3. (A bit over saturated..doesn't look like the painting exactly.)The following is a post I made recently on face book regarding why the phrase: "One Nation Under God" and "In God We Trust" and my premise was that these statements do not infringe on the rights of any human being regardless of religious theological view, or philosophical view, nor does it infringe on atheists who say they do not hold any belief in a higher power. The matter under discussion, revolves around the concept of what do you put your faith in versus a belief system revolving around theology or philosophy. This is ultimately about natural rights of our Creator versus rights bestowed by human law.
The First Amendment's Establishment Clause does not “separate” government from faith; it separates government from theology or philosophies of life.
The phrase "separation of church and state" is not found in the language of the First Amendment and it’s Establishment Clause. Rather the clause is designed to clearly prevent establishing a national church or a theological position of a particular view of God and this includes any kind of philosophical view of life including the atheist view. These are matters of conscience and belief. All mankind have faith in something and what this rationale is that humans are born with natural rights regardless of whether a man believes life evolved or just happened, or whether life began with creation of Adam in the Garden of Eden. Man has faith in himself or the Bible, the Koran, or the writings of Budha, etc. It’s all faith.
These phrases were placed on our national monuments, in our Constitutional documents, and on our currency by men who were both Christian, Deists, Agnostic, Atheist .... namely Jefferson a Deist, and Franklin who was most likely an atheist. There were many learned non-religious men involved in the forming of our government who were agreeable to the addition of these phrases. Why?
This is about Natural Law straight out ... which these men fully understood. Let me try to explain through this post:
Consider this, America has not nor have we ever been a nation of atheists and that while the minorities are represented and have their natural rights secured along with the majority, it is the majority that rules how the Constitution will be worded. The Constitution was ratified by the votes of a majority. That said, is it’s language discriminating against the small minority of secularist, atheists, and humanists who do not hold to a religious view point?
On the contrary, it is this language “One nation under God” that guarantees every citizen of every philosophic view that their natural rights will be forever protected. Without this language, there is no guarantee.
There is a very important reason our Founding Fathers included these phrases and also amended the Constitution to clarify their position with the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment. No doubt driven language driven probably by non-Christians statement of the time. However, note that there in no specific wording "separation of church and state" in this amendment. That phrase has been added over time and has become CONVENTIONAL WISDOM which is used to declare that we are NOT one nation under God but separated from God. If you think I am wrong, prove me wrong. Go read it for yourself.
The Establishment Clause prevented any religious denomination or sect … a certain theology or philosophy … from ever being established as America's national religion or philosophical view of life, therefore, preventing the teaching of a particular brand of theology or philosophy of life. In doing so the Founders prevented the creation of any specific government church or government view point that should be a matter of personal conscience and is improvable one way or the other. No one can prove there is a God or disprove there is no god. This is brilliant. This move keeps theology of any religious stripe or a philosophy of life from being dictated and imposed upon American citizens. Rather every citizen decides these things according to their own conscience. However, that Amendment did not deny nor did they ever separate this nation from FAITH IN GOD ... or faith in a god.
Faith in God or faith in a god concerns a belief system or philosophy of life and that is why Jefferson and others wrote extensively about natural rights of men. They included resoundingly these phrases such as ... IN GOD WE TRUST, and ONE NATION UNDER GOD in our documents of governance and then engraved the motto everywhere on this our currency and coins, and continued to chisel into stone these mottos all over Washington DC into the stones of our monuments and in our anthems.
This is why. Having a simple FAITH is vastly different from being a Catholic, a Baptist, a Muslim, a Buddhist, a New Age wacko who bows down to magic rocks, or even a Satanist witch bowing down to worship the black magic of Lucifer, or atheists who bow down to themselves and worship man himself thus making himself his own god. Like the Greeks did. All of mankind has faith in something.
Very smart men...weren't they? So if it is in God you trust or if it is in a god you trust or yourself you trust in there is a guarantee extended to by your which is your natural right.
Let me explain.
For example, if your god is yourself, and you think you know all things and the meaning of life and there is no other power higher than yourself according to your conscience and that creation evolved all by itself, and you have decided mankind holds all the answers to the meaning of life, you are quite free to pursue that philosophy freely in the United States of America. Find others who believe as you do, organize and go vote for your favorite atheist or humanist candidate. Maybe you can persuade one day the majority to your way of thinking. That is your natural right.
In my view, people who do that have just made for themselves their own idol... namely man … themselves. That is who they have faith in. Man will have faith in something. Some have faith in science, education, philosophy and so on; other have faith in the what the Bible says or some other sacred text. Yet, no person has the right to impose his brand of philosophy or religious view on another. There is the problem.
The Founding Fathers understood this concept.
Mankind is flawed. This also is a recognized fact. The Bible tells Christian believers and the Jew this truth; history also records this truth to the atheists and secularists. Can anyone say there is a perfect man without flaws? Can you honestly say mankind has improved the human character and over come his flaws? Power, wealth, envy, and covetousness corrupts and men resist it yet few overcome these temptations especially in governance. Would you agree?
THEREFORE, it was essential to get the nation to agree that there are certain natural rights that are given by our Creator that are inalienable. That means a right that no man can take away from another other man; further, no man can endow or give another person that right. It is these "inalienable rights that only God" can give or take away. Man is born with certain rights that only God has the authority to give or deny it to humans. God has that authority because he created all of us in His own image...they are Natural Rights.
Now this is an important principle for a group of people to agree upon because it guarantees human beings in America that they have an uncontested RIGHT TO LIFE, an uncontested RIGHT TO LIBERTY i.e. personal freedom, and AN uncontested RIGHT TO PURSUIT HAPPINESS....but that is UNDER GOD not under man or a government. Agreeing to these Natural Rights is the guarantee because it rests outside of man or government authority. Your rights can never be revoked by government or any man.
In this way all citizens are given a guarantee of these rights under our laws which are then fully enumerated in our Constitution, accepted by a majority of God fearing and non-god fearing individuals. All laws are judged against the Bill of Rights and that is why the Supreme Court Justices are so important...that is their job....they don't create law, they judge it but these natural rights stand.
Right now Obama Care demands that you buy something. Your personal liberty is now in jeopardy ... and that is the uproar. Simple. The government has no right to force you to buy something.
Now, on this subject, if you think differently, you, in my opinion, are not a student of the writings of the signers of the Declaration of Independence and the original founding documents.
Do you think they ever envisioned a monster of a proletariat government that is now in place? They knew that states rights were essential for dispersing power and de-centralizing it .... and so the Federalist Papers were written to clarify that and they also knew that there had to be a way to fix any problem they might not have foreseen with the Amendment processes but they divided the power to do so among the three judicial branches to make it extremely difficult and cumbersome to change anything and as any student of civics knows, this Constitution has held without further need of Amendment all these years except ... as the Fathers saw on women's rights and slavery issues.
It is brilliant thinking ... and it has worked pretty well for 200 years. It still reflects the majority position of this nation for over 95% of the population profess to be Judeo-Christian or other faiths and sects leaving a tiny few atheists who declare, in my view to be their own god ..... who say they have no faith in anything but themselves.
Atheist view is a silly notion in my view....but then I'm a Christian...I would think that.
THEN FROM THE OPPOSITIONS WHO WROTE:
I am a student of American history and government. The founders -- in religious terms at least -- were as diverse a group as our leaders today and perhaps as diverse as we ourselves.
Among them, were John Adams and Thomas Jefferson (author of the Declaration) who were deists and not Christians, George Washington whom I believe was Christian as were many of his peers, Ben Franklin who was either agnostic or atheist, and Thomas Paine who was an avowed atheist. Our nation is strong so long as we realize it is made up of all of us working together as one.
Historically and philosophically, it is of a movement that grew out of the European Enlightenment which came up with the novel idea that people should rule themselves and that nobody should be able to dictate their private belief or unbelief.
MY ANSWER: Ha, ha, ha. ....David ... did you not read all of the rationale I posted (ABOVE)? Yes, you are exactly right and my friend ... I think you are making my point nicely .... ( Maybe I lack clarity....ha.)
The fact that Jefferson and Franklin and many others at that time...back then supported "In God We Trust" and "One Nation Under God" language is significant ... and the mention of "Our Creator" and so forth apparently satisfied their views .... making my point precisely. They did not see that including those phrases to be any sort of a threat to their own atheistic or deist views at all. Ever wonder why?
Study "Natural Rights."
I hope all those who agree with my post will cast their votes for a return to common sense governance November 2nd .... all those who hold to America's core beliefs as found in the Constitution and Bill of Rights as well as the Federalist Papers, strengthening State's Rights and holding to the wonderful ideas of governance of our Founding Fathers.
So it is "In God I Trust" in my heart ... as I go to the polls and vote in a few days. Character is everything...we'll see if we still have knowledgeable people left in this nation. Move the power back to the center.
This is the first light application of reactive solution on the bronze base layer. You can see the patina beginning to form. Some of it I can rub off but if I want to stop the reaction I can seal it however, it probably will change the color a bit.
This is the iron base test tile turning from two light coats of reactive solution. It will continue to rust ... changing to a shade of dark orange-rust. I like this a lot.
This is the first base coat of copper. I have not applied the reactive solution yet because i need to apply a second copper coat that needs to dry. Tomorrow, I will start the process to add a green-ish blue patina.
COMMENT #1 – On Content
Rob wrote regarding focal point and interest in a discuss sparked by my two landscape sketches previously posted:
The problem with most paintings is that they are a fait accompli, a completely contained universe that allows few questions and even less discovery. The artist presents everything with few mysteries and expects the viewers to be like good little children at table, and eat everything set before them (meanwhile ruining the experience by grumbling about being not appreciated for slaving over a hot easel all day).
(The following alludes to a suggestion of what to add to paintings to create more interest...an alligator hiding in the water for example.)
What the hiding alligator would do is give the viewer something to discover on their own. It would never be mentioned in the title. Once they discover it, they'll call everyone over and will be so delighted that they'll speak about it outside of the gallery..."you've just got to see that picture of Elegiac Park...tell me what you see." That's intriguing stuff and that brings in people to see it.
I once had a studio on the roof of the Bradford Hotel in Boston. It was previously the kitchen, all tiled and with twenty-four foot skylight ceilings. It was a great place to grow plants...some of which became the size of trees. I made a series of snipers painted on Foamcor®, cut them out and positioned them in "the jungle." It was a never-ending source of delight to visitors to suddenly see some grinning Japanese soldier in a tree, taking a bead on them. They'd act as if getting shot or have running gun battles with the cardboard cut-outs, that's how easily people can become involved and become unleashed.
There was a real lesson there and that lesson is...hide the alligator. In other words, put something in the painting that delights and surprises. Just going out and painting what's there is no different, in intent, than snapping a photo. And you don't want to end up over at ARC, do you?
COMMENT #2 – On method.
There were several other artists who were commenting but I’m only posting Rob’s advice for brevity’s sake. DHT member suggested that I get 25 or 30 hardboard panels and paint on and move on until I start getting the feel for an approach.
Rob wrote responding this suggestion: That's good advice for Patti (David) now that she's at this critical stage.
Patti, make life easy and just concentrate on painting. Call up Max at 706-227-4427 or go to www.realgesso.com and have him bundle up a bunch of panels. If you haven't worked on real rabbitskin glue gesso, you're in for a treat, but his oil primed linen panels are delightful. Ask him to toss in an ABS panel too. ABS is an ultra permanent plastic sheet they mount to hardboard and, for my money, it may feel better than gesso (of course real gesso feels soooo much better than acrylic primer.
One of the things I learned a while ago was to buy supports in quantity. In that way I know there's one waiting for when the mood strikes and i don't end up painting on junk and regretting it later.
I wrote back this: Good grief, Rob...what critical stage???? I'm just stuck. Seems like I'll never become productive.
Rob is answering both Phyllis and me, making a point of where both of us are as artists. Phyllis was taking from a local artist that Rob and others thought not to be very good but obviously Phyllis admired this artist's work. Phyllis is a better artist...he is saying.
Obviously, we are looking at the same pictures with very different eyes.
In preparation for Burns Night and haggis eating, I was compelled to remember and recite various of the bard's poems and this one bears on the discussion. Rrrr rrrrr rrrr (that's me gettin' my proper burr sounding like a lawnmower....) “Oh wad some power the giftie gie us To see oursel's as others see us! It wad monie a blunder free us, And foolish notion”
Basically, the eternal truth that Burns touches upon is that we don't have a clear vision of who we are and what we can do.
Perhaps you have not really looked at the most recent pastels you have done (Phyllis). The compositions (you did) of both the clouds through the trees and the path are vastly beyond what (the artists you admire) McCombs is showing in her works. Her compositions are weak to the point of being nonexistent and the biggest failing is the picture lack "bones." That is to say, even in a landscape there should be a feeling of structure and weight, just as when painting a figure. I'm sure you've seen paintings of people where they look almost like inflated skins...no bones are evident. That's because the artist failed to observe past the surface. There's no weight, no underlying structure. (However) That is clearly the case with McCombs. If she concentrated on the rudiments of painting and drawing with the same degree of attention and energy she puts into making evocative titles, her pictures would be better. But they are clearly nowhere near the depth and solidity you have been showing in your recent work.
To be quite blunt, I think this recent advance has left you somewhat frightened. You're not holding onto the old tricks that always worked and you've let go to take some chances (this goes for you too, Patti). This has left the two of you searching for something to hold onto. In Patti's case it's the mistake of trying to rework pictures which are fine as they are. In your case it's clinging to what you perceive as a known quantity...a workshop teacher.
You're both wrong in the way you're going about dealing with this insecure feeling and (this is most important) you're both absolutely dead right in what you did that got you to this scary place. You've been so busy climbing to this summit that you don't know what to do now that you've got there...and worse, you're getting vertigo and feel the need to hold onto something.
Don't worry. The feeling will pass. In your place I'd save the workshop money and go out and get an expensive pair of shoes instead. It will be better spent...and good shoes make you feel confident, don't they?
I don't know what they've been putting in the water on Oklahoma but whatever it is, bottle it up and send some to the rest of us. Please...the both of you...trust what it is that is bringing you to this point. Do not lose it with overthinking it. Trust yourselves and learn to live with being scared at these new successes. I think they'll be coming more frequently.
About Rob Howard.... a successful professional illustrator and portraitist residing North of Boston in the little town of Haverville, at the age of 71 provides his great intellect, sarcasm and wit and insight to the professional artists subscribing to the Cennini Forum. ( If you want professional guidance as an artist, you should look into joining the forum.)
This is a great tool...your finger that is.
This is the porcelain like finish using special warm and cool glazes (AquaCreme®/latex glazes) alternating. 
Here are three test tiles I am completing in view of finishing my portrait head. These are the first base coats. I'll put the second coats on in the morning and then applie the chemicals that will turn them to an aged bronze, the copper to a blue-greenish patina and finally the iron to rust. Then I will have to decide which will be best for my piece. I'm thinking the bronze or the iron.
Posts
All Comments
