The Gift And Power Of Art

[nealr]

Last month there was considerable discussion about the new book by Michael MacKay and Gerrit Dirkmaat, From Darkness unto Light, More specifically, the discussion largely revolved about the artwork featured in the book.

 

FairMormon has posted a PDF of the essay by Anthony Sweat, the artist, where in he talks about the relationship of art and history and why he made the artistic choices he made. I figure some maybe interested in reading and discussing it here. 

 

http://blog.fairmormon.org/2015/06/02/by-the-gift-and-power-of-art/

[Nevo]

It's a good essay. I'd be happy to see it replace the FairMormon page on the subject, which adopts a style of apologetics that many (including myself) find off-putting. Sweat's essay, on the other hand, is irenic and fair to all sides. There's no question that depicting Joseph Smith translating with his face buried in a hat is going to present challenges for the artist, but I think it needs to be done anyway.

 

As Sweat points out, Church magazines and media over the past 40+ years have depicted the translation of the Book of Mormon more than 55 times. Every one of these depictions has been "inconsistent with aspects of documented Church history of the translation process of the Book of Mormon" and has effectively created a false historical memory of the event among members of the Church:

 

None of the images ever printed in the history of the Ensign (or recent Church videos, such as Joseph Smith, Prophet of the Restoration) depicts the translation process of the Book of Mormon as having taken place by placing a seer stone or the Nephite interpreters in a hat. Is there any wonder, then, that there is confusion in the minds and hearts of believing persons when they learn through repeated scholarly sources . . . that the Book of Mormon was apparently translated through seer stones placed in a hat to obscure light and that the plates were often concealed under a cloth or not in the room and not by opening the plates with his finger on them and studying it out?

 

Images are powerful. Surely Sweat is correct when he observes that "images often shape our perceptions of history as much as, or perhaps more than, many of the scholarly works about history." And of course there's no question that the iconic images of the translation have circulated much more widely among Church members than "scholarly works about history," which tend to have an extremely limited readership.

 

Sweat tries to justify the inaccurate art by noting artists' objections that depicting Joseph Smith with his head buried in a hat doesn't really work visually. He also speculates that Ensign art directors may have decided that depicting "Joseph with his finger in open plates with a pensive look was more visually appealing and communicative than the historical reality of what the translation may have looked like." That may all be true, but it has created a problem for the Church since people do—quite understandably, I think—feel misled when they find out that the translation process was completely unlike what they'd been led to believe, and not in a good way.

 

It's not realistic to expect all art to be completely historically accurate, but I don't think it's unreasonable for members to expect official Church art depicting Joseph Smith's translation of the Book of Mormon to have some relationship to historical reality. One can quibble about clothing and lamp styles and so forth (I think the top hat is wrong, btw), but the actual manner of translating shouldn't be suppressed simply because it looks strange to us now. It looked strange in the 1820s too.

Edited June 2, 2015 by Nevo

[Robert F. Smith]

In the representation of reality, it may indeed be all right for artists of any kind to depict historical events in any style that suits them, whether based on folklore, cubism, impressionism, socialist realism, or some other social construction.  They may be reaching for an emotional or spiritual affect (stress on the first syllable) and effect, and be completely uninterested in depiction of common historical details.  The result can be the absurdly Nordic-Viking depiction of Book of Mormon people and events by Arnold Friberg.

 

Part of that overwhelming tendency is based on the lack of access to historical detail to most artists (I am thinking here primarily of Medieval and Renaissance artists).  Their imagination played the biggest role.  However, at a time when archeological reality has come to the fore, that is no longer a valid excuse.  Not for poets, novelists, scriptwriters, playwrights, film directors, painters, sculptors, or the like, who are truly interested in attaining something approaching mimesis, not to say mythic social construction.

 

We occasionally see a sincere and effective effort to do that, as we did when archeologist George Ernest Wright of Harvard teamed up with an artist to depict famous biblical events through use of the best museum artifacts as key – G. Wright, “Bringing Old Testament Times to Life,” National Geographic Magazine, 112/12 (Dec 1957):833-864; Wright, “The Last Thousand Years Before Christ,” 115/12 (Dec 1960):813-853.

 

Thus, I am happy to see at least one LDS artist try to incorporate actual historical detail into Mormon historical art.  Namely, Anthony Sweat, “By the Gift and Power of Art,” in Michael H. MacKay & Gerrit J. Dirkmaat, eds., From Darkness Unto Light: Joseph Smith's Translation and Publication of the Book of Mormon (Provo: BYU Religious Studies Center/SLC: Deseret Book, 2015), 229-243, online at http://blog.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/From-Darkness-unto-Light.-Appendix.pdf .

Sweat quotes LDS artist Walter Rane:

 

I don’t think an artist has any responsibility to be historically accurate. If I am doing a painting I can do whatever I want. I can look at a sunset and paint it blue instead of red if I want to express something. I don’t feel like as an artist I have a responsibility to be historically accurate unless someone has commissioned me. Art is self-expression. Art is communication. That’s what art is. If I’m trying to express something that is important to me I’ll do whatever I want. If it means putting Christ in contemporary clothing or whatever, if it’s important to the message I’m trying to make then I’ll do it.

*          *          *          *

Sweat goes on to say that “all that matters to an artist is the message that comes through to the audience receiving that image.”

*          *          *          *         

“. . . while art and artists are often credited with making historical, and particularly religious, ideas come alive and plainer to understand, an inherent problem enters when the language of religious art becomes translated into the language of history by its viewer. What we see becomes what we believe, and often, therefore, what we think we know about facts and details of history. And when we learn religious facts and history (from scholars or historians) that contradict what we think we know (through artistic renderings), a state of cognitive dissonance—and in the case of religious art, spiritual dissonance—can often be the result.”

 

The dangers of artistic misrepresentation ought to be clear to us.

[oremites]

The dangers of artistic misrepresentation ought to be clear to us.

 

As well as the dangers of not understanding artistic representation.  I would hate to live in a world where illustration and art are required to be the equivalent of reproducing a photograph.  The beauty of great art and illustration is to help us gain an emotional understanding of something, not simply a visual understanding.

[The Nehor]

If this means we get to get rid of the painting of Samuel on that huge city wall I am all for it. Seriously....was it supposed to be miraculous that he was not shot in that painting. Also, why does King Noah always have pet wildcats? In the painting and in the cartoon?

[The Nehor]

A good example of artistic license that some may not consider to be in good taste:

 

[Rain]

That may all be true, but it has created a problem for the Church since people do—quite understandably, I think—feel misled when they find out that the translation process was completely unlike what they'd been led to believe, and not in a good way.

I wonder why people feel misled with this, but don't feel misled when Christ is portrayed non Jewish looking. I hear lots of irritation about that, but not anything about feeling misled.

A couple of years ago I took a archaeology class at education week. The teacher mentioned that it was very likely He wasn't crucified as art portrays. He gave several different ways that it may have differed from the art. Do people feel misled about this?

What is the difference? Because we know about Joseph, but have only part of the info about Christ? Length of time since it occurred?

If there was evidence found that He was crucified upside down would people feel misled?

I do think the art with Joseph and the hat is a good thing. I remember learning about it many years ago, but those memories were sort of colored over with the other pictures, so even for me it is important.

I just wonder if the misled thing only applies to Joseph Smith.

Edited June 3, 2015 by Rain

[mfbukowski]

I haven't read the article yet but it seems quite interesting.

 

Art is about meaning and so is religion.

 

History is allegedly scientific and attempts to describe "what is"  (I say "is" because everything is history to some extent- this sentence even as I type it is history.)

 

Still of course we know all three are metaphors because they are based in language and language is symbol, not "reality"

 

So as I see it, art and religion serve the same purpose in our lives- the creation of meaning through the interpretation of "reality".

 

Science and history pretend to be impartial observers, but of course they never can be. 

[mfbukowski]

A wonderful article- I love Sweat's perspective.

[mfbukowski]

I wonder why people feel misled with this, but don't feel misled when Christ is portrayed non Jewish looking. I hear lots of irritation about that, but not nothing about feeling misled.

A couple of years ago I took a archaeology class at education week. The teacher mentioned that it was very likely He wasn't crucified as art portrays. He gave several different ways that it may have differed from the art. Do people feel misled about this?

What is the difference? Because we know about Joseph, but have only part of the info about Christ? Length of time since it occurred?

If there was evidence found that He was crucified upside down would people feel misled?

I do think the art with Joseph and the hat is a good thing. I remember learning about it many years ago, but those memories were sort of colored over with the other pictures, so even for me it is important.

I just wonder if the misled thing only applies to Joseph Smith.

Sterling McMurrin said that he was never disillusioned because he was never illusioned in the first place.

 

Art is never "accurate" nor can it be.

[Thinking]

It's not realistic to expect all art to be completely historically accurate, but I don't think it's unreasonable for members to expect official Church art depicting Joseph Smith's translation of the Book of Mormon to have some relationship to historical reality. One can quibble about clothing and lamp styles and so forth (I think the top hat is wrong, btw), but the actual manner of translating shouldn't be suppressed simply because it looks strange to us now. It looked strange in the 1820s too.

 

Does this mean that the Nephites didn't really look like this?

[Gray]

Does this mean that the Nephites didn't really look like this?

 

Very Frank Frazetta. Needs more blood, though. 

[oremites]

Does this mean that the Nephites didn't really look like this?

 

Not to mention those are the strangest looking turkeys I've ever seen.

[mfbukowski]

When I am Emperor of the Universe children will be taught in elementary school that science is a string of best guesses at the ways things work, and history is a string of reconstructions of how things might have been, according to the author's point of view, and to thoroughly and critically evaluate every explanation of every word and "representation" made by every person they meet.

Perhaps that is unrealistic, but that is the way I raised my kids, and it seems to have worked pretty well. They are faithful members who have their own testimonies and do not worry about the myths and stories they see or are told. They evaluate them all, and pick what seems to be the best explanation as guided by their "gut" as we now say, or more correctly by the spirit.

They think and question, and come to their own conclusions, and act on them.

The solution as I see it is not to scold artists for producing art, but to teach the viewers to view everything they see or read as one person's opinion, and not as "the truth". Again, it all comes down to truth being a property of sentences and not "in the world". We see now through a glass darkly and cannot expect more.

Sentences like art are representations coming out of the minds of a given human being in a certain space and time. They are always subject to interpretation according to the viewer's individual filters, just as their production was subject to the creator's filters in creating them.

Isn't our job as humans to create our own worlds out of matter unorganized?

To expect that matter unorganized to be pre-packaged and in fact organized already for us is just naive in my mind.

That is our job as human to produce art ourselves. Every word, every interpretation is art and we are all artists. Our job is to create, not parrot others.

Pablum only works for so long, but eventually we are to stop seeing as children.

Edited June 3, 2015 by mfbukowski

[Tacenda]

When I am Emperor of the Universe children will be taught in elementary school that science is a string of best guesses at the ways things work, and history is a string of reconstructions of how things might have been, according to the author's point of view, and to thoroughly and critically evaluate every explanation of every word and "representation" made by every person they meet.

Perhaps that is unrealistic, but that is the way I raised my kids, and it seems to have worked pretty well. They are faithful members who have their own testimonies and do not worry about the myths and stories they see or are told. They evaluate them all, and pick what seems to be the best explanation as guided by their "gut" as we now say, or more correctly by the spirit.

They think and question, and come to their own conclusions, and act on them.

The solution as I see it is not to scold artists for producing art, but to teach the viewers to view everything they see or read as one person's opinion, and not as "the truth". Again, it all comes down to truth being a property of sentences and not "in the world". We see now through a glass darkly and cannot expect more.

Sentences like art are representations coming out of the minds of a given human being in a certain space and time. They are always subject to interpretation according to the viewer's individual filters, just as their production was subject to the creator's filters in creating them.

Isn't our job as humans to create our own worlds out of matter unorganized?

To expect that matter unorganized to be pre-packaged and in fact organized already for us is just naive in my mind.

That is our job as human to produce art ourselves. Every word, every interpretation is art and we are all artists. Our job is to create, not parrot others.

What if your children come to the conclusion the church is false, not that it is, but would you still be so positive?

[mfbukowski]

What if your children come to the conclusion the church is false, not that it is, but would you still be so positive?

Thank God they are beyond that way of seeing things.

Churches are neither true nor false- you should read Alma 32. Yet we SAY that because what we mean is that we have verified through the spirit and our life experience that the church becomes "sweet" to us and after time that we hve achieved knowledge of the sweetness of the life it produces, so we "know the church is true" as a kind of idomatic way of summarizing all this. It is a figure of speech I use all the time myself, and have no problem with it.

Even raising that point illustrates the problem itself. If you saw the world as Iwant my kids to see it, you would not have raised the question. Sorry, but that is what we have discussed many times before.

I know absolutely that this is the absolute best path for humans to live. Of course i say that out of my own opinions and prejudices- that cannot be avoided. That is what human speech is- opinions.

And of course, if one of my kids chooses another path, I have no problem with it. Heck I tried out several paths when I was a kid myself- that is what people do, isn't it?

How can one create one's world if one does not know what chunks and pieces of matter unorganized are out there?

You got your square rocks, and some branches, and some little round rocks, some mud and leaves, put it together with "art" and you have a house. If you have fiberglass and steel nd concrete in the neighborhood, so much the better. The point is that one must take inventory of ideas before one can even select what is available to build one's intellectual house.

But by doubting everything, I am convinced that mine is now built on the most solid foundation possible- doubt itself. Through thorough skepticism one finds the bottom line for everything. God is real and Iknow because he has revealed himself to me. No question.

Starting on that foundation, I am building my house as Ithink we all should be.

But no, if they choose nother path, I know they will be back. This really is the only path to happiness. Iknow that, but that itself makes it my opinion. We all get to figure it out for ourselves.

Sorry for the derail- how about back to art?

[nosmelone]

As an artist myself I completely understand the freedom of being able to compose your artwork as open and free from interpretation as possible and I appreciate that.  But when I portray historical artwork I try to do my best to follow most correct version of the events in order to help others picture the events the way I do.  Now this isn't always the case, unfortunately sometimes an artists knowledge of how events took place can grow after they have already completed their artwork.  I have done many BOM art pieces that make me cringe when I review them now.  I usually try to do most of my BOM artwork in a desert setting or Jerusalem backdrop or in a Mesoamerican setting based off of my own opinion.  As far as early church history I have composed some artwork that I feel accurately displays Joseph Smith's translation process that includes his head buried in the hat.  I would display it but it may be used for a book that Don Bradley is putting together so I will hold off until he advises if he is planning on using it or not.  I have included my version of Nephi about to slay King Laban.  I could also display many others (including the cringe worthy ones Lol)