A Blinding Sight

(March 2, 2008; Fourth Sunday in Lent; 1 Sam 16:1-13; Ps 23; Eph 5:8-14; Jn 9:1-41)

Our texts deal with sight and perception and so I pose a quick question; which of the

following images is more realistic?

First is a painting by Norman

Rockwell of a boy, his grandpa and

his dog looking out into the sea.

Second we have a painting by Pablo Picasso’s

painting of a wine glass.

I suspect that on first impression we would

look to Norman Rockwell’s painting as offering a

more realistic image of life. Picasso’s work can

often strike us as distorted, obscure or maybe even a

little disturbing while Rockwell’s pieces are often comforting, familiar and reassuring.

Where Picasso often leaves us confused and disoriented Rockwell offers safety and

security. Both painters lived around the same period of time. Both received wide public

recognition. But both offered very different depictions of the world around them.

1
 This morning’s texts are about sight and perception. In 1 Samuel we find a

passage which tells us that “God does not look at the things we look at.” In Ephesians we

are told expose what cannot be seen in the darkness with light. And in the gospel we are

told that Jesus came so that the blind will see and that those who see will become blind.

He concludes with the difficult words to the religious leaders, “If you were blind, you

would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim to see, your guilt remains.”

Our biblical texts remind us again and again that perhaps the world around is not

actually as it seems. It nudges us to consider that maybe we cannot simply trust the first

impression that our senses offer us. This is of course taboo in a culture that still hails

science as the guardian of truth. The senses are fundamental and foundational to

accuracy of science. But what if maybe it is Picasso who can lead us towards the type of

blinding sight to which Jesus calls us. Picasso began making his mark in the art world at

the turn of the twentieth century. Painters had it tough in the decades before Picasso.

With the invention of photography painters had to revaluate their purpose.

Clear and precise representation was

the greatest skill artists offered the public.

Even the greatest painters were match for the

perfect detail of a photograph. From this

crisis of identity there were groups that began

to rebel against the strict and technical rules of

painting in Europe at the time. First there

were the impressionists who discarded the

careful and uniform brush strokes which they

2
were taught and began to let light, colour and expression have more importance than just

accurate lines and forms.

Many art experts were critical of these early works as they deviated from the goal

of being a still mirror to the world around it. But what these experts did not allow for

was the possibility that perhaps there is more to the world than what one set of eyes can

take in. Their point of view assumed that the world around them was fixed and stable.

They assumed that an object could be accurately represented from just one perspective.

From this movement there arose another artist named Paul Cezanne who

combined a strong realistic portrayal with impressionistic style. However, what he took

note of was that when he was painting

something if he changed his position or

perspective at all then the image he was

trying to paint also changed.

In many of his paintings he tried to represent

two slightly different perspectives at one

time. In simple paintings such as this there

is an appearance of movement or of being

slightly off balance as the image itself

moves between the two perspectives.

All of these expressions however could hardly prepare audiences for the work of

Pablo Picasso. As Picasso’s work developed he seemed to discard completely the idea

that you could imitate three dimensional reality on a two dimensional canvas and so he

tried to take the basic shapes of what he intended to paint and flatten them onto a canvas.

3
It was as though each object were a

sort of cardboard box that could be

unfolded having all sides represented

on one surface. He would think of

the various perspectives or sides that

could be seen of a person or an

object and represent those surfaces

on a single flat surface. In this way

Picasso hoped to express the whole

of something as opposed to just one

perspective. It seemed that as

Picasso attempted to represent more

and more perspectives the less recognizable the object seemed to become.

Perhaps it feels like I have moved too far from our biblical texts but I would

suggest that the relationship between classic pre-modern art and the work of someone

like Picasso is not unlike the relationship between Jesus and some of the religious leaders

of his time. The piece of artwork in question is the man who was born blind. We find in

the story that the man is sculpted at the hands of Jesus. It says that Jesus spit on the

ground made some mud which was then applied to his eyes. The word for mud here is

the same that is used in Isaiah and Jeremiah to refer to God as the potter and humans as

clay. Job also speaks of himself as clay formed by God. And of course Adam and Eve

were first moulded from the earth. This act transforms the man into a work of art, a new

creation, healed from his blindness.

4
The irony in the story of course is that while the man can now see it is the people around

him who are strangely blinded. When the man returned to his neighbours he was

received like the new expressions of art that emerged in the 1900s, people did not

recognize what was being presented to them. Many of his neighbours did not recognize

him. Some even denied that it was him. Becoming slightly confused not knowing how

to explain what they just experienced the people bring the man to the Pharisees, their

religious leaders, their art experts.

The Pharisees ask a few questions of the man and what is their response? They

do not consider the value of Jesus’ act of creation in the man but rather they question

Jesus’ technique. Some of the Pharisees said, “This man is not from God, for he does not

keep the Sabbath.” This man does not paint by the rules. The Pharisees went on to say

that they are disciples of Moses. They believed that a good person like a good painter

follows their teacher. So they attempted to paint by the rules and laws of Moses. It is

striking how similar this is to the criticism of the new art forms. The critics of

impressionism could tolerate even bad art as long is it tried to emulate the masters, but

many could not understand why you would deviate from them.

And so we come to the basic conflict that Jesus came to address and that Paul

later elaborated. Many painting masters and religious leaders believed that if you

followed the letter of the law, the precise techniques of painting and religious actions

then you could create life in its most perfected form. They lived by the understanding

that life is made of fixed and stable materials that do not change when you arrange them.

They taught that if you do not walk a certain distance on the Sabbath or if you use a

particular brush stroke technique you will come closest to the most godly life or perfected

5
painting. This approach to life, however, does not account for spirit. Christ came and

said, as we heard two Sundays ago, that we must be born of the spirit and that spirit

blows wherever it pleases. It is not confined to one particular form or expression. This

does not mean that any expression is a godly one. This was the mistake of much later

modern art that felt that anything that you called art was art. The Spirit of God continues

to move and keep step with the form and expression of Christ.

So if we are to live by God’s Spirit we must be able to perceive things that do not

conform to our standard of expectation. Isaiah said this, “Truly you are a God who hides

yourself.” God is not a static and fixed object to examined, dissected and reproduced.

God is Spirit and moves in and beyond and through the things in our world. This

statement is not that God cannot be found but that God can be found in so many more

places than we expected. The value of works like Picasso’s is that they often do more

justice to the complexity of God and of life than a painting from a single perspective can.

Most of us at some point in our life are faced with the fact that our beliefs can no

longer account for our experiences. We may have a difficult relationship or a personal

experience or a traumatic event occur that defies the rules that we have been living by.

This can bring us to the point of crisis. How can I know what is really true? What I am

supposed to do in this relationship? What choice am I supposed to make about the future,

about what I am going to do, about who I am? Is my work really meaningful? This crisis

is not to be avoided. This is darkness, the blindness that Jesus calls us to acknowledge.

If you would simply be honest in your blindness, Jesus says to the religious leaders, you

would not be guilty. But because you claim to have the all the answers, all the right

techniques, then your guilt remains.

6
 It was in the darkness of their crisis over their meaning and purpose that painters

began to emerge with some of the most moving images of our time. These images

however, attempted to account for more of life than what could be seen on the surface of

one perspective. In trying to account for different perspectives and impressions the art

took on a strange form. Their works often appeared to be conflicted and confused. In

many ways the art began to be truer to life as it came to us as contradiction and paradox,

much like we experience at different times in life.

To return to our original contrast between the abstract work of Picasso and the

realism and American ideals of Norman Rockwell it is interesting to observe the

development of Rockwell’s work. We see that Rockwell acknowledges that something

has happened in the world of art, some

sort of shift has occurred. Here is a

grandmother and granddaughter viewing

a classic piece painted by a

contemporary of Picasso. Then on the

right is what looks like a young woman,

her back turned to us with fiery red hair

coming down her back. The painting

here acknowledges conflict, perhaps

even crisis. It also does not reveal the

young woman’s face, something that would characteristic in Rockwell’s encounter with

this movement.

7
 In reflecting on Picasso’s contribution Rockwell appears to go so far as

incorporating aspects of Picasso’s style. In the same way that Picasso was concerned

with multiple perspectives we have here a young girl in crisis. We are given no direct

view of her face, of her actual

identity, we are give only the crisis

of identity. To the bottom left is

the discarded doll, the symbol of a

received and fixed identity. In the

doll is the identity that her parents

pass on her, one that they are still

able to control and direct. It is the

image of their hope that she will

not grow up.

On her lap is a woman’s magazine with what seems to be a picture of glamorous model.

At her side is brush and lipstick. And at the center is the reflection of a girl in crisis.

This is a girl who is no longer her parents’ little girl who is the doll that needs to be

dressed and led around. However, she does not know yet what it means to be woman, to

be mature and developed. Rockwell rightly hides her face because her identity is not yet

clear, it has not yet emerged from a confused shadow into the true and redeeming light.

Many of us still struggle with that magazine lying on our lap as most magazines

today do not offer good art. They do not offer a true vision for forming identity. The

faces and bodies in these magazines do not reflect the struggle and confusion our growth

and development include. Here bodies are streamlined and faces are airbrushed to keep

8
us from having to deal the jolting and even disturbing parts of us that we are not sure

what to do with. Like Picasso though perhaps these seemingly foreign parts are really

just a part of the whole.

This Rockwell image reminds me of what I experienced in my recent time in Los

Angeles. From out my hotel window was a clear view of the Hollywood sign. We are

often shown this sign as a symbol of the glamour and fame of Hollywood. However,

much of the neighbourhood of Hollywood itself is a poor and difficult area to live in.

The façade of Hollywood is produced in the gated communities in the neighbourhood

like Paramount Pictures in the neighbourhood which is directly cut off from everyday

life. Here we find the opposite of Rockwell where the face is presented as clear and

unblemished hiding the difficult and conflicting lines within.

Rockwell, however, took the

influence of Picasso further and

applied it to himself. Here Rockwell

adds even more perspectives than the

young girl in the mirror. Above the

mirror is an eagle holding an

American flag. At the left of the

canvas are preliminary sketches of

himself. On the right are famous

self-portraits by earlier artists. These

include Vincent Van Gogh and a

strange self-portrait by Picasso.

9
Again, Rockwell’s face does not appear in this painting. There are possible sketches,

towering influences casting a shadow over him, the reflection in the mirror that is

watched over by his country and this all culminates in his painting in the centre which

remains a work in progress, unfinished.

Rockwell acknowledges that when we are honest with ourselves we will find that

we are full of different and sometimes conflicting thoughts and influences. Do these

images find connection in your life? Do you ever struggle with whether or not your work

is meaningful? Do you ever struggle with whether you are a good enough parent or

spouse? Or are the lines and rules of life completely clear and perfectly defined? Jesus

asks us to consider life perhaps in some way like Rockwell and Picasso where all of life’s

complexities are allowed to converge on a single canvas.

Jesus says, because you claim to see your guilt remains. If we claim to have the

final perspective then we are doomed produce a life that is bad art, a life that betrays the

truth and therefore remains guilty. If we are to emerge from the depths as our gathering

hymn and theme Lent invites us then we must first recognize that we are in the depths.

One of Picasso’s most famous paintings is entitled Guernica.

10
This is the name of a small town in Spain that was bombed by Germans in 1937. German

aircrafts flew for three hours bombing this small town eventually killing a third of its

population. The town had no strategic position in the war but was known for its strong

independent spirit and democratic ideals. It appeared to be bombed purely to demoralize.

Within six weeks Picasso had painted this in response to the bombing. It was no attempt

to photograph or capture an actual scene from the bombing. Rather, he let the

significance of the event sink to its real depths where the context of the painting itself

seems to be in a cellar, in the depths of the earth where even the animals joined to cry out

in horror and a mother laments the lose of child and the fallen solider is unable to defend

his town. And throughout lines are conflicted and perspectives were multiplied so that no

one view would dominate the meaning of the event.

Some criticized this work because it was too abstract and would not impact the

average person. In response to this Spanish author Max Aub said that, “If the picture by

Picasso has any defect it is that it is too real, too terribly true, atrociously true.” Jesus

pleads with the religious leaders to pull back, they have gone too far in thinking that can

see it all clearly.

How do we respond to crisis? Do you find that your relationships, your job, or

your hopes sometimes clash together with conflicting lines? Don’t attempt to falsely

smooth them over. Let’s return to the man born blind. Surely much of life must have felt

confused, disoriented, conflicted and above all dark, purely dark. What else could

explain this but sin and so the people ask at the beginning of our passage, “Who sinned,

that such conflict, confusion and darkness would descend upon this man at birth?” Jesus

responded, “Neither this man nor his parents sinned but this happened so that the work of

11
God might be displayed in his life.” This is not punishment for sin, this is possibility for

revelation which is what all good art aspires to.

This is our hope and our promise that God has not left when things are dark and

confused. This was not lost on Picasso

even in such a grim depiction as light and

hope begin to descend spirit-like from

above into the darkness and chaos so that

despite the difficulties and uncertainties the people of this town may also one day testify

with the man born blind, “One thing I do know. I was blind but now I see.”

This is God’s gift to each one of us. We are each masterpieces, works of art that,

as Rockwell reminded us, are also works in progress. Too often we want polish things

and smooth them out too early. We want to have clear meaning and purpose in our lives.

We want to be able to know and explain everything. This is what much of our media

culture tempt us with. This is what our anxieties push us towards. But this is not where

beauty and true sight will emerge from. We must acknowledge that our sight is not good

enough and light is not bright enough.

In finishing this message I was reminded of a good friend Chantal and I made

when we lived in Winnipeg. She was a woman in her late fifties or early sixties who had

just begun a fine arts degree at the University of Manitoba. We came to her apartment

one night and she had a piece of artwork that she had just finished. It was made from a

technique of using various types and colours of wax on a canvas. I struggled as I looked

at it trying to find its meaning. I could not see a single coherent point to it. Finally I

asked Sandra what the piece meant. She looked up at me and said calmly and assuredly,

12
“It’s just supposed to be beautiful.” I pray that we might all one day see the light of this

truth for our lives.

Amen.

13