RE: the calling of an artist... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Life] >> College - Career



Message

techne -> RE: the calling of an artist... (3/28/2008 9:56:36 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: growingseed
techne - "learning a new language" and "everything should point to the cross". i'd be interested in hearing more about those thoughts...

Pick a form and explain to me that it can't be pointed to the cross.

actually - i asked you to explain to me how "any art form" can be pointed to the cross. [;)] i personally don't think that's necessary for a christian artist, nor do i think it's really possible in any consistent, direct way. certainly not without eliminating a huge amount of perfectly acceptable subject matter. again, what about my example of the floral painter? i guess my struggle with your point is that i find the idea pretty abstract and i'm afraid i can't envision the practical applications -- it seems pretty limited in scope (though i don't deny or disparage the impulse - i just want to understand some practical applications).

i absolutely agree that somehow we creatives are to point towards the Truth (and ultimately christ) with our creative enterprises, but i think the subject matter and the possibilities for doing so are pretty open. i also think that our lives are still the primary mode of pointing people to christ. our creative work is just another tool, seed, door...



growingseed -> RE: the calling of an artist... (3/28/2008 11:49:38 AM)

I agree with what your saying, it's new to me to be able to express in terms that others will understand what the Lord is doing in me. But i guess with man we are limited in ways that may endure rather then helping some to grow.



Giulia -> RE: the calling of an artist... (3/28/2008 5:29:42 PM)

quote:

fair enough. and i agree - "annointing" is often misused. we often mistake emotional soulish responses for the holy spirit working, or we privilege annointing/ talent over character.


That in itself says a lot - having annointing/talent. Yes ala 1 John 2, however talent does not equal annointing, anyway I won't go on about the thechnicalities of that here.

The guy who did the sistine chapel in Rome - Michelangelo, do you think he was annointed? The way I understand it he was pretty much treated like dirt by the pope and in my understanding when one has an annointing they are not walked over like that, they may be hated yes, rejected yes, mocked and ridiculed, but not walked over. He didn't even choose the topic of his work, he was totally under the yoke of that pope Sixtus IV. Michelangelo had a great talent, so does Rembrant. Does not mean either of them were annointed.

The sistine chapel is inspiring and awsome to walk into , not only cause my grandma used to worship there or for the art but more because of the bones of St.Peter being underneath and the bones of some of the other saints in the catacombs. The art is merely praising the first born - Jesus and the ones that came after Him. God does live in the praises of His people.

Not so sure how martial art praises God. I do know that when force of defence is exercised to create peace that is good, I also know He will be coming back with an army of saints to do war.

Often, even in history, saints have struggled against pride. To worship the creator instead of the creation is always the battle that remains within the whole artistic process.

As preachers, I think there will always be those doing whatever form of art they do for wrong reasons like in Ph 1:15, they annoy me, still Christ gets preached and praised. Bigger reason to always have your armour on and be diligent.



techne -> RE: the calling of an artist... (3/28/2008 7:45:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Giulia
quote:

fair enough. and i agree - "annointing" is often misused. we often mistake emotional soulish responses for the holy spirit working, or we privilege annointing/ talent over character.

That in itself says a lot - having annointing/talent. Yes ala 1 John 2, however talent does not equal annointing, anyway I won't go on about the thechnicalities of that here.

i'm not sure if this is a response, or a comment of agreement or disagreement, or even a point, really...just to be clear: i am not equating the two. i am saying that we often privilege talent and/ or annointing over character. which is unbiblical. and stupid.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Giulia
The guy who did the sistine chapel in Rome - Michelangelo, do you think he was annointed? The way I understand it he was pretty much treated like dirt by the pope and in my understanding when one has an annointing they are not walked over like that, they may be hated yes, rejected yes, mocked and ridiculed, but not walked over. He didn't even choose the topic of his work, he was totally under the yoke of that pope Sixtus IV.

i'd say that whether or not you are annointed or create annointed work has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not you are "walked over". whatever that means. michelangelo was commissioned to make something for a person. he did, in fact, create a narrative - both theological and visual - in the scenes on that ceiling. ned bustard's it was good: creating art for the glory of G-d, which i mentioned earlier, has a great essay about it and there are others i could point you to. michelangelo managed to insert his own personal touches into the sistine chapel ceiling, but ultimately it was for a specific audience. which is, i would argue, proper for an artist.

so yes, i'd say michelangelo was annointed. if you'd like to suggest some ways we could judge whether or not an artist or their work is annointed, i'd gladly give you my thoughts...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Giulia
Michelangelo had a great talent, so does Rembrant. Does not mean either of them were annointed.

it also doesn't mean that they weren't annointed. it seems that you did mis-read my last post(s).

again, how does one judge if the artist or artwork (if an object can be considered annointed) is "annointed"? that might help the discussion. judging by the number of people moved by both michelangelo's and rembrandt's works, one could say that they and [at least some of] their works are annointed...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Giulia
The sistine chapel is inspiring and awsome to walk into , not only cause my grandma used to worship there or for the art but more because of the bones of St.Peter being underneath and the bones of some of the other saints in the catacombs. The art is merely praising the first born - Jesus and the ones that came after Him. God does live in the praises of His people.

it certainly is amazing...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Giulia
Not so sure how martial art praises God. I do know that when force of defence is exercised to create peace that is good, I also know He will be coming back with an army of saints to do war.

i think we're talking about the creative arts here...i think the term "art" here refers more to a skill or set of skills e.g. "the art of ______".

quote:

ORIGINAL: Giulia
Often, even in history, saints have struggled against pride. To worship the creator instead of the creation is always the battle that remains within the whole artistic process.

true. i think artists definitely struggle with pride, and i think that their independence is often an outgrowth of that. of course, that's also the issue outside the artistic process.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Giulia
As preachers, I think there will always be those doing whatever form of art they do for wrong reasons like in Ph 1:15, they annoy me, still Christ gets preached and praised. Bigger reason to always have your armour on and be diligent.

hmm. interesting. so -- as long as the content is there, the form (or manner/ mode of expression) is irrelevant?



Giulia -> RE: the calling of an artist... (3/29/2008 2:55:11 AM)

quote:

i'm not sure if this is a response, or a comment of agreement or disagreement, or even a point, really...just to be clear: i am not equating the two. i am saying that we often privilege talent and/ or annointing over character. which is unbiblical. and stupid.


by using the slash between the annointing and talent it seems to me you are equating the two. If not equating then relating in a way.

I don't think there is any way to judge about the annointing. I think God knows, heaven knows and the spirits know. People are not always in touch with Spirit.

quote:

hmm. interesting. so -- as long as the content is there, the form (or manner/ mode of expression) is irrelevant?


Not so much the mode or manner of expression but the heart or motivation it is coming from is certainly relevant to God and relevant on working out an individual's salvation for the resurrection, which is what Christianity is about. This is why I include martial arts as there certainly is an art and form of expression in kicking gluts, putting combinations together and proper locks and holds. To creatively bring peace to unrest[:D][sm=weirdhair.gif][sm=vikingsmile.gif][sm=pirateanger.gif][sm=pirateparot.gif] Yes, the vessel God uses to bring forth the final outcome or the "mode of expression" is quite irrelevant if Christ is being proclaimed or His characteristics acclaimed.

quote:

true. i think artists definitely struggle with pride, and i think that their independence is often an outgrowth of that. of course, that's also the issue outside the artistic process.


What do you mean by this? "Independence outgrowth of pride"? don't understand. Non coprendo, non capisco, je ne pas comprends, yo no entiendo, ich verstehe nicht.

quote:

i'd say that whether or not you are annointed or create annointed work has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not you are "walked over". whatever that means. michelangelo was commissioned to make something for a person. he did, in fact, create a narrative - both theological and visual - in the scenes on that ceiling. ned bustard's it was good: creating art for the glory of G-d, which i mentioned earlier, has a great essay about it and there are others i could point you to. michelangelo managed to insert his own personal touches into the sistine chapel ceiling, but ultimately it was for a specific audience. which is, i would argue, proper for an artist.

so yes, i'd say michelangelo was annointed. if you'd like to suggest some ways we could judge whether or not an artist or their work is annointed, i'd gladly give you my thoughts...


Michelangelo was under the yoke of another man, that suggests to me that he was still in slavery as the annointing breaks the yokes not only of sin but also of servitude. Michelangelo, by all accounts of his life was a slave. This suggests to me that he was not annointed, nevertheless talented, there is a huge difference, one will mean you are a brother or sister of Christ, one of the chosen to sit with Him as heavenly rulers, one who has authority over spirits, the other means you are a slave to other people's desires and fancies or indeed your own senses.

Big difference in creating something which speaks of heaven from an outsiders perspective to being a partaker of heaven and speaking of it from that personal perspective. Being a heavenly citizen is different to being the king outside the gates of heaven, I would suggest the cleaner in the gates of heaven is greater than the king outside the gates of heaven.

Rembrant? I have read accounts of him taking his maid and then having her commited to avoid shame. I also hear he was always living beyond his means and was distessed towards the end of his life also working for others. He certainly did not live the life of an exemplary Christian. Where is the victory? Where is the freedom? Annointing breaks the yoke of oppression and servitude not only to the general population, but also to the senses.

Perhaps I shall be perceived to be legalistic, fact is a Christian is called to be a witness, a witness is set apart by their works and not only their creative processes but also their behaviour generally; personal relations and public relations alike. It does not seem like he had commited an act of sin and repented for it, instead he went on to justify and even punish his co-offender.

Neither of these had victory in their lives, neither did they witness the freedom found in Christ. At least by the accounts of their lives I can't see it. Michelangelo perhaps had a deep experience with Christ, more so that Rembrant, he certainly didn't exercise his authority being commissioned and paid very little for long days and nights standing up with head tilted towards ceiling for hours and hours. He served man, doesn't seem to me either were serving God directly but man instead.

If the accounts of their lives are wrongful accounts, then I will take it all back.

Yet the king outside the gates can talk about some of the goings on inside the gates because the cleaner tells him, the cleaner knows first hand, the king has got the cleaners' second hand info.



MysteryHat -> RE: the calling of an artist... (3/29/2008 4:52:27 AM)

I tend to believe that having the ability to create art is a gift from God...just like other gifts He gives us.

I don't call myself an artist, yet I enjoy the sensation of making something on the computer, or through paint, or drawing onto anything I can use. I see it as a gift because it takes skills in order to accomplish the finished product.

That's how I also see writing. I'm hardly a writer, yet I see my stories in my head and work, to the best of my ability, to capture them onto paper.

However, just because I am good at creating art or writing stories doesn't mean I should quit my daily duties and pretend I'm an artist/writer. One of my dreams is to one day gather something decent and worthwhile into a book and have it published. For now, it is a dream, and God constantly has to remind me that I can't jump too early. It takes time and skills to perfect the gift God has given.

Also, I say that being an artist is a gift because there are two paths you can go with it. God has given you this gift, and it is up to you where you want to take it. You may take the "Christian" road and paint/create things that glorify God (doesn't have to be about painting Biblical characters, but presenting the faith in respectable light). Or, you can take the "secular" route and paint things that you know God wouldn't have you to paint.

It's the same with writing, singing, dancing, etc. They're gifts of God, but it's up to you on whether you glorify God or man with them.

Are they callings? Well, having a calling from God is to have a mission, a purpose. I think it is possible that God could call people to reach others through art, writings, music, etc. But the thing itself is the gift. The calling is something on your heart that God has called you to do...and one of the purposes of Him giving gifts is that they will aid you, as tools (as someone else mentioned earlier), in your calling.

For instance, you may be able to draw or write good, perfect even, but that doesn't mean you're "called" to be an artist or writer. The calling, on the other hand, is something God lays on your heart. And, who knows, He just might call you to reach others through art - that's between you both.

Anyways, all in all, glorify God for the gifts He gives. It isn't tough to say "thanks."



Giulia -> RE: the calling of an artist... (3/29/2008 5:41:57 AM)

quote:

I tend to believe that having the ability to create art is a gift from God...just like other gifts He gives us.

I don't call myself an artist, yet I enjoy the sensation of making something on the computer, or through paint, or drawing onto anything I can use. I see it as a gift because it takes skills in order to accomplish the finished product.


Many ugodlies have this, so is that a gift from God as well?

Many are called few are chosen. People are callled to follow Christ in His expression of love, through death to selfish desires and ambition.

If you resurrect these in the name of art or in the name of an annointing or "calling" then you are justifying the very thing we are called to die to. This is the danger.

If, on the other hand this is the form of communication you have chosen through which to communicate something deeper which has happened to you then it is just. The end is not justified by the means the means will justify the end if done with the right heart. Yet the end still proclaims Christ regardless and that is also just.

Also a responsibility to being a witness is to live your life worthy of the calling. You have rights as a citizens or representatives of heaven but also a responsibilities.

I speak of ideals here, yet the realities of the state of the church are far more corrupt, could say I am a dreamer.

One thing is for sure, the function of the spoken word is so much more important as without it I know I would not have my faith. Song keeps it alive (even if I am not a singer per say) and pictures remind me.

I could quite safely say that it is the words that break the yoke and an annointing contains a lit fire with pure oil (not the oil on canvas or walls).

For years each week I followed my grandma into the sistine chapel (she lived a few blocks away from teh vatican) and watched her kiss the statue of Jesus as she entered. All I got from that was death, no words of life emenated from teh ceilings or statues. It was the spoken word which melted my stony heart and prompted it to repentance, not the paintings in teh sistine chapel, neither did the satue of David or the Pieta' for that matter. After my conversion all of those creations were inspiring to look at not before though.



techne -> RE: the calling of an artist... (3/29/2008 2:56:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Giulia
quote:

i'm not sure if this is a response, or a comment of agreement or disagreement, or even a point, really...just to be clear: i am not equating the two. i am saying that we often privilege talent and/ or annointing over character. which is unbiblical. and stupid.

I don't think there is any way to judge about the annointing. I think God knows, heaven knows and the spirits know. People are not always in touch with Spirit.

so then how can you make any statements about whether or not artists and/ or their work are annointed? do you believe that an artist can be annointed to make their art (in any medium)? do you believe that a creative work can be annointed by the holy spirit and used by G-d? yes or no. i guess i'm trying to determine if this is actually a non-issue for you , and why.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Giulia
quote:

hmm. interesting. so -- as long as the content is there, the form (or manner/ mode of expression) is irrelevant?

Not so much the mode or manner of expression but the heart or motivation it is coming from is certainly relevant to God and relevant on working out an individual's salvation for the resurrection, which is what Christianity is about. This is why I include martial arts as there certainly is an art and form of expression in kicking gluts, putting combinations together and proper locks and holds. To creatively bring peace to unrest. Yes, the vessel God uses to bring forth the final outcome or the "mode of expression" is quite irrelevant if Christ is being proclaimed or His characteristics acclaimed.

well,to be honest, one of my main issues with this line of thinking is that the issue of one's "heart" or motivation is very difficult to determine from looking at the work. i think there are a number of assumptions in that statement, but the fact remains that it is difficult, if not impossible to judge one's heart. in fact, there are artists who would identify themselves as christians whose work has been attacked by christians - people tend to respond to the content, not the heart. otherwise, those artists should be acceptable. after all, they have the right heart. as you said, only G-d can truly judge the heart. that would make it beyond the pale of our ability and thus not really relevant to talking about art...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Giulia
quote:

true. i think artists definitely struggle with pride, and i think that their independence is often an outgrowth of that. of course, that's also the issue outside the artistic process.

What do you mean by this? "Independence outgrowth of pride"? don't understand. Non coprendo, non capisco, je ne pas comprends, yo no entiendo, ich verstehe nicht.

yes. that's exactly what i mean. one's pride leads to independence. not willing to serve others with the work. not willing to grow and mature as an artist. not willing to be part of a community and bear [constructive] criticism.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Giulia
quote:

i'd say that whether or not you are annointed or create annointed work has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not you are "walked over". whatever that means. michelangelo was commissioned to make something for a person. he did, in fact, create a narrative - both theological and visual - in the scenes on that ceiling. ned bustard's it was good: creating art for the glory of G-d, which i mentioned earlier, has a great essay about it and there are others i could point you to. michelangelo managed to insert his own personal touches into the sistine chapel ceiling, but ultimately it was for a specific audience. which is, i would argue, proper for an artist.

so yes, i'd say michelangelo was annointed. if you'd like to suggest some ways we could judge whether or not an artist or their work is annointed, i'd gladly give you my thoughts...

Michelangelo was under the yoke of another man, that suggests to me that he was still in slavery as the annointing breaks the yokes not only of sin but also of servitude. Michelangelo, by all accounts of his life was a slave. This suggests to me that he was not annointed, nevertheless talented, there is a huge difference, one will mean you are a brother or sister of Christ, one of the chosen to sit with Him as heavenly rulers, one who has authority over spirits, the other means you are a slave to other people's desires and fancies or indeed your own senses.

paul said that if you find yourself a slave when you become a disciple, stay there. how is that any different? the yoke that gets broken is the yoke of [spritual] bondage. it doesn't mean that you stop doing your job. and michelangelo's job was making art for other people. like most artists of his day, the people he made art for tended to be people of political and financial means and position, whether nobility or ecclesial. to suggest that michelangelo was not annointed simply because he was under contract to create work for the rulers of the day (i.e. work for a living) is not particularly helpful or realistic. besides, though G-d is ultimately our source, he uses people to provide, and that in anynumber of ways. michelangelo was not a slave.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Giulia
Big difference in creating something which speaks of heaven from an outsiders perspective to being a partaker of heaven and speaking of it from that personal perspective. Being a heavenly citizen is different to being the king outside the gates of heaven, I would suggest the cleaner in the gates of heaven is greater than the king outside the gates of heaven.

huh? michelangelo was devout and a practising christian, operating according to a biblical world view -- are you saying he was an outsider rather than a partaker?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Giulia
Rembrant? I have read accounts of him taking his maid and then having her commited to avoid shame. I also hear he was always living beyond his means and was distessed towards the end of his life also working for others. He certainly did not live the life of an exemplary Christian. Where is the victory? Where is the freedom? Annointing breaks the yoke of oppression and servitude not only to the general population, but also to the senses.

okay. so because rembrandt was human and fell short he wasn't a good enough christian? the devotion for christ that he pictured in his work means nothing? so he was unwise with his finances -- certainly not a good thing, but does that make him unannointed? i dunno - none of us are perfect, or walking in the full victory we have in christ. are we disqualified unless we walk perfectly? must all our earthly circumstances be perfect for us to be considered annointed? how did that work for jesus, paul, peter, john?

to get back to the art thing (though i have no idea where you actually stand on the whole "annointing" thing) -- do you think that unless an artist has a perfect and blameless [public] life he can't possibly be annointed? it seems to me that being in "servitude" to a person (or under the influence or control of any besetting sin), or having any failings (whether financial or personal) automatically disqualifies you from being any sort of example of a christian (never mind being annointed), because someone who is annointed is by definition free of all of these things.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Giulia
Perhaps I shall be perceived to be legalistic, fact is a Christian is called to be a witness, a witness is set apart by their works and not only their creative processes but also their behaviour generally; personal relations and public relations alike. It does not seem like he had commited an act of sin and repented for it, instead he went on to justify and even punish his co-offender.

so rembrandt had no public witness of his faith? there were no positive (godly, christian) things he did or ways he behaved in his entire life? or - assuming he did actually did have some good witness moments - they were all rendered null and void by the actions you're referring to?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Giulia
Neither of these had victory in their lives, neither did they witness the freedom found in Christ. At least by the accounts of their lives I can't see it. Michelangelo perhaps had a deep experience with Christ, more so that Rembrant, he certainly didn't exercise his authority being commissioned and paid very little for long days and nights standing up with head tilted towards ceiling for hours and hours. He served man, doesn't seem to me either were serving God directly but man instead.

i think both served man because that was their job. but we are also supposed to do all we do as unto the lord, which, judging by the skill and power of both artists' work, they did. we have no idea about how much "victory" they had in their lives -- that's an incredible judgement. then again, you said that one's "heart" was what was important - can you discount the heart of these men whose most devotional works quite obviously transcended the demands and requests of those who commissioned them (not even mentioning the fact that - at least in rembrandt's case - some of these more devotional works were not due to commissions at all)? i'm also not convinced that one's authority in christ means you don't submit to those in authority over you (when that doesn't countermand the will of G-d). didn't jesus, who had all authority, submit to unrighteous political and religious rulers? didn't paul?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Giulia
If the accounts of their lives are wrongful accounts, then I will take it all back.

which begs the question: how much have you read about their lives? which books have you read? have you read more contemporary accounts (biographies by writers of their time)? have you read both christian and non-christian accounts of their lives?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Giulia
Yet the king outside the gates can talk about some of the goings on inside the gates because the cleaner tells him, the cleaner knows first hand, the king has got the cleaners' second hand info.

huh? what use is second hand info? you can't even use it in court -- hearsay! hearsay! [;)]

anyway...enjoying the conversation. some good thoughts, and some good questions.



techne -> RE: the calling of an artist... (3/29/2008 3:50:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MysteryHat
I tend to believe that having the ability to create art is a gift from God...just like other gifts He gives us.

me too. do you think that sometimes those gifts or abilities are to enable us to fulfill a calling?

quote:

ORIGINAL: MysteryHat
I don't call myself an artist, yet I enjoy the sensation of making something on the computer, or through paint, or drawing onto anything I can use. I see it as a gift because it takes skills in order to accomplish the finished product.

so then what defines being an artist? what are the requirements in order to be able to call oneself "an artist"? do you think there's a difference between expressing ourselves and being creative by making art (which is, i think, a human activity) and pursuing art as a job, vocation, responsibility, or yes, even a calling (which involves specific skills, abilities, knowledge)?

quote:

ORIGINAL: MysteryHat
That's how I also see writing. I'm hardly a writer, yet I see my stories in my head and work, to the best of my ability, to capture them onto paper.

so there's a difference between "writing" as an activity and being a writer? if so, what would that difference be?

quote:

ORIGINAL: MysteryHat
However, just because I am good at creating art or writing stories doesn't mean I should quit my daily duties and pretend I'm an artist/writer. One of my dreams is to one day gather something decent and worthwhile into a book and have it published. For now, it is a dream, and God constantly has to remind me that I can't jump too early. It takes time and skills to perfect the gift God has given.

but can't you have your "day job" and also pursue your art/ writing/ whatever at the same time? i would think it would be pretty difficult to "pretend" you're an artist/ writer of you're serious about it and working at it, learning about, getting input and critique about your work. isn't the goal (or at least one of the goals) of any creative to be able to make a living from their creative work? to be able to pursue it and focus on it and communicate the things you feel you need to share? of course there must be preparation, training, development, maturation - that's the process of being (becoming) an artist (regardless of medium). dreams must have legs. they must be incarnated, as it were.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MysteryHat
Also, I say that being an artist is a gift because there are two paths you can go with it. God has given you this gift, and it is up to you where you want to take it. You may take the "Christian" road and paint/create things that glorify God (doesn't have to be about painting Biblical characters, but presenting the faith in respectable light). Or, you can take the "secular" route and paint things that you know God wouldn't have you to paint.

here i must strongly disagree. i don't believe in the "christian" versus "secular" divide. i don't believe that the christian path is "presenting the faith in a respectable light" - the bible is full of the opposite of that. i'm not even sure what that means...and the "secular" path does not mean that you are presenting ungodly things. i think the only path of the [christian] artist is to present Truth. it may sometimes be more overt, and at other times more subtle - but the creative's call is to declare Truth. to paraphrase schaeffer - we must present the great hope but also be unafraid to declare sin. eric fischl (a non-christian, btw) has said there are 4 archetypes available to artists: heaven, hell, the garden and the fall. it's an interesting thought.

i think the issue is really more about Truth versus lies. and there is freedom in that. the christian road is obedience. the non-christian road is rebellion. actually, there are any number of pairings we can utilize. further, the bible itself is filled with myriad examples. there are unsavory characters, events and entire books that do not even mention G-d. there are depictions of nature, abstraction and heavenly things (seraphim, anyone?) and it's all good. i think the determinant of what is "the right path" is an interesting question, particularly for the christian creative.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MysteryHat
Are they callings? Well, having a calling from God is to have a mission, a purpose. I think it is possible that God could call people to reach others through art, writings, music, etc. But the thing itself is the gift. The calling is something on your heart that God has called you to do...and one of the purposes of Him giving gifts is that they will aid you, as tools (as someone else mentioned earlier), in your calling.

interesting. so calling is who you are and what you have been created to do? and the gifts are what you use to fulfill that calling?

quote:

ORIGINAL: MysteryHat
For instance, you may be able to draw or write good, perfect even, but that doesn't mean you're "called" to be an artist or writer. The calling, on the other hand, is something God lays on your heart. And, who knows, He just might call you to reach others through art - that's between you both.

or write well. [;)] again, my question is whether an ability or talent is [possibly] an indication of what you are called to do. interesting -- but if G-d has given us a gift or talent, (and created us for a purpose), wouldn't it be to assist us in walking out the calling or mission he has given us? perhaps it's less an issue of his gifts as it is our willingness and obedience to use them and grow them?

quote:

ORIGINAL: MysteryHat
Anyways, all in all, glorify God for the gifts He gives. It isn't tough to say "thanks."

amen!



techne -> RE: the calling of an artist... (3/29/2008 4:43:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Giulia
quote:

I tend to believe that having the ability to create art is a gift from God...just like other gifts He gives us.

I don't call myself an artist, yet I enjoy the sensation of making something on the computer, or through paint, or drawing onto anything I can use. I see it as a gift because it takes skills in order to accomplish the finished product.

Many ugodlies have this, so is that a gift from God as well?

yes. we are all created by G-d, and he has a purpose for eachone of us. as part of that, he has also given us abilties, talents and gifts as part of equipping us for that purpose. it's a concept called "common grace". the fact is that he has given everyone gifts. the question is, will we let him redeem them for his purpose and glory?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Giulia
Many are called few are chosen. People are callled to follow Christ in His expression of love, through death to selfish desires and ambition.

or, all are called [to salvation], but only some respond with "yes". G-d is not willing that any should perish...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Giulia
If you resurrect these in the name of art or in the name of an annointing or "calling" then you are justifying the very thing we are called to die to. This is the danger.

i'm afraid i don't understand. death to selfish desires and ambition is about carnality and fleshliness - it's a struggle for every christian. but i am interested in the specific situation of the artist called (or not called) by G-d. if being an artist is a calling, it does not follow that "selfish desires and ambition" will be the result of that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Giulia
If, on the other hand this is the form of communication you have chosen through which to communicate something deeper which has happened to you then it is just. The end is not justified by the means the means will justify the end if done with the right heart. Yet the end still proclaims Christ regardless and that is also just.

i'd still like some concrete examples of what that looks like...i guess i'm just trying to get a sense of what "proclaiming christ" may or may not look like to you, or what that means. sorry.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Giulia
Also a responsibility to being a witness is to live your life worthy of the calling. You have rights as a citizens or representatives of heaven but also a responsibilities.

absolutely. your work is not separate from your life - we are whole (holistic) beings. there is a very real responsibiltiy for the artist to be accountable for what they do and how they live - before G-d, before their appointed authorities, before the body, before the world. but again, i want to focus in on the artist (in whatever medium).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Giulia
I speak of ideals here, yet the realities of the state of the church are far more corrupt, could say I am a dreamer.

as always. the reality is always different from the possiblity, or promise.

...i'm a dreamer too...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Giulia
One thing is for sure, the function of the spoken word is so much more important as without it I know I would not have my faith. Song keeps it alive (even if I am not a singer per say) and pictures remind me.

of course, faith comes by hearing; and hearing by the word of G-d. but G-d can and will use anything, and obviously does use creative expression to move the hearts and souls of men as evidenced by the bible, and the accounts of people about precisely that over the course of the last 2000 years.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Giulia
I could quite safely say that it is the words that break the yoke and an annointing contains a lit fire with pure oil (not the oil on canvas or walls).

the bible says that it is the annointing that breaks the yoke. the annointing is the power of the holy spirit. he can can use whatever he wants, however he wants. he tends touse people, buthe also can use objects. beyond that fact, i have no idea what you're trying to say here...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Giulia
For years each week I followed my grandma into the sistine chapel (she lived a few blocks away from teh vatican) and watched her kiss the statue of Jesus as she entered. All I got from that was death, no words of life emenated from teh ceilings or statues.

fine -- but what did she get from it? was it an act of devotion? did it bring her life? was it an act of faith for her? so are you saying that those statues (i.e. that art) had no power to bring life to her? it seem sthat somehow that art was a way for her to symbolically and physically express her love for jesus. is that alright?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Giulia
It was the spoken word which melted my stony heart and prompted it to repentance, not the paintings in teh sistine chapel, neither did the satue of David or the Pieta' for that matter. After my conversion all of those creations were inspiring to look at not before though.

again, fine. but this thread isn't simply about your personal experience. of course, there are many stories of people experiencing the presence, conviction and encouragement of G-d through art (or poetry or dance or film). count zinzendorf, who founded the moravian church - a church of 100 years of missions and prayer - was arrested by the spirit through an encounter with a painting. ultimately, it is the fruit we bear that will indicate whether our encounter was carnal, soulish or spiritual in nature. G-d uses symbols - a lot - to speak to people. and it would seem that some people are more receptive to that language than others. and that's okay.

enjoying the conversation.

pax.



Giulia -> RE: the calling of an artist... (3/29/2008 10:08:22 PM)

quote:

so rembrandt had no public witness of his faith? there were no positive (godly, christian) things he did or ways he behaved in his entire life? or - assuming he did actually did have some good witness moments - they were all rendered null and void by the actions you're referring to?


He is known for being an artist before he is known fro being a Christian. What do you think? You get caught out in the dirt and then bring someone else down to cover yourself? Those are not actions of a Christian.

Can I ask why you go G-D, yet you don't capitalise Jesus' name nor Christs name, nor He when you talk about Him at all?

quote:

again, fine. but this thread isn't simply about your personal experience. of course, there are many stories of people experiencing the presence, conviction and encouragement of G-d through art (or poetry or dance or film). count zinzendorf, who founded the moravian church - a church of 100 years of missions and prayer - was arrested by the spirit through an encounter with a painting. ultimately, it is the fruit we bear that will indicate whether our encounter was carnal, soulish or spiritual in nature. G-d uses symbols - a lot - to speak to people. and it would seem that some people are more receptive to that language than others. and that's okay.


No, the thread may not be about my personal experience, however my personal experience is certainly valid and it is certainly on the subject. Can I ask which other examples you have of people being arrested by the Spirit through paintings or dance? ( experiences of 1 individual, which are nevertheless valid)

The bible says faith comes through hearing and hearing of the Word of God, not seeing a painting. Then repentance comes through a public confession of Jesus Christ, not through looking at a piece of art. Where has God used any object of art to bring people to God? If that was the case prophets would've engaged in the process way more than they have.

quote:

fine -- but what did she get from it? was it an act of devotion? did it bring her life? was it an act of faith for her? so are you saying that those statues (i.e. that art) had no power to bring life to her? it seem sthat somehow that art was a way for her to symbolically and physically express her love for jesus. is that alright?


It seems downright disrespectful not to capitalise Jesus name. Yes I am saying those statues had no power to bring life to her. She was a lovely woman, still her faith was in the pope and the objects she saw in the vatican, she repeated empty words over and over in a droned out monotonous sound. She had no joy and demonstrated no peace, seeing those are some of the fruits and I didn't see them in her, I assume she was seeking in the wrong places. Hers was a habit she was a slave to, bless her soul.

Symbolically and physically it is better to express love to humans who are suffering. Jesus didn't say to worship Him through objects of art of any sort, in fact God hates idiolatry, incidentally idolatry is likened to pride in the OT.

It was not Jesus' intention to leave behind any piece of Him which could be worshipped because the Spirit is more than that. One of the ten commandments is not to create any likeness of God. The reason is He knows our gravitation towards worshipping things and creation rather than the Creator.

quote:

the bible says that it is the annointing that breaks the yoke. the annointing is the power of the holy spirit. he can can use whatever he wants, however he wants. he tends touse people, buthe also can use objects. beyond that fact, i have no idea what you're trying to say here...


No, He does not go against His own words, He does not want us to worship things and the bible is clear that faith comes through hearing. So the spoken word is what stirs the heart up to faith. No other way, please show me in the Word if you think otherwise. So far all you have come up with is the fact there were craftsmen in the Holy Place who had wisdom and the filling of the Spirit. Deuteronomy also says not to create anything in His image. You say the filling was an annointing, I say it wasn't.

Why do you think that one of the commandments is - De 5:8 "Thou shalt not make any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters beneath the earth" ?

quote:

i'd still like some concrete examples of what that looks like...i guess i'm just trying to get a sense of what "proclaiming christ" may or may not look like to you, or what that means. sorry.


Why do you say sorry when you later say you are enjoying this? You are obviously not sorry so don't lie! Giving witness of my account of Him is proclaiming Him. Persuading people of the resurrection is what it's all about, I do this by walking in obedience to Him in the radically changed life I am now living, people look and are amazed, they know it's not the work of a human. Then the conversion is up to the Holy Spirit.

Again I say theat when we choose to be His witnesses we also take on the responsibility of living a life worthy of the calling.



Giulia -> RE: the calling of an artist... (3/30/2008 3:55:47 PM)

Some have absoloutely zero talent yet are annointed. Not sure we are on the same page regarding an annointing, can you please define an annointing ?

Also I must make clear that it has become increasingly difficult for me to believe many accounts of history so, apart from the bible, I question the view of the person making the account, whose camp were they in? What type of motivation did they have and all that. I don't think any one of us can safely say we have been given full accounts of history as the point of view of the meek ones may have very well been ignored or ommited.

Indeed throughout the bible we hear of the anger of God destroying the beauty of creation because it does not rememeber or regard its creator- La 2 is just one of the examples I have, so we see there is something greater than what we are able to create and even when it points to God I think too often it ends up getting praised of itself.

Another verse that comes to mind that speaks about satan having music in him before he is cast down. He has music in him, and I am sure he creates much music still, only for me it is noise [Is 14:11].

How often do we see the veneration of an artist simply because what they do is appealing? Like their music or they make you bop or they are popular actors and have good bodies or a good looking nose or their painting is like really defined and brings you to the moment of like wow man, or they have made something else that makes go wow, not necessarily bring us closer to God, nevertheless enthrals us and captures our attention because it looks good.

How often do artists get idolised. The world is full of it. I know some people who become awe struck by other people simply because they are actors it's crazy because they are just copying someone or talking about someone else's life. I have even heard people call someone annointed simply because they can hit many notes with their voice.

This is talent the way the world knows it and I am sure satan can do it better than most. Moses certainly wasn't chosen because he had the talent of a communicator, he was chosen because of his heart and faithfulness because he cared and protected the people with his life. He even stuttered.

These are all reservations that come up for me when I think of the calling of an artist.



Giulia -> RE: the calling of an artist... (3/31/2008 7:40:19 AM)

The psalms, are also full of songs of praise to God. Many of them are asking for the help of the Lord or uplifting the Lord, prayers of faith in times of distress, confidence in God's triumph over evil, praise, answer to prayer, joy of forgiveness, protection from the enemy, meditation in Him and even comfort in the flesh.

We also know king David used to dance, even in the nude, not saying we should dance in the nude, I would but it may offend some and it may also encourage some to think the wrong way, so better keep the clothes on. We know that in the last days the tabernacle of David in Acts 15:16 shall be rebuilt. There was music, dance and the tent would've also been quite beautiful to the eye I dare say.

All the dangers of the flesh and all the temptations shall still be there so we need to be very dilligent not to repeat the mistakes made through history, rather to learn from them.



techne -> RE: the calling of an artist... (3/31/2008 10:52:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Giulia
quote:

so rembrandt had no public witness of his faith? there were no positive (godly, christian) things he did or ways he behaved in his entire life? or - assuming he did actually did have some good witness moments - they were all rendered null and void by the actions you're referring to?

He is known for being an artist before he is known fro being a Christian. What do you think? You get caught out in the dirt and then bring someone else down to cover yourself? Those are not actions of a Christian.

you're right -- he should have done better. that does not, however disqualify him as a christian, nor does it mean his work could not therefore be used by the holy spirit to impact people and point them towards christ. don't tell me that "the return of the prodigal" doesn't preach [:)] besides - the fact "he is known for being an artist before he is known for being a christian" is really not a criticism. perhaps all the people in your immediate circle know you're a christian, but people further outside that circle may discover that after the fact, and 10 years from now the fact that you were a christian just may not be the thing that people writing or talking about you foreground -- much like rembrandt. however, if you start reading about him, it becomes very obvious that his faith was certainly part of his life (even if he failed to live up to all that he could have in christ -- much like any one of us). i'm not worried about christians who are human -- it's the ones who seem perfect that frighten me...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Giulia
Can I ask why you go G-D, yet you don't capitalise Jesus' name nor Christs name, nor He when you talk about Him at all?

you can find explanations in numerous threads -- mostly it's a literary tip of the hat to orthodox jews, who reference the holy name by not uttering or writing it...

quote:

again, fine. but this thread isn't simply about your personal experience. of course, there are many stories of people experiencing the presence, conviction and encouragement of G-d through art (or poetry or dance or film). count zinzendorf, who founded the moravian church - a church of 100 years of missions and prayer - was arrested by the spirit through an encounter with a painting. ultimately, it is the fruit we bear that will indicate whether our encounter was carnal, soulish or spiritual in nature. G-d uses symbols - a lot - to speak to people. and it would seem that some people are more receptive to that language than others. and that's okay.

No, the thread may not be about my personal experience, however my personal experience is certainly valid and it is certainly on the subject. Can I ask which other examples you have of people being arrested by the Spirit through paintings or dance? (experiences of 1 individual, which are nevertheless valid)
first off, let me say that i don't discount "personal experience" -- but personal experience is not the measure of Truth. Truth is the plumb line for "personal experience". in the bible, the brazen serpent become something that the spirit used. to heal people, no less. when i was a worship leader and my wife led the dance team numerous people told us how G-d spoke to them through the art or dance or music or poems we and others presented...perhaps others might share their stories?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Giulia
The bible says faith comes through hearing and hearing of the Word of God, not seeing a painting. Then repentance comes through a public confession of Jesus Christ, not through looking at a piece of art. Where has God used any object of art to bring people to God? If that was the case prophets would've engaged in the process way more than they have.
didn't the prophets constantly create visual pictures as metaphors for spiritual reality in their prophetic actions? dramatic visuals such as walking around naked and then unearthing a putrid loincloth to symbolize israel's impurity. again, what about the brazen serpent? i've already given an example of how G-d has used art to draw men to himself, and i know he has used my art as an opportunity to sow seed and the Truth of christ into people's lives.

but you are right - art won't save anyone - it can't. that's only possible by the spirit. but he will use anything he can to point people towards christ (or rather, the righteousness of christ, the sinfulness of man and the judgement to come - john 16.8). and besides, "hearing" and "word" might be slipperier things than you think...the Living Word can speak through any medium he chooses. i do think that art can move people, and thereby move them in the right direction (i.e. towards christ) but we use words to explain, instruct, teach. that doesn't make art wrong, just an instrument.

quote:

fine -- but what did she get from it? was it an act of devotion? did it bring her life? was it an act of faith for her? so are you saying that those statues (i.e. that art) had no power to bring life to her? it seem sthat somehow that art was a way for her to symbolically and physically express her love for jesus. is that alright?

It seems downright disrespectful not to capitalise Jesus name. Yes I am saying those statues had no power to bring life to her. She was a lovely woman, still her faith was in the pope and the objects she saw in the vatican, she repeated empty words over and over in a droned out monotonous sound. She had no joy and demonstrated no peace, seeing those are some of the fruits and I didn't see them in her, I assume she was seeking in the wrong places. Hers was a habit she was a slave to, bless her soul.
well, evidently that practise didn't make mother teresa dead and empty...once again, i'm not sure this is a reason to throw out the baby with the bathwater. i agree, art doesn't necessarily bring life, but neither does it necessarily bring death. the same goes for pretty much anything. we are inherently idolatrous because we were made to worship. the whole idea is that these things point beyond themselves (it's the same issue people have with icons, really). and isn't that what art does? points to something else?

as for capitalizing the name of jesus -- you may have noticed that i don't capitalize anything. it's not intended to offend. and i feel no conviction about it. jesus knows my heart and why i do or don't. so far, he seems pretty okay with it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Giulia
Symbolically and physically it is better to express love to humans who are suffering.

of course. and? there are many things we do that don't "express love to humans who are suffering" as directly as physically doing something. and perhaps art does do precisely that...in fact, perhaps that's one of the powerful things about art.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Giulia
Jesus didn't say to worship Him through objects of art of any sort, in fact God hates idiolatry, incidentally idolatry is likened to pride in the OT

yes, he said that we are to worship him in spirit and in Truth. so what does that look like? that would seem to involve heart and understanding more than specific methodology (i know, i know, the bible gives a lot of guidelines - but they are generally not that prescriptive). i think people can worship G-d in spirit and Truth through liturgical means or through non-liturgical...the issue is one of devotion, surrender and obedience. idolatry is worshipping anything that is more important (and therefore larger in our hearts and minds) than christ. again, that's about more than art (in whatever medium).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Giulia
It was not Jesus' intention to leave behind any piece of Him which could be worshipped because the Spirit is more than that. One of the ten commandments is not to create any likeness of God. The reason is He knows our gravitation towards worshipping things and creation rather than the Creator.

sure. but we aren't talking about making images of G-d. we are talking about art. and even that commandment is about who or what we worship - it's primary focus is not on graven images, it's on the object of worship. i don't deny our inherent idolatrousness, but i reject the idea that somehow art must be the scapegoat for that. people, wealth, objects can all become idols. heck, even "ministry" can become an idol.

quote:

the bible says that it is the annointing that breaks the yoke. the annointing is the power of the holy spirit. he can can use whatever he wants, however he wants. he tends touse people, buthe also can use objects. beyond that fact, i have no idea what you're trying to say here...

No, He does not go against His own words, He does not want us to worship things and the bible is clear that faith comes through hearing. So the spoken word is what stirs the heart up to faith. No other way, please show me in the Word if you think otherwise. So far all you have come up with is the fact there were craftsmen in the Holy Place who had wisdom and the filling of the Spirit. Deuteronomy also says not to create anything in His image. You say the filling was an annointing, I say it wasn't.
actually, isaiah 10 speaks of the anointing breaking the yoke. i think we're starting to repeat some things here, actually. i'm not arguing where faith comes from - the word brings faith. it doesn't stir up the heart to faith. we obviously disagree with the whole filling/ annointing annointing thing. fine. i still think there's an equivalency (but with the difference that the spirit didn't generally indwell anyone until after jesus left to be with the father). let's leave that then.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Giulia
Symbolically and physically it is better to express love to humans who are suffering. Jesus didn't say to worship Him through objects of art of any sort, in fact God hates idiolatry, incidentally idolatry is likened to pride in the OT.
Why do you think that one of the commandments is - De 5:8 "Thou shalt not make any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters beneath the earth" ?
didn't you say this above already? your scripture seems relevant, but what about the rest of the verse which ends: you shall not bow down to them nor serve them? or what about the verse preceeding: you shall have no other gods before me? but why let something like context be a problem? [;)] again, this commandment isn't so much about images as much as it is about idolatry and the one you worship.

quote:

i'd still like some concrete examples of what that looks like...i guess i'm just trying to get a sense of what "proclaiming christ" may or may not look like to you, or what that means. sorry.

Why do you say sorry when you later say you are enjoying this? You are obviously not sorry so don't lie! Giving witness of my account of Him is proclaiming Him. Persuading people of the resurrection is what it's all about, I do this by walking in obedience to Him in the radically changed life I am now living, people look and are amazed, they know it's not the work of a human. Then the conversion is up to the Holy Spirit.
the "sorry" was referring to the fact that i don't have a clear sense of what you mean when you say art should (must?) "proclaim christ" -- i just can't picture what you mean...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Giulia
Again I say theat when we choose to be His witnesses we also take on the responsibility of living a life worthy of the calling.

absolutely. i agree wholeheartedly. we are living epistles.



techne -> RE: the calling of an artist... (3/31/2008 10:55:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Giulia
The psalms, are also full of songs of praise to God. Many of them are asking for the help of the Lord or uplifting the Lord, prayers of faith in times of distress, confidence in God's triumph over evil, praise, answer to prayer, joy of forgiveness, protection from the enemy, meditation in Him and even comfort in the flesh.

We also know king David used to dance, even in the nude, not saying we should dance in the nude, I would but it may offend some and it may also encourage some to think the wrong way, so better keep the clothes on. We know that in the last days the tabernacle of David in Acts 15:16 shall be rebuilt. There was music, dance and the tent would've also been quite beautiful to the eye I dare say.

All the dangers of the flesh and all the temptations shall still be there so we need to be very dilligent not to repeat the mistakes made through history, rather to learn from them.

fair enough. and that is, i think, part of why being an artist needs to be taken very seriously. it's a dangerous thing to work with art. it requires intelligence, sensitivity, awareness, skill...attentiveness. it is not frivolous. it is not a game. art has consequences.



Giulia -> RE: the calling of an artist... (4/1/2008 12:27:21 AM)

Firstly I must say that I am glad you didn't chicken out! I am impressed. Right now I am in a hurry as I have a class at uni, will get back soon, am organizing a forum with a film director and want to be well informed for it so please excuse the time delay.



techne -> RE: the calling of an artist... (4/1/2008 9:23:54 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Giulia
Some have absoloutely zero talent yet are annointed.

i'm not sure i believe that. in any case, i am discussing artists -- i'm not sure i believe that someone without any talent or ability will be annointed when they make and present their creative endeavours...it sounds like some christian urban myth. some examples, please?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Giulia
Not sure we are on the same page regarding an annointing, can you please define an annointing ?

you go first [;)] -- i think this was already discussed (in part) earlier...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Giulia
Also I must make clear that it has become increasingly difficult for me to believe many accounts of history so, apart from the bible, I question the view of the person making the account, whose camp were they in? What type of motivation did they have and all that. I don't think any one of us can safely say we have been given full accounts of history as the point of view of the meek ones may have very well been ignored or ommited.

as in the biographies of michelangelo and rembrandt? [;)] but you're right, we should question (analyze, determine) who is speaking when we read any account. okay then -- let's not use examples other than the bible...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Giulia
Indeed throughout the bible we hear of the anger of God destroying the beauty of creation because it does not rememeber or regard its creator- La 2 is just one of the examples I have, so we see there is something greater than what we are able to create and even when it points to God I think too often it ends up getting praised of itself.

again, this may be true, but it does not mean art is wrong, or that artists aren't called. G-d didn't destroy creation or nations because of art, but because of people's hearts going astray.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Giulia
Another verse that comes to mind that speaks about satan having music in him before he is cast down. He has music in him, and I am sure he creates much music still, only for me it is noise [Is 14:11].

not sure how this relates. let me reiterate -- anything can be abused and misused -- that does not disqualify that thing. the music satan made wasn't the issue...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Giulia
How often do we see the veneration of an artist simply because what they do is appealing? Like their music or they make you bop or they are popular actors and have good bodies or a good looking nose or their painting is like really defined and brings you to the moment of like wow man, or they have made something else that makes go wow, not necessarily bring us closer to God, nevertheless enthrals us and captures our attention because it looks good.

again, this can be applied to anything -- we venerate preachers and authors too (and perhaps even improperly i.e. idolatrously). so do we abandon those things because people interact with them wrongly? no. we teach and train and help put the focus where it should be.

and besides, i don't think an artist's job or responsibility is necessarily to make anything "appealing". an artist's job is to (re)present Truth.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Giulia
How often do artists get idolised. The world is full of it. I know some people who become awe struck by other people simply because they are actors it's crazy because they are just copying someone or talking about someone else's life.

see above. though i would say these artists (by which you seem to mean hollywood actors and rich musical artists) are idolized because of their lifestyles - it's not the art itself...many artists (in any medium, but also many in the 2 cited above) are not idolized. i would also neture to guess that many historical artistic figures are idolized, again, for their current fame. nobody wants to be in the situation van gogh was in while he was alive, but they wouldn't mind his current fame (by which i mean the value of his paintings).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Giulia
I have even heard people call someone annointed simply because they can hit many notes with their voice.

yes -- sometimes it's difficult to determine if something is merely talent (which is still G-d given) or annointed (which is also from G-d -- i think that something or someone who is annointed brings healing and freedom and fruitfulness by the holy spirit). but someone who is gifted or talented in an area can be annointed when they use that gift. i would argue that is the norm rather than the exception. as well, neither does having a talent or ability disqualify you from being annointed when you exercise that ability. bear in mind, i'm not talking about miracles here.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Giulia
This is talent the way the world knows it and I am sure satan can do it better than most. Moses certainly wasn't chosen because he had the talent of a communicator, he was chosen because of his heart and faithfulness because he cared and protected the people with his life. He even stuttered.

yes, and G-d rebuked him for his cowardice, and so gave him aaron as his mouthpiece. but wasn't moses raised as a prince of egypt? you don't think he was being prepared to rule from a young age? wouldn't that also touch on his conduct and speech (especially as egyptian royals were considered divinity or at least godlike)? what is the cultural context for someone in moses' position?

but that isn't what i'm talking about. i'm talking about artists. even if bezalel and aholiab (and the entire team of artisans they oversaw) were only annointed that one time to work on the tabernacle, they had still developed "natural" skills and talents beforehand as slaves. they had the ability and skills already -- at least, that's what the bible says.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Giulia
These are all reservations that come up for me when I think of the calling of an artist.

but you haven't really discussed "the calling of the artist". artists. none of your examples are of artists and, since you say you don't put much stock in historical examples, you haven't addressed those passages in scripture that do, in fact, speak of art and artists. i don't think your points are necessarily irrelevant, but they're not really salient to the core discussion either. further, your contemporary examples repeatedly state that it is possible for people to end up focussing on the wrong thing (and therefore not jesus - due to our propensity to idolatry), but it is also equally possible that people will. that's why i think the calling of an artist (in any medium) also carries with it a solemn responsibility (which is, actually, something i think many artists ignore). it's tricky.



techne -> RE: the calling of an artist... (4/1/2008 9:35:26 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Giulia
Firstly I must say that I am glad you didn't chicken out! I am impressed. Right now I am in a hurry as I have a class at uni, will get back soon, am organizing a forum with a film director and want to be well informed for it so please excuse the time delay.

why would i chicken out? i enjoy discussing, debating, arguing...[;)]



Dancre -> RE: the calling of an artist... (4/1/2008 7:19:49 PM)

quote:

I guess i see that target market as a community. "the community" is those you write for, or present your work to. i think some communities will receive your work better than others. i don't mean that they determine how and what you write -- never compromise the work but that there are people who you want to impact and engage with, and part of the responsibility of the artist is to figure out who you want to speak with and how best to do that.

perhaps audience would be a better term? in any case, there's a choice made by the artist (or agent, i guess - patron?) as to where and when they present (share?) their work.


Yes, audience, community, target market same things. All I can tell you is to do whatever God tells you to do. Some will like, some won't. Some revolve their lives around their doctrine, others, the word of God. You really have to get a tough skin. The more you dig into God and the more you obey His voice, the more the religious right will scream foul. You have to get to the point where you are able to block out their voices. Example: My first novel was a Christian spy novel. It involved terrorists, a pastor and an ex-CIA hitman. I loved it. Anyway, the religious folks frowned on it. It wasn't about Jesus. [8|] Whatever. I wasn't able to sell it b/c it was so horribly written. [&o] Now I"m doing YA's but I'd like to sell that book one day. We'll see. Anyway, you will always have folks who frown on what you do. Whatever.

As for an annointing. Well, I just get things from God and I scribble them down. He's given me the COOLEST!!!!!!!! ideas. I mean, blown away cool!! I find my best ideas come from Him. I've learned I won't approach my writing without God at my side. I can't write without Him. It just doesn't work.

kim



Dancre -> RE: the calling of an artist... (4/1/2008 7:28:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: techne

quote:

ORIGINAL: growingseed
techne - "learning a new language" and "everything should point to the cross". i'd be interested in hearing more about those thoughts...

Pick a form and explain to me that it can't be pointed to the cross.

actually - i asked you to explain to me how "any art form" can be pointed to the cross. [;)] i personally don't think that's necessary for a christian artist, nor do i think it's really possible in any consistent, direct way. certainly not without eliminating a huge amount of perfectly acceptable subject matter. again, what about my example of the floral painter? i guess my struggle with your point is that i find the idea pretty abstract and i'm afraid i can't envision the practical applications -- it seems pretty limited in scope (though i don't deny or disparage the impulse - i just want to understand some practical applications).

i absolutely agree that somehow we creatives are to point towards the Truth (and ultimately christ) with our creative enterprises, but i think the subject matter and the possibilities for doing so are pretty open. i also think that our lives are still the primary mode of pointing people to christ. our creative work is just another tool, seed, door...


Don't get so tied up in the legal aspect of God that you lose what God has called you to do. Look at John Grisham. He doesn't write Christian Novels. His are all secular, except for The Testament. And he loves God. YEt this is what God has called him to do. Of course the religious will rise up and gasp!! A heretic!! Whatever. [8|] God called Grisham to write and this is his arena. Secular books. So don't get caught up in the nonsense docrines garbage. Just do what Jesus tells you to do. :)

kim



techne -> RE: the calling of an artist... (4/1/2008 8:14:47 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dancre
quote:

ORIGINAL: techne
quote:

ORIGINAL: growingseed
techne - "learning a new language" and "everything should point to the cross". i'd be interested in hearing more about those thoughts...

Pick a form and explain to me that it can't be pointed to the cross.

actually - i asked you to explain to me how "any art form" can be pointed to the cross. [;)] i personally don't think that's necessary for a christian artist, nor do i think it's really possible in any consistent, direct way. certainly not without eliminating a huge amount of perfectly acceptable subject matter. again, what about my example of the floral painter? i guess my struggle with your point is that i find the idea pretty abstract and i'm afraid i can't envision the practical applications -- it seems pretty limited in scope (though i don't deny or disparage the impulse - i just want to understand some practical applications).

i absolutely agree that somehow we creatives are to point towards the Truth (and ultimately christ) with our creative enterprises, but i think the subject matter and the possibilities for doing so are pretty open. i also think that our lives are still the primary mode of pointing people to christ. our creative work is just another tool, seed, door...

Don't get so tied up in the legal aspect of God that you lose what God has called you to do. Look at John Grisham. He doesn't write Christian Novels. His are all secular, except for The Testament. And he loves God. YEt this is what God has called him to do. Of course the religious will rise up and gasp!! A heretic!! Whatever. [8|] God called Grisham to write and this is his arena. Secular books. So don't get caught up in the nonsense docrines garbage. Just do what Jesus tells you to do.

was this for me? anyway, i don't think i am, actually. in fact, other than the work i do specifically to serve the church, my work doesn't really fit that grid. which is fine. it's also not where i'm specifically called to speak. it's interesting to me, when i tell people that i have an exhibition coming up, that i am often asked if it's a "christian" exhibition or if i'm exhibiting with christian artists. out of 20 years of exhibiting my work and publishing my writing, i've only exhibited in a "christian" context once. well...maybe twice. on the other hand, i think that my work is always about inserting a christian world view (i.e. the Truth) into its particular cultural context. then again, i don't subscribe to the sacred/ secular division. we may want to label grisham's books as 'secular' but as far as i am concerned the stories (as morality tales) are as christian as any number of "christian books". but that's about engaging theologically rather than religiously. which i much prefer.



Walker311 -> RE: the calling of an artist... (4/1/2008 9:36:26 PM)

I feel that someone who truly loves God will find it impossible to keep from leaking what is in his/her heart whether they are an artist or not. It would be a good thing if someone got saved due to another person's witness even if that person just happened to be a Christian painter who never painted anything with religious overtones or colors.



Giulia -> RE: the calling of an artist... (4/2/2008 7:22:08 AM)

quote:

i'm not worried about christians who are human -- it's the ones who seem perfect that frighten me...


yet we are called to be perfect 1 Peter 5:10, Matt 5:48 "be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect", Ph 3:15, Co 1:28 & 4:12, Jas 1:4, Jas 3:2 (for the one who is able to bridle the tongue).

quote:

yes, and G-d rebuked him for his cowardice, and so gave him aaron as his mouthpiece. but wasn't moses raised as a prince of egypt? you don't think he was being prepared to rule from a young age?
wouldn't that also touch on his conduct and speech (especially as egyptian royals were considered divinity or at least godlike)? what is the cultural context for someone in moses' position?


perhaps Moses took some prodding to take up his position, but cowardice? That is the last thing I would say about Moses. He even killed a guy to protect one of his people.

Certainly he would've been torn between the culture he was brought up in and the culture he was born in, I think he would've picked up a lot of cultural traits from the Egyptians, but in his heart he was always a Jew. As a man thinks in his heart so is he and I don't think Moses was terribly focused on the Egyptian values either. In his heart he was a Jew so he was a Jew.

Yes he may have picked up speech and kingly cultures, however he may have still had nerves and anxiety etc, you can't describe a person wholly purely by the culture they have been brought up in, there are other personal factors that make up the whole human.

quote:

and besides, i don't think an artist's job or responsibility is necessarily to make anything "appealing". an artist's job is to (re)present Truth.


like how? Truth is all around us, how can painting something that already is be any more truth than what it is already?


quote:

you go first -- i think this was already discussed (in part) earlier...


This is a whole new thread and new discussion not necessarily about art either. In a sentence an anointing is like olive oil in a Spiritual form which brings joy and healing, freedom and peace.

quote:

i don't think your points are necessarily irrelevant, but they're not really salient to the core discussion either. further, your contemporary examples repeatedly state that it is possible for people to end up focussing on the wrong thing (and therefore not jesus - due to our propensity to idolatry), but it is also equally possible that people will.


Artists are not excluded from the general population, their work is specific but so is everyone elses work.

The bible talks about the callings of an apostle, prophet, administrator, teacher etc, I think an artist is one of these. When you study literature or languages it's called Bachelor or Masters of Art, so by definition it is art.

How about Joni Eke..... (yeah can't spell her name!), see what she painted with her mouth? That is amazing! She got the focus for that from teh Holy Spirit, that is why her work is so fine. Nevertheless she has not spent the rest of her life painting in her own ivory castle, she knows Christianity is more than that and her calling is more than that, same with every Christian.

Sitting in a room painting or writing or sculpting or dancing and spending no time outside of that is not about what being a Christian is all about. How arrogant to think we are able to do a canvas any justice outside of what God has already created, really (when you think about it).



techne -> RE: the calling of an artist... (4/2/2008 10:55:42 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Giulia
quote:

i'm not worried about christians who are human -- it's the ones who seem perfect that frighten me...

yet we are called to be perfect 1 Peter 5:10, Matt 5:48 "be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect", Ph 3:15, Co 1:28 & 4:12, Jas 1:4, Jas 3:2 (for the one who is able to bridle the tongue).

well, okay -- let me know when you get there...[;)] yes, we are supposed to imitate the father in every way. sometimes i do better than others. and yet, all have sinned and come short of the glory of G-d. the fact remains, we generally aren't perfect. i guess by "christians who seem perfect" i'm really saying religious (i.e. proud) christians. you don't need to trumpet your righteousness.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Giulia
quote:

yes, and G-d rebuked him for his cowardice, and so gave him aaron as his mouthpiece. but wasn't moses raised as a prince of egypt? you don't think he was being prepared to rule from a young age?
wouldn't that also touch on his conduct and speech (especially as egyptian royals were considered divinity or at least godlike)? what is the cultural context for someone in moses' position?

perhaps Moses took some prodding to take up his position, but cowardice? That is the last thing I would say about Moses. He even killed a guy to protect one of his people.

yeah, in a rage. and secretly. and then he fled. and when G-d commissioned him to go and gather the israelites he came up with a series of excuses -- perhaps you have a different word for that? read exodus 2 and 3, and G-d's response (he was angry at moses) in exodus 4.14. ultimately though (as moses himself wrote [:D]) he became known as the humblest man on earth. pretty good recovery, i'd say.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Giulia
Certainly he would've been torn between the culture he was brought up in and the culture he was born in, I think he would've picked up a lot of cultural traits from the Egyptians, but in his heart he was always a Jew. As a man thinks in his heart so is he and I don't think Moses was terribly focused on the Egyptian values either. In his heart he was a Jew so he was a Jew.

well...this is an assumption. he was 40 before he left egypt -- plenty of time to have a real sense of himself as an egyptian. andthen he spent 40 years in the wilderness as a shepherd, and so would have had a sense of identity in that way. and then, when he came to the israelites they rejected him -- mostly because they didn't know him and he wasn't seen as a jew. so it's really conjecture and of little consequence whether or not moses thought of himself as a jew in his heart. regardless, moses certainly brought some of his training and education to his administration while wandering withhis people. i think that the struggle between those cultural mindsets was probably always there with moses. much as it would have been for daniel (or any exile for that matter).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Giulia
Yes he may have picked up speech and kingly cultures, however he may have still had nerves and anxiety etc, you can't describe a person wholly purely by the culture they have been brought up in, there are other personal factors that make up the whole human.

true, but their culture and upbringing certainly does factor in...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Giulia
quote:

and besides, i don't think an artist's job or responsibility is necessarily to make anything "appealing". an artist's job is to (re)present Truth.

like how? Truth is all around us, how can painting something that already is be any more truth than what it is already?

i'm not talking about simply re-presenting the world around us...i'm not quite sure i understand your line of reasoning here -- could you clarify what you mean?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Giulia
quote:

you go first -- i think this was already discussed (in part) earlier...

This is a whole new thread and new discussion not necessarily about art either. In a sentence an anointing is like olive oil in a Spiritual form which brings joy and healing, freedom and peace.

okay. though i wouldn't say it is like olive oil in a spiritual form. if you read my posts you saw that we almost used the same terms regarding the effects and results of the annointing at work. at its base, the annointing is the [presence of] the holy spirit. in the old testament, as a figure or shadow of the new, it was literally oil. now it is figuratively or metaphorically oil, though the effects or symbolism of the annointing oil are the same.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Giulia
quote:

i don't think your points are necessarily irrelevant, but they're not really salient to the core discussion either. further, your contemporary examples repeatedly state that it is possible for people to end up focussing on the wrong thing (and therefore not jesus - due to our propensity to idolatry), but it is also equally possible that people will.

Artists are not excluded from the general population, their work is specific but so is everyone elses work.

but is it artists and art (in whatever medium) specifically that cause you to worry about idolatry? or - in the context of the general population - are you equally worried about a cobbler or a chef being a cause of idolatry? you've used the threat of idolatry as a criticism or warning for artists and art, but i'm saying that idolatry is a human propensity (we are made to worship, and we will worship something, sometimes anything) and art shouldn't be used as a scapegoat.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Giulia
The bible talks about the callings of an apostle, prophet, administrator, teacher etc, I think an artist is one of these. When you study literature or languages it's called Bachelor or Masters of Art, so by definition it is art.

so you think it is a calling, but don't think that artists can be annointed? or you think that an artist as a vocation can be part of one walking out a calling as a pastor or teacher or administrator? just trying to clarify.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Giulia
How about Joni Eke..... (yeah can't spell her name!), see what she painted with her mouth? That is amazing! She got the focus for that from teh Holy Spirit, that is why her work is so fine.

i'm not sure whatthis is in response to...anyway, it's joni eareckson-tada, and she has started a wonderful foundation for facilitating ministry among the disabled community. what i know about her story is that art gave her a way to deal with a very deep depression (a testimony to the healing and therapeutic effects of simply making art) and worked very diligently at it for several years before she started showing them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Giulia
Nevertheless she has not spent the rest of her life painting in her own ivory castle, she knows Christianity is more than that and her calling is more than that, same with every Christian.

not sure where this came from, but i agree wholeheartedly -- if someone fancies themself an artist (in any medium) and they only make work for themselves, i would argue they are not an artist. then again, i think artists perform a function in society, and that function is communicative and social. otherwise it's therapy.[&:]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Giulia
Sitting in a room painting or writing or sculpting or dancing and spending no time outside of that is not about what being a Christian is all about.

nor is it what being an artist is all about, either.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Giulia
How arrogant to think we are able to do a canvas any justice outside of what God has already created, really (when you think about it).

that's not the point. it's not about re-creating the world around us, it's about saying something about that world and our place in it.



Dancre -> RE: the calling of an artist... (4/2/2008 7:44:05 PM)

quote:

was this for me? anyway, i don't think i am, actually. in fact, other than the work i do specifically to serve the church, my work doesn't really fit that grid. which is fine. it's also not where i'm specifically called to speak. it's interesting to me, when i tell people that i have an exhibition coming up, that i am often asked if it's a "christian" exhibition or if i'm exhibiting with christian artists. out of 20 years of exhibiting my work and publishing my writing, i've only exhibited in a "christian" context once. on the other hand, i think that my work is always about inserting a christian world view (i.e. the Truth) into its particular cultural context. then again, i don't subscribe to the sacred/ secular division. we may want to label grisham's books as 'secular' but as far as i am concerned the stories (as morality tales) are as christian as any number of "christian books". but that's about engaging theologically rather than religiously. which i much prefer.


No, no, no. It's more for those who hand you a list of does and don'ts. I think you are on the right track. Don't let others pull you aside and hand you their lists. :)

kim



Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI