Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The Idiots Thought It Was Art
Quote:A pair of glasses were left on the floor at a museum and everyone mistook it for art

[Image: art-glasses.jpg]

Several visitors to the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art this week were fooled into thinking a pair of glasses set on the floor by a 17-year-old prankster was a postmodern masterpiece.
“Upon first arrival we were quite impressed with the artwork and paintings presented in the huge facility,” TJ Khayatan toldBuzzFeed. “However, some of the ‘art’ wasn’t very surprising to some of us.”
“We stumbled upon a stuffed animal on a gray blanket and questioned if this was really impressive to some of the nearby people.”
To test out the theory that people will stare at, and try and artistically interpret, anything if it’s in a gallery setting, Khayatan set a pair of glasses down and walked away.
Do we dare suggest that a certain portion (perhaps a large portion?) of what some people think is art--is not?

Oh well, it is all going to burn, anyway. As the Apostle Peter said: "But the present heavens and earth by His word are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men." (2 Peter 3:7)
It is goofy, but, I don't think lowly of folks for trying to find meaning in symbolic stuff because lots of communication is done via that in history.


Heavens and earth has 2 separate meanings in the text.

Literal and Israel. Moses used that terminology to address Israel in his Deuteronomy 32 farewell speech to Israel.

Just saying, some interpret Peter's statement there as an apolcalyptic genre pronouncement of the 70 AD judgment on Israel. Not arguing, just pointing that out.

Check out Isaiah 24.

A lament of judgment and destruction "on the earth" because it's "goy" have broken the eternal covenant, then the passage moves into verses 13-16a as it switches to "goyim" worshipping the God of the Jews, then in 16b right back to judgment and destruction of "the earth" and ends with some eschatological lingo.

Who had and who violated the covenant? Goy everywhere else in the OT is "Jews" or "the people" and you have the Gentiles worshipping the God of the Jews while the literal earth is being destroyed IF that is interpreted literally.

Otherwise, that's a now obvious prediction of 70D and the regathering of the nations to Yahweh using metaphorical lingo.
I had a class, the Philosophy of Art, where "What is Art?" was dissected thoroughly. From my end perspective, art is objective - not subjective. Many people say that some ghastly thing is art because they "like" it. People may like bad art - but that does not make it good. There is a side library, off of the Stacks of the main UofM library called the Fine Arts Library. I used to spend a great deal of time there, studying. I remember reference to the formal change in the Jewish Faith that allowed Jews to deal in art. Previously, the field was considered dabbling in idolatry and was forbidden. Many Jews were buyers and sellers and entering into the new field of art was a huge change.

The problem was, that most art was already wrapped up by the existing collectors and dealers, and there wasn't enough art to support new dealers. The hundreds and thousands of new Jewish would-be art dealers caused a demand for quick art - which coincidentally was when all the new schools of Impressionism were born. Photography and silk-screening were also fairly new, and suddenly all these new businesses had art to sell. Marcel Duchamp did not need much time to find a urinal and turn it upside down and call it "The Fountain." Leonardo, Michelangelo, Raphael, Titian, and Caravaggio turned out art at a much slower pace. Suddenly, every clown with a paint brush or lump of clay was selling art and inventing new schools of art. I've never come across anything in the school of Dada that merited acclaim.

There were many great artists who dialed into the new schools of art, but a good portion of them were all in for making money rather than for the art. Picasso was a good pen and ink artist who could actually draw. His blue period showcases that aspect of his ability. Thereafter, he would partner up with whatever novice artist was espousing a new direction and was looking to make money. Picasso, being a better true artist than all these originalist creators, learned what the new guy was selling, learned his thing, and then eclipsed the "partner" leaving him behind as an unsuccessful artist. Picasso made millions off of art it took mere minutes to make. After his name became famous, he would draw little pictures on his checks whenever he bought something. The person who took the check would keep it, thinking the "Picasso" drawing on it was worth more than the check - so Pablo never had to cover any of his checks.

In general, there are many great artists who made their careers in schools of art that were marginal at best.

And there are also people who like strange things that they want to call art - because they think there is some mystery category that allows some art critic to decide what is art and what is not. I say call it art if you want - but also understand if it is art, then it is bad art and not worth much concern. These things may make money for some one, but as art - they're not worth much.
Thanks Bill--but I have to admit, that still does not make it clear to me what is art and what is not--or even if there really is such a thing. If you want to claim true art is that which is most realistic, then photographs would be true art. (Some photographers do have a good artistic sense--but that's another matter.)

One thing that gives me comfort despite the fact that the Bible clearly teaches that everything is going to burn--God maintains complete records of history, which provide the basis for the judging of the world and of angels which the Redeemed of all ages will be allowed to participate in.

The Apostle Paul said: "Do you not know that we shall judge angels? How much more, matters of this life?" (1 Cor. 6:3; NASB. Also see Rev. 20:4.) This judgement will take place during the thousand years after Jesus' Second Coming, while the saints are in Heaven, and awaiting their return with the New Jerusalem to earth at the end of the thousand years. While God is the final Judge, the purpose of this judgment is for the benefit of the faithful, to satisfy themselves that what God has determined is just, and that their loved ones who did not make it were fairly treated.

Anyway, while the Mona Lisa will cease to exist for all eternity, those who wish may review the historical record of time maintained by God, and see it whenever they want. In fact, God's historical records (maintained by the Holy Spirit) will include even the thoughts of the artist as he created his works of art.

Palladin, the book of Revelation makes it clear that the entire earth will be destroyed by fire. In fact, when the entire surface of the earth is turned into molten lava, that will be "the Lake of Fire," which is one step in the restoration of the original Edenic, Paradisical earth. (See Rev. 20:9-15.) All the works of men--including the radioactive nuclear warheads--will be entombed miles and miles deep in solid granite. The only safe sanctuary in the Lake of Fire will be the New Jerusalem, preserved like an Island amid the sea of flames. The Redeemed will get to watch a second Creation Week take place before their eyes. The wicked, unfortunately, are not in the only place of safety, and so they "get in the way" of the restoration of the planet.

Rev. 20:10 mentions that the wicked, including Satan and his fellow fallen angels "shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever." Comparison with similar expressions in the Bible does not mean they will suffer eternal torment. It means they will suffer to the uttermost, until they are burnt up. Note that Sodom and Gomorrah were said to be burnt by "eternal fire" (Jude 1:7), but it is not burning now. The prophecy was spoken to Lucifer (Satan) himself: "I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee....Never shalt thou be any more." (Ezekiel 28:18, 19) There will NOT be any little corner of the universe where suffering and torment and sinful blaspheming will continue forever. As Jesus declared to John, "There shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away. Then He who sat on the throne said, 'Behold, I make all things new.'" (Rev. 21:4, 5) The ultimate fate of all the wicked is that God will forget them, and so they will cease to exist. Then the universe will be entirely clean.
A friend of mine posted on Facebook a picture of her two little girls taken with her Android phone (working on a model volcano for a homeschool project with the Blue Water Bridge in the background), using an app that makes it look like a drawing. You could frame this and put it in an art gallery, and who would know it was not drawn by an artist?


It looks a little like a sort of posterization effect, when you click on it and examine it closely.
Of course, one can Photoshop anything with many different filters and enhance what is recorded with a regular lens. I see Photos that have been shot by masters like Ansel Adams and see more than I see from other shooters, so in that regard, his photos are good art, as compared to shots where the framing is poor with heads cut off, colors are muddy, and the focus and technical treatment terrible. What bothers me, are those things that are bad, but someone likes them anyway - and because they like it they proclaim it as subjectively being good. One can like bad art - but that doesn't make bad art good.

I like good art that doesn't need to be rationalized. Maybe it's related to my distaste for personal esteem participation awards given to teams and players that didn't put in the same effort or dedication as others, yet get the same acknowledgement.
Ansel Adams was a master artist with his camera. His name is forever linked with Yosemite Park.

I have an Ansel Adams print, he was an awesome camera artist. Mine is of the grand canyon.

Relating to the bible/earth/revelation discussion, taking those statements literally is one way of seeing them ,but, only one way. Lots of learned believers since Christ did not do so. Doesn't mean they were accurate or not, just saying.
Especially amazing is that Ansel Adam's photographs were black and white. I don't remember any color pictures that he took.

Palladin, the problem with taking the Creation accounts in Genesis 1-3 any way other than literal, is that there is nothing in the text that indicates it is not to be taken literally, and Jesus Himself clearly took it literally. See Mark 10:6, 19. John said of Jesus, "without Him nothing was made that was made" (John 1:3). So He would know the truth of Creation. Also the fourth commandment gives as the reason why the Sabbath is to be observed on the seventh day of the week: "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it." (Exodus 20:11) Since this was written by God Himself with His own finger, He would know the truth of Creation. So anyone who does not take the Creation account literally, is necessarily calling God a liar, directly.

The Bible is God's Word, and is the standard by which all our beliefs and behavior are judged. We do not have the authority to interpret God's Word however we want. We must follow the basic rules of honest Biblical scholarship: All Biblical terms and symbols are to be defined by the Bible itself; context must determine when anything (especially prophecies) are to be applied; and common sense literary analysis, taking into account how any given phrase or narrative is used or spoken of elsewhere in the Bible, are to indicate to us whether it is to be taken literally or figuratively.

If we do not take Genesis 1-3 literally, then we deny that we are a race of sinners whose first parents rebelled against God; and therefore we deny that we need a Savior. Thus we deny the Gospel itself.
(05-28-2016, 01:29 PM)Ron Lambert Wrote: The Bible is God's Word, and is the standard by which all our beliefs and behavior are judged. We do not have the authority to interpret God's Word however we want. We must follow the basic rules: All Biblical terms and symbols are to be defined by the Bible itself; context must determine when anything (especially prophecies) are to be applied; and common sense literary analysis, taking into account how any given phrase or narrative is used or spoken of elsewhere in the Bible, are to indicate to us whether it is to be taken literally or figuratively.

That is not entirely correct Ron.  The bible is "G-d's word", as written down by humans, the way they thought it should be stated.   And too, it was written by several different individuals, over time.  You are attempting to "have your cake, and eat it too."

If the Creator had written his word, he would have just make it easier and actually written it down for us, just as reported at "Belshazzar's feast".   Then there would be no question at to its real meaning.

And speaking of Art and Idiots, there is this:

[Image: tumblr_nwranw1aRt1uacv0ho1_1280.jpg]

(05-28-2016, 01:39 PM)John L Wrote: ...The bible is "G-d's word", as written down by humans, the way they thought it should be stated. And too, it was written by several different individuals, over time.  You are attempting to "have your cake, and eat it too."

From what I've read historically, five apostles wrote little about the Resurrection, the arguably most important episode in Christianity. All five who wrote about it recorded different narratives. None agreed at all. Makes one wonder how the new movie about it treats it, and from which viewpoint?
None of the Resurrection accounts agreed at all? That is an incredibly extreme assertion! They seem to me to agree entirely. (Some people fail to take into account that the ceremonial sabbath relating to Passover is involved, as well as the weekly Sabbath. Others forget that the Gospel writers selected certain events that they wished to relate, and were not concerned with giving a strictly chronological recitation of everything--including the fact that there were two groups of women who went to Jesus' tomb after His Resurrection.) Are you just going by the mistaken propaganda others have written, who were not sound Bible scholars, and did not make the diligent effort to understand what the text really says? Many times I have challenged people to cite specific examples of where they believe the Bible contradicts itself--and so far, no one has been willing to answer me. It seems like they just want to make this unsupported assertion, but run away when they are challenged to back it up.

Now, if God had dictated the Bible word for word, then some people would claim it is over our heads and unknowable. Instead God chose to inspire human writers, who wrote everything in human terms, using human language. So some people claim we cannot really know what is God's word. Come on! Let's try being fair. God does exist, and He does wish to communicate with us about the essential aspects of His interactions with humanity. How else could He do it than the way He has done? Of course, He could reveal all the truths of history by a dramatic display emblazoned on the heavens. But then He would be forcing us to believe, without giving us any choice. And as James 2:19 declares: "Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble." Direct knowledge of God was not enough to prevent Lucifer from becoming Satan. So just believing the truth is not enough to save anyone. But it helps those who want to know the truth. It provides the starting point for all other valid knowledge.

We do sometimes (SOMETIMES) have a problem where the translators themselves caused a problem by imposing their own prejudices on the text, and neglected the cultural context. Such as when Paul was counseling Timothy on how to deal with the cult of Artemis (Diana to the Romans) in Ephesus, and the translators come out with such nonsense as saying women are saved through childbearing (1 Tim. 2:15). That is a direct contradiction of Paul's whole Gospel message! Women are not saved by having babies! The real situation was that the cult of Artemis claimed that the goddess would keep a woman from dying during childbirth in an era when one out of five women died in childbirth. What Paul was actually saying is that it is Christ who has the power to keep a woman from dying during childbirth, so pray to Christ, not to Artemis. Of the more than a dozen translations I have on my computer, the only version that translates this correctly is The English Version (TEV) translation--and that only as a marginal alternate reading: "will be kept safe through childbirth." There are many similar issues with the translation of that whole section that many people seize upon to justify discrimination against women. I have had to go over this at length many times when dealing with some people in my own church (and in other denominations) who think it is Biblical to deny the ordination of women as deacons, elders and pastors. Despite the clear example of such women as Phoebe, and Junia. And despite the definitive theological statement by Paul in Galatians 3:28 that: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."

The prejudices of the translators did sometimes influence their translations. Most of the time, we can find the truth by comparing many different translations. Sometimes it helps to know a little Greek or Hebrew (or have access to scholarly writings concerning these), and have an awareness of the historical context.
"Different narratives" is pretty explicit. Of all the Apostles only five wrote about it. Evidently they all had differing recollections of where it occurred, who was there, and when it happened. One historian, Robert B. Vande Kappelle, in his book, Truth Revealed, The Message of the Gospel of John Revealed Then and Now. itemized each account, but was very positive of how they all were acceptable, even though there was no historic agreement.

I was dealing with the Revelation specifically.

Genesis' cosmology I don't think can be taken literally because we have too much pagan literature that preceded Genesis and it has some of the same material in it. That demands the reader reconsider the literal view(unless you think God gave pagan authors the same data) and if you read "The Lost World of Genesis" by John Walton, you will discover the verb "to create" in ancient Hebrew probably did not mean what we mean by the verb.

To them, create meant closer to "make functional" than create out of nothing.


Not sure what data Vande Kappelle has, but, to my knowledge, only 1 apostle wrote of Christ's resurrection, Paul.

Matthew, Mark, Luke and John probably weren't apostles. Tradition has John as the Apostle, but, recent scholarship indicates he was probably the John introduced to Jesus at Baptist's camp meetings.

There is a fascinating book on this John, "Jesus and the eyewitnesses" by Richard Bauckham.
The Genesis narrative is clear that something was there already--the Spirit was hovering over the waters--when creation on earth began. My belief is that Genesis 1-2 relate the creation of life on earth.

As for Matthew, Mark, and John not being apostles, that is just silly. Luke we know came along later, and was a careful journalist, who interviewed principal people like Mary. The gospels mention each other (except for Luke), and even describe how and when Jesus called each one of them. Unless you want to give credence to unbelievers who try to insinuate that somebody else wrote their gospels and just attributed them to the apostles.

Paul was not even in Israel when Jesus was Resurrected. The Gospel writers (except for Luke) were, and they each mentioned it, giving selected aspects of it, depending upon their emphasis. Luke wrote as a careful historian, interviewing people. What Paul knew about it he learned by prophetic revelation (as indicated by 1 Cor. 11:23).

Matt. 28:1-7 relates women coming to the tomb on Sunday morning, and mentions the angel of God who came and struck the Roman guards with unconsciousness (this is not in sequence, note--this happened before the women came).

Luke 24:1-11 give a parallel account--but by this time, all the Roman guards had already aroused and fled, knowing they had failed in their duty, and rushing to report to those who had sent them.

Likewise John 20:1-10, where Mary Magdalene comes to the tomb, and she came to the apostles to tell them, and Peter went to see for himself, the account is parallel, even though not all the same events and people are mentioned in strict sequence.

The book of Mark, which was probably written first, gives the parallel account in Mark 16:1-11.

I really don't know where you come up with all your assertions, Palladin. I think you are giving false credence to some recent scholars who are not sound, and just trying to make a name for themselves by saying things that are controversial, deliberately contradicting the conclusions of established scholarship, just to be different.

As for the other creation accounts in pagan literature, the Genesis narrative does NOT borrow from them word for word--they are not even in the same language; and how do you know the pagan accounts came before Moses wrote Genesis? Scholars who claim this are notorious for getting their chronology wrong, as has been proven repeatedly. How do you know the pagan accounts were not derived from the same knowledge of creation, preserved by word-of-mouth when people had better memories and writing had not been necessary? It is apparent that Moses combined two creation accounts from earlier sources--based on word-of-mouth that were known to him. Under inspiration of God, he included only those things that were true and accurate.

God said in the fourth commandment that He created the earth in six days and rested on the seventh. That should be the final answer. God is not a fallible human scholar. He was there. He knows the truth, and stated it in writing with His own finger on tables of stone. Throughout the Bible the creation account is taken literally. And theologically, if the creation account is not literal, then mankind has no need of a Savior, and the Gospel of Salvation in Christ is overthrown. Paul said Christ saved us by being the Second Adam. "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive." (1 Cor. 15:22; NKJV) See also verse 45.
Here's the way I look at all this Ron.  I'm a historian of sorts, having majored in history.  Plus, I am an anthropologist, who looks at humans as a complex work in progress.  This requires a great deal of overall pragmatism, and high skepticism of dogma.  

Christian Fundies are highly dogmatic, and there is a reason for all this.  It adds structure to their fragmented life, and doesn't require any form of skepticism whatsoever.  After all, it is so written, and the Creator handed it all down to his willing mouthpieces.  And it is now The Law, right?

But this is totally illogical, in that the entire universe is one huge equation in logic.  I keep harping on, on a continual basis, about the "Golden Ratio" concerning beauty.   Its universal, yet irregular.  This could never have been a "Shit just happens" sort of thing, pardon my Anglo-Saxon usage.  Its one of the basic laws of the universe, and humans are not the only ones recognizing this.   Even mammals and birds recognize this.

But you folks are going about all of this completely "bass-ackwards", and you are doing so because it requires little brain friction whatsoever.  All that is required is "Rote" memory.  That's all.  

There is far more to all this than just what is written down, and translated from an earlier translation, which was translated from an even earlier translation, which was translated from........................................  

I know you aren't going to 'get it' because you don't want to, and it is just too much trouble.  Everything has to be neatly tucked into one pile and never any mental questioning.  "See, its all written right here."  But the truth is that this is all just too complicated for a simple explanation, that is never allowed to be intellectually questioned.  

I don't look at you guys as Patrick does.  You're not my intellectual enemy.  You're just "Stuck on stupid Dogma", that's all.   Open your mind.  Not only is it enlightening, bit also highly stimulating.  Think outside the box.  You don't have to quote this dead person, or that other one.  They're only human after all.  And the Creator has already written things down, with certain fundamental laws of the Universe.  They apply on this planet, and every planet out there in the galaxy, and beyond.  Its not up to some.....person who thought he had all the right answer to everything.  No need to keep quoting scripture as though it was written in stone.

Try to think "holistically".


I tend to agree with you on the "logic" of the fundy. They must have an answer for all things and questions are "bad", when my view is the questions I have had( mainly forced on me by atheist friends) have led to a way higher spiritual plane than I lived in years ago.


The ancient near eastern cosmology of the pagans and the Jews was identical. The difference in their myths and Genesis 1-3 is Adam, there is no antecedent for Adam in pagan literature.

Here is an idea of what all ANE people thought, including the author of Genesis:

Concerning apostles and the 4 Gospels, John Mark was not an apostle. He was close friends with Peter and Barnabus, but, not among the 12 and I am talking about the 12. Have you read the 12's names? Mark ain't there and neither was Luke. Luke was a Gentile, so he could not have been among the 12.

Tradition has Matthew as the author of Matthew, but, most researchers think the Matthew author was another man, I wouldn't argue for or against that though. I haven't read the logic there, I have on John.

John is definitely not John of Zebedee and this is easily proven. Jesus repeated a Zechariah prophecy to the 12 right before His arrest, "strike the shepherd and the sheep will flee".

Take note that the author of John did not flee. Jesus talked with him while He was hanging on the cross. The Apostle John had fled earlier like the rest of the 12 did. This John was known by a man named Papias, the earliest non apostolic witness and he was not the apostle, he was a retired high priest apparently according to Papias.

There's other evidence this John is not of Zebedee in the book I referenced.

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)