Joy Marie Prior
Professor Harris
17 November 2009
“Letter from Birmingham Jail” by Martin Luther King, Jr.
When I hear civil rights, I imagine Martin Luther King, Jr. frozen in a black and white photo standing at a pulpit shouting “I have a dream,” into a big microphone. On the issue of segregation I cannot think of someone more quoted than Martin Luther King, Jr. In April 1963 King wrote, from Birmingham Jail on scraps of newspaper, a letter in response to the article “Call for Unity,” written by eight white Alabama clergymen. They wanted the people to stop protesting and allow the civil courts to handle to situation. He wrote “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” during a period of high racial tension. His use of “you” throughout the paper and detailed descriptions paint an inspiring vision of the black community’s struggle against discrimination for the reader that touched me personal as my understanding of King developed.
Historical Context
In 1963, Birmingham, Alabama was at the cutting edge of racial tension. “Bull” Connor (head of police in Birmingham) encouraged officers to use high pressured hoses, dogs, beatings, and any effective form of violence that impaired King’s supporters. Against King’s wishes, his campaign invited teenage children to walk in their parades. Despite their age, they were shown no mercy by the police, and many of them were imprisoned. Eventually, Doctor King himself was charged for protesting without a permit and placed in solitary confinement where he wrote “Letter from Birmingham Jail.”
Critical Analysis
Martin Luther King, Jr. invites the reader to experience racial discrimination before he builds himself up as an advocate for freedom. The first portion of King’s letter summarizes what inspired him, and has a basic introduction for his thesis. The conclusion section (and meat of the paper) defines Martin Luther King, Jr. and his cause as just. Bridging the two sections is a paragraph detailing the hardships of discrimination without taking a pleading tone. King paints an intimate image for the reader when he says, “you suddenly find your tongue twisted and your speech stammering as you seek to explain to your six-year-old daughter why she can't go to the public amusement park.” King uses “I feel” or “we feel” throughout the body of this paragraph sparingly, and “you” or “your” 25 times. As in the sentence above King does not tell the reader “my tongue is twisted,” but “your tongue is twisted.” He clearly wants the audience to experience discrimination and not simply recognize it. This paragraph is important to have prior to the remainder of the text because once the reader understands the physical, personal, and emotional pains that come from discrimination, he or she is more willing to sympathize with Martin Luther King, Jr. rather than justifying racist actions as logical, or even godly.
After describing his perspective of discrimination, King expresses the feeling that the reader should have a clear understanding of what it feels like to be victimized. The closing line reads, “I hope, sirs, you can understand our legitimate and unavoidable impatience.” Notice how he does not end the last sentence with a question; it appears that Martin Luther is not asking the reader if they understand what it feels like to be discriminated against, but telling them. After he believes his readers understand his perspective he proceeds to build his argument.
Personal Reflection
What impacted me the most was the way in which Martin Luther King, Jr. addressed me. Although the letter is officially addressed to the clergymen it is clear through his text he is calling to a larger audience. The simple fact that he published it in the newspaper supports this claim. Truthfully, before reading “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” I did not understand much about Martin Luther King, Jr.: I knew there is a holiday for him and whenever anyone mentions his name there is some sort of reverence in the room, but I had never fully comprehended or appreciated who Martin Luther King, Jr. was.
Besides being in awe of King’s brilliance after reading “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” I am left wondering what it would feel like to go through the things that he experienced. I find myself continually wondering what it would be like to be a member of the black community, white sympathizers, or a member of the eight clergymen. As of yet I have not been able to imagine what it would be like to be Martin Luther King, Jr. My mind played with the image of me sitting in the jail cell with a pen in one hand and an unfolded newspaper in the other. That is as far as I get, though; I cannot imagine myself writing the letter. My own cry against racism would seem like a bicycle horn squeaking one constant weak beep compared to the sonic boom of King’s message. I love knowing that Martin Luther King, Jr. is addressing me specifically in his “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” because, as I understand what he experienced a little better, my cry against discrimination strengthens.
Work Cited
King, Martin Luther Jr. “Letter from Birmingham Jail.” Reading for Intensive Writers. Ed. Susan Jorgensen.
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Friday, December 4, 2009
pre civil war
The second Great Awaking was a time when men’s faith was lead, directed, and altered the American Heritage. It was a battle of words that ultimately lead to the Civil War by diverse interpretations of the Bible, authorities condemnation, and false fallacies.
There are many interpretations and seemingly contradictions in the Bible concerning slavery. In
Lev. 25: 44-46 the passage describes what type of slaves you can have, and that your family will have them forever. In Exodus 21:2-6 the Bible says that a slave can only be a slave for six years and his wife and children are under the rule of the master unless the male slave declares that he loves his master. Another passage in Exodus 21:7-11 describes when the master can have sex with his slaves. On the other side God helped the Hebrews escape the slavery of the Egyptians and their bondage. Many say that slavery in our modern day is based on race, and in biblical times it was based on social debts. There for God is against the racial slavery and discrimination. From text in the Bible there seem to be contradictions and both the North and the South used these text for both supporting and abolishing slavery.
Naturally men and women will respect authority. Many pastures and preachers had their own unique interpretation of the Bible and how it described and decaled with the issue of slavery. Because the pastures and preachers were an authority figure in the cities that they preached at they had an influence on what the people believed. An quote from the www.mrlincolnandfreedom.org website illustrates the authority preachers had in this quote, “At the camp-meeting, Dr. Peter Akers, like Peter Cartwright, a great Bible preacher of his day, then in the fulness of his powers, preached a sermon on 'The Dominion of Jesus Christ.' The object of the sermon was to show that the dominion of Christ could not come in America until American slavery was wiped out, and that the institution of slavery would at last be destroyed by civil war. For three hours the preacher enrolled his argument and even gave graphic pictures of the war that was to come. 'I am not a prophet nor the son of a prophet,' said he, 'but a student of the prophets. As I read prophecy, American slavery will come to an end in some near decade, I think in the sixties."
There were many false fallacies used to develop the civil war by using the bible and preaching methods. The one that I noticed while reading was that preachers would state you are either for slavery or against it. This left the people with the idea that only one choice was correct when in reality there are many dynamic and complex issues with slavery. For example is it supporting slavery to buy sugar made by slaves? Does slavery included child labor? Although someone might be getting paid is it possible for them to still be enslaved? The Missouri Compromise is an example of how the mindset was built that either you were for slavery or against it, but there was no specific definition of what constituted as slavery.
There are many interpretations and seemingly contradictions in the Bible concerning slavery. In
Lev. 25: 44-46 the passage describes what type of slaves you can have, and that your family will have them forever. In Exodus 21:2-6 the Bible says that a slave can only be a slave for six years and his wife and children are under the rule of the master unless the male slave declares that he loves his master. Another passage in Exodus 21:7-11 describes when the master can have sex with his slaves. On the other side God helped the Hebrews escape the slavery of the Egyptians and their bondage. Many say that slavery in our modern day is based on race, and in biblical times it was based on social debts. There for God is against the racial slavery and discrimination. From text in the Bible there seem to be contradictions and both the North and the South used these text for both supporting and abolishing slavery.
Naturally men and women will respect authority. Many pastures and preachers had their own unique interpretation of the Bible and how it described and decaled with the issue of slavery. Because the pastures and preachers were an authority figure in the cities that they preached at they had an influence on what the people believed. An quote from the www.mrlincolnandfreedom.org website illustrates the authority preachers had in this quote, “At the camp-meeting, Dr. Peter Akers, like Peter Cartwright, a great Bible preacher of his day, then in the fulness of his powers, preached a sermon on 'The Dominion of Jesus Christ.' The object of the sermon was to show that the dominion of Christ could not come in America until American slavery was wiped out, and that the institution of slavery would at last be destroyed by civil war. For three hours the preacher enrolled his argument and even gave graphic pictures of the war that was to come. 'I am not a prophet nor the son of a prophet,' said he, 'but a student of the prophets. As I read prophecy, American slavery will come to an end in some near decade, I think in the sixties."
There were many false fallacies used to develop the civil war by using the bible and preaching methods. The one that I noticed while reading was that preachers would state you are either for slavery or against it. This left the people with the idea that only one choice was correct when in reality there are many dynamic and complex issues with slavery. For example is it supporting slavery to buy sugar made by slaves? Does slavery included child labor? Although someone might be getting paid is it possible for them to still be enslaved? The Missouri Compromise is an example of how the mindset was built that either you were for slavery or against it, but there was no specific definition of what constituted as slavery.
Friday, November 20, 2009
music
In the lecture I learned so many basic elements of music. Like most people I have always enjoyed listening to music, and I am not completely tone deaf or ignorant about music. In comparison to how much there is to know about music I would have just read the cover. During the lecture I began to appreciate music in a light I had never appreciated before. For starts it helped that someone was guiding me through the analysis, because I am not educated enough on the matter to extensively explore the dynamics and elements of a song. Secondly I appreciated the composers braver to use their knowledge to make music.
I had never realized that musicians could write music simply because they like to combine the notes. Music has always seemed like “an expression of the soul” and not a work. It helped to have the professor explaining to me the various dynamics of a song, playing the music so I felt I could identify the dynamics, and comparing the different composers and which dynamics they preferred. Learning how the pieces were composed helped me to understand why the composer did what they did.
I thought that all of the composers we discussed in the lecture were courageous. When their symphonies came out they really were putting themselves out for ridicule. It is difficult for me to imagine, but the closet thing I can come up with is when you have to read a poem you wrote in front of the class. The audience is smaller, much, much smaller, but the courage it takes to share your own work always takes a little courage. I was very impressed with all of the composures courage to try new ideas, accept ridicule, and express themselves in their work.
I had never realized that musicians could write music simply because they like to combine the notes. Music has always seemed like “an expression of the soul” and not a work. It helped to have the professor explaining to me the various dynamics of a song, playing the music so I felt I could identify the dynamics, and comparing the different composers and which dynamics they preferred. Learning how the pieces were composed helped me to understand why the composer did what they did.
I thought that all of the composers we discussed in the lecture were courageous. When their symphonies came out they really were putting themselves out for ridicule. It is difficult for me to imagine, but the closet thing I can come up with is when you have to read a poem you wrote in front of the class. The audience is smaller, much, much smaller, but the courage it takes to share your own work always takes a little courage. I was very impressed with all of the composures courage to try new ideas, accept ridicule, and express themselves in their work.
Monday, November 16, 2009
free desire freedom
Freedom Craves Freedom
Prepared for Dr. Richard Neitzel Holzapfel
Honors 240 Section 1
Winter 2009
Joy Marie Prior
A pile of human carcasses supported the pole that held the tattered red, white, and blue flag. As the pale morning sun crept across the pools of blood, a prisoner of war, Francis Scott Key, saw the United States flag through the settling cannon smoke and penned “The Star Spangled Banner.” I cannot remember the teacher who told me that story, but I can still see the soldier’s glazed eyes staring out of the mound of contorted limbs, just as I imagined them from my desk years ago. A part of me wanted to step back in time to that battlefield, where I could walk up to each solider, push back their matted hair, look into their eyes, and ask, “Are you free?” During this internal debate I came to the conclusion that free men and women desire freedom for others. The establishment of freedom in the United States of America demonstrates the divine calling free men and women have to expand liberty.
“The desire for liberty” did not start in the American Colonies in 1776; freedom is an “age-old” belief (P. 85). Pages of my history book are littered with martyrs for freedom from all generations and cultures. What defined the American revolution was the “belief in the ability in the people for self-government” (P. 67). The idea that the governed have the right to determine government’s laws created a harbor for freedom. Before America declared its independence, there had never been a government that had given so much freedom to its citizens. Putting their livelihoods at stake, the founding fathers honored the belief that “America had been chosen by Providence for this grand experiment in testing the human capacity for self-government” (P. 186).
God inspired the American Constitution and Declaration of Independence to progress freedom to all nations, and not for the nation’s selfish gain. “[He] declared that the United States Constitution was divinely inspired for the specific purpose of eliminating bondage and the violation of the rights and protection which belong to ‘all flesh’” (P. 115). God ordained the Constitution as a step in the progression of freedom. His purpose of elevating the colonies to a nation was not to raise the country above others, but instead He intended America to be “the cradle of the Church” (P. 134). A matured baby can not live in a cradle forever, and God never expected to confine the knowledge and truth found in the Gospel within the boundaries of the United States. The blessings that rushed forward after the establishment of the American government were intended for “our world” (P. 188).
Understanding that God inspired the founding of the United States for the “specific purpose” of bringing freedom to all nations is vital to understanding that free men and women desire freedom for others (P. 115) . The Constitution is a “glorious standard” (P. 4) of rights and God intended that “those rights must be protected…and he designed that all men should protect one another” (P. 48). If America does not keep God’s purposes it will no longer be kept “free from bondage, and from captivity” (Ether 2:12). Those who stop freedom’s progression contradict freedom’s purpose of establishing “full civil equality for all of God‘s children. Anything less than this defeats our high ideal of the brotherhood of man” (P. 130). By not following God’s intentions our nation will be lead into bondage-- the opposite state of freedom.
The gem of freedom’s intent is to “warm every object beneath its rays” with liberty (P. 7). Before the foundation of the world, the United States Constitution and Declaration of Independence were designed to be an example of how to spread freedom to the common people of the nation (P. 102). God intended for the freedoms nurtured in America to spread across the whole earth, and not striving to expand freedom is going against God’s will.
I don’t know the names of the soldiers smeared in blood holding up the American flag, but I believe that they were free. As I imagine them in my mind--fathers, brothers, and husbands--I realize they did not sacrifice their lives for their own freedom, but for those that they loved. The solders buried in the mud on that battlefield understood freedom is only created when it is shared, and because of their example I know those men with the glazed eyes and blood-chapped lips were free.
Prepared for Dr. Richard Neitzel Holzapfel
Honors 240 Section 1
Winter 2009
Joy Marie Prior
A pile of human carcasses supported the pole that held the tattered red, white, and blue flag. As the pale morning sun crept across the pools of blood, a prisoner of war, Francis Scott Key, saw the United States flag through the settling cannon smoke and penned “The Star Spangled Banner.” I cannot remember the teacher who told me that story, but I can still see the soldier’s glazed eyes staring out of the mound of contorted limbs, just as I imagined them from my desk years ago. A part of me wanted to step back in time to that battlefield, where I could walk up to each solider, push back their matted hair, look into their eyes, and ask, “Are you free?” During this internal debate I came to the conclusion that free men and women desire freedom for others. The establishment of freedom in the United States of America demonstrates the divine calling free men and women have to expand liberty.
“The desire for liberty” did not start in the American Colonies in 1776; freedom is an “age-old” belief (P. 85). Pages of my history book are littered with martyrs for freedom from all generations and cultures. What defined the American revolution was the “belief in the ability in the people for self-government” (P. 67). The idea that the governed have the right to determine government’s laws created a harbor for freedom. Before America declared its independence, there had never been a government that had given so much freedom to its citizens. Putting their livelihoods at stake, the founding fathers honored the belief that “America had been chosen by Providence for this grand experiment in testing the human capacity for self-government” (P. 186).
God inspired the American Constitution and Declaration of Independence to progress freedom to all nations, and not for the nation’s selfish gain. “[He] declared that the United States Constitution was divinely inspired for the specific purpose of eliminating bondage and the violation of the rights and protection which belong to ‘all flesh’” (P. 115). God ordained the Constitution as a step in the progression of freedom. His purpose of elevating the colonies to a nation was not to raise the country above others, but instead He intended America to be “the cradle of the Church” (P. 134). A matured baby can not live in a cradle forever, and God never expected to confine the knowledge and truth found in the Gospel within the boundaries of the United States. The blessings that rushed forward after the establishment of the American government were intended for “our world” (P. 188).
Understanding that God inspired the founding of the United States for the “specific purpose” of bringing freedom to all nations is vital to understanding that free men and women desire freedom for others (P. 115) . The Constitution is a “glorious standard” (P. 4) of rights and God intended that “those rights must be protected…and he designed that all men should protect one another” (P. 48). If America does not keep God’s purposes it will no longer be kept “free from bondage, and from captivity” (Ether 2:12). Those who stop freedom’s progression contradict freedom’s purpose of establishing “full civil equality for all of God‘s children. Anything less than this defeats our high ideal of the brotherhood of man” (P. 130). By not following God’s intentions our nation will be lead into bondage-- the opposite state of freedom.
The gem of freedom’s intent is to “warm every object beneath its rays” with liberty (P. 7). Before the foundation of the world, the United States Constitution and Declaration of Independence were designed to be an example of how to spread freedom to the common people of the nation (P. 102). God intended for the freedoms nurtured in America to spread across the whole earth, and not striving to expand freedom is going against God’s will.
I don’t know the names of the soldiers smeared in blood holding up the American flag, but I believe that they were free. As I imagine them in my mind--fathers, brothers, and husbands--I realize they did not sacrifice their lives for their own freedom, but for those that they loved. The solders buried in the mud on that battlefield understood freedom is only created when it is shared, and because of their example I know those men with the glazed eyes and blood-chapped lips were free.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
MOA Visit 2nd time
Art work has it's own language. I think that most people would agree with that. When my History class went to visit the MOA this past week I was somewhat unimpressed. I was impressed with the art work, but the class period was odd to me. We listened to someone explain and try to help us dig out the messages of God in the paintings. The only problem was that the art was speaking to me in an entirly different voice than it was speaking to the women giving the presentation. This caused me more to wonder why we were 'disagreeing' with the painting and simply not reading it.
There are many socological reasons I am sure that we did not see the same thing in the paints: social influances, ages, gender, personal experiances, and so on. In one idea I think that why we really saw different things in the painting is because we are humans with Godly insights.
For starts the nature of God is to see all things, and to know all things. I think that it is possible for a painting to represent more than just one thing, or idea. Why the women lecturing our class saw what she saw was because she took a logical aproach to anaylze the items in the painting. Someone elese would see something different in the painting because they aproached the painting differently. God sees every painting I am sure, and he probably aproaches each painting with a specificly and from all angles. When I imagine God anaylzing my life I believe that he sees all of the factors that affect me, and he understands how to aproach me (as the painting) in every possible perspective.
I think that this is important to understand, because towards the end of the visit I was so sick of being told what 'every one' saw in the painting that I forgot why I was looking at the paintings. With all of the different perspectives being poured onto the painting at once the art work took on this hog pog atitued. I wanted to sit down with one person and take a journy through the painting, and talk about their point of view and what they saw. Instead I felt like we through things at the painting and told it what it should become. Next time I visit the MOA I will strive to find myself on a journey through the art work.
There are many socological reasons I am sure that we did not see the same thing in the paints: social influances, ages, gender, personal experiances, and so on. In one idea I think that why we really saw different things in the painting is because we are humans with Godly insights.
For starts the nature of God is to see all things, and to know all things. I think that it is possible for a painting to represent more than just one thing, or idea. Why the women lecturing our class saw what she saw was because she took a logical aproach to anaylze the items in the painting. Someone elese would see something different in the painting because they aproached the painting differently. God sees every painting I am sure, and he probably aproaches each painting with a specificly and from all angles. When I imagine God anaylzing my life I believe that he sees all of the factors that affect me, and he understands how to aproach me (as the painting) in every possible perspective.
I think that this is important to understand, because towards the end of the visit I was so sick of being told what 'every one' saw in the painting that I forgot why I was looking at the paintings. With all of the different perspectives being poured onto the painting at once the art work took on this hog pog atitued. I wanted to sit down with one person and take a journy through the painting, and talk about their point of view and what they saw. Instead I felt like we through things at the painting and told it what it should become. Next time I visit the MOA I will strive to find myself on a journey through the art work.
MOA visit
Divine Resurrection
I remember when I still young enough to wear Strawberry Shortcake shirts looking over my shoulder as a half nude painting of Christ disappeared behind the labyrinth of statues and canvases. Years later when I returned to Brigham Young University as a student, I found myself fixated on the same painting. I scribbled the title Jesus and Mary: The Moment After and the artist, Trevor Southey, in my daily planner, and wondered why the painting had smoldered in my memory for so many years. Unlike the exposed depictions of Christ on the cross, Trevor Southey’s contemporary approach expresses the divinity of the Savior’s body through lighting, color, and physical strength. As I trace and retrace all three figures in the painting in my mind my appreciation of Jesus’ resurrected body grows.
The painting of Jesus and Mary: The Moment After has a unique history. It is an oil on canvas painting done in 1975. The artist, Trevor Southey, was born in South Africa of European descent in 1940. The South African cultural greatly affected his technique and personal views of painting. He worked as a professor at Brigham Young University, and after being excommunicated from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints he moved to the San Francisco area. Although he had an unconventional association with the church it is undeniable that Southey’s infamous nude paintings influenced the contemporary Mormon-related art era. He depicted Christ and people in an unconventional way. During the 1970s the Utah public considered nude art pornographic, and Southey was encouraged to “drape” much of his work before publishing it. It is believed that Jesus and Mary: The Moment After was one of these works.
In Jesus and Mary: The Moment After lighting is possibly my favorite aspect of art work, because the shades and shadows develop the focus that the artist wants. Because an artist cannot use actual lighting on an oil and canvas painting the artist uses lighter shades to identify were the light is coming from. The Savior is the source of light in painting. There is a faint hallow of gold surrounding his head, but the illuminating effect surrounds his entire figure. Unlike most paintings where the light comes from the sun, a light bulb, or an unseen force, Southey makes a point to establish that the light in painting is coming from Jesus, and he literally depicts Christ as “the light of the world,” (John 8:12). A traditional artist paints a halo only around the divinities head, representing celestial thoughts. There is a faint halo around Christ’s head in the painting, but the light illuminates from his entire body, establishing Jesus’ entire body as a divine light source, and not simply his intellect, thoughts, or ideas.
Christ’s royal heritage is depicted in Jesus and Mary: The Moment After by a distinct half-inch blue line along Christ’s side. The color blue symbolizes the common English phrase “Blue blooded” which originated from the Spanish expression “sangre azul” that describes noble birth. While conquering, the Iberian Peninsula Spanish nobility would show the blue veins under their thin and pale skin in their hands to distinguish themselves from the Moorish people they had conquered. The blue out lines Jesus’ entire body depicting Christ’s entire body as royal, and not simply his hands.
Southey painted Jesus’ with a bare torso to focus on Christ’s divine and resurrected body. Naturally your eye follows Christ’s bare torso by tracing a discolored line across his left shoulder and down his side. He is uncovered, but does not seem exposed. The soft lines in Christ’s turned face invite you to examine his outstretched arms and toned frame. Not only does he look beautiful, but strong. The veins in his arms are enormous, and his hands seem disproportionately large. Southey paints Christ with defined muscles and broad shoulders to establish God’s strength not only in his hands, but in his entire physic.
When I saw the depiction of Christ in Jesus and Mary: The Moment After my head dropped to one side and I felt questions blossom in my mind. Why no wool red scratchy robe? Why a pale silk framing his bare torso? It took specific details such as the halo, the blue outline, and the veins in his extended hands to understand the message of Christ’s divine body dipected in the art work.
I almost missed the form wrapped in shire cloth on the right side of the Christ in the painting, because I was focusing the painted Savior. I don’t know who the huddled form is. My initial response was the figure must be the Savior prior to his resurrection. As I began to ponder “the moment after” I realized that the Savior was not bound the moment after his resurrection, but Mary was because she needed the atonement to free her from her sin. I was fairly determined the covered figure was Mary until I reflected on the binding power of sin. Could the figure be me? In my mind the figure is all three of us. The person under the cloth changes every time I look, causing me to appreciate the painting differently each time. When the wrapped figure is Jesus I am overwhelmed by his strength to break the power of death. If I see Mary’s figure covered by the cloth I feel the personal love intertwined in the atonement. I don’t like imagining that I am the figure wrapped in the painting, because I feel blind to the divinity of the resurrection when I do.
There I am, after one of the most important moments in all eternity, wrapped in my own sins; blinded by my pride and ignorance; and unable to see the light beaming from my God.
It makes me wish the covered person was someone else; some other unfortunate soul. Someone who made too much money, never gave to the poor, and got too fat to feel the spirit any more. How could you miss something like that? Recognizing Christ as a good man who lived an exceptional life is not enough. When I look at “Jesus and Mary: The Moment After” I am reminded that Christ lives. He died for me, and now his body illuminates light, divinity, and strength.
Work Cited
Blue Blood. Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 25 September 2009 at 13:32. Web. 14 October 2009.
Lacey, Robert. Aristocrats. Little, Brown and Company, 1983, p. 67.
Puri, Janak. Community Centre. Compare Infobase Limited. New Delhi, 2000. Web. 14 October 2009.
Southey, Trevor. Jesus and Mary: The Moment After. 1975. Oil on canvas. Brigham Young University Museum of Art.
I remember when I still young enough to wear Strawberry Shortcake shirts looking over my shoulder as a half nude painting of Christ disappeared behind the labyrinth of statues and canvases. Years later when I returned to Brigham Young University as a student, I found myself fixated on the same painting. I scribbled the title Jesus and Mary: The Moment After and the artist, Trevor Southey, in my daily planner, and wondered why the painting had smoldered in my memory for so many years. Unlike the exposed depictions of Christ on the cross, Trevor Southey’s contemporary approach expresses the divinity of the Savior’s body through lighting, color, and physical strength. As I trace and retrace all three figures in the painting in my mind my appreciation of Jesus’ resurrected body grows.
The painting of Jesus and Mary: The Moment After has a unique history. It is an oil on canvas painting done in 1975. The artist, Trevor Southey, was born in South Africa of European descent in 1940. The South African cultural greatly affected his technique and personal views of painting. He worked as a professor at Brigham Young University, and after being excommunicated from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints he moved to the San Francisco area. Although he had an unconventional association with the church it is undeniable that Southey’s infamous nude paintings influenced the contemporary Mormon-related art era. He depicted Christ and people in an unconventional way. During the 1970s the Utah public considered nude art pornographic, and Southey was encouraged to “drape” much of his work before publishing it. It is believed that Jesus and Mary: The Moment After was one of these works.
In Jesus and Mary: The Moment After lighting is possibly my favorite aspect of art work, because the shades and shadows develop the focus that the artist wants. Because an artist cannot use actual lighting on an oil and canvas painting the artist uses lighter shades to identify were the light is coming from. The Savior is the source of light in painting. There is a faint hallow of gold surrounding his head, but the illuminating effect surrounds his entire figure. Unlike most paintings where the light comes from the sun, a light bulb, or an unseen force, Southey makes a point to establish that the light in painting is coming from Jesus, and he literally depicts Christ as “the light of the world,” (John 8:12). A traditional artist paints a halo only around the divinities head, representing celestial thoughts. There is a faint halo around Christ’s head in the painting, but the light illuminates from his entire body, establishing Jesus’ entire body as a divine light source, and not simply his intellect, thoughts, or ideas.
Christ’s royal heritage is depicted in Jesus and Mary: The Moment After by a distinct half-inch blue line along Christ’s side. The color blue symbolizes the common English phrase “Blue blooded” which originated from the Spanish expression “sangre azul” that describes noble birth. While conquering, the Iberian Peninsula Spanish nobility would show the blue veins under their thin and pale skin in their hands to distinguish themselves from the Moorish people they had conquered. The blue out lines Jesus’ entire body depicting Christ’s entire body as royal, and not simply his hands.
Southey painted Jesus’ with a bare torso to focus on Christ’s divine and resurrected body. Naturally your eye follows Christ’s bare torso by tracing a discolored line across his left shoulder and down his side. He is uncovered, but does not seem exposed. The soft lines in Christ’s turned face invite you to examine his outstretched arms and toned frame. Not only does he look beautiful, but strong. The veins in his arms are enormous, and his hands seem disproportionately large. Southey paints Christ with defined muscles and broad shoulders to establish God’s strength not only in his hands, but in his entire physic.
When I saw the depiction of Christ in Jesus and Mary: The Moment After my head dropped to one side and I felt questions blossom in my mind. Why no wool red scratchy robe? Why a pale silk framing his bare torso? It took specific details such as the halo, the blue outline, and the veins in his extended hands to understand the message of Christ’s divine body dipected in the art work.
I almost missed the form wrapped in shire cloth on the right side of the Christ in the painting, because I was focusing the painted Savior. I don’t know who the huddled form is. My initial response was the figure must be the Savior prior to his resurrection. As I began to ponder “the moment after” I realized that the Savior was not bound the moment after his resurrection, but Mary was because she needed the atonement to free her from her sin. I was fairly determined the covered figure was Mary until I reflected on the binding power of sin. Could the figure be me? In my mind the figure is all three of us. The person under the cloth changes every time I look, causing me to appreciate the painting differently each time. When the wrapped figure is Jesus I am overwhelmed by his strength to break the power of death. If I see Mary’s figure covered by the cloth I feel the personal love intertwined in the atonement. I don’t like imagining that I am the figure wrapped in the painting, because I feel blind to the divinity of the resurrection when I do.
There I am, after one of the most important moments in all eternity, wrapped in my own sins; blinded by my pride and ignorance; and unable to see the light beaming from my God.
It makes me wish the covered person was someone else; some other unfortunate soul. Someone who made too much money, never gave to the poor, and got too fat to feel the spirit any more. How could you miss something like that? Recognizing Christ as a good man who lived an exceptional life is not enough. When I look at “Jesus and Mary: The Moment After” I am reminded that Christ lives. He died for me, and now his body illuminates light, divinity, and strength.
Work Cited
Blue Blood. Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 25 September 2009 at 13:32. Web. 14 October 2009.
Lacey, Robert. Aristocrats. Little, Brown and Company, 1983, p. 67.
Puri, Janak. Community Centre. Compare Infobase Limited. New Delhi, 2000. Web. 14 October 2009.
Southey, Trevor. Jesus and Mary: The Moment After. 1975. Oil on canvas. Brigham Young University Museum of Art.
re-write
I did not know that writing could feel like drilling a screwdriver through my skull until I came to Brigham Young University, and now I have the pleasure of screwdrivers drilling into my brain everyday. The lecture of finding humility, charity, clarity, and stick-to-ity in writing was what I needed to here. This week I turned in the first draft of my Freshman research paper. When I got it back I had a difficulty finding my paper through all of the red markings. While I listened to her speak about the power of writing I came to the conclusion that it is not simply ok for me to need to re-write my paper, but essential to learning how to write well.
Re-writing my paper will take time and energy. Like the quote used in the lecture hard work is the only answer. I researched and researched and put all of my facts into folders that I never will read again on my computer. All of the research that I did was hard work, but there is a difference between working to obtain information and sharing information. Writing is sharing all of the information that I learned, and it feels harder to me than retaining. Hard work researching is important, but I also need to work hard at writing all of the information I researched out.
It is going to take me a long to learn how to write well, probably longer than simply just four years at Brigham Young University. Re-writing my paper might take some hard work, but that is part of growing. The growth that comes from writing is not simply so that I can get a better grade, but so that I can help God spread truth. God wants the best, and so I must be continually striving to reach for the best. Sometimes re-drafts and even re-re-drafts are needed to make the best paper I can possibly write.
Re-writing my paper will take time and energy. Like the quote used in the lecture hard work is the only answer. I researched and researched and put all of my facts into folders that I never will read again on my computer. All of the research that I did was hard work, but there is a difference between working to obtain information and sharing information. Writing is sharing all of the information that I learned, and it feels harder to me than retaining. Hard work researching is important, but I also need to work hard at writing all of the information I researched out.
It is going to take me a long to learn how to write well, probably longer than simply just four years at Brigham Young University. Re-writing my paper might take some hard work, but that is part of growing. The growth that comes from writing is not simply so that I can get a better grade, but so that I can help God spread truth. God wants the best, and so I must be continually striving to reach for the best. Sometimes re-drafts and even re-re-drafts are needed to make the best paper I can possibly write.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)