Page 5 - For the purpose of this essay when I refer to ‘spirit’ ‘devine’ or ‘spirituality’ I am referring

discussed earlier. As Richard Harries states in ‘Art and the Beauty of God’ (1993,
p114) ‘True art always has a spiritual dimension. Yet if religion tries to turn it into
propaganda the spiritual could slip away. Works of art inescapably witness, by their
truth and beauty, to their fount and origin in God himself. Yet religion, always in

danger of being corrupted and corrupting, does not have art at its beck and call. It
cannot use if for its own ends. It can, however, recognize and praise both the artist and
the artist’s God, and, where appropriate, seek to express its own deepest truths in works
of truth and beauty. The artist may or may not have a professed religious faith. From an
artistic point of view that does not affect the spirituality of the work produced’.
The practice of painting, the tactile quality of the material, allows the artist to
take responsibility for all the marks made. Every choice of colour, texture, composition
etc must come through the painter, therefore during that process of creation they have
complete freedom to express, complete freedom of choice and therefore, I believe are
more open to 'divine influence' at every stage of the creative process and consequently
as painters can become a mediator to this influence. Kasimir Malevich said, ‘with the
most primitive means the artist creates something which the most ingenious and
efficient technology will never be able to create.’ (Caws, 2000, p.408). I would
interpret this as meaning that the most basic and tactile materials such as paint, allow
the artist to have a more direct connection with his creation, through the hands on
manipulation and absolute choice of material, tone, texture, colour, composition etc,
thus leaving the artist more susceptible to divine influences. In an extract from ‘Sacred
and profane Beauty, The Holy in Art’ from ‘Theological Aesthetics’ Gesa Thiessen
(2004, p312) Gerardus van der Leeuw states that, ‘Art is nature and culture, and in both
holiness is revealed. But it is also and even primarily creature, the creation of God.
Whoever believes this cannot view art as a birth from the primal womb; he cannot view
it as a conquest of man. Of course, it is this, but by nature it is something else. The holy
will of God also stands behind art.’
The belief that we are made in the image of God, creators in our own right, is not
a new concept, but add to this the artist/painter as specifically creative, a maker of
something new, then these creations become something more than mere matter, but also
a reflection of that other part of the trinity that makes the whole ‘spirit’. Richard
Harries refers to this in ‘Art and the Beauty of God’ (1993, p102) when he says,
‘Human beings, made in the image of God, share in the divine creativity. We also have
the capacity for creative, beautiful ordering. In particular, artists of every kind share in
the work of the divine artist by giving form to recalcitrant matter. They give shape to
the shapeless and in so doing reflect the work of eternal wisdom’. Harris refers to this
above in a very clear and factual manner, as indeed have other painters throughout
history such as Turner, Blake and Rothko.
This ethereal facet within the work of these painters is something not easily
communicated, and is dependant on the visual language of painting to be subtle,
delicate and open to itself rather than something controlled, crafted or forced. I believe
it is the duty of the painter to be open to divine influence and I would question whether
great art can be made without this openness. This is stated clearly by Gesa Thiessen in
‘Neglected Wells: Spirituality and the Arts’ (1997, p110) she goes on to say, ‘In fact,
one may suggest that all great art is spiritual because it is essentially born of the spirit,
i.e. of what is most profound in the individual human soul, mind and experience’.

5