there is obviously so much more to each individual than can be put into sentences or art.
It speaks volumes to me when a person can embrace mystery for what it is instead of trying to "solve" it. I do believe it is natural for us to make the attempt, but I also believe that acceptance of what we do not understand will ultimately lead to the understanding we so vehemently seek.
@RobertAllen said
" ... it is the story of the person who struggled an overcame that speaks the most to me."
This is the standard hero motif implicit in so very many of the religions and mythologies of humanity's history. Are you familiar with the works of Joseph Campbell?
Love is the law, love under will.
-
@Zalthos said
"
@RobertAllen said
"But you go on, above, and actually refer to my notion more explicitly. If we believe the stories there are in fact those individuals who turn up with ready-made talent waiting to pour out of them. Though a little research is usually enough to dispel the myth in many instances—perhaps another instance where the artists feels the need to project the impression of absolute mastery, hiding the true cost of their talents."
I can't bring myself to separate art from the concept of inspiration or, as Edward put it (although my use here is slightly out of context) what "comes through from beyond the personal consciousness of the individual." It seems to me like you're replacing this key ingredient with the skillset of the individual, their "talent," and I have to say that doesn't sit well with me at all. The fundamental principle I'm trying to present here is that great art is an expression of inspiration, not the expression of an artist."
I am not speaking against inspiration. A person who works hard at their art is not given a free pass just because they are working hard, that's just drudgery. Conversely, I have seen many wonderful ideas fail of effect because the artist simply did not have the chops to pull it off.
@Zalthos said
"
@RobertAllen said
"I don't have much to say about the born geniuses and enlightened masters because I don't understand them and don't think I can have much sympathy for them for that reason; they lack the kind of humanity that I can easily connect with. "
I make no claims to "understand" any individual, really. In any attempt to, I do little more than experience the words or art they choose to share with me. I cannot comfortably allow that to constitute the understanding of an entire human being since there is obviously so much more to each individual than can be put into sentences or art.
It speaks volumes to me when a person can embrace mystery for what it is instead of trying to "solve" it. I do believe it is natural for us to make the attempt, but I also believe that acceptance of what we do not understand will ultimately lead to the understanding we so vehemently seek."
I'm down with most of this. It has just been my experience that folks who have not had to struggle for their art tend not to produce work that is as poignant as the work of those who have struggled. Now, I'm not making a rational argument here, I'm just airing an opinion based on the weight of my experiences. There is currently a show here, in LA, at MOCA—the paintings of Arshile Gorky. The paintings are hung chronologically. When you get to the end of the exhibition, where one of the last paintings is called Charred Beloved, you find yourself far beyond the small confines of the ordinary, day to day world. Based on your comments, I think his work would be all you could possibly hope for in art. My point is that it wouldn't have been possible without the life he had. He committed suicide.
@Zalthos said
"
@RobertAllen said
" ... it is the story of the person who struggled an overcame that speaks the most to me."This is the standard hero motif implicit in so very many of the religions and mythologies of humanity's history. Are you familiar with the works of Joseph Campbell?"
Yes, Campbell, Hero with a Thousand Faces fame. It's been years since I have picked up any of his books. Good stuff, though to be clear about my focus in the above, I am talking about the art, not specifically the journey of the artist. I just mention the journey because I see how it tends to feed the art. But feel free to expand on your reference to Campbell's thesis, I'm curious to see where that might go.
love and will
-
@RobertAllen said
"
@Zalthos said
"
It's been years since I have picked up any of his books. Good stuff, though to be clear about my focus in the above, I am talking about the art, not specifically the journey of the artist.
"
"That strikes a chord with me. Quite a bit of work is needed before the vessel is able to contain the fire of inspiration that is most essential to its nature. OTOH, if the vessel has not made contact with that fire, then no amount of work will bear fruit of the same quality as that born of true inspiration.
W. Somerset Maugham wrote the first draft of Of Human Bondage early in his career. He'd been inspired and truly believed that his ideas were the stuff of great literature. Unfortunately, his writing skills weren't developed enough to allow him to truly reveal his themes the way he wanted to. He didn't think he could do the idea justice at the time that he wrote it, so he put it aside for many years. Later, after completing several published works, he came back to Of Human Bondage, rewrote it from scratch based on his original idea, and created a masterpiece.
As to whether or not the work of a truly inspired artist is easy, I would say that this is rarely so. I would think, though, that in many cases the work will come naturally, if not easily.