More Than the Surface, Please.
Unwilled observation is soon satiated and goes to sleep. Willed observation, vision with executive force behind it, is full of discernment and is continually making discoveries which keep the mind alert and interested. Get a will behind the eye and the eye becomes a searchlight, the familiar is made to disclose undreamed treasure. –Robert Traina (Grant, 1985, p. 140)
It was four in the morning. I pulled back my hair from my face and looked intently upon the photograph in hand. I knew at that moment, as I corrected an angle, darkened a shadow, and perfected a shape, that I was about to pull an all-nighter. I was completing a rather important art project, due in the afternoon of that same day. The stress was mounting and the picture was overwhelming. Yet despite all the pain of pressure, the sketch of my grandmother, standing before a Spanish-influenced cathedral, angled in such a way that the distant, neo-classic, modern buildings were included, was speaking to me. Pushed by more than the oncoming deadline, I was moved. At some point, the thick paper before me became a pallet of emotion and reality, all at once. At some point, the manipulations of lead became more than smudged powders and hard lines. At some point, the rushed manifestations of my creative thought process became art. But I had to ask myself, what is art? Was I coming close to creating something worthy of that title "art"? When does a simple vision of creativity and communication become art? Art is a powerful commodity. It has the rare capacity to envelop humility and pride. It tells stories, unveils cultures, communicates ideas, and reveals the human heart (Day, 1992, p. 34). In all its greatness, art has its flaws. Occasionally, art is little more than “pretty,” “interesting,” “shocking,” or downright “ugly.” All in all, none of those adjectives are bad, none communicate disaster, and all are viable characteristics of a culture (Henley, 2004, p. 79). Yet when they stand alone, they fall short of certain greatness. They fall short of substance. They fall short of something called true art.
Thank you, Mr. Stossel
Not what man knows but what man feels, concerns art. All else is science. –Bernard Berenson (Kren, 2006)
John Stossel. Known for telling it like it is. He certainly rides a high horse; but oftentimes, his opinions are waist-high in ethos, logos, and pathos. On 11 March 2005, Stossel broadcast yet another Give Me a Break story, this one begging the question, “You Call That Art?” His argument is as simple and as complex as the question details. Who decides where to draw the line between that which is art and that which is junk? “How do they determine that Damien Hirst's embalmed shark and sliced cow carcasses are art?” (2005, ¶10). Stossel’s angle of persuasion was represented through a quiz available in this article, which was an excellent way to argue with the intent to find truth and make a point, rather than simply fight to be right. Stossel inquires:Do people really know what's art and what's just stuff? We ran a test. On ABCNews.com, we showed four reproductions of art works that are considered masterpieces of modern art along with six pieces that will never make it into any museum. We asked viewers to decide which work was art and which was not (2005, ¶3-5).
The pieces shown covered everything from the work of four year olds to a five dollar find at the thrift store to Willem de Kooning’s “A Tree in Naples.” The thrift-store-find won out as the most likely to be considered art. Even the professionals, artists and art historians, could not hit the nail on the head. The article clarifies, “One artist, Victor Acevedo, described one of the children's pieces as ‘a competent execution of abstract expressionism which was first made famous by de Kooning and Jackson Pollock and others. So it's emulating that style and it's a school of art’” (2005, ¶19). Sometimes a search for answers leads to more questions, as exemplified when Stossel came to the notion that maybe, “it's just all in the eye of the beholder?” (2005, ¶14). Art historian, Hoover explains, "I wouldn't say it's all in the eye of the beholder […] you need to know the story behind the work to understand its full impact and meaning” (2005, ¶15). In which case, Stossel had yet to arrive at a definition for modern art. Then he came across one artist’s definition of art. He states, “An artist who calls himself Flash Light told me, ‘The function of art is to make rich people feel more important’” (2005, ¶26). Which led Stossel to conclude his argument with the idea that “whether you think it's art or junk, the real deal is that you're contributing your money too. The politicians may say they're starved for funds, but they're still giving your hard earned tax dollars to museums that exhibit these kinds of things” (2005, ¶29-30).
The main objective of Stossel’s argument was to address two issues: 1. To point out that much artwork, specifically modern artwork, is lacking definable and substantive signs as to its qualification to be considered “art”, 2. And to make known that taxpayer dollars are funding these illusive “masterpieces.”
Stossel’s argument was lacking, but fitting for his purposes. Art ought to be definable. “Look art” bases everything on emotionality. The story is lacking, while emotions abound. Purpose is unfounded, while action sets forth. Relief is void, while longing continues. True art is not just feeling. True art is not just knowing. True art is balance. Stossel faced the argument of when and where art becomes art, but he only stopped at your wallet. When you face down the totality of art, you should be able to reach right down into the soul.
True Art
Truth in art does not mean doing accurate copies, but that the artist’s insight is rich and full, that he really has a good view of reality, that he does justice to the different elements of the aspect of reality he is representing. Truth has to do with the fullness of reality, its scope and meaning […] It is artistic truth! –H.R. Rookmaaker (1971, p. 237)
One of the most beautiful aspects of art is the portrayal of truth. The unique thing about truth is its multifaceted antithesis. Truth can be painful and precious. Truth can be coarse and courtly. Truth can be emotional and tangible. The portrayal of that truth all depends on the worldview of the artist. Everyone, whether or not they know, like or understand it, responds and behaves in accordance to a personal worldview. The author, J. F. Baldwin explains:
Your worldview is your framework for understanding existence—the way you look at the world […] Your worldview is like an invisible pair of eyeglasses—glasses you put on to help you see reality clearly. If you choose the right pair of glasses, you can see everything vividly and can behave in sync with the real world […] But if you choose the wrong pair of glasses, you may be in a worse plight than the blind man—thinking you see things clearly when in reality your vision is severely distorted. (1998, p. 29)
There exists a balance between the right to question art and the right to create art. With those rights comes the need for understanding. No matter how subjective art is capable of being, the reality portrayed in art is the same reality despite its portrayal, despite the worldview glasses of its portray-er.
Modern art often places a strong focus on “me, myself, and I” and sometimes altogether dismisses the objective of art. Art should express a balance between the fatality and the hope of humanity. It should both delve into the imperfection and the longing for perfection. It is the good and the bad. An excellent standard for the balance between the hurt and the hope of reality is Jan van Goyen’s "Landscape" done in 1646. Jan van Goyen was “possibly the greatest of all landscape painters” (Rookmaaker, 1971, p.19). In this specific painting, now held in Groninger Museum voor Stad en Lande, Holland, Goyen portrays a beautifully peaceful sea stretched out beside the coast, interrupted only by distant boats and harbor jetties. The piece is more or less simple, but the abilities to create a substantive statement of truth, as displayed in this picture, are astounding. This vast sky radiates great light while simultaneously yielding to dark storm clouds. The painting shows true art because, first, it does not picture reality as only that which we can tangibly know while. At the same time, it does not dismiss tangible reality by vying for a solely emotional reality. Second, since "Landscape" places the calm sea together with the violent storm clouds all as the arena in which the sailors live out day-to-day life, the piece makes a clear connection with reality. The brooding sky, the peaceful waters, the depiction of individuals living out life, every aspect of the painting speaks to the connection of the ephemeral with the physical sides of reality. (1971, p. 20).
He paints reality with a fullness, rather than how perhaps another artist would like it to be or would hate it to be. Much of modern art deals with either emotions or physical realities alone. In addition to only displaying one side of the coin as it pertains to the physical and metaphysical, it is often void of a balance between the two realities of pain and hope. Much of modern art focuses on only one aspect of life, either pain or hope. There are two realities that, when combined, make our world. Although these two realities are both real apart from each other, they cannot be truth apart from each other. There are times where an artist only realizes the hope of a moment and forgets despair. And other times, artists cannot see past the despair of a moment and bypasses hope. Although both understandings of reality are valid and real and worth understanding, they cannot fulfill the whole of reality. They cannot be truth.
After deciphering which pieces of reality a piece of is embracing or ignoring, another important issue is recognizing the audience. Modern art is often depicted as being in touch with the common man, but that is not necessarily the case. Unless a common person knows the complexities of the history behind the piece of work or the complexities of the style, content, skill, creativity, et cetera of the piece of work, then the only use a modern artwork has for the common person is how it looks. Onlookers may respond, “That’s pretty; that’s ugly; that’s weird; that’s a black circle, etc.” All one can do is state the obvious and maybe hypothesize what it could possibly mean. And if it could possibly mean anything to any person, then what if, just what if, it could mean nothing altogether. Beauty is more than canvas deep. If all the “beauty” retrieved from a piece of art is found on the surface alone, then can it be true beauty? The surface alone cannot properly identify the artwork (Sylva, 1988, p. 5). Art comes with a strong legacy. Art comes with a past. Art comes with a drum role. The history of art is vital. (Yates, 1998, p. 3). When looking at any piece of art, the artwork should be held against the standards of time, through all cultures from Antiquities and on. Then and only then can Modernity come up to bat. The problem with much of modern art is that it is viewed without the breadth and depth from which it was born. Without its past, modern art is just “look art” and therefore misses out on great substance. Without an understanding of its history, it cannot be true art.
True Art Requires a True Artist
[…] we must not love in word or speech, but in deed and truth; that is how we will know we are of the truth –I John 3:18,19
Rookmaaker defines creativity as “acting in love and freedom within given structures” (1971, p. 226). This notion is very different than how many modern day artists would be likely to define creativity. If you were to step into any museum of modern art you would see multiple pieces doing all that is possible in order to step “outside of the box.” The goal of modern art seems to be an attempt to out-do, out-shine, and out-shock the art of a metaphoric yesterday. If there is nothing new under the sun, then even the work of the avant-garde is simply a manipulated expression of feelings and ideas that existed at the onset of human culture. Looking at creativity as an act of love and freedom within given structures seems an ironic combination of terms. So perhaps art aficionado, Greg Wilbur, can lend some aid. In an excellent lecture on medieval art and its effects on art, past to present, Wilbur outlines six concepts that make way for true art. He states that these effects exemplify a standard for all art and makes the possibility of truth in art a realistic goal. He refers to artists as craftsmen. The first aspect a craftsman must live out in order to create true art is understanding truth. This seems a bit redundant, and at the same time it is so rare an occurrence that we as a people forget that in order to live out truth we must find a source of truth within life. Wilber understands truth as being the adherence to the Spirit of God. No one can tell an individual what to believe as truth, that is something that no one can simply reveal to another in an instance. It must be the result of a personal revelation of the truth. However, this does not mean that there are different truths for different people. If there is to be a truth that is true, it must be true beyond contest, despite how often it is in fact contested. That is the nature of truth verses simple facts, which are but accepted statements of information upon limited capabilities of research. (Rookmaaker, 1971, p. 234-237). We can utilize what we call facts in addition to experience in order to realize truth. It is a never-ending endeavor. But the closer to truth an artist or craftsman can arrive upon in his or her worldview, the closer that artist will get to creating true art. The second piece of the puzzle that Wilbur follows in defining true artists is ability. This talent is not exclusively something you are born with, but it is a gift that one can better through discipline. It is a gift that must be trained. Third is intelligence. The ability to reason and apply common sense allows for a backbone to deny irrationality. Wilber explains, “G.K. Chesterton spoke of the artist’s need to care for laws and limits. He said, ‘Art consists of limitation. The most beautiful part of every picture is the frame’” (Wilber, 2005). Limitation is not the constriction of creativity. It is the ability to be creative in such a way the artist invents progress without resorting to the ease of creating without limits. Creativity without guidelines is not nearly as masterful as creativity with. Forth is knowledge. The “pursuit of knowledge” is the “mandate for the artist.” This brings great substance into any work of art. Fifth is craftsmanship. The artist has dominion over the craft. It requires submission to the truth “in order to subdue the media.” And last is the artist’s ability to teach. A true artist is a teacher. This passing on of the baton divorces art and ego. The true artist exhibits a “desire to prepare the rising generation […] A true teacher desires his students to surpass his works.” (Wilber, 2005). This is the context for true art and the calling of the true artist. Under these pretenses, the artist can reach truth. And the artwork must find need to follow its creator.
Concluding Beauty
Integrity without knowledge is weak and useless, and knowledge without integrity is dangerous and dreadful. –The Astronomer (Johnson, 1985, p. 129)
It was ten in the morning. I rubbed my eyes to keep from squinting. The night had come and gone without my sleep. I took in deep breaths as I set my large sketch upright to compare it with its photographic predecessor. It was done. I took in my handiwork and recognized what had occurred. The past, the present, and the future. They all had a role to play in this little depiction of reality. There in my grandmother’s face, I saw hope, strength, frailty, failure, triumph, and truth. I saw the world before her, yet only through her forward-looking eyes. I saw the world behind her, yet only in a glimmer of architecture and culture. I saw myself in her shoes, yet only by the curiosity of my imagination. I saw life as it was, as it is, and as it could be. So again, what is art? Yes, art is a powerful commodity. It has the rare capacity to envelop humility and pride. It tells stories, unveils cultures, communicates ideas, and reveals the human heart (Day, 1992, p. 34). Once an artist understands this power, utilizing reality invokes knowledge and integrity. The two forces work in tangent to develop true art. Art can be done by anyone, but true art requires true artists. It leads to a sort of wonderful and traumatic responsibility, a responsibility wonderful in its aspirations and traumatic in its ardor. The author and artist H.R. Rookmaaker describes this responsibility as a calling:
Realizing one’s possibilities, acting in love and freedom within given structures, fighting against sin and its results, all this is also what creativity means […] We are called to be creative in this sense. And we are called to bear the cross that often goes with it, for mankind often prefers darkness to light […] (1971, p. 226).
Through this identity as an artist, the objective of portraying true art is an excellent fight. This is the source of passion in art, this is the source of legacies in art, and this is the source of power in art. The stories told, the realities illustrated, the cultures identified, the worlds made known, they are all the results of an excited warfare of the best kind, the kind in which right and wrong are antithetical (Rookmaaker, 1972, p. 21). Once the battle lines are drawn, the difference between art and true art is clear. As many onlookers are drawn away from true art for the temporary satisfaction of art without truth, as Rookmaaker said, preferring “darkness to light,” the great poet of Wales, Dylan Thomas offers stalwart advice. The calling of true artists to depict true art:
“Do not go gently into that good night. Rage, rage against the dying of the light.”
Unwilled observation is soon satiated and goes to sleep. Willed observation, vision with executive force behind it, is full of discernment and is continually making discoveries which keep the mind alert and interested. Get a will behind the eye and the eye becomes a searchlight, the familiar is made to disclose undreamed treasure. –Robert Traina (Grant, 1985, p. 140)
It was four in the morning. I pulled back my hair from my face and looked intently upon the photograph in hand. I knew at that moment, as I corrected an angle, darkened a shadow, and perfected a shape, that I was about to pull an all-nighter. I was completing a rather important art project, due in the afternoon of that same day. The stress was mounting and the picture was overwhelming. Yet despite all the pain of pressure, the sketch of my grandmother, standing before a Spanish-influenced cathedral, angled in such a way that the distant, neo-classic, modern buildings were included, was speaking to me. Pushed by more than the oncoming deadline, I was moved. At some point, the thick paper before me became a pallet of emotion and reality, all at once. At some point, the manipulations of lead became more than smudged powders and hard lines. At some point, the rushed manifestations of my creative thought process became art. But I had to ask myself, what is art? Was I coming close to creating something worthy of that title "art"? When does a simple vision of creativity and communication become art? Art is a powerful commodity. It has the rare capacity to envelop humility and pride. It tells stories, unveils cultures, communicates ideas, and reveals the human heart (Day, 1992, p. 34). In all its greatness, art has its flaws. Occasionally, art is little more than “pretty,” “interesting,” “shocking,” or downright “ugly.” All in all, none of those adjectives are bad, none communicate disaster, and all are viable characteristics of a culture (Henley, 2004, p. 79). Yet when they stand alone, they fall short of certain greatness. They fall short of substance. They fall short of something called true art.
Thank you, Mr. Stossel
Not what man knows but what man feels, concerns art. All else is science. –Bernard Berenson (Kren, 2006)
John Stossel. Known for telling it like it is. He certainly rides a high horse; but oftentimes, his opinions are waist-high in ethos, logos, and pathos. On 11 March 2005, Stossel broadcast yet another Give Me a Break story, this one begging the question, “You Call That Art?” His argument is as simple and as complex as the question details. Who decides where to draw the line between that which is art and that which is junk? “How do they determine that Damien Hirst's embalmed shark and sliced cow carcasses are art?” (2005, ¶10). Stossel’s angle of persuasion was represented through a quiz available in this article, which was an excellent way to argue with the intent to find truth and make a point, rather than simply fight to be right. Stossel inquires:Do people really know what's art and what's just stuff? We ran a test. On ABCNews.com, we showed four reproductions of art works that are considered masterpieces of modern art along with six pieces that will never make it into any museum. We asked viewers to decide which work was art and which was not (2005, ¶3-5).
The pieces shown covered everything from the work of four year olds to a five dollar find at the thrift store to Willem de Kooning’s “A Tree in Naples.” The thrift-store-find won out as the most likely to be considered art. Even the professionals, artists and art historians, could not hit the nail on the head. The article clarifies, “One artist, Victor Acevedo, described one of the children's pieces as ‘a competent execution of abstract expressionism which was first made famous by de Kooning and Jackson Pollock and others. So it's emulating that style and it's a school of art’” (2005, ¶19). Sometimes a search for answers leads to more questions, as exemplified when Stossel came to the notion that maybe, “it's just all in the eye of the beholder?” (2005, ¶14). Art historian, Hoover explains, "I wouldn't say it's all in the eye of the beholder […] you need to know the story behind the work to understand its full impact and meaning” (2005, ¶15). In which case, Stossel had yet to arrive at a definition for modern art. Then he came across one artist’s definition of art. He states, “An artist who calls himself Flash Light told me, ‘The function of art is to make rich people feel more important’” (2005, ¶26). Which led Stossel to conclude his argument with the idea that “whether you think it's art or junk, the real deal is that you're contributing your money too. The politicians may say they're starved for funds, but they're still giving your hard earned tax dollars to museums that exhibit these kinds of things” (2005, ¶29-30).
The main objective of Stossel’s argument was to address two issues: 1. To point out that much artwork, specifically modern artwork, is lacking definable and substantive signs as to its qualification to be considered “art”, 2. And to make known that taxpayer dollars are funding these illusive “masterpieces.”
Stossel’s argument was lacking, but fitting for his purposes. Art ought to be definable. “Look art” bases everything on emotionality. The story is lacking, while emotions abound. Purpose is unfounded, while action sets forth. Relief is void, while longing continues. True art is not just feeling. True art is not just knowing. True art is balance. Stossel faced the argument of when and where art becomes art, but he only stopped at your wallet. When you face down the totality of art, you should be able to reach right down into the soul.
True Art
Truth in art does not mean doing accurate copies, but that the artist’s insight is rich and full, that he really has a good view of reality, that he does justice to the different elements of the aspect of reality he is representing. Truth has to do with the fullness of reality, its scope and meaning […] It is artistic truth! –H.R. Rookmaaker (1971, p. 237)
One of the most beautiful aspects of art is the portrayal of truth. The unique thing about truth is its multifaceted antithesis. Truth can be painful and precious. Truth can be coarse and courtly. Truth can be emotional and tangible. The portrayal of that truth all depends on the worldview of the artist. Everyone, whether or not they know, like or understand it, responds and behaves in accordance to a personal worldview. The author, J. F. Baldwin explains:
Your worldview is your framework for understanding existence—the way you look at the world […] Your worldview is like an invisible pair of eyeglasses—glasses you put on to help you see reality clearly. If you choose the right pair of glasses, you can see everything vividly and can behave in sync with the real world […] But if you choose the wrong pair of glasses, you may be in a worse plight than the blind man—thinking you see things clearly when in reality your vision is severely distorted. (1998, p. 29)
There exists a balance between the right to question art and the right to create art. With those rights comes the need for understanding. No matter how subjective art is capable of being, the reality portrayed in art is the same reality despite its portrayal, despite the worldview glasses of its portray-er.
Modern art often places a strong focus on “me, myself, and I” and sometimes altogether dismisses the objective of art. Art should express a balance between the fatality and the hope of humanity. It should both delve into the imperfection and the longing for perfection. It is the good and the bad. An excellent standard for the balance between the hurt and the hope of reality is Jan van Goyen’s "Landscape" done in 1646. Jan van Goyen was “possibly the greatest of all landscape painters” (Rookmaaker, 1971, p.19). In this specific painting, now held in Groninger Museum voor Stad en Lande, Holland, Goyen portrays a beautifully peaceful sea stretched out beside the coast, interrupted only by distant boats and harbor jetties. The piece is more or less simple, but the abilities to create a substantive statement of truth, as displayed in this picture, are astounding. This vast sky radiates great light while simultaneously yielding to dark storm clouds. The painting shows true art because, first, it does not picture reality as only that which we can tangibly know while. At the same time, it does not dismiss tangible reality by vying for a solely emotional reality. Second, since "Landscape" places the calm sea together with the violent storm clouds all as the arena in which the sailors live out day-to-day life, the piece makes a clear connection with reality. The brooding sky, the peaceful waters, the depiction of individuals living out life, every aspect of the painting speaks to the connection of the ephemeral with the physical sides of reality. (1971, p. 20).
He paints reality with a fullness, rather than how perhaps another artist would like it to be or would hate it to be. Much of modern art deals with either emotions or physical realities alone. In addition to only displaying one side of the coin as it pertains to the physical and metaphysical, it is often void of a balance between the two realities of pain and hope. Much of modern art focuses on only one aspect of life, either pain or hope. There are two realities that, when combined, make our world. Although these two realities are both real apart from each other, they cannot be truth apart from each other. There are times where an artist only realizes the hope of a moment and forgets despair. And other times, artists cannot see past the despair of a moment and bypasses hope. Although both understandings of reality are valid and real and worth understanding, they cannot fulfill the whole of reality. They cannot be truth.
After deciphering which pieces of reality a piece of is embracing or ignoring, another important issue is recognizing the audience. Modern art is often depicted as being in touch with the common man, but that is not necessarily the case. Unless a common person knows the complexities of the history behind the piece of work or the complexities of the style, content, skill, creativity, et cetera of the piece of work, then the only use a modern artwork has for the common person is how it looks. Onlookers may respond, “That’s pretty; that’s ugly; that’s weird; that’s a black circle, etc.” All one can do is state the obvious and maybe hypothesize what it could possibly mean. And if it could possibly mean anything to any person, then what if, just what if, it could mean nothing altogether. Beauty is more than canvas deep. If all the “beauty” retrieved from a piece of art is found on the surface alone, then can it be true beauty? The surface alone cannot properly identify the artwork (Sylva, 1988, p. 5). Art comes with a strong legacy. Art comes with a past. Art comes with a drum role. The history of art is vital. (Yates, 1998, p. 3). When looking at any piece of art, the artwork should be held against the standards of time, through all cultures from Antiquities and on. Then and only then can Modernity come up to bat. The problem with much of modern art is that it is viewed without the breadth and depth from which it was born. Without its past, modern art is just “look art” and therefore misses out on great substance. Without an understanding of its history, it cannot be true art.
True Art Requires a True Artist
[…] we must not love in word or speech, but in deed and truth; that is how we will know we are of the truth –I John 3:18,19
Rookmaaker defines creativity as “acting in love and freedom within given structures” (1971, p. 226). This notion is very different than how many modern day artists would be likely to define creativity. If you were to step into any museum of modern art you would see multiple pieces doing all that is possible in order to step “outside of the box.” The goal of modern art seems to be an attempt to out-do, out-shine, and out-shock the art of a metaphoric yesterday. If there is nothing new under the sun, then even the work of the avant-garde is simply a manipulated expression of feelings and ideas that existed at the onset of human culture. Looking at creativity as an act of love and freedom within given structures seems an ironic combination of terms. So perhaps art aficionado, Greg Wilbur, can lend some aid. In an excellent lecture on medieval art and its effects on art, past to present, Wilbur outlines six concepts that make way for true art. He states that these effects exemplify a standard for all art and makes the possibility of truth in art a realistic goal. He refers to artists as craftsmen. The first aspect a craftsman must live out in order to create true art is understanding truth. This seems a bit redundant, and at the same time it is so rare an occurrence that we as a people forget that in order to live out truth we must find a source of truth within life. Wilber understands truth as being the adherence to the Spirit of God. No one can tell an individual what to believe as truth, that is something that no one can simply reveal to another in an instance. It must be the result of a personal revelation of the truth. However, this does not mean that there are different truths for different people. If there is to be a truth that is true, it must be true beyond contest, despite how often it is in fact contested. That is the nature of truth verses simple facts, which are but accepted statements of information upon limited capabilities of research. (Rookmaaker, 1971, p. 234-237). We can utilize what we call facts in addition to experience in order to realize truth. It is a never-ending endeavor. But the closer to truth an artist or craftsman can arrive upon in his or her worldview, the closer that artist will get to creating true art. The second piece of the puzzle that Wilbur follows in defining true artists is ability. This talent is not exclusively something you are born with, but it is a gift that one can better through discipline. It is a gift that must be trained. Third is intelligence. The ability to reason and apply common sense allows for a backbone to deny irrationality. Wilber explains, “G.K. Chesterton spoke of the artist’s need to care for laws and limits. He said, ‘Art consists of limitation. The most beautiful part of every picture is the frame’” (Wilber, 2005). Limitation is not the constriction of creativity. It is the ability to be creative in such a way the artist invents progress without resorting to the ease of creating without limits. Creativity without guidelines is not nearly as masterful as creativity with. Forth is knowledge. The “pursuit of knowledge” is the “mandate for the artist.” This brings great substance into any work of art. Fifth is craftsmanship. The artist has dominion over the craft. It requires submission to the truth “in order to subdue the media.” And last is the artist’s ability to teach. A true artist is a teacher. This passing on of the baton divorces art and ego. The true artist exhibits a “desire to prepare the rising generation […] A true teacher desires his students to surpass his works.” (Wilber, 2005). This is the context for true art and the calling of the true artist. Under these pretenses, the artist can reach truth. And the artwork must find need to follow its creator.
Concluding Beauty
Integrity without knowledge is weak and useless, and knowledge without integrity is dangerous and dreadful. –The Astronomer (Johnson, 1985, p. 129)
It was ten in the morning. I rubbed my eyes to keep from squinting. The night had come and gone without my sleep. I took in deep breaths as I set my large sketch upright to compare it with its photographic predecessor. It was done. I took in my handiwork and recognized what had occurred. The past, the present, and the future. They all had a role to play in this little depiction of reality. There in my grandmother’s face, I saw hope, strength, frailty, failure, triumph, and truth. I saw the world before her, yet only through her forward-looking eyes. I saw the world behind her, yet only in a glimmer of architecture and culture. I saw myself in her shoes, yet only by the curiosity of my imagination. I saw life as it was, as it is, and as it could be. So again, what is art? Yes, art is a powerful commodity. It has the rare capacity to envelop humility and pride. It tells stories, unveils cultures, communicates ideas, and reveals the human heart (Day, 1992, p. 34). Once an artist understands this power, utilizing reality invokes knowledge and integrity. The two forces work in tangent to develop true art. Art can be done by anyone, but true art requires true artists. It leads to a sort of wonderful and traumatic responsibility, a responsibility wonderful in its aspirations and traumatic in its ardor. The author and artist H.R. Rookmaaker describes this responsibility as a calling:
Realizing one’s possibilities, acting in love and freedom within given structures, fighting against sin and its results, all this is also what creativity means […] We are called to be creative in this sense. And we are called to bear the cross that often goes with it, for mankind often prefers darkness to light […] (1971, p. 226).
Through this identity as an artist, the objective of portraying true art is an excellent fight. This is the source of passion in art, this is the source of legacies in art, and this is the source of power in art. The stories told, the realities illustrated, the cultures identified, the worlds made known, they are all the results of an excited warfare of the best kind, the kind in which right and wrong are antithetical (Rookmaaker, 1972, p. 21). Once the battle lines are drawn, the difference between art and true art is clear. As many onlookers are drawn away from true art for the temporary satisfaction of art without truth, as Rookmaaker said, preferring “darkness to light,” the great poet of Wales, Dylan Thomas offers stalwart advice. The calling of true artists to depict true art:
“Do not go gently into that good night. Rage, rage against the dying of the light.”
References
Baldwin, J.F. (1998). The Deadliest Monster: An Introduction to Worldviews. New Braunfels: Fishermen.
In The Deadliest Monster, Baldwin uses an analogy to address the issue of worldviews. Mr. Hyde symbolizes the character of a Christian worldview and Frankenstein symbolizes the character of all other worldviews.
This insightful book gives a brief explanation into many diverse worldviews. He defines the applicable terms and sets the stage for a brilliant review of culture, human nature, and the way by which one ought to form a worldview.
Day, M.D. (1992). Cultural Diversity and Discipline-based Art Education. Discipline-Based Art Education and Cultural Diversity, 34-36. Abstract obtained from ERIC database.
Day reports on the way by which we take in art, in the context of cultural diversity and fine art. He addresses the direction of his program DBAE as it directly adheres to the multifaceted identities of cultural differences.
He finds that art is driven by a past, one that will bring more clarity to art and the disciplined application of art.
Grant, G. (1985). Bringing in the Sheaves. Atlanta: American Vision.
This book delves into the issues and developments of poverty in the USA. Grant addresses the problems, the facts, the contexts, and the realities of modern poverty. He also brings up strong points of hope and possibility.
Throughout the work, Grant uses powerful quotes to make convincing connections. This book wraps around terms like discernment, worldview, culture, etc. and gives persuasive clarity to the issues of poverty.
Johnson, S. (1985) The History of Rasselas, Prince of Abissinia. London: Penguin Classics.
The History of Rasselas, Prince of Abissinia is an old classic. In this tale, the young and spoiled prince Rasselas begins to yearn for a normal life, one of adventure, disappointment, success, and failure.
In this story, the prince learns a great deal about life and sets an excellent stage for the communication of many philosophical, weighty theories, ideals, identities, and worldview questions.
Henley, D. (2004). Responding to Art from Preschool to Postmodernism. The Meaningful Critique, 22 (2), 79-87. Abstract obtained from ERIC database.
Henley deals with the personal effects of criticism in art. He uses multiple examples and experiences to express the fact that when judgment is passed on a piece of art, the artist is impressed with a personal attack. Despite the emotions of the artist, art criticism does not necessarily translate as a personal attack.
For a good criticism to take place, the judgments must be meaningful and based in a strong understanding of art.
Rookmaaker, H.R. (1971). Modern Art and the Death of a Culture. London: Inter-Varsity.
H.R. Rookmaaker is a talented artist, author, and philosopher. In this book, he deals with the relevancy of the past as it adheres to the visual art, the problematic character of modern art, the reality of art, the messages and meanings of artistic truths, and the foundation of Christian art.
With his brilliant understanding of art history and philosophy, he creates the perfect venue for delving to truth in art.
Stossel, John. (2006) Gimme a Break. ABCNews.
Stossel’s “Gimme a Break” article addresses the issue of what actually constitutes a piece of art. He runs an online test to find out what onlookers believe to be art. He checks with many professions, artists, art historians, etc. to arrive at some sort of conclusion. His journey results in more questions. In the end, he does not reach a true definition but does appease his own point of understanding with relevance to the taxpayer’s pocketbooks.
Sylva, R. (1988). The Parameters of Art. Abstract obtained from ERIC database.
Sylva discusses the four dimensions of art engagement: 1. creation, 2. response, 3. historical inquiry, and 4. philosophical inquiry. After which he describes nine aspects of these four arenas: 1. area (fine, environmental, pragmatic); 2. medium (immediate, technological, conceptual); 3. mindset (spontaneity, precision, ingenuity);4. dimensions (four, three, two); 5. process (manipulate, add, subtract, transform); 6. approach (juxtapose, realize, synthesize); 7. intention (interpretive, expressive, formalistic);8. imagery (realistic, abstract, non-objective); and 9. subject (people, surroundings, ideas, emotions). These definitions and classifications are the tools he uses to define art.
Wilber, Greg. (2001). Medieval Art: A Seamless Theme. Unpublished dissertation, Franklin Classical School.
Wilber does an excellent job outlining the basic foundation of medieval art and the influences that this period of art had and has on art today. He discusses the worldviews and mindsets of the times. The structure of his argument compares and contrasts art from different time periods and defines how art can better depict truth. His strong viewpoint, well-grounded discussion, and cogent support made for a persuasive, understandable, and powerful presentation.
Yates, C.A. (1998). A Procedural Model for Research. Regional Art History. Abstract obtained from ERIC database.
This article looks at a model for research specifically in the region of Central Ohio. Yates uses tables, research, and analysis to arrive at some conclusions concerning the way by which one can research and study regional art. While attending to the specifics of Central Ohio, he finds the utilization of historical context, literature reviews, analyses, and resourceful sampling of artworks (from 1945-95) imperative. His methods of research show the importance of context and content.
