Matt Lamb's blog
here is the blog: http://www.mattlamb.org/blog/?p=47#comments
my post in a discussion on Spirituality and Art:
Dear Mr. Lamb, Richard, All,
This is a very important theme for me: Spirituality and Art. Where do the two intertwine?
To me, “religion” often has such a negative connotation, where as “spirituality”, a positive one, albeit vague in many cases.
Every work of art has the potential to be a spiritual journey in and of itself, for the artist and for the viewer/participant. As a painter also, I treasure the moments when the world falls away, and the only thing that matters is the paint gliding across the surface. The vastness of infinite time and space exists within those moments, and I am entirely at peace, mind, body, and soul.
Many artists have reflected on the power of art to transcend the worldly or material in an effort to tap into this spiritual potential not only for themselves but for others experiencing the work. To name a few that resonate with me: Rothko, Kandinsky, Miro, Rublev, the Ancient Egyptians. Have all these artists shared the same core faith and/or “religion”? The Ancient Egyptians for sure had different thoughts on religion than more recent painters… yet each is an example of an artist whose work went entirely beyond a materialistic or what I would consider “worldly” focus.
I do not believe that one’s religious orientation (how they are labeled or choose to label themselves) dictates their spirituality or the spiritual potential of a piece of art they create. A non-religion-specific abstract work of art such as a colorfield painting may have more power to affect the viewer’s soul in a deeply meaningful and spiritual way than a traditionally painted icon.
I am glad that distinctions are being pointed out between religion and spirituality by others, as in Barry Mack’s comment.
I think where we need to be aware as artists is in regards to the power of art: as catalyst, as potentially transcendental, inspiring, uplifting, capable of changing lives if we harness its strength in positive ways. It can also be used to feed egos, generate wealth, and cycle within a limited and often cold materialistic, consumer, and oftentimes self-serving art world, which to me is the antithesis of a meaningful spiritual work or purpose. To achieve a certain degree of spirituality to a work of art (including music and writing) I believe a certain degree of self-emptying is necessary, and thus a degree of openness is achieved, where light can enter, and that light is then able to be suspended within the piece, such as within a cathedral, or a Rothko, and subsequently then has the potential to enter into the viewer’s eyes, mind, and soul.
I love the fact that we are discussing art in relationship to spirituality, because I believe that this can only be beneficial to the creative process.
I think in labeling “all art” as spiritual, we run the risk of being entirely too vague and undermining the intensity and meaning of spirituality. It is along the lines of saying “everything is relative” in relationship to scientific theories of Relativity. Also, it requires a definition of what Art is and isn’t, and I think we are all too familiar with the age-old “what is Art?” debate. Some “couch art” may have a spiritual component to it, granted, but perhaps not as hard-hitting as say, an immersive Rothko or Rublev icon of the Trinity.
Mr. Lamb, I am very interested in the spiritual components that exist within your paintings. What are you most striving at achieving through your painting? Is there a certain reaction you are aiming for within the viewer, such as an emotive response or heightened awareness of some sort? Perhaps this varies from one painting to the next, but I am wondering if there are ties throughout your work in relation to this, and how this ties in with the possible focus on spirituality.
I thank everyone for this thought-provoking discussion.
my post in a discussion on Spirituality and Art:
Dear Mr. Lamb, Richard, All,
This is a very important theme for me: Spirituality and Art. Where do the two intertwine?
To me, “religion” often has such a negative connotation, where as “spirituality”, a positive one, albeit vague in many cases.
Every work of art has the potential to be a spiritual journey in and of itself, for the artist and for the viewer/participant. As a painter also, I treasure the moments when the world falls away, and the only thing that matters is the paint gliding across the surface. The vastness of infinite time and space exists within those moments, and I am entirely at peace, mind, body, and soul.
Many artists have reflected on the power of art to transcend the worldly or material in an effort to tap into this spiritual potential not only for themselves but for others experiencing the work. To name a few that resonate with me: Rothko, Kandinsky, Miro, Rublev, the Ancient Egyptians. Have all these artists shared the same core faith and/or “religion”? The Ancient Egyptians for sure had different thoughts on religion than more recent painters… yet each is an example of an artist whose work went entirely beyond a materialistic or what I would consider “worldly” focus.
I do not believe that one’s religious orientation (how they are labeled or choose to label themselves) dictates their spirituality or the spiritual potential of a piece of art they create. A non-religion-specific abstract work of art such as a colorfield painting may have more power to affect the viewer’s soul in a deeply meaningful and spiritual way than a traditionally painted icon.
I am glad that distinctions are being pointed out between religion and spirituality by others, as in Barry Mack’s comment.
I think where we need to be aware as artists is in regards to the power of art: as catalyst, as potentially transcendental, inspiring, uplifting, capable of changing lives if we harness its strength in positive ways. It can also be used to feed egos, generate wealth, and cycle within a limited and often cold materialistic, consumer, and oftentimes self-serving art world, which to me is the antithesis of a meaningful spiritual work or purpose. To achieve a certain degree of spirituality to a work of art (including music and writing) I believe a certain degree of self-emptying is necessary, and thus a degree of openness is achieved, where light can enter, and that light is then able to be suspended within the piece, such as within a cathedral, or a Rothko, and subsequently then has the potential to enter into the viewer’s eyes, mind, and soul.
I love the fact that we are discussing art in relationship to spirituality, because I believe that this can only be beneficial to the creative process.
I think in labeling “all art” as spiritual, we run the risk of being entirely too vague and undermining the intensity and meaning of spirituality. It is along the lines of saying “everything is relative” in relationship to scientific theories of Relativity. Also, it requires a definition of what Art is and isn’t, and I think we are all too familiar with the age-old “what is Art?” debate. Some “couch art” may have a spiritual component to it, granted, but perhaps not as hard-hitting as say, an immersive Rothko or Rublev icon of the Trinity.
Mr. Lamb, I am very interested in the spiritual components that exist within your paintings. What are you most striving at achieving through your painting? Is there a certain reaction you are aiming for within the viewer, such as an emotive response or heightened awareness of some sort? Perhaps this varies from one painting to the next, but I am wondering if there are ties throughout your work in relation to this, and how this ties in with the possible focus on spirituality.
I thank everyone for this thought-provoking discussion.