As I'm nearing the end of a semester of "Philosophy of Art", I can't help but wonder if the best way to define "art" is as "excess". By "excess" I just mean "something that doesn't serve a practical purpose".
For instance, a painting on a wall: It may be pretty, it may be thought provoking, but the wall wouldn't really be any worse off if the painting weren't there. Perhaps we would say that removing the painting takes away a certain feeling of "warmth" in the wall, but that doesn't give the painting a practical purpose, only a psychological purpose.
Similarly, the difference between a show car, and a '93 Ford Escort. It's quite likely that the Escort will be able to get you from point A to point B every bit as well as the show car (maybe even better depending upon what aspect of the car is being showcased), but what makes the show car so much more popular is all of the extra stuff that doesn't really have any bearing on how well the car runs, and perhaps sometimes even would make the car run worse.
The last point I want to make is that I don't think it's actually important that people actually like something in order for it to be art. It's possible that something... *cough* *Duchamp's "Fountain"* *cough* could just simply be "bad" art.
To sum up: I think maybe the best way to define "art" is: Something that a person puts conscious effort into creating, absent any practical reason to do so.
Saturday, November 23, 2013
Thursday, August 29, 2013
Initial thoughts on "The Case for Christ"
Tonight I tried to sit down and read "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel. I made it through one chapter. I'd like to offer my initial thoughts.
It has always been my understanding that the strength of a journalist is in his ability to not only ask the right questions, but to analyze the answers given. If this is indeed the case, it has been proven to me Lee Strobel is - beyond a reasonable doubt - among the worst journalists in history.
When questioning Craig L. Blomberg, Ph.D - a New Testament scholar - Strobel asks him how likely it is that three "synoptic" gospels were actually written by Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Dr. Blomberg replies that "There are no known competitors for these three gospels" and Strobel simply accepts it as an open and shut case. By this logic, Benjamin Franklin was the author of the poem Beowulf, because there is no known competitor for my claim. The gospels are all anonymous, and there is no more reason to believe that Matthew - for example - was written by the Jewish tax-collector-turned-disciple than there is to believe that it was written Pontius Pilate. In fact, Pilate becomes a MORE likely candidate when you consider that there is secular evidence for his existence (the same cannot be said for dear Matthew).
Furthermore, Dr. Blomberg unequivocally states that the vast majority of "early testimony" states that John the disciple was the author of the Gospel of John. This claim seems rather strange when you consider that John never wrote of the "Transfiguration", the raising of Jairus' daughter, or the "Ascension" despite being one of only three people to have supposedly witnessed all three miracles. The claim that John wrote this book becomes even more impressive when you consider that Acts 4:13 clearly states that John was illiterate.
In light of the discovery that I am apparently more knowledgable about the New Testament than a man with a Doctorate in the subject; and more able to examine and cross-examine the presented evidence than a man with a degree in Journalism and an M.S.L. from Yale, I don't think I will be continuing to read this book. I also would like to strongly discourage anyone else from reading this book, or from seriously considering its claims to be "evidence" for the divinity or existence of "Jesus of Nazareth".
It has always been my understanding that the strength of a journalist is in his ability to not only ask the right questions, but to analyze the answers given. If this is indeed the case, it has been proven to me Lee Strobel is - beyond a reasonable doubt - among the worst journalists in history.
When questioning Craig L. Blomberg, Ph.D - a New Testament scholar - Strobel asks him how likely it is that three "synoptic" gospels were actually written by Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Dr. Blomberg replies that "There are no known competitors for these three gospels" and Strobel simply accepts it as an open and shut case. By this logic, Benjamin Franklin was the author of the poem Beowulf, because there is no known competitor for my claim. The gospels are all anonymous, and there is no more reason to believe that Matthew - for example - was written by the Jewish tax-collector-turned-disciple than there is to believe that it was written Pontius Pilate. In fact, Pilate becomes a MORE likely candidate when you consider that there is secular evidence for his existence (the same cannot be said for dear Matthew).
Furthermore, Dr. Blomberg unequivocally states that the vast majority of "early testimony" states that John the disciple was the author of the Gospel of John. This claim seems rather strange when you consider that John never wrote of the "Transfiguration", the raising of Jairus' daughter, or the "Ascension" despite being one of only three people to have supposedly witnessed all three miracles. The claim that John wrote this book becomes even more impressive when you consider that Acts 4:13 clearly states that John was illiterate.
In light of the discovery that I am apparently more knowledgable about the New Testament than a man with a Doctorate in the subject; and more able to examine and cross-examine the presented evidence than a man with a degree in Journalism and an M.S.L. from Yale, I don't think I will be continuing to read this book. I also would like to strongly discourage anyone else from reading this book, or from seriously considering its claims to be "evidence" for the divinity or existence of "Jesus of Nazareth".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)