the real me

To me, these pictures do a pretty good job of touching on the real me. I honestly did not even know that they existed until about half an hour ago, when I rediscovered them deeply tucked away in an insignificant file on my laptop. I most definitely got distracted as these pictures and others made me smile, laugh and remember the little girl I used to be.

On his blog, Greg had the following quote:

"When one is told to be good, to mind your manners, to not be so noisy, to be nice, and so on, one becomes a 'mature' adult. Something is gained and something is lost. In this process of socialization, making one 'proper' for the world, you start to put things in a bag that you drag behind you: your exuberance, some of your joy and spontaneity. You might spend the first 25 years of your life filling the bag. One spends the rest of one's life trying to get many of those things back out again;"

Reading that quote, I could not help think of myself. Whether it has been the stress of finals, the drain of the semester, or simply growing up, I feel like I have started to put parts of me 'in that bag that I drag behind me.' I suppose some of the most obvious are a care-free spirit and that overwhelming, emanating joy. When I look at these pictures I see delight and am reminded of the truth that God DELIGHTS in me. It seems so easy for me to forget, and as I forget that truth about me, my own delight slips into my bag. I mentioned above that one of the other things in my bag would be a care-free spirit. These past years have not been easy and I have slowly become more and more weighed down by worries and cares. Looking back at these pictures help me gain perspective by giving me a physical image that reflects the beauty of freedom and the truth of that freedom that Christ wants me to live in. While these pictures are pictures of the little girl I used to be, they remain pictures of the little girl I am today. I may look a little different, but inside I am still the same.

If I had to only pick one image, it would be the first one, but I couldn't not put the other one up too.... notice also how both pictures are set on beaches. Outside of what I was saying about freedom and delight, beaches are definitely an integral part of my true self =)

"Layers"

Below you will find the url of the movie my group made to go along with our mask project. The movie is called "Layers" and cannot be found without this url. Enjoy!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdYkuTTYZtE

true gold fears no fire

landscape- or landscaping?

In thinking about landscapes in the 21st century, my mind kept wandering back to how the world is becoming increasingly developed with more and more cities and seemingly ceaseless construction of new and better buildings. With this in mind, it seems that we have stopped to work around nature and rather made nature work around us. Instead of conforming to nature, we have made nature conform to us. In the construction of a college campus, the layout of a city, or the placement of private houses, the buildings come first and then trees, bushes, flowers, and grass are placed strategically around them. It is interesting that this process is called "landscaping." In the 21st century, we have turned the word "landscape" from a noun into a verb, something we make, rather than something that is. Granted there is beautiful nature in this earth that remains untouched by humans, but on the whole this switch from landscape to landscaping is defining the 21st century.

In contrasting landscapes with earthworks a landscape is generally seen as natural and not manipulated, whereas an earthwork is by nature unnatural to a degree because something within nature has been manipulated. My landscape picture differs from our earthwork project because I used nature to manipulate a cityscape rather than bringing parts of civilization into nature or simply manipulate things within nature. Also, by nature of its name, a landscape typically includes both some sort of land or nature and some sort of sky. An earthwork, by contrast, does not need to include the sky.

Real? Ideal?

What is natural?

Given the assignment to take an image of God, this is my image. I suppose I'll explore it a little more, but first I'll take a look at the two previous images of God that I posted: Caravaggio's Doubting Thomas, and Sally Mann's untitled image. In Caravaggio's image, God is portrayed in a very concrete way, through the humanity of Jesus. Although the clothes and people look normal enough, the people appear to be Caucasian, and the clothes suddenly strike me as cleanly pressed and fresh. In this subtle way, perhaps, there is a hint at the staged nature of it all. However, it clearly portrays a scene from the gospels after Jesus' resurrection. In this way, it helps us envision what it could have been like to actually touch Jesus again. The manner in which Thomas is touching Jesus is definitely thought provoking... leading us to consider Christ's humanity and God in a new way or more deeply.

In Sally Mann's image, by contrast, I see an abstract image of God. This can help in considering the overall nature of God, or even a specific aspect of his divine nature, because he is Spirit- by nature not limited by physical things. By being abstract there is a freedom in presenting God's nature, which is beyond definition or the concrete. Because we identify with kids, we follow their gaze and look with them at the fire, reflecting then what that could be telling us about God. The black and white nature of the photograph also focuses the picture, and creates a muted intensity that would not have otherwise existed (also interesting when thinking about how that reflects God).

In light of those two images, I find my image to more clearly resemble that of Sally Mann's because of it's abstract nature. Since it doesn't have historical background to tie it to the time of Jesus or even an embodied story, I think the meaning behind the image is much less readily apparent and not as clear over all. That in itself has it's pro's and con's as it can expand to mean several different things, or simply confuse viewers and not convey meaning at all. It is similar to Sally Mann's also in the the lack of vibrant color. I find this to be a great asset, however, making it more riveting and compelling. Although it reflects no human face, I find it similar to Caravaggio's image in that it can be interpreted to touch on Jesus' humanity, limited-ness. Also I find that the lack of action stops me and makes me ponder. I like that.

Do let me know your thoughts--how you see this as an image of God, or don't. What feelings it evokes or questions it creates. I'd be happy to hear them.

a consuming fire.

Though I've looked, I have not yet found the title of this photograph by Sally Mann. Born in 1951, Sally Mann grew up in Virginia and had her first photographic expedition in 1977 in Washington D.C. This picture is part of her third collection, titled Immediate Family, which was published in 1992. With 65 pictures in total, this collection follows her three kids in childhood activities, but also darker themes including death, insecurity, sexuality etc. The Wall Street Journal censored a photograph of hers and some accused her of producing child pornography, but "Mann herself considered these photographs to be “natural through the eyes of a mother, since she has seen her children in every state: happy, sad, playful, sick, bloodied, angry and even naked.' " Of her work, critics said that her “vision in large measure [is] accurate, and a welcome corrective to familiar notions of youth as a time of unalloyed sweetness and innocence." Time magazine awarded her "America's Best Photographer" in 2001.

(Information taken from wikipedia.)

When I look at this picture, it draws me in. Thinking about it in the context of finding images of God, this picture reminds me of Hebrews 12:29 which says that "our 'God is a consuming fire." This image, then, of kids sitting at a distance and watching a fire blaze strikes me. On one hand, they sit at a comfortable, and safe distance; on the other, there is a sense of fearful observation. I get the feeling that they were preoccupied with their picnic or whatever they were doing and have just recently looked up to notice the fire. If I relate this to us now, I think it reflects how all too often we sit at a safe distance and simply watch God-watch God with mixed feelings. Yet we are content to be at a distance. To me this is convicting. If I stop and think about it, I often find myself pursuing God and yet, somehow, there seems to be a distance. Whether that is a conscious choice or subconscious default, I don't know...but there is a difference between pursuing God and being consumed by God.

To this extent, I think this picture speaks truth and is thought provoking in the search of truth.

stop doubting...

The Incredulity of Saint Thomas was painted by Caravaggio between 1601 and 1602. Even though both chiaroscuro and realistic portrayals of people were applied in art during the century beforehand, Caravaggio played a large role in shaping the Baroque period of art by redefining them and making them more dramatic. The dramatic nature of his art was portrayed both in his wild personality and in the varied way in which his work was received by the public; he was well liked because of his intensity, but he also stirred up much controversy over the proper-ness of his paintings because of that realism. His use of chiaroscuro is clear in this painting, as we see the focused light and deep, impenetrable shadows.

I can understand why Caravaggio seemed to stir up controversy and why some disliked or rejected his work. When I look at this image, something within me wants to reject it as well. It is not the fact that Thomas is touching Jesus' side, but the way in which he is poking his finger into it. The expression on his face and the angle at which his finger is gives me the feeling that it could be a spear, cutting Jesus all over again--only this time with the doubt of Thomas. I guess to me this picture feels invasive... perhaps, among other things, invading the mystery of Jesus. That kind of begs the question of whether or not Jesus is, or should be mysterious. He came to earth to reveal himself and he appeared to Thomas welcoming him to touch his side. Why would he have welcomed Thomas to touch his side if he didn't want him to?

I think this image is both true and not true. Because the gospel of John doesn't say that Thomas did in fact touch Jesus' side, if we think about this picture historically, I would say that it is not true. However, if we look at it as descriptive of the present age, I think it could be true. Jesus welcomed Thomas to touch him and turn away from his doubt, and I think he welcomes us as well--not physically, but in many other ways he calls to us. I think the problem, however, is that often people poke at Jesus with criticism and cynicism-- not to believe, but rather to be convinced-- and holding on to their doubt...

... just some beginning thoughts

http://www.moodbook.com/art/caravaggio.html

A little background of this picture from Wikipedia:

Les Demoiselles d'Avignon (The Young Ladies of Avignon) is a large oil painting of 1907 by the Spanish artist Pablo Ruiz Picasso (1881–1973). The work portrays five nude female prostitutes from a brothel on Avinyó Street in Barcelona. Each figure is depicted in a disconcerting confrontational manner and none are conventionally feminine. The women appear as slightly menacing and rendered with angular and disjointed body shapes. Two are shown with African mask-like faces and three more with faces in the Iberian style of Picasso's native Spain, giving them a savage aura. In this adaptation of Primitivism and abandonment of perspective in favor of a flat, two-dimensional picture plane, Picasso makes a radical departure from traditional European painting. The work is widely considered to be seminal in the early development of both Cubism and modern art. Demoiselles was revolutionary and controversial, and led to wide anger and disagreement, even amongst his closest associates and friends.

In class, Greg pointed me towards this picture to include in the discussion surrounding the picture I took of the girl in the picture frame wearing the mask. He explained the correlating themes of isolation and alienation, as well as theuse of masks. How does the background of Les Demoiselles d'Avignon affect the way you see my picture. Do you think there is any symbolic meaning or interpretation of what Les Demoiselles d'Avignon means in the 21st century? What about the significance of who is masked and who is not?

Although she is not alone in the picture, the girl in the middle is very much alienated from the rest of the group, which is also alienated from each other. Instead of the community represented in statues or artwork such as the Chartres Cathedral (1225) where the statues are presented talking with one another, everyone in this picture is absorbed in their own little world, separated by various forms of technology. Also, like the Greek riace warrior (440 B.C.), the girl standing in the middle has an air of confidence and power, demonstrated by her posture and the way in which she faces the viewer directly.

Taking a step back, the first thing my eyes are drawn to is the face of the girl in the middle, framed not only by a picture frame, but also by light. In the elegant black dress and the ornate mask, she holds the frame, presenting a picture of herself to the world the way she would like to be seen-- beautiful, confident, and in control. The mask, however, suggests that this picture of herself is not who she really is. Yet as she grips the picture frame tightly, with both hands, we can see that this false picture of herself is what she is putting her identity in. Although she tries hard to present a perfect picture, the frame is tilted just enough to suggest that she might not be as perfect as she seems.