Is it Really an Unforgivable Sin to Be Unappreciative of Art?

First I need to put in a disclaimer.  I am a "left brain" thinker.  I used to be 100% left brain and not creative at all... but having a wife that was an art major and a "right brain" thinker has helped me some.  Also, having stated I have an artist as a wife, hopefully I can stay out of the doghouse with this post! (she knows most of this about me anyway)


Art - the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.


This is just one definition from Dictionary.com of what art is... but it's a good one.  "of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance" - What a subjective thing.  As is art.  And I don't like subjective.  But that's my own quirk.  There is plenty of stuff that is art which I think, even if it is subjective, everyone can agree it doesn't rise to the level of meeting the last part of the definition - "of more than ordinary significance".  I mean, if I go into a museum I want to be "wowed".  But what do I get instead, pieces that I can only conclude were the result of a kindergarten finger painting project.  And that is my main criticism of some art.  I think what really gets me is just the post-modern mindset that is within art.  Basically those in art can't really define what art is.  Therefore everything is art, and many artist are pushing the limit on this idea.  But I think if everything is art, you're creating an environment where nothing is art.  There must remain some sort of exclusivity, privilege or level of quality to garner the title of Art.  I think that if I can re-create what is hanging on the wall in one afternoon it doesn't deserve to be held as "more than ordinary significance" and hung in a museum.  The most popular response I've heard to that is, yea you could re-create it, but you didn't come up with the idea, and that's why it's art.  True, I didn't come up with the idea, but not because I am incapable, but because I don't care to. 

 This one and the next one, I just don't really get the point.

This one is pretty simple and rather easy to duplicate I would think

another rather simple one, but I do actually kind of like this one.  I think it's the beach.

Art that I do actually like a lot is realism.  Stuff that you look at and it makes you think, how in the world did someone draw or paint something that looks so life like!  Something that took some real skill to accomplish and that I could not even come close to replicating b/c I have no artistic ability whatsoever!  I like these (the middle two are amazing, how you paint that is beyond me!):

I also don't mind the whimsical type of art.  Things that are not so realistic looking, but at least I know what they are.  Here are a few of those:

Then there is other art.  Stuff that may qualify more as entertainment than art.  But it is entertaining and I do enjoy it.

I think my conclusion is that I am just too narrow-minded or simple-minded to really grasp the ideas behind most art and therefore lack an appreciation for it.  This is why I can only appreciate art that I know what it is and I don't have to figure out what it is.  Actually, I guess my conclusion is that I do appreciate obvious beauty and when art captures that I appreciate art (such as the beach and mountain photos above).  Lucky for us simple-minded folks, everyone can appreciate and enjoy beauty.

Am I Arrogant, or Just Always Right?

So I've had this discussion with Tiffany a few times and some of our friends have been included in it once or twice.  Apparently (though I disagree, and I feel as though I'm right :) ), I come across as if I think I am always right.  Now, I know for a fact that I am NOT.  However, after digging deeper through the discussion I have found the reason why I, as well as many of you, come across this way.

In general terms, just about everyone will admit that they know they are not always right.  Any rational person will admit this.  No one can be right about everything.  It's simply impossible.  I admit that I am not always right.

In specific terms is where our problem lies.  Take a specific issue, then another and another and another and after a while people get the impression you think you're always right about EVERYTHING!  But that still isn't the case.  You still hold your opinion that you know you're wrong about some things... you just don't know which ones.

So, on any specific issue I THINK I am right, I could be wrong, but I am pretty sure I am right.  Because I'm arrogant?  No, because I'm logical.  If I knew or even thought I was wrong on that particular issue, I would change my position to the correct one.  After all, who intentionally holds a position they know or think is wrong? Now that's ridiculous.  I can give examples of times I have been wrong, but I cannot give examples of areas where I am currently wrong - b/c if I knew I were wrong it would be illogical to maintain my position and therefore I would change it to the right position (or the one I think is right).

When discussions arise, I do not verbally state with each thought that I know I could be wrong.  May be I should.  Then the appearance of arrogance would be at least diminished if not destroyed... So...

I could be wrong about everything in this note.........................................  But I 'm not...  :)

If God is Good, Why is There Evil in the World?

Probably never heard that question, right?  It's said to be one of the most difficult for people to come to terms with when trying to trust in God. 

Habakkuk deals with this question.  The book reminds me a lot of Job, which deals with another very difficult question - Why do bad things happen to good people?  The results are almost the same.  I think Habakkuk gets his questions answered a little more directly than Job, but the answer still isn't what most of us would want to hear.  Job's questions are never really answered.  But in the end both decide that what God said was sufficient, and they could trust Him.

Habakkuk starts with:

1:2 How long, O LORD, must I call for help, but you do not listen?  Or cry out to you, "Violence!" but you do not save?

3 Why do you make me look at injustice? Why do you tolerate wrong? Destruction and violence are before me; there is strife, and conflict abounds.

4 Therefore the law is paralyzed, and justice never prevails. The wicked hem in the righteous, so that justice is perverted.

13 Your eyes are too pure to look on evil; you cannot tolerate wrong. Why then do you tolerate the treacherous? Why are you silent while the wicked swallow up those more righteous than themselves?

I think Habakkuk's questions are legitimate.  We've all thought them at some point.  God DO SOMETHING!  The underlying assumption, a wrong one at that, is that WE know what the right thing to do is and for some reason God is not doing it.  God tells Habakkuk:

5 "Look at the nations and watch— and be utterly amazed. For I am going to do something in your days that you would not believe, even if you were told.

God is wiser and all-knowing.  Even if He told us the plan, most of the time we still wouldn't understand it.  And I'm cool with that, who wants to serve a God that my little brain could understand EVERYTHING He does?

Habakkuk is worried because there are people sweeping through the country destroying and plundering everything in their path.  He's scared b/c he is in the path.  He is also disturbed by the fact that He believes in a good God and sees evil winning during his lifetime.  If evil is winning, how can I trust God to prevail ultimately, and to protect me? 

God answers Habakukk by telling him that their (the evil ones) time will come.  They will be judged, held accountable, punished.  BUT, that time has not come.  In fact God is actually using them (not causing them) to accomplish a separate goal of His own.  He even gives Habakkuk a little more info and tells him exactly what will happen to these people.  But Habakkuk must be patient, TRUST God that it will happen and wait. 

Habakkuk ends his book with a prayer, here is part of it:

3:16 I heard and my heart pounded, my lips quivered at the sound; decay crept into my bones, and my legs trembled.        Yet I will wait patiently for the day of calamity to come on the nation invading us.  17 Though the fig tree does not bud        and there are no grapes on the vines, though the olive crop fails and the fields produce no food, though there are no sheep in the pen and no cattle in the stalls, 18 yet I will rejoice in the LORD, I will be joyful in God my Savior. 19 The Sovereign LORD is my strength; he makes my feet like the feet of a deer, he enables me to go on the heights.

Even though we are being invaded (and could be killed!) I will rejoice in the Lord?  Even though there is no food I will rejoice in the Lord?  If there is no food and my life could end, how is God protecting me?  Because "stuff" can happen to you here on earth.  Bad things happen, God has given not just you free will, but everyone.  But you're Ultimate (eternal) well being is secured in God.  This is far more worthy of rejoicing in than your current situation or the protection of your earthly life.  Your eternal life or death is at stake and no one is strong enough to pull you from the protection of God's hands!