Thursday 2 February 2006

Reasoning without cartoons

Is it me you are painting?
In this day and age, a likeness indicates a quality of similarity from which a difference from the original cannot be found.
There have been instances where a pictorial representation of a criminal can drawn by a police artist though based on the evidence of an eye witness.
Except by some inspiration, it is unlikely that an artist would be able to produce the portrait of any particular semblance to anyone the artist has not encountered by reason of some sensual stimulation.
Again, if any did produce a piece of work it is within the prerogative of that artist to give it whatever name to express the content, intent and concept.
Art is what you make it
The appreciation of art is however a personal understanding of the subject or object being observed; the enlightenment that ensues could be influenced by interpretation that one may or may not subscribe to.
If anyone, having scribbled carelessly or with determined genius with a pen or brush presents a portrait of yours truly, it is still left to me to validate that piece of art as my likeness.
If I do not acquiesce to the artist’s fantasy of having described in art, my likeness, no expert can convince me otherwise even though more people see me than I see myself in a mirror.
Probably nothing like the real article
“Nothing like the likeness of Him” and “No man has seen His face” are from the Mohammedan and Judeo-Christian books of religious instruction – these should put paid to any artist who assumes the idea of depicting God in pictures.
After God, we probably can assume that no contemporary man can depict in accuracy the visage of either Jesus Christ or Mohammed.
If we are conscious of that fact, then reason should suggest that any attempted work of depiction can as well be classed as charlatans striving at what they know not; and hence be ignored.
Reasonable doubt is enough doubt
Just as one would reject any depiction that does not suit our recollection of facts or details, a depiction that has no clear basis in fact should of course be dismissed.
Why then are cartoons which have no basis in fact, no proof of likeness, no authentication by the subjects or consideration for reverence the topic of rancorous commentary?
It is high time that our quest for greater faith in God allowed humanist doubt to dislodge the misrepresentation of innocuous scripture which excites many into becoming rather feeble-minded.
Let reason prevail
For those who have whipped up the frenzy that encompasses this saga, it is a unfortunate that men could be herded like cattle into a cause that would normally have had the reasonable well involved in more profitable things.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Comments are accepted if in context are polite and hopefully without expletives and should show a name, anonymous, would not do. Thanks.