Pictures: “Dissonance - Franz Stuck 1910”
“Noah’s Ark - Andrei Ryabushkin 1882”
Passage: 1 Samuel 14
Today was different for two reasons. For one thing, I was finally able to record the session. Second, I felt that the kids showed a greater engagement with the VTS than I have yet seen. The observations seemed to be fueled by a desire to uncover everything in the work (it felt like the VTS session in art school where I learned the practice). The ironic result of having a recording is that my brain has released the conversation details and my summary will necessitate either generalizations about our time or intentional reference to the recording. I now have a bike and have promptly forgotten how to run.
That said, I would like to do my best to recall the conversation unaided for the sake of uniformity with the rest of my notes and as a means of processing deeply what we talked about. I told the kids clearly that I would be recording the audio and using it when writing a paper about the effects of looking at art in Sunday School. It is likely that this knowledge affected their participation. Regardless, I was excited to see that for the first time, when I gave them time to look at the art, they really did. Other weeks I have cut the time short based on the fact that no one was looking any longer, today it was because we had truly spent enough time.
Charlie quickly identified the figure in the first piece as a satyr. Still, he did not articulate this well and it was Donny who first gave us a cohesive insight “he looks like he’s in pain and his legs are weird.” When asked why he thought he was in pain he had little more to say than “his expression.” Charlie elaborated by pointing out his clenched jaw. He also pointed out his muscular arms and I asked if this was connected to the idea of pain or a separate observation. In the end, the idea was that his arms on his head were connected to pain. I then asked Charlie to elaborate on what he said earlier, “You said it was a… what did you call it?” “A satyr” “What makes you think it’s a satyr?” “He has goat legs and horns. Like in Narnia….and other mythologies.”
They next focused on the child. “There’s a baby playing the flute.” After spending time thinking about how his lips implied that he was blowing into the instrument, Charlie suggested that the satyr was covering his ears because he was playing badly.
Here, Obi brought up the surface they were sitting on. He explained that it looked like rock and this rock seemed to be sitting on an additional surface, either grass or maybe water. This explanation was thorough and anticipated the question “why do you say that?” answering it as he went. Donny interjected: “maybe they’re stranded in the ocean.”
About this time Charlie noticed that the child had horns, “He’s a demon child!” Why do you say that? “He has horns and he's a redhead.” Donny jumped on this and began making soulless ginger jokes. In a lighthearted tone I tried to ask them to be respectful but Charlie and Donny kept going, insisting that gingers do not, in fact, have souls. Here I paused the conversation and brought up the bullying redheads face in the UK and Ireland, and making it clear that it was not a harmless way to joke. Donny revealed that redheads are sometimes mean to him at school. I reminded him that this does not mean that it's ok to make generalizations about all redheads. I then summarized that Charlie, noting prejudice against redheads, is wondering if the artist included this detail to imply that he’s a demon. This was a satisfactory summary. The last details that we noted wer the fact that the child had no clothes, and that he had human toes. This was said almost as a joke but in my summary I reminded them that the satyr did not have toes, “he has human toes, unlike the satyr.” Giving the goofy point greater significance than intended.
I thanked them and we moved on. While they were looking at the second painting, Donny asked what the first piece actually was. I explained that the title of the piece was “Dissonance.” None of them knew what dissonance was so I explained that it was the opposite of harmony.
Charlie connected the second painting to Noah’s ark immediately. He seemed torn between a desire to let others explore the piece and revealing this information. He let Obi begin by observing that there were a bunch of people in a room but interjected “A very boaty room.” I asked Obi why he thought it was a room. He cited the walls, the floor, and the windows. Then Charlie was ready to be more over about Noah’s ark and said so. He used informal language to point out the dove with a branch and the old man, Noah. He also joked that the child in the painting was going to be sacrificed. This distracted Donny who was looking to take the joke seriously. I asked him what made him think of child-sacrifice. He noted the way they seemed to be leading the child. I asked him if this was all. He also noticed that a man lingering in the shadows to the right seemed to be holding something and it may have been a knife.
Obi stood up, “Oh my gosh, there’s a person and a bird hiding in the back.” We all had to get closer to see what he was talking about. Small, dark silhouettes which Charlie did a good job of not dismissing (all the characters of Noah were accounted for). Another good observation of Obi’s, “I notice the women are wearing a lot more clothing than the men.” I summarized how the men seemed to be wearing loincloths while the women had layers.
I realized that we had gotten distracted from Charlie’s comment about Noah’s ark. “What made you say that this was Noah’s ark.” “Because of the bird carrying the thing and the old guy.” Here, Donny interrupted again, this time with a question. “Were lamps or candles invented back then? Or, not lamps, were candles?” I explained what I knew of candles, that they are more recent than oil lamps. He had been thinking about electric lamps. He clarified what he really wanted to know was what artificial lighting they had in Noah’s day. “Or… when did Noah take place?” “I explained that Noah was in Genesis. That Abraham’s story took place in about 2000 BC, that this was before that.” “So, like 4000 BC?” “It was in Mesopotamia. If you learned about Mesopotamia in Global history that was when this was.” This was evidently helpful but unleashed a tangent about their opinions on various history teachers. I cut this discussion short, “Donny, why were you asking about lamps?” “There are those beams of light, but the window outside is dark.” This was not how Charlie understood the picture at all, to him it was obviously sunlight, he hadn’t even noticed Donny’s window. They were gearing up to debate it but I paused them and summarized. “There is obviously light, shining from the right onto the people and again in the background. Donny has also noticed what appears to be a window in the back. So, either the window goes outside, it is dark out and these are artificial lights, or the light is sunlight and the window goes into somewhere else that is dark.” This satisfied both. It is interesting how feeling heard can dissipate the need to be seen as correct. Charlie did point out that there must be a window there for the dove to fly through. I asked what made him think the dove was flying in. “Yeah, maybe he’s releasing it,” suggested Donny. Charlie pointed out that the bird was facing towards the man, not away. With this, we seemed to be ready to switch to the story.
I find it interesting how Charlie is able to recognize the Bible stories but that seems to equate with having solved the piece. Working under the assumption that this is a painting of Noah’s ark there is so much story to find on the third and fourth levels of development. Instead, the discussion continues to look at what is there and Charlie specifically doesn’t seem to be diving in deeper. Part of me would love to try asking, “If this is Noah’s ark, what more can we find?” I will not be doing this, I think the open ended nature is more valuable. Still, it makes me wonder if they will ever get there?
Our Bible discussion was interesting because there was no recording of 1 Samuel. I ended up reading the story aloud. This in and of itself was fun and I think I liked it better than the recording. I might ask the kids what they think. For me, it gives me control of interpretation and in this sense it might be dangerous. Still, the NLT is notorious because, in order to put the Bible in modern English it has to do a fair amount of interpretation and a lot of nuance that has been shown me by people in other translations is lost. I read how Jonathan and his armor bearer took on the whole Philistine army and went as far as his father Saul joining the battle.
When asked, the first mention was of Saul and the fact that he joined the battle. It is interesting how, whatever we read, it is almost always what we ended with that they choose to respond to. Someone also highlighted the fact that the Philistines killed each other. “That happens surprisingly often in the Bible,” I joked. Then elaborating, we discussed how, without uniforms and the direct charges of battle it would be really, really hard to know who to kill. Once the fighting broke out it could just keep going, a really efficient way for a few people to wipe out a large army.
With few other observations it occurred to me that the whole story would be relevant. I decided to summarize it, instead of reading it. I explained that Saul led the troops to victory but swore an oath that no one was to eat until all the enemy was killed. Jonathan missed this order and ate some honey. The soldiers were tired and hungry by the end and… I realized I wasn’t certain how Jonathan survived. I looked it up to read and discovered what I had forgotten. Saul was prepared to execute his son but the people interceded and saved Jonathan. We had come full circle and were discussing child sacrifice. Charlie mentioned that these rash vows were another thing that happened surprisingly often.
I explained how in Leviticus God provides an alternative, if you make a vow on a person’s life there are specific numbers of animals you can sacrifice in their place. God gave his people a way out of these vows but in these stories, people unfamiliar with God’s law see no way out but to kill their children. I then talked about the famous story in which God asked Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac. God gave him a ram to kill instead of his son. In an age when child sacrifice was common, having Abraham specifically not kill his son gave everyone an example in years to come. No one would assume that if God likes sheep and goats, he would like a child-sacrifice even more. I also mentioned Jesus and his role as a sacrifice (but conceded that this could be considered human sacrifice). Additionally, I mentioned that this story serves to show us how bad a king Saul was. “If you decide to read the rest of Samuel, you’ll see it’s the rise and fall of Saul and then of David. It’s like two Mcdonald's arches.”
As you can see, today’s conversation was less BTS than ever. That said, I felt good about it. More and more, I am feeling that open ended Bible discussions are good, but they require structure and guiding questions at the very least. I like having the kids direct the topics and direction by what they notice but building it in such a way that their observations lead to more information to learn and discuss.