Yes, art is dangerous. Where it is chaste, it is not art. – Pablo Picasso (1881-1973)
When I came across Picasso’s line, I wondered a long time about it. Is a straightforward painting of a tree, like the one at left, too "chaste" to be art? At the same time, is Picasso’s own painting, entitled, "Dead Tree" below, left, great art because it is dangerous? What is dangerous about that painting?
Perhaps Picasso himself would say his own painting did not become great until he began to paint with more danger – things like the third image, below, entitled, "Nude Under a Pine Tree" which he painted forty years after "Dead Tree." No doubt, his goal was to "provoke" us to see in new and deeper ways. For that, the viewer needs to take risks as well as the artist. For great art to reach us, we must be in dialogue with it. If we dismiss it too abruptly, we will never hear what the artist has to say to us.
Had Picasso passed away in 1919, shortly after the "Dead Tree" 
painting, it is unlikely he would have achieved the greatness that has made him a household name. What do you think?
What seems most important for caregivers is whether we can exchange the word "Love" for the word "art" in Picasso’s quote. Must love be dangerous in order to be Love? Perhaps, there is no such thing as safe Love. For the expression of Love requires that we walk away from something so dear to us it seems impossible to set aside: our own egos.
In our continuing effort to understand Love, the recent and controversial work of Eckhart Tolle may be illuminating…
Tolle writes that, "Ego is the unobserved mind that runs your life when you are not present as…the watcher." Tolle challenges conventional thinking with writing that sometimes seems complex and convoluted. "The ego," he writes, "perceives itself as a separate fragment in a hostile universe, with no real inner connection to any other being…" As a result, Tolle says, egos fall into competition, anger, resentment, possessiveness and a host of other negative emotions.
Part of Tolle’s solution lies in the tricky notion of watchfulness that calls us to observe our thoughts rather than to be them. He believes that full presence will result in the falling away of ego as ego gives way to the subject of our presence.
Full presence is a deeply difficult practice, especially for ego-obsessed westerners. Yet, Tolle’s work is worth exploring if only to help us understand what we believe if it is in contrast to Tolle’s views.
As for Love, many would say that chastity is essential to its practice. But, is this really what is meant by chastity? When chastity becomes prudishness, it is hardly Love. Yes, Love is dangerous. Where it is chaste, it is not Love.
What do you think and how do your thoughts help illuminate the nature of caregiving? Do either of Picasso’s paintings, shown here, help you appreciate this concept of the need for danger?
-Erie Chapman
Journal of Sacred Work 
Leave a reply to ~liz Wessel Cancel reply