Monthly Archives: November 2010

Walking the Earth

Barbara Brown Taylor, in An Altar in the World,  advocates walking as spiritual practice.  She doesn’t mean walking and praying as you go.  She means walking and being quiet, paying attention.

Some leaves hang on to the tree, curling up in a tight cylinder.   Others die in tire tracks, leaving the ice in the rut colored red, yellow, and orange.  Still others slice themselves into the snow neatly, leaving heads sticking up as if to see if anyone is following.

This morning, a dead rat’s tail made a stiff, sharp “L” in the snow.

A robin, fat chested and calm, picked at red berries as I stood below, perhaps three feet away.   A woman going by said that’s what they do, get fat on the berries.

A poster on a post announced that someone’s shy dog was missing.  I forget his name.  The word “shy” made me ache.

I could hear an airplane far above, a few muted voices laughing from the houses, the occasional call of the crows as I passed a gathering spot.

A squirrel bounced across the street under a too stubborn fire-red tree.

The crunch of ice under my boots was the only sound for long stretches.

Fuzzy buds on a Tulip tree reminded me that Spring will come.

At about that same spot, on the horizon to the west, the Olympic mountains, catching the sun, made me think of far places in C.S. Lewis worlds, places where those who want to be more real want to go.    I could imagine walking toward those mountains, knowing that on the other side of them was the life that would never let me down, never end, never go dark.

Yellow flowers bearing up under the weight of the cold, empty branches curling elegantly toward the sky, small gold leaves from two houses the other way sitting on the snow next door.

All of these things speak to me of what I don’t control and what I cannot create.  There is a world out there, happening even now, waiting for someone to pay attention and see.

Barbara Brown Taylor calls it “flagging one more gate to heaven.”   There’s divine traffic in every moment, if we’re alert enough to see it.

I didn’t have my camera…

2 Comments

Filed under Spirituality

Three Tall Women Demonstrate Why Art Matters

Megan Cole as A, Alexandra Tavares as C, and Susanne Bouchard as B in Seattle Repertory Theatre's production of Edward Albee's Three Tall Women

At 7:15 p.m. on this Wednesday evening I was in a bit of a huff.  Mad, actually, because I couldn’t find a parking place.  I hate to pay for parking.  And usually there’s a spot lurking somewhere west of Seattle Center.  But not tonight.   I finally gave up, parked and payed, and headed across the street to the Seattle Rep to see Edward Albee’s play, Three Tall Women.

Three hours later, sitting back at my computer, knowing I’ve been changed by what I experienced tonight.  The second act did me in.

Megan Cole, Suzanne Bouchard, and Alexandra Tavares were not only tall, they were towering.  Lithe with words and moments, shifts of emotional tone lightning fast, the three of them played Albee’s rhythms like musicians, and after reading director Allison Narver’s notes, it was easy to see that as conductor, she gave a pretty tall performance herself.   In short (no pun intended), I haven’t been this impacted by a piece of work in a long, long time.

Three Tall Women (spoiler alert, but it’s not about plot anyway) is a play about three women at three distinctly different seasons of life, and then in Act Two–and the structure and writing is oh, so subtle, but works seamlessly–they become the same woman.   It reminded me of that book I love so much, The Time Traveler’s Wife, by Audrey Neffennegger, in which the protagonist time travels and meets himself coming and going.   The whole idea of the future and what waits for each of us, and would we want to know what’s coming if given the chance.   Albee’s older women say, “No way.”

This is not a review.  It’s more a report about an experience.   Act One belonged to Megan Cole.   As an old woman on her very last legs, she played Albee’s action as a verbal dance, full of runs and stops, turns and leaps, frets and furies, as well as the on and off warm memories sweeping into her in recurring  waves.  It was pain, bitterness, and courage on display, loss upon loss: her memory, her temper, her control of bodily function, her money, her son, and in the end, her life.   Act Two opened a window into the grand sweep of one particular life, into which Albee stuffs an awful lot of theatricality, courage, and bursting pain.   Suzanne Bouchard’s mid-act tirade, sparked by the arrival of someone she once threw out of her house, was nothing short of mesmerizing.   Stunning.   Rage, bravado, pride, fear, sexuality, disbelief, strength…all on display.  And she barely moved.

And all of this firmly set inside the soft-walled, hard edged-frame box of a design beautifully conceived by Matthew Smucker.   The program suggested the design made us voyeurs.  I never felt that way.  I felt I was in a gallery, watching lives rendered in a very focused, attention-holding strategy.  It was odd not to see their feet, but I loved the frame and clean lines of the soft, near transparent curtain that surrounded the space.   And the light was just beautiful, shifting simply to illuminate the moods at work in the various sections of the play.

The reasons I was impacted so deeply are personal, and I’ll speak of them another time.   But my mind was opened in a way that I can’t really imagine happening any other way.   The experience of these women was palpable to me, so imaginable, so compassion-inducing, so terrible in its content, but so thrilling in its form, its rhythm, its language, meter, and emotional scales.

Mss. Cole, Bouchard, and Tavares…thank you.    Thank you for the gift of all those years of preparation and work in the aesthetic mastery of your craft.    On this Wednesday night, you delivered big time.

And it mattered…

1 Comment

Filed under art, Theatre

Does Art Matter?

Sandwich Board for Arthur: The Begetting on Orcas Island

I’ve rarely asked this question.   I’ve always believed in my bones that it does.   But in exiting paid ministry, in which lives can change pretty dramatically as a direct or indirect result of your work, I wonder not only about the theatre, but about art in general.  Who gets their busted lives put back together by art?   When I think of my daughter’s quest to act in film, television, and theatre, and the immense difficulty of that journey, when she is frankly talented enough to work her way into what for most would be a far more lucrative career, I wonder if art matters enough to warrant such sacrifice and struggle.  The “struggling artist” is proverbial enough to be a bad cliche, yet it is the state of affairs for those who create art that has yet to break through into the worlds of fame and fortune.

For a moment, as an exercise, I want to argue the other side.

Let’s say art doesn’t matter.

I suppose the take in that direction would be that art is largely window dressing.  It’s no doubt pleasurable, even delightful, but even if we argue that delight is a good thing, perhaps even a godly thing, then we would assert that some delights are better than others.   Surely the delight taken when a child is fed is far superior to the delight taken during a Moliere comedy.  Surely the meaning wrought from the experience of caring for the elderly and the infirm is far deeper and more godly than the meaning wrought from a deep reading of, or better yet, a fine production of Hamlet.  And to contemplate God directly in prayer is undoubtedly far superior than the contemplation of a Rodin or Rembrandt.   Reading scripture trumps reading the greatest of poetry any day.

So why do art?

A bowl must be made.  Make a functional bowl that will hold water and other stuff, but do not decorate.  Do not take the time to deliberate an iota over the shape, size, color, or texture of the surface.   That time is better spent.

I hardly know how to make the argument.

How about this one:  Jesus didn’t talk about art, except to say that the Temple would be torn down, and the Apostle Paul didn’t think highly of women who were artfully gussied up.  And yes, Jesus told stories, but he was only concerned with the moral behind the story, and not the story itself.   Besides, he didn’t craft them, as in workshopping them and redrafting them…he just told them, perfect structures from the get-go.   So the lesson there seems to be not to worry about much except the moral.   Surely if you focus on the moral, how the story that delivers the moral gets told…well, God doesn’t really care about the quality of that.   Just get the moral lessons out there.   And Jesus never delivered them with any sense of theatre.   He was teaching simply and straightforwardly.   We should do the same.

Anybody’s life been changed by a painting lately?

Sure, art matters, maybe…but maybe not too much.   Perhaps we should spend time composing songs and writing plays after the hungry are fed.   But oh, you say, you should compose and write in order to feed the hungry.   Oh, I see, art making is justified by the ends and uses to which it leads.   A song that leads to benevolence is welcome.  A song that leads personal profit?  Not so good.

So I’m an artist sitting at home, my kids clothes’ are getting worn, our food is less than it might be, and the strain is starting to show itself in my marriage.  (Remember all this is hypothetical, right?  My marriage is great, just so you know.)  Art doesn’t matter.   Taking care of my kids does.   I may be talented, even gifted in my field of art-making, but there’s no market, and the sacrifices are just too great.    Art doesn’t matter anyway, and no one will miss the works of art I might have made.

Why couldn’t I have been a computer developer?  Then I would have been some use to the world.

Too late.

If there’s someone out there who thinks art matters, tell me about it.

Otherwise…

23 Comments

Filed under art, Faith and Art, Theatre

A Christian Aesthetic

A Collage by my friend Sarah Gordon...

My intellect is getting a pretty robust workout these days, pressing some heavy reading about aesthetics, moral creativity (does that make anyone nervous?  I’m loving it…), and the notion that surfaces may actually have substance.   Just think, lots of people are designing things that are aimed straight at my amygdala, my pre-cognitive, emotional self, and someone is suggesting that’s not a bad thing at all?

Questions abound these days, questions of artmaking, identity, human beings, creativity, moral responsibility, Christian experience, the will, theatre, the nature of a moment, and the Psalmist’s constant reminder that we are dust and grass.  Mind-mapping the ideas, metaphors, frames of reference, orientations, and artworks that my students in January will encounter as we talk about The Arts and Culture:  A Christian Aesthetic.     This year, a new question is nagging at me, and you’d think it would have nagged at me a long time ago, given the title of the class.

What is a christian aesthetic?

Sometimes I’m really slow.

The word aesthetics can be used in a number of ways. It can refer to the philosophical study of the arts, to the artistic sensibilities of an artist, group of people, or a culture, or to the physical properties of design that describe an object.  Questions of philosophical aesthetics deal with universal characteristics of art (if there are any), what distinguishes art from non-art, the various relationships between subject and object in art, the affective properties of various aesthetic elements (line, shape, form, color, etc.), the critique and judgment of art pieces, as well as the impact of art and entertainment on behavior, morality, and ethics.   So in raising the question of a christian aesthetic, I suppose I am referring to the various ways in which Christian art makers and audiences orient themselves toward the various sensual and spiritual (read “human”) aspects of the artistic/aesthetic work they make or encounter.

Lady Gaga has an aesthetic.   The Amish have an aesthetic.  Goth Culture has an aesthetic, as does Hip-Hop.   The Pre-Raphaelites had one, as did the painters in Northern Europe during the reformation.  Rodin has an aesthetic.  Pixar has one of the most successful and powerful aesthetics in the world.  The War Games of Xbox and other game consoles have an easily recognizable aesthetic, as does anime.  Family Bible Bookstores have an aesthetic that is pretty different than say, the bookstore set up by the Episcopal Church.

What in the world would a Christian aesthetic be?  Is there such a thing?  Should there be?  If aesthetics really means nothing more than style, then surely Christianity transcends style, and therefore we should be no attention to it at all, right?  Why is it then that as many churches (probably more) split over aesthetic issues as do over theology and doctrine?   I know of a church that is currently in the process of losing significant numbers of its members because the music style that had defined the church for nearly a decade was reportedly deemed by a pastor to be out of line with the direction of the church, meaning that the particular style of music was not going to appeal to the masses he was hoping the church would attract.   Whether too highbrow or too lowbrow, what is this but a question of aesthetics, and a ready acknowledgment that aesthetics have real-time, street level power in the lives of regular folks like you and me?    But from church to church, certain clothes are acceptable and others aren’t.  Some tones of voice in prayer are more appealing than others, and the way the reading of scripture is handled says something of the culture of the church.   Will it be a beautiful brass or silver that holds the blood of Christ, the rich headiness of wine suggesting the danger and pungency of his sacrifice, or will we throw back a shot of grape juice from small plastic throwaway cups?  (Does my bias show?)  Does it matter?   Maybe not,  but change the aesthetics in your church, and see how many people whisper in discontent and complaint, and see how many leave if you don’t change them back.

I ask again, what is a Christian aesthetic?  Help me out here.  Give me a few thoughts on how you would define it.   Better yet, maybe I’ll put out a request for tweets.

And if you don’t think it matters, fine.  Tell me that.  But look for pushback from this corner…

And God said, “It was very good…”

15 Comments

Filed under art, Faith and Art

The American Clock

I’ve got to get out more.

Last night, I trekked downtown to small venue I’d never been to before, one of the performing spaces for Cornish School of the Arts (it may be the only one…I don’t know).   I went to see the opening of The American Clock, by Arthur Miller, directed by Carol Roscoe.   Having directed a few university plays myself, and having experienced a wide variety of final products in such venues,  I went in with few expectations, which, by the way, I find to be the most rewarding approach to seeing theatre these days.   As I settled into my seat in the large, square black box theatre, I couldn’t help but reflect on all the time I spent in such places over the years.   A low ceiling, batten grid above me, small audience, large, deep squarish playing space.  To my right, a piano and ambiguous wing space.  In front of me a raised platform and a piece of rolling scaffolding.  To the left, not much…another shadowy space for entrances and exits and waiting.   It felt good to be there, in this rough theatre where students hammer away at their craft.  I imagined the classes there, and the exercises, and the rehearsals, Carol challenging these students, calling out of them performances they didn’t know they were capable of.   The play itself must have been a daring thing when it was written, it’s vaudevillian structure an unusual form by which to take on the morality and ethics of the Great Depression.   I knew nothing of The American Clock before the curtain went up, and I don’t know much more now in terms of the larger context of the play, but I found it compelling given the economics of today.  In her “Director’s Notes”, Carol talks of the frightening nature of the play, and after seeing it, I see what she meant.   I’ve been fortunate in the present economic downturn, but many have not.  It is devastating to lose all you have, and again, I say that without having lived through it, so in the spirit of AA, I suppose I should just shut up.  But my point is that the play as delivered by these talented young actors is a helpful and challenging meditation on the times in which we live.  The rise of multinational corporations, corporate farming, the role of “assistance” and its delivery, the difficulties of small business, the size and role of the federal government, the rising rage of those hardest hit by the times…it’s all there.   And when the music dies and the piano is carted away, the frustration and anger rises to a fever pitch, and the performances of the mother and father of the family in those moments are gutsy and heartbreaking.   I imagined just such scenes taking place in living rooms around the country over and over in the past five years.

I thought of my grandfather and grandmother as I watched.  He was a sharecropper in the 30′s, and it was difficult.   He was a crusty old man, and our sensibilities didn’t match up very well.  But as I reflect on what he lived through, I again  think I should have been kinder to him.   It’s so easy to judge.

Hats off to Cornish for this production.   Thanks.

The show runs this weekend (except for Thursday night), with a Sunday matinee and a Monday night performance as well.

How can you lose a whole country?

Leave a Comment

Filed under Daily Life, Theatre