A friend recently asked me how my beliefs influence my art. Articulating subtle impulses and emotions is a difficult thing to do. However, in an effort to bring a bit more clarity to what I personally consider an important topic, I will attempt to express some of my thoughts on the subject.
The question isn’t new. Great artists of the past such as Corot and Inness had a deep connection to nature and saw their art as a spiritual pursuit. George Inness said: "The true end of Art is not to imitate a fixed material condition, but to represent a living motion,” and added "the intelligence to be conveyed by it is not of an outer fact, but of an inner life." In the painters mind these Swedenborgian beliefs of “inner life” and “living motion” are given a higher priority than ocular observations and other temporal aspects of nature. These beliefs had a profound influence in both Inness’s choice of subject and manner of painting. Although our beliefs don’t completely match up, I do believe that there is a spirit in all living things and it is this spirit that animates and gives life, meaning and significance to the forms, textures, colors in the natural world. However I don’t stop there, the inner light and significance of these form is coupled by the equally significant what I call the “outer light” given by our sun. The additional focus on outer light adds for me an extra layer of meaning and study in my work and inspires me to see beauty in even the most mundane things. In this sense I’m not trying to see beyond the temporal world toward a more transcendent beauty but instead seeing the spiritual and temporal as a marriage where both play an equal and important role in my work.
Corot expressed similar feelings when he stated: “Beauty in art is truth bathed in an impression received from nature. I am struck upon seeing a certain place. While I strive for conscientious imitation, I yet never for an instant lose the emotion that has taken hold of me.” The balance between the “conscientious imitation” and “emotion” is where I feel significance and beauty lie.
Some wonder why, at the beginning of the 20th century, serious art was no longer made to be beautiful and in many ways beauty in art was to be eventually despised and rendered insignificant. Perhaps it was due simply to a loss of belief.
I understand in a post-modern world where secularism is king, my belief in God, spirit, and beauty could be seen as heresy or at best naïve. However, if we wish to advance as a society and turn the tide of pollution and ugliness that exist today, perhaps we need belief and beauty as never before.





9 comments:
Well said Bryan. The absolute best part about plein air painting is experiencing that spiritual connection with the beauty of the landscape around you.
Bryan, your work has great integrity. This blog you wrote on “Beauty and Belief” is very moving and inspiring to me. Spiritualism in art shows through the artists work. Some things in life and art are inseparable and you have expressed the connection of these qualities of beauty and spirit well. Thank you.
I'm thankful for your inspirational post today. Cheers!
Bryan, whenever this topic comes up it invariably overlooks a central point, that the aesthetics of art (often confused with the idea of 'purpose'...) shifted dramatically away from the ideal shortly after WWI. The unspeakable horrors of that war, what we did to ourselves, and our ability to record the horror with photography forever changed the world's definition of beauty. Then, of course, we had the Great Depression and WWII, and the Cold War shortly thereafter.
All of which made it difficult for large groups of people (educated or not) to accept any idealized form of art. Or overly romanticized nostalgia.
Having said that, I don't believe it is the job of any artist to do anything other than follow their own mores and beliefs with great passion and effort -- to draw upon their own experience and share it with the world. (assuming they want to do so.) We have all seen painters who become so mercenary or treacly with their work that it lacks substance. And equally, we've seen artists who deliberately exploit the morbid to gain undeserved attention.
IMHO, one of the first questions I ask after I set up my easel is "Do I paint it pretty, or real?"
Whatever follows sets the tone for the work.
Looking forward to seeing you again sometime this summer. Love your ariel paintings...
Thomas Kitts
http://www.thomaskitts.com
http://www.thomaskitts.blogspot.com
Thomas,
I appreciate your additions to the discussion. Certainly WWI and photography had an influence on art in the 20th century. However, I would like to add that the underpinnings and tenets of modernism were sown in the period of the Enlightenment, the protestant reformation and the rise of scientific inquiry.
Perhaps one of the reasons why large groups in the 20th century couldn't agree on an aesthetic is because nobody agreed on the purpose, significance or meaning of life.
I'm not saying its a bad thing necessarily (we live in a much more tolerant society thankfully) just that aesthetic relativism and the rise of "Ugly" as a legitimate art form is perhaps a byproduct of secularism's response to the atrocities of life. Indeed many feel that beauty is a lie and ugly is truth.
Devastating wars have been fought in every age yet in the past those horrific events were depicted in tragic yet beautiful and conciliatory ways. Those ways were conceived, nurtured and fueled by philosophical and religious sentiment. Take those beliefs away and the aesthetic will change.
Hmmm, Interesting thoughts but I'm not sure I can wholly agree.
I enjoy being out in nature. I love sunsets, storms, trees, cows, waves, mountains, people, buildings, cars, boats...
For the most part, I love the light and that's what I try to paint.
While faith is clearly a driving force for many people, I get my enjoyment from nature without attributing any of it to a higher realm or spiritual force.
For me, it just is and I'm happy with that.
Andy,
I agree that anyone can appreciate and seek after beauty regardless of what they believe and that perhaps it isn’t necessary or even desirable for many to look for a deeper meaning as long as it strikes an emotion in the viewer. However, when we wonder why beauty in contemporary art
isn't taken seriously in many of today's museums and institutions, I have to scratch my head and ask: Where did we go wrong?
I won't disagree that there's some depressingly bizarre stuff that passes for art in today's galleries.
Bravo, IMHO Corot had it right. Great post.
Post a Comment