MMMM... Felt it!

I saw a Discovery Channel special once about elephants that paint. At first I just thought it was kind of silly because I've actually been to a zoo where they had one of the elephants grab a paintbrush, dip it in paint, and splotch it on a sheet of paper. It wasn't a big deal; there was no real form or subject or anything, just random smears of color. I'm pretty sure the elephant couldn't even see what it was doing, but it was a cute trick. Then the program showed some of these paintings, and that they sold for more than $500! That's ridiculous! The paintings were totally bogus. the only variations in them were the colors the trainers gave them to use and the elephant that made them (Jojo's were all crazy scribbles, and Srisiam's were all vertical lines). I couldn't believe they were calling it art. There is no artistic ability there. There's no skill. The elephants are incapable of even understanding what they're trying to do; how could they ever be expected to improve? All they know is if they do a trick, they'll get a treat. But then the program explained that the money from the sales was used to help protect Asian Elephants (they're endangered). That's art! Back when I watched that special, it explained that all of the profit from the sales would go to this fund except for the cost of material, I just went on the website the show talked about again today, and even though the prices for the paintings have gone way down, they're only donating $30 a painting.

What do we mean when we classify something as "art"? I think that's a good example of how our language is being destroyed: everybody means something different. The other day I was playing with spilled pepper on a table in the cafeteria and made it look like a frog's head. If you call that art, what word are we going to use to classify the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel? it's like the word "Love": If you tell everyone you love them, you can't tell anyone you love them. It's alright for something to be beautiful without calling it art. Art is more than just beautiful things, it's the beauty of beauty in all of its forms. Everyone just wants credit for things that they are even remotely involved in; you see something you like, and you've got to stick your finger in it. After all, you can't have art without an artist, right? But isn't the purpose of art to express the feelings one has felt more effectively than through words by providing a sensual means of experiencing the same emotion the artist experienced? And if that isn't the common consensus, shouldn't it be? How can you do that without experiencing emotion in the first place? There has to be passion! with that understanding, the value of "art" and merit of that classification is directly proportional to the effort and motivation involved.

In my opinion, some of the most harmful things that someone can do to society is to give credit when it isn't deserved, withhold credit where credit is due, and to think that you're the one who deserves the credit. I'm guilty of that often. I'm too quick to give credit to people who's motivation is completely extrinsic and monetarily based (giving only to get), and too slow to give credit for all beautiful things to the Real Artist. Seldom do we really deserve credit. Just because we sometimes get to stick are finger in some of the beauty we've been blessed to be a part of doesn't make us the artist. Doesn't it seem fitting, then, to make our imitations of Real Art focus on Him? Art is more than aesthetics (as far as the colloquial meaning of that word). the beauty of art comes from passion. The ultimate passion is expressed through understanding the beauty of God's creations, thus, expressing the beauty of our own existence (being created by God), we can create true beauty: art. This emulation of God's power to create is art. Everything has already been created without us. All we can do is imitate.