Painting in nature vs painting in the studio.

There are a lot of strongly defended opinions about the veracity of using photographs as reference material for paintings.  It seems to me that most of these opinions are expressed by Plein Air painters.  While studio painters probably hold strong opinions as well, they are likely too busy painting to take time to express them.  Plein Air painters, on the other hand, have a lot of time on their hands, sitting in their kitchens waiting for spring or sunny skies to complete their paintings.

Of course, studio painters have other reasons beyond weather for their painting practices.  One comment I have heard is that slow painters are at a distinct disadvantage painting outside, trying to complete their painting before the light changes too much. Those who paint with oil and wish to paint large paintings are similarly at a disadvantage.

On the other hand, Plein Air painters point out that photos simply cannot capture colours and depth properly, not to mention moods, that the only way to truly render landscapes is to be in the midst of it.  My answer is this: recently someone posted a number of drawings of everyday objects, such as hot dogs, photographed beside the real items, challenging people to tell the difference. It was difficult. The drawings were extremely well done, but, my comment was that painting is fundamentally a means of communication and, if you cannot tell the difference between the real thing and the drawing, then what is it exactly that the “artist” is trying to tell us, other than that he/she enjoys exceptional drafting skills.

This is obviously a  bit of an overstatement, but it contains a kernel of truth. I admit that   plein air painters can just as easily put their personal reactions to nature in quickly completed on site paintings as studio painters can using photos they took themselves of places they have been to. The point is, that while some find the plein air experience to be a fruitful one, it is not fundamental to successful landscape painting.  The danger of simply copying nature is, equally real for both painters. Our objective is to convey our reactions to nature, to show people, with our paintings, the wonders of nature and its life-giving presence, not to simply reproduce its image on canvas.

This is an island located in upper Whitefish Bay near Twin Islands.  It is a very small island with some interesting rock formations and one lonely White Pine that has lost its top.  It sits out in the open away from, but surrounded by a lot of larger islands.  Because of its position, it can be seen from a lot of locations which often fools me into thinking that there must be two similar islands.

Over the years I have often photographed it and this is my second, and probably not the last, painting of it.

The view from our front deck this morning shortly after the early morning fog lifted.  No ice on Long Bay (Lake of the Woods) yet, but some of the smaller lakes have frozen over.

More on the Charter of Values

I've been thinking about this thing, and listening to what many people had to say on "Cross-Country Check-up" on CBC Radio.

I haven't changed my fundamental viewpoint, but I am more convinced than ever that this is something that the Government should'ntt be meddling in. Sure, when the question of Shira Law comes up, it should be squashed quickly and completely. The same with other threats to our way of life.  But, religious symbols in themselves, (or, more accurately, cultural symbols), don't do us any harm and trying to suppress them will merely cause bitterness and strengthen their resolve to uphold their faith.

Better to just ignore what doesn't interfere with us, and eventually, the human race will grow up and leave these myths called religions behind it.... at least I hope so, otherwise we are destined to forever live in the shadow of the cave.

Quebec's Charter of Values

The current debate in Quebec is interesting.   I suspect that it is a response to what is happening in many European countries, where Muslims are hijacking religious and cultural values in their adopted countries.

That certainly is a very valid concern. Islam, while not unique in this regard, is nevertheless one of the few religions that takes the view that if the religion is valid, then you cannot let it live only in the mosque, but must allow it to permeate your whole life.  Christians don’t take this view.  They seem to realize, whether they admit it or not, that their religion has no validity in the real world.

However, the Quebec response is a curtailment of civil rights for everyone,  exactly what they are afraid that Muslims would ultimately do.  It’s a natural response to bullies, hit back (not a bad idea actually), but in this case they are hitting back at everybody.

A better tactic, I think, would be to put in place laws and policies that make sure that each and every person can pursue their own beliefs but are prevented from imposing them in any way on others. That is, after all the real concern, and it is a valid one, concerning what is happening in England and other European countries, where Muslims have virtually taken over some districts and are verbally and physically attacking anyone that violates what they consider to be Muslim values.

In general, I don't agree with a general restriction of rights. The burka, however, is a more complicated issue. Total face covering provides anonymity, which fundamentally hides or conceals your identity or individuality. I suppose that, if that is your desire, the state should not deny you the right to do so, but, you must be ready to accept reasonable consequences of your actions, such as loss of some rights and services.

I think that shop owners, for example, should be allowed to deny service, or even access, to those wearing a burka, after all, how could you be sure it isn't a suicide bomber in duisgise?

Some services offered by the state simply cannot be provided anonymously, services such as passports, drivers licenses, etc., where identification is essential. Similarly, many of the rights individuals have in a court of law should also be denied.  In general, if you do not wish to interact with society as an individual, society should not have to treat you as one.

This approach would be more in keeping with Canadian values.  After all, our country is founded on freedom for everyone and we must make sure that neither religious fundamentalists nor fearful governments erode those values. So I find it incongruous that the Quebec Government should call this misguided legislation a "Charter of Values" when it so obviously is in opposition to Canada's values. But then, the current Quebec Government doesn't consider themselves to be part of Canada does it.

My "belief"

Ignosticism or igtheism is the theological position that every other theological position (including agnosticism and atheism) assumes too much about the concept of God and many other theological concepts.

It can be defined as encompassing two related views about the existence of God:

1. The view that a coherent definition of God must be presented before the question of the existence of God can be meaningfully discussed. Furthermore, if that definition is unfalsifiable, the ignostic takes the theological noncognitivist position that the question of the existence of God (per that definition) is meaningless. In this case, the concept of God is not considered meaningless; the term "God" is considered meaningless.
2. The second view is synonymous with theological noncognitivism, and skips the step of first asking "What is meant by 'God'?" before proclaiming the original question "Does God exist?" as meaningless.

Some philosophers have seen ignosticism as a variation of agnosticism or atheism,^[1] while others have considered it to be distinct. An ignostic maintains that he cannot even say whether he is a theist or an atheist until a sufficient definition of theism is put forth.

From Wikipedia 

NEWTOWN TRAGEDY

The news bulletins tell you that a “gunman” has entered a school and killed 20 children and 6 adults.

Simple statistics but not so to assimilate as they crash into your uncomprehending brain.

The details trickle in.  The children are very young; 5 to 10 years old. (Would it have been less tragic if they had been older?)

You learn that he used two hand guns and a 222 Bushmaster, a semi-automatic assault rifle that can be purchased in US gun stores for under $400. A rifle with a muzzle velocity of 3200 ft/sec, and an effective range of 600 meters.  A very effective weapon for killing 5 year olds.

You learn that aside from three children who were still alive, the police needed no medical assistance....all the others were dead. All struck by more than one bullet.

You learn that he first killed his own mother, that when he got into the school the first person to die was the very brave principle who put herself between the madman and her children

The details pile up. You try to assimilate them all, to understand, to make sense of it.  WHY? Is the thought that first come to your mind.  Why kill children?  If he wanted to end his own life, why take children with him?

Slowly, however, your mind recovers somewhat from the initial shock and you begin to think about what must have taken place in those classrooms.  That is when the real horror begins to dawn on you.

That’s when you express admiration for the police for having the foresight to have the surviving children hold hands and close their eyes are they were led out of the school.

But the horror doesn’t end there.  You learn that the gun lobby response is to suggest that the answer to guns is more guns, that had teachers been armed, the death toll would have been much less.  No suggestion that maybe, just maybe, the average citizen doesn’t really need a high-powered assault rifle. Of course, he still could have killed them all with the two registered handguns, couldn't he.

But gun control isn’t the real answer anyway, is it? If people want to kill, they will find guns.  And it’s when you finally hear the “good people”, even the President, who should know better, suggesting gun control as the answer to these tragedies that the real horror becomes apparent… because in that moment, you realize that this is not the last tragedy you will hear about, that there will be more… and you wonder how long it will take for people to wake up to the fact that its their very way of life, their “culture” that is fundamentally sick.

This is a culture in which individual freedoms and profit trump all other concerns. This is a culture that idolizes greed and selfishness, a culture that has been well trained by members of the Rand Corporation, among others.

And the really sad part is that this miasmic culture has spread its poisonous, selfish economic attitudes throughout the world.  Their tentacles probe into every society on earth, corrupting and poisoning whatever they touch.  It’s doubly sad to realize that this country, that considers itself to be the world’s policeman, behaves very much like an immature, selfish, spoiled child... not the kind of policeman I would like to see on my block.