The reading “Art as Spiritual Practice” are really sparking me. As we discussed before, art could express personal emotions; meanwhile, in this reading, Grey introduced a kind of spiritual practice and I feel this is similar with expressing emotion. In addition, this reading mainly talked about how people consider about an object after saw it and how we look at an object. I agree with Grey that we cannot remember much about the objects that we saw in our daily life and it depends on in what ways to see the objects. Grey introduced the three eyes theory to us. This theory explained that there are three kinds of eyes that we used to see objects, which are “the eye of flesh sees the “outer” realm of material objects: the eye of reason sees symbolically, drawing distinctions and making conceptual relationships; and the mystic eye of contemplation sees the luminous transcendental realm” (Grey 73). I consider this theory for a while, and I found that I almost just apply the first two kinds of eyes in my life without the use of the mystic eye of contemplation. I think these two kinds of eyes are enough for me because I do not want to be an artist or creating some ‘luminous transcendental’ things. However, the mystic eye of contemplation is very important to the artists. They need to look deeper of an object to create an excellent artwork and the mystic eye of contemplation is a necessary part to this process. As Grey argued, “artists need to be able to see on each level in order to bring technical beauty, archetypal beauty, and spiritual beauty” (73). I think the most of people are like me to just use the first two kinds of eyes. Of course, it not means the ordinary people cannot apply the mystic eye of contemplation in our life. If someone interested in this kind of eye to see the change in his life, he can just go to do it.

Reference

Grey, A. (2001). Art as Spiritual Practice. The Mission of Art (1st ed., pp. 205-233). Boston & London: Shambhala.