I was listening to a podcast the other day, "This Week with Larry Miller," when I learned that Larry considers a good artist to be someone who can accurately represent natural scenes, including people.
Wow. Do I disagree. For me, technical aptitude is but one aspect of art. Another equally important aspect, if not more important, might be called "creative vision." To re-create something in nature strikes me as not very creative. Congrats, you win the Xerox award for artistic achievement!
BTW - I really enjoy Larry Miller's podcast. While it's an audio show basically about nothing, I guess I enjoy Miller's personality, so welcome time in his company while I complete "mindless" tasks such as yardwork and workbench-tidying.
As for taste in art, maybe I have gray matter that welcomes flying off the handle of its customary apprehension of reality. Mind you, the work of art does not have to be fully abstract for me to like it. It . . . just needs to challenge me a little, I guess.
For example, in the photo below (taken by moi), I find the portrait of a Jesus ("a" Jesus for there are many different depictions if the dude) on the upper left to be the least artistic and creative. In fact, what I am most drawn to (intrigued by?) is the overall spatial arrangement of the items coupled with the dynamic of the visual space.
"Dynamic of the visual space"? WTF! Maybe art critics and wine tasters come off as pretentious because they lack generic terms to describe what they are attempting to describe.
Likewise, in this next photo (provided by NASA) I find not the bald objects themselves to be of interest, but of the relation between them (and the background).
Lastly, what follows is my own attempt at a Warhol-like self-portrait. My interpretation: What matters is not only the object of our focus, but the characteristics--plural--of the subject doing the viewing. Maybe.
[cartoon thanks to atheistcartoons.com]
[cartoon thanks to jesusandmo.net]
[cartoon thanks to treelobsters.com]
Sometimes the rational thing to do can be a distasteful thing to do. A couple examples come to mind:
> Encouraging a protesting child to leave a security blanket behind.
> Euthanizing an ailing, elderly pet.
If we always 'followed our heart' and ignored what sober reasoning informs us is the right thing to do . . . our life might be easier, emotionally, in the short term. But in the long? And what about the lives of others? Don't we sometimes need to shoulder a distasteful load to make the lives of others better?
I got to thinking about his subject over the weekend, when taking a sharp knife to a fish just pulled from the water. The fish certainly didn't like that jolt of pain (judging by it's brief struggle). But then it was dead and went into the ice-filled cooler. Sure, I could have circumvented the blood and personal experience of killing another creature by just letting it die on its own time, so to speak. But that, I imagine, is less compassionate than what I've taken to doing with the fish I catch and plan on eating.
Yes, I am a carnivore. But I believe I am at least somewhat ethical in my flesh-eating. For one, I will and do honestly confront the pain and blood that is a consequence of how I feed myself and my family. For another -- at least when it comes to fishing -- I fish waters that have minimal "fishing pressure." Meaning I go where the fish populations are healthy. And I take only enough for a good meal or two.
This weekend my fishing partner and I brought home 4 fish. We had caught more fish, but didn't keep them. Not the right size and/or species.
Slow-baked over turnip greens and yellow squash, and served with lemon-pepper butter -- my, they were good. Actually, my 3-person household only finished two. No need to be gluttonous. The other two fish we'll enjoy later this week. As part of a balanced diet.
Of course I realize that returning the the vegetarian diet I once adhered to (in my early 20s, when else?) would eliminate some death and suffering that comes because of my dietary choices, directly or indirectly. But would that impetus come from my heart or my head? I wonder.
In the meantime, I'll enjoy what I consider to be a philosophically tenable and personally fulfilling diet.
[cartoon thanks to atheistcartoons.com]
[click image to enlarge; cartoon thanks to xkcd.com]
[cartoon thanks to treelobsters.com]
Should the "traffic" of our thoughts be guided by signs and laws? No U turn, school zone ahead, speed limit, detour ahead, not a through street . . . ?
[cartoon thanks to xkcd.com]
[cartoon thanks to jesusandmo.net]
[cartoon thanks to treelobsters.com]
Recent Comments