Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘art’

1. Does anyone know which Bible translation(s) the American Founding Fathers were using? It’s my understanding that the Pilgrims used the Geneva Bible (which I’m reading on Kindle in a 1587 edition), but it occurs to me that (off the top of my head) I don’t know what the Founders were hauling with them to all those hate-to-do-it-but-it’s-time-to-sever-ties-with-the-homeland sessions, or to the earliest sessions of Congress. I’m sure I can get the info by googling, but quite frankly, my first searches turned up an avalanche of anti-Christian, hate mongering sites that libel, and badly misrepresent, the Founders, more than they shed light on them. (Sigh.) [Added: A reader found this on Bibles used for the swearing in of Presidents, and left the link in the comments. Interesting. It also reminds me of what I should have remembered. Bibles were rare and expensive in colonial America, in part because the King controlled who could print Bibles.]

2. Regarding the Geneva Bible: if you aren’t used to the writing style and the slightly-modified alphabet of the 16th century, hang in there. It makes sense after a while. The spellings will be all over the board, even on the same page. Nombers is the same as numbers, for instance. U and v swap places a lot. I frequently means J. And so on, and so on. A little more difficult than sounding out words to get the right one, is figuring out where letters are dropped, but it’s assumed you know they’re there. N and M get left off a lot, erratically. In many old texts, a line over a letter apparently means it is followed by an n or m. (This Kindle book doesn’t do that, but for a great example of old-style writing that might help you ‘crack the code’, see The prophete Ionas with an introduccion before teachinge to vnderstonde him and the right vse also of all the scripture/ and why it was written/ and what … the true sense and vnderstondynge therof. [Kindle Edition], by William Tyndale.) Just to make it more fun, words get combined that we don’t usually combine any more. Shalbe means shall be, for instance. (I’m thinking we might want to bring that word back into use, by the way. It’s growing on me.)

3. This doesn’t quite answer my original question, but I just thought to google “congressional bible america,” and got this.

4. Changing subjects, you may laugh at me now. I’m self-publishing eleven years’ worth of books I’ve written, some of which got good noises from publishers, but no actual contract. I have most of them on Kindle and Nook now, and have been working on trade paperback editions, which are slowly coming to completion. I don’t expect to bump anyone off the bestseller lists, but I figure, on the one hand, that I might as well try to get a little something out of them, and, on the other, that if I don’t publish them, I will be editing and rewriting them on my deathbed. I simply can’t seem to stop polishing, unless a book is actually out on store shelves. So, I have declared “Enough!” on several books, and put them out. What I invite you to laugh about is my consternation over the cover of the large print edition of Why We Raise Belgian Horses. I have come up with a cover that is eye-catching, and pleasant, and that I don’t think will drive off men on the one hand, or women on the other. (This novel was out in a homemade edition years ago, and did well with men as well as women, adults as well as teens. While this is good, it makes cover design a bit tricky. You can’t be too girly, or too masculine.) So, I have a nice cover design, one that I think is better than the one I went with on the regular trade paperback, or the ebooks. It even looks good in a thumbnail, or from across the room. The problem is that the photo I’ve used is of a horse that really isn’t quite the right sort of Belgian horse. But I really like the photo. It’s artsy, with lighting that plays into the storyline. If I go with what I have, I’m nearly ready to go. I’ve just redone the back cover copy, and am waiting on what could be the final proof – if I don’t change the picture. The first proof sits on my work table, causing me to seesaw between ‘ooh, I like that,’ and ‘hmmm, should I try to find another photo?’ As if it really, really matters…

5. I am still harvesting from the garden. Amazing. I have nine watermelons that are nearly ripe, which is really amazing. The odds of any of them actually getting ripe this time of year are probably slim to none, but I sometimes go out and marvel at them, resolutely ignoring the season. For that matter, I am still getting blossoms on the watermelon and pumpkin vines. Go figure.

6. David Jeremiah, on his radio show, has been talking about cultural rot and where the church (that would be all us believers) fits in. This week, he was using Vincent Van Gogh’s painting of the Church of Auvers to help illustrate a point. Not knowing the painting, I looked it up. And then followed links. And came to this literature-rich letter from the artist to his brother Theo in 1880, which contains some food for thought, I think.

7. While halfheartedly searching for new cover art, and happily taking detours as they showed up, I stumbled across this blog, which looks promising. Papergreat shares clips from old newspapers, magazines and books. Here’s a post with clippings from World War II.

7 Quick Takes Friday is hosted at Conversion Diary. Head here for this week’s round up. Our hostess is discussing Halloween costumes, controversies related to Halloween, forewords to Catholic books, pseudo Jedi mind tricks, Story Engineering, the best rap songs for Catholics, and is wondering what makes a good photo portrait.

Read Full Post »

From “Life Imitates Art: Redeeming Pop Culture” (Chuck Colson, Breakpoint Commentary, September 22, 1999):

…Up until the Enlightenment, art was seen as a way of expressing profound truths. Not necessarily literal truth; yet even symbols and metaphors reflect something true about reality—like portraying angels with wings or saints with halos. Beauty itself was seen as a kind of truth.

But in the Enlightenment, a new theory of truth was born—that the only real knowledge derives from what can be seen, touched, and measured scientifically. Since angels and halos cannot be seen or measured, out they went. Beauty itself is an ideal that cannot be measured scientifically, so out it went, too—relegated to the realm of subjective fantasy.

But if art was no longer about truth, then what WAS it about? Many artists began to define art as the creation of an abstract, idealized world—and from that ideal world they hurled down thunderbolts upon the real world for all its shortcomings. Thus was born the idea that art is about criticism and revolt—a means of shocking conventional society. Filtered down to the popular level, this view of art inspired movies and rock music that today launch a relentless attack on traditional values.

If Christians want to help halt the degradation of popular culture, we must understand it is not merely a result of declining public tastes: It is a direct result of a change in worldview. And instead of merely decrying the decadence, we need to roll up our sleeves and offer positive alternatives—imitating the inspiring success of Martha Williamson [the producer of Touched by an Angel] and many others.

C.S. Lewis once said that the only way to drive out bad culture is to create good culture. We need to recognize that artistic talent is a gift from the Lord—and that developing those talents is the only way to create good culture.

hat tip: How Now Shall We Live? Devotional, Tyndale House, 2004.

Read Full Post »

I love stories like this: WWII Italian prisoners of war in Wales used vegetable juice as paint, turning a Nissan hut into a chapel full of artwork – and the chapel is still in use today. More, with pictures, at The Practicing Catholic.

Read Full Post »

A private initiative to erect a statue of Ronald Reagon outside the America Embassy in London has received approval from the Westminster City Council. The statue is to be accompanied by a piece of the Berlin Wall. Some of Mr. Obama’s supporters are said to be less than thrilled. The plan is for a 10-foot tall bronze statue to sit on a 6-foot base of Portland stone, not far from a statue of Dwight D. Eisenhower.

To be more precise, there are plans to erect a Reagan statue outside the present American embassy. In the Times story (second link above), it is noted that the mission is set to move from Grosvenor Square to new headquarters in Nine Elms, south of the Thames. A moving date is not given.

Read Full Post »