ArtBistro

what about all those included in the process of making the machines?  is that not a gift from god? technology? i mean those who created the programs started out with what everybody else had, but their idea was new and unique, and i have to admit, there are some things that you can do with technology that you can't do without it. i mean i've never really used too many machines in my art, in fact i haven't used any but... then again, what about photography? is it really art or is it another way to use simple machines to capture the moment?

which part about photography?

Art comes from individual humans expressing their skills and talent. There is no sky daddy.

i agree with bob, however i know that i'm a genius and everything else is unnecessary , jk, but really whenever you sit down and do something art realted (even if you're not sitting down) you always learn from it. i submit that you never create a masterpiece until it turns out exactly how it looked in your minds' eye when you first thought of it, or unless it's better than you imagined

and RLane, prove that there is no "sky daddy" because from where i'm sitting everything suggests that there is one, i  mean do really believe that as complex as we are that we just popped out of the ground? or evolved from minuscule mirco organisms?

 Mr Lane:

I know you come from a science background, and science, especially evolutionary biology, has always been  a hobby of mine, and i try to keep up with the latest findings. I was especially keen on the intellectual musings of Steven Jay Gould. He was like you, an agnostic.

My old best friend from high school (the guy who played bass in my band) also agrees with you that there is no God. I consider this a courageous position and support it, even though I no longer agree with it. Death is still for him, as Jim Morrison, put it, "this is the end, my friend- the end."

When it comes to this question, no one really knows the answer. Not the scientist. Not the priest. We can only hope and believe- and are forced to admit we could be wrong.. Flip a coin and see who's right: heads or tails? As far as I can see it, the odds are about even. Heads: I join my parents in heaven. Tails: I die into the abyss of eternal nothingness.

Again- I find yours to be a courageous position. It may turn out to be "pie in the sky"- but I'll still put my money on heads- "door number one."

O- and Symbol, I appreciate your defense but we did evolve from miniscule micro-organisms. The Bible tells us why we're here, but Darwin tells us how.

 Mr Lane:

I've heard of the "literati," the "cognoscenti" but I've never heard of the "ignorati," although I'm amused by your coinage.

Just in case religion's not a bunch of bull, and Jesus turns out to be the real deal, I hope he has a sense of humor as he checks out all those irreverent depictions of him on that "God, Guns 'n' Guts" post. I think the historical Jesus did enjoy a good laugh, but both religion and art have redacted that side of his nature. Only the Gnostics pictured him laughing out loud, but the church condemned them as heretics. So we always picture him straight faced and dead serious. That's why your boys can have so much fun demolishing the straw man he's become.

On a more serious note: tell me what you think of Steven Jay Gould's solution: The NOMA proposal:

The text of Humani Generis focuses on the Magisterium (or Teaching Authority) of the Church—a word derived not from any concept of majesty or unquestionable awe, but from the different notion of teaching, for magister means “teaching” in Latin. We may, I think, adopt this word and concept to express…the principled resolution of supposed ‘conflict’ and ‘warfare’ between science and religion. No such conflict should exist because each subject has a legitimate magisterium, or domain of teaching authority—and these magisteria do not overlap (the principle that I would like to designate as NOMA, or ‘non-overlapping magisteria”). The net of science covers the empirical realm: what is the universe made of (fact) and why does it work this way (theory). The net of religion extends over questions of moral meaning and value. These two magisteria do not overlap, nor do they encompass all inquiry (consider, for starters, the magisterium of art and the meaning of beauty). To cite the usual clichés, we get the age of rocks, and religion retains the rock of ages; we study how the heavens go, and they determine how to go to heaven. 



Stephen J. Gould. 1999. Non Over-lapping Magisteria. Skeptical Inquirer July August, 55-61.

 

This is how I compartmentalize faith and reason in my mind. It is how I can still love scientific enquiry and empirical study of physical things and yet maintain belief in things beyond the tangible realm, for even science questions itself in considering the Anthropic Principal. Unless you're a strict devotee of Martin Gardner and his excising of all fuzzy thinking as pseudoscience, I recommend feeding our brains a mixed diet. Surely my fare is not the food of "ignorati?"

bobmehling says ...

<snip>

Stephen J. Gould. 1999. Non Over-lapping Magisteria. Skeptical Inquirer July August, 55-61.

The positive aspects Gould attributes to the religious magisterium are those I alluded to as "best practices." Indeed, most human civilizations have similar codes of ethics. Once a society gets above the 150-person tribal level things get more complicated. The mistake the defenders of reason, such as Gould, make is giving non-rational hocus-pocus equal time with reality. Observation of reality subsumes the various vagaries of human foibles, not the other way around. There is plenty of room for ethics, imagination, and wonder in the great universe around us; there is no need to hobble one's mind with obviously false notions.

As for art, consider the impoverishment of human thought in the western civilizations after the Graeco-Roman period and before the Renaissance and the Enlightenment. Not that the ancient Greeks were completely tolerant, viz the execution of Socrates. Theocracies are bad for Art and other living things. A decentralized theocracy is just as bad as a centralized one. Some find the challenge of facing an uncaring universe too frightening to bear; they find comfort in a small, cramped mental world of certainty. I pity them.

Follow the money.

Question authority.

Be nice to people.

Know thyself.

galenpixler says ...

Art is a gift from God. You can learn some, but without the gift one will never progress to stardom(sort of speak). I've noticed alot of this very thing in Bistro. The use of man made machine foolery is really common. If it takes a machine to help you produce Art, then it's pure foolery and tricking others into have them think you're a true Artist. The gif of talent from God starts in your brain and goes down to yur hand and fingers where the true Art is produced. True Artist's of the Past were less and few, because people back then din't have the aide of machines leading to foolery trickster-itis. Every wants to be different, I understand that. But there's no fooling a true Artist's Eye.....If I'm not that good, it's my own fault for not fully developing my gift to the fullest....the Eye's Have it!!.....GalenPixler creator of Pix/Art Studio and Gallery.

Back that train up, there, bud. If what you're saying is that I am not an artist because I do not choose to draw on paper, may I just say that I find that extremely insulting and offensive? I'm not going to touch on the religious aspects of what you're saying here, but the line about talent starting in your brain and going to the fingers where "true" art is produced? What exactly are you saying that computer artists are pushing their mouse with? Because I'm not holding my graphics tablet pen with my tongue. This seems to be summarily discrediting so many extremely talented people, here on AB and at large, and I'm sorry, but declaring oneself a "true artist" does not necessarily make it so, and just comes off as cocky and dismissive because you choose not to use computers. I'm not saying my art is better than anyone else's (though you seem to be saying just that), but that it is different from others' art makes it just as valid. Your implication that it is less so... wow.