[Personal Note]
I don't know if you recall, but I wrote an inspirational message to
everybody a few months ago. I have this thing, you see: I like making
people feel good about what they do. Weird, huh? Anyway, I found this a
few weeks ago and I want to share it with you to inspire you. OK?

[Introduction]
Did you know that the Pope has written to me, to Ken, to Lance, to
Gilles, and all of us here? Yes. The Pope wrote a letter to Artists this
year. I read it. I like it. I would like to share a few lines of it here
that touched me. It doesn't matter what religion you belong to. These
lines are universal. I have cut them randomly from the letter, so there
might not be too much continouity. I hope you like these thoughts as
much as I have. They are good. Please take your time when reading this.
Give yourself time to reflect on each one. If you can't read them all
now, come back later, the message won't go away.

Well, here we go:

//Begin

The human craftsman mirrors the image of God as Creator.

The artist has a special relationship to beauty.

None can sense more deeply than you, artists, the ingenious
creators of beauty that you are, something of the pathos
with which God at the dawn of creation looked upon the work
of His hands.

With loving regard, the divine Artist passes on to the human
artist a spark of His own supassing Wisdom, calling him to
share in His creative power.

Those who perceive in themselves this kind of divine spark
which is the artistic vocation feel at the same time the
obligation not to waste this talent, but to develope it,
in order to put it at the service of their neighbour and
of humanity as a whole.

Artists, the more conscious they are of their gift, are led
all the more to see themselves and the whole of creation
with eyes able to contemplate and give thanks, and to raise
to God a hymn of praise.

We are speaking not of moulding oneself, of forming one's
own personality, but simply of actualizing one's productive
capacities, giving aesthetic form to ideas conceived in the
mind.

In producing a work, artists express themselves to the point
where their work becomes a unique disclosure of their own
being, of what they are and of how they are what they are.

For him art offers both a new dimension and an exceptional
mode of expression for his spiritual growth.

The link between good and beautiful stirs fruitful reflection.
Beauty is the visible form of the good, just as the good is
the metaphysical condition of beauty. This was well understood
by the greeks, who, by fusing the two concepts, coined a term
which embraces both: kalokagathia, or beauty-goodness.

Within the vast cultural panorama of each nation, artists
have their unique place. Obedient to their inspiration in
creating works both worthwhile and beautiful, they not only
enrich the cultural heritage of each nation and of all
humanity, but they also render an exceptional social
service in favor of the common good.

The particular vocation of individual artists decides the
arena in which they serve and points as well to the tasks
they must assume, the hard work they must endure and the
responsibility they must accept.

They must labour without allowing themselves to be driven
by the search for empty glory or the craving for cheap
popularity, and still less by the calculation of some
possible profit for themselves.

All artists experience the unbridgeable gap which lies
between the work of their hands, however successful it
may be, and the dazzling perfection of the beauty glimpsed
in the ardour of the creative moment: what they manage to
express in their painting, their sculpting, their creation
is no more than a glimmer of the splendour which flared for
a moment before the eyes of their spirit.

The world in which we live needs beauty in order not to
sink into despair. Beauty, like truth, brings joy to the
human heart and is that precious fruit which resists the
erosion of time, which unites generations and enables
them to be one in admiration!

The Church refers to artists having "a noble ministry"
when their works reflect in some way the infinite
beauty of God and raise people's minds to him.

The Church needs art. Art must make perceptible, and as
far as possible attractive, the world of the spirit, of
the invisible, of God.

Art has a unique capacity to take one of the other facet
of the message and translate it into colours, shapes,
and sounds which nourish the intuition of those who look
or listen. It does so without emptying the message
itself of its transcendent value and its aura of mystery.

Artists are constantly in search of the hidden meaning of
things, are their torment is to succeed in expressing the
world of the ineffable.

With this Letter, I turn to you, artists of the world, to
assure you of my esteem and to help consolidate a more
constructive partnership between art and the Church.

The creation awaits the revelation of the children of God
also through art and in art. This is your task. Humanity
in every age, and even today, looks to works of art to
shed light upon its path and its destiny.

The Spirit is the mysterious Artist of the universe.
Looking to the Third Millenium, I would hope that all
artists might receive in abundance the gift of that
creative inspiration which is the starting-point of
every true work of art.

Every genuine inspiration contains some tremor of the
"breath" with which the Creator Spirit suffused the
work of creation from the very beginning.

Beauty is a key to the mystery and a call to
transcendence. It is an invitation to savour
life and to dream of the future. That is why
the beauty of created things can never fully
satisfy. It stirs our hidden nostalgia for God.

May the beauty that you pass on to generations still to
come be such that it will stir them to wonder!

//End

--
Anthony L. Bennett
http://welcome.to/TonyB

Graphics rendered
by the Dreamachine.

Post a reply to this message

TonyB wrote:

> The human craftsman mirrors the image of God as Creator.

If my early scenes are an indication, then God the Creator is an infinite
checkered plane.

:)

Simon
http://home.istar.ca/~sdevet

Post a reply to this message

Simon de Vet wrote:
> 
> TonyB wrote:
> 
> > The human craftsman mirrors the image of God as Creator.
> 
> If my early scenes are an indication, then God the Creator is an infinite
> checkered plane.

If triangles had a God, He'd have three sides. - Old Yiddish proverb 

-- 
Ken Tyler

mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net

Post a reply to this message

So much better to read something Pope John Paul has written or said than to see yet
another hand waving television appearence of his. Thankyou both.

Post a reply to this message

TonyB wrote:
> 
> [Personal Note]
> I don't know if you recall, but I wrote an inspirational message to
> everybody a few months ago. I have this thing, you see: I like making
> people feel good about what they do. Weird, huh? Anyway, I found this a
> few weeks ago and I want to share it with you to inspire you. OK?

Thank you for sharing this with us TonyB.

-- 
Ken Tyler

mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net

Post a reply to this message

Thanks TonyB, very enlightening :)

--
Lance.


---
For the latest 3D Studio MAX plug-ins, images and much more, go to:
The Zone - http://come.to/the.zone
For a totally different experience, visit my Chroma Key Website:
Colorblind - http://listen.to/colorblind

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 17 Jun 1999 18:00:42 -0400, TonyB
<ben### [at] panamaphoenixnet> wrote:

>Did you know that the Pope has written to me, to Ken, to Lance, to
>Gilles, and all of us here? Yes. The Pope wrote a letter to Artists this
>year. I read it. I like it. I would like to share a few lines of it here

A lot of what he wrote sounds very nice. I agree with much of it, but
he seems to be completely negating the value of art that isn't
considered "beautiful" in appearance. There are serious works of art
that contain important and valuable messages. Not all of these are
pretty to look at, listen to, or experience (depending on the relevant
media involved.) To blindly chose beautiful art as the only truly
valuable art is shortsighted at best. I hope the Pope doesn't really
feel that way.

It's fine and good to encourage beauty, and I personally believe that
beauty should be encouraged, but to negate the importance of things
not beautiful would be wrong. Using a similar logic to the Pope's: If
God created all things beautiful and "not-so-beautiful", which of us
would have the nerve to tell God that his "not-so-beautiful" creations
are of lesser value simply because of our perceiving them as less
beautiful?

I need to point out that this is NOT an attack on the Pope. I repeat,
this is NOT an attack on the Pope. I respect the Pope as a sincere,
benevolent, and educated person. I just found this one little aspect
of his comments a bit out of balance. Perhaps if the Pope had written
a book on Art, then he might have gotten around to including a chapter
on the value of art that isn't immediately recognizable as beautiful.
Perhaps he has similar feelings as mine, but didn't get around to
saying all of them in the letter you read. The world may never know. I
just wrote this to augment what he has said, and not as any sort of
personal attack on the Pope, nor is this any attack on Christianity or
upon "beauty" itself. 

I just wanted to take a moment to point out that something doesn't
have to be traditionally beautiful to be valuable as a work of art.
I'm sorry for this long disclaimer near the end, but I wanted to avoid
any possible misunderstandings and resultant hard feelings.

I believe the world certainly has room for more beautiful things, and
I welcome their creation, but I also place value on many things that
would be considered "less than beautiful" by much of society. A
"balanced diet" is something to strive for, and the concept applies
equally as well to art. Having too much "eye candy" tends to make the
intellect fat, lazy, and ineffectual. Having none, can make one's soul
bland, sour, or bitter..


Later,
Glen Berry

Post a reply to this message

> 
> A lot of what he wrote sounds very nice. I agree with much of it, but
> he seems to be completely negating the value of art that isn't
> considered "beautiful" in appearance.

  One of the best photographs I have ever taken was of a barn in the country.
This barn was in a serious state of disrepair and was anything but beautiful.
Even with this going against it many I have shown the photo to agree that it
a very beautiful picture. I believe this supports your claim there is beauty
in ugly things and it is truly in the eyes of the beholder.

-- 
Ken Tyler

mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 18 Jun 1999 01:49:00 -0700, Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote:

>  One of the best photographs I have ever taken was of a barn in the country.
>This barn was in a serious state of disrepair and was anything but beautiful.
>Even with this going against it many I have shown the photo to agree that it
>a very beautiful picture. I believe this supports your claim there is beauty
>in ugly things and it is truly in the eyes of the beholder.

Yes, and there is also important beauty that is surrounded by,
seemingly inseparable from, and sometimes created from ugliness. For
example, in the movie "Schindler's List" there is the beautiful
concept of wanting to save the lives of fellow human beings displayed
against the harsh and ugly backdrop of war. Would we really appreciate
Mr Schindler's desire to see his fellow man be allowed to live in
peace quite so much, if it were not displayed against such an ugly
backdrop as that war? I think not. The "ugliness" of the movie is
arguably required in this case. The film's value as a work of art is
enhanced by the inclusion. I doubt that many people would call this a
pretty film, but many have called it an important film, and one of
high artistic merit.

Later,
Glen Berry


Trivia: When I get on the elevator that takes me to my internet
provider's third floor office, I notice it was made by the Schindler
company. I suppose the British would call this "Schindler's Lift".

Post a reply to this message

I forgot to mention perhaps the best example of non-pretty, but
important artwork, especially since this thread was started by a
letter from the Pope. Consider all the artwork that has been created
depicting or referring to the Crucifixion of Jesus. This is certainly
not a physically beautiful scene for many people to contemplate, but
many people place great value in much of the artwork that the event
inspired. I can't think of a more pertinent example than that.

At this point, I began to realize the verbosity of my contributions to
this thread and wondered why I spent so much effort on stating my
view. The answer is partly that I want to encourage people to live
balanced and thoughtful lives. I also feel that many POV-Users might
overlook art that isn't of the "eye candy" variety. At the same time,
many serious art critics dismiss much computer art as mechanically
generated "eye candy" and consider it to be of lesser value. I feel
there is a certain amount of shortsightedness in both situations.

I feel a need to speak on behalf of raytraced art that doesn't aim to
be pretty or be "eye candy", but pursues other goals. Currently there
isn't enough raytraced art of this variety. I would love to see some
artists achieve critical acclaim by creating High Art using
raytracing as their medium. In order to achieve this, we need to
create more types of raytracings than eye candy alone.

Later,
Glen Berry

Post a reply to this message

Glen Berry <7no### [at] ezwvcom> wrote in message
<376bfb14.137887608@news.povray.org>...
>On Thu, 17 Jun 1999 18:00:42 -0400, TonyB
><ben### [at] panamaphoenixnet> wrote:
>
>A lot of what he wrote sounds very nice. I agree with much of it, but
>he seems to be completely negating the value of art that isn't
>considered "beautiful" in appearance. There are serious works of art
>that contain important and valuable messages. Not all of these are
>pretty to look at, listen to, or experience (depending on the relevant
>media involved.) To blindly chose beautiful art as the only truly
>valuable art is shortsighted at best. I hope the Pope doesn't really
>feel that way.
>


This is what I also noticed - the Pope seems to be addressing 'creators of
beauty'. While the definitive measure of 'art' or 'beauty' is beyond my
grasp, I have a few convictions in this matter. All creators of beauty may
be artists, but not all artists need create beauty. Art is a much wider
medium.
In my opinion, any creation that evokes emotion may be called art. The
emotion may be admiration, hate, anger. It does not matter. Only when his
work is met with indifference has the creator truly failed. One may question
the ethical value of an artwork but that, I feel, is completely separate
from its artistic value. It is only because of the dogma of beauty that
people tend to confine the boundaries of art.

Not that I'd think advocating beauty isn't a good and noble thing. Nor would
I think the Pope is unaware of the wider sense of art. It's just that some
of the quotes seem a bit biased. Others I strongly agree with.

Anyway, such matters - art, religion et al - are far too subjective, too
individual to search for a global answer. You cannot discuss standards. You
can only express your thoughts. That's what I see in these extracts, and I
thank TonyB for sharing them with us.

Margus

Post a reply to this message

Margus Ramst heeft geschreven in bericht <376a9b39@news.povray.org>...
>This is what I also noticed - the Pope seems to be addressing 'creators of
>beauty'. While the definitive measure of 'art' or 'beauty' is beyond my
>grasp, I have a few convictions in this matter. ......

>In my opinion, any creation that evokes emotion may be called art. The
>emotion may be admiration, hate, anger. It does not matter.

Mmmm...  In dutch we have two words: "mooi" and "schoonheid". Mooi is beautifull
in the sense of "eye candy", as Glen called it (a beautyfull house, flower,
woman). Schoonheid is also beauty but more in the sense of the quality of beauty
(esthetic). It is more an emotion. In this other definition of beauty it's not
the emotion itself that is of importance, but the strength/force of the emotion.
A good example of this that I came across is a picture by Robert Mapplethorpe.
It shows, in close up, a man's genitals bondaged to a blood stained piece of
wood. When you look at it, there first is denial. You don't (want to) see what
you see. The moment you realize what you see, you feel it. The pain. It doesn't
look nice, but it is a very estethic picture, there is a lot of beauty in it.

>......
>Not that I'd think advocating beauty isn't a good and noble thing. Nor would
>I think the Pope is unaware of the wider sense of art. It's just that some
>of the quotes seem a bit biased. Others I strongly agree with.


This letter makes me a bit sad and on some points a little angry. Not for the
religious content, that was to be expected in a Pope's letter, but mainly
because of the mystification and romantizication of art and artists. Being an
artist is a tough job, it's hard work. I'm experiencing it at this moment,
having two month's off of my job to concentrate fully on finishing my art study.

>Anyway, such matters - art, religion et al - are far too subjective, too
>individual to search for a global answer. You cannot discuss standards.

Why not? We judge art, beauty etc. almost every day. We judge them by by
standars. Why not discuss these?

> You
>can only express your thoughts. That's what I see in these extracts, and I
>thank TonyB for sharing them with us.


Tony, where can I find the complete letter? Is it somewhere on the net?

ingo

Post a reply to this message

ingo wrote in message <376aa81a@news.povray.org>...
>
>
>>Anyway, such matters - art, religion et al - are far too subjective, too
>>individual to search for a global answer. You cannot discuss standards.
>
>Why not? We judge art, beauty etc. almost every day. We judge them by by
>standars. Why not discuss these?
>


You have your standards. I have my standards. There will never be global
standards, no ISO or ANSI, regardless of how much we may debate. Art for
one, crap for another. Is crap art? Are we art? Is art art? Is my art better
than your art? etc etc etc ad nauseam.

Margus

Post a reply to this message

Margus Ramst heeft geschreven in bericht <376aac53@news.povray.org>...

>You have your standards. I have my standards.
Yes, Yes.

>There will never be global standards, no ISO or ANSI, regardless of how much we
>may debate.
No standards!  Although....


>Art for one, crap for another. Is crap art? Are we art? Is art art?
First you'll have to get rid of personal taste, then study some more work of the
artist, read about an artist. Maybe do some art history/theory classes. After
that, you can answer these questions for your self.(I guess you already did?)
I discuss these things somtimes with my collegues at work. First thing they say:
Uhh modern art, my three year old grand daughter can paint better. What almost
always strikes me is that most people don't want to invest times or efford in
something like this (not only art, but just learning/thinking things). They come
home after work, sit on the coutch, zap from Jerry Springer to the weather
forcast to the late night entertainment, and are happy with it.

Even if you let personal taste slip in, there are big groups of people with
simmilar backgrounds with whom it's very good possible to discuss art in this
way. Take the people frequenting this part of the net. Ask them to name a
favorite artist. Escher wil probably be No. 1 followed by Da Vinci. Name some
(sf)writers: Asimov, Adams, Heinlein, Herbert, Tolkien etc. Your favorite
software: .... Enough commom ground for discussion.

The goal would not be setting standards, but learning other points of view. They
might change your own view, or help develop these.

>Is my art better than your art? etc etc etc ad nauseam.
With some knowledge (more than I have at the moment), yes, you can distinguish
quality in art.

have a good night,

ingo
--
Met dank aan de muze met het glazen oog.

Post a reply to this message

[I sent this message earlier, but Netscape didn't. Dang.]

I think the Pope refers to the beauty that art transmits. As you say, beauty
depends on who looks at it and how. For there to be beauty there must be uglyness
to contrast it. Like the barn in Ken's picture. It sends a message, a feeling.
Also, there can be beauty hidden in a seemingly ugly image. Escher has some images
that look kinda ugly, but when you really look at them, when you see all the hard
work in them, when you sit down and look, and think about them, you come back with
a new appreciation for them. You have found the beauty.

Thank you everybody for reading. =) I'm glad you liked it.

PS: There was more material in the letter, but aimed at other fields of art
(music, etc.), and other more Christian/Catholic stuff.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/letters/index.html

(Available in: English, French, German, Italian, Latin, Polish, Portuguese, and
Spanish.)

--
Anthony L. Bennett
http://welcome.to/TonyB

Graphics rendered
by the Dreamachine.

Post a reply to this message

OK, I think we are all getting the picture here...

No need to dispute this thing nonsensically!  Although everyone's made great
points and shown how wide the field of art really is (and thus how wide our
imagination and creativity is).

Thanks for sharing with us TonyB, I'm sure everyone got something
interesting and thought-provoking from it :)  I know I did.

So, with that said, everyone has their own opinion and their own unique form
of art.  I appreciate all art, so please keep the raytraced works coming!
:)

And a big thankyou to the POV-Team for creating a wonderful tool for us to
use in that venture of self-discovery!

--
Lance.


---
For the latest 3D Studio MAX plug-ins, images and much more, go to:
The Zone - http://come.to/the.zone
For a totally different experience, visit my Chroma Key Website:
Colorblind - http://listen.to/colorblind

Post a reply to this message

Lance B. has aged another 2 years in wisedom I see (double his chronological age).

Post a reply to this message

Was that an insult?

Post a reply to this message

Lance Birch wrote:
> 
> Was that an insult?

Only if you resent maturity.

-- 
Ken Tyler

mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net

Post a reply to this message

TonyB wrote in message <3769700A.F91F80AF@panama.phoenix.net>...

>The human craftsman mirrors the image of God as Creator.


This obviously applies to me -- my current POV project is building an entire
world (it's going to be the basis for a Myst style game).

Mark

Post a reply to this message

Not at all :)

--
Lance.


Ken wrote in message <376B07E3.8BCF7526@pacbell.net>...
>
>
>Lance Birch wrote:
>>
>> Was that an insult?
>
>Only if you resent maturity.
>
>--
>Ken Tyler
>
>mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net

Post a reply to this message

Now how in the heck did that seem like a insult to you Lance! LOL
2 times your age in wisedom insulting?! Now I think I may be offended. But then I'm
unoffendable, so: nah nah na-na nah :b

(notice the unmistakeable immaturity there)

P.S. you can tell when my younger relatives are visiting by their personalities
rubbing
off on me. Oops... now there's a real insult I think.


Lance Birch wrote:
> 
> Not at all :)
> 
> --
> Lance.
> 
> Ken wrote in message <376B07E3.8BCF7526@pacbell.net>...
> >
> >
> >Lance Birch wrote:
> >>
> >> Was that an insult?
> >
> >Only if you resent maturity.
> >
> >--
> >Ken Tyler
> >
> >mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net

-- 
 omniVERSE: beyond the universe
  http://members.aol.com/inversez/homepage.htm
 mailto://inversez@aol.com?Subject=PoV-News

Post a reply to this message

Sorry... I misread the original :)  LOL

(perhaps my reading abilities have degraded at the rate my wisedom has
increased ;)

--
Lance.


---
For the latest 3D Studio MAX plug-ins, images and much more, go to:
The Zone - http://come.to/the.zone
For a totally different experience, visit my Chroma Key Website:
Colorblind - http://listen.to/colorblind
Bob wrote in message <376B9D9B.7FF9CF69@aol.com>...
>Now how in the heck did that seem like a insult to you Lance! LOL
>2 times your age in wisedom insulting?! Now I think I may be offended. But
then I'm
>unoffendable, so: nah nah na-na nah :b
>
>(notice the unmistakeable immaturity there)
>
>P.S. you can tell when my younger relatives are visiting by their
personalities rubbing
>off on me. Oops... now there's a real insult I think.
>
>
>Lance Birch wrote:
>>
>> Not at all :)
>>
>> --
>> Lance.
>>
>> Ken wrote in message <376B07E3.8BCF7526@pacbell.net>...
>> >
>> >
>> >Lance Birch wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Was that an insult?
>> >
>> >Only if you resent maturity.
>> >
>> >--
>> >Ken Tyler
>> >
>> >mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net
>
>--
> omniVERSE: beyond the universe
>  http://members.aol.com/inversez/homepage.htm
> mailto://inversez@aol.com?Subject=PoV-News

Post a reply to this message

By Yourself?!?

Ambitious or Insane?
Only Time will tell ;)

Do you have any pics of your work thus far avail. for the public? (To post in
p.b.i?)

Mark Wagner wrote:
> This obviously applies to me -- my current POV project is building an entire
> world (it's going to be the basis for a Myst style game).
> 
> Mark

-- 
That is all

*Click*

Post a reply to this message

Bob wrote in message <376B9D9B.7FF9CF69@aol.com>...
>Now how in the heck did that seem like a insult to you Lance! LOL
>2 times your age in wisedom insulting?!

If you work out the math of the original post, the implication is of a
chronological age of two years.

Mark

Post a reply to this message

Glen Berry wrote:

> On Thu, 17 Jun 1999 18:00:42 -0400, TonyB
> <ben### [at] panamaphoenixnet> wrote:
>
> >Did you know that the Pope has written to me, to Ken, to Lance, to
> >Gilles, and all of us here? Yes. The Pope wrote a letter to Artists this
> >year. I read it. I like it. I would like to share a few lines of it here
>
> A lot of what he wrote sounds very nice. I agree with much of it, but
> he seems to be completely negating the value of art that isn't
> considered "beautiful" in appearance. There are serious works of art
> that contain important and valuable messages. Not all of these are
> pretty to look at, listen to, or experience (depending on the relevant
> media involved.) To blindly chose beautiful art as the only truly
> valuable art is shortsighted at best. I hope the Pope doesn't really
> feel that way.

<snip>
I did not think about that when reading the original message, your reply does
make sense to some extent, but ...

First of all, I would like to point out that Tony only published parts of the
pope's message. He may very well have selected what in his eyes was most
valuable in the message and left out what you might have picked.

Second : what one sees as beauty might not be seen as beauty by others, and
what one sees as ugly might actually be seen as beauty by some. Take for
instance the notion of a beautiful woman. No, no, no, do not think I am a
sexist, you'd be miles away from me. Along the whole history of the world
this notion had very different representations. Some pictured them as big,
round, very well (over-?)fed persons, others want to see them so slim it
would be a wonder how they could carry what nature tells us they usually do :
the fruit of life. Some see them pale some see them sallow skin. What is the
rule to beauty, where is the rule, is there a rule ? To that I will reply
that human beings are just very subjective and this trait of theirs (us) has
a lot to do with social history and preconceived ideas. I personally place
more beauty in the smile of a person than in the actual shape or colour
however attractive the shape and colour might be to my eye and mind. I would
rather be a bit suspicious of someone who's appearance (including voice,
gesture, ...) is too 'perfect'.
In that respect it might be of interest to know what the pope means when he
mentions beauty. It might very well be the case that he includes what others
do not.

Third : there is indeed a place for all in this world. And all have the right
to plant messages in black or in pink, in negative or positive form. It is
part of all religious thinking to try and reduce the negative to a minimum
and enhance the positive to a maximum. In that light I would not be surprised
if the pope were to lesser ugliness and emphasize on beauty. Yet that would
seem strange to me that a man, who is supposed to be proclaiming peace, love
and tolerance amongst other qualities, that such a man should lesser
ugliness. I would expect him to include what some call ugly into the lack of
understanding rather than the non beautiful.


> I believe the world certainly has room for more beautiful things, and
> I welcome their creation, but I also place value on many things that
> would be considered "less than beautiful" by much of society. A
> "balanced diet" is something to strive for, and the concept applies
> equally as well to art. Having too much "eye candy" tends to make the
> intellect fat, lazy, and ineffectual. Having none, can make one's soul
> bland, sour, or bitter..

I do not think that everything beautiful tends to make the intellect fat, ...

Should you have such a mind as to really admire the world for what it is you
would know that being lazy will certainly not help making the world what it
is. In other words beauty requires work.
On another note, would you agree that a lion is beautiful ? If you do, just
try to be lazy and contemplate one of them in its natural environment when he
is hungry. Wonderful, magnificent, but you'll have to be a fast runner.

I do not really want to oppose my thoughts to yours, that is not my
intentions, I only wish to offer a different view point. I think one can turn
most things into beauty in his/her own eyes, though some of these things
might be called a disgrace by others. Of course the world being what it is,
there is a whole pile of negative aspects in life. Do we have to zoom on
these aspects ? Should we not rather concentrate on making what is somewhat
beautiful a bit more beautiful and try to forget a bit about the not
beautiful at all ? Or rather not forget but work so it does not exist as much
?
That is the way I read what the pope said - though I'm not a believer I think
his words are words of wisdom.

My own subjective point of view,
Al.

--
ANTI SPAM / ANTI ARROSAGE COMMERCIAL :
Pour me répondre, veuillez enlever le Z de mon adresse.
To answer me, please take out the Z from my address.

Post a reply to this message

Margus Ramst wrote:
<snip>

> It is only because of the dogma of beauty that
> people tend to confine the boundaries of art.

<snip>

I've tried to think about that and I have to disagree.
I think most people confine the boundaries of art to their understanding of
beauty, which is much less than beauty in its whole. That is one point. The
other one being that in my humble opinion some people fail to express their
ideas through beauty and express them through distress, uglyness, torture, ...
all evil stuff. I think evrything can be expressed through beauty of some sort,
but it might take a considerable extra amount of thinking, skill and energy to
reach such a goal. Yet I am convinced that we should all aim at that.

Take for instance people who tend to be depressive. Almost everyone has been
subject to very negative feelings about oneself, so my thinking should be
understandable.
What is depression ?
Very hard to know, but here is my interpretation of facts : a deep negative
feeling entertained by a thought process that aims at justifying failures - this
only makes things worse.
How to get out of it ?
Very difficult indeed since the process is self supporting (deflating). But to
get out of the dead lock (or the infinite loop) there is only one way : think
forward, think positive even based on negative stimuli. Once you succeed the
first step, the rest come easier. If you just keep thinking positive, you keep
making life easier and nicer to yourself.
What is involved ?
The negative way is the easy answer : just keep doing what you alwys did, that
involves very little effort, but keeps hurting you harder.
The positive way is the difficult one : you just can't stop watching your steps,
you have to work every single second to make it work right, but the reward is
there, fantastically powerful : you're happy.

This is my understanding of beauty in the way the pope describes it : you do not
reject the not so nice art, but you work on achieving nicer art.

More later,
Al.

--
ANTI SPAM / ANTI ARROSAGE COMMERCIAL :
Pour me répondre, veuillez enlever le Z de mon adresse.
To answer me, please take out the Z from my address.

Post a reply to this message

Alain CULOS wrote:
> 
> 
> I've tried to think about that and I have to disagree.
> I think most people confine the boundaries of art to their understanding of
> beauty, which is much less than beauty in its whole. That is one point. The
> other one being that in my humble opinion some people fail to express their
> ideas through beauty and express them through distress, uglyness, torture, ...
> all evil stuff. I think evrything can be expressed through beauty of some sort,
> but it might take a considerable extra amount of thinking, skill and energy to
> reach such a goal. Yet I am convinced that we should all aim at that.
>

I'll try to be brief since, as Lance so kindly pointed out, this is getting OT.
I can't be too wrong in saying that every artist wishes to convey a message. The
purpose of this message may be to provoke, to alarm, to warn, etc. Why should
this be conveyed with beauty? The goal is not to make the audience feel better.
The goal is to make an impact. Yet is this not art?
And what if the artist feels angry or depressed? These are not 'nice' feelings,
but does he not have the right to express them? It may ease him and also ease
the minds of similar people. Not because they consider it beautiful, but because
they can relate to it.
BTW, I'm sometimes a bit allergic to 'nice' as I'm sure are many others :)
Perhaps it's cynicism, but that's me.

Margus

Post a reply to this message

Yeah, however I had said it with an emphasis upon a ongoing "aging"; quote: aged
*another* 2 years :unquote. Just so I clarify this. You never know though, Lance could
have been impersonating a teenager all this time and really be a one year old (happy
1st
birthday then Lance!) with powers of mental capacity we can only imagine. Then again
maybe not.


Mark Wagner wrote:
> 
> If you work out the math of the original post, the implication is of a
> chronological age of two years.
> 

-- 
 omniVERSE: beyond the universe
  http://members.aol.com/inversez/homepage.htm
 mailto://inversez@aol.com?Subject=PoV-News

Post a reply to this message

>> If you work out the math of the original post, the implication is of a
>> chronological age of two years.

Yes, that's why I was slightly confused by the original message...

But obviously it was meant in a nice way, so thankyou :)

> with powers of mental capacity we can only imagine.

Yup yup yup ;-)

OK, this is getting OT... I'll leave it at that...

--
Lance.


---
For the latest 3D Studio MAX plug-ins, images and much more, go to:
The Zone - http://come.to/the.zone
For a totally different experience, visit my Chroma Key Website:
Colorblind - http://listen.to/colorblind

Post a reply to this message

"ingo" <ing### [at] ingodemonnl> wrote:
>
> I discuss these things somtimes with my collegues at work. First thing they say:
> Uhh modern art, my three year old grand daughter can paint better. What almost
> always strikes me is that most people don't want to invest times or efford in
> something like this (not only art, but just learning/thinking things).

Hear, hear!  Such complainers can easily be dismissed out of hand.

Once upon a time, when art was almost uniformly representational in
nature, talent (or at the very least, technical skill) was required in
order to create it.  One had to invest years of one's life in order to
learn how to create art of this nature, but the consumers of art (mostly
wealthy patrons) needed no such investment in order to look at what they
had commissioned and find it aesthetically pleasing.

Now, however, the artist has been freed of the unfair burden of learning
how to create art through tiresome procedures.  It is up to the CONSUMER
of art to learn how to find profundity in it; one who has not invested
the time to derive meaning from seemingly random splashes of paint will
almost certainly complain that a trained monkey (or, indeed, a
three-year-old) could have produced this or that painting.

The difference, of course, is that a monkey or a three-year-old rarely
understands that paint splatters are at least as valid as a Rembrandt
painting, and therefore will probably not command thousands of dollars
for their works from art patrons who have invested the time to learn the
value of what the uneducated call "crap".

Foolish is the modern artist who invests years in learning the
techniques of the Old Masters, for Art which requires talent and effort
to produce is outmoded and unfashionable.  Like the composer who
stubbornly clings to classical harmonic structures, it is the earmark of
a rigid, uncreative dullard who refuses to accept that it is the
interpretation of the beholder -- not the ability or laborious toil of
the artist -- that makes a piece of art great.

These buffoons will labour for weeks or months painting a single work
with brushes and much mixing of paint, when they could produce dozens of
works in a single day by simply splashing it on the canvas or laying on
bold swaths of colour with a palette knife.  Or they will spend similar
amounts of time chipping away tiny bits of stone to create an obsolete
statue when they could simply weld random bits of metal together in one
or two days, and get tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars for little
or no effort.

And these outdated creations cheapen the artistic world, for a work
which requires no effort to appreciate leads to mindless patrons who,
like couch potatoes watching sitcom after formulaic sitcom, turn away
from anything requiring intellectual activity, leaving the great artists
of today unappreciated and penniless!

But if you will excuse me, I must now go to the hospital to have my
tongue surgically removed from my cheek.


-- 
Jeff Lee         shi### [at] gatenet         http://www.gate.net/~shipbrk/

Post a reply to this message

Jeff Lee heeft geschreven in bericht <376e8251@news.povray.org>...
> ..........................
>Now, however, the artist has been freed of the unfair burden of learning
>how to create art through tiresome procedures.  It is up to the CONSUMER
>of art to learn how to find profundity in it; .....................

Our ancester art consumers had to learn too. There is quite some sybolism in a
lot of paintings a non educated person would have missed. Take a simple still
life. What dead animal is in it, a fish, a grouse, a pheasant? What's the
orientation of the knife and fork. What material is the plate made off, gold,
silver? And the prominent lemon, peeld off course.


>But if you will excuse me, I must now go to the hospital to have my
>tongue surgically removed from my cheek.
>

Leave it in.

ingo
--
Met dank aan de muze met het glazen oog.

Post a reply to this message