Ain't no hiding it!

Today Mom and I were doing an art history study thing. We have a bunch of prints of famous pieces of art, and we were laying them out in chronological order, all spread out on the living room floor. It was fascinating because you can literally see the world view of each artist in his paintings, which gives you a little glimpse on what the world was like in his time.

First in line we had a picture of a mosaic that was called "The Good Shepherd". The artist is unknown but it's from the time of the early Christians. The depiction is Jesus sitting on a mountain, taking care of a flock of sheep that surrounds Him. All the sheep are looking at His face, and He's got His hand on one of them. This picture shows Jesus as a real human in real history, and He's very friendly, natural, and accessible. This is the way the early Christians saw Him.

Now jump to the Byzantine era, a few hundred years later. The artists in this time period were all about showing the grandeur and greatness of God, which is a good thing, but they went a little too far. They portrayed God as inaccessible, painting symbolic pictures that looked flat and nonrealistic. Jesus usually looks like a miniature adult, instead of a baby, in pictures such as "Madonna and Child on a Curved Throne" (artist also unknown). Instead of showing real life, these artists focused on symbolism, inadverdently saying that we are unable to get close to God. It's true that we're unworthy, but it's also true that Jesus paid the way for us to get to the Father with His blood.

As we continue down the line of paintings, you can see the though processes move from God as natural and accessible, to stiff and symbolic, and then He is shoved out of the picture (pun intended) when we get to the Renaissance. This was the time where man looked to himself for the ultimate in everything. After the Renaissance came the Reformation, when man turned back to God. In most pictures from this time period, we finally see God, nature, and man, all in their proper places. Nature and man are shown realistically, underlining their importance as creations of God. God is treated reverently but is not shown to be out of reach. After the Reformation, nature began to be elevated. We see a lot of landscapes and pictures of this sort now. God is not directily referred to. As this progresses, we move into Impressionism (think Monet). The pictures are blurry and unfocused, showing the (possibly subconscious) belief that life is confusing, blurred, unclear.

Next comes the period of Post-Impression. The colors are sharper and more vibrant although subdued, the lines cleaner, but as we move through it there's a persistant feeling of depression. "Absinth" by Degas or "The Church at Auvers" by Van Gogh and you'll see exactly what I mean. Especially in this last painting, the church is shown as frighening, Gothic, askew, even perhaps a place of death. This is exactly the way Van Gogh felt in the last years of his life, before he famously chopped off his own ear and later committed suicide. Paul Gaugain is another good example of this time. His life, as well, ended in despair. When you look at his paintings, such as "Tahitian Landscape" or "Haystacks at Brittany", they look more like a Flannelgraph than a lanscape. He tried to use nature symbolically, rather than painting what he actually saw. And he did a good job of it - his paintings show us exactly how he felt about life. His works were fragmented, feeling slightly jarred and disconnected. There was little or no blending involved.

The next logical step is Modern art - think Kandinsky, Pollock, and of course Picasso. They abandoned reason entirely, and showed life as completely absurd and illogical. Jackson Pollock, speaking of his painting "Lavender Mist", said that he was showing life the way Evolution describes it. He said his picture showed complete chance, and was therefore the highest form of art because it depicted life most realistically. If he was right, his art is indeed the highest art possible. Christians believe he was wrong. We believe that there is order, logic, and meaning to life. We did not appear here by chance and millions of years. God placed us here with a purpose in mind.

There was, in fact, a flaw in Pollock's logic. He said his piece was the result of complete chance, but there he was wrong. He himself planned out how he would produce the piece - how he would swing paint cans over the canvas and let the paint drip in a random pattern. That painting was not the product of accident. It was planned. Random chance does not produce anything, no matter what people say. If left to itself, the world would decay completely. We all know the law of entropy. Why does it not apply here? Why does it work in reverse where Evolution is concerned?

I used to think that my drawings were just drawings. I didn't plan what I wanted them to 'say', so I thought they didn't mean anything. Now I'm beginning to realize that they do, in fact, represent my world view. They show order (at least, I try!) and as far as I am able, represent the subject matter true to life.

It's funny that no matter how hard a person may try, he can't hide his world view. A person's set of beliefs, whether he's aware of them or not, cannot remain locked away inside his head. They influence every single thing he thinks, says, and does.