theram4jc made this template

to whom it may concern


About Me

Jeff Watkins
Age: Still alive
Occupation: Too many things
For sale on
For sale on eBay Wishlist
My space
My library
My reviews and lists

Previous Posts

Sell Sell Sell
Five of The Most Influential Albums On My Life
Part One: Shhh I hopped in my car tonight Heading...
I'll Catch You
Ch... Ch... Ch... Changes
This is my phone
I Did It
Take In Forgiveness; Everyone Deserves It
Hearts Once Nourished With Hope and Compassion
"How the girls can turn to ghosts before your eyes...

© To Whom It May Concern 2002-2010, except for cited or source material.


Tuesday, July 25, 2006

ALMOST a WEEK and NO post

I left the eBay link up so you would buy my crap. Well, you didn't and I understand why. Basically, because it's crap! You're not interested. I get it. Well, I'm going to list some stuff again soon, so I'll be sure let you know :)

Anyway, the other day I heard something that caught my attention and I wanted to get some feedback. I heard a member of a significant band (I don't recall which one) say that "art is inherently good." It made me think. Since we are a people of a depraved state, can an inanimate object we produce have an innocent or evil nature? Is intrinsic creativity good because it is not a living organism or is it bad because it's an overflow of a marred humanity? Discuss...

posted by Jeff Watkins at 6:43 PM


Blogger Wendy said...

Well it depends on what the guy meant by "good." If he means that art is inherently good quality-wise, then he's obviously smoking crack. See any art by Jackson Pollock.

But good as in morally or spiritually good? Um. Well some art inspires us to praise God for beauty in the world. Other art makes us want to throw things or cry. And some art kills us.

So yeah, I think the guy's wrong.

12:33 AM  
Blogger Chase said...

geez..jeff, loaded question don'tcha think?

i mean, it's early.

firstly, wendy is right. secondly, why say anything else?

what is art?
and to be redundant...what is good?

i'm uncomfortable with too broad a definitions for it, as they seem not to respect the value of genuine art. not anyone's wad of paper or whathaveyou is art because they'd like to fancy themselves an artist.

i think ultimately it may be the judgement of history. but even still...we shouldn't be so sanctimonious when talking about it. that is, art is still like any other thing people do, verbal or nonverbal. i can say great things but have the wrong heart about it. i can have the right heart but not be poignant.

truly good art, good as in worthwhile, warrants no discussion as to its worthiness. it's the "false art" that keeps this conversation going, i suspect. those "works" on the fringes that we have to be informed are good really probably aren't good at all.

i won't contradict myself and be sanctimonious but on that rare occassion that an attempt at art actually is successful it is something like a fusing of the divine and human. it is by grace that such art can be created.

obviously, some things we'd like to call art aren't...and therefore some inaminate objects we create are of an evil nature.

blah blah blah, i'm going back to sleep.

6:06 AM  
Blogger Thais said...

hmm, good question. as children of the master creator, i want to say that art is inheritantly good, because the act of creating something - even if the final product sucks or is ugly - is God-given. but that's not getting into how we seem to corrupt every good and perfect gift... eh, i don't know. but creativity is definitely a good thing, initially.

8:31 PM  
Anonymous Michelle said...

maybe it's good until sin gets in the way. but, i don't know what else to say. i'm too tired and worn out.

but, i did want to let you know that my TMNT sold! lol

oh, and all but 2 of your items have been bid on - perhaps not by people you know, but still, you're getting some money for it! so, that's nice.

10:06 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home