#beauty of creation and inherent lack of care for creation in the same post

[wastedonthesebutterflies]

i never understand it when i end up scrolling the for you page instead of the following and i see poets posting their work with ai images. i cant think of clear enough words for it right now but its jarring and truly incomprehensible

[glassesandkim]

I would like to say my piece here about schmico, grey’s anatomy, and the fandom and it’s really for my own self-indulgence and benefit. I’m not asking for you to agree with me or even begin to understand what I’m going on about. I don’t even think half the things that I think about for this fandom exists on an important level. I fully believe in just ~vibin’~ to your own tune when it comes to participating in fandom spaces.

so this post is gonna be my way of getting stuff off my chest so i can continue to ~vibe~

First thing I’d like to address is: I know. I know the Nico Kim that I love and adore is not the Nico Kim in canon. He is who I hope he is in canon. But there’s not much to combat or support that he is or isn’t. He really could be who we’ve made up in fanon for him and at the same time, he really couldn’t. Grey’s created this character that is as blank as a dried piece of toast. So forgive me if I spread a bit of spicy jam here and there so I can swallow this bland shit down a little easier. 

So when people come to me to say, “Y’all are delulu and out of your mind to love this guy this much.” PLEASE, I know. This isn’t news, honey. I am well aware.

But I will continue to justify, romanticize, and put this boy on a pedestal for as long as his existence in canon continues to remain arbitrary and vague. And it makes me very biased to a fault but I have put too much time and energy into this character NOT to be. 

And then you might ask, why have I put so much of my time and life (THREE YEARS!!!! I’VE BEEN IN THIS FANDOM FOR THREE YEARS!!!!!!!!!!) into this character that has all but said maybe like a PAGE of dialogue at most? 

Because I was conned into it. Because they marketed the shit out of him when Alex Landi got the part. And I, as a casual viewer of Grey’s since I was in high school (I’m in my late 20s now, dawg) and of Asian descent was promised representation. Not just Asian rep, but queer rep. 

So naturally, I got extremely attached. It's not everyday a major Western mainstream prime time medical drama chooses to create a character as unique as Nico's. 

I spent so much time here. I was here when fandom decided Nico would call Levi “babe”. I was here when we all clowned that Nico didn’t know Levi’s first name. I was here when Josh died and the fandom went up in arms with pitchforks and stakes against Nico. I was here for all of it. I've seen it all. 

And unfortunately, seeing it all, makes me tired. Grey’s is time and time again proving to me that they don’t give a shit about the development and well-being of their existing characters at all. The show only cares about collecting diversity points and performing their wokeness to the general masses. (I talk a lot about how grey's is plot-driven vs. character-driven.) 

I will still get frustrated and annoyed at Nico’s lack of character development. But I mostly just laugh at the fandom nowadays. I know you guys want to fight the fight, tell everyone Nico is not toxic!!!!!! But bros, friends, lovers, it’s a tried and tired fight. 

Grey’s wants us to think Nico is a Bad Boyfriend. It’s as clear as the stench one comes across when they step on dog shit. That’s why I think it’s useless to fight people about Nico. Grey’s gets amnesia all the time. Grey’s forgot the whole season and half they invested in creating a loving boyfriend for Levi and up and changed Nico’s personality to fit a new narrative (that they, quite frankly, failed to even follow through because of covid and other filming hoopla hula hoops they’ve had to jump through that I’ve been informed of and which I simply don’t care for). 

So all this ~schmico is endgame!!! we deserve it!!!~ Binches, I have better things to fight for than schmico endgame. What’s the alternative? Levi lives in Jo’s closet forever? They’re going to be together in the end no matter what. Nobody on that show cares enough about Nico OR Levi to set up new relationships and stories for them. So don’t fret, my friends. They’ll be together in the end. It just comes down to the question of what stupid story they’re going to come up with for them to be together. (And might I argue that they already are together???) 

Speaking of the bogus story they’re going to write for schmico: you bet my rice eating, Chinese-speaking ass, that it’s not going to be a story written from a queer and poc perspective. It’s going to be some gag-worthy straight het story but made gay. (How many times do I have to hear, "I hope Nico comes out to his parents!!" NO, HE DOESN'T! Do you know how VIOLENT coming out is sometimes?? It's not a solution to Nico's problems with Levi. It's an introduction and invitation to problems over being queer -- but why would I expect anyone, let alone Grey's, to understand that prepetuating these types of stories is inherently damaging to queer people? They wouldn't know. The cishet fandom wouldn't know. Because no one is writing grey's in a queer, poc centric way.)

Which drives me to the next point: you know why Nico doesn’t get character development even though he showed up at the same time as Link? Because of ✨racism ✨. Because Link is a more conventional character (read: white) that is easier to write because nobody on this show knows how to write an Asian character anymore, let alone a gay Asian character. So of course, nobody wants to touch that shit even with a pogo stick. (Argue with me that Cristina exists and I will tell you, yes she did, but they RARELY touched upon her cultural and ethnic background. Also it was the early 2000s. Cristina was as ground breaking as it got for us Asians back then.)

And then because Nico isn’t developed enough, we have the weird phenomenon of people shipping everyone and their dog with Levi and it’s like, y’all know you got played by the racism game, right? You are hostages to this system that has taught you that white men are more desirable and deserving of story and humanity than a poc character who is instead, reduced to nothing but sex appeal and if he’s not doing well on that front, then he’s useless.

How many times does Levi say: Nico is so hot! Sex with Nico is so good! He’s a roman statue!

All!! the!! time!! Nico's worth to Levi’s character is to be the sex object that Sets Him Free. 

Which plays into the sexualization of Asian people which all comes from, you guessed it! Racism! (Levi really compared Nico to a fucking lifeless slab of stone.)

(Side note: I do think talking about how racism plays into Nico’s character and the fandom space is important and probably a separate post. I’m happy to write my opinion piece on it if it’s something people want.) 

But anyway, those are just some of my qualms with schmico, grey’s anatomy, and the fandom. I do not expect anyone to fully agree with me and I’m not asking the fandom to change or apologize or whatever. I’m just already grateful if you took the time to even read this post. 

I’ll leave with some parting advice: fandom is what you make of it. We won’t all agree with everyone’s hot takes, but that’s the beauty of it, yeah? So I chose to create this version of Nico Kim that brings me IMMENSE joy. Like, A LOT!!! I love this fandom for these reasons. I’m grateful everyday for the friends I’ve made and the works and creations I’ve created and I’m honoured to be able to consume other works made by fellow fans. 

I might hate a lot of things about grey’s and schmico, but I really owe a lot of myself to this fandom. 

[theanxietyclinic]

The Tsunami COVID-19, Beware the Undertow

The crushing power of a tsunami can destroy almost anything we can build, including entire communities. And as the wave of destruction retreats, as it must always do, the undertow can drag what is left of our world out to sea, forever lost to the eternal black deep. As these waves of COVID-19 surge around the globe, we need to take heed of the ensuing undertow. It holds the power to strip us of a core evolutionary need that has allowed us to thrive on this planet. Our need to connect, bond and care for each other.

From our caveman days we were more successful in cooperative packs. Families and allies, banded together were more effective in hunting, breeding and protecting themselves against danger.

Millenniums of this success is bred into our genes. Most recent generations have created powerful social structures predicated on this need, we marry, have kids together, reside in purpose-built towns and cities, encourage our children to develop socially and send them off to schools where they learn to cooperate and operate as a team. We rely on connection to be successful and to thrive.

And along comes COVID-19, a tsunami that threatens to tear apart our communities.

The only tools we have in our arsenal right now to prevent our world from being swept away by this virus are hygiene and distancing. We are being told, lectured and even threatened to accept that to get close is dangerous, even deadly. Gatherings are being quickly outlawed, whether to march for social justice, get married or bury our dead. The language of our offense, distancing, isolation, quarantine seem to tell us and our young and most formative generation — getting close and connecting is a dangerous thing. This is the undertow. And it is a current that can drag us away from the very essence of what makes us successful as humans.

Hope…

At the same time, there are beautiful and powerful signs of hope. Forced to remain physically distant people and communities are finding unique, creative and fun ways to come together. We can give thanks for the digital age that has provided the tools to be able to have a heart to heart, face-to-face conversation with a loved one on the other side of the planet. We are discovering and promoting virtual dinner parties, online communities, and the capacity to set-up offices and workgroups from home. Yet these digital connections cannot fully replace what we get from the in-person, face-to-face experience. We rely deeply on non-verbal communication including body language and micro-expressions. But still, there are reasons for hope as these tools, our creativity and our biological/psychological imperative to come together empowers us dig in, and hold fast against the undertow.

It’s not just you, it’s us…

The effects of long-term social isolating are not known. But we do know it is contrary to our very nature. This need is encoded in our DNA and is linked to a vast array of physical and mental health problems: depression, dementia, heart disease and even death. A 2018 Danish study concluded that objective social isolation was associated with a 60–70% increased all-cause mortality. Before the recent dictums to distance and isolate to ‘level the curve’ (minimizing the spread of the virus), Statistics Canada reported over one in five Canadians reported feeling lonely, and this number skyrockets when we poll seniors. The epidemic is so bad the UK government appointed a new minister for loneliness!

Connection not only cures loneliness but it buffers the effect of stress. Stress well-modulated provides us with temporary motivation and strength. However unchecked, stress like loneliness has long been known to impact both mental and physical health.

Conserved Transcriptional Response to Adversity or CTRA, is a gene expression we find in human immune cells which responds to chronic stress by increasing the production of inflammatory proteins — it is intended as a short-lived acute inflammation to adapt and increase the immune response to fight an injury or infection. Long-lived it becomes a threat and meanwhile, CTRA is downregulating (slowing down) our anti-body genes that decrease our ability to fight a virus. Loneliness, fed by a lack of connection only worsens this response, which in turn harms health and furthers isolation. It’s a system that can weaken our ability to resist the undertow and being swept into the dark abyss.

All of this adds up to just case for a dire warning. We need to be vigilant about what we are learning, or not, from this necessary loss of connection. History has taught us the nefarious power of capitalizing on individual and communal weaknesses, utilizing them to further our disconnection and thus divide and conquer.

Globalism breaks down borders and allows trade and life to move freely across borders. Anti-globalism existed before Covid-19 and is a tried and powerful tool of governments seeking to gain and hold power. The politics of fear and blame have levelled democracies and birthed holocausts. Shut down borders. Build walls. The call to fear, isolate, disconnect from our neighbours and blame the other are the makers of despots and dictators. It frees the individual and their community of responsibility for the inherent challenges of community. What is wrong is ‘their fault’ not ours, and governments and leaders can rise to power on the backs of their chosen targets — usually the weak and most vulnerable.

The dangerous irony is that to beat COVID-19 we must shut down borders and build walls.

Left unnoticed and unchecked the undertow can and will destroy our communities and nations.

There is a solution…

Our well-being and survival are intrinsically linked to our connections with others. Our biology mandates connection…stress, well-managed, boosts our immune systems. It can encourage us to seek and provide support. CTRA is downregulated by positive altruistic connections — the happiness found in caring for others. (Fascinatingly, a study in 2013 at the University of Florida found in hedonistic happiness has the opposite, negative, impact on this gene expression.) In short caring for others improves out health.

Anyone who has flown knows the well-rehearsed safety briefing that tells you, “In an emergency, put your own oxygen mask on first.” It is not an act of selfishness — you need to be conscious to help others.

I live a life walking the fine lines between being a psychotherapist, deeply rooted in the science of neuropsychology, and a spiritual director, who is deeply rooted in academic Christian theology and very wary of organized religion.

I believe in hope, and I know grace. I’m fascinated by the intersections of science, theology and the creation of reality.

I know each of us has a history, and very few of us escape burdens of trauma and oppression. We are all wounded and suffer in some way. Isolation and distancing are a potential mental health crisis in the making and can serve to further our trauma. Some of us suffer from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). Our life history seems to be a life-sentence, not a life-lesson. We struggle to shift this paradigm. Communally we may be moving towards a new systemic PTSO, (Post-traumatic Stress Order).

The crisis starts with the individual and like this virus, it can spread through our communities and infect us globally. No community or leader is immune. Without great intention by each of us this virus will win. The tsunami will crush us, and the undertow will drag what is left out to sea.

But there is hope. And it is harder to access for some than others. We must come together. We must find connections in the isolation and build walls that break the tsunami, stop the virus, and still let our compassion flow freely.

It is too easy for me to tell you to wash your hands, stay home, breathe deep, meditate, eat well, get your sleep, and use technology to build connection — good advice, yet these are only options for those of us who have enough privilege to do so.

So many won’t because they can’t. It’s simply not in reach. They don’t have freshwater, a home, a bed to sleep in, or technology. Their trauma runs deep, and should they close their eyes for but a moment they see flashes of terror, not moments of peace. In varying degrees, we are all weak, vulnerable and incapable.

But there is grace. Grace is our ability to regenerate and sanctify, to inspire virtuous impulses, and to impart strength to endure and press past temptation. For some grace is of divine inspiration, for others is simply an inherent pillar of humanity. Through grace, we access the biology of connection and the power stress gives us to put on our own oxygen mask first, giving us the strength to care for others. Through grace we find the compassion to carry those who can’t carry themselves.

We can do this. We have the capacity to survive. It is found in connection. It is in both heeding the wisdom of experts and those who have walked the walk. It is being the hands and feet of those who can’t, and when we can’t be those hands and feet, allowing grace to flow as others put on our oxygen mask for us.

So yes, if you can, wash your hands, stay home, breathe deep, meditate, eat well, get your sleep, and use technology to build connection. And if you can’t know through grace you can find connection and community that will bring the compassion that heals.

Todd Kaufman, MDiv, BFA, BA, RP

Toronto, CANADA

[english2121]

Discussion Leader 12/5

Karina

Quote #1: “So don’t expect stars in what’s coming: nothing will twinkle, this is opaque material and by its very nature despised by everyone. That’s because this story lacks a cantabile melody. Its rhythm is sometimes discordant. And it has facts. I suddenly fell for facts without literature--facts are hard stones and action is now more interesting to me than thinking, you can’t get away from facts” (Lispector pg. 8).

Question #1: Based on our previous discussion in class how is this quote representative of postmodern literature?

Quote #2: I do not intend for what I’m about to write to be complex, though I’ll have to use the words that sustain you. The story--I determine with false free will--will have around seven characters and I’m obviously one of the more important. I, Rodrigo S.M. An old tale, this, since I don’t want to be all modern and invent trendy words to make myself look original. So that’s why I’ll try contrary to my normal habits to write a story with a beginning, middle and “grand finale” followed by silence and falling rain” (pg. 5).

Question #2: In this quote the narrator, as a writer, shows consciousness of readers and seems to address them directly. In what tone does he seem to address the readers and their needs? Does this quote seem like a criticism of writing and books? If so in what way?

Quote #3: “Now I want to speak of the northeastern girl. This is what I mean: she like a stray dog was guided exclusively by herself.I too, from one failure to the next have reduced myself to myself by at least I want to encounter the world and it’s God. I’d like to add by the way of information about the young girl and myself, that we live exclusively in the present because it is always eternally today and tomorrow will be a today, eternity is a state of things at this very moment” (pg. 10).

Questions #3: Given our discussion of identity in the postmodern period how does the narrator touch upon this topic in this quote? How does he touch upon collective vs. individual relationship? What may he mean when he says “eternity is a state of things at this very moment”.

Quote #4: “I’m sure of one thing: this narrative will deal with something delicate: the creation of a whole person who surely is as alive as I am. Take care of her because all I can do is show her so you can recognize her on the street, walking lightly because of her quivering thinness. And what if my narrative is sad? Afterwards I’ll surely write something cheerful, though why cheerful? Because I too am a man of hosannas and someday, perhaps, I’ll sing praises instead of the difficulties of the northeastern girl” (pg. 11).

Question #4: What parallels do you think the narrator is trying to draw between himself and “the northeastern girl”? What if any do you think he might be hoping the readers draw between themselves and the character? For what purpose?

Quote #5: “Nothing in her was iridescent, though the parts of her skin between the blotches had a slight opal glow. Not that it mattered. Nobody looked at her on the street , she was like cold coffee. And that’s how time passed for the girl. She blew her nose on the hem of her underwear. She didn’t have that delicate thing called charm. I’m the only one who finds her charming. Only I, her author lover her. I suffer for her. And I’m the only one who can say this: ‘what do you ask of me weeping that I wouldn’t give you singing? That girl didn’t know she was what she was, just as a dog doesn’t know it’s a dog. So she didn’t feel unhappy. The only thing she wanted was to live. She didn’t know for what, she didn’t ask questions. Maybe she thought there was a little bitty glory in living. She thought people had to be happy. So she was. Before her birth was she an idea? Before her birth was she dead? And after her birth she would die?” (pg.19)

Question #5: How have the narrator’s sentiments towards his character changed in comparison to earlier in the book? Can the narrator’s conflicting sentiments towards his character shed light on the postmodern perspective? How so?

Argument:  The book The Hour of the Star contains many of the same questions and uncertainty that plague postmodernism. It is a book that contains more questions than answers. Through the perspective of the narrator we are made to question what writing is? What life is? Is it possible to truly separate the self from what is written? The narrator claims to love the character he is creating and yet at the same time he speaks of her with much disdain, criticizing and belittling her existence, one which he is creating. The complex relationship between narrator and character seem like an introspective examination of life and an active effort to reconcile the parts of oneself that one loves and hates in order to make sense of it all.

Crystal Williams

Quote #1: “If this story doesn’t exist now, it will. Thinking is an act. Feeling is a fact. Put the two together-I am the one writing what I am writing. God is the world. Truth is always an interior and inexplicable contact. My truest life is unrecognizable, extremely interior and there is not a single word that defines it” (Lispector, 1).

Question #1: What is the connection between the truest-self and God as alluded to by Lispector? How does this relate to the genre of Post Modernism? Consider (if you are aware of Winnicott’s concepts) the notion of the true self and the false self. How does that relate to the act of writing and thinking as described by Lispector?

Quote #2: “How do I know everything that’s about to come and that I myself still don’t know, since I have never lived it? Because on a street in Rio de Janeiro I glimpsed in the air the feeling of perdition on the face of a northeastern girl. Not to mention that I as a boy grew up in the northeast. I also know things about things because I am alive. Everyone alive knows, even if they don’t know they know. So you gentlemen know more than you think and are just pretending not to” (Lispector, 2).

Question #2: What does Lispector allude to the duality of humanity and inherent intelligence and knowledge? Are both men and women endowed with the same intelligence, or is there a common truth, or knowledge that transcends gender?

Quote #3:”Could it really be that the action is beyond the word? But when I write-let things be known by their real names. Each thing is a word and when there is no word it is invented. This is your God who commanded us to invent” (Lispector, 8)”

Question #3: Who or what is God as described by Lispector? What is her connection to God? Would you consider her writing, or writing in general to be a divine act?

Consider: John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Quote #4: “The fact is I hold a destiny in my hands yet don’t feel powerful enough to invent freely: I follow a hidden, fatal line” (Lispector, 12).

Question#4: What is the fatal line that Lispector speaks on? How is it possible for her to feel powerless in a world that she created? Could this apply to us in our daily lives?

Quote #5: In her little superstitious imaginings, she thought that if by any chance she ever got a nice good taste of living- she’d suddenly cease to be the princess she was and be transformed into vermin. Because, no matter how bad her situation, she didn’t want to be deprived of herself, she wanted to be herself. She thought she’d incur serious punishment and even risk dying if she took out too much pleasure in life. So she protected herself from death by living less, consuming so little of her life that she’d never run out. This savings gave her a little security since you can’t fall farther than the ground” (Lispector, 24).

“Clarice Lispector was a great artist; she was also a middle-class wife and mother. If the portrait of the extraordinary artist is fascinating, so is the portrait of the ordinary housewife, whose life is the subject of her stories. As the artist matures, the housewife, too, grows older. When Lispector is a defiant adolescent filled with a sense of her own potential—artistic, intellectual, sexual—so are the girls in her stories. When, in her own life, marriage and motherhood take the place of precocious childhood, her characters grow up, too. When her marriage fails, when her children leave, these departures appear in her stories. When the author, once so gloriously beautiful, sees her body blemished by wrinkles and fat, her characters see the same decline in theirs; and when she confronts the final unravelling of age and sickness and death, they appear in her fiction as well” (The New Yorker, Web).

“Escaping the Jewish pogroms that were part of life in Ukraine and other parts of the Russian Empire in the late 19th–early 20th century, Lispector at age five immigrated with her parents and two older sisters to Brazil. There her mother died some four years later of syphilis, contracted from a group of Russian soldiers who had raped her” (Britannica, Web).

Question #5: With her life experiences in mind, do you feel that the northeastern girl described in the text is a facet of Lispector’s being? Why or why not? How would her experiences with the war, death and poverty shape her work and her views of the world?

Argument: Lispector argues that knowledge and experience are intricately linked to humanity and not gender. She as an author, transcends the trap of being pigeon-holed into a female narrative. Lispector is an unbiased omnipresent force who paints The Hour of The Star in trials, meaning she is writing, living and experiencing the story at the same time through different planes of existence. It is within these realms that Lispector explores the ideas of Winnicott and Freud, illuminating the theories of the true-self and false self, day-dreaming and the act of play.

Argument: Lispector in her writing uses the spark of The All (the ever creating entity, otherwise known as “God”) to conduct interrupted play that allows her to know who or what she is. Her form of play, seamless bouncing from introspective interpretations of both male and female further gives support to the notion of Lispector’s “God-self” in her writing. Writing is considered an act of creation, and this act gives her power and agency in the world of The Hour Of The Star.

[feed-our-souls-too]

An Open Letter to the Christians and Christian Artists In My Life

Please read this short post first.

“ Over the last year I have found myself struggling greatly with how God, art, the church, and I are meant to mesh. Almost as often as I’ve thought about it, I’ve also stayed silent about it, for a variety of reasons. Mainly they were because I did not feel like I had people to talk to about it and because I felt unsure of my own thoughts… and, well, because I might just talk your ear off if you get me going on the topic, haha.

Maybe I should rewind a little bit and first discuss how I’ve come to view art.

I’m not completely sure how, but as I was growing up the message I received about art was that it was ultimately not important. Somehow I learned that people consider art to be frivolous and that often the church has little use for art and artists. So many little comments have stuck with me, things people said that they never realized told me such a message: the people who talked about the importance of creative gifts like carpentry (but not things like drawing) told me my art was only valuable if it had practical uses; the girl who commented about how “every song Christians write should explicitly mention Jesus” told me my art was only valuable if I was painting Biblical things; those people who’ve said things like “art is nice, but it’s not what people in third world countries need” told me that beauty, that my art is a waste of time; those people who argued over church décor have told me that beauty just creates conflict; and so go the comments that rarely talked directly about art and the comments that didn’t talk about art at all. Yet together they formed my rough picture of what art is. Frivolous. Of little value.

This might help you non-artists to understand a little what it feels like: http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/how-to-discourage-artists-in-the-church

The thing is, I’ve realized that I need it.  

I’ve long felt that art was pretty, but unneeded. And I’m afraid the church has unintentionally taught me that. Here I come to what I opened with, that I felt like I didn’t have anyone to talk to. I have realized that I have unintentionally split my close friends into two groups: the Christians and the artists. I have my close Christian friends, who I go to when I need help with God stuff, and my close artist friends, who I go to when I need help with art stuff. Now I know some of you claim both as parts of your identity, so don’t think that I’m ignoring that. The thing is, my artist friends, I don’t know much about your relationships with God. When we talk, it’s rarely about such things. Is Christianity something you just label yourself with? Or do you really want Him? Does He really matter to you? Then again, I could be just as much at fault. I think far more than I act and often I speak even less. I don’t know what you could say you know about my relationship with God. Either way, I have been hesitant to start a conversation about art and faith with friends whose faith I knew so little about.

As for those select few I regularly go to concerning my walk with God, I will be blunt for the sake of honesty: I did not expect you to understand. I’ve wanted to ask for your help, but sometimes I haven’t had the clarity of vision to tell if I am trying to persuade you to tell me to prioritize art when I should actually be acting more practically, or if you actually understand me and how God feels about it. Maybe I didn’t expect you to understand because I felt that no matter how much you supported me, your underlying attitude couldn’t be much different than those Christians I’d encountered through books and the internet and in my own churches. I can’t blame them much though. They just saw art as something that the hungry couldn’t eat and the homeless couldn’t find shelter under. They were just being practical and asking that I be practical too.

But then, you all know me. I’m a bothersome contradiction. I have a need to be practical, yet art isn’t inherently practical (unfortunately, neither is my artistically inclined mind)–but I need art nonetheless.

You know, that’s actually a really scary thing to say… because if I spout all this stuff about the value of art and my need for it, more over the world’s need for it, I feel a lot of pressure to do something great with it. Maybe that’s the reason for writing this, to convince myself to not give up, to work toward something great and whether or not it ends up great in the eyes of anyone besides God is left up to Him. This matters because creating art has always been hard. I lack discipline many days. But these days, I am also discouraged. In my ear, a shadow of myself, the me who is supposed to be practical and responsible and a very good Christian girl–that Good Girl–whispers. She tells me art is impractical and useless in God’s Kingdom. She tells me how I haven’t done a good enough time with my other responsibilities and so I don’t deserve to do art yet, because that’s just an extra in my life. She tells me I’m not good enough anyway and I’ll never be good enough. She asks me unanswerable questions about “What happens if I fail?” She drags me around and get’s me tired with all the things I’m not doing well enough, so that there’s no desire to be creative left.

You see, I’ve also only recently come to realize that I don’t value my own art.

That’s also a hard thing to say. I think it’s because saying that feels like I’m saying I don’t value me. Ultimately, as sad as the idea is now, I know I could be content with life if God led me elsewhere and art was not in that direction, because it would be God’s leading. But I feel that God has woven art deeply into my soul. It takes a lot of me to create things. Art is personal. I guess it has to be if God put some of Himself into us (the breathing into), that we too put some of ourselves into our creations.

That Good Girl-me, though, also whispers lies into my ears about how I fit into the church. I worry about the Christian culture of art. I wonder if my art is has a place there sometimes, a place in the eyes of my Christian family. Who then can I go to for encouragement in art? I need it, I’ve realized. I need so greatly to be pushed to keep creating, to finish things, to explore new possibilities. And I know God cares about art.

Yet, I see a complacent Christian attitude towards art. No, it’s not the most pressing issue out there by a long shot, but the Church did once understand that art was important on some level (and at times they even valued it too much). Today I see Christian films and books and other “creative” media with pat answers and cliché endings. We used to be known for our quality, beautiful crafts. Now, I see a severe lack of raw, honest things and instead a real push to display only one well-groomed side of Christianity. Where are the things that mirror my reality? The things that challenge me to think about God in new ways? The things that tell the brokenness of this world that it is ok to feel broken? Where do I belong in this largely fakey Christian culture? Thankfully, it seems that Christian media is beginning to awake to something better, slowly…

I’m so glad for those few people who have guided me to where I am now on this topic, enabling me to begin to see the value of art. People like pastors who gave me opportunities to use my talents in the church. People like professors: the theology teacher who had us do a project that involved analyzing or creating art; or the art and design teachers who talked openly of struggling creatively and praying over it, or who talked about regarding the time working on their art as sacred time. People like Makoto Fujimura, whose lecture I attended as part of an assignment, where he talked about finding in Jesus the framework, the only worthy justification for the beauty he creates. And when the whole of my university reeled in the aftermath of the shooting, I saw all sorts of people turn to art for help, hope, and healing, to guide them in seeing beauty–with the intention of seeing God–in the midst of horrible tragedy. It is quite possible that it will forever remain the most beautiful and vivid expression of the Body of Christ that I have ever seen. Through these things, I am beginning “to find in Christ Himself an integrating premise behind beauty.”

Till now, in my limited view of God I have not had a wide enough field of vision to see that sometimes those things which appear to be “extra” and “extravagant” and “not truly needed” are desperately needed. Jon Forman from Switchfoot puts it perfectly by saying, “What is more Christ-like: feeding the poor, making furniture, cleaning bathrooms, or painting a sunset? There is a schism between the sacred and the secular in all of our modern minds.” Maybe, in spite of that desperate need though, I won’t do something “great.” But I think I’m learning to see the greatness in what God might do in me with it. I can see the ways He will force me out of my comfort zone and at the same time the ways that He will require me to learn to make my faith and my art my own. I can see the ways He might grow my trust in Him.

Sometimes I think about not trying to pursue a career in art. I think about how I’ve dreamed big but could fall short. I fear I won’t be good enough, and I don’t even mean just how well I can draw. I mean in God’s eyes. I think it’s impossible that I’ll ever so anything with it, even small, but I realize it’s just the fear talking. I realize that as much as I hate job hunting and would possibly loath having to work random jobs, it’s possible that being an artist could be scarier. For a long time, I thought–though I did not realize it–that my art was an excuse to hide from my fears. Won’t it be easier to pursue a job you want than it was to accept that position as a cashier you hated? Or apply for that job as a receptionist you think you won’t be any good at? It’s not any easier. Rarely is my art an excuse for me. No, I have to fight to create. Some days, it terrifies me.

As I type these things, I feel such a strong need. It’s an ache that sits in the deepest part of soul, asking for beautiful things to be needed. Maybe part of it is because I have long struggled with feeling needed myself. Maybe part of me fears that I am not needed by His church because my talents are “extra” and “extravagant” and “not truly needed.” Under all these thoughts, there’s little light left to see the paper. Under the weight of all these things, there’s little strength left to lift my pencil.

Then I guess that says something about me. About my unwillingness to trust Him with it. My “need” to worry. My unwillingness to be seen stumbling, to embrace that things about me that aren’t “good enough” yet. My unwillingness to see that not all mistakes are sins and that God made me as I am, mistake-making abilities and all. Not because He made a mistake in how He made me but because I made a mistake in my understanding: that mistakes are always bad things and that they must be hidden. That does no one any good. Instead it is the reverse: mistakes are not always bad and they must not be hidden. The depth of my emotions about all these things does not give me license to not trust Him with my mistakes and weaknesses.

Fujimura’s words resonate with me on such a deep level. What could justify such creation? What can justify the beauty and the extravagance? Long have I been /among the ranks of those who scoffed when a “bouquet” was brought in. Like the disciples said of the woman who anointed Jesus, I’ve murmured such comments as, “Why waste this perfume? It could have been sold for more than a year’s pay. The money could have been given to poor people."

But if God is beautiful and good and the creator, then I guess beauty and good things and creation must be needed here. ”

“The artisan puts flesh on the work of the Spirit, and makes that reality visible for others to experience.”

~

T. M. tells a wonderful story about Johann Sebastian Bach, the great eighteenth-century composer. Now Bach loved his coffee. And in honor of his passion, he wrote the “Coffee Cantata,” which involved a funny drama about a father and daughter arguing over the daughter’s love for the bean. The music itself, T. M. says, is as rich and beautiful as any of Bach’s famous sacred pieces.  

And that was on purpose. “For Bach,” T. M. writes, “even the most ordinary things of life could convey a message of divine glory and pleasure, even your morning cup of coffee. Great art functions like this, taking as its focus common … subjects and using them, in the setting of a big, sweeping vision, to communicate a simple message.

“In Christian art,” T. M. continues “whether the images are saints and martyrs or a parental dispute with a daughter over the supposed evils of coffee, the message remains the same: Life has meaning and beauty when it is lived within the framework of the overarching majesty, goodness, and love of God.”

From https://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/entry/13/22905

Author’s Note: This is a post I wrote about a year and a half ago for some friends. It has been edited to share with the general public.