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