Art: Interview with John Hoyt

By Sharon Fujimoto-Johnson

Subscribers, the newest issue of Spectrum is in the mail and will soon be arriving in your mailboxes. If you don’t yet subscribe to the magazine, why not start with this issue? It features pieces with intriguing titles like, “Cybersex, Solipsism, and Paul’s Notion of the Body,” “Dreams Come True in (Black and) Blue Hawaii,” “Invitation to a Christian Witness for Peace in Iraq,” and “Pork.”

The cover of this issue showcases an artwork titled The Mirror by Canadian artist John Hoyt. This is Hoyt’s third Spectrum cover. Here’s what he says about The Mirror: “This image is based on a Photoshop sketch/oil painting from 2003. The Mirror, or so it seemed to me at the time, is actually a ‘reflection’ on the idea of law as a revealer of personal defects. My paintings often draw on various fifteenth-century sources for their imagery. When using these sources, however (which I alter to varying degrees using Adobe Photoshop), I am working as an artist, rather than an art historian. In The Mirror, for example, The Tower of Babel is from Pieter Bruegel.”

I had the chance to exchange emails with John Hoyt to further discuss his art: 

SF-J
How would you describe your artwork? Is there a common theme connecting your body of work as a whole?

JH: My first response to people who ask this question is that the key to understanding my work is what I think of as a “deep-seated religious neurosis.” That seems to catch their attention. I have found other artists who share this condition—most of them now dead of course. Hieronymus Bosch might be an example, but of course there’s a whole corpus of “outsider art” that seems reasonably neurotic as well.

SF-J
Why do you make art? For whom do you create?

JH: I paint to work through my neurosis. Plus it’s something to do—go into the studio, put on headphones, and drop out of reality, so to speak. So it’s for me, I guess. Unapologetically self-centered. But I like showing on occasion as well—I just don’t like the pressure of an imminent show. OK . . . to be honest I really enjoy having a good show in a nice gallery—just so they don’t happen too often. Once every couple of years is often enough. And I really like it as well when people express some understanding of the work . . . though that happens rarely enough.

SF-J
I'm struck by the intricacy, vibrant colors, and surreal combination of elements in your artwork. What is your creation process like? What kind of physical space do you work in?

JH: The short answer to the first part is: I paint from photos, but I make the photos myself (i.e., I use Photoshop a lot.) It’s hard to talk about, but easy to show someone how it works. So the “sketching” (i.e., creating a detailed digital photo on which I can base a painting) takes weeks and weeks; I do it on a computer. Eventually a sketch feels “finished”—though I think of the digital photo as a “work” in itself of course. Then I spend at least an equal amount of time on the painting (a basement studio in my house)—just oil paint on canvas for the most part.

SF-J
What are some of your influences, artistic and otherwise?

JH: Northern European art of the 1400s and early 1500s—I have looked and looked at the work, made trips to Belgium and Germany to see it in situ, etc. Then there are the German Expressionists and the Surrealists . . . and of course I already mentioned outsider art (I love the Museum of Visionary Art in Baltimore).

SF-J
Would you care to comment on the state of art within Adventism, or Christianity? What are we doing right? Where is there room for improvement? In what direction should we be moving?

JH:  Adventist art—I think of this as an oxymoron. Protestantism never really knew quite what to do with art, and I think Adventists are solidly within that tradition. (Ironically, some of the art I like best was made in what came to be Protestant Europe . . . this interesting strain of art did not long survive the Reformation though, as far as I am concerned.)  So my advice is to compartmentalize—keep the art separate, let it live its life. If this leads to more neurosis . . . well, good painting is often the product of somewhat neurotic, dysfunctional spiritual environment, I find.

SF-J
For you, is there a struggle between being an artist and a spiritual person? How do you resolve the tension of being an artist creating edgy art and someone within the Adventist community?

JH: Between art and the “spiritual” side of my personality—no, there is no conflict; the two are really more or less one and the same. The struggle for me has been with religious ideology, if you see what I mean. Perhaps best not to pursue this thought too far . . . it leads me to bad places!  Very few people in the local “SDA” community ever see my work, for that matter. I had some bad experiences a number of years ago—I was invited to show work on campus a couple of times by administrators who did like my work, only to receive very negative responses from others who did not like it at all . . . eventually I realized there was no point.

SF-J
So, is the struggle external or internal? I think I hear you saying that it's imposed on the artist by external forces—but I suppose it ultimately becomes an internal struggle, because it remains up to the artist to figure out how to compartmentalize art and the community. Does the artist essentially end up maintaining dual identities then—the artist within the community and the artist outside the community?

JH: Firstly, I do see a lot of my peers struggling with their identity with respect to the community” (i.e. the SDA “family.” ) So it’s really nothing unique to artists. (Actually I think I see the biggest struggle within the group I think of as SDA “scientists.”)  I have heard such people acknowledge their attachment to the “family”—but then go on to express their frustration at the inability of the family to adjust to current “reality” (i.e. specific scientific/theological issues –presumably all of us have some sense of these issues and how the conversation gets bogged down). So yes, such issues do need to be resolved on a personal level. But I think I have moved beyond this stage. It does help a lot to have non-SDA friends who also have spiritual inclinations but come from a radically different tradition (Native spirituality, for example) and can help me see things from a different perspective.

SF-J
Have you explored spiritual themes in your artwork?

JH: I have always explored spiritual themes. For example—I find an entire alternate spiritual reality in the work of some outsider artists . . . I think of myself as exploring that sort of thing as well.

Comments

[Bonnie Dwyer]

Thanks for this interview, Sharon and John. I would like to hear more about the Outsider Art that John mentions. Do you consider yourself an outsider artist, John? Does the word outsider in that phrase refer to the person who is creating the art or the things that are being explored?

[reevesla]

I would like to thank John and Sharon for this interview as well. I have a question about religious art that might be useful here. If this is not appropriate to ask here we can move on to something else.

I am wondering what the opinions of the readers are concerning "religious" art. So much of what we hear on the news or "talk shows" etc. seems to be geared toward an audience that will buy the advertizing on the sponsoring show. Does religious art fall into this category of only appealing to religious people? Does it appeal only to people who know the culture and language? I guess what I am asking is it part of an isolation mentality or is religious art part of a higher truth that we have ignored as something that is too emotional to be of signifigance? Maybe only ignored within protestantism?

[Nancy Johnson]

I think that expressing our ideas artistically is a creative experience, and has a satisfaction that is smiled upon by God. I think art is completely in harmony with God. Just seeing beautiful cloud formations, or a colorful flower confirms this for me.

[David Hamstra]

When I was at CaUC I'm afraid I stirred a little controversy regarding Dr. Hoyt's art. I found a website that had pictures of his art and began showing the site to other students, most of whom were also in his art appreciation class. The thing is, the art contained nudity ("nudity" in the PG-13, bare breasts sense of the word), and that was fairly shocking to some of my fellow students.

Now, I don't necessarily have a problem with bare breasts in art (or bare anything else for that matter). I think it depends on now it's portrayed. I don't like being titillated, but I also don't like censorship.

I guess I'm asking if John or Sharon or someone on this blog could comment on the ethics of what we portray in art. I realize that the job of artists is to provoke, and therefor that most of them aren't interested in ethics. But wouldn't it have been better if Leni Refiefestahl had considered the ethical implications of what she was doing?

[Johnny A. Ramirez]

David,
Have you gotten your issue yet? Mine hasn't arrived but Bonnie was in town and I got one from her. Wait till you open the cover!

If you think images are possibly maybe for some pushing the ethics of what we portray in art, what is portrayed in type would possibly maybe blow you away. Maybe. Titillating questions like if sex and love can be imagined in a non-embodied way.

Personally I was more uncomfortable reading my dads latest post- My Love Affair And God’s Lust For Humans. TMI!

/the cover is very appropriate
//your (qualified) reaction to a muted image (possibly) says more about the viewers conception of sex and gender than the artists
///thank you for this interview Sharon and John for your art!

[Sharon Fujimoto-Johnson]

I'm thrilled to see these excellent comments and questions. Thank you, everyone, for adding to the conversation.

This is a point I have tried to make subtly in some previous posts (perhaps I should be saying it loudly): art and religion aren't opposing forces. Rather, in their purest form, they both aspire to the same greater truth. Art and religion originated together as part of God's grand creation and have similar potential to be corrupted or diluted in our humanness--and therefore, also similar potential to draw us closer to an understanding grace.

This is, of course, my personal opinion, and may not reflect that of John or even Spectrum. But it is one shared by Teilhard de Chardin, Flannery O'Connor and Gregory Wolfe, all seekers of truth in the creative act. Wolfe paraphrases a concept O'Connor wrote about: "Whenever something is true, good, or beautiful, whether it be art, prayer, or thought, it rises. And in rising, it converges with everything else that is true, good, or beautiful."

In response to reevesla's question, I believe that "religious" art ought not be part of an insular religious culture. We see a lot of so-called "religious" art within the community, but much of it is art that portrays religious icon or story in an empty manner. That is the kind of art that only makes sense to the religious individual, but it does not rise. It engages us as much as the perfunctory prayer that rolls off our tongues without thought or spirit. If this "religious" art were indeed spiritual, it would speak to questions that human beings face regardless of their religious beliefs or lack thereof.

And so, I'm sure it isn't surprising that that I disagree heartily with David's statement that "...the job of artists is to provoke, and therefore that most of them aren't interested in ethics." Art that rises doesn't necessarily portray pretty scenes. It is at times provocative, disturbing, or unsettling and may be outside our personal comfort zones. But if the artist is truly pursuing the creation of meaningful art, he or she is most certainly interested in and actively struggling with ethical issues--as we should all be (artists and non-artists alike) as people of faith. And that brings me full circle back to the idea of art (and religion) that rises and therefore converges with the universal good, beauty, and truth.

Artists and people of faith are both engaged in an essential search. When we stop searching, we become complacent, comfortable, and eventually blind to the divine grace that illuminates the human experience. Sometimes the search involves difficult questions. I don't believe that the issue is so much the subject matter (e.g., angels and children are good; bare breasts and violence are bad), but rather the intent of the artist and the intangible quality of seeking in art that we should be concerned with. When approaching an artwork (and when approaching God too), we ought to challenge ourselves to look beneath the surface.

[Elaine]

Most of the comments are about visual art.

How about religious music? In the past, there have been many discussions concerning using "secular" vs. "religious" music in church, often dubbed "sacred" vs. "secular."

Who decides? Others can probabaly remember when guitars and drums were verboten in church, or that even "Ave Maria" could not be sung or played because it was "Catholic."

Then, there were academy music teachers who forbade any music to be performed that came from a movie or opera!

Surely, we have advanced since then, but how should such decisions be made and who should make them? Often, it's those who have little or no musical background who judge the appropriateness of music.

Should we have a criteria?

[John Hoyt]

For "outsider art" - this is a good place to start.
http://www.rawvision.com/outsiderart/whatisoa.html
No - I could never be an "outsider" - I went to art school and I'm too "normal"!

[David Hamstra]

Sharon:

OK, I'll take that back. I agree that art plays an important part in ethics. I what I meant is that art is better at 'describing' than 'prescribing' when it comes to ethics. At least, I find prescriptive art to be rather boring.

What I'm wondering is whether there is a line which artists (let's include singers, writers, dancers, etc. in that category) should not cross in what they portray. Are breasts too much, crotch shots? How about child molestation? Or does it depend on how it's portrayed, and if so upon what does it depend?

I guess what I mean by artists not being interested in ethics is that I haven't many who are interested in answering these questions. I think I just threw down the gauntlet, so I'm really interested in hearing you comment on this. We could apply the question to any other area of ethics where art could wrongly influence people, but sex seems to be or protestant hang-up, so why don't we use that for now.

By the way, I think I agree in general with what you're saying about religion and art. Could we say that art is the language of spirituality?

Johnny:

If it takes a long time to get to you in California, it takes even longer to get to me in Canada.

John:

Nice to see you here. There's not many "normal" people on this blog though, so I don't know if you'll fit in ;-). I'd be really interested in hearing your comments on my questions, too.

[David Hamstra]

Sorry for the poor grammar in the last post. It's late.

The first sentence in the second paragraph should read: "I haven't met many who are interested in answering these questions".

The last one in that paragraph should read: "sex seems to be our protestant hang-up, so why don't we use that for now."

[re:spect]

As a visual artist, I feel that art is the ultimate expression of spirituality. My view of spirituality is far broader and more holistic than what many consider spirituality.

Having said that, some of the most inspiring art to me is religious art from the Catholic tradition. Nothing in protestant tradition evokes the same awe and passion for me.

The antithesis of this art is Thomas Kinkade's stuff, which I can't even call art. It seems to show up in every protestant church framed by hideous plastic trees and silk flower arrangements.

[Sharon Fujimoto-Johnson]

David:

I appreciate your comments and questions. You've brought up an interesting point about not encountering many artists who are interested in tackling the question of ethics in art. I can't speak for artists as a whole, obviously, but I would imagine that if pressed, many would say that it doesn't make sense to create universal boundaries for what's appropriate or not in art.

Subject matter that is appropriate and redeeming for one artist to tackle may be ethically problematic for another. The same applies, I believe, to the relationship between artist and viewer. Artwork that is appropriate for a particular artist to create may be problematic for a certain viewer and vice versa. The determining factor, in my opinion, lies in the person (artist and viewer) and not in the art itself or its subject matter. What matters is not so much what is presented, but rather how we respond to it as artists and viewers.

Each artist and each viewer must determine individually what is appropriate for himself/herself as creator or consumer. It would certainly be possible to create arbitrary guidelines, but that would be the lazy way out. As reasoning, mature individuals, we ought to seek to use our power of discernment to know our own boundaries. That is, in my opinion, the only real way to determine what is appropriate or not in art.

(The same, I think, applies to religion. If we are not fully engaged in seeking a personally meaningful faith, we may be safely within the doctrines of religion, but our faith is likely dead or dangerously skewed.)

I don't think that it's possible to delineate in black and white what should or should not be depicted in art. Take, for example, the fact that in Yapese culture, women are often topless. Bare breasts do not carry the same sexual meaning in Yapese culture. Modesty for the Yapese requires that women cover their bodies from waist to knee--showing any of the upper leg is offensive. So, our culture's ideas of what is modest appearance or acceptable depiction of women clearly doesn't translate easily into the Yapese culture.

Rather than focusing on the surface applications of principles (e.g., art depicting bare breasts is not acceptable), I believe we should be looking at the principles themselves (beauty, divine grace, etc.) and applying them in a spirit of maturity to our individual lives. We cannot wait for guidelines to be laid down for us so that we can blindly follow them. We need to move toward owning our own principles and their application in our lives.

The question should be asked individually: "Does this art rise to converge with all that is true, good, and beautiful?" The only true answer to this question is one that applies to, and has meaning for, the individual. I don't believe it can be answered by an entire organization, culture, or population. To sanitize art so that it's safe for all would be to erase the world of God's creation.

[David Hamstra]

"The only true answer to this question is one that applies to, and has meaning for, the individual. I don't believe it can be answered by an entire organization, culture, or population."

But, again, I raise the example of Leni Riefenstahl. While every film buff agrees that she was an excellent artist, most would also agree that making Nazi propaganda films was not an ethical way to express her talent. Why? Because of the effect her films had on the German nation.

As a preacher (Preaching is an art form, by the way.) I don't want to be held morally responsible for how every single person in the congregation is affected by my sermons, but my goal is that they will have a positive effect on at least the majority of them. Even though visual artists are creating art which is much more complex than a sermon and therefore more likely to be misunderstood, I don't think they can entirely dodge the question of what effect their art has on their viewers in particular and the everyone else in general.

I agree that we should not attempt to "sanitize" art, reading through the Old Testament should make it clear that this is not a Christian approach. "True, good, and beautiful" are excellent principles for art, but I don't think they should be applied only to the choices of the individual viewer. Rather the artist should ask to what extent their work reflects these principles and how their audience will perceive those values.

[John Hoyt]

Just a brief comment:
Current examples of "offensive" art that come to mind immediately:
Chris Ofili (his painting "Holy Virgin Mary" caused trouble - Wikipedia has a good synopsis of the problem) and the short movie "Submission" by Ayan Hirsi Ali. I may possibly find either of these "distasteful" - but so what? Can't I just not look at them?
Self-flagellation about what I should/should not "allow" myself to paint/write/make a movie about . . . yes, that's the Protestant way! (Insert ironic smiley-face here.)

[reevesla]

It seems that this discussion is pointing out the fact that it is really more important to be free than to be correct. This is exactly the opposite of current popular thought in which it seems that being correct is the most important no matter what the cost.

In sexual harrassment cases it does not matter how the action or remark was intended. It matters how that particular action was perceived. Perhaps that is how it has to be in harrassement cases but that type of thinking could not be applied to the current discussion without destroying the art and the artist, which brings back the original statement that it is better to be free than to be correct.

To believe that there is a conflict between good and evil means that there must be some allowance for this type of thinking otherwise there would be only good or only evil with no conflict/discussion. God would have decided what the correct thinking, behavior and topics and art would be. This discussion would not be happening.

any thoughts?

[David Hamstra]

Perhaps where I am most Protestant on this issue is my belief that artists have moral responsibility for how their art affects their audience. I'm not saying they should be censored on the basis of how their art affects me or society in general, except in extreme cases like hate propaganda. As reevelsa says, The discussion must go on; I just think that artists should consider the moral effect of their work (not to imply that many of them don't).

John: Isn't that self-flagellation the type of "deep-seated religious neurosis" inducing experience that produces good art? ;-)

[reevesla]

David, To be fair, I think that my comments have been misleading in that I paired freedom and being correct. This is actually true. I believe that it is more important to be free than to be correct, but there is risk in complete freedom. That is the scary part of this and you have pointed out that there can be some evil that comes out of a completely free artist. ICor 13 has to come into focus here somehow. I think that pairing freedom and love is more correct. Love takes the risk out of freedom. Freedom by itself without the govenor of love could implode.

[Alexander]

Marcel's blog, Re-inventing the Adventist Wheel, has a poll up on the Spectrum cover.

[ronald Osborn]

In his essay "Sex, Economy, Freedom, Community", Wendell Berry describes a famous theater director arriving at his town in rural Kentucky and announcing to the local paper that his goal in an upcoming production is to shock and offend as many people as he possibly can. Although Berry has no interest in using the law to silence the director, and although he recognizes that communicating important truths will unavoidably offend some people some of the time, he fails to see why he should respect someone whose stated mission is to offend people in a community he is not even a part of, merely for the sake of offense. If an artist declares that he aims to offend, Berry suggests, the community has a right, and in fact a duty, to BE offended, to refuse to afford that artist the status and patronage he or she desires.

I call attention to Berry's essay not because I think "The Mirror" is shocking or offensive (although I think it might be critiqued on other grounds) but because of a comment John made that I find somewhat bewildering. John wrote, with reference to art that included a collage of the Virgin Mary made with elephant dung: "I may possibly find either of these 'distasteful' - but so what? Can't I just not look at them?" This seems to me to be a curiously diffident and equivocal view, however, of the social and moral significance of art in the context of community, especially considering that Hoyt is himself an artist. If artists are doing something not only of personal but of social significance, if they are in fact engaged in a critical act of communication, than "so what" doesn't seem like a responsible reply to many kinds of artistic messages, any more than coercive censorship. When someone says things in a way that is clearly calculated to offend--as when an artist uses animal excrement to depict a religious figure--simply shrugging one's shoulders ironically robs serious art of its power to offend in situations where offense might actually be necessary.

[David Hamstra]

I hope it's not inappropriate to resurrect this thread, but I just listened to a lecture that is very pertinent to the topic.

Nick Mount "Nabokov's Lolita"

(Can't believe I forgot to dredge up this example during our discussion.)