Recently, Banned by HWA posted an article about an artist from our Common Heritage who had the honor of painting the Official Portrait of former First Lady Michelle Obama. The portrait itself - when discussed by members of the COG Community past and present - was not received without criticism - because of the proportions, tones, and - most importantly - realism of the artistic piece - for some, made the piece "terrible".
I have always been a creative and artistic person. A lot of my time is absorbed in photography and the digital arts - which includes digital painting. This stems from my childhood when I learned during my toddler years that I had a knack for artistic creativity. This was not by any means an exclusion from the ramming head of Armstrong's influence. As a child, I was told to avoid any artistic creativity that was not reflective of "realism" because it would become a lie if I used artistic creativity. In other words, if the sky is blue, you have to paint it blue. You cannot imagine it any other way, either in your head or on media. Doing so would then be "sin".
Of course, the wages of sin is death - so we were told by the Church sermon after sermon. No, It wasn't threatened that I would somehow die if I used Burnt Umber instead of Orange. But the implication was clear: Obey what the Church says, and what your parents tell you, or the consequences could be enormously severe in just 3 to 5 years. Your parents would be taken to the place of safety, you would be left behind, to feel the full force of the Great Tribulation and World War III. Oh, yes, the fear was real, genuine - and it invaded every part of your life. In my case, even using artistic creativity wrongly which would become sin. Pretending and Imagination were intentionally cut off.
Was this extreme? Yes. However, in this light, one can understand in a sense (Perhaps not nearly as extreme as the scenario I was a part of) some of the problem that some people (artists included, both in and out of the Church) have when artistic creativity is expressed. One of the commentators stated in the thread mentioned on this forum the many things that were incorrectly presented in the piece of artwork - arm length, hands, skin tone - "unnatural" form and without realism. The same commentator made a very astute observation: "The WCG demanded uniformity of thought".
It is not about the painting. In truth, there is a reason why this painting was selected as the Official Portrait of Mrs. Obama. It is the exact reason why the portrait has been selected, in my opinion, to be held in such high esteem - to the chagrin and controversy of many. The reason? Artistic Expression, a personal voice, and allegorical image. The very concepts that our religion of Absolute Literalism strongly discouraged.
When I look at the painting, I do not look at this painting with a literal eye. If I do, I will never understand it. I see long arms that are intended to show strength and compassion - holding many children. I see neutral pastels, conveying softness and contemplation. I see a skin tone that is pleasing when juxtaposed with the background. In short, without going into great detail, I believe this artist used her creativity and expression to shape Michelle not only how "she" sees her, but in a way that allegorically defines her legacy in a clearly artistic and powerful - yet subliminally pleasing manner.
If you decide to look at this painting literally, you will find all sorts of things wrong with it. That's what happens when you go by the literal letter of anything. You will find and be searching for flaws. You will be inspecting every detail. You will want every aspect to be perfect. You will want every portion to be proper. You will demand absolute conformity. You will intentionally demand proper compliance with expectations. This is the result of literal-ism, and the law of legalism at work.
If you decide to look at this painting with the mindset of imagination, creativity, and an open mind, you will see this work in a whole new light. You will not see the inaccuracies of failing to comply with realistic interpretations, but the message of creativity expressed on canvas. You will not see a gray, unrealistic skin tone, but a deeper countenance instilled with reflection. You will not see too short of a neck - your eyes will be drawn to her face. This is what excellent art does - it conveys the thoughts, emotions, feelings, and reflections of the artist. This is what makes art great. And this, in my opinion, is why this piece was selected as the Official Portrait of Michelle Obama. The artist - coming from the strict legalistic background of the Armstrong Influence - shoved all of that outside to let her creative energies flow. She painted using her expression, not a paint by number - which is, in itself, the difference between Legalism and Freedom. Legalists will debate, ridicule, dissect, and tear down this painting in every detail. Those who understand Artistic Freedom will look beyond the rules and the lines and the colors and see what the artist is attempting to convey. And this fine artist understands she has the Freedom In Art to do so - and has been rewarded justly for her spirit of artistic expression - the spirit of the paintbrush. It's the difference between a Portrait Artist - and Bob Ross.
A Lesson many COG - types would be well to ponder in allegory and in principle, indeed, on much more spiritual issues.
submitted by SHT
14 comments:
Right hemisphere dominance vs left. People of either condition are baffled by the other. Literalists believe that suggestion through the abstract is the product of demon influence.
BB
I, for one, find it a beautiful painting. Irrespective of who the subject is or what she believes; and the same goes for the artist. Just a lovely piece of work. Nothing more need be said.
Which reminds me of one of my high school English teachers, who considered a painting to be a better representation of a person than a photograph.
The one tale that simply cannot be allowed to be anything but literally true is that of Adam and Eve. Whether the original author meant it to be taken as literally true according to his world view or as allegory we don't know. We do know that every character in the Bible from the OT to the NT took the story as being literally true. Bible literalists to this day of course argue the same even though knowledge has been increased since those days, but then that's just a sign of the end of days I suppose.
The doctrine of Original Sin, the reason we all are guilty of every offense towards God and Jesus would explode without the story being literally true. No real sin in the garden, no real need of Jesus sacrifice etc.
I believe the argument as to why this MUST be so is worth posting so stay tuned.
PS It's not literally true of course :) and well said SHT
There you go SHT, trying to propose a mind gone wild or a wild mind can produce anything viable compared to paint by numbers.
By accident, I visited the Meow Wolf art collective. My Baptist wife was aghast. Their philosophy is this: Meow Wolf creates immersive and interactive experiences that transport audiences of all ages into fantastic realms of story and exploration. This includes art installations, video and music production, and extended reality content.
Our first permanent installation, the THEA Award-winning House of Eternal Return, launched in March 2016 with support from Game of Thrones creator, George R.R. Martin. Inside, guests discover a multidimensional mystery house with secret passages, portals to magical worlds, and an expansive narrative amidst surreal, maximalist, and mesmerizing art exhibits. Located in Santa Fe, HOER features a children’s learning center, a cafe and bar, and a highly-rated music venue.
With words like fantastic, realms, exploration, multidementional, mystery, secret passages, portals, magical, expansive narrative, maximalist, mesmerizing I was wondering whether I was entering an art gallery or was being forced to listen to Dave Pack's sermon number 185.
In my most recent COG presence, I was asked to give opening and or closing prayers. Before I could do this I was handed a five page instruction manual on how to do it. Everyone had to do it the same way point by point by point.
When I heard a top minister give a sermon with an opening statement asking if we are all just number two pencils in a box, I thought this might be interesting. One hour and forty-five minutes later the answer was no we are not buuuuuuuuut yes we kind of are.
Later in time calling a newly trained minister about a very important question I was subjected to nonstop pausing and hesitation and off topic slant because I new full well he was trying to answer a spiritual question via a church produced outline that he was staring the whole time. I never even got close to getting an answer, but I can assure all church guidelines were followed to a tee.
If any number of persons would in this day and age exhibit in the COGs what was exhibited in the 1st century church, they would be tossed out on the the faster than they could say one word in tongues or prophesy anything.
What HWA believed and most of the splinters believe is that the ultimate potential of man is to be born into the God-family or become God. This only happens via the "preciseness" of tradition or interpretive doctrine. In the human family unit there is such variables as looks, personality, traits, initiative, talent, thought processes etc. that the COGs overlook completely because their interpretation of "one mind" has to full into the established process.
Precise engineering is a driver of industrious expansion but creativity can be and often is the mother of invention.
Re: 5:03
"Precise engineering is a driver of industrious expansion but creativity can be and often is the mother of invention."
Anyone notice that hwa developed his theories on "Universe Management" in the 1930's? That he regarded (Henry) Ford(ism) highly? Anyone ever notice who the listeners in the Japanese audience were? (Toyoda?)
Anyway, Interesting topics the last 3 days!!!!
I cannot recall anyone in Church phrasing an opinion on drawings or paintings. I do recall that as a kid we were not supposed to read comics during services, I do recall opinions on music (modern music being squeeks and strange sounding with beats), and a lot of opinion on architecture and landscaping. It was only years after I left the church that I learned of the Picasso's in posession of the church. The Wynn sculptures and HQ architecture was labeled "Modernist" in recall.
nck
I think that the "official" HWA and GTA pictures should be reimagined and done again as well.
If I had any art skill I would give it a try! Since I don't, I will simply try to give a "word imaging" of such.
HWAs official portrait would be very similar to a classic Henry the 8th style, with Herbert wearing gaudy kingly attire while feasting on a leg of turkey and fine wine, from the offering of the peasants. Something similar to this...
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/--cbEGpp2z-8/VNfaOH4L6RI/AAAAAAAAFKE/0axO73Obyr8/s1600/laughton4.png
GTAs portrait will be a bit more of a modernistic style, and would be a total frontal nude. Similar to the one where he is caught being with the masseuse , and with the tats on his body being emphasized in a type of fluorsecent bright colors, and his blue eyes emphasized with a checked out demon possessed glaring...
https://youtu.be/CQuz1hY8jkc?t=136
Both paintings should be commissioned and placed in all major splinter home office meeting rooms.
Dennis wrote:
The doctrine of Original Sin, the reason we all are guilty of every offense towards God and Jesus would explode without the story being literally true. No real sin in the garden, no real need of Jesus sacrifice etc.
You're doing it again, Dennis, using WCG-style dogmatism to make unfounded pronouncements. There are heterodox Christian sects that don't teach Original Sin but still find a place for the Jesus. WCG was in fact one of those heterodox sects.
Even for the sects that want to preserve Original Sin without a literal Adam and Eve, they can kick the problem forward a few hundred (thousand?) years. Even if other beings existed side-by-side with Adam and Eve and their descendants, they didn't survive the Flood, meaning that no matter how many giants and other pre-Adamic hominids once existed, everyone alive today is a survivor of Adam and Eve, and thus carries Original Sin.
4:12am, That's the first thing that I thought of when I read Dennis' "original sin" comment, but then I thought about it and realized that he didn't mean it in the sense that many if not most religions believe, that a newborn baby is sinful because of Adam's sin.
I don't think that's what Dennis meant, and I know that's not what WCG taught.
So rather than accusing Dennis of something he might not have meant, it's better to either just shut up or ask him what he meant.
Kevin
Kevin 5:24
That would require asking questions for clarification.......that is not the way of this blog.
btw Didn't teach "original sin." WCG taught that a baby was born spotless (if the mother had not listened to rock music during pregancy and the grandfather had not been an alcoholic bringing genetic defects." Otherwise the baby was unblemished.........but IMMEDIATELY being radiated with Satan infecting the baby with self absorbed egotism demanding milk of the mother.
The closest thing to Agape was "motherly love" and even that was defined as selfish since that mother love is usually restricted to their own off spring.
nck
All depends on your definition of "original sin" nck. Most assume that Rom. 5:12 says that because of Adam's sin, that sin passed to all men. Assuming when a baby is born it's already a sinner because of Adam's sin, or what they call "original sin". That's not what Rom. 5:12 says, it says:
"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:"
Because of one man's sin "death" passed upon all men because all have sinned.
We don't receive death because Adam sinned, we receive death because we sinned.
Sure it's a fine line of reasoning but what it means is that before Adam sinned he had access to the tree of life (whether real or allegorical, I don't know for sure nor do I care). Once he sinned he no longer had access, nor do his children.
God created him as a fleshly being capable of sin. His "flesh" (I put it in quotes because I think the Greek word "sarx" means more than just his skin, muscles and organs) wasn't "perfect" as SDA teach and then after he sinned it became imperfect.
His "flesh" before sinning was sinless, or better said, before sinning "he" was sinless and after sinning, he still had the same flesh, but "he" was now a sinner.
So a newborn baby is sinless until he/she sins. I know (at least I think I do) that nck said "demanding milk from its mother" in jest, but that was one of many problems in the WCG, when the baby first sinned had to be answered by the "All Boys Club" aka the "ministry", rather than just letting God worry about that.
What I consider the original sin is Adam's sin, but it sure as hell wasn't my original sin, that happened roughly 55 years ago.
Kevin
This idea of original sin has given me nothing but frustration, time after time.
Every time I feel like I've conceived and developed an original sin, I find out somebody else already committed it.
Kevin thank you.
Perhaps it has to do with a (manicheastic) view whether there has been "light and dark", "balance and unbalance" before man. Kinda like jedi knights having access to the force.
The baby thing is not a jest.
Just by being man, by being dust, we have dependencies and turn self centered the moment we are born and therefore by unconscious act already sinning against the cosmos.
One might also argue that sinning only comprises willfull acts by choice.
Are most prisoners victims of the circumstances that made them make poor choices or are they just scum.
Nck
Is not sin "seperation from god", is the flesh enmity against god, are we not by definition sinners.
Even if johnnie weismullers body is perfect and boy conceived by virgin birth.
Nck
Post a Comment