Collage: The Journey of Discovering My Creative Process

When I began contemplating what I would create, I decided to focus on the creative process. One of the things I enjoyed discussing the most throughout our readings was William’s narrative on the art making. Over the course of this semester, I have been working towards discovering my own way of working. Creating in art classes with specific assignments stunts growth in this area, as concepts and imagery are handed to you. I knew it was time to dive into what my own individual creative style looks like, without the demands of a specific course. 

A logical jumping off point was collage. When I decided I would switch from graphic design to studio art, I began what I called an “idea book.” It all started with a little 3x5 notebook from Target, and before I knew it, I had filled three of them! Inside my journals I plan art projects, track my progress, but mostly just express inspiration. When inspiration strikes I don’t usually have time to complete a piece from start to finish, and the journal provides a quick and easy way to record my ideas visually (words just don’t cut it in this area). I soon began to collect images, and from there, collaged them. Now, collage is the main way in which I discover and resolve my ideas because of the expressive quality of the medium.

Reading Grace and Necessity and It Was Good has encouraged me to push the limits of my art making. Instead of planning carefully with a concept already in mind, I have started to push aside any preconceived notions of what the art may look like in an effort to “serve the work.” For me this is a meditative, relaxing way of working, although time consuming. However, it also offers me with the most peace I have ever felt while creating. Allowing the work to flow from my hands acts as a form of worship, a connection with God. I have been able to find joy in my art which it previously lacked. I feel that I have re-discovered the joy of creation.

In this collage it speaks of a letting go. In the right hand corner are a collection of things from the past; old and faded. From them a cascade of romantic, vintage items flows through the waves and down into the water. A young girl stands upon them, swept away. For me this symbolizes a washing away of the old, and embracing the beautiful unknown of the new. Often it is so hard to let things go, but we would never know what greater wonders are to come if we do not leave them behind. This represents a passing of seasons, a change of eras, a journey of growth. 

Artist Interview: Lynda Rimke

Blue Hen Falls. Lynda Rimke.

The painting my mother sent to the soldiers.

This semester I chose to interview Lynda Rimke, a talented painter and graphic designer. I got in contact with her through my mother, who was a friend of Rimke while they attended the same church. My mother often liked to create greeting cards featuring Rimke’s beautiful art - they even designed one which they sent to soldiers. The church family wrote meaningful letters in them. I think this is a wonderful way to use art in the church!

However, I chose to interview Rimke because we have a few things in common; the most outstanding being that we’ve both worked in graphic design and have since moved toward studio art. Rimke considers graphic design one of her gifts, but explained that she had trouble keeping up with tech and found herself working on outdated software (me too!). In addition, she moved to a rural area where there were not as many graphic design opportunities - but there was a need for gardening! She now enjoys working seasonally as a landscaper and gardner with Ohio State University. 

This love of gardening plays wonderfully with Rimke's love of plein air painting. Her current project is to create a series of botanical drawings, which are required for her MGV course portfolio. She also plans to exhibit watercolor paintings of tiny flowers or “weeds” we tend to ignore. Fittingly enough, Rimke will call the show Consider the Lilies, based on the scripture in Luke 12:27. 

As you can see above, Rimke makes an effort to entwine her faith and art. 

“During my senior year pursuing a fine art degree, I made a conscious effort to go back to representational art. This was due to gaining the insight that I was made in His image, and therefore was not only His creature, but a creator. I recalled an incident in first grade, where I colored an apple much differently than my peers. My apple was not an even red, but included the mottled vertical stripes of yellows, pale greens and oranges. In addition, I had colored heavily to create the waxy effect of light on apple skin. As His creator-creature, I decided to pursue this gift of observation and passion for realism. Much more recently (2007), I took a seminar at First Friends in Canton with Janice Elsheimer, who wrote a terrific workbook called The Creative Call. This workbook was an immense help in allowing me to justify my pursuit of painting apart from financial reward. Again, it reinforced from head to heart, the fact that my artistic ability is His gift. Also, I found even more encouragement from the book Elsheimer quoted most often: Walking on Water by Madeleine L'Engle. She explains how as co-creators, we work alongside Him to bring cosmos (order) out of chaos. This reinforces my representational direction, as opposed to pure abstraction.”

Fearfully and Wonderfully Made. Lynda Rimke.

Rimke has walked quite the creative path, and I find that her words resonate with me. Something I have meditated upon in my work is the fact that I am indeed a creator; that God has given me a gift which he himself posseses. When I think about God’s creation - how profound and beautiful it is - I realize that making my art is an act of creating with God. This also gives me the motivation to keep going - keep creating - even when I feel empty. But this also means that as an artist I must be a good steward of my gifts. Rimke pointed out in her interview that drawing requires practice and discipline! I could not agree with her more. However, something she encouraged me in is that having a graphic design background gives you the focus, patience, and composition skills needed to be a productive studio artist. 

Lastly, Rimke goes on to share her experiences in the church, ranging from active and passive support to even opposition. Her most active support has come from Christian friends she has made within secular professional art groups. For her, this pool of 100% acceptance is a positive influence, because no one can fully understand an artist like another artistic. 

The church has had positive influences for her as well, though. At Akron Springfield Assembly of God (the church I attended in Ohio), pastor Mark Hidinger prophesied for her to paint with her eyes closed. Since she has created several “drip” or “pour” watercolor paintings, and finds it amazing! 

On the other end of the spectrum, Rimke’s work has not always been supported in the church.

Rimke's banner.

Know Thyself. Lynda Rimke. 2005. Pastel.

"Temet Nosce means "Know Thyself." 

This self-portrait has me questioning my

 motives for making art; hence, the demanding

 shadow in the doorway and quizzical look.

“The first incident was over a banner where I envisioned the resurrected Christ extending His nail-pierced hand to Hagar. The leadership just couldn't make the leap to the fourth dimension (God is not bound by time) and allow the nail prints! So I covered the red prints with gray fabric on the actual banner. A subsequent leader who was woo-ing me to work on banners simply stated "You're fired!" and so ended all conversation and my illustrious career there.”

Another point which Rimke has been unable to bring into the church with her art is ethnocentrism in banners. She planned to depict King of Kings with western crowns and scepters. She even suggested showing the King of Kings as a crown of thorns and the Lord of Lords as a bowl and towel (Jesus washed feet). But no luck! Pastor Hadinger at ASAG thought it was too “far out” and used her artist status to negate the idea, although other banners she has created still hang in the church.

Hearing about Rimke’s journey as an artist and believer was encouraging to me, and I hope it encourages you as well. As shown through her story, sometimes we will be accepted, or not. However, the important thing is to remember that we were created to create - and this is a calling which I find impossible to deny. Whether in the mediums of graphic design or studio art, we are made to be God’s co-creators here on earth, and that is an amazing gift!

“Hang on to this: Exodus 35:30-36:1 is the story of His gift manifest in a few good artists for creating the lavish beauty in the tabernacle. Note that Bezelel was "filled with  the Spirit of God in wisdom and understanding, in knowledge and all manner of workmanship to DESIGN  artistic works (create original stuff out of his head)." Don't let anyone tell you he was just a craftsman following God's blueprints. God entrusted the creative part to Bezelel to make something from nothing. This is what it means to be made in His image as co-creators. We're not puppets!”

Rimke demonstrating watercolor at Wendell August Forge. 

Identity

Identity. What is it? How do we define it? Can you change it? In the Identity chapter of It Was Good: Making Art to the Glory of God, Prescott discusses the concept of identity. In our American culture, many people often identify themselves as a member of a group; Greek Orthodox, Hispanic, dyslexic, MFA, and so forth. But what fascinates me is how limiting these titles are, and how they divide individuals into boxes based on group characteristics. Prescott comments on this, saying, 

“Categories relating to identity can be enumerated endlessly, and in one sense the more categorically complete a description we have, the more we should know someone’s identity. But this is misleading, because categories defined by one’s inclusion in a group are always about group characteristics...[they] are limited tools for understanding an individual.” -Prescott

Up to and Including Her Limits. Carolee Schneemannn.
1973-76. Video / Performance Art.

Furthermore, the body is one way in which artists have used to define themselves. On the MoMA Learning website, the body is described as a source of identity which artists have employed in their art. 

"The human body is central to how we understand facets of identity such as gender, sexuality, race, and ethnicity. People alter their bodies, hair, and clothing to align with or rebel against social conventions and to express messages to others around them. Many artists explore gender through representations of the body and by using their own bodies in their creative process."

Artwork by Mark Powell

However, this is only a small, nearly insignificant facet of identity. Personal characteristics isn’t going to lead us to the truth. If we base our identities off of physical strength, who do we become when weak? If beauty, what becomes of the identity with age? This train of thought can extend even further to experiences. Society likes to describe us as putty ready for molding; that we come into this world a blank slate and our identity is formed by our experiences in the world. Because our identity is the result of external forces, as opposed to internal predispositions, we may change our identity. Our culture's imagery and business is built on the idea of easy change - the ability to "make yourself over." If only it were that easy.

Identity is so much more than social grouping, physicality, culture, or experiences. We are made up of more than sexual orientation, weight, or heritage. We are more than the sum of our experiences. 

I believe this brings to one central conclusion: we did not create ourselves. We were created beautiful and unique, with purpose, which transcends any identity we may attempt to give ourselves. We were made for more than our self given labels. There is so much more to me than merely “Christian” or “artist.” George MacDonald, Scottish author, poet, and preacher puts it best:

“I would rather be what God chose to make me than the most glorious creature that I could think of; for to have been thought about, born in God's thought, and then made by God, is the dearest, grandest and most precious thing in all thinking.”

Ancient of Days. William Blake. 1794.

Sources

It Was Good: Making Art to the Glory of God by Bustard

"Investigating Identity." MoMA Learning. Moma.org. 

George-MacDonald.com

Using Symbolism in Art

Cutbird by Gaylen Stewart

An example of how Stewart has used his x-rays in artwork.

In the last section of his Language chapter of It Was Good: Making Art to the Glory of God, Stewart goes into depth about some of his own work. He reflects upon how his own x-rays are one of the symbols he has used in his art. During this time he was going through a period of introspection, specifically his healing from cancer. In his own words, Stewart says,

I would use the x-rays to convey my pain and healing and a discussion about the frailty of human existence in a spiritual context. 

Bury the Tender Word
by Gaylen Stewart

However, Stewart acknowledges that symbols change. What may have been an effective symbol at one time may not be now. As Stewart progresses with his work, he juxtaposes different symbols with one another to give them new meaning. For example, while an audience may see a butterfly and acknowledge it’s natural beauty, they will view it fresh light if a word is written next to it. Pushing the limits of what it means to take a symbol and use it in an unexpected way is part of what makes an artist’s work unique and intriguing. Creating associations with contrasting objects breathes new life and meaning into them. Stewart explains this, stating,

Understanding my work reminds me of how children learn to speak when they are very young. Children learn by repetition. They become familiar with repeated sounds and patterns which they eventually connect to meaning. In a similar way, seeing many works which encompass the artist’s visual language, one can begin to decipher individual elements. As people view the images and as they read the words, they begin to make associations between dissimilar objects, imbuing them with new meaning. This is what I find challenging and exciting about symbolic imagery - connecting people and facilitating the process of rediscovery. 

Confined by Kirsten Hallenbeck

I use the symbols of the human figure, birds, and
nature elements in my own work. 

As an artist myself, it is always fascinating to hear how certain symbols wiggle their way into art and take on new meaning. For Stewart, these are natural images, such as butterflies and insects combined with scientific imagery and patterns pointing to the complexity of creation. I think if we look closely, we can all see repeating symbols in our work. For me, this consists of nature objects and free, organic lines. Plants, birds, and the human figure can’t seem to stay out of my work! These have become my strongest symbols and I have taken it upon myself as an artist to continue finding creative new ways to present them. I must give them a voice with which to speak to my viewer. 

Romare Bearden was another artist who uses symbolism in his work. In the video below, he talks about which symbols jumped out to him, and how he used specific imagery together to convey meaning. 

How will you use symbols in your artwork?

The artwork of Romare Bearden, containing his symbol of the guitar.

Sources
It Was Good: Making Art to the Glory of God by Bustard
http://www.sfmoma.org/explore/multimedia/videos/205
http://www.moma.org/collection/details.php?theme_id=10205
http://www.steinershow.org/podcasts/history/the-life-and-work-of-artist-romare-bearden/

To be an artist of faith...

Photo by Danielle Peterson

Brother Andre Love still has many tattoos,
which he has not removed at the request
of the Mount Angel Abbey Abbot.

While touring the Mount Angel Abbey with guide Brother Andre Love, a Catholic monk, I began to question what it means to be an artist of faith. Love’s story paints a rich and dynamic canvas of this concept: with occupations ranging from military service, to tattoo artist, and now monk. In our discussion Love spoke about how he was prepared to give up art when he entered the Abbey. After all, he had begun tattooing out of necessity and realized he no longer belonged in that world. He joked about how he “talked more people out of getting tattoos then into them.” Love said that he could see when the chosen tattoo wasn’t a true expression of the person receiving it, and he would refuse the client. He was tired of being a brand; concerned with money and ego. Trapped in addiction and divorced three times, Love knew something needed to change. 

I had no clue what love was. I had no clue how to love or how to let people love me and that’s why I was miserable.

Several years of searching later, Love found Mount Angel Abbey. He was in search of truth, and if it meant giving up his art, Love was prepared. Imagine his surprise when the Abbot instructed him to work as an icon painter and curator. Now Love paints in 20 minute increments between his other responsibilities at the Abbey. He works only by commission, and is currently painting a Byzantine icon of St. Stephen. Love has studied iconography since arriving at the Abbey, and embraces the ancient method of using stylized figures combined with symbolic colors and posturing. For Love, using this style emphasizes that this art isn’t about him.

...there’s an element of anonymity. It’s not about the artist. 

Photo by Danielle Peterson

Love's studio at Mount Angel Abbey.

While reading Keller’s chapter on Why We Need Artists in It Was Good: Making Art for the Glory of God, I was reminded of our visit to Mount Angel Abbey. Keller discusses how he believes that the church needs artists because without art it is impossible to reach the world. This argument is based off of the idea that imagination “gets you,” in contradiction to reason. Keller goes on to compare art to music, stating,

You are committed to believing nothing means anything and yet the music comes in and takes you over with your imagination. When you listen to great music, you can’t believe life is meaningless. Your heart knows what your mind is denying. We need Christian artists because we are never going to reach the world without great Christian art to go with great Christian talk.

Hitler's Madonna and Child obviously does not make
him an artist of faith. Being an artist of faith
can not be defined by painting religious scenes. 

So then, does this mean Christian artists need to drop everything and become monks? Can our only subject matter be the Madonna and Child? On the contrary, painting iconography like Brother Love is only one course of action. What we can learn from Love and Keller is the spirit with which to create art. In commentary on prayer at the Abbey, Love states that “we’re not just praying for ourselves. We’re praying for the world. This prayer is constantly going on.” Anyone can paint a religious scene, but only someone who is truly in communion with God while creating can illicit a sense of meaning from a viewer. 

To me, it is important to remember that this can take any form. Being a Christian artist isn’t about painting religious scenes. Rather, it may be the more nuanced and seemingly “non-Christian” art which causes a viewer to think. I may not paint a portrait of the prodigal son or actively pray while I create, but instead quietly meditate within myself. A soft, quiet sense of knowing is all I need to understand that God is present and active in my art. The simple physical act of creating is my form of worship, and I believe this comes through in my work. To me, this is what it means to be an artist of faith. 

Golden Sea by Makoto Fujimura. 

Fujimura uses abstract art to express his faith.

Sources

It Was Good: Making Art to the Glory of God by Bustard

Rastrellie, Tom. "Tatto Artist Turned Monk: Not Your Typical Art Story." Statesmen Journal, 17 November 2014.

Fujimurainstitute.com

What Makes Art Beautiful?

In the second chapter of It Was Good: Making Art to the Glory of God, Chaplin offers an interesting discourse on beauty in art. He begins by commenting on how each individual experiences the world in their own unique way, and therefore, their interpretation of beauty will be exclusive. This is a strong argument not to be reasoned against. However, Chaplin goes on to say that what a person sees as beautiful, or not beautiful, is based on their past experiences and future expectations. Beauty becomes dependent on the context, there are no neutral perceptions. To quote Chaplin,

Michelangelo's Vitruvian Man is based on
proportion and measurement.

“Beauty, likewise, always appears in particular historical and social contexts. It is not the same for everyone at all times. It is always a complex set of factors and considerations which, when seen, evokes from us the exclamation: ‘How beautiful!’”

However, this belief implies that the beautiful is relative; existing or possessing a characteristic only in comparison to something else. It is not absolute. It is not beautiful on its own. 

Pythagoras and others discovered what they believed to be underlying principles which define what is beautiful. Pythagoras ascertained that beauty consists of proper measurement, proportion, and harmony. Both Plato and Augustine agreed and developed the ideal further, claiming that beauty and harmony are symbols of a universal order. To be without order or form is to lack beauty. These ideas are extremely similar to what we might consider the “elements and principles of design,” which consist of line, shape, texture, and repetition, among many others. These components have become common mechanisms today which we use to both create and critique art. 

Paul Cezanne. Portrait of Antony Valabregue.
1866-1870.

"When I judge art, I take my painting and I put it
next to a God made object like a tree or flower.
If it clashes, it is not art."
-Paul Cezanne

Chaplin dialogues about how art is beautiful because of its ability to articulate a “realm of pre-reflective experience which falls between the cracks of discursive language and abstract thought...this creates a world of imagined sensuous, embodied experience.” He goes on to quote Aquinas, who defines the beautiful as “that which pleases when seen.” So then, the beautiful is that which is technically correct, evokes a symbolic meaning, and is pleasing to the eye. However, Chaplin does not believe that beauty equates to truth. Aesthetics do not yield ethics.

Having said that, I respectfully disagree with Chaplin. Truth is not a moral code or a list of virtues; it is honesty and authenticity. In my opinion, a piece of truly beautiful art will be overflowing with the truth. In this, we must remember that the truth comes wrapped in many packages. Because a viewer does not “like” the work does not mean it is not beautiful or truthful. What makes art beautiful, what makes it truthful, is the passion of the artist behind it and their willingness to serve their art form. It is the readiness with which they strive for that authenticity. Applying a “canon of beauty” will lead the artist to aesthetic appeal, but to me this is not enough. While aesthetics are important, truth is more important, and we can recognize truth in art. It calls to us. It proclaims beauty.

To me, creating art has become a search for truth, and the truth is beautiful. 

“The true work of art is but a shadow of the divine perfection.” 

-Michelangelo

Aaron Westerberg. Belena. 

Westerberg is a contemporary artist who combines
classical methods with modern subject matter.

Sources

It was Good: Making Art to the Glory of God by Bustard

Pythagoras and the Beauty in All Things by Critchley

Grace and Necessity by Rowan Williams

Goodness

Kirsten Hallenbeck. Brandywine Falls. 2012.

In It Was Good: Making Art to the Glory of God, Bustard dedicates his first chapter to the concept of “good.” Before even beginning the chapter, I began to contemplate what the word good means. We use it so commonly, so flippantly. 

The dinner was good.

The evening was good.

The art was good.

But what is good? When you take away the dinner, the evening, the art, what is it? Many people define good in terms of good and evil, but I would rather define good as a something.  Webster’s dictionary defines good as a noun; something that is right. But it’s difficult to witness good; we can’t paint it, photograph it, or sculpt it. Yet somehow good continues to surface in art, in experiences, in people. Instead of being the subject matter, good reveals itself in a glimpse. 

A glimpse. In the Bible, Moses experiences God’s goodness in such a way. 

‘‘You cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live.” Then the LORD said, “There is a place near me where you may stand on a rock. When my glory passes by, I will put you in a cleft in the rock and cover you with my hand until I have passed by. Then I will remove my hand and you will see my back; but my face must not be seen.”’

Ned Bustard and Matthew Clark. And Such Were
You. 2006. Tinted woodcut, 22x30 inches.

So then, maybe a mere glimpse of goodness is the best way to experience it. Bustard and Clark’s woodcut piece And Such Were You focuses on this concept of goodness in a glimpse, by depicting the ark in great peril. Inside, the animals pictured are all traditionally symbolic of evil. They symbolize evil influence, laziness, the damned, temptation of the flesh, malice, cruelty, deception, gluttony, and guile. Bustard explains his choice of animals, stating,

“The passengers of the ark that God chooses to save are underserving. And so are we....Good may be mercurial to represent in regards to the Almighty, but His acts of goodness in creation, redemption, and providence can be seen as clearly as we see in the path of the wind through the trees. And as close to our experience as our very souls - God has washed, sanctified and justified the likes of us.”

Goodness, the good, it’s something that has become a part of us. While it can’t be necessarily defined or depicted on its own, it comes out all around us. We see goodness in a waterfall, in an embrace, in a soul.

But we are not good on our own. God is good. 

“The Christian does not think God will love us because we are good, but that God will make us good because He loves us.” - C.S. Lewis

Santiago Carbonell. El Abrazo. 1960.

Sources
The Holy Bible, Zondervan Publishing
It was Good: Making Art for the Glory of God by Bustard 
Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis

Communication Through Art

Nature Forms Gasp. Georgia O'Keeffe.

I found I could say things with color and shapes that I couldn't say any other way - things I had no words for.
-Georgia O'Keeffe

In the final chapter of Grace and Necessity, Rowan Williams briefly touches on a subject which caught my attention. He discusses the how the reality of the world, and human perception of it, is fleeting and temporary. The human mind, in all its complexity, goes through a process of generation. This is not to say that the brain creates something from nothing, but rather that it communicates through a continuous reflection, which is reworked and shaped over time. Our interpretations are subject to constant reinterpretation. In the midst of this constant cycle of perception, interpretation, and reinterpretation, how can the truth be found?

Williams says that truth can be found in the sum of our lives and individual perceptions, stating:

“But truthfulness unfolds - it does not happen at once - and makes possible different levels of appropriating or sharing the activity that is the world. Basic to all this is - though it is not quite the conclusion that Hofstadter himself would want to arrive at - a sense of the real as active rather than static, a mobile pattern whose best analogy is indeed musical, not mechanical.”

Blue Nude. Pablo Picasso.

The artist is a receptacle for emotions that come from all
over the place: from the sky, from the earth, from a scrap
of paper, from a passing shape, from a spider's web.
-Pablo Picasso

Therefore, our perceptions and understanding are a dynamic and constant occurrence. From this comes truth. Truth is discovered through interpersonal sharing and communicating. We draw on our experiences, our past, our knowledge, and through our collective understanding we can arrive at truth. While Hofstadter might not want to conclude that the real is active rather than static, he does conclude that communication is best executed when it includes a personal narrative. In his book I Am A Strange Loop, he writes,

“And one of my firmest conclusions is that we always think by seeking and drawing parallels to things we know from our past, and that we therefore communicate best when we exploit examples, analogies, and metaphors galore, when we avoid abstract generalities, when we use very down-to-earth, concrete, and simple language, and when we talk directly about our own experience.” 

We can conclude that communication is an extremely important component of understanding reality and truth. But what does this mean for the visual arts? Art, at its core, is a form of communication. While Williams and Hofstadter discuss the expression of perception and truth in terms of language, art presents an entirely new medium through which to communicate. Our language, with its limited vocabulary, reduces our understanding to symbols. We are limited by our words so that which is conveyed through speech could be interpreted in a thousand different ways. Our language can fail us, especially in our quest for truth. The visual can capture things which words fail to convey, and perhaps aid the journey. Art is a instrument through which the artist has a way to express truth in a plane bound only by the laws of the physical, with a myriad of solutions. Our truth, our perception, should not be confined to ourselves - it demands to be expressed. 

"Art is the desire of a man to express himself, to record the reactions of his personality to the world he lives in." -Amy Lowell

30 sec. Figure Study. Kirsten Hallenbeck.

 Some of my own artistic expression/perception. 

Completed at a Hipbone Studio live drawing session.

Sources
Grace and Necessity by Rowan Williams
I Am A Strange Loop by Hofstadter
Picasso On Art: A Selection of Views from Da Capo Press 

Truth in Art: Flannery O'Connor

Flannery O'Connor

In the third section of his book Grace and Necessity, Rowan Williams takes time to discuss the art and philosophy behind the literary work of Flannery O’Connor. Regarded as one of America’s greatest fiction writers, her work wrestles with what she refers to as the “stinking mad shadow of Jesus.” The daughter of Georgia’s two oldest and most devout Roman Catholic families, O’Connor became a strong apologist for Roman Catholicism throughout the twentieth century. 

Writers of faith encounter questions and struggles unique to their beliefs. In the art of writing, how much should the author impose their own beliefs and moral convictions upon their characters? O’Connor’s writings hold up a mirror to her own spiritual journeys; often contemplating the “search for God and the quest for the holy.” However, her spiritual connection does not seem to be a limitation. On the contrary, O’Connor’s work centers predominantly on fundamentalist Protestants, whom she commended for their search for Truth. For O’Connor, it is not a matter of writing about character and action, but rather speaking with character and action. She goes into this at length, stating;

"This means that [the work] must carry its meaning inside it. It means that any abstractly expressed compassion or piety or morality in a piece of fiction is only a statement added to it. It means that you can't make an inadequate dramatic action complete by putting a statement of meaning on the end of it or in the middle of it or at the beginning of it. It means that when you write fiction you are speaking with character and action, not about character and action."

Williams goes so far as to say that in regards to the work, to question the moral consequences of creating is to interrupt integrity. Williams says,

“The paradoxical point is that if the writer urgently wants to lay bare a moral universe or a dogmatic structure, she has to do so exclusively in the terms of the work itself, not by introducing a moral excursus or by holding back because of possible undesirable results in a venerable reader.”

A self portrait by O'Connor.

So, therefore, the writer must let go of their need for self-expression and search for the central necessity of the work at hand. The author must act as narrator, but within the work of fiction - as a character. In this way, all personal presuppositions and opinions of truth, morality, and religion are shed so that the work may speak for itself. It is easy for artists to fall into a mindset that they cater solely to their audience, and can edit work beyond recognition in an attempt to please the crowd. But this, as discussed by O’Connor and Williams, is not portraying truth nor being honest in the work. 

Artists do not wake one day and decide that they will be an artist. The inherent need to create is something which an individual is born into - they depend upon it. They create because they must, and the process of creation is something which the artist serves. When inspiration strikes and a work demands to be brought into existence, the artist must be true to their revelation. To impress one’s own beliefs upon a work is to compromise its integrity - to compromise the truth.

In a letter O’Connor sent to a friend, she writes;

“Strangle the word dreams. You don’t dream up a form and put the truth in it. The truth creates its own form. Form is necessity in the work of art." 

Sources

Gordon, Sarah. "Flannery O'Connor (1925-1964)." New Georgia Encyclopedia. 29 September 2014. Web. 20 October 2014.

Webb, Charles Harper. "The Art of Sentence: Flannery O'Connor." Tin House. 3 April 2012. Web. 20 October 2014.

Grace and Necessity by Rowan Williams

Life As Art

From the beginning of time, man has been inextricably tied to the physical - what we know as real. We possess within us a deep connection, a bond, which allows us to perceive and understand the physical. This tangible world is a medium through which man can communicate. In his book Grace and Necessity, Rowan Williams goes into detail about this relationship between man and reality. To Williams, communication through the physical is a gift which each individual must experience for themselves. He explains this, saying,

"...the whole notion of sign implies the sacred - the real as good, the good as supremely real, and thus as laying on us an obligation, a binding. If the stuff of the world can be a medium of communication, the exploration of the possible meanings of what is given becomes a listening for something like a gift, the bestowing on us of a share in a reality that is for our flourishing."

As we artists (or poets, or even military strategists, for that matter) shape and develop our forms, we work within our own conviction that the real is good. Each individual who encounters some creation must discover or “listen” for themselves - to receive their own understanding which enriches and encourages their reality. 

Bulls in the Lascaux Caves

Because of this wedding between the material and the imagination, humanity cannot ignore the need to communicate visually. Since the beginning of time, man has been painting, sculpting, and expressing. A brief romp through art history shows us that from the caves of Lascaux to Duchamp, man has found a voice in art. But, then, what is art? Are we limited to that which can be marked on a cave or affixed to a gallery wall? 

Maritain offers a unique perspective with his philosophy that art is simply creating. Art is “not copying, not free-wheeling or expressing an inner selfhood, but producing a material thing.” While Maritain’s view is exhilarating and empowering to the artist - can this concept be pushed further? 

David Jones argues yes. 

As an artist and poet, Jones is familiar with the entwined nature of life and creation. His writing and visual artist work stemed from his time serving in the military during World War I, and his later conversion to Catholicism. This relates strongly to his view on life as art, as described by Williams in Grace and Necessity, 

"Jones implies that the life of 'prudence,' a life lived in a consciously moral context, however exactly understood, is itself an act of gratuitous sign-making; moral behavior is the construction of a life that can be 'read', that reveals something in the world and uncovers mystery."

So then, life becomes art. This new and intriguing concept suggests that behavior becomes a means to reveal the interconnectedness of physical existence. The everyday choices based on individual moral conviction is displayed as a comprehensible creation. And with this comes a great challenge; what will you create with your waking, your breathing - your existence? 

Epiphany by David Jones

Sources
-Grace and Necessity by Rowan Williams-"Jones, David" A Dictionary of Modern and Contemporary Art by Ian Chilvers and John Glaves-Smith. Oxford University Press Inc. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press.
-Wilson, Andrew. "David Jones 1895–1974." Tate. Oxford University Press, Grove Art Online. Web. 13 Oct. 2014.

Beauty in the Process

"True artists are almost the only men
who do their work for pleasure."
-Auguste Rodin

I must begin this conversation with a simple question; why create? Why make art? Some artists claim that the beauty of art is in the concept, and not the physical. Others claim that they create merely for beauty itself. For the physical alone. Still others create for the sake of creation itself; the process. This is where Rowan Williams begins his dialogue on the relationship between art and beauty in his book Grace and Necessity.

  

Saint Thomas defined the beautiful as that which pleases; id quod visum placet. Or, intuitive knowledge, and a delight. Therefore, the beautiful gives delight in the act of knowing. Maritain summarizes this point in his book Art and Scholasticism, stating that 

“If a thing exalts and delights the soul by the very fact that it is given to the soul’s intuition, it is good to apprehend, it is beautiful.”

However, creating beauty cannot be the ultimate goal for the artist. An artist who strives to attain aesthetics alone will change and tweak the work until they have compromised the spirit of the piece in an attempt at beauty. Williams argues that instead of this vain path, an artist should create honestly - and that the transparency in the creation will lend itself to beauty. In the Mellon Lectures, Maritain discusses that the problems with contemporary art lie in emotionalism and intellectualism. Our current culture, centralized around functionalism, judges a work’s success merely by it’s ability to stimulate emotions or communicate what was on the artist’s mind. Appreciation for the power of the creative process has been lost and replaced by a rationalized version; the art cannot be successful unless it can be explained.

Many artist’s feel that their calling is to change the world with their art, in agreement with their own personal vision. But this “magical fallacy” is preventing the production of true, beautiful art. First and foremost, the artist must let go of their desires and find joy simply in creating, in the process. Therefore, art is essentially opposed to the will power of the individual. Beauty cannot be achieved by a conscious decision and intellectualism. Creativity and the production of beauty is a spontaneous, organic process which no person can deliberately choose.

"The artist is not called on to love God or the world or humanity, but to love what he or she is doing. In a rather extended sense, the activity of the artist does have a serious moral character simply because it pushes aside the ego and the desire of the artist as individual.” 
- Grace and Necessity, Rowan Williams

As an artist and creator myself, I find Williams dialogue on this subject matter to hold truth and comfort. With one foot in the world of academia, and the other in the realm of contemporary art, I often find that the joy of creation has been lost. I find I can let go of the joy of creating myself. But isn’t that the reason most of us began making art in the first place? I feel that often the modern art world tells us that the process is not enough - that the work must be intellectualized until the soul has been wrenched out of it. I have a lot of empty pieces in my studio. Not empty in the sense that they are blank, or unfinished, but in that they lack conviction. They lack the joy of the process. And how is the viewer supposed to find joy in a work if the artist themselves did not? 

A glimpse into my own creative process.

As I grow and progress as an artist, I am learning that my creativity comes from the process. While some artists plan and conceptualize, I find that my best and most beautiful work comes from getting my hands dirty - diving into the physical working - letting my hands tell that which my conscious thought and language does not know how to communicate. 

"The artist therefore is engaged in an intelligent making of a poem or other art form, seeking not Beauty nor to lay bare the underlying relations in the material nor any other program other than to make the material yield up, via the canons of artistic creation, its patterns discerned within the artist’s self. While propaganda or pornography or even philosophical ideas can be expressed artistically, these never yield art per se. And the artist seeking to make these is failing to be an artist, and the product, however artful, cannot be beautiful."
-Rt. Rev. Pierre W. Whalon, D.D., in review of Grace and Necessity

References

Grace and Necessity by Rowan Williams

Art and Scholasticism by Jacques Maritain

Grace and Necessity as reviewed by Rt. Rev. Pierre W. Whalon, D.D

(http://anglicansonline.org/resources/essays/whalon/GraceNecessityReview.html)