Faulty correlations exemplified (Art vs God)
Jaxas
conceptual belief in a power greater than themselves. It seems to me
that one has to be extraordinarily cynical, myopic, and selfish to
believe that they can in any way come close to creating something as
perfect as that already provided by nature, god, theories of relativity or
orderly chaos, or whatever other noun you choose to describe
universal law and order.
Humans are like a cancer placed on earth, uncontrollably propagating
and multiplying while consuming and destroying the resources placed
there by whatever benevolent force you wish to credit. That so many think
they are 'artists' or can become 'artists' only confirms my belief that
we are striving to somehow atone for our wanton, sinful, greedy, and
selfish behavior.
That artists feel they can somehow duplicate or improve on what
nature has created is ludicrous in the extreme. Do you for one minute
think that Michelangelo, DaVinci, Norman Rockwell, Tiffany, Walt
Disney, or any other creative human could create something as
simple, delicate, perfect, and beautiful as a snowflake? Do you believe
that the creation of a snowflake is merely a natural occurrence without
cause or effect? Then you will never be a good artist, much less a
great one. If you lack the sensitivity to enjoy the complexity of natures’
wonders, or to wonder at natures’ complexity, then you will never
come close to undertstanding what moves humans to collectively
appreciate and value certain works of art more than others.
I find it impossible to believe that a truly great artist can be insensitive
to the spiritual, ephemeral, ethereal, religious, bowel movement, or
whatever else you call that indescribable force that drives we humans
to continue attempting to create beauty. I also find it impossible to
believe that what passes for ‘art’ today will have any lasting relevance
in ages to come in the way that the works of Michelangelo, Bernini,
Faberge, Tiffany, and a select few others have had relevance through
the ages to date.
Shit, now you can add Eurocentric to your slam-dunking of me and my
percieved (by you) Christocentrism. Ah well, the price one pays for
being opinionated and having the audacity to subject themselves to
abuse in a forum of anonymous gleaners in the first place.
***** ***** ***** ***** *****
***** + Jaxas from Texas + *****
***** Look for the silver lining, *****
***** But watch where you step! *****
***** *****
***** ***** ***** ***** *****
Catherine paciotti
: There is something depressingly pathetic about people who have no
: conceptual belief in a power greater than themselves. It seems to me
: that one has to be extraordinarily cynical, myopic, and selfish to
: believe that they can in any way come close to creating something as
: perfect as that already provided by nature, god, theories of relativity or
: orderly chaos, or whatever other noun you choose to describe
: universal law and order.
Faulty correlations? Faulty perceptions, I'd say. Where did you get
the idea that artists don't appreciate the beauty of nature, or that
their goal is to surpass that beauty and perfection?
And if your "God" created such a perfect scheme, explain the "cancer"
of human beings he spawned (and that you referred to).
I can't even imagine what kind of mind could compare the intensely
spiritual Sistine Ceiling (which, I believe, comes pretty close to
standing up next to a snowflake) with a saccharine Saturday Evening
Post cover. I guess the kind of mind that is driven by that indescrib-
able force in it's bowels?
Artists and human beings create to reflect, explain, expound upon,
discount, argue, praise or discover what is around them. It may
or may not have anything to do with god.
What's your problem anyway? And, by the way, YOU are the anonymous
gleaner here, not I.
Catherine Paciotti
godless artist
jaxun
: I's say that artists generally believe in ART as a power greater than
: themselves. Sounds like a leap of faith to me, not a 'conceptual belief'..
I was thinking about my own art in this light last night; that while I
'own' it during the process of creation, when it is done and on display,
it becomes something beyond what I could envision it to be or direct it
towards when it is experienced by whoever is viewing it.
I am beginning to see that in order to be truly happy with my work, I
must be willing to let it go, be what it will to those who would see it.
jaXun
Jaxas
======================================================
From: apea...@panix.com (Andy Pearlman)
AP>This of course is the extremely cynical belief of those who are not with me
AP>must be laughing at me. Don't worry, you don't have to be cynical anymore.
AP>It is no longer a belief.
J>Me ? Worry ? Hey, I’ve got better things to do, like poking at killer bees and
J>rattlesnakes in cyberspace.
AP>"Warning: Easily confused by metaphors. Proceed with caution."
J> Oh ! Sorry about that. Bee stings and snake bites I now suffer.
=========================================================
From: cpac...@cwis.unomaha.edu (Catherine paciotti)
CP>Faulty correlations? Faulty perceptions, I'd say. Where did you get
CP>the idea that artists don't appreciate the beauty of nature, or that
CP>their goal is to surpass that beauty and perfection?
J>Hey, you haven’t been following this thread have you ? I got the idea from
J>following this thread, sorry to say.
CP>And if your "God" created such a perfect scheme, explain the "cancer"
CP>of human beings he spawned (and that you referred to).
J>You want me to explain God’s actions ? Well, I really don’t feel qualified,
J>but let me think on it awhile. Seems he booted the first two humans he
J>ever created out of his garden, if you believe in metaphors, which Andy says
J>only confuse him, and I guess that is pretty much what life is about, isn’t it--
J>struggling to resolve our conflicts and confusions?
CP>I can't even imagine what kind of mind could compare the intensely
CP>spiritual Sistine Ceiling (which, I believe, comes pretty close to
CP>standing up next to a snowflake) with a saccharine Saturday Evening
CP>Post cover. I guess the kind of mind that is driven by that indescrib-
CP>able force in it's bowels?
J>Well, at least you admit you lack imagination, to say nothing of an inability
J>to grasp the meaning in the lucid writings of a simpleton.
J>Here is something another artist wrote in another thread in this news group
J>that should clarify for you the comparisons I use in the example cited by you.
===========================================================
From: mars...@mala.bc.ca
This is following the thread of Stupid art
AM>I have various things to respond to...
J>And he does for a paragraph, before throwing this gem our way:
AM>--I for one am caught up in the idealism of the Renaissance. It doesn't
matter how hard I try I could never be as good as the greats of that time.
I don't have the patience. My responce to you is relax and wait for it to
happen. This century may have been a write off for you but I have a few
favorites... The set for Tim Burton's Batman for instance. I have never
been soo affected by statues before that movie. I am a child of the seventies
thus a tv child, but I have apreciation for local art public art and
computer art. Hey I'm talking on one aren't I?
AM>----I have a different problem when it comes to my art. I try for realism
or at least something close and I end up with cartoon like sketches. I THINK
they are stupid but then I get like A's and B's. I just don't understand...
I also have the problem of my friends saying they are briliant, I should
also note that these people are not art students. (I'm not really either, it's
just a hobby.)
=====================================================
J> So, Catherine, when you speak to folks about ART, you span the spectrum
J>of taste-tasteless, and therein lies the clue to the mind that could compare
J>extremes.
CP>Artists and human beings create to reflect, explain, expound upon,
CP>discount, argue, praise or discover what is around them. It may
CP>or may not have anything to do with god.
J>Now you are getting the point, if somewhat belatedly. I couldn’t agree more
J>with this latter-day revelation.
CP>What's your problem anyway?
J>Do you really care?
CP> And, by the way, YOU are the anonymous gleaner here, not I.
J>Ah Catherine, adjectives don’t always lend themselves to such narrow
definition. I refer you to Merry Webster’s bible for enlightenment.
Catherine Paciotti
godless artist J>Not in my book you’re not. You were a product of the
same creative process as I, presumably. Or are you
perhaps PROGRAMMED to respond to these postings?
============================================================
From: cei...@ins.infonet.net (Charles Eicher)
J>>There is something depressingly pathetic about people who have no
J>> conceptual belief in a power greater than themselves.
CE>I's say that artists generally believe in ART as a power greater than
CE>themselves. Sounds like a leap of faith to me, not a 'conceptual belief'..
J>And with that this discussion has come full circle, eh Charles?
============================================================
-----Well guys, it’s been fun, but the god that rules the domicile in which I reside
is calling me to worship. May the FORCE be with you. Jaxas.
Mani Deli
An> There is something depressingly pathetic about people who have no
An> conceptual belief in a power greater than themselves.
I will support your right to remain pathetically depressed as long as people
like you allow people like me to believe what I wish.
An> That artists feel they can somehow duplicate or improve on what
An> nature has created is ludicrous in the extreme. Do you for one minute
An> think that Michelangelo, DaVinci, Norman Rockwell, Tiffany, Walt
An> Disney, or any other creative human could create something as
An> simple, delicate, perfect, and beautiful as a snowflake?
I don't believe that even god could create something as delicate as a DaVinci
etc.
Do you
An> believe that the creation of a snowflake is merely a natural occurrence
An> without cause or effect?
Not without cause or effect but without god.
An> Then you will never be a good artist, much
An> less a great one.
Why?
If you lack the sensitivity to enjoy the complexity
An> of naturesA wonders, or to wonder at naturesA complexity, then you will
An> never come close to undertstanding what moves humans to collectively
An> appreciate and value certain works of art more than others.
I lack no power to enjoy anything because I disagree with you.
An> I find it impossible to believe that a truly great artist can be
An> insensitive to the spiritual, ephemeral, ethereal, religious, bowel
An> movement, or whatever else you call that indescribable force that
An> drives we humans to continue attempting to create beauty. I also find
An> it impossible to believe that what passes for aartA today will have any
An> lasting relevance in ages to come in the way that the works of
An> Michelangelo, Bernini, Faberge, Tiffany, and a select few others have
An> had relevance through the ages to date.
I might agree with one of your conclusions but that doesn't make your line of
reasoning any less ridicules.
Mani DeLi
... There are no true prophets.
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12
Andy Pearlman
>There is something depressingly pathetic about people who have no
>conceptual belief in a power greater than themselves. It seems to me
>that one has to be extraordinarily cynical, myopic, and selfish to
>believe that they can in any way come close to creating something as
>perfect as that already provided by nature, god, theories of relativity or
>orderly chaos, or whatever other noun you choose to describe
>universal law and order.
This of course is the extremely cynical belief of those who are not with me
must be laughing at me. Don't worry, you don't have to be cynical anymore.
It is no longer a belief.
Andy Pearlman
--
Andy Pearlman
apea...@panix.com
Charles Eicher
> There is something depressingly pathetic about people who have no
> conceptual belief in a power greater than themselves.
I's say that artists generally believe in ART as a power greater than
themselves. Sounds like a leap of faith to me, not a 'conceptual belief'..
-----------------------
Charles Eicher
cei...@ins.infonet.net
-----------------------
jaxas
>
> Jaxas from Texas
>An> There is something depressingly pathetic about people who have no
> An> conceptual belief in a power greater than themselves.
MD>I will support your right to remain pathetically depressed as long as people
MD>like you allow people like me to believe what I wish.
One of the nice things about living in the "good ole USofA" isn't it? I can tell you
and others what I believe, and you can tell me what I should believe, and I can
believe you are whatever your beliefs make you into without anyone feeling they
have violated any laws of man or "nature" as long as we don't slander or libel
one another. And you can create your version of
ART and I can create mine, and the more successful of us will reap the reward
of acceptance from doting and decorating admirers of our produce. And as much
as I might admire works of art created by human endeavor, I will never believe
that the art that enjoys lasting adoration was not spiritually inspired, regardless
of how one defines (or in your case denounces) spiritualism.
jaxas
> Ja> I art. Art thou ?
>
>MD>The usual incoherent babble from an anal compulsive who
>MD>constantly finds it necessary to surcharge god into any
>MD>discussion.
Strange--Mani perceives a reference to god in my solecism, which is
otherwise incoherent to him because he doesn’t recognize ART as a
verb. Below is another example of his mis-comprehension.
And Mani, I don't call you names, so I would appreciate it if you held
your expulsions of oral excrement in while responding to generalized
postings.
====================================================
>Ja> There is something depressingly pathetic about people who have
>Ja> no conceptual belief in a power greater than themselves.
>MD>I will support your right to remain pathetically depressed as long
>MD>as people like you allow people like me to believe what I wish.
MD mis-reads who is pathetically depressed. It was Mani who wrote
the following bit on "reading comprehension" by the way.
>MD>Well Charles you once advised that I should take a course in grammar.
>MD>I would advise you to take a course in reading comprehension.
====================================================
Here are some other quoted gems from Mani's posts.
>MD>You sound like the authoritarian type who is not accustomed to
>MD>being contradicted. You are in cyberspace now. Get used to it or
>MD>retreat back to your mystical circle where everyone politely
>MD>agrees with you..
Et tu, Mani !
>MD>I might add that as previously stated I believe in free speech
>MD>and freedom of religion and from religion if one chooses. This
>MD>means that I support one's right to believe and state whatever
>MD>he wishes. However this does not . . .
Mani, I don't know if you are a contradiction yourself or just enjoy
trying to speak out of both sides of your mouth at the once.
I see no point in wasting time responding further to someone who
delights in being confrontational to the point of contradiction.
***** ***** ***** ***** *****
***** + Jaxas from Texas + *****
***** Look for the silver lining, *****
***** But don't gild the lily! *****
Catherine paciotti
: J>following this thread, sorry to say.
Well, actually I have been. If I were to take the incoherent babblings of
a lot of pseudo-intellectual, self-appointed artists (who can't even
form simple sentences) as "gospel", yes, Jaxas, I would have to concede
to you, and admit that in my unimaginative and, silly me, uninformed
state of mind, well, gosh, I shouldn't even be sharing the same
cyberspace with you. For that matter, I guess I must have misunderstood
everything you said...
But, I don't take what others in the thread have said as truth, just
as I don't take your next example (of adam and eve's existence) as
any sort of proof to your confused argument that god created a perfect
universe, but fucked up on human beings:
: J>You want me to explain God’s actions ? Well, I really don’t feel qualified,
: J>but let me think on it awhile. Seems he booted the first two humans he
: J>ever created out of his garden, if you believe in metaphors, which Andy says
: J>only confuse him, and I guess that is pretty much what life is about, isn’t it--
: J>struggling to resolve our conflicts and confusions?
It is a cute little story, isn't it? Pretty deep metaphoric implications
too. Let's see, "Do What I Say, Or Be Punished For Eternity." Hmmmm...
No, I don't think you need to explain god to me Jaxas.
: J> So, Catherine, when you speak to folks about ART, you span the spectrum
: J>of taste-tasteless, and therein lies the clue to the mind that could compare
: J>extremes.
Well, thank you for the information, Jaxas; which end of that spectrum
do you reside on?
: CP>Artists and human beings create to reflect, explain, expound upon,
: CP>discount, argue, praise or discover what is around them. It may
: CP>or may not have anything to do with god.
: J>Now you are getting the point, if somewhat belatedly. I couldn’t agree more
: J>with this latter-day revelation.
Gosh, and I figured it out all by myself!
: CP>What's your problem anyway?
: J>Do you really care?
No.
Catherine Paciotti
programmed (but tasteful) godless artist
:
BTW, the significance of your brilliant moniker still eludes me.
schujac
>BTW, the significance of your brilliant moniker still eludes me.
Actually, like the person, it's really pretty uncomplicated.
Perhaps it'll come to ya if y'all can stay clear headed long enuf.
***** ***** ***** ***** *****
***** + Jaxas from Texas + *****
***** Look for the silver lining, *****
***** But keep your boots on! *****
Catherine paciotti
Thomas C. Waters
gibst...@aol.com (GIBSTER844) writes:
> It is really hard for me,being a self-taught artist,to grasp the notion
> and/or belief that Art has no connection to God.The house that Solomon
> Built,had a lot to be said for arttistic vision.God was the designer,the
> artist,his instrament,his...tool.
> The Ark of the covenant,designed once again from the "blueprints" from
> God's own drafting table.The artist,once again was called upon to carry
> out that which was in a sense already created.
First, let me say that I personally believe that art is the product of
a "partnership" between the artist and a Higher Power, a Source Energy,
that some choose to call God. Others name this universal energy
Goddess, Nature, and many other names.... For me the name is not too
important. So, I agree with you that Art has a connection to God
(especially if thast word God is used in a broader sense and is not
intended to imply only a Judeo-christian God)
But.
I just can't buy your subsequent argument where you cite the House of
Solomon or the Ark of the Covenant. To the best of my knowledge,
neither actually exist today, and we have absolutely no proof that they
ever existed EXCEPTfor descriptions of them in the Holy Bible. That
book, the Bible, while considered as non-fiction/truth by some, is no
credible source of fact. I am not saying it is without purpose or
value, but religion (to which the Holy Bible is so connected) succeeeds
and/or survives based upon faith and not necessarily on facts.
I am not interested in participating in a thread about the relavence of
or the factual proof of religion. Much of my recent artwork has
revolved around liturgical themes and I have done an enormous amount of
research into the connections between art and religion, but a
discussion of religion belongs in another newsgroup, not this one.
A more interesting question to me, and one connected to the original
intention of this thread, as I understood it, would be to ask:
Is there a connection between an artist's soul or spirit and the
creation of art?? Do individuals(including artists) have a
soul/spirit???
Thomas C. Waters
twa...@pitt.edu
"The opinions expressed are my own, take what you like and leave the
rest."
"I always assume someone is gay unless they tell me otherwise.
Straights have been doing the same in reverse forever and I'm tired of
it!"
Mani Deli
Gi> The Ark of the covenant,designed once again from the "blueprints" from
Gi> God's own drafting table.
Is that the one in the office next to the Santa's workshop where he designed
cancer and planned all his killings?
Gi> For in every man the glory of God is revealed.
Every man?
I see no glory in a supposed architect of death and hell.
... Not only is there no god, but try getting a plumber on weekends W. All
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12
GIBSTER844
evolution visa-vi natural selection,is unacceptable to me.This strange and
special ability we have
separates us to some extent from the general population.I am not a
pianist,nor was I a prodigy.But I did exhibit an ability to copy exactly
things I saw as a child.As far as I know most of my peers were unable to.I
see things differently than most people,because of this obsession with
looking at people's faces,pointing out differences in the anatomical
makeup of a person's features.I am by all accounts a portrait artist.I
take much pride in my work.It is very hard for me to believe,(if you
accept the premise) that we all sprung up from some slime out of the
sea.That I just happen to possess this skill/ability.Why can't everyone be
a prima ballerina,a concert pianist,a singer? Some exhibit these
abilities at very young ages.Evolution? No way! I do believe God is the
author of all things good.Your right, I do hold the bible to be the
literal word of God.But that is my faith,not yours.I would not presume to
stuff my beliefs down your throat.I believe that I am an artist by grand
design.That the maker of this vessal chose me,out of millions and blessed
me with this ability.Why me? Why you? I don't know.I do wrestle with this
issue,always.I am sooooo thankful for this"Gift",and I would not give it
up for Anything.It defines who and what I am.I think art.I see art.I
speak,eat and sleep art.I am inspired by many avenues when I create my
art.But what I have been saying is that the author of my talent...my gift
is God.Not just persistance,and practice on my part.The gift is
bestowed,but it is my responsibility to develope it to it's fullest
potential.That alone will take two lifetimes.I then acknowlege him as my
enabler.He gave it to me...he can take it away.Thats all.Others credit
whomever.Thats their choice.My purpose is to create beauty.Provoke
thought.If possible..prick emotions.I will answer to him for how I chose
to use my gift.Or how I chose not to use it.I create secular work,as well
as inspirational.(When inspired)I am not so holy as to deny the urge to
paint a vase,or a seascape.My forte,my intrest,my love,at the moment is
faces.How real can I make those eyes?that nose.Thats my obsession right
now.I take pride in that.I feed on the ooohs..and the ahhhhs I get from my
patrons and peers.It feeds my self worth.My self esteem is lifted because
of my gift.I know that not too many people can do what I do easily.I know
I can't stop if I wanted to.I don't understand the word retire.It is
foriegn to me.We are artists for life.Let the hobbyist paint his floral
arragements in craft class.We must paint,draw,create..or die.(Raphael,in
the agony and the ecstacy)
I welcome your comments on my....sermon?
Gib
For in every man the glory of God is revealed.Infinite gifts.with
infinite diversity.
Michael Gibson-
jaxas
> I do believe God is the
>author of all things good.Your right, I do hold the bible to be the
>literal word of God.But that is my faith,not yours.I would not presume to
>stuff my beliefs down your throat.I believe that I am an artist by grand
>design.That the maker of this vessal chose me,out of millions and blessed
>me with this ability.Why me? Why you? I don't know.I do wrestle with this
>issue,always.I am sooooo thankful for this"Gift",and I would not give it
>up for Anything.It defines who and what I am.I think art.I see art.I
>speak,eat and sleep art.I am inspired by many avenues when I create my
>art.But what I have been saying is that the author of my talent...my gift
>is God.
Gibster,
This is just a sidebar to this thread. Your lengthy description of your work
and its source of inspiration reminded me of something. I have had the good
fortune of being able to travel extensively over the course of my life which now
spans six decades. I have been to Taos many times for various reasons and
always drop into my favorite galleries when there. In the early 1970's I became
acquainted with the luminous and woundrous seascapes of a California artist
whose name, I am ashamed to say, I no longer remember, but each time I
went into the gallery I was stunned by each new work of
his that I saw. The prices were way beyond my means at the time. Then one
trip I went into the gallery and saw nothing of seascapes, but a lot of very
angst filled religious imagery seemed to have taken its place. When I inquired
of the gallery owner about the seascape artist, and if they no longer represented
him, I was told that no, they still represented him, he had given up seascapes,
become born again, and was now responsible for the religious art that I found
so disturbingly dark and sinister. It was TO ME a shameful waste of talent,
and I hadn't thought any more about him until just now reading your dialogue.
So I now have to go off and contemplate the deep meaning of this. Here is
an artist who seemed inspired when doing depictions of nature, but un-inspired
when doing what were to him, I am sure, deep-felt and meaningful religious
representations.
***** ***** ***** ***** *****
***** + Jaxas from Texas + *****
***** Look for the silver lining, *****
***** Just don't move here. *****
GIBSTER844
am reminded of selected pieces of Michaelangelo's work,and that of El
Greco.Who said that it should have been he whose work should have been on
the ceiling of the Sistine chapel.He found Michaelangelo's work to be
uninspired.Lacking in imagination.This critic,who elongated his figures
limbs,and who himself used such dark coloring,saw no purpose in the
master's work.But the work should be inspired.Michangelo saw a grander
scheme than did Pope JuliusII who was ready to settle for just a pictorial
montage of religious figures.Uninspired. To me because I am born again,I
have a greater responsibility to create religious themes when genuinly
inspired.Not to create empty icons..just to fill the paper.Michaelangelo
did indeed render secular work as favors and as commisions to finance that
which truly inspired him.But I do agree,an artist should leave himself
open to possibilities,for the sake of inspiration.Religion is just one of
those elements.I did a picture of the cruxifiction a while back.And there
are plenty to choose from.I was inspired by Mathias Gruenwalds work.I
decided that I was not going to render the Lord,beautiful,with just a
trickle of blood coming from his side.I went to psalms 22 in which I found
a more detailed description of how he was put to the cross.I was inspired
to make him as ugly as possible.I showed the effects of the beatings he
took.How the nails were used to pierce his wrists rather than more common
depictions of his palms.The weight would pull the nails through his
hands.In the greek the passage refers to wrists rather than palms.
I made his head swell,because of fluids.I made his hands swell and turn
color.I made his lips swell well beyond proportions.Did you see Joe
frazier after fighting Ali? Isaiah spoke of his beard being pulled out by
the roots.His bones fell out of joint.He looked like a red worm.People
could not look at this picture that I was inspired to do.Go figure:)
But they also gave me audience to explain why I did what I did.They
listened as I explained the science of crucifying a man.In the end I was
justified,and my work took on new meaning.I can just as easily do a
seascape.....if inspired.God may not be the inspiration in that case.