Let’s say you’re at an art gallery looking at a beautiful painting. Two guys are standing by you , and you ask them both to explain this painting to you. The first guy is very knowledgeable in art, he’s studied art for almost his entire life. He tells you the age of the painting by looking at what paper was used. By looking at the strokes used, he tells you what type of paint brush was used. Then he goes on to tell you what the colors and shapes used means. What he tells you sounds believable. So then you turn and ask the second guy, who just so happens to be the person who painted the painting. His explanation of the painting is completely different than what the first guy said. He speaks of a different type of paper and paint brush used. His purpose for the colors and shapes used is also different from the first guy. Whose explanation regarding the painting do you believe, the man who observed the painting and used his knowledge of art to give an explanation about it, or the man who painted the painting himself???
2006-08-23 06:54:15 · 43 answers · asked by ICUD 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
why is this question in religion and spirituality, shouldnt it be in arts and humanities??
I would listen to the person that painted the piece.
2006-08-23 06:56:32 · answer #1 · answered by friskygimp 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Very good question, I think maybe the first guy. My reasoning would be that the person that painted the picture might be a great artist but might not be knowledgeable about different types of paper, brushes, meanings of shapes & colors ect....he may have painted for the pure joy of painting, but then again he may have been very intelligent and knew exactly what he was talking about and all the knowledge that the first guy thought he possessed wasn't knowledge at all. It's a hard one to answer, but I would probably still go with the first one. Have a nice day.
2006-08-23 07:02:34 · answer #2 · answered by Blessed 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The analogy in your question is sort of thin, and you are setting up the question to force "the painter" to be the "right" answer.
In that situation, though, the clear thinking person would believe the art scholar, because it is obvious that the "painter" is a fraud.
All you have to do is look at the date on the painting, and you will see that the actual painter is long gone. The analogy does not work in any kind of real context.
In the real context, of course, there is no "painter." The painting painted itself, operating by priniciples set down by the technician that mixed the paints and made the brushes.
2006-08-23 07:09:08 · answer #3 · answered by aviophage 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I'm not sure your analogy works for the message I believe your trying to get across.
In art I believe both to some degree could be correct. The artist will know specifics but unless those are written down for all to see along with the painting an artist must leave their work open to interpretation. Which means that the art reviewer could be as correct as possible based on what evidence he has before him.
This does not translate to religion cleanly though and if you allow for too much interpretation you either dilute the religion or just plain out allow people to go astray. Religion needs to have a strong set of values and direction for it to have meaning. Otherwise, it falls apart for lack of substance.
2006-08-23 07:08:10 · answer #4 · answered by John 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Art is in the eye of the beholder and artist. He painted what he wanted and how he wanted. I think he would know more about what he painted. Not some person who is trying to evaluate what the artist painted. The one thing that the person who has the knowledge doesn't know is why the artist painted what he did.
2006-08-23 07:00:34 · answer #5 · answered by Ron 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Is it impossible to believe them both? That the painter used colors and shapes to reflect his mood for the painting but the student offers insight into the subconscious catalysts that the artist was driven by? Why does everything have to be right or wrong, black or white? Outside of science are there really any absolute truths? Furthermore, if science does offer absolute truths, where did it start because if the big bang happened, then what laws of physics applied allowing all matter we know of to occupy no space prior to the actual bang? It's all gray...
2006-08-23 07:15:27 · answer #6 · answered by randyken 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would think the one that did the painting should know what kind of paper, and what the strokes mean. On the other hand everyone has their own view of a picture . The first one was giving his view of what he thought the picture was all about. So there you go. What was your opinion of what the picture represented?We can all look at a picture and seee something different.
2006-08-23 07:01:48 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would say the painter simply because of the technical questions you have raised; however, it should be remembered that after art of any form has left the artist to be presented to the world that art is left up to the individual to decipher.
Quite often what the artist has been expressing through the creation of the art is not at all what the world sees in the finished piece.
2006-08-23 07:00:20 · answer #8 · answered by Temple 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The answer is profound...they both are correct! The person viewing the painting takes to account his own personal feelings and ideas about the depiction of said art versus the actual painter who transformed his emotions and expressions on canvas. You see what you may see and others will take it all in completely different representation of same piece of art. Its all about ones personal likes or dislikes. We are all unique in our individual thoughts and ideas so we all will see something according to what we feel.This can really go deeper on so many levels....I'm a somewhat of a artist too.Very good question....mind twister!!!!
2006-08-23 07:13:12 · answer #9 · answered by fxbeto 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The guy who painted it most likely.
However, if all i had were some ancient books of hearsay that claimed the guy who painted it said that stuff, and they also had stories of talking snakes and donkeys and represented the painter as a psychotic nutjob, then I'd pay a lot more attention to the guy who was an art expert instead.
2006-08-23 06:59:30 · answer #10 · answered by lenny 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I believe the person who "painted" the painting. Knowledge which is learned through others, books and opinions is not always the TRUTH!
I liked your question! makes people think about whose words should they believe when it comes to the truth and faiths!!!!!
2006-08-23 07:08:13 · answer #11 · answered by stII 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋