expunging 'art'

Christies in Paris has finished the second day of the sale of the “most valuable personal art collection” which has brought some 307 million euros so far. It is the collection of Yves St Laurent and Pierre Berge. The article on BBC says “the French retain a huge affection for Yves and some of those buying will be acting with their heart as much as with their head.

The big question of head vrs heart and $$$ vrs art and it all brings up again the quest of finding true art. Some of the collection is art and is good and nice. Some I would not give a plugged nickel for. I would not Take it if someone gave it to me to make a profit on. I do like the mandate of ARC. To showcase Classic art. Realistic art. Good art. Art. To expose people to ART. Unfortunately even there, there are those who would blush to look through the on line gallery due to the theme of some of the pictures.

I do realize that the article on BBC is referring to the affection for Yves himself driving the buying. I am thinking of the pieces. I didn’t know Yves but I know I do not like some of the pieces of the collection. NOT because they are what they are but because they are masquerading as art. If people were buying the pieces from the heart for the sake of the pieces alone then their heart must be sad indeed ! Myself I like doodling, I like slapping stuff together to see what comes up. BUT when it is all over I get rid of it AND I Never would call it Art or try to pass it off as such. Once upon a time there was a fellow who entered a ‘modern art’ contest in order to ridicule it. He ended up with first prize but he would not accept it and when pressed as to why he did tell them that his piece was entered only to mock them.

I like the comment that we must not argue art at the point of expression. Be it painting, music or what ever form it might take. When we argue we must argue in the beauty of Holiness. Where is this piece of expression coming from? eg poetry, Walt is just plain vulgar! Oh it is so easy to get caught up at the point of expression. There are many “beautiful” pieces of work (and a whole bunch stuff and junk and toxic refuse !) There are many talented artists - who have never come up with an artistic expression in their entire career just because all that is in their heart is junk (or worse). The expression might be technically excellent but you might say they Never got around to trying to find a way to get the studio cleaned up and the ugly rats are the only thing that ever escape from there.

I did mention reality when I referred to ARC. There ARE times when reality is Not reality. Going back to the major life premise behind the ‘real’. Who ever could celebrate death or ugly decay as art ? They exist But they are not what could be. To portray them as art is ugly and is dishonest in the extreme. Explain. No one likes changing baby’s diaper. No one with a nose. But it is true that breast fed babies do not produce vulgar diapers aromatically. Not as long as they do not get Any thing other than Mother. So ? ? Science has not found the reason why we die. Why we wrinkle up. Why some things STINK.

When God made the world it was good. It was beautiful and there are a lot of beautiful things surviving in the world as it is today too. There is a lot of residual artistic expression left in the human heart. But the human heart. The studio. It needs to be expunged and replaced.

furious ...

"" 'Racist' US cartoon causes stir
A cartoon in the New York Post newspaper has triggered accusations that it is a racist depiction of President Barack Obama.
"... police shooting dead a chimp, while remarking "they'll have to find someone else to write the stimulus bill".
There was also a furious public response. Blog posts on the topic attracted hundreds of angry comments, while complainants reportedly jammed the newspaper switchboard and protested outside its headquarters. Some said it belittled the suffering endured by the woman who was attacked by the chimp, while others went as far as to accuse the cartoon of calling for President Obama's assassination. ""

Realllllllly ! !

What ARE we comming to ? ? ?

"... furious"
"public ..."

WHY ?
its an editorial cartoon ! !

There ARE lots of things to get 'furious' about, some cartoon in a two bit paper is Not one of them.
Oh we LOVE our freedoms all right - the freedom to tell everyone else that they are wrong and I am the only one to be free to hold an opinion ! Oh if only we could keep that one about freedom of speach down ... especiallllly that of complainers and whiners .... (but then I suppose I would have to give up my two cents worth)

self sustaining chemical system

If we did discover something unprecedented, "we'd all start arguing" said Professor Davies, a theoretical physicist.
"The question would be whether this life was truly different, or whether there was a common precursor, a deep branch on the main tree of life.
"Personally, I'm only interested in establishing whether life happened more than once. If we find it has happened twice from scratch then its going to have happened all around the universe.

((This is amazing logic. Because it could happen it did.))

"The accepted definition of life is a molecule capable of Darwinian evolution, so we are trying to put together molecules that are capable of doing it."



Another way to determine what alternative life might look like is to try to invent it ourselves.
"We are announcing the first example of an artificial synthetic chemical system capable of Darwinian evolution," he told the conference. The molecule is essentially a modified version of our own DNA double helix - but with six "letters" in its genetic alphabet, instead of four.

"Remember - just because you are a chemical system which is self-sustaining and capable of Darwinian evolution, that doesn't mean that is the universal definition of life,"

((Ah life ! Modern life. Always up for a new redefinition of a word. Like the old deep magic, if you can find the true name of it you can control it. Gay. Family. Marriage. Horse poop. Justice. Honesty. Pig slop. The wise old magician never let his real name be known, that way if someone cast a spell on him using something other than his real name he could break the spell by reverting to his real name. Science Incorporated all over again ! Lets hide behind all the pseudonyms we can possibly find, that way we won’t be accountable … If we could just define gravity we could control it. If we can define electricity we can control it. If we can just define light we can control it. If we can just define violence we can control it. Ah poor Chimp he was on meds, that explains his rude behavior. Now we shall have a rash of court cases where the perpetrator gets off scotttt free because he or she was on meds. What am I thinking that is already the case … !

Moral. Define that one, it is even more elusive than defining life ! (unless you believe in absolutes)

“if it happened twice from scratch …” ‘I am a self sustaining chemical system capable of Darwinian evolution therefore I am!’ says no name. What I, Ian F, am interested in finding out is what “it” is ? ? If Darwinian evolution DID take place then there is no reason to define life because ‘it’ does not exist - I am nothing more than a random collection of random bits of nonentity in a random non existent environment which is not. Why do scientists of all people (wopsse connotation word there) why do scientists insist in using connotation words when they try to describe things to us. Why not just tell it like it is ? ie Life IS non Life in a random peculiar form that has not yet evolved – nor ever will – to the place where it sustains definition ! sorry about the ‘peculiar’ just couldn’t stop myself. connotative words are all that sustains a lot of peculiar people though they would even admit hating loving hating loving them. No wait which ones ? ? We can not use ‘fag’ but ‘married’ is more than OK … ))

Power by Absorption

““ The Christian Horizons case continues to wend its way through the court system in Ontario, and now the province’s Conference of Catholic Bishops has joined the legal battle. The Conference has joined the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada and other conservative groups in launching an appeal of a ruling from the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal last year; a ruling which ordered Christian Horizons to pay a former employee $23,000 because she was let go after admitting she was a lesbian. The organization’s code of conduct, which that employee had signed, specifically precludes homosexuals or lesbians from working there.Christian Horizons is an evangelical charity that runs group homes and other services for the developmentally disabled.The HRT ruling said, however, that Christian Horizons would only be allowed to impose a so-called “morality code” on its employees if it confined its’ clientele to the evangelical community, adding that because it serves the broader public, and does so with the help of public funding, the code of conduct was invalid.Constitutional lawyer Iain Benson is advising the Bishops in the case. He says the case is “extremely important” because it “has the capacity to restrict religion to the sidelines” of public life. Benson adds that if the HRT ruling is allowed to stand, it will “represent an extraordinary truncation of the public dimension of religious belief and conduct.” ””
This brings up one issue which I am in major disagreement with ! The concept has been around for quite some time that when the government / the “public” grants an income tax deduction for something that money still belongs to the government. It is still public funds! That is not true – even though the ‘government’ thinks it is. There is a rule, a rather strict rule, that when a donor gives money to a charity that donor has given it away – as in, it is no longer his or hers, and that therefore they have NO further influence or say in what happens with said money ! They can NOT designate what the money is to be used for, or why or any other thing about it ! ! Now here we have the government breaking its own rule. ‘We give you a tax break’, they say, ‘but the money is still ours and we Can and Will tell you what you can and can not do with it’.

May be a word to the wise.
Do not grant tax receipts for charitable donations.

United We Stand ?

““ Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi has been elected as chairman of the 53-nation African Union. elected "by the heads of state in a closed-door session, for a one-year period".
"In principle, we said the ultimate is the United States of Africa.
Before he arrived at the summit, he circulated a letter saying he was coming as the king of the traditional kings of Africa and he wanted to be seated as the king of kings,
He wants a single African military force, a single currency and a single passport for Africans to move within the continent.
Last August, a meeting of more than 200 African kings and traditional rulers bestowed the title "king of kings" on the Libyan leader. ””

So Where Next ?
United Europe
United Africa
United Asia
United North America

United Middle East ? ?
United South America ? ?
United Soviet Socialist Republic ? ?

Only 150

““ Next week is a big anniversary day. Feb 12 this year marks the bicentennial of Abraham Lincoln's birth. On the same day, across the pond, Charles Darwin was born. And that's not all. The day also marks the sesquicentennial of the publication of his book, The Origin of Species.
You'd think 150 years is ample time for people to understand evolution, but some still claim it's only a "theory". Perhaps they still believe that the earth is flat and the sun goes around the earth.
Propinquity noun: Nearness in space, time or relationship.
From Latin propinquitas (nearness), from prope (near).
"I believe that ... propinquity of descent, -- the only known cause of the similarity of organic beings, -- is the bond, hidden as it is by various degrees of modification, which is partially revealed to us by our classifications."Charles Darwin; On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection; 1859. ””

I do still believe that there are people who don’t think.
There IS NO proof that there IS propinquity of descent !
The kind of proof that is being heralded would Never stand up in ANY court of law – (except where the judge is pre judiced and the lawyers are Not at all concerned with the truth and no one knows of the word Justice let alone ever thinks of it or tries to enact it).
We used to laugh at the ‘World Series’ in the States. The Only teams ever entered were ? USA. The ‘World Cup’ sailing. Ditto. Charlie on the other hand DID know of an other ‘cause of the similarity of organic beings’.

Did a drop out from the Hindu religion dream up evolution?
Did a drop out from any of the other old religions of the world dream up evolution?

I AM suppppprised !
ONLY one hundred and fifty years. ONLY one hundred and fifty, and this author is already assuming that some of us are, well, a little slack at best. Just exactly how long DID the world believe that the world was flat ? ? Just how long did people believe that the sun revolted around the earth ? ? And He says that a mere one hundred and fifty years should be ample time for people to be brain washed …
Brain washed? Yes ! After alllll ….
Out went flat earth
Out went Terra Firma Epicenter
AFTER more than a millennium …
And millions of people (some quite smart ones too) firmly believed …

Lets just wait for a millennium and then we will see if Charlie’s cause is set so firmly in truth.