Month: October 2005

My last post was an obvious (I hope) attempt to parody some of the excesses of Higher Criticism and it’s devotees.

Now I would like to tell you how I wound up posting such a piece.

As I was in the final stages of the painting that I featured in the aforementioned post (Copper Pot), I ended up thinking a good bit about just how literally I should render a few things, like the pattern on the china.

It occured to me that this process could be analagous to writing, and I thought how it might apply to the Gospels particularly.

There at least a couple of big mistakes one could make about the painting. One would be to think that it was a complete fabrication, a product solely of the imagination. This might lead to absurdities like finding all kinds of hidden meanings where there are none, like the Higher Critic of my parody piece.

The other extreme would be to assume that it was like a photograph, and that even the smallest details were a verbatim reproduction, an exact copy of concrete reality. This might lead to equal absurdities, like if someone were to ask me where they could buy the particular china pattern on the little dishes.

In this particular painting, I simplified and muted the pattern on the china in order that it not draw undue attention in the overall composition. So, in a sense, I did fudge a bit, but that’s my job. Certain shadows are deepened, certain colors are amplified, edges are blurred or sharpened. If I blur the edge of a pear, I doubt anyone would accuse me of asserting that pears are fuzzy, or would assume that I need new glasses.

The truth is that it is a painting, a work of art representing real things, but crafted in such a way as to emphasize certain aspects of reality while downplaying others. All the items depicted are real and could be identified by anyone who bothered to rummage through all the junk in my studio (I love flea markets).

I find reality endlessly fascinating and full of surprises. I strive to be faithful to reality, but not obsessed with minute, photographic detail.

BIG RED DISCLAIMER – Unlike Jimmy or Michelle, I am not an apologist. I am not a Bible or a literary scholar. I do not claim to know how the Gospels were written, let alone how Plenary Inspiration would work. I am just an artist speculating wildly on how it might have been. If I venture into heresy or nonsense, I am counting on Jimmy and his readers to put me straight.

Based on my experience as an artist, and applying what I know about the creative process to the Gospel writers, I think that I might venture to make a few assertions;

1) The Gospel accounts are faithful representations of real events, but this does not mean that we should expect the same level of detail or attention to exact chronology that we might find in, say, a modern legal document. The writers were concerned primarily that people understand Who Jesus is and what He did, and not with the minutiae of his daily life. We know that Hebrew writers (as well as their audience) were less concerned with the sequence of events than with the substance and meaning of events.

2) The Gospel writers made full use of their human creative faculties (under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) to emphasize certain aspects of Jesus’ life and message, while downplaying others. For instance, Jesus’ life as a youth simply doesn’t figure as prominently into the proclamation of the Gospel as His passion and death. The writers wanted to present all that was essential, with little extraneous material. Deciding what to include is the first creative step. Some gospel writers included more, some less, but all are faithful representations of real words and events.

3) Being, in some measure, free in setting down the events of Jesus’ life, the Gospel writers may have used different creative or poetic methods to emphasize certain aspects of His teaching. Placing Him in different settings, or at various times, the writers may have symbolically emphasized the substance of His teaching. We needn’t insist, for instance, that the Sermon on the Mount really happened on a mountain or hill. It may have, but it is not essential. Neither could we call this a "mistake" or an "error" any more than my changing the china pattern in my painting was an error. It was a creative choice that placed the non-essential at the service of the truly essential. Both the hyper-literal and the ultra-liberal interpretations would be wrong. The china dish is real, but the pattern is simplified. The pattern is not the essence of the dish, as it would continue to be a dish even with no pattern at all.

In an age before cameras, if I were asked to make a visual record of some object or person, I like to think that I could take some artistic license without being accused of lying or making a mistake, especially if I enjoyed plenary inspiration. We can trust that God guided the process, and that the creative input of the Gospel writers only served to draw out and clarify the essential truth of the historical events depicted.

JIMMY ADDS: Tim, if the painting thing doesn’t work out, you should try apologetics!

Whodathunkit? While walking downstairs with the painting at left, I suddenly encountered a wormhole in the space-time continuum (located in one of our kitchen cabinets), and the painting was sucked in before I could stop it! Fortunately, I was able to reach in and find it again, but when I pulled the painting out, the following analysis of the painting came out with it, apparently written by some future historian.

Go figger…

"The first thing we must learn about this artwork is who painted it, and this will give us a deeper understanding of the piece.
It is signed T.Jones in the lower left corner, and has been traditionally accepted as the work of Timothy Jones, an obscure, mid-level painter of the early twenty-first century, who signed his work in the same way.

We now know, of course, that this is very unlikely. There are a number of pieces signed T. Jones in existence, and they differ widely in style and content. This painting does not resemble the large, abstract pieces that are also attributed to T. Jones, so most modern scolars no longer accept that this is an original T. Jones work.
Who, then, painted it? Most modern scholars agree that it was the product of several artists, over a period of time. Perhaps it was based on a sketch by T. Jones, but the painting we now see was revised and developed within the Jonesian community, and reflects their concerns at the time.

We may notice that the handling of paint, the brushstrokes, vary throughout the piece. In some areas the paint is applied thinly, in others it is more thickly textured. Some areas seem more expressive and energetic, while others are more controlled and realistic. Clearly this was executed by more than one artist.

The painting appears to be a straightforward rendering of items that might be found around the artist’s studio, but if we look more deeply, we can see that it is profoundly symbolic. We should not make the mistake of thinking that these are necessarily real objects being depicted. In fact, whether these objects really existed or not is irrelevant. What is important is the deeper meaning of the image.

We see depicted a small copper pot, surrounded by some fruit, two glass bottles and two small china dishes. All rest on a simple white cloth, atop a wooden table or plank.

The vessels at the left of the painting (the copper pot and larger china dish) are full of fruit, overflowing with the "fruit of the spirit" that comes from life in Christ. In contrast, the vessels at right are empty, barren. What separates these two groupings, these two ways of life? We see a clump of grapes, representing the "grapes of wrath" that divide us. The "empty vessels" are separated from the others by issues like anger, resentment and judgemental attitudes.

It helps to know that at this period in history the Church in the U.S. was torn between progressive forces on the one hand, and opressive patriarchal forces on the other, and this painting clearly reflects that struggle. The piece calls us all to understand that we are all the same, standing together on the pure, white cloth of love, resting on the sturdy tabletop of the Primacy of Conscience. The deeper meaning of this painting, then (as with all great art), is – Be Nice.

Standing at the center is the copper pot, old and dented, but filled with fruit. this represents the church as a whole, overcoming the ancient and prejudiced ideas of the past to find the living fruit of justice.
Yeah,.. justice.

Or maybe, freedom.

Whatever.

In any case, we could continue to find deeper meanings to this seemingly simple painting, but space does not allow us to discuss all that we might find. Just remember, the important thing about any work of art is what it means to you."