Prophet

This is one of my latest paintings. I haven’t included it in my gallery yet (see the “art by onesimus” tab) because I don’t like the photo. It was taken last night using a flash. I prefer natural light to reduce refelcted glare as much as possible.

I find that my favourite paintings are those that have taken the least planning. I’m rarely happy with the result when I try to work things out in too much detail prior to painting.

With this one I had a very attractive red-orange canvas that I’d put aside, not knowing how to best utilise the beautiful background I’d created over several days. The colour literally glowed.

This photo shows what I did with it. I smothered that glorious colour, then I scraped back sections and added a few more smears of paint on top.

After standing back I saw a very rough looking face on the canvas, so I tweeked a bit here, scraped more there and was quite happy with the result. For some reason the name “Prophet” came to mind – John the Baptist in particular, so I added a little bible text on three sides to more clearly identify it with John.

My wife said it’s a scary looking painting. I think that’s probably an appropriate response.  John the Baptist would have been a challenging man to come across -  probably quite scary to meet with.

Reviewing the Past

Many times I’ve heard people say how they wouldn’t change anything from their past, that everything was a valuable learning experience leading them to who they are today.

There are many things I would change if I had the opportunity.

I see desire for change is one of the central features of the gospel message. It is at the heart of repentance, recognising that our lives have been lived in a way that is incompatible with a relationship with God, that things in our lives have separated us from Him.

Our lives have been lived giving no thought for Him. Lives lived and decisions made out of self-centredness rather than God-centeredness. We think we know better and despise the idea that anyone else (including God, our creator) has any right to require anything of us. Wanting to rule our own lives, we have done our own thing, gone our own way.

Repentance allows us the opportunity to change our past in God’s eyes. True repentance leads to a new beginning where the slate is wiped clean, where past wrongs are forgiven and forgotten by God.

But unlike God we don’t have the power to choose to forget. Things we regret remain in our own memory. If only we could go back and change it so there would be nothing requiring repentance…

But some have no desire for change. They are satisfied with their past and have no intention of submitting themselves to anyone, even God. They retain the attitude of  ”What right does anyone have to tell me how to live my own life?”.

But one day ALL of us will find out about God’s right to rule what He created. How many will find out while the opportunity remains to do something about it?

How many will find out too late?

Jesus’ Shed Blood (Disappointing Photography)

I have difficulty photographing some of my paintings.

Here is one of the worst cases. I’ve tried several times under different lighting conditions but the photo never captures what can be seen with the eye.

It’s another painting where I painted over an earlier idea that wasn’t working. I started the original on Passover and was trying to incorporate elements of the original passover into the painting.

Part of the earlier painting has been retained with the faint image of a goblet, something I was using to tie that original passover to the last supper and to “communion” (the Lord’s supper).

With a little imagination I can still see the doorway on which lamb’s blood was applied to keep a home’s occupants safe from the last plague of Egypt.

The doorway frames the goblet.

The untitled “Y”

This is one of my latest paintings. As yet I can’t think of an appropriate title. It went through some very big changes before this completed version. The earliest painting on this board (still under the paint somewhere) is illustrated below.

Like most of my paintings the inspiration comes from a combination of Psalm 22, Isaiah 53 and the gospel accounts of the crucifixion.

This finished work contains two of the motifs I use quite a lot. (Does the use of the word “motif” make me sound as if I know what I’m doing?).

The “Y” is my variation on the cross of the crucifixion. I use it for several reasons.

1) It is an abbreviated echo of the question in Jesus’ cry of “My God My God WHY have you forsaken me.

2) It highlights the shape of a crucified Jesus instead of the wood on which He was nailed, putting the emphasis on HIM rather than upon a religious symbol that has been turned into a kind of talisman verging on idolatry.

3) The “Y” is the first letter in the anglicised version of Jesus’ Hebrew name (Yeshua)

4) It relates to a local landmark in my home town

Another symbol I’ve started to use is the image of a clock showing 3 o’clock. Im use it in a few of my most recent paintings and represents the time around Jesus’ cry of anguish and his sudden death. In this painting the time is barely discernible (less so in the photo) on the oval to the viewer’s left of the “Y”.

 Throughout the painting I have also etched gospel statements into the surface. Again the photo doesn’t show these up very well, but zooming in on the fork above the “Y” shows a hint of words scratched into the paint surface.

And here is the first thing painted on the canvas. Unfortunately I don’t have a photo of the version between this one and the finished painting. The one shown to the left is one of my first attempts at painting scripture which was my original intention, inspired by my friend Chris who is very successful at painting nothing but bible words. But I wasn’t happy with most of my own efforts (like the one here) and I now try to take a different approach using a growing language of symbols to (hopefully) complement biblical text and references incorporated more subtly into the paintings.

The Convenience of Dated Prophecy

This week I’ve been listening to a recording of a radio broadcast featuring a group of “watchmen on the wall”, individuals who see themselves as being God-appointed mouthpieces with the job of warning the church of dangers ahead – usually dangers from false teaching or false prophecy.

The recording started with stirring music reminiscent of a Hollywood blockbuster soundtrack – from one of those disaster movies where someone like Bruce Willis saves the world. The musical introduction was followed by the host introducing his guests and spelling out the reason for them meeting.

Throughout this intro I felt my innards start to contract, a feeling of discomfort that is often my reaction to twaddle spoken in the name of God. And what he was saying WAS spoken in God’s name – we were told how God did this and God said that. How the Holy Spirit showed him this and how the Spirit led them to do that…

Surely casually attributing things to God in this way is perilously close to taking the Lord’s name in vain, a contravention of the third commandment: “You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.” Or maybe it’s more than “close” and has in fact overstepped the mark…

Then we move onto the guests – each of whom predictably spells out their expectations of doom and gloom for America. But less predictably (can I claim that as an unintended pun?) was the specific nature of their warnings. They made it clear it would all happen THIS year, probably around August

In the past year or so I’ve seen an increased number of DATED prophecies being broadcast. Most would be aware of Harold Camping’s failed return of Christ prediction pointing to May last year that even made the secular news. Then there was a prediction of another (and more) devastating earthquake in Christchurch NZ (God’s metaphorical shaking of Christ’s Church according to some). I seem to recall that was due in July last year (still waiting!).

Another was Andrew Strom’s flexible prediction of financial collapse pencilled in before the end of 2011. Flexible because the confirmation of that collapse has been pushed back to later in 2012 when the financial experts have had time to consider the data and acknowledge it did happen just as Strom predicted.

So much for an event that was supposed to match (or was  it exceed) the Great Depression of the early 20^th century! I don’t seem to remember the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah requiring confirmation from a committee of town planners, so why need expert confirmation (a year later) in this case?

While I wonder about the apparent increase in DATED prophecy in recent times, I recognise how convenient it is to have that fixed date – so much easier to quickly prove their falsehood. No vague “sometime in the future” to deal with. Already three out of the four predictions I mentioned have been shown as false, so we should be able to move on, the people responsible can admit their error, apologise to those they led astray and repentantly move forward.

But no!

 I touched on Andrew Strom’s reaction above. He’s still waiting for the financial experts to confirm his prediction was valid.

 I don’t recall Camping’s response after his May 2011 prediction failed, but I do remember the aftermath of the Christchurch prediction. Thankfully SOME who were involved did the required soul searching, apologised, learned from their mistake and moved on. Others did not – adopting the view that their prayers helped change God’s mind and they helped to save the city from further destruction. They maintain that the prophecy was valid.

The remaining predictions of the destruction of America have until the end of the year (at most) or until August (at least) to be fulfilled. Will these “watchmen” join the growing list of recent, unrepentant false prophets? Time will tell – and not much time will be required at that!

But what can WE learn from all of this? That we should reject all prophetic claims? I hope not. Instead we should learn to take a biblical approach to prophecy, an approach given by Paul in 1 Thessalonians:

“Do not treat prophecies with contempt but test them all; hold on to what is good”

ART: Industry or DIY?

 One thing I’ve noticed in a few art documentaries over the past year is that some of today’s successful artists don’t physically create art themselves. They have “assistants” who do the hands-on work while the artist comes up with the concept. Now if I could only find a factory full of people (and equipment) to create my ideas for me – I’d have a much bigger chance of success. I could create a few ideas that were too big for me to achieve with my limited practical skills.

Thinking about this brought to mind the music situation in the early 70s where rock music was becoming bigger (not necessarily better) and musicians needed the population of a medium sized city just to set up their equipment for a concert.

The reaction against that extravagance was punk – where kids of little talent bashed on guitars and strummed on drums, trying to be musicians. It became a popular movement among equally talentless but enthusiastic kids who found they had more in common with Johnny Rotten than they had with bands playing intricate, hour-long guitar solos and singing esoteric lyrics.

While Punk couldn’t avoid exploitative elements, it did open up a means for everyday people (mostly in their teens and twenties) to have a go. They didn’t need to become accomplished musicians first; they used what they had, even if it wasn’t much. No need for expensive equipment or hoards of “assistants” to do the hard work for them.

They were a reaction to the musical dinosaurs so distant from their reality. The ironic thing is that some of the ongoing successes who came out of the simplicity of punk, went on to become “rock dinosaurs” themselves – performing in stadium concerts, supported by expensive equipment and armies of staff…

But back to “ART” – Where is the genuine article and who is the genuine artist? Is art all about ideas and having significant financial resources to bring the ideas to physical reality? Is the artist the idea’s person or is it the one who actually brings the work to life? Should art be attributed to the name signing it? Or maybe to the one able to afford the hiring of craftspeople to create it?  *

Or is art something more personal, something struggled and sweated over by someone needing to overcome the odds to bring their ideas to life? Would my own paintings be more art-worthy if I paid a talented painter to create a technically perfect version of my intended ideas, instead of struggling to create something myself that hopefully comes close to what I wanted to paint?

While Punk may have had its musical day, maybe the freedom it gave people to have a go is something that should be reawakened. No need for the nastiness and offensiveness or even the anger that accompanied the 70s fad. “Nice” emotions and attitudes have their place too.

We don’t need huge studios equipped like factories; we don’t need to employ people to do the work for us. We don’t need to raise finances to pay for that kind of extravagance. Just pick up paper and pencil or a paintbrush and paint and start making your OWN marks, expressing something yourself.

__________

 And another important question: who deserves the credit (and the payment) when an artwork is sold?

Inspiring art

My art journey continues, and I love the learning process. Recently I’ve been looking for the work of successful artists with a similar approach to the one I’m developing. It’s not that I want to copy anyone else; I want to be inspired and to find ideas regarding technique.

One of my recent discoveries is Carol Bomer (http://www.carolbomer.com/index.cfm ) whose work expresses her faith in God. I especially like the way she incorporates text into her paintings, painting over newsprint and pages of books, and adding written text within the painted areas.

In some of my very early paintings I tried to incorporate words cut from newspapers and also printed biblical text. I was happy with the result at the time but those paintings were clearly the product of someone gaining familiarity with his materials. I like the change in physical textures created when different materials are used on the canvas, as well as the effect of partially hidden images, not entirely identifiable, that suggest meaning to be discovered.

See here for a Carol Bomer painting I particularly like:
http://www.carolbomer.com/painting.cfm?ID=322

Problem? What Problem? Maintaining the status quo…

The present church is powerless but it won’t admit there’s a problem. It continues with a ”business as usual” attitude and most people will remain satisfied and not be challenged. The role taken by today’s church is one of justifying and reinforcing our status quo – making us feel comfortable about ourselves and where we are.

In the west we take the view that we are experiencing God’s blessing when in reality we rob ourselves of His blessing through our satisfaction with things of far less value.

I’m sure many over the years have seen me as a thorn in their side (after all I’ve been accused of being a servant of Satan more than once) because I have challenged their comfortable theological position. I haven’t done that because I feel I am more right than them – it’s out of a feeling of desperation, to get to the TRUTH, to live in the truth and to be part of a body of believers who are genuinely interested in living the truth.

I only speak/write passionately about those few things that I myself have learned and come to recognise as truth – often after I’ve made a 180 degree turn around from an earlier belief I had been taught.

For some time the single most important truth I’ve tried to get across is to abandon proof text based theology, to stop trying to “interpret” scripture to fit our established theology, and to let scripture speak for itself in its complete context. However it is much easier to swallow and regurgitate what others teach than it is to seek and trust God for ourselves.

Aftermath

I’ve been discussing the different versions of my “Eloi” painting with the friend who introduced me to art. He gave me some very good advice that I hope I’ll follow in the future. Instead of trying to improve something that’s already quite good – start again on a new canvas and introduce those “improvements” into the new version.

I suppose my hesitation to do that in the past has been the fear that I wouldn’t be able to recapture those parts of the original work that I really liked, but I now realise that isn’t important. Who knows, I might even improve on THOSE elements as well as (hopefully) the parts I hadn’t liked in the original.

Looking back to the Eloi painting – I have lost a very good original version, I have a photo of a less impressive (but not too bad) second version, and I have a final canvas not as good as the original but quite different to the second. If I’d approached it in the way my friend has now advised, I could have had a series of three similar paintings of the same theme and been much more satisfied with the work I’ve done over the past week.

Am I ready to learn from past mistakes?

Illustration of a point

Here lies a cautionary tale related to the painting mentioned in my previous post. After spoiling the original through over working, I tried to rescue something of worth from the painting. While I’m reasonably happy with what I now have, that contentment quickly evapourates when I see photos of different versions side by side. My only consolation is that the newer version looks better “in the flesh” than it does in the photo.

I suppose I can therefore try to convince myself that the earlier version really looks far better in the photo than it ever did on the canvas.