Prague (September 12) - Getting Set

September 12

Well, we are here in Prague.  Yesterday was getting over jet-lag and waiting for team members to arrive from their different countries.  We now have our six members, as well as Pastor Oleg, and Pavel, who is the Czech field leader for OM.

Today we went to the location where we will be doing the outreach. Pastor Oleg was not able to get permission from the city to set up in the square downtown where we were last year, so he has arranged to set up the same tent as we used near one of the shopping centers a little further out of Prague, but much closer to where their church is. Of course, we're anxious to see what it's like there, and what people we will have going past. I'm a little disappointed that we can't go to the same square as last hear (and hopefully see some of the same people as we talked to last time), but the Lord has HIS reasons for why He has planted us in this new location.

The team is coming together well. We have quite a variety of people on the team from around the world. We have yet to really see much of each other's work, aside from photos on iPhones, but hopefully soon.... Tomorrow I *really* hope to get my hands on some clay! I'm starting to get fidgety without getting my hands in the mud!

The Team

Blessings!

Prague (September 11) - Security Lines.

(I am working on re-publishing our updates from when Sue and were in the Czech Republic.  Originally in Facebook and Emails but collected together here...)

September 11

In Prague! Got in a few hours ago, so we've had a little time to unpack and rest a little. This is basically a "catch up" day as various team members get here at different times.
Note to self: do NOT oil the sewing machine Sue is carrying just before heading through airport security. The mineral oil sets off all the chemical sensors! Ugh....  Spend better part of an hour watching Sue get two entire pat-downs in the security line, and her luggage gone through several inspections.

But, what does it MEAN?

One of the interesting things I've noticed when looking at art with some of my non-artist friends, especially when looking at more abstract art, is the tendency of those friends to ask, "But, what does it mean?"

Now, in their defense, these friends really are trying to understand what they are looking at. They squint and turn their head sideways, trying to find something in the piece that they can recognize or connect to. Sometimes I try to tell them that a piece doesn't necessarily have to "mean" something, or that the "meaning" may be something that isn't necessarily describable in words per-say, but I'm not helped by the fact that some "art critic" somewhere has gone to endless lengths to describe in great intellectual detail what this or that artist is "saying" through the blobs of color splattered across the canvas.

However, the more I think about the "meaning" of art, the more I believe that we are asking entirely the wrong question.

To assign a meaning to a piece of art is to assume that the work has a narrative, and more important, that the narrative is fixed in time, that the artist understood that narrative, and that he or she intended to communicate that narrative to us, the viewer. However, real art isn't fixed in time. It is certainly a product of the historical context from which it was forged, but if it has any real worth, the work has to be able to speak to all time, and perhaps to all people. In addition, each person's response to the work will be colored by that individual's experience, history, story, perspective, emotional stability, what they ate for breakfast that morning, and a thousand other factors.

On the flip side, some people would claim that there is no true "meaning" to a work of art, and that it is completely subjective, based on the viewer's interpretation. I think this fails on the basis that it denies any participation from the artist, the person from who's imagination the work sprang. Intentionally or unintentionally, the artist has put some sort of thought, emotion, symbolism, or intent into the piece. They may not even be conscious of the messages (there are always more than one) in the piece, but they are there nevertheless.

I believe that the better way to think about the content, or message of a piece is to think in terms of intent and response.

An artist always has an intent when he or she begins to work with a piece. That intent may shift over time. It may have different levels of conscious or unconscious input. It may be dark and deeply meaningful, or light and playful. The intent will depend on the artist's world view, their experience, issues that they are familiar with, things they see around them and their response to the natural and man-made world. They will fold the things that make them happy, the things that make them sad, things that make them angry, things that make them afraid, things that give them hope, all the things that shape their lives, and which artists have learned to recognize and reflect on... and make them a part of their creation.

But then, no work of art exists entirely on its own. It's not really art until someone (presumably someone other than just the artist) looks at or experiences the work. When someone experiences the work, they will have a response. The response will be on different levels -- emotional, intellectual, spiritual, physical, and as I described above, will depend on a host of different personal attributes that they bring to the piece. Their response may change over time as they experience a piece more than once. The response may be conscious or unconscious. The important part is that the response is personal, and that it is true, in the sense that it is true for that individual

The interesting part is that, these two may, or may not overlap.  I suppose that most artists measure the success of their work by the degree to which these two do overlap, but perhaps the real measure of a work is the extent to which it speaks beyond the original vision of its creator, and touches many different people in many different ways.

The critical idea is that neither of these sides are the only truth. We cannot deny the part of the artist and what he or she intends for the work. The artist may choose to give the work a title, or other descriptive text, to signal some part of that intent, or at least what the were thinking about when they created the piece, or they may leave the work untitled, depending on the piece itself to communicate their intent. On the side of the observer, their response to the work goes far beyond "understanding" what the artist was trying to say. Just as some people laugh at the sight of a circus clown, while others cover their eyes and run away, responses can be wildly different. However, whatever the response is, the piece has done its job of speaking to them, to their imagination, their emotion, their physical body and to their intellect, and in that sense, is true.

Of course, that still may not help my poor friend standing there in front of the painting, trying to figure out what it means....  :-P

Development of the Artist

One of those late at night ideas bumping around in my brain, which I wanted to get down before it evaporated....

It struck me that people go through a number of stages/seasons/steps as they start to grapple with what it means to be an artist. These stages aren't really well defined, and have a lot of overlap, but I think they still map a definite progression in both the individual's understanding of their call, and of how other people begin to see them:

(1) Enthusiasm: This is the stage where a person first starts to recognize some sort of aptitude with art -- typically drawing things in notebooks or music -- and they begin to realize that they really ENJOY creating pretty things. More often than not, they are young, without a lot of life experience, but they are just waking up to the joy of creativity and imagination. This is where big dreams start.

(2) Skill: This is the hard work level, where people start to become serious about being an "artist". They may be terribly self-deprecating, but nevertheless, they begin to put in the effort necessary to develop real, tangible skills. This is the stage where other people start recognizing them as "artists". They start taking classes, practicing, defining a style, hanging out with other artists, polishing their craft.

(3) Meaning: At some point, in order to become more than a skilled craftsman, or someone who can make "pretty" things, an artist needs to begin to understand not only how to create (imagination), but how to create meaning (soul). This is the hard part, and frankly, where things begin to get really messy. The message is not always clear, even inside of the artist's head. Their artwork can begin to get edgy, dark, and push boundaries. The artist begins to experiment, sometimes with disastrous results. HOWEVER, in order for an artist to become relevant, he or she must go through this season -- to survive the storms, so see things that no one else can see.

As followers of Christ, this is the stage where Christ really enters into our art, and we become Incarnational.