This afternoon at the Cherry Street Artisan, the Center on Religion & the Professions will be holding a special presentation entitled, “Sacred Expressions: Journeys in Faith & Art.”
The event is set to begin with a panel discussion lasting until 5:30, followed by a reception, and ending with performances. As the title suggests, the event will discuss how religion and art work together.
I will be blogging live from the Artisan all afternoon. Feel free to leave comments on the site or email religiouslife@missouri.edu
4:00
Panel Moderator David Clark opened the panel by asking the panelists to discuss their role of art in their spiritual journeys. Religious studies scholar and musician Justin Arft first discussed the role of a spiritual community.
The second question asked “Is art religion?” MU English professor Scott Cairns stated that it the question of whether not religion is art, is similar to the question, “is poetry prayer?” While they very similar, still differ. Justin Arft cited his working definition of religion that involves “human transformation” as a key component. He then went on to say, “In that sense, art can be that human transformation... if art is the ultimate goal.” Arft also stated, “By that definition, religion could be an art, but it still lacks a higher being.”
The discussion then shifted to the idea of an artist’s relationship with his or her medium. The key issue at stake, whether an artist chooses his or her medium, or if the medium chooses the artist. The panelists expressed views on both sides of the spectrum. They also discussed the fact that some mediums might come more naturally to one, but at the same time they must continue to practice and work at developing their ability to work with that medium.
The next question dealt with the idea of art as a vocation or art as a choice. Cairns first suggested the idea that art is a vocation. Michael Marcum, a local sculptor, believed that for him, it could not be a vocation because there was no community to support art as a vocation. Arft spoke about his role in the planning of the True/False Festival, in that there was a community that worked together to plan the event.
4:15
After the discussion of art as a vocation, there was a pause to open the floor to questions from the audience.
The questions led to a return to the idea of art as an ultimacy. Cairns spoke about the idea that art was not quite the end. While Arft, whose art, is music spoke about the role time plays in music. Suggesting that when one is playing music they are wholly devoted to that moment and the music. Continuing that idea of a moment individually, Arft took it to another level when discussing the same feeling in a community environment, playing music with others. Another audience member wondered if one can have a similar experience when listening or viewing art. Arft described it as a “sense of art.” Cairns jokingly said, “ I know I’m at a good reading when I keep reaching into my pocket.” Which led to the idea of getting inspiration from previous work. Which holds especially true for authors. Cairns claimed that he begins writing by reading and waiting until he reads something that initiates a response within him.
Moderator David Clark then asked the artists whether or not their view their work as truth. Cairns reflected on the idea that we, “mistake what we know as truth.” Or that people both religious and non-religious place things that they think they know in the place of truth. Arft described the difference of viewing art before and after having that same piece explained.
4:30
The panelists then discussed the importance of whether or not those who view their work get the same ideas and messages that the artist intended. The panelists all agreed that the audience did not have to get the intended or same meaning as the artist.
The panelists then discussed the experience of revisiting their work. They also discussed whether or not art is static. Cairns suggested that the actual art may not be static, but when one rereads something the way they view the art may change.
4:45
A question from the audience asked the panelists to discuss the religion’s view of art, as opposed to art’s view of religion, which had been the primary focus so far in the panel.
Moderator David Clark cited the New Testament where craftsmen were honored, he also discussed the idea of God creating all. Arft discussed the experiences of individuals who believe they belong to a religion primarily and artist second, where the art expresses religion. He also discussed the differences in how art is viewed by a variety of different world religions.
5:00
Another audience member questioned whether or not when an artists was creating their art if they felt they were in connection with some sort of higher being. Michael recalled instances where he would find himself in a rut and then something would happen where all of a sudden he was able to make progress without really knowing how that happened.
I then proposed the question asked below by reader Joseph Montgomery, Cairns responded, “God would be better at it.” He believes the idea of God working through human beings, to be a very unlikely proposition. The panelists continued to elaborate on the idea of inspiration. They referred back to the previously discussed model in which one is in a dialogue with a higher being, which they find better than the idea of having a higher being working through the artist.
Another audience member asked about the relationship of one’s artistic and religious or spiritual journey. Cairns returned to the idea of vocations of different mediums within the “realm of art.” Cairns described the journey as a devotion and effort into developing the craft. Arft compared the similarities of the journeys of Buddha and Jesus. In terms of how they both put the same energy and attention to their mission.
5:15
An audience member asked the panelists to role of evil interplayed between art, spirituality and ethics. Arft cited a recent incident involving someone hanging a dog and allowing the dog to starve. He suggested that he shouldn’t allow art to hurt anyone or anything.
The next question: “is it ethically easier to be an atheist?” which was then modified as to whether an artist has a ethical or prophetic responsibility to the community. When discussing ethics the main issue discussed was the feelings within the artist. In continuation there was extensive discussion about whether or not artists have a higher standard of ethics in comparison with the rest of the community.
5:30
The last question dealt with the issue that if faithful believe unconditionally and do not doubt their religion, how can artists be faithful and at the same time bring up questions through their work. Arft suggested that the “pushing” is done rather by the viewers than by the artists. The panel also questioned the notion that faith accepted their beliefs unconditionally.
What is hte panels opinion on paintings whose authors claim to have channeled from a higher being?(or been divinely inspired to paint)
Posted by: Joseph W. Montgomery IV. | April 12, 2008 at 04:46 PM