Creativity and Art

This was a lecture delivered at the Ligurgical Music conference sponsored by PSALM at St. George Antiochian Orthodox Church in Cicero, IL. The date was August 2006. DVD's of the entire conference are available from the PSALM website.

CLICK  ON  THESE

• Father Thomas Hopko - Creativity and Art - part 1
• Father Thomas Hopko - Creativity and Art - part 2

http://ancientfaith.com/specials/hopko_lectures

Post Edited ("I am-in-I Am") : 3/1/2008 10:08:01 AM (GMT-6)

I'm enjoying "vacationing" from the board...but...'thought I'd say this looks OK.

ditto...

--------------------------------------------

     for God has revealed them to us by his Spirit.

    The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God.  For who knows a person's thoughts except that person's own spirit within? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.  We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us.  This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words. The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit [of God].  The person with the Spirit makes judgments about all things, but such a person is not subject to merely human judgments,  for,

 
       "Who has known the mind of the Lord
       so as to instruct him?"
       But we have the NOUS of Christ.

Post Edited ("I am-in-I Am") : 3/2/2008 7:42:11 AM (GMT-6)

Post Edited (HumanHypostasis) : 3/2/2008 9:08:50 AM (GMT-6)

THIS IS NICE, D.!!!

BTW, EVERYONE... HOPKO POINTS OUT THAT *SERMONS* ARE ALSO AN ART FORM!

Post Edited (Spinning Pot-spinner) : 3/2/2008 4:53:25 PM (GMT-6)

Got through Part 2. Enjoyed it. Smart guy.

It didn’t rock my world or anything. I didn’t hear anything in either part 1 or 2 that calls into question my essential concern regarding human beings as determiners of creative expressions fulfilled in Christ. Nowhere did he address our specific question about the locus of the determination of creative expression in glorified human being. It might be that he thinks, with D, that God determines every stroke of the brush, every mixture of color, every inflection of voice, etc. If so, then I disagree that this is what God desires and creates us for and will joyfully wear whatever badge of heresy this earns me. If not, then I guess I’m not such a heretic after all, for such existence, and its beauty, is ALL I have been concerned to defend and promote. Sometimes it sounded like he stood with D in denying that we are creators. Other times he made comments that would put him on my side.

I thought that with his opening reference to Ephesians 2 where Paul calls us God’s “workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them” and his comment that we must first be God’s art before we can create art, that he would get right into my concern. But he didn’t go there. The verse doesn’t require that all determination of creative expression lies solely in the divine will.

However, he did comes close at the very end to expressing an opinion contrary to my own when he said, “For the liturgical artist it is God who provides the content and the setting, the words and the  images, the material [didn’t get it all], the sounds and the forms, the material and the manner for their creative elaboration.”

Not sure what he means. It starts off sounding like what I’ve been arguing against, namely, that God decides/determines everything regarding our creative expression. The Daddy decides what composition his daughter is to offer him, what medium she it to use, what kind and size paper, what colors, the order in which it’s composed, the movement of every stroke…nothing, no movement that contributes anything to the final shape of the creative expression is excluded from God’s determining will.

But what begins as a disappointing phrase ends up with “…for their creative elaboration,” and that looks to me like he’s saying that the STUFF of creativity, of love, the art SUPPLIES if you will, come from God and not from us (and who would disagree?), but that the shape the work of art takes, its creative elaboration, comes from US and is determined by us. If he’d grant this, then we’ve got agreement, we’ve got an ‘indeterminist model of theosis’. If not, we don’t.

But then he states that “the creation of liturgical art is not a matter of personal choice…just obedience.” And that’s disappointing. Why the either/or at all? Why should a personal choice constitute an act of disobedience? Must be an EO thing. Fine. But he’s talking about liturgical art, not just art in general as divinely inspired, so maybe we wouldn’t disagree regarding theosis in the eschaton. But his statement worried me a bit. Sounds like he doesn’t think we decide anything at all about the shape which our creative expression takes so far as liturgy is concerned. I’m not so concerned about liturgical art right now.

My hunch is that if he really understood my concerns and points, he’d disagree with them and maintain, with D, that God decides/determines it all, so that we are not ‘creators’ in any real sense of the word. Being a “real creator” so far as this conversation is concerned means determining reality’s shape in ways not also determined by God. Now, the possible shapes are determined by God, yes. They have to be. I cannot create possibilities (as God does). I can only creatively “elaborate” (Hopko’s word) upon divine themes, interpreting, re-expressing the same fundamental themes (love, sacrifice, humility, joy, kindness, etc.). That’s the nature of finite being and I’m happy to embrace its limitations. But still, which particular shape my expression takes, if I am said to be a creator (or co-creator, that’s fine), are determined by me, not God. I believe God wants it this way.

I don’t know that Hopko would agree with me. I can’t even get POW to agree with me. He says “Yes, we’re not JUST canvases, we’re artists and creators,” but then when I say this means we determine the shape of our creative expression in ways NOT determined by God, POW withdraws and won’t concede. It’s like you don’t want to say there’s something going on in the universe that’s good and lovely 100% of, every aspect and property of which, God isn’t directly responsible for determining.

There was one ray of hope when Hopko was discussion law and grace (within creativity). He said that in re-creating fallen humanity, God put in place ‘laws’ that prescribed how people were to act. Such laws, he said, are like asceticism, the disciplined canons which we must follow in order to nurture ourselves spiritually and grow in sanctification. But he also said ascetic practices aren’t the content of the creative sanctified life, they are just means to an end. Willard says the same thing, and I also brought this up months ago.

So I’d like to ask Hopko if he thinks the ends will ever be reached so that the means are no longer required; if theosis does away with the need for God to prescribe (determine, instruct) right ways of acting at all. I suggested that our life in this world as it is, given our less than fully redeemed status, requires God to prescribe actions and choices in highly specific ways. This accounts for why we, and even Christ, only acted in response to specific instructions/leadings of the Spirit. A fallen context demands it. But I don’t imagine that fully redeemed existence in heaven will require such a “hands-on” approach by God. God will ‘let-go’. I think that’s just what our consummate existence in heaven will be, a perfect letting go of created being into a fully redeemed context which provides no threat, suffers from no false perceptions, and so requires no detailed instructions from God on where to let down my next step. This is what God wants to get to, not just more of the same. I think God’s hope, God’s dream, is to not have to so prescribe our every move as this present fallen world requires of him (and us).

I’ve become a bit more pessimistic about the EO. My guess is that Hopko will say, “ God decides it all. You’re only creative in the sense that God directly determines his own creative expression through you. You don’t determine the shape of creative expression in ways not previously determined for you by God.” And with that I cannot agree.

Tom

Post Edited (Spinning Pot-spinner) : 3/3/2008 6:02:08 AM (GMT-6)

Tom:  Sometimes it sounded like he stood with D in denying that we are creators. Other times he made comments that would put him on my side.:

B: I'm content to notice the smaller points that he is making within that. He's pastorial.

Tom:  I thought that with his opening reference to Ephesians 2 where Paul calls us God’s “workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them” and his comment that we must first be God’s art before we can create art, that he would get right into my concern. But he didn’t go there. The verse doesn’t require that all determination of creative expression lies solely in the divine will.

B: I don't have the context. I'm living this conversation with you in the midst of western lent. (Our reformed church follows the lectionary.) And eastern lent is about to begin -- St. Andrew of Crete begins being read. At the end he says "Do not demand from me worthy fruits of repentance, for my strength has failed within me. Give me an ever-contrite hear and poverty of spirit, tha tI mah offer these to Thee as an aceptable sacrifice, O only Savior."  The creative work of ascessis fails, falling and getting up, and falling, etc. Some workmanship? Not appearant; but there is still hope because the Lord is merciful. Even in sin one might by grace have poverty of spirit. As you said, "we must first be God’s art before we can create art." We must repent before we can make music, art, architecture that works with other elements of liturgical art to call for repentance. What's that contemporary Christian song from that church that recognized that they had gotten so into the performance and the posh of "worship" that they fasted from performance worship for a time, and that guy wrote that song...You know the one. Its all about worship. Before we can do something on the outside it has to bear fruit on the inside.

Tom: However, he did comes close at the very end to expressing an opinion contrary to my own when he said, “For the liturgical artist it is God who provides the content and the setting, the words and the  images, the material [didn’t get it all], the sounds and the forms, the material and the manner for their creative elaboration.”

B: Sure. We don't invent the wheel from scratch. Christ's body has been fashioning and developing liturgical toos for a long time. Since Seth at least. Probably Adam. You know Hopko also said that since we are ALIVE and the Church is alive there MUST be new forms of thse things. But that newness and creativity do not contradict the fact that God "provides" the images, the sounds. He then hands them to us to do what we do with them and to them. Think of Adam again: God provided the animals and the sounds, but Adam named the animals.. Apply that to Hopko. I do.

Tom:  Not sure what he means. It starts off sounding like what I’ve been arguing against, namely, that God decides/determines everything regarding our creative expression. The Daddy decides what composition his daughter is to offer him, what medium she it to use, what kind and size paper, what colors, the order in which it’s composed, the movement of every stroke…nothing, no movement that contributes anything to the final shape of the creative expression is excluded from God’s determining will.

B: No, as my last comment. But there could well be a group of people in putting and modifying one persons input. That's not hard to recognize.

Tom: But what begins as a disappointing phrase ends up with “…for their creative elaboration,” and that looks to me like he’s saying that the STUFF of creativity, of love, the art SUPPLIES if you will, come from God and not from us (and who would disagree?), but that the shape the work of art takes, its creative elaboration, comes from US and is determined by us. If he’d grant this, then we’ve got agreement, we’ve got an ‘indeterminist model of theosis’. If not, we don’t.

B: What were those three words from Hopko that you should use for theosis again -- one of them was immitation?

B: I'm focusing on where you say "the shape the work of art takes, its creative elaboration, comes from US and is determined by us." I like that. But I'd modify the ending so that it could be applied to when the artwork "takes over" -- as Hopko mentioned. It began as mind, but then it came to life, took on a mind of its own. And I was just an instrument. I was just one of the "art supplies.

Tom: But then he states that “the creation of liturgical art is not a matter of personal choice…just obedience.” And that’s disappointing. Why the either/or at all? Why should a personal choice constitute an act of disobedience? Must be an EO thing. Fine. But he’s talking about liturgical art, not just art in general as divinely inspired, so maybe we wouldn’t disagree regarding theosis in the eschaton. But his statement worried me a bit. Sounds like he doesn’t think we decide anything at all about the shape which our creative expression takes so far as liturgy is concerned. I’m not so concerned about liturgical art right now.

B: As to "personal choice" lets think to Hopko's mention of Bernini's "St. Theresa in Ecsatasy." I tested my art history students on that one. Beautiful. Hopko points out that it is "religious art" but not liturgical art -- that is...it is the artist's appreciation of one person's mystical experience and designed to evoke a felling of wonder in the viewer, but it does not fit in with any part of the corporate church work/liturgy of worship. So, NO...personal choice is NOT disobedience. It's just another task and calling. An iocnographer might paint sunset picture of him fishing in in a canoe; that would not be disobedient, just not an icon.

B: I"m glad you wrote "maybe we wouldn't disagree regarding theosis in the eschaton.

B: As to "Sounds like he doesn’t think we decide anything at all about the shape which our creative expression takes so far as liturgy is concerned", let me try. Again, suppose your friend is an iconographer, and is painting the Nativity. The icon supports the Feast: its celebration and truth. There are lots of variations on that icon, and googling I've seen them. but even if one feature--like the similar look of the manger to a stone coffin--there is a cannon of gathered truths from scripture that are used in that icon. Normally Jesus is also shown being washed after his birth. The meaning of that is to remind us of his baptism fulfilling all righteousness, and our being dead and raised in Christ's baptism in our own.

B: A statement that nothing is chosen by an individual is a particular kind of statement. Obviously everything had a first. But it means that everything is "confirmed by two or three witnesses" -- meaning the whole church, as far as is affected. Its directly analogous to someone having been asked to read the Lord's Prayer. Two things seem true: He won't make up his own words (unless he's Eugene Peterson or Ken Taylor), and he won't intentionally read it in a manner to grossly change the impact of it (like doing it in a whiney voice so as to call attention to us instead of God.) Not all creativity is welcomed; but some is.

Tom: My hunch is that if he really understood my concerns and points, he’d disagree with them and maintain, with D, that God decides/determines it all, so that we are not ‘creators’ in any real sense of the word. Being a “real creator” so far as this conversation is concerned means determining reality’s shape in ways not also determined by God. Now, the possible shapes are determined by God, yes. They have to be. I cannot create possibilities (as God does). I can only creatively “elaborate” (Hopko’s word) upon divine themes, interpreting, re-expressing the same fundamental themes (love, sacrifice, humility, joy, kindness, etc.). That’s the nature of finite being and I’m happy to embrace its limitations. But still, which particular shape my expression takes, if I am said to be a creator (or co-creator, that’s fine), are determined by me, not God. I believe God wants it this way.

B: Interesting how you say "I cannot create possibilities, as God does." As an artist I like the word potentialities, too. And I liked how Hopko treated (your words) "which particular shape my expression takes." He expanded it when he mentioned the artwork taking over. Sometimes the artist is more like a pilgrim, journeying, hoping, guessing, anticipating.

B: The passage from Andrew of Crete (above) has that quality too.

PoW:  Being really personal now -- so only I can speak for me -- I figure that God created the potentialities that (alla Hopko) we elaborate, or nuance, etc., AND we also follow desires, search, explore, etc. And it is that last part that our first becoming God's artworks is so important, as we could just as easily pursue a phantom as pursue God.

Tom: There was one ray of hope when Hopko was discussion law and grace (within creativity). He said that in re-creating fallen humanity, God put in place ‘laws’ that prescribed how people were to act. Such laws, he said, are like asceticism, the disciplined canons which we must follow in order to nurture ourselves spiritually and grow in sanctification. But he also said ascetic practices aren’t the content of the creative sanctified life, they are just means to an end. Willard says the same thing, and I also brought this up months ago.

Bruce: Wonderful!

Tom:  So I’d like to ask Hopko if he thinks the ends will ever be reached so that the means are no longer required; if theosis does away with the need for God to prescribe (determine, instruct) right ways of acting at all. I suggested that our life in this world as it is, given our less than fully redeemed status, requires God to prescribe actions and choices in highly specific ways. This accounts for why we, and even Christ, only acted in response to specific instructions/leadings of the Spirit. A fallen context demands it. But I don’t imagine that fully redeemed existence in heaven will require such a “hands-on” approach by God. God will ‘let-go’. I think that’s just what our consummate existence in heaven will be, a perfect letting go of created being into a fully redeemed context which provides no threat, suffers from no false perceptions, and so requires no detailed instructions from God on where to let down my next step. This is what God wants to get to, not just more of the same. I think God’s hope, God’s dream, is to not have to so prescribe our every move as this present fallen world requires of him (and us).

B: Go ahead. Ask Hopko. Its a sincere, imaginative heartfelt question.

B: And what you wrote here is beautiful!!! 

Tom: I’ve become a bit more pessimistic about the EO. My guess is that Hopko will say, “ God decides it all. You’re only creative in the sense that God directly determines his own creative expression through you. You don’t determine the shape of creative expression in ways not previously determined for you by God.” And with that I cannot agree.

B: Taking a cue from what you just wrote above, it looks like (1) God decides it all--You’re only creative in the sense that God directly determines his own creative expression through you-- only on "this side", BUT that includes God letting us fall so that we can learn to want to get up, and so that it is our will that is becoming con-formed to his; and (2) it will still be true in the freedom you describe of the eschaton that it is God's will experienced now that remains congruent to our conformed will freely lived then.

B: How's that?