Power of Art - Van Gogh

Week 3- and it was Van Gogh. The story of his life is powerful and tragic. Indeed, his own life a wrestling of faith, evangleism and the descent into the raw fabric of life among those 'outcast' and in the gutter. He may have been no preacher, but through the torment of the life communicated in his art there is meaning conveyed. I am no art critic, but I stand amazed and in awe at the shift from the darkness of the potato eaters to the transformed and brilliantly colourful world of his later works.

See here the Wheatfield with Crows(1890)

Schama says, "His art would reclaim what had once belonged to religion - consolation for our mortality through the relish of the gift of life. It wasn't the art crowd he was after; he wanted was to open the eyes and the hearts of everyone who saw his paintings. I feel he got what he wanted. So what are we looking at with this painting? There’s suffocation, but elation too. The crows might be coming at us, but equally they might be flying away, demons gone as we immerse ourselves in the power of nature. It's a massive wall of writhing brilliant paint, in which the colour itself seems to tremble and pulse and sway."

What intrigues me is wha must have been going on in his head. The tensions of the grind and brokenness of his life and that of others he had immersed himself in and yet this wonderful artistic genius that had him paint a painting a day at one stage, the rapid energy that poured out of him and generated such artworks and yet drained him of his very life too.

Recently we reflected upon Psalm 8 at the Caim readings. As I look at van Gogh's art here it comes to mind:

PSALM 8
1 God, brilliant Lord, yours is a household name. 2 Nursing infants gurgle choruses about you; toddlers shout the songs That drown out enemy talk, and silence atheist babble.
3 I look up at your macro-skies, dark and enormous, your handmade sky-jewelry, Moon and stars mounted in their settings. 4 Then I look at my micro-self and wonder, Why do you bother with us? Why take a second look our way? 5 Yet we've so narrowly missed being gods, bright with Eden's dawn light. 6 You put us in charge of your handcrafted world, repeated to us your Genesis-charge, 7 Made us lords of sheep and cattle, even animals out in the wild, 8 Birds flying and fish swimming, whales singing in the ocean deeps. 9 God, brilliant Lord, your name echoes around the world.

Power of Art - Rembrandt

Week 2 of Simon Scama's Power of art explored Rembrandt van Rijn (1606 - 1669)

A man of humble birth who came to know the good life basically. Sounds like he and his rich wife could 'shop to you drop'. Amazing portraits and yet after the death of hsi wife his paitings begin to change from the very finished dutch style to a rougher 'incompleteness' is suggested, but et how powerful. He also seems to have been an artist who knew what the people wanted and could provide it in his art. The painting Schama focussed upon was one destoned for the City Chambers of Amsterdam

Schama says,

"Claudius Civilis is a painting drunk on its own wildness. It is a painting that would not just be the ruin of Rembrandt's comeback, but also the ruin of his greatest vision. Or so I think, for I can't be sure. None of us can, because we don't know what the big picture looked like. What we're looking at here is a fragment, a fifth of the original size, the bit rescued from Rembrandt's knife. This may just be the most heartbreaking fragment in the entire history of painting. The painting was commissioned as a stirring depiction of the legendary story of how the Dutch nation came to be born. What they got was Rembrandt's version of history: ugliness, deformity, barbarism; a bunch of cackling louts, onion chewers and bloody-minded rebels. The paint slashed and stabbed, caked on like the make up of warriors. Despite making him bankrupt he's saying: these are your flesh and blood, rough and honest, your barbarian ancestry. They made you Dutch."

A brave thing really - yet how powerful this art was and is.

The Return of the Prodigal is of course a favourite, made more so by Henri Nouwen's book on the painting.

"Often I have asked friends to give me their first impression of Rembrandt's Prodigal Son. Inevitably, they point to the wise old man who forgives his son: the benevolent patriarch.
"The longer I look at 'the patriarch', the clearer it becomes to me that Rembrandt has done something quite different from letting God pose as the wise old head of a family. It all began with the hands. The two are quite different. The father's left hand touching the son's shoulder is strong and muscular. The fingers are spread out and cover a large part of the prodigal son's shoulder and back. I can see a certain pressure, especially in the thumb. That hand seems not only to touch, but, with its strength, also to hold. Even though there is a gentleness in the way the father's left hand touches his son, it is not without a firm grip." (excerpt)

However, from the programme I was introduced briefly to his painting of Simeon. Here is the old man almost overwhelmed and his hands holding Jesus yet almost prayerful at the same time. A reverence.

Power of Art- Caravaggio

Here in NZ a new series by Simon Schama on the 'Power of Art' is now running Sunday nights.

I want to use tis for my own reflection as one who enjoys art.

Week one was on Caravaggio (1571-1610)
Schama is a narrator to the life and paintings of Caravaggio that invites you into the paintings of a man who was deeply disturbed and troubled in himself. In many ways painting became a means of confession and a reckoning. Schama gives focus to his painting of David with the head of Goliath. Notably, Goliath is painted in the image of Caravaggio.

Schama says,

"In this painting of the victory of virtue over evil it's supposed to be David who is the centre of attention, but have you ever seen a less jubilant victory?
On his sword is inscribed "Humilitus Occideit Superbium", that is, humility conquers pride. This is the battle that has been fought out inside Caravaggio's head between the two sides of the painter that are portrayed here.

For me the power of Caravaggio's art is the power of truth, not least about ourselves. If we are ever to hope for redemption we have to begin with the recognition that in all of us the Goliath competes with the David."

Schama also points out the ways in which Caravaggio paints the fleshly humanity he knows, the earthy-ness of humanity he portrays in so many religious artwork he paints.

For me I have always appreciated his Supper at Emmaus. But there are 2 versions: on in London (1601) the other in Milan (1606).

In the first (London) the image is full of rich, victorious splendour. The light throughout the paiting, the shadows created help our eyes 'read' the painting. Jesus is portrayed without a beard which is quite unusual. His hand gesture appears soft and gentlein blessing. Indeed it almost reaches out to us.There is also a full table of food before them . The intensity of the emotions of Christ's disciples is conveyed by their gestures and expression at this moment in time (of recognition) when Jesus is blessing their meal. We are made to feel a participant in the event from the perspective we are permitted at the table. The painting in so inviting us asks us to consider what the resurrection of Christ means for us.

Some 5 years later though and the image has changed. Is there a shift in Caravaggio’s understanding of the resurrection of Jesus? The arrangement of the figures tells the story. No more the victorious Christ, nor the energy of the disciples recognition of who this 'stranger' is. In contrast, the arrangement of the figures in the Milan Emmaus makes us aware that people need time to recognise the reality of Jesus at this table and so the resurrection. The light here is more subtle and subdued, indeed here is an older, bearded Jesus blessing the meal and a different pace of recognition conveyed. Here the disciples hand rests near Jesus' hand, no large gestures. I sense here a quiter and gentler invitation to come share at this table at a meal that is far simpler too.

Globe lessons

I managed into a public lecture today given by Patrick Spottiswoode (director of Globe Education). His topic was concerned with Shakespeare's Globe and how the space/ shape influences performance and the actor -audience relationship. I confess I haven't seen it, but it is a space that has intrigued me for a number of years since church planting and being concerned about space and worship and congregational matters.

The theatre we were in was typically for a large lecture. He described it as a 'confrontational space in which we awaited knowledge to be imparted and given to us. It is a typical space and familiar in most buildings, but he turned it on its head and spoke of how the theatre Shakespeare knew at the Globe was more a place for seminar, where ideas were thrown out for the audience to consider. The round-ish (20 sided building) offered more of a 'hug' and an intimacy in ;'gathering round'.. as he said 'we do not gather square!' Here then you see the audience and talk to them as part of the drama on stage. It also has significant open air light. Today he somewhat lamented the modern theatre and its turning off lights. He caricatured this to going to be as a child and turning the lights out to go to sleep, or to quietening a parrot that is noisey, you cover it with a blanket. In a fashion this is what we have done to audiences. At the Globe, actors and audience share the same light, there is an interface that allows for opportunities of 'improvised' engagement in ways that bring the text to life. Indeed, he spoke of the energy that occurs between the two and how thre actors in turn are energised as the audience is engaged in the drama. It is a two-way interaction.He further shared how we often speak of 'going to SEE' a movie, a play eyc. In Shakespeare's Globe you paid to see, but most of all the HEARING places as the language and metre of the drama play around with the words/sounds.

He also made comment on the historical context. Theatre and actors were of low social status on the margins of society. They were margineli those small extra notes in the margins of some books which added some commentarytot the central text. However, he suggested that rather than such a simple reading it was more that the city was worried about the theatre as graffitti. Theatre was no wholly respectable and its commentary was forced to the marghins/suburbs among the brothels.

This is a brief summary of what was a very entertaining and engaging lecture. It was in itself 'rough theatre' and he is a very gifted communicator. Plenty food for thought.