Name Dropping

Sorry that I have not had a chance to post much this week. I'm in the middle of Finals, so I'm working to help all of the students finish up with the semester. Here was another student question - one that I'll probably have to revisit soon.

As you were saying before there has been art that was credited to being Rembrandt but then when the commission was created and they found it not to be Rembrandt's painting but one of his students the value dropped dramatically. Why do you think in this instance that the name alone dropped the value of the art as well as the opinion of it. Like you said it the lecture it was considered a masterpiece. Also why is a lot of art judged by its creator not its content or message.

A difficult question. First off, I would point out that all disciplines deal with celebrity. Many of the musicians that are popular became so because of personality, controversy, or other factors outside of their talent.

Sometimes there are good reasons to celebrate an individual over others even if their contributions are only part of a larger whole. Some of Newtonian physics was overturned by Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, but we still celebrate Newton because he lead the way as far as establishing our understanding of physics. And we celebrate Einstein because his theories reveal the answers to many of the mysteries that had surrounded our understanding of the universe. But there were plenty of other scientists and philosophers whose work built upon the concepts of Newton and Einstein. Unfortunately, most of their names are not well know, even though their work was just as essential as the more famous scientists.

Darwin, for example, did not know 99% of what we now know about evolution (he had no knowledge of genetics, for example), but we still celebrate him because he was an innovator. Natural Selection would have been discovered without him (Wallace made the same hypothesis in complete ignorance of Darwin's work), but Darwin was first (and most articulate) and became famous for it.

Our Rembrandt example seems to fit into this same category. If the painting is by Drost, then it is a fine painting - but it should be remembered that the technique was originated by Rembrandt.

It is important to remember that the value of art is established by our perception of it. And our perceptions can be quite flawed. Generally speaking the only true test of art is the test of time. History has shown Rembrandt to be significant, therefore anything associated with him is significant. History has NOT shown Drost to be particularly significant, and therefore his work (regardless of their own merits) has not received the same appreciation.

200 years from now that may all change - and professors will ignore the Beatles in order to focus more on the Monkees.

What can you do?

Another Drawing from the Superhero Series

Superhero Mundane - M

Student Question - Emerging Artist

If there is a new emerging artist, or someone that wants to become an artist, how do they get people to see their work? I know people have their art in galleries and museums, but how do they get them there? Is it up to the individual owner of the gallery?

This is always the big challenge - how do you get started.

There is really no one way to do this - or at least there is no one way that works for everyone. Galleries and museums work in different ways. The function of a museum is to collect and display those works that have proven to have some significance. So museums are less likely to take a chance on any unknown artist.

Galleries are the way to go if you are looking to start selling your work. But this can be very difficult. Remember that most major galleries are businesses and are concerned with making a profit. Therefore they tend to focus on artworks that they know will sell to their patrons. Non-profit galleries are more accepting of new artists, but may not command the respect and prices of the bigger galleries.

So what can you do? I'd recommend trying something like this.

Start off by entering into juried shows. Galleries and schools will often have juried exhibitions where artists can send in some examples of their work in the hopes of being accepted and displayed. This kind of thing is a good resume builder and can also be profitable (the piece could be sold or win a prize for example). The only real problem with juried exhibitions is that you do have to spend money on the entry fee and the shipping. I recommend making 5 or 6 individual smaller works (paintings or prints in particular) and try to enter those into juried exhibitions.

While you work on that, start producing a series (works that use the same materials, style, and theme) and start applying to galleries. Most galleries have a website where they have their submission guidelines - so look those over. Also, be sure to look at the type of artwork that each gallery has on display. Try to find one that displays work similar to yours.

A good time to investigate galleries is the summer. With many of their patrons away for vacation, many galleries will forgo major exhibitions and instead focus on displaying the work that they already own from their stable of artists. You can get a good sense of what they are all about by observing the works in these exhibitions.

Be prepared for a lot of rejection - it is just part of the job. Research and preparation are vital.

If all else fails - Have someone famous buy one of your works and have them donate it to a major museum.

Another Student Question ...

Who determines what is considered art and just because a painting or sculpture does not become famous, it is still considered a great piece of art? Do you think it is necessary for someone to have to attend college to become an artist or are some people just born with that creative talent?

Obviously, if I could answer these questions with any authority I would make a lot more money than I do now.

You can ask similar questions about any creative medium - what makes a great actor? What makes an important novel?

There are a lot of books and papers on this topic - I encourage you to go to the library and do some research. If nothing else it makes for interesting dinner conversation.

As I usually discuss in my first Art Appreciation lectures - there is really nothing concrete that separates art from non-art or good art from bad art. In earlier periods there was more of a clear demarcation, but in our time things have become more ambiguous.

It seems that the only true test of art is the test of time. Many of the art pieces that were considered significant in their own period are no longer of much interest to us. Whereas, some artist who were once ignored are now synonymous with great art.

This does not mean that we cannot place some kind of judgment to contemporary works - I'd doubt that anyone would claim that "Dude, Where's My Car" is a greater movie than "Schindler's List". But we have to be careful to recognize that we might be inflating the importance of something because we are not being objective.

Prime example - I'm sure that everyone remembers their first breakup. At the time, it may have been horrible, but soon you learned that such things were not that big of a deal.

And no, there is no absolute necessity of attending college to become an artist. It really depends upon the path you wish to take. Let me explain this through a lame analogy - Star Wars!

Han and Luke are both heroes of the Rebellion. We could argue for forever about which one was more instrumental in bringing down the Empire, right? But both of these characters had to take different journeys to achieve their goals.

In order for Luke to conquer his challenges he needed to have intensive training and personal introspection. Han did not need any of that - he just relied on his ingenuity and survival instinct. Against someone like Vader, Han would not have lasted a minute. Fortunately, he did not have to - that was Luke's battle.

In many ways Han, Leia, and Lando were the ones who actually defeated the Empire – Luke’s struggle was really for the “soul” of the galaxy, if you can forgive the awful analogy. You see where I am going with this? Each individual has to create their own destiny.

For me the path was through the academic world– which is why I’ve always identified with Luke. In order to defeat the challenges that I would face, I sought knowledge and awareness that went beyond the needs of most. That was just the destiny that I created for myself. But that in no way means that it was superior or more significant than any other path.

And as far as talent – well let’s just say that I spent a lot (a LOT) of time and effort to obtain that talent. So that is why I often get annoyed when someone compliments my "gift" - it has been a costly gift, let me tell you!

The Beast Went Down to Georgia

I loved this little bit of news from the capitol of our fair state. A few red states live in fear of these implanted microchips, some even seriously debating whether they might be implanting the mark of the Beast. I wonder - if one delusional paranoid meets an alternatively delusional paranoid, do they cancel each other out?

Would You Consider This Art? - Part II

I watch a lot of cooking shows with my husband because he is actually the cook in the house. I always here him saying that cooking is an art. What is your opinion on this? When I see the dishes that my husband prepares, I do believe he has a gift at it but is it considered an art?

When someone says that "blank" is an art - I always take that to mean that the process is more intuitive than mechanical. I've even heard people refer to higher math and theoretical psychics as art-forms. I see the saying as making a reference to a more shoot-from-the-hip type of experience.

We have all probably had intuitive versus mechanical experiences in cooking. I often make dinner for my wife when she is at work as she gets home quite late. She usually picks out the recipes and buys all of the ingredients. In those instances I follow the recipe exactly - measuring everything and using a timer. That is mechanical - the food still tastes great , but there is no art to it.

When I grill, however, I do tend to bring my own individual aesthetics into the process. So I often refer to the "art" of grilling a hamburger.

So in that sense, yes there is an art to cooking. If you mean "Is a well-cooked meal the same as a work of art in the Metropolitan" - now we are in difficult territory. If pressed, I would say no - only because we tend to think of "art" as a non-functional thing. There is a constraint placed on food in that it needs to be edible.

I can see how food (and cooking) could be used in the production of "art", but then I would ask - Does the art designation come from the actually cooking process or from the conceptual aspects of the piece.

Sure, but is there a difference between creativity and art? I believe that there is.

In the past, the line of demarcation was much more clear. There were certain forms that were recognized as art and other forms that were seen as something else. However, much of 20th century art was about questioning this demarcation. So now we are left with the question - where does the separation lie? It is not an easy answer.

Again, I would reiterate - "art" is not necessarily skilled or unique or pleasant. "Art" may be something that I hate or something that has no impact on me whatsoever.

I thought about that this weekend when I was at an Academy Awards Night party. These awards celebrate great achievements in cinema - the films are held up as "the best of the year". But I kept thinking - "Yes, but are these films really art? Are they really that experimental? Do they alter our perception of film? Of the human experience? Or does that even matter?"

If you get the chance, do some research on art vs. non-art. There are a number of arguments out there.

Here is an interesting site:

http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/irvinem/visualarts/Art-Non-Art.html

On this subject, I'll give you a personal anecdote:

Chip Kidd published a book on Batman memorabilia. In one section he shows a painting by Andy Warhol of the Batman logo. He states that out of all of the objects in that book, the Warhol is the only one that would be considered "art". He also points out that it would be great to own that painting because you could then sell it and use the money to buy all of the other Batman stuff that you REALLY want.

I agree with him completely.

Would You Consider This Art? - Part 1

Would you consider a Tattoo Artist, an artist? Also, do you find Tattoo's a new form of art?

Also noted: I know that tattoo's have been around for almost 1000+ years -- I just want to know, with it's growing popularity -- would you consider it to have it's own category?

A tough question - first off I would state that I am in no way an authority on things like this. So I'll give you my thoughts, but I do not presume that my opinion on this subject is worth more than anyone else's (but don't get too comfortable with that, as I do presume that I'm right on most other subjects. Kidding. Sorta).

The question really is about how we define art - Is it craft? Philosophy? Is the role that it plays for us the same role that it played in previous generations?

I would point out that in the medieval and early Renaissance periods, painting and sculpture were seen as craft – creative forms that were inferior to music and poetry. The artists of the Renaissance (most notably Leonardo and Michelangelo) worked hard to change that attitude. For them, skill and elegance were enough to prove their media’s significance.

Things are a bit more vague with us. We are surrounded by so much visual stimulus that it becomes difficult to separate art for non-art. This is made all the more difficult by the fact that some artists (Warhol, Johns, etc.) use what many would consider to be non-art in the production of works that most would consider to be art. The whole point was to confuse the separation between the two.

Generally, one of the differences between art and illustration is that illustration tends to be more straightforward – obviously because the viewer is SUPPOSED to get the point the image. Art (at least in our age) tends to be more ambiguous. This is why I don't consider someone like Thomas Kinkade to be an “artist”. It has nothing to do with his execution – which is skilled in its own way. There is just no mystery – no challenge to the mind.

I suppose that there is an analogy between this and music. The kids on American Idol sing well enough, I suppose - and the whole thing is quite popular (I've never seen the show, so I only know what I see on commercials and from media reports). But is that art? Are they examining our concepts of music? Are they advancing our knowledge of the human experience?

Art is separate from our likes and dislikes. There are many things that I hate but consider to be art. Likewise, there are many things that I love, that mean something to me, but I don’t believe them to be art.

But to your question on tattoos – I don't see why tattoos could not be art, but I have not encountered anything that makes me think that they are. I suppose that I have a similar reaction to fashion. These things are immensely important to some people, but have made only a cursory impact on the art-world-at-large.

That said, I do feel that things are changing. Many young artists, today, are more influenced by tattoos and skateboard designs than they are by the established art canon. I could imagine someone staging some kind of installation art piece that involves multiple tattooed bodies. In fact, I would not be surprised to hear that several artists have already done something like this. My question would be then – are the tattoos the art or is it about the installation.

If I were in that conversation with your coworker, I would ask them to explain what they consider to be art. Then you can use their definition to support your own argument.

But as I said – I am not the best person to ask on this question. I've always felt that an artist’s work should be much more interesting than they are. Body art just attracts too much attention, so I've avoided it.

Do you remember that episode of Seinfeld where Jerry went with George to the glasses store? When George asked him what he thought, Jerry (looking at all of the advertisements with people wearing glasses) replied, “I think that all of these women would be pretty good-looking if they weren't wearing glasses”.

That pretty much sums up my response when I see a tattoo magazine – “I bet all of these women would be pretty good-looking if it wasn't for all of those tattoos”.

From a Halloween Exhibition

The Headless Horseman

A Bacchus Figure from my First One-man Show

Bacchus 2004

Another Student Question

I must admit that I have never considered myself to be the creative type, I would rather solve a math problem than try to interpret what someone was thinking while they were painting or sculpting their masterpiece. However, I do enjoy a beautiful painting, sculpture, building, etc. simply because it looks appealing to me or causes me to feel good. It just seems to take the enjoyment out of the art when I am trying to figure out what the artist meant. Only the artist will ever really know that answer! My question to you is do the artists themselves ever leave a detailed explanation of their own works to be displayed with the artwork to ensure it is properly interpreted? If I were an artist (no talent here) I would be offended if people misinterpreted my work.

In contemporary art, we do often know a great deal about the artist's intentions. Most exhibitions will feature artist statements and biographies to help keep viewers informed. As with most things these days we have an unprecedented amount of information about every step of the artist's progress - evident to anyone who has ever watched the extra material on a DVD.

For works from the past, obviously the information can be much more limited. On occasion we do have letters, diaries, and notebooks to help guide us, but much interpretation does come from conjecture. Still, you can infer a lot from a little inductive reasoning.

For many artists, misinterpretation can be a problem. But most recognize that once they have put a work up for display, it becomes a part of the public consciousness. Therefore, it becomes a candidate for interpretation and criticism.

You can see this with film a great deal. Have you ever heard someone argue the political implications of a popular film - even when you know that the actual story makes no direct reference to such beliefs. This is just part of the viewer's relationship with the creative work, and an artist just has to be willing to accept that. The artist can state that they never intended for any particular meaning, but that does not mean that the viewer's interpretation is without validity. Everyone just has to argue it out.

The enjoyment of something can happen on many levels. For many, math is just the use of numbers and equations to solve some problems. Those that are more informed recognize math as the language of the universe - a way in which the mysteries of existence can be decoded. In fields like theoretical physics, the wielding of mathematics becomes like an art form - much of it is intuitive and hypothetical. Once the the physicist has an idea, then the work begins to bring that idea into concrete form - crunch the numbers, so to speak. If the computations support the idea then that hypothesis is true - the universe works logically so anything stands up to logical tests is seen as an explanatory theory. A deeper understanding of the universe has been achieved - at least to those who understand it.

Creative works operate in a similar manner. You can appreciate something on the base level, or search for a deeper connection.

I give you two personal examples of this. Growing up I was fairly ignorant of science (outside of dinosaurs), and had little knowledge of the complexity of things. As I journeyed through college and grad school, I learned more and more about the universe and its history. The staggeringly epic story of the cosmos, and of life here on this planet, is so profound that it makes most mythologies and fictional stories seem mundane in comparison.

Second example - much more down to earth - I've always been a Batman fan. This goes back to infancy for me. I have dozens of toys and thousands of comic books. So you can imagine that I have enjoyed the last couple of Batman films that have come out.

When watching those films, I have an emotional connection to the characters and story that most of my friends do not. So while many of them enjoyed the films, the impact on me was all the greater.

I believe that this is why learning about a topic in depth (whether it be biology, art, or wine appreciation) is useful. It enriches the experience.

A Question from a Student.

To be considered an artist does every piece of work have to contain some deep alter meaning, or could you not just to paint, draw or create just for the love of it, and by the way you feel. Also is it possible that some of the great artist did just this and had no other meaning behind their work?

Absolutely - there is really no prerequisite that art have some great, hidden meaning. One of my personal favorite painters is John Singer Sergeant - who was primarily a portraitist and a watercolorist. His work (while uniquely stylized to some extant) was mostly a skilled, painterly rendition of optical reality.

It is important to remember our place in art history - We live in a period that follows a great deal of radical shake-ups of art theory. For much of the past art served very specific functions - recording of history, decorating great architecture, illustrating a story, creating a tangible connection to "spiritual" forms, etc. By the time that we get to the modern age, much of the functions of art were no longer necessary. The recording of events or people could be done with a camera, for example.

Artists were now free to question long held beliefs about the arts and their functions. The importance of technical skill began to be replaced with a focus on philosophy and deeper meaning, which is why this has been the main focus of art criticism over the past several decades.

But this in no way means that all artists must work in this manner. In fact, a quick glance through most galleries would show that many artists today still focus primarily on creating beautiful imagery within their own styles - without expressing any deeper psychological or philosophical agenda.

But it is a little more complex than all that. Remember that art is reliant on our perception of it to give it any significance. Much of the deeper context that we identify in art comes from our own interpretation of it.

The making of art and viewing of art are both complicated processes. Imagine that you are looking at a painting - to you it seems compact and fully realized - but remember that artwork evolved over an extended period. The artist may have had a final goal in mind, but she had to work a process in order for that image to become realized. Different thoughts went through her head - different songs played on the radio. The final piece is more than just the sum of its parts, if you will.

Also you have take into account what you , as the viewer bring to the experience.

Let us imagine that a group of us went to view a painting by Raphael that depicts the resurrection of Jesus. If some of the group happen to be religious they might focus on the image as a manifestation of their personal belief system - the subject might have a deep and profound meaning to them. Whereas others, who have no personal connection to the subject depicted, would focus more on the elegance of skill and the historical importance of the piece.

The painting itself has not changed (beyond the molecular level), and one could argue that Raphael had intended for the religious interpretation to take precedence over style - but that does not negate the validity of the other interpretation.

Please note that I am not saying that ALL interpretations are equally valid as some people can really go off the deep end. However, the one thing that seems to separate "art" from "illustration" is that there is a complexity, an ambiguity to art that encourages a little intellectual and emotional give-and-take with a viewer. As you grow in knowledge and experience, you find that good art will take on different forms of significance.

And that is why it is so much fun.

Because I've Been Playing Arkham Asylum All Week...

This week's drawing is an attempt to do my own version of Batman. I know that the whole steam-punk thing is bit common now-a-days, but I've just never been able to get this concept out of my head.

Besides, I've always felt that the Batman character works better in an earlier time period. I've always wanted to do a series set around the 1920's or 1930's, where I could bring in Prohibition/Great Depression-era politics and corruption.

I hope to continue with a series of drawings like this, perhaps exploring the design of other characters. Just seems like fun.

Wy do Some Unbelieving Priests Stay in the Church?

This paper by Daniel Dennett deals with an issue that I've long wondered about. Educated priests and ministers have been instructed in the historical inaccuracies and logical fallacies of their religion, yet they do not share this knowledge with their congregations. I've often wondered, first, how they can reconcile their own faith with their knowledge of reality. And, second, why do they so often perpetuate falsehoods to their followers?

It was my study of the bible and the history of religion that directed me to becoming an atheist. I had intended to become deeply knowledgeable about Christianity in order to defend it against skeptics, but ended up becoming a skeptic myself.

I've often wondered why I came to these conclusions, while other educated people did not. Was I missing something? Could they see something that I did not?

Obviously I could be in the wrong, but at this point in my life, I still don't think that I am. The more I talk to theists (of all degrees and types), the more I'm convinced that they are just not assimilating reality. Many, like some of the priests mentioned in the paper, see through the facades, but just don't want to take that last step into unknown territory. They think that there is some good that can come out of faith. For other people, particularly in South, church is such a part of their culture that denying faith would be like denying one's ancestry. So they go through the motions, maintaining some belief, perhaps, or just trying to not think about it.

Anyway, I found Dennet's paper to be very enlightening, and I hope that more people read it.

___________________________________________________

If you enjoy going down the rabbit hole of self-delusion and ignorance, read the comments on the article.

Probably the Most Awesome Thing That You Will See This Week!

from http://tomztoyz.blogspot.com/

One of My Teachers.

Steven Assael is the artist that I studied from the most in New York. I have not yet had a chance to implement all that I learned from him into my own paintings, but I'm working on it.

Here is his website, and here are a couple of videos about his painting.

Out of Shape Superheroes ...

I was sick this weekend, so my weekly drawing is a bit delayed. Here are a couple of old Superhero Mundane pics. In real life, these are about 4 feet high.

Vir Herocius Subliminus

Avant-Garde

And There You Go ...

Ugh. Why am I not surprised? I've already covered this issue here and here.

Sketch of the Week

Small Demonstration Portrait - Oil Paint

Some Favorites of Mine

If any of you are interested, here are a couple of sites that I greatly enjoy:

The HP Lovecraft Literary Podcast

This podcast is great fun. The two hosts examine each of Lovecraft's stories in the order in which they were written. I particularly enjoy the asides that Chris and Chad indulge in, as they help to flesh out the material quite a bit. Not for everyone, I suppose, but the geek in me loves it.

Is This Tomorrow?

A terrific online comic series with great art and clever writing. Always a great read. Here is a particular favorite of mine.

Enjoy!

Who is Smarter?

An old picture that has little to do with the topic, but kind of captures my mood today.

Sorry. No drawing for this week as I’ve been too busy taking care of my dog. But I did want to put something out there as food for thought:

Many of you have probably become aware of this study that has been making the rounds on the Internet. As much as I would love to agree with its conclusions, I’m glad to see that most people are rightly deriding as being rather silly. Gloating about this type of nonsense does no one any good, and just serves to close off discussion.

The easy response to any political or philosophical opposition is to simply call it ignorant or stupid. We all have this response in our weak moments, though, I think, most of us realize it fallibility. I, unfortunately, fall back to this response too often.

But really, the issue at hand is generally not lack of intelligence, but rather a flaw in methodology. In any controversial topic, you can often find both sides of the argument are using sound logic but still coming to radically different conclusions. Most likely this stems from one side beginning with a faulty premise.

What I mean is – stupid people can’t create the incredible logical twists it takes for them to deny reality so effectively. If you want an example of this, look at conspiracy theory forums. Or better yet, visit a fundamentalist Christian forum where people are arguing about End-of-Time prophecies. You will never see a greater display of mind-bending nonsense in your life.

Anyway, that is a discussion for another time. Really, I just wanted to address a few issues that seem to come up in the discussions surrounding the study.

Claim: Atheism is Not Rational

One thing that I saw over and over was people (conservative and liberal) characterizing atheists as being frightened, angry, or ignorant. All of these are fairly common derisions. Ray Comfort makes statements like this all the time. It’s inconceivable to him that someone could come to the conclusion that there is probably no god. Therefore, to his mind, atheists are not thinking rationally, but are denying the existence of God because they are angry – or some other emotional response. This is the kind of response that atheists tend to get from the fundamentalists.

On the other hand, more liberal theists and agnostics tend to characterize atheists as being just as ignorant or fundamentalist as the Pat Robertsons of the world. To their minds, the rational response is one that is less definitive in tone.

This criticism is bound to have a greater impact on someone like me. I recognize that the first thing that any intellectual should do is question their own thoughts and beliefs. I’m sure that all of you have had moments where you think that, with so many people believing the opposite of your views, the faulty reasoning must lie with you. But then, that is the beauty of logic – it’s not a popularity contest.

So, to me, this criticism does not hold much water. First off, I’ve never really met an intelligent person that I would characterize as a strong atheist – a “There definitely is no God!” kind of person. Most have been like myself – the “There probably is no God” kind. The idea is that any concept of god should start of as a null hypothesis. I suppose that this is semantics, but as every academic knows, you have to be sure that you agree on a definition before you can proceed.

I might as easily characterize myself as an a-leprechaunist. I cannot state definitively that there are no leprechauns anywhere in the universe, but that is not the point. The default setting should be “there are probably no leprechauns”. There are a number of reasons why we can make a statement like this – no leprechauns have ever been found, there is no current theory that could scientifically account for the evolution of such a creature, the cultural history of leprechauns as a folk-lore character is decently understood, etc. Now, by themselves, none of these reasons are sufficient proof for the non-existence of leprechauns (it is difficult to prove a negative, after all), but they suggest that it would be unreasonable to move away from the null hypothesis.

This is similar to how I relate to the concept of all supernatural entities, gods in particular.

And this is why I generally don’t like to characterize myself as an agnostic, or see that belief as being more rational than atheism. It is all about the default setting.

Claim: Skeptic are Close-minded

One consistent criticism of skeptics is that they are close-minded, unable to conceive of something beyond their limited experiences. But, again, I see this as a miss-characterization. Rationally-minded people follow the evidence as far as it goes. People who remain skeptical despite over-whelming evidence are deniers, and have moved away from science and reason. At the same time, when the evidence is stacked overwhelmingly against something, then to not be skeptical would be irrational.

People like Bill Maher sometimes strike me as being more contrarian than skeptical, following his ideology more often than his reason. He would see his beliefs as breaking from conventional wisdom and therefore more progressive and innovative. Most of the time he would be correct, of course. However, there are times when the consensus of experts is the most plausible answer. Maher remembers this when he dismisses the 9-11 truthers, but he forgets it when he discusses science-based medicine.

So who are the open-minded people and who are the close-minded? Am I being close-minded because I accept that the Holocaust happened and that people landed on the moon? These seem to be the most plausible conclusions based upon the evidence at hand. I would characterize the moon-hoax and Holocaust-denial people as the closed-minded ones. They anomaly-hunt – dismissing the mountains of evidence that conflicts with their views in order to focus on minute discrepancies or gaps in knowledge. This is the same thing that the Intelligent-Design people do. They do not really have a competent, testable theory of their own, so they focus on demonstrating perceived “flaws” in Theory of Natural Selection.

So, let’s say that I’m not close-minded in those instances, but am I then close-minded when I accept the scientific consensus for climate-change or for the efficacy of vaccines? Or when I remain skeptical of homeopathy and psychics? What about when I conclude that Loose Change and Zeitgeist are full of misinformation, wild speculations, and logical fallacies?

I’ve heard people state that it would be ludicrous to deny climate-change because the scientific evidence supporting it is overwhelming, and then (often in the same breath), state that Western science is too limited and close-minded to accurately study acupuncture.

Where does the difference lie? Are the Truthers and the Birthers really any different in their methodology?

When Jenny McCarthy is on Larry King claiming that doctors and researchers are under the control of Big Pharma, who is really being close-minded?

Conclusion

This argument about which position, in controversial topics, is the more intelligent one is really not productive. We should be more focused on the methodology. Which side is trying to eliminate bias and follow the evidence? Which side is really beginning with the most plausible premise?

If we can do that, then, perhaps, we can stop calling each other stupid and go back to calling each other “crazy” like we should have all along.

"Is This Art?"

I have not had a chance to read this post on Rationally Speaking yet, but this is a topic that I want to address in more detail later. Take a read if you get the chance.

Some Demonstration Pieces from Last Weeks Class

Planar Analysis

Planar Analysis of the Head

Shadow Shape

"You Do Know That the Flintstones was Only Partially Based on Fact, Don't You?" - Stephen Merchant

There are elected officials who think that this actually happened.

I got the idea for this drawing from reading the Conservapedia page on dinosaurs. For those of you that don’t know, Conservapedia is exactly what you think it is, namely, an online encyclopedia for people who find the entries on Wikipedia to be too liberal.

In future posts I’ll be taking a look at my favorite aspect of this site, the Conservative Bible Project. So, you know ... look forward to that.

For now I wanted to briefly examine this whole issue of dinosaurs.

Obviously, old-earth creationists don’t have any problems with dinosaurs because their view allows for an accurate geological and evolutionary timeline. However, the young-earth creationists have a real problem in that, if there view is true, dinosaurs and man had to coexist. Dinosaurs would have had to be created within the same week as humans, after all.

Now, one would think that something like Tyrannosaurus would bear a mention in the creation story, or perhaps in some historical writing. It probably would have stood out when Adam was naming all the animals.

Original name: Holy $#@!

Certainly, the creationists have a response to this, but I find it hollow. I’ll let you read over the arguments put that they put forward as I think that these speak for themselves (Just for added fun, look over one of my favorite Chick tracts). You could go to talkorigins if you want to refute certain claims.

Is this proof that man and dinosaurs coexisted? No ... No it is not.

The thing that really interests me about all of this is the length to which people will go to make something fit into their belief system. Obviously, dinosaurs were not be written about in creation stories because ancient people did not know of their existence. End of story.

But no, if you believe that the biblical story of creation is truth, then you have to find some explanation for any discrepancy. You’ll search for any anomaly or ambiguous term that might fit and create a whole fantasy around it, regardless of any original intention.

As a comic book guy, I’m used to this. We do this kind of rationalization all the time. Hell, Marvel comics even had a regular fake prize, called a No-prize, for readers who could explain away continuity errors. I can’t tell you how much time I spent trying to figure out a way to justify Batman’s use of guns in his first appearances, when one of the defining aspects of his character was his hatred of guns.

Reality, of course, was that there was no continuity. Batman is a character that has been drawn and written by scores of creative people over seven decades. You can’t really reconcile every error or change to make a coherent whole. It’s just a fun mental exercise.

Of course, when explaining away why Spiderman’s costume had a color change, the best that I could hope for was a mention in the letters column. When you do the same rationalization with religion, it is called apologetics and you can earn a degree.

Just Another Old Drawing

The Tenebrist from Superhero Mundane

Sketch of the Day

How Christian Were the Founders? - Part the First

Russell Shorto had an article in the New York Times Magazine last week that has been the topic of conversation for my friends and I this last week. It covered the efforts of certain conservative members of the Texas state board of education to propose changes to the social-studies curriculum guidelines. I encourage everyone to read it because this has been a story that I have been following for a while.

For those who are not aware, the Texas state board of education looks into revising one curriculum subject every year. Previously the focus had been on science, so the obvious battle was over the whole evolution/intelligent-design debate (I hate to use the term debate, but it is much nicer than my preferred word). The result was, at best, a marginal victory for science.

Now the subject to be revised is Social Science, which looks to be just as controversial. I’ll let you read the article to understand why this important to all of us (long to short – as goes Texas, so goes the textbook industry), but I did want to focus on a couple of issues that were raised.

The article states:

The one thing that underlies the entire program of the nation’s Christian conservative activists is, naturally, religion. But it isn’t merely the case that their Christian orientation shapes their opinions on gay marriage, abortion and government spending. More elementally, they hold that the United States was founded by devout Christians and according to biblical precepts. This belief provides what they consider not only a theological but also, ultimately, a judicial grounding to their positions on social questions. When they proclaim that the United States is a “Christian nation,” they are not referring to the percentage of the population that ticks a certain box in a survey or census but to the country’s roots and the intent of the founders.

I’ll get to whether or not this view has any validity in a second post, but I first wanted to address this past week’s primary discussion point.

Is this important?

For the sake of argument, let us say that the Founding Fathers were the devout, fundamentalist Christians that some contemporary conservatives seem to believe. Let’s say that they did intend this country to be established on Christian principles. What affect would that have us now? How would teachers address this in the curriculum?

To someone like me, the religiosity of the nation’s founders is an interesting historical footnote, but not very important for how we need to govern now. We, as contemporary citizens, look to these men and their philosophies for inspiration and guidance, but we also recognize that much has changed since their era, perhaps invalidating some of their beliefs. The framers of the constitution recognized the need for some form of institutional flexibility, which is why they allowed for amendments.

But many conservatives do not see things this way:

To give an illustration simultaneously of the power of ideology and Texas’ influence, Barber told me that when he led the social-studies division at Prentice Hall, one conservative member of the board told him that the 12th-grade book, “Magruder’s American Government,” would not be approved because it repeatedly referred to the U.S. Constitution as a “living” document. “That book is probably the most famous textbook in American history,” Barber says. “It’s been around since World War I, is updated every year and it had invented the term ‘living Constitution,’ which has been there since the 1950s. But the social conservatives didn’t like its sense of flexibility. They insisted at the last minute that the wording change to ‘enduring.’ ” Prentice Hall agreed to the change, and ever since the book — which Barber estimates controlled 60 or 65 percent of the market nationally — calls it the “enduring Constitution.”

A small incident, I suppose, but one that reveals the intentions of some of these board members. They want the views of the Founders to be dogma.

Of course, if you are going to teach something as dogma, you better make sure that it fits your belief system. As one of the guys on the Chariots of Iron podcast said, “I’m fine with theocracy ... as long as I get to be God. Otherwise ... ”

And now you see why it is so important to these conservative Christians that their students believe that "the United States was founded by devout Christians and according to biblical precepts."

But, as I will address in one of my next posts, I believe their premise to be faulty.

Feeling Sleepy Today ...

The Old Dutch Graveyard

Headless Horseman

Proportions ... Proportions ...

Academic

I Do Have This Side as Well ...

Spiritual

Some Very Old Still-life Drawings

Vanitas #1

Vanitas #2

The Measure of Man

Kanon Lad from Superhero Mundane

Can Opinion be Defended?

All of us have our personal quirks, those wonderful character traits that seem so normal to ourselves but allow us to deviate from consensus. One of mine is that, while I enjoy listening to news and sports commentary on the radio, I cannot stand to listen to the “call in” segments where listeners can ask a question or state an opinion. I have no problem when the moderator reads a question from an e-mail. I have no problem listening to the expert’s response to the question. But as soon as the interviewer/moderator says, “Lets take a call”, I have to change the channel or switch the station for a couple of minutes, waiting for the caller to finish before I return to the program.

I’m not sure what that says about me. Nothing good, I’m sure.

Perhaps it is this same inclination that moves me to generally avoid the comments section on websites. With a few exceptions, I find the arguments and dialogues in these sections to be fatuous or unfocused. The retreat into the protection of “my opinion” is particularly frustrating because it seems so common. Even my Appreciation students will fall back into this at the end of the semester where they are confronted with more recent artworks.

What I see are arguments, even on truth statements, where the commenter berates his critics because they question something that they feel is only an opinion. The underlining (or hidden) premise being that judgment, particularly aesthetic judgment, is completely arbitrary.

What I find particularly fascinating is that this view seemingly extends throughout the entirety of societal continuum. Everyone from anti-intellectual pundits, who decry contemporary art as inane products of cultural elitists, to turtle-neck-wearing postmodernists appear to believe that aesthetics is all “in the eyes of the beholder”.

The fake news-site, the Onion, had a particularly fun parody of this phenomenon – a confusing alliance between those who hate art and those who hate “art”.

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/29798

While I recognize that the topic of aesthetic judgment is simply too vast to do justice to here, let me put forward a few thoughts on which I would like to see more discussion.

As further research is conducted in fields such as neurology, biology, and psychology (particularly Evolutionary Psychology, though I recognize its limitations), we are developing a greater understanding of how the mind works and how humans assess atheistic concepts. Interestingly, the research seems to suggest a greater similarity amongst individuals and cultures than we had previously suspected.

Obviously, we need to recognize that, really, there is no such thing as Absolute Truth. This is a concept that is introduced in the Philosophy 101 courses in every school in this country, and then repeated (ad nauseum) by every person who ever took that course. I still have colleagues who remind of this in every conversation – i.e., “Brian, you cannot prove that this table before us actually exists”.

I take this concept as a given. Even in more evidence-based disciplines, science and history for examples, nothing is seen as absolute, unalterable “fact” – everything is based upon a scale of probability. Evidence and reason help determine which theories hold the greatest probability of being true and factual. Of course, there does come a point where the evidence is so overwhelming in support of one theory that to hold a differing view would be irrational.
Could there be a somewhat similar spectrum to aesthetic judgments?

Lets look at an example: Every year, as we get set for the Academy Awards, critics argue about which films were the most important or innovative – in short, which ones are most deserving of recognition. Generally, the group of films that are being discussed is fairly small, perhaps only one or two front-runners. How is it, given the scores of movies that come out every year, that the majority of filmgoers will recognize a relatively small group as being “the best”?

Perhaps these judgments only become clear in the extreme. Critics can argue about whether Orson Welles gave a finer performance in Citizen Kane or Touch of Evil without approaching a conclusion. However, you would be hard pressed to find anyone who would consider Dude, Where’s My Car to be on the same artistic level as either of Welles’ films. This is not say that they might not enjoy Dude, Where’s My Car more than they would Citizen Kane, but few people would see them as equal artistic achievements.

So this tells us something. Perhaps there are some objective underpinnings of our subjective responses.

Most people will not trust their evaluation of a meal if they happen to have a cold at the time. We recognize that certain factors restrict our ability to fully appreciate something – which could lead us to conclude that there are some identifiable (even testable?) determinates of quality.

Now, obviously, I cannot discount how variants in experience can affect evaluation. I believe that part of the reason that I so greatly enjoyed Pan’s Labyrinth was the totality of the experience that I had while watching it. My wife and I had made a special trip to a smaller, art house theater in Atlanta to see it. This was a theater where the picture and audio quality were superb and the audience was experienced in viewing foreign films.

Yet, I feel that, even if I had viewed the film on my iPod, I would have at least recognized the film as well-made and superior to most of the movies that I had seen that year. I imagine that most relatively intelligent people would have drawn the same conclusion, even if they did not enjoy it as much as I did. What I mean is that, regardless of experience, intelligent arguments could be made to support the concept of this film as being one of quality.

Now there are current philosophies that reject the concept of a hierarchy of quality and stress that any conclusion drawn can only be personal and arbitrary.

For now, let’s begin our discussion by examining the premises that I have already introduced. Is “merely stating an opinion” a sufficient argument? Is it possible to establish some form of a “hierarchy of taste” where certain artworks are clearly superior to others?