1. How do you define “spirituality”?

I think that spirituality is believing that there is more to this world than what we can physically see.  To me, this could mean anything from there being a God, to there being forces that move around us.  It doesn’t mean there has to be one sole person controlling the world.  This could mean one believes in human spirits that watch over us, or multiple forces up in the sky that control our fates.  I believe that spirituality could mean you still believe in evolution and scientific facts that support human life, but also think there is more to evolution than what science can prove.

2. Does spirituality differ from religion?

I believe that religion and spirituality are very different.  Spirituality to me can be a very broad and open definition.  On the other hand, religion is a set of beliefs that has a specific definition as to how we came to this planet, or who we believe in.  I think spirituality is the umbrella term for religion, then the different types of religion fall under that broad definition.  Religion is just a specific form of spirituality.

3. How do you define “creativity”?

Creativity, to me, is the thought process that goes beyond what you can see.  For example, there is a picture frame on my desk with a picture in it.  Now, I could say that this is a picture frame, but I could also use it for many different purposes.  Being creative is finding new and innovative ways to use everyday things.  These things could be anything from objects, to words, to processes.  Creativity is very hard to assign a set definition to it because it could mean so many different things.

4. What is the source of creativity?

I think the source of creativity is in your experiences.  I believe experiences shape who we are and our thought processes, and they effect us more than anything else.  One could also draw creativity from outside sources, like other people’s work, or a sculpture they see.  For an example, my creativity comes from Pinterest which lets me look at others work and lets me create something of my own.  Creativity could come from anywhere, but I think it comes from within us the most.

This weeks reading for me was a little odd.  Going into it I thought it was going to be about spirituality being an art form.  However, the reading was about spirituality being the process leading up to art, and having the spiritual world be a part of the artwork.  To me, the reading was a bit overdramatic and I did not agree with it.  I may have read it wrong, or gotten the wrong idea from it, but overall I didn’t agree with what the author had to say.  There were some parts, when thinking about it not in the context of this paper, that I did agree with.

First I want to talk about his “vision” that he had while doing drugs.  Now I’ve never smoked or done any type of drug, and I am extremely against it, so this specific part was one I did not care for:

“As I inhaled the immediately active and extremely potent psychedelic, I experienced the transfigured subject of my painting firsthand” (Grey, 78).  He states then on the next page: “The transparency of a work of art to its spiritual source makes visible the depth of an artist’s penetration into the divine mystery of creation” (Grey, 79).

I don’t think that all works of art have spiritual depth to them, and I don’t think having to hallucinate and getting a “vision” for a work of art is something that should be necessary in the transfiguration stage.  I think that artists “see” something and want people to be able to see it too when they are done creating the artwork, but I don’t think it needs to be to the extreme point of having a “vision into the divine.”

Now to something that I did agree with, and even relate to, in his paper is when he talks about the inspiration of a piece of art.  I’ve always struggled with knowing how artists get their inspiration.  He talks about how different people get their inspirations at different times.

“My wife and I have noticed in our workshops on visionary art that some people receive full-blown, detailed images in a flash during the guided visualizations or shamanic drumming.  Others may receive only the briefest glimmer or feeling and it is not until their pencil touches the paper that the imagery comes flooding through… For me, pressure is a great catalyst” (Grey, 80).

This relates to me because I’ve always felt like pressure doesn’t help me and I didn’t think visions could come to people under pressure.  I thought they would only come to people on the terms of the “divine,” or the inspiration.

Inspiration is the main source for a lot of art in the world, but not all.  I think the author was a little biased towards his ways in this paper because I think artists can get their inspiration from a material thing too.  He also uses his wife as an example for this inspiration section: “She claims that new ideas are like allowing river” (Grey, 80).  I think they have a very unique way of deriving inspiration, so I don’t think this article is open-minded.  He seems to think that every artwork has meaning coming back to God.

The last thing I want to mention is towards the end when he says, “Art attains its ultimate meaning when it points to God, the transcendental context beyond yet interlacing all realities” (Grey, 105).  Again, I Grey is very biased towards his own opinions so I had a hard time believing this piece just because I needed to get an unbiased view of spirituality in art.  I don’t think God is the meaning behind all works of art, but I do think it could be the meaning behind some.

Therefore, I don’t agree with this paper because Grey is saying a lot of his own beliefs, and uses personal examples, so it makes it seem extremely biased.

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