Category: Unit 07

I realize that there are many differing ideas and definitions concerning spirituality. I personally define spirituality as a general religious belief that shapes certain people’s lives. My personal feeling about spirituality is that everyone has the right to spirituality and their own personal opinion, but I believe people often become “vocally spiritual” or feel as if they need to share their religious spirit with other people which I find offensive. Spirituality involving religion is what I believe often draws people to thinking that they should or need to share a certain preconceived message with the world.

I believe that spirituality is different from religion but includes religion. Religion is a certain set of belief that people are taught in church, while I believe that spirituality takes what a person is taught and makes them personally applicable to a person’s life or experiences. This separation is what appeals to many religious people because although they share their religion with a large group, they have found a way to have a conceived personal connection with whichever deity they believe in.

I would define creativity as a person’s ability to be an original and authentic individual. By this I mean that this person is able to see what other people do or create and complete minor alterations that in some cases make the original action or object unrecognizable. I believe creativity is a representation of a person’s intelligence and abilities and that it takes a certain amount of effort for some people to be creative while creativity comes natural to certain “gifted” creative people.

I’m not sure if there is one specific source of creativity, a person could draw their creativity through exposure to creative objects such as art during their childhood or are driven to be creative through certain life events. There is speculation that creativity is genetic, I’m not sure if there is precisely a gene that predetermines a person’s ability to be creative but I would argue that a child’s exposure to art is a pretty good indicator of whether they will be considered creative or not. What I mean by a person being driven to be creative due to certain life events is that it is not uncommon for people to turn to creative means such as art and music after experiencing traumatic events. It would not be unusual for a person who was previously not classified as creative to become creative after a life-altering event.

 

 

In this chapter Grey discussed the process that an artist goes through when choosing a subject for his art and how this process affects how the art will be viewed. I had considered that there had to be a certain appeal to a subject or person in order for a person to take the time to create a work of art based upon this person or thing. Grey suggests that “seeing occurs when our attention is arrested by a person, object, or scene” (72), meaning that the artist truly sees an object when their entire attention is drawn to one solitary thing and is able to see the shape of the thing while being able to know the meaning of the thing. It is also argued that “when an artist encounters an artistic subject, love opens all his or her eyes” (Grey 73), which would mean that the artist has to feel a certain attraction (in this case love) for something to designate enough importance to it for it to become a work of art. I would argue that someone does not have to love a person or object to create artwork based on the subject, they could also create art based on a popular object or location knowing that there are customers willing to provide monetary compensation for such pieces of art. The second step of the process an artist takes to create art would be when “the artist scans the subject, seeing now more with the eye of reason” (Grey 73), meaning that the artist is able to focus solely on an object, person or scene and not pay attention to the surrounding. I would argue that this step is very important in order to keep the representation of the subject in the art genuine without outside influences. Another idea presented by Grey is that there is a distinct difference between being able to see deeply and the ability to understand. It is argued that in order for a person to see something deeply one must “transcend the egoic boundaries between the self and otherness of the world, momentarily merging with the thing seen” (Grey 72), meaning that one has to identify personally with the subject being portrayed. While I agree that this ability would allow the artist to portray the object in a genuine manner, I don’t think it is necessary for a viewer to place himself or herself in the subject’s place in order to fully appreciate a work of art.

 

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