Wednesday, October 18, 2006

In the name of artistic expression I would like to take a small moment to recognize one of the greatest artists in world history, Michelangelo and one of his greatest sculptures: David.

By the way, Mike, yeah, we’re on a first name basis, also did scores of religious painting in the effort of glorifying his Lord, in fact this piece is King David as he decided to battle Goliath. Then again there is some debate over this David is from Biblical lore or simply the name of the model the figure was sculpted from. One of the most interesting things, referenced from Wikipedia because my art history and terminology is too rusty is that the sculpture is done in a style to mimic the divine creation called “disegno”.

Also covering the ability to create such life like renderings of Gods final creations, Michelangelo also did a little known work called Pieta and a slightly better known collection of works in a building called the Sistine Chapel.


Jamison said...

I'm offended...

Not at the pictures, just in general...

bigsip said...

That's art...

The other trash was someone's f'd up rendering of justice made to give teenage boys a hard-on.

Bravo, Mullins for recognizing the difference.

Brewster said...

How'd you manage to upload these mullins? I cleaned them up slightly by moving them so they images didn't venture down into the last post.

Who gets to make the decision on what is art anyway?

kellieja said...

Interesting subject....I did my Senior Term Paper on "art or porn/what should be censored?".
I will keep my thoughts to myself on this one but it IS an interesting subject.

Rachel said...

I must be missing something- all I see is the Michaelangelo stuff.

And I wish you wouldn't keep your thoughts to yourself Kellie. Especially since you've already done research and put a lot of thought into it.

I was frequently angered and frustrated by what other students in my art school called "art". Just because you can hang it on a wall or put it on a pedestal does not art make.

And while I'm at it, I hate when HGTV types throw two or three colors on a canvas with very little effort, hang it up, and call it art- or paste pictures of somebody's dog together.

Rachel said...

Nevermind the question before; I just read the humongous "law de da" post and get it now. Though I never did see the pic in question.

kellieja said...

When I wrote that paper and did that research I was a eager 17 year old hoping to be at art school the following year. I found various pieces of art that were very controversial. Kind of funny that one of them was a photograph called “Piss Christ”. Funny for two reasons, I went to a private high school so using this piece of artwork in my paper was going to be interesting and I am now talking about a picture of pee to a bunch of people who take pride in peeing outdoors.

If you don’t know about this photo, it is basically a crucifix and Jesus lying the artist’s pee. Is that art? Blasphemy? What is all boils down to is that silly thing called Freedom of Speech.

Bottom line is art is in the eye of the beholder. It’s hard sometimes to say what pieces have artistic merit. My art is no where traditional so I run the risk of offending or causing harm to someone with it. I use a lot of symbolism in my pieces not your everyday fruit in a bowl pieces. I am a horrible writer so I use art to express my feelings on issues in the world and my life that normal people might otherwise write out. Words can also be offensive and pornographic.

I will be honest, the picture posted earlier didn’t bother me. I liked it. Think what you will of me. J I am amazed with human figures all shapes and sizes. I felt like the pic had some artistic merit but my point of view is different then others and I can totally respect that.

The only thing I know for fact….if my art ever offends you tell me so I can apologize just as if my words ever offend you.

Blah blah blah…..

kellieja said...

I just finished reading all of your 56 comments on the other blog.
Dang, maybe I should have kept my opinion to myself....thanks rachel for pulling it out;)

mullinz8 said...

Kellie, I’m glad you’re throwing down with this subject. I think you’re right that art and its merit or meaning is beholden only to the viewer.

I too was once poised to head to art school only to make other choices still I’ve got a vested interest in the art world. I’ve seen PissChrist and once did a report on Robert Mapplethorpe, if you’d like to talk about a report that drew fire from all sides that was it. Sipper, I wouldn’t dare post some of his work on the blog, don’t worry.

When ever we go thought a household purge and get rid of things the books I always hold on to are the “drawing the human form” books. God’s last creation is by far his most beautiful, the complexity, intricacy, subtle beauty, flowing, sinuous muscle, paired with rigid bone structure. I’ve take a few human form (nude) drawing classes, in the day, and they were great. Drawing slouchy, frumps is fun but there is no doubt why the Greeks and Romans worshiped the human body.

To deny the appreciation of such form is rude to me.

If your art work were to offend me I would simply walk away from it, why should you apologize for an artistic interpretation of your thoughts or ideas.

I shutter to consider HGTV and the term Artistic merit in the same breath.

Brewster said...

Yeah, Kellie J is giving real opinions and not just jokes. Seriously Kellie stay and opinionize. Believe me we all have strong opinions but there's no problem when one is different than the other. I mean look at this convo, sip and mulls were ready to go knives, but then settled down and it's chill.

I once had this long convo with a big movie guy in Texas. He felt since he had gone to grad school and had been in the business then he could objectively review a movie. I sad bullshit and called him on it. He would never admit that at least some of what he wrote was an opinion, based on personal feelings.

All arts boil down that way. Sure there is craft to it all and we can talk about things like originality or shading or whatever and get into its merits, but ultimately ones man David is another man's ugly naked man.

Brewster said...

I once wrote a paper at Faulkner on the merits of Hustler magazine. Do I get cool art points for that, or am I just a perv?

kellieja said...

Well MattM, I would apologize and then make more art because of the apology,
Short story...
I was once offended by a "friend" at FU. She burst into my dorm room one night to tell me that I was giving AAA a bad reputation because I was on the balcony watching while everyone marched to Tuesday night Devo. I apologized but I was really really mad.
If she had come into my room concerned about my soul, fine, but she was concerned that I was giving AAA a bad rep.WHAT?!
Well I was on the balcony.....STUDYING...for diferential equations, number theory, complex variables, and some sort of Randolf class I am sure.
What did I do? Art. Now this is no where museum material but I had so much emotion behind it that I would frame it and put it in my museum....sorry Rachel.


I immediately taped it to my closet door in my dorm room for all to see(including my "friend"). This thing is huge too. I wanted everyone to be aware of how emotional I was about being called out. If I had the resources then I would have made a tshirt and sold them at the tuesday night devos.

Now, MattM if I had offended anyone with it hanging on my closet door I would have apologized for it and then I would have "walked away" :) make more art ;)

kellieja said...


Brewster said...

Hey I can't help it if I like to watch

(censored by Josh Sipper)

What can I say I grew up on a farm.

bigsip said...

I've heard the tired old "art is what you think it is" argument too many times to count.

I used to draw, paint, sculpt, etc. all the time, in high school.

I won the grand prize at the hs art show and a first prize at a college art show for my sculpture.

I've studied art, seen it at its best, and loved it.

But, I became quickly disenchanted with it years ago when I saw that the only way to go somewhere was to shock people.

A crucified penis is not art.

Art is creative, not destructive or obstructive.

It's beautiful and builds on purity and goodness. And yet it's still a poor facsimile for what God has already done.

The closer we stay to the creative goodness of God, the nearer we are to art. It's a natural and undeniable philosophy.

Another one is the fact that we can't create anything. We can be creatIVE, but we don't create. Only God does that. We make stuff.

I've learned that every time I write a book or write an article or story or whatever. But, it doesn't bother me. I think if we accep the truth that God already did it all and better, we're able to free ourselves from thinking we can do things better than He did.

Why did I write all this?

Because a drawing by some no-talent butt-monkey found in a Google search is about as far from art as I am from being Jesus.

WE can pontificate for the rest of the month on how beautiful the human form is and God made boobs so they must be okay and whatever else. But, think about it, people. Art is creative and a mere imitaiton of God's creation. What's your take on Him?

If it's a barenaked, sensual woman, I must question whether God really thinks that's okay.

Maybe it is. Maybe I'm just too prudish or too attracted to beautiful women (which is probably true--thank God for my head-turning wife). But, I think at least some of what I've typed here is reasonable if you follow the philosophy behind it.

Please, don't think I'm upset. I just have definite ideas and philosophies about what art is. I welcome the thoughts of others.

This IS a good discussion!

kellieja said...

Someone refresh my memory...
Does the bible say anything about art?
I dont know.

Josh, the reason why you have heard the "art is what you think it is" argument too many times to count is because that is what it IS.

I am not being a smart alec when I say this but could you explain this to me cause I dont understand.

"The closer we stay to the creative goodness of God, the nearer we are to art. It's a natural and undeniable philosophy."

Jamison said...

Wendy Jones got horney when she would go to the Montgomery art museum. Any painting did it to her. Didnt take nudity. She was one of a kind.
Has nothing to do with this thread, but I thought I'd toss it in there.

Brew, prev...

Kelli... I love your cartoon... you need a zazzle account so you can put me to shame!

Brewster said...

Two pervs to none. excellent

Why did you never take advantage of this horniness. Dude, Wendy was hot.

Rest her soul.

Brewster said...

Tis true, Kellie J. No matter how many graduate degrees you have on the subject, art is subjective.

I understand what you are saying Sipper but I respectfully disagree.

You can say the goal of art should be to glorify god, and I'll agree, but that doens't mean a crucified penis isn't art. Controversial, disgusting, offensive art can still be art, can still express something important.

Boobs are a wonderful thing. God made them for babies and he made them for me. They are beautiful.

does that mean every fool who draws or takes a picture of a breast is an artist? No. Does that mean the naked justice with a big sword is art? No again.

However, at least two people on this blog liked the picture and declare it is art, so that means something.

I think you have to release from your definition that God must approve all art. It is a secular world and there is secular art. God probably hates it, but it can still be artistic.

I'm suddently thinking about Martin Scorcese pictures and how they are filled with rotten people doing rotten things, but say a lot of important stuff.

bigsip said...

"Someone refresh my memory...
Does the bible say anything about art?"

Gen 1:1 In the beginning, God created...

Is there any doubt that what is here before us is the greatest representation of love through art? The Bible talks about art the way it talks about dinosaurs. It's there, but that's not what the Bible is about.

Also, consider the instructions (very specific instructions) the Israelites were given for constructing architecture such as the tabernacle and temple. Those are undeniable, God commissioned works of art.

I'm not being a smart alec when I say, "God knows art. We only think we do."

If we want to truly be creative, we have to get as close to the source of creation as possible and stay there.

Will that make us edgy millionaire artists? Probably not. But, it will hook our creativity to the Source.

Just nonchalantly deciding something is art is a poor human definition for it.

Brewster said...

I don't think anyone here is nonchalantly deciding something is art. I think both Mullins and Kellie have studied art and observed something interesting in the deleted picture.

bigsip said...

Webster defines art this way:

the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects

There are other definitions, but they all revolve around a CREATIVE act.

Art is CREATIVE. If it is destructive or obstructive, it is not art.

I guess we can suppose something is art and use our "power" to say it's art, but if it's not creative and not good, it's not art.

The thing God said over and over and over when creating the wordl was, "...and it was good..."

There's very little "good" out there.

Indeed, God defined the highest art form. Our pathetic attempts and definitions for what He says is "good" are pitiful.

Brewster said...

I'm confused. Who is saying that something destructive is art?

Who gets to define what good is? Please don't say God because unless you can ask him directly about each piece it doesn't do the discussion much good.

Brewster said...

Since the picture has brought on such a controversy I've uploaded it to my flickr page.

For those who never saw it, or those who want to see it again click here.

bigsip said...

Every definition I've ever seen for art says it is CREATIVE.

DESTRUCTIVE is the opposite of CREATIVE.

How much simpler can I put it?

I don't have to ask God what art is. He's already shown us in His creation, His statutes, and His ideals of beauty what art really is.

So, how can anything that opposes what He has deemed beautiful and good be art?

How can we even begin to think we can define creation and goodness better than God?

Jamison said...

I think "art" or "not art" is the same as saying "that was a good movie" or "that was a bad movie."... I hated one movie, brew loved it.

Kelli mentioned that she is a terrible writter, so she expresses herself via art.

Having said that, suppose someone (like one of us) grew up in a fine, Christian home, lived a fine Christian life, and married a fine Christian woman. We paint a picture of a bowl of fruit and *ding* it is art! Everyone who sees it will say "Wow, that looks like like a bowl of fruit! Well done!" (Personally, to me, that isnt art, thats a painting that says 'i didnt have a camera, so i drew it')

Now, take a girl who was molested by her uncle who was a preacher. This girl grows up hating men so she lives with women as a lesbian. This girl tries every drug imaginable, and goes back to digging men, only to be taken advantage by them. This girl survives and becomes successful, and overcomes her head problems via therapy.

She then paints a picture of a little girl, with a cross rammed into her chest as she is being forced to give a blowjob to a devil with a bible in his hand...

To us, trash... to her, art.

And I never "tapped" wendy jones for reasons I will never understand, but it never came up and I never persued it. Didnt want to. I had alot to learn from her. Like being able to talk about being horney around the opposite sex and the idea of having sex never popping into either of our minds... it was an interesting friendship to say the least.

bigsip said...

Expressing yourself is not necessarily art.

Just because the girl showed what she thought, doesn't mean it's art.

I know you're all thinking, "Oh, it's Sipper being a know-it-all again...", but I seriously believe we need to think more deeply about something before we let it be.

I've seen plenty of gameshow answers for what art is here. I've seen only secular answers for what it is. But, if we are supposed to have God in every crevice of ourselves, shouldn't we be asking better questions and be giving better answers?

I'm just sort of disappointed that people say, "Oh, he/she thinks it's art, so it is."

That doesn't make any sense to me.

I never, for one second, asserted that Jamsion's pee stream was art. But, an erotic pic of a hot, naked chick is because someone likes it?

I'm sorry. I'm letting this get to me too much. I have another post on my mind and will post soon...

Brewster said...

I'm still confused sip. I understand the definition of destructive, I just don't see where anyone is trying to claim something destructive as art.

Jamisons imaginary drawing would certainly be creative. It is also expressing something from within that girl. True live real feelings. How can you not call it art?

So art can only be something beautiful, something godly, something christian?

Does that mean no one but christians can create art? Or can a non christian create art as long as they draw nice things?

Art is secular. It is made by man. Sorry but creation isn't art its life. God comissioned artistic things in his temple and what-not, but ultimately they were created by man.

Sorry sipper but your definition doesn't make any sense to me.

Let's try this. What makes the naked statue of David art, but Mullins pic not?

bigsip said...

Try this instead.

Someone take the David, blow up its penis and make it stand in a suggestive pose.

You have a matching pair between the eroticized Justice and the eroticized David.

Art is creatIVE which is an imitation of creatION. God made us to be people of pure hearts and minds. Things that destroy that spiritual synergy, like pictures that make us lust, are destructive.

I only bring up the issue out of my own weakness and in an attempt to take away things that I have a problem with.

It's selfish to a great degree, but if those things are not around to weaken those I love, too, then it's a good thing to me, too.

But, I can't make those decisions for anyone but myself. And I understand that...

Jamison said...

I was peeing in the toilet today thinking about this discussion...

I thought "God was the first artist, he created this beautiful world!" Then i thought "wait, even though it is all beautiful, it all has purpose... trees give oxygen, clouds provide rains... even worms provide a function, a service."

Then I thought about the toilet... "The man (or woman) who created this toilet then, is an artist. The toilet is functional and, in a way, designed well..."

But in that case, anythign made by man is "art". God created this world, yet it is all functional. So by that argument, a painting is NOT art, since it is not functional. If art is not an expression of the artist, then why paint or draw at all? Isnt all the great art from down through the ages done by wonderful artists who were expressing their thoughts, feelings, and ideas? Otherwise, they may as wqell buy a paint-by-numbers set and be done with it.

If I build a home, by myself, to me it COULD be art, eitherway I am proud of it. But if you see a cookie cutter house that was made on the cheap, you wouldnt dare call it art... but it may be to one of the mexicans who built it.

I know I am not a great artist, but I like to doodle. I am proud of my work and like it. When people compliment me on it, honestly, that does nothing for me. When people say "You should be published!" that does nothing for me. "When I get a call from someone who wants to buy rights to my work, I say no. I get more excited from rejection letters than anything else. Why? It is my art, and I couldnt care less what everyone else thinks. It's art to me.

Jamison said...

ive never been so equally yoked to two sides in all my life... i hope my comments come across as such lol
I like the word "yoked"... i shall use it more.

Brewster said...

Dude, I already get turned on by Davids penis, no need to blow it up.

I think you are trying to decide what is good art and throw out all the rest. Certainly as christian we should strive for what is good and pure and lovely.

But it is a big world full of lots of people all of whom don't share the same views.

Jamisons girls drawing wouldn't be pretty, but that expression is important. We should listen to those who have been hurt by the church in order to heal them and not cause that hurt again.

Proudly hanging in my bathroom is a painting by my wife's grandma. It is a lovely thing and I wouldn't sell it for the world.

Frankly it is a lousy painting. It is a seascape - the fish are juvenile, there are ugly rock like structures on both the top and bottom making it like a cave, yet for unknown reasons we can see the sun perfectly clear, as if it is in the ocean.

But I love it. Many an art teacher would decry it and say its trash not art, but they'd better not say that within ear shot.

kellieja said...

Man, I was in the Midnight cafe at midnight posting and no one was there. But thats cool.

Thank you Jamison. You expressed a point that I didnt want to do with my personal life.

If you express yourself what is it called then if its not art? Maybe we need to make a new word for it.

Josh I think you thought I WAS being a smart alec by your answers.
I promise you I dont doubt that God is the CREATOR.

Should we keep our art(feelings)to oursleves incase it is destructive or a stumbling block for our loved ones? Maybe so. That may be the only solution.

I'm sorry. I tried to understand but I think I may not be on the same level as you spiritually cause all I am is confused. It was fun though.
I would love to know what kind of works are art if you want to share.

Wendi was hot!

Jamison said...

Great way to end a discussion which is mostly made up of men; Hearing that KelliJ thought Wendy was hot... I think Ill go to the art museum after lunch today.

bigsip said...

God made the universe. We imitate what He made.

I believe that if our imitations have elements that are not creative (i.e. destructive) we have made the opposite of art or anti art.

I guess I don't see how that's confusing.

Destructive things are things that cause us to have sin in our hearts or dishonor God.

But, when it comes down to it, people are going to like what they like. But, if we are defining art, we have to look a lot deeper than "I like it" or "It means something."

We have to look at the Source of all Creation and creativity.

God defines everything. We're free to choose what we like and dislike, but that doesn't make it art.

bigsip said...

I always liked Wendy, but I didn't think she was hot.

I thought she was damaged and hurt. I only ever felt pity for her. I couldn't hang out with her much because it made me feel profoundly depressed.

We were English majors together. She wrote stories. We saw Hamlet together. She was nice, but made me sad. I can't explain it.

Brewster said...

Then I'll go back to Kellie's question. What do you call the rest of the stuff?

Wendy was beautiful and full of life and vigor. But yes often a very confused damaged young lady.

Jamison said...

I was never sad around wendy... in fact, the opposite... odd.

I hate to keep beating this horse, but for the sake of lively debate:

"I believe that if our imitations have elements that are not creative (i.e. destructive) we have made the opposite of art or anti art."

But if I create ANYTHING, how is it not creative? Do you mean creative as in the opposite of unoriginal? But if we 'imitate' what God made (Like paint a picture of a flower) then that isnt all that "creative" (As in the opposite of unoriginal).

No two humans are the same. Everyone sees things in different ways. Take 100 people and tell them to paint this glass vase... all will be different, all creative, and perhaps all art.

Maybe art comes down to the heart of the artist.
If the girl in my example paints that painting to truly express herself with NO intensions on hurting someone, i think it is art. If some art snob ass paints Jesus on the cross with crap on his chest and the head of a clown and a dog peeing on his feet, all for the sake of "shocking" the public, no, I will say that isnt all that artsy, but along the same lines as Fear Factor or the Jerry Springer show.

Interestingly enough, though I do draw alot and create alot of "art", I dont consider anything I do to be art. Why? Because TO ME, my definition of art is different from anyone else. To me, cartoons (or whatever it is called that I do) isn't art. As much as Sipper or Mullins may say it is... it is not to me. To Sip and Mulls, maybe it is art. To me, it aint.

To me, KelliJs cartoon wasnt art... to her, I garantee it is. To sip, a bowl of fruit painted perfectly to reflect every aspect of light is art, to me, it is not.

Maybe I dont know what art is, but Ill know it when I see it.

For the record, to me, the tits chick with the sword wasnt art... it was more of a cartoon... but to the artist it may very well have been art.

bigsip said...

The rest of the stuff is an attempt.

Human beings come up short more often than not. It's just part of being one.

Jamison said...

Man, i cannot wait for Stubbs to jump in here and say a one liner... itll be great... my predictions, either:

1) "Where did the hot chick picture go?"


2) "Art Shmart"

bigsip said...

I don't think I've ever called your drawings art, Jamison, but I may have since I think they're great!

For the record, though, I don't think they are.

I also don't necessarily think a painting of fruit is.

I do believe that art is in the heart to a great degree.

But, I still believe that if it is counter-creative, it isn't art.

Being creative is more than just making something or splashing paint on a canvas. It carries with it a full cadre of intellect, spirituality, skill, and a need to make something that affects the soul of man.

I love impressionism for that reason. I also enjoy some abstract art for the same reason.

Brewster said...

Now we are back to the full subjectivity of it all. What affects the soul of one man, does nothing for the other.

There is lots of outsider art that I think is trash, and awful, but I'm not going to not call it art simply because I don't like it.

I think I get it sip. You seem to be trying to make the definition so that art is something elevated above what we might define it in grade school classes.

Fair enough and a nice ideal.

However I would suggest changing your words. The definitions you are fighting against are mostly what the world accepts.

To go into the Louvre and say you saw a couple of pieces of art and a whole bunch of attempts is going to get you some confused looks and probably into a few fights.

Maybe you could call it true art and secular art or something.

I think we can find meaning and inspiration in artistic measures that don't necessarily portray the beauty of gods creation.

bigsip said...

I think you hit very close to the mark there, Brew.

All in all, yes, art is pretty subjective. But, there's art and then there's ART.

I'm not saying at all that ART has to be all religious even, just not destructive and ugly and shocking for shock's sake.

I just get so tired of people throwing around the word "art" like it's whatever. ART is not whatever. It's better than that.

I guess I just get a little upset because I love true art like I love music. I look at them almost like I look at those I love.

If someone compared my wife to a prostitute, for example, I'd be pissed. Or if someone compared one of you guys to an unspiritual heathen or something, I'd be upset.

I know it's crazy, but I feel that way.

Brewster said...

I don't think that's crazy at all. I don't agree with you on all points but at least I understand what you are saying.

Elevating the meaning makes sense.

I still think some ART can demonstrate mans baser elements, not to praise them but to help us understand our own plights.

bigsip said...

Cool. I'm glad we talked it out.

Rachel said...

Here's my take on it, FWIW (for what it's worth)...

Josh is describing what is called "High Art"- it takes heart, soul, and mind, and throw in skill; then you've got art. Without any one of these factors many will not consider it art.

Then there's the crap people do just for shock value. If your work can't get attention for being beautiful (or meaningful) to the point where you have to offend somebody to get noticed, that's not art.

Then there are, for lack of a better word, cartoons. Entertainment.

Then there is "art therapy"- its appeal is highly limited, sometimes to just the person who created it. Not art to most people. Some people make scary paintings, some do underwater basket weaving. It's all pretty much just therapy, as much as hiking in the woods or talking to a shrink. But an artist it does not you make.

And finally, there is the very very broad realm of decoration. Art can be decoration, but not all decoration is art. See above HGTV comment. Also scrapbooking. Also copies of other people's art, and so on, and so forth.

Jamison, there is a famous toilet that is considered art. The artist turned it upside down and signed it. I'm drawing a blank on the name of the work or artist, but it was in my art history course.

bigsip said...

It's called "Fountain", I think.


Rachel summed it all up very well.

I trust her, too. Not only because she's my wife, but because she actually went to art school.

Indeed, a good discussion.

Jamison said...

Rachel... why didnt you pipe in 40 comments ago... we could be looking at a low level posting if you had done that...

but maybe it was good that you didnt.

bigsip said...

She's smarter than me, anyway. Somehow, she always manages to explain in one post what it takes me 20 to explain!

kellieja said...

yeah, there was a lot of dude sweat going on in here till Rachel popped in.

Rachel said...

Thanks guys. It feels good to be appreciated for something other than my mommy abilities, important though they are. This blog is sometimes the only adult interaction I get! To bring the conversation back to boobies, they play a prominent role in my time and worth lately... nursing. :)

kellieja said...


I am sure you are exhausted!

Ryan F. said...

Sorry, I would have chimed in on this discussion, but I was at home busy hugging a toilet throwing up! Is that art?

bigsip said...

Only if the flusher handle on the toilet were in the shape of a crucifix...

Oh, and you'd have to be naked and covered in grass clippings, too.

Sorry you were sick, dude.

mullinz8 said...

Again I hate to be late to the game but what does your wife do? I’ve seen what is considered to be art in the form of tapestries but then again it’s just a very detailed and time intensive recreation of a fox hunt. Is your wife making High-Art, regular art or creating fancy carpets?
Honestly, I do want an answer. I’ve seen some of her work and I think it’s beautiful and I think she’s a talented artist. Is she making these projects to glorify God or because she has chosen a unique way to express herself? If the latter is the case, I think you’ve said there is no way to call it art and she’s basically wasting her time because it doesn’t do anything to bring praise.

After reading the Brew & Sip conversation I understand what you’re saying but I still just don’t get it. Why do you not allow yourself to enjoy something for the simple sake of enjoying it?

I get the most enjoyment out of observing the creations of God through nature and the environment. There are no colors in the world that God hasn’t already tucked away in the flowers, leaves, mountains, oceans, creatures and sky of this world. Everything people have created, rather replicated, is based out of echoing a creation of God. Planes were inspired by birds, computers from our brain, electricity from understanding naturally occurring currents in humans and sky’s. All man kind has ever done is to try and replicate what’s already been done. We are limited because we’re humans and so what? I don’t think Michelangelo was trying to be God when he painted spiritual scenes I think he was trying to copy and praise through his work.

Perhaps the conversation is dead already, I don’t know. I think you’re denying yourself a lot of simple pleasures because everything you look at has to fit some sort of regimented standard.

Yes everything we do is supposed to glorify God. Your attitude and presence represents God at your work but your body of work does nothing to glorify God its self.

I think what strikes me again and again is that you seem to, not purposefully though, put things down that don’t fit into your high standard. If it’s not art to you, it shouldn’t be art to anyone else. If it’s not music you like, it’s not true, quality music.

mullinz8 said...

I love you Sipper it just seems like you’re resisting something or holding something back in some of your comments. I can’t figure it out and that is starting to baffle me.

Much love and peace to you my brother.

bigsip said...

"Josh is describing what is called "High Art"- it takes heart, soul, and mind, and throw in skill; then you've got art. Without any one of these factors many will not consider it art."

I hold closely to this definition.

According to this, my wife makes art.

I think she explained it pretty well. I also trust her since she's academically proven as well as skillfully accomplished.

Love you, too.