Greg Tapler * Bridget George* Stan Stewart * Ben Loyd * Rob Aptaker * Joshua Homnick * Anisa George * Mark Perry * Jackie Tice * Bill George
Everything is Permitted
I’m opening up the subject and inviting one and all to contribute, if you will, to a discussion about “what is permitted”.
Here’s my two cents.
When dealing with art work that has an interest in the spiritual, the sacred, I often come across a lot of “pretty” work or work that makes assumptions about how important it is “to be nice”, promote “good” things, be symmetrical or use soft uplifting colors and ornament the work with symbols like a Cross or the Star of David or…you fill in the blank. Do you know what I’m talking about? And I can understand that. I perceive spirituality as something that is in opposition to my animal nature, that slough I have to drag myself out of when I awake in the morning. This way of thinking says that spiritual art is something that helps draw me away from the painful or boring, anxiety ridden or lusty, particulars of this dog eat dog world by pushing away from it towards this preconceived opposite. Not tense–Peaceful. Not frightening–Loving. Not dark–Light.
For instance, one couldn’t possibly use the word “f..k” in a spiritual piece. (There, now I’ve gone and done it. This can’t be a spiritual meditation.) One can’t do a spiritual piece on pornography. One can’t do a spiritual piece that’s any good and have it showing sacred figures in an “unacceptable way”. Different traditions have different taboos.
I’m of the belief, presently (and constantly evolving) that everything is permitted. As a Baha’i I am not allowed in dramatic presentations to portray the person of the Manifestation of God (Jesus, Buddha, Moses, Muhammad, Zoroaster, Baha’u'llah), as this is seen as insulting by definition. And I accept this. I think it’s wise. We can talk more about this at some later time perhaps, but other than that…I work from the point that everything is permitted, certainly at first, and then it depends on what one’s objectives are, what the call of “truth” demands.
July 18
One of the issues, to put it bluntly, is sex and violence. We associate, and rightly so I think, spirituality with purity and chastity. And with those virtues we believe that sex and forcefulness to the point of “violence”–a subjective judgement if ever there was one, on all of this, really–is to be left out of our work. That’s perhaps a good idea, but I think that if we can have work that “fires on all chakras”, not just the upper ones, we’ll have more powerful work. Our sacred will be more fully expressed–that it should not be confined to some non-erotic world. Doing this tastefully is a challenge, and I’d be interested if anyone has a sense of “the rules” that surround this particular aspect of “spiritual art”.
What do you think? Log in and help me out here. Post your thoughts–how does it work, this spiritual thing?
Interesting topic….
As a deeply spiritual songwriter and visual artist, I’ve certainly had the occasion to use profanity and sexuality as topics in word and image. The question is always, “does it work for the work at hand?”
Sometimes there is a better way to express without so-called “shock,” but as an artist, I demand honesty. Well, actually, it is the ART itself that demands honesty. If the honesty comes forth as an expletive or as allegory, it is truly my responsibility to “print it” as it is.
Spirituality and Art can be expressed synonymously we know, but all things sacred are extremely subjective, depending on your walk of life. I consider sacred things that others find ridiculous. So it goes. We live in a world defined by many.
A caveat though: I find my expression of art changing organically, not by choice, because of my spiritual growth. I don’t feel the need to say F— except once or twice a year anymore…..what’s with that!?!!! But yeah…it did feel good to write that!! hahaha
all peace…
jackie
9 aug 2011