Category Archives: Francis Schaeffer

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 177 Nat Hentoff, historian,atheist, pro-life advocate, novelist, jazz and country music critic, and syndicated columnist (Featured artist is Rhonda Roland Shearer )

 ‘Pro-life, Secular, Atheists’, a mini documentary.

Published on Jan 27, 2013

Christopher Hitchens
Noam Chomky
Nat Hentoff
Arif Ahmet
Richard Price
Don Marquis

Jewish World Review April 24, 2008 / 19 Nissan 5768

Infanticide candidate for president

By Nat Hentoff

Printer Friendly Version
Email this article

http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | I was once strongly inclined to vote for Barack Obama for president (assuming he won his party’s nomination) based on his record as a community organizer in Chicago and in the Illinois state legislature. He’s had nitty-gritty street experiences absent in the resumes of most aspirants for the Oval Office: He worked in poor neighborhoods to get job training for the unemployed and found ways to reach school dropouts. And in the legislature, he got a bill passed to mandate electronic police recording of interrogations in homicide cases. But then I learned Obama’s voting record on abortion.


I am a nonreligious pro-lifer, my only religion being the Constitution. And I am not a single-issue voter, having often supported candidates who are pro-choice because I knew their civil liberties and civil rights records. For one example, I was a great admirer of the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan. (New York, where I live, has had no senators of his quality and principles since.)


Although Moynihan was pro-abortion, he strongly opposed partial-birth abortion, which he described as “only minutes away from infanticide,” since the fetus (whom I regard as a human being) was already clearly among us.


I oppose extremists on all sides of issues, having, for instance, argued for hours with and against some so-called pro-lifers who considered part of their mission to commit violence, even homicide, where abortions were performed.


I admire much of Obama’s record, including what he wrote in “The Audacity of Hope” about the Founders’ “rejection of all forms of absolute authority, whether the king, the theocrat, the general, the oligarch, the dictator, the majority … George Washington declined the crown because of this impulse.”


But on abortion, Obama is an extremist. He has opposed the Supreme Court decision that finally upheld the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act against that form of infanticide. Most startlingly, for a professed humanist, Obama — in the Illinois Senate — also voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. I have reported on several of those cases when, before the abortion was completed, an alive infant was suddenly in the room. It was disposed of as a horrified nurse who was not necessarily pro-life followed the doctors’ orders to put the baby in a pail or otherwise get rid of the child.


As a longtime columnist, John Leo has written of this form of fatal discrimination, these “mistakes” during an abortion, once born, cannot be “killed or allowed to die simply because they are unwanted.”


Furthermore, as “National Right to Life News” (April issue) included in its account of Obama’s actual votes on abortion, he “voted to kill a bill that would have required an abortionist to notify at least one parent before performing an abortion on a minor girl from another state.”


These are conspiracies — and that’s the word — by pro-abortion extremists to transport a minor girl across state lines from where she lives, unbeknownst to her parents. This assumes that a minor fully understands the consequences of that irredeemable act. As I was researching this presidential candidate’s views on the unilateral “choice” that takes another’s life, I heard on the radio what Obama said during a Johnstown, Pa., town hall meeting on March 29 as he was discussing the continuing dangers of exposure to HIV/AIDS infections:


“When it comes specifically to HIV/AIDS, the most important prevention is education, which should include — which should include abstinence education and teaching children, you know, that sex is not something casual. But it should also include — it should also include other, you know, information about contraception because, look, I’ve got two daughters, 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals.


“But if they make a mistake,” Obama continued, “I don’t want them punished with a baby.”


Among my children and grandchildren are two daughters and three granddaughters; and when I hear anyone, including a presidential candidate, equate having a baby as punishment, I realize with particular force the impact that the millions of legal abortions in this country have had on respect for human life.


On Feb. 27, testifying before the Wisconsin Senate Committee on Health and Human Services, were a number of young witnesses from a pro-life organization. Among them, 15-year-old Mariah Smet:


“Whenever we talk about abortion, suddenly it’s not an unborn child anymore. Instead, people use words like ‘fetus’ or ’embryo’ or ‘blob of tissue.’… After an abortion, there is nothing except death … 22 percent of all pregnancies end in abortion, and 47 percent of women having abortions have had more than one.”


And in a letter to the April 12 Washington Times, Lawrence Finer of the essentially pro-choice Gutmacher Institute (whose research is nonpartisan) said, in the interests of accuracy, that “Black women accounted for 37 percent of abortions performed in the United States in 2004” (the most recent year for which data are available). Is candidate Obama pleased those women were not “punished” with babies?

Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in the media and Washington consider “must-reading”. Sign up for the daily JWR update. It’s free. Just click here.


Nat Hentoff is a nationally renowned authority on the First Amendment and the Bill of Rights and author of several books, including his current work, “The War on the Bill of Rights and the Gathering Resistance”. Comment by clicking here.

Nat Hentoff Archives

© 2006, NEA

Nat Hentoff like and Milton Friedman and John Hospers was a hero to Libertarians. Over the years I had the opportunity to correspond with some prominent Libertarians such as Friedman and Hospers. Friedman was very gracious, but Hospers was not. I sent a cassette tape of Adrian Rogers on Evolution to John Hospers in May of 1994 which was the 10th anniversary of Francis Schaeffer’s passing and I promptly received a typed two page response from Dr. John Hospers. Dr. Hospers had both read my letter and all the inserts plus listened to the whole sermon and had some very angry responses. If you would like to hear the sermon from Adrian Rogers and read the transcript then refer to my earlier post at this link.  Earlier I posted the comments made by Hospers in his letter to me and you can access those posts by clicking on the links in the first few sentences of this post or you can just google “JOHN HOSPERS FRANCIS SCHAEFFER” or “JOHN HOSPERS ADRIAN ROGERS.”

Image result for john hospers francis schaeffer

__

Image result for nat hentoff milton friedman

Likewise I read a lot of material from Nat Hentoff and I wrote him several letters. In the post I will include one of those letters.

Nat Hentoff on abortion

Published on Nov 5, 2016

__

XXXXLast letter I ever wrote to Nat Hentoff on 12-7-16 sent by contact portal BURLSWORTH AND TRUMP

https://www.cato.org/contact-us

nhetoff@cato.org (NOT GOOD)

To Nat Hentoff,  Concerning  my personal interaction with Clinton, election of Trump (which has been compared to BREXIT VOTE in the UK)   and a movie recommendation, From Everette Hatcher of Little Rock on 12-7-16

In your article “Trump’s Dangerous War on Press Freedom,” By Nat Hentoff and Nick Hentoff, which  appeared on Cato.org on June 2, 2016, you made some good points but I differed with one point. Here is an excerpt:

“I like scrutiny,” Trump told journalists at a press conference this week, before repeatedly maligning them as “dishonest,” “sleazy,” “disgusting” and “not good people” who “make me look very bad.”

Trump’s outrageous attacks are only the latest assault in a war on press freedom he has waged throughout his campaign, and which he told a journalist at the press conference he intends to carry on into the White House.

It is my view that Trump was treated unfairly by most of the press and many lies where told about him. (By the way I strongly opposed Trump during the primary.)

I am currently the JUSTICE OF THE PEACE for District 2 of Saline County which is the 6th largest county in Arkansas and I just finished going through my 3rd election. I won my first election by 4 1/2% and my last two elections by double digit margins in probably the most Democratic leaning district in the whole county even though I am a Republican.

At the age of 21 in January of 1983 I moved from Memphis to Little Rock and I had never seen a politician in person. I suppose it was because Memphis is a large city and I lived in a suburb outside it. However, the first week I was in Little Rock I got to meet Governor Bill Clinton and I ran into both of  our U.S. Senators and our Congressman in downtown Little Rock when I was dropping off a deposit at Worthen Bank and attending a meeting in a small meeting room at the State House Convention Center. In fact, I ran into them again and again often at restaurants, movie theaters and ballgames around town. After a while I didn’t really take notice anymore since it was so common. My uncle explained to me that Little Rock was a capitol city and since we worked downtown we could often run into politicians.

Our plant location was on 300 Industrial Road which is right next to the Arkansas River within a few hundred feet from where the Clinton Library stands today. In 1985 we moved to another part of Little Rock.

A quick couple of stories about my personal interaction with Bill Clinton. One of the first times I spoke with him was at the 1983 ARKANSAS INDEPENDENT GROCERY WHOLESALER MEETING and he came into our meeting tardy because  he said there was a big emergency at the Capitol and that was Hillary wanted a private meeting with him. The amazing thing that day was that I noticed that he personally greeted the dozen or so elderly men that owned these grocery wholesale businesses and called them all by their first names. Since then the Krogers and large supermarkets of the world have completely run these wholesalers out of business in Arkansas.

A year later I was at a relative’s wedding and I was seated on the aisle and when the father of the bride began to escort her down the aisle I noticed that Bill Clinton was in the seat directly behind me. Being a politician he couldn’t resist shaking the father’s hand and Hillary promptly elbowed Bill and his face turned red.  I am sure she has had to elbow him a few times since 1984!!!

I am an evangelical conservative so even though I was very upset that Donald Trump was the Republican Nominee, I did hold my noise and vote for him over Hillary Clinton. However, I DIDN’T HAVE A GOOD EXPLANATION WHY CLINTON LOST UNTIL I READ THESE WORDS A FEW DAYS AGO in the DAILY MAIL:

In the waning days of the presidential campaign, Bill and Hillary Clinton had a knock-down, drag-out fight about her effort to blame FBI Director James Comey for her slump in the polls and looming danger of defeat….[Bill Clinton] got so angry that he threw his phone off the roof of his penthouse apartment and toward the Arkansas River.’

Bill has a luxurious penthouse apartment with an outdoor garden at the Clinton Presidential Library and Museum in Little Rock.

During the campaign, Bill Clinton felt that he was ignored by Hillary’s top advisers when he urged them to make the economy the centerpiece of her campaign. 

He repeatedly urged them to connect with the people who had been left behind by the revolutions in technology and globalization.

_________

Are you buying Bill’s explanation?

I just saw the movie GREATER about the life of Brandon Burlsworth and there was a secularist farmer played by Nick Searcy that reminded me of you and when the DVD is released on 12-20-16 I would like to send you a free one.

Yesterday while in my  attic  I ran across a cassette tape labeled “April  1999” and it has the recording of my 12 year  old son calling  into a local radio show where he got to talk to Brandon Burlsworth who had just been drafted by the Indianapolis  Colts to play  in the NFL. Just a few days later Burlsworth was on his way to his Harrison, Ark., home from Fayetteville, where he received an SEC West title ring along with the rest of the 1998 Razorbacks on April 28, 1999. Every Wednesday, he returned to take his mom, Barbara, to church. The drive was supposed to take about 90 minutes.

He never made it.

The 22-year-old Burlsworth, who had been drafted by the Colts 11 days earlier after earning first-team All-America honors as a fifth-year senior, was involved in a head-on crash with a tractor-trailer about 15 miles outside Harrison and was killed. He was in the prime of his life and football career, and then he was gone.

One movie reviewer noted: 

There’s a great deal of Christian content in this film. It can perhaps best be summarized by saying that Brandon’s unwavering faith deeply informs everything he does, while his brother’s faltering faith after Brandon’s death is something he grapples with mightily.

Brandon has deep trust in God. At every step along his journey, when naysayers rise up to tell him that he’s being unrealistic, Brandon keeps moving forward in faith. Marty is more pragmatic, asking his brother things like, “You think God would give you D I [Division 1] dreams and a D III (Division III) body?” To Marty, the answer to that rhetorical, spiritual question is self-evident. Brandon, however, soldiers on, refusing to give up. “Have faith, Marty,” he says elsewhere. “This is my road.”

For his part, Marty struggles to cling to his faith in the wake of his brother’s death. That internal battle is depicted in a dramatic way through ongoing dialogue with a doubter named the Farmer. Marty’s trying to summon the courage to go into Brandon’s memorial service at Harrison High School. And the Farmer (played by Nick Searcy), depicted very nearly as a Satan-like tempter, repeatedly delivers soliloquies about the utter foolishness of faith. In one scene, the man (who’s whittling a portrait of Marty into a block of wood, almost as if he’s creating a voodoo doll) says, “Brandon did have faith. He believed if he worked hard and did everything he was supposed to do, God would make everything turn out for the best. Did everything turn out for the best, Marty?”

Elsewhere, the Farmer taunts, “There is no loving God, Marty. That’s ridiculous. There’s just a howling void. And a real man, an honest man, doesn’t get down on his knees to pray to it for his mercy. He stands up to it, and he looks it right in his face and he howls right back.”

But Marty also talks with his godly mother about how to process the randomness of Brandon’s death. She tells him that it’s only random when looked at from an earthly perspective. “If you assume this is all there is, you’d have a point, Marty. But that’s not true. This life is a drop in the ocean. One tick of eternity’s clock, and we’ll all be together again, Marty. And every trouble we had here will recede away like a dream.”

__

It has been a pleasure to send you these letters in the past and I hope you take me up on this offer to see this inspirational true story about Brandon Burlsworth who was truly one of the greatest rags to richest stories in sports history. Also I would encourage you to google FRANCIS SCHAEFFER THE PROBLEM OF EVIL.

Sincerely,

Everette Hatcher, cell ph 501-920-5733, P.O. Box 23416, Little Rock, AR 72221, everettehatcher@gmail.com

____

Image result for greater movie brandon burlsworth He believed if he worked hard and did everything he was supposed to that God would make everything turn out for the best

Brandon below with his brother Marty and his two nephews

Image result for brandon burlsworth death

XXXXXXXXX

__________

Image result for mary ann salmon bill clinton

______

Linda Bloodworth-Thomason and Harry Thomason with the Clintons in the White House

Image result for bill clinton harry thomason

___

Image result for mary ann salmon bill clinton

___

Bill was on the phone at his  luxurious penthouse apartment  he keeps at the Clinton Presidential Library in Little Rock

Bill was on the phone at his  luxurious penthouse apartment  he keeps at the Clinton Presidential Library in Little Rock

XXXXX Featured artist is Rhonda Roland Shearer

_______

Image result for Rhonda Roland Shearer

Art and Science Lecture Series with Rhonda Roland Shearer

Uploaded on Aug 11, 2011

In conjunction with the exhibition Alexis Rockman: A Fable for Tomorrow, the American Art Museum presents a lecture series that places the science of climate change within a cultural context. The series invites leading environmental scientists to discuss the problems our planet faces, while experts in cultural fields consider how art can heighten awareness of these issues.

Rhonda Roland Shearer, director/co-founder, Art-Science Research Laboratory, presents today’s lecture.

About the Exhibition

Rhonda Roland Shearer’s Woman’s Work sculptures are situated in close proximity to the 18th-century equestrian statue of George Washington. In this ironic juxtaposition, women virtually surround the Father of Our Country with images of traditional female activities. Titles such as Kiki a la Toilette, Yves’s Wife with Baby, Nina Vacuuming, and Virginia with Two Children explain the actions of each sculpture. Fabricated in bronze and finished in brightly colored patinas, these monumental works, placed on undulating bases, vary in height from ten to fifteen feet.

When asked whether her works would be misunderstood, Shearer (b.1954, Aurora, IL) responded, “I think people will get the point: ‘Hey George, get off your high horse and help with the dishes.’ It’s this type of thing. It’s something that everyone will relate to in some way.”

In a statement describing her Woman’s Work series, Shearer explains, “I have a career but…I am still the one who picks up the dirty socks…Through these sculptures I was able to face a painful reality, that women are still subjugated by socially assigned roles and characteristics with limited freedom and choices. Monuments are typically masculine and images of power—when they are feminine, they represent allegorical or romantic ideals. I discovered that when “real women” were monumentalized doing “woman’s work” a surprising dignity was communicated despite the devaluation of these activities by society.”

Commenting on Woman’s Work, Public Art Fund President Susan K. Freedman says, “It is fitting that this exhibition commences in March—Women’s History Month. In a city that has a paucity of public monuments of women, these eight sculptures commemorate women’s least celebrated role as homemaker and mother. They are a tribute to the invisible, heroic deeds women accomplish daily, often before or after their “real” work. Shearer’s sculptures are powerful and beautiful, with a rich organic component reminding us of the more traditional images of women in art—in mythic, natural and romantic settings.”

We continue to celebrate Women’s History Month by highlighting some of the many female artists we have worked with. On this day in 1993, we unveiled Rhonda Roland Shearer’s “Woman’s Work.” The sculptor, scholar and journalist her public art...

Rhonda Roland Shearer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rhonda Roland Shearer is an American sculptor, scholar and journalist, who founded the nonprofit organization Art Science Research Laboratory[1] with her late husband Stephen Jay Gould. The mission statement avows that the lab aims to “infuse intellectual rigor and critical thinking in disciplines that range from Academics to Journalism. ASRL researches conventional beliefs and misinformation and transmits its findings by means of scientific methods and state-of-the-art computer technologies.”[2][3]

Sculpture[edit]

As a sculptor, her work has been exhibited in New York City, Los Angeles and London, as well as smaller cities throughout the United States. One of her works reflected her feminist principles by calling attention to the gender disparity in the public art that New York City commissions. Of the hundreds of monuments erected in the city, she emphasized, only three depict real women: Gertrude Stein, Eleanor Roosevelt and Joan of Arc. In the traveling museum exhibition catalogue, Shearer described her exhibition “Woman’s Work” by writing, “I depicted large scale images of motherhood and housework in heroic size, as are our most sacred monuments.”[4] The New York Times profiled the exhibit in an article “Celebrating Heroines of Drudgery”.[5]

In 1996, she exhibited Shapes Of Nature, 10 Years Of Bronze Sculptures in The New York Botanical Garden, which experimented in the use of fractals as a new way to look at space and form. Whereas many mathematicians like Benoit Mandelbrot understood fractals in the form of computerized models of equations, others like Nathaniel Friedman and Shearer recognized that fractals are also found in nature. The Economist quoted her as saying, “For the artists, nothing is more fundamental.”[6]

Always fascinated by the intersection between science and art, Shearer exhibited Pangea—inspired by chaos theory—in New York and Los Angeles from 1990-1991.

Art history[edit]

As an art historian[citation needed], Shearer posited that many of Marcel Duchamp‘s supposedly “readymade” works of art were actually created by Duchamp. Research that Shearer published in 1997, “Marcel Duchamp’s Impossible Bed and Other ‘Not’ Readymade Objects: A Possible Route of Influence From Art To Science”, lays out these arguments. In the paper, she showed that research of items like snow shovels and bottle racks in use at the time failed to turn up any identical matches to photographs of the originals. However, there are accounts of Walter Arensberg and Joseph Stella being with Duchamp when he purchased the original Fountain at J. L. Mott Iron Works. Such investigations are hampered by the fact that few of the original “readymades” survive, having been lost or destroyed. Those that exist today are predominantly reproductions Duchamp authorized or designed in the final two decades of his life. Shearer also asserts that the artwork L.H.O.O.Q., a poster-copy of the Mona Lisa with a moustache drawn on it, is not the true Mona Lisa, but Duchamp’s own slightly-different version that he modelled partly after himself. The inference of Shearer’s viewpoint is that Duchamp was creating an even larger joke than he admitted.[7]

Mona Lisa by Leonardo da Vinci. Original painting from circa 1503–1507. Oil on poplar.

L.H.O.O.Q., Duchamp’s parody of the Mona Lisa adds a goatee and moustache.

The ‘accounts’ of Walter Arensberg and Joseph Stella are hearsay accounts, no one has any proof of the three actually making a urinal purchase, namely in the form of receipts, other witnesses, etc.

Journalism and media ethics[edit]

Art Science Research Laboratory also operates the media ethics websites StinkyJournalism.org and CheckYourFacts.org. Both websites use the scientific method to critique the mainstream media and uncover hoaxes.

Monster Pig[edit]

StinkyJournalism.org gained widespread media attention after it uncovered evidence that the shooting of a “Monster Pig” was, in fact, a hoax. “Monster Pig”, also known as “Hogzilla II” and “Pigzilla”, is the name of a large domestic farm-raised pig that was shot during a canned hunt on May 3, 2007, by an eleven-year-old boy, Jamison Stone. The location is disclosed as a 150-acre (0.61 km2) low fence enclosure within the larger 2,500-acre (1,000 ha) commercial hunting preserve called Lost Creek Plantation,[8] outside Anniston, Alabama, USA. According to the hunters (there were no independent witnesses), the pig weighed 1,051 lb (477 kg).

Several days after the story broke, suspicion mounted over the authenticity of the photographic evidence. StinkyJournalism.org interviewed a retired New York University physicist, Dr. Richard Brandt, who used perspective geometry to measure the photograph and showed that, as represented, the pig would be 15 ft (4.57 m) long—much larger than the 9 feet 4 inches (2.84 m) claimed.[9] Brandt’s measurements also showed that the boy in the photo was standing several metres behind the pig, creating the optical illusion that the animal was larger than its actual size.[10] Others claim the photographs were digitally altered.[11]

StinkyJournalism.org discovered that although the Lost Creek Plantation web site boasted that the hunting there was “legendary”, the operation was only four months old at the time of the hunt. Eddy Borden had big plans for developing his canned-hunt operation, the Clay County Times reported shortly before the hunt.[12]

In the aftermath of the story, an Alabama grand jury investigated the 11-year-old aspiring sharpshooter Jamison Stone on animal cruelty charges, along with his father Mike Stone, expedition leaders Keith O’Neal and Charles Williams, and Lost Creek Plantation grounds owner Eddy Borden.[13]

The article (“Exclusive: Grand jury to investigate ‘monster pig’ kill”) revealed information subpoenaed by the Clay County District Attorney Fred Thompson, which includes hundreds of hours of on-the-record interviews and research by StinkyJournalism.org director Rhonda Roland Shearer.[14]

William Langewiesche[edit]

As described by The New York Observer, Shearer “took on” journalist William Langewiesche after the latter published the controversial book on the September 11, 2001, attacks American Ground: Unbuilding the World Trade Center. Using forensic evidence, Shearer criticized the author’s troubling claims that the FDNY looted jeans from the wreckage of Ground Zero.

The Observer quotes Shearer as saying that “she has sent both Farrar, Straus and Giroux and The Atlantic Monthly a 33-page blow-by-blow rebuttal of 56 facts and statements in the three-part magazine article that was the basis of the book. In it, the authors of the rebuttal — Ms. Shearer and a group of New York City firemen, Port Authority and NYPD officers, construction workers and family members of the victims — write: ‘Throughout his articles, Mr. Langewiesche continuously uses slanderous innuendo to denigrate uniformed rescue personnel and construction workers. Such statements are libelous.'”

References[edit]

____________

Related posts:

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 135 H. J. Blackham Part C Featured artist is Richard Anuszkiewicz

________     H. J. Blackham H. J. Blackham, (31 March 1903 – 23 January 2009), was a leading and widely respected British humanist for most of his life. As a young man he worked in farming and as a teacher. He found his niche as a leader in the Ethical Union, which he steadfastly […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 134 H.J.Blackham Part B (Featured artist is Richard M. Loving)

H.J.Blackham pictured below: I had to pleasure of corresponding with Paul Kurtz in the 1990’s and he like H. J. Blackham firmly believed that religion was needed to have a basis for morals. At H. J. Blackham’s funeral in 2009 these words were read from Paul Kurtz: Paul Kurtz Founder and Chair, Prometheus Books and the […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 133 A Portion of my 1994 letter to H. J. Blackham on the 10th Anniversary of Francis Schaeffer’s passing (Featured artist is Billy Al Bengston )

H. J. Blackham pictured below:   On May 15, 1994 on the 10th anniversary of the passing of Francis Schaeffer I sent a letter to H.J. Blackham and here is a portion of that letter below: I have enclosed a cassette tape by Adrian Rogers and it includes  a story about  Charles Darwin‘s journey from […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 132 Part D Ellsworth Kelly (Featured artist is Ronald Davis )

  I featured the artwork of Ellsworth Kelly on my blog both on November 23, 2015 and December 17, 2015. Also I mailed him a letter on November 23, 2015, but I never heard back from him.  Unfortunately he died on December 27, 2015 at the age of 92. Who were the artists who influenced […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 131 Part C Ellsworth Kelly (Featured artist is Janet Fish )

__ I featured the artwork of Ellsworth Kelly on my blog both on November 23, 2015 and December 17, 2015. Also I mailed him a letter on November 23, 2015, but I never heard back from him.  Unfortunately he died on December 27, 2015 at the age of 92.       Who were the […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 130 Part B Ellsworth Kelly (Featured artist is Art Green )

Andy, Ellsworth Kelly, Richard Koshalek and unidentified guest, 1980s I featured the artwork of Ellsworth Kelly on my blog both on November 23, 2015 and December 17, 2015. Also I mailed him a letter on November 23, 2015, but I never heard back from him.  Unfortunately he died on December 27, 2015 at the age […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 129 Part A Ellsworth Kelly (Featured artist is Sherrie Levine )

How Should We Then Live – Episode 8 – The Age of Fragmentation   I featured the artwork of Ellsworth Kelly on my blog both on November 23, 2015 and December 17, 2015. Also I mailed him a letter on November 23, 2015, but I never heard back from him.  Unfortunately he died on December […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 128 Will Provine, Determinism, Part F (Featured artist is Pierre Soulages )

Today I am bringing this series on William Provine to an end.  Will Provine’s work was cited by  Francis Schaeffer  in his book WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE HUMAN RACE? I noted: I was sad to learn of Dr. Provine’s death. William Ball “Will” Provine (February 19, 1942 – September 1, 2015) He grew up an […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 127 Will Provine, Killer of the myth of Optimistic Humanism Part E (Featured artist is Jim Dine )

___ Setting the record straight was Will Provine’s widow Gail when she stated, “[Will] did not believe in an ULTIMATE meaning in life (i.e. God’s plan), but he did believe in proximate meaning (i.e. relationships with people — friendship and especially LOVE🙂 ). So one’s existence is ultimately senseless and useless, but certainly not to those […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 126 Will Provine, Killer of the myth of Optimistic Humanism Part D (Featured artists are Elena and Olivia Ceballos )

I was sad when I learned of Will Provine’s death. He was a very engaging speaker on the subject of Darwinism and I think he correctly realized what the full ramifications are when accepting evolution. This is the fourth post I have done on Dr. Provine and the previous ones are these links, 1st, 2nd […]

___

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 176 Nat Hentoff, historian,atheist, pro-life advocate, novelist, jazz and country music critic, and syndicated columnist (Featured artist is Gerard ’t Hooft )

_
Remembering Nat Hentoff, Don Ciccone, Peter Sarstedt

Jewish World Review Feb. 2, 2011 / 28 Shevat, 5771

Pro-lifers herald a breakthrough

By Nat Hentoff

http://www.JewishWorldReview.com |With Egypt and other challenges occupying him, the president and other pro-abortion forces may soon have to deal with another problem: the rising results of a landmark law passed by the Nebraska legislature (44-5) and signed into law by Gov. Dave Heineman on Oct. 15, 2010. For the first time in any state legislature, the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act:

“Prohibits abortion after 20 weeks gestation except when the mother has a condition which so complicates her medical condition as to necessitate the abortion of her pregnancy to avert death or to avert serious risk of substantial or irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function.”

As National Right to Life Director of State Legislation Mary Spaulding Balch explains the meaning of “pain capable unborn children”: “Given the overwhelming body of evidence showing that unborn children can feel pain by at least 20 weeks postfertilization, states have a compelling interest to step in and protect these children from the excruciating pain of abortion.

“We fully expect that by the end of the spring state legislative session, more states will join Nebraska in prohibiting abortion after 20 weeks” (www.nrlc.org, Jan. 24).

I am a secularist (non-religious) pro-lifer; but I am also a fact-based reporter. For a partial but long list of clinical scientific studies that document these post-20 weeks pain capabilities, I recommend http://www.doctorsonfetalpain.com/scientific-studies — beginning with a Nov. 19, 1987, New England Journal of Medicine report, “Pain and Its Effects in the Human Neonate and Fetus” by Dr. K.J.S Anand, followed by many later studies.

Preparing for this column, I have now read many of these scientific studies. They bring me back to why and how I became a pro-lifer in the 1980s, to the surprise and anger of some of my journalism colleagues. I had long accepted the pro-choice position of most people I knew until, working on a story about a heated abortion controversy, my research included a non-political, non-polemical medical textbook, “The Unborn Patient: Prenatal Diagnosis and Treatment” by Harrison, Globus and Filly, published by W.B. Saunders, a division of Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

What first jolted me, forcing me to read it more than once, was: “The concept that the fetus is a patient, an individualwhose maladies are a proper subject for medical treatment as well as scientific observation, is alarmingly modern. Only now are we beginning to consider the fetus seriously, medically, legally and ethically.”

Thus began my controversial path as a pro-lifer. Some women reporters I knew stopped speaking to me. In 1995, when I was astonished to receive the National Press Foundation award for “lifetime distinguished contributions to journalism,” I came to Washington to eagerly accept it.

The head of the foundation had told me the selection committee’s vote was unanimous; but in the elevator on the way to the auditorium, I ran into one of the jurors who laughed when I thanked her for being part of that unanimous recognition.

“Well,” she told me, “there was a very lively session before the final vote.” Immediately guessing what had provoked that lively debate about my being the recipient, I said to the former juror:

“You mean because I’m pro-life?”

She nodded in affirmation. My heresy having been overcome, I took my seat at the table and listened to the introduction from the then editor of the Washington Post’s editorial page, the legendary Meg Greenfield, who had some years before made me a weekly columnist for that paper:

“Nat Hentoff is not chic. Never has been, as those of us who have known him over the centuries can attest. Never will be. He is independent, not tribal in his views. And he is stubborn — not to put too fine a point on it, he is terminally stubborn. He has come to the defense of some of the most loathsome human beings in our society when he knew their fundamental rights — and by extension the rights of all — were being endangered.”

Sitting next to me, my wife, on hearing the “stubborn” reference, vigorously nodded assent. But how could I not have become stubbornly pro-life once I saw the fetus as an individual — medically, legally and ethically. I would think that anyone who has seen a multidimensional sonogram of an actual fetus would find it hard to deny that he or she is an individual, a human person.

There was more to my education. In 1997, as I wrote in my memoir, “Speaking Freely” (Alfred A. Knopf): “I spoke to a number of physicians who do research in prenatal development, and they emphasized that human life is a continuum from fertilization to death. Setting up divisions of this process to justify abortion, for example, is artificial. It is the life of a developing (human) being that is being killed.

“The euphemisms for an aborted fetus — ‘the product of conception’ and ‘a clump of cells’ — are what George Orwell might have called newspeak.” Orwell was a pro-lifer (Crisis Magazine, February 2004).

This year, as versions of the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act are introduced in a number of state legislatures, there will obviously be fierce opposition from local, state and national pro-choice organizations and political figures, as well as President Obama. I expect, however, that this Nebraska breakthrough for pro-lifers may well become law in certain states.

One of those laws is likely to come before the Supreme Court. As a civil libertarian, I’m not a fan of the Roberts Court, but Mary Spaulding Balch may be right in declaring: “Although it will be a case of first impression, there are strong grounds to believe that five members of the current U.S. Supreme Court would give serious consideration to Nebraska’s assertion of a compelling interest in preserving the life of an unborn child whom substantial medical evidence indicates is capable of feeling pain during an abortion.”

Who knows? Someone whose life is saved by such a law might someday be on the Supreme Court. Or, if Obamacare is repealed, another survivor may find ways to significantly improve health care for many of us, without rationing it.

Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in the media and Washington consider “must-reading”. Sign up for the daily JWR update. It’s free. Just click here.


Nat Hentoff is a nationally renowned authority on the First Amendment and the Bill of Rights and author of several books, including his current work, “The War on the Bill of Rights and the Gathering Resistance”. Comment by clicking here.

Nat Hentoff Archives

Nat Hentoff like and Milton Friedman and John Hospers was a hero to Libertarians. Over the years I had the opportunity to correspond with some prominent Libertarians such as Friedman and Hospers. Friedman was very gracious, but Hospers was not. I sent a cassette tape of Adrian Rogers on Evolution to John Hospers in May of 1994 which was the 10th anniversary of Francis Schaeffer’s passing and I promptly received a typed two page response from Dr. John Hospers. Dr. Hospers had both read my letter and all the inserts plus listened to the whole sermon and had some very angry responses. If you would like to hear the sermon from Adrian Rogers and read the transcript then refer to my earlier post at this link.  Earlier I posted the comments made by Hospers in his letter to me and you can access those posts by clicking on the links in the first few sentences of this post or you can just google “JOHN HOSPERS FRANCIS SCHAEFFER” or “JOHN HOSPERS ADRIAN ROGERS.”

Image result for john hospers francis schaeffer

__

Image result for nat hentoff milton friedman

Likewise I read a lot of material from Nat Hentoff and I wrote him several letters. In the post I will include one of those letters.

Nat Hentoff on abortion

Published on Nov 5, 2016

__

August 9, 2016

Nat Hentoff c/o Cato Institute,

Dear Mr. Hentoff,

This is the 5th time I have written in the last three years. I just learned today that your old friend Bob Dylan is going to be in concert in October in nearby Tulsa.  I am very excited about that I am going to be there with my sons and some of their friends too.

I am really hoping that one of the songs Dylan play in Tulsa is A BALLAD OF A THIN MAN which is a song that has a lot of great meaning to it.

I have written about Dylan several times on my blog http://www.thedailyhatch.org and here is a portion below from a post I did a couple of years ago entitled: FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 25 BOB DYLAN (Part C) Francis Schaeffer comments on Bob Dylan’s song “Ballad of a Thin Man” and the disconnect between the young generation of the 60’s and their parents’ generation (Feature on artist Fred Wilson)

Bob Dylan looked into the modern thought  of the 1960’s and he saw that the educated class did not have the answers and he was looking for the answers to the big questions of life in his writings. Over and over again back then reporters were asking him what his songs meant. Actually his songs were an effort to bring up the big questions but he did not have the answers. In the song “A Ballad of a Thin Man” Dylan ridicules the reporter “Mr. Jones” throughout the song for his lack of understanding of this new generation.  “Oh my God, am I here all alone?” is the feeling that Mr. Jones has after following around Dylan because he doesn’t even to begin to understand the deep seated dissatisfaction of this new generation with the status quo. Every person that ever lived has had this feeling at one time or another and Romans chapter one discusses the inner conscience that everyone has that points them to the God of the Bible that created the world and put them on this earth for a purpose. 

Francis Schaeffer in his film series THE AGE OF PERSONAL PEACE AND AFFLUENCE  made the following points concerning the young people of the 1960’s:

I. By the Early 1960s People Were Bombarded From Every Side by Modern Man’s Humanistic Thought

II. Modern Form of Humanistic Thought Leads to Pessimism

Regarding a Meaning for Life and for Fixed Values

A. General acceptance of selfish values (personal peace and affluence) accompanied rejection of Christian consensus.

1. Personal peace means: I want to be left alone, and I don’t care what happens to the man across the street or across the world. I want my own life-style to be undisturbed regardless of what it will mean — even to my own children and grandchildren.

2. Affluence means things, things, things, always more things — and success is seen as an abundance of things.

B. Students wish to escape meaninglessness of much of adult society.

1. Watershed was Berkeley in 1964.

Bob Dylan also was writing in his music about the disconnect between the young generation of the 1960’s and their parents’ generation. Francis Schaeffer noted: It is called “A Ballad of a a Thin Man” and it apparently was written by Bob Dylan himself. Last time I read you the back cover of the album and I pointed out that when you go to the museums and also in the Theater and  in the pop records you see this same message. This is far from nothing. The very music is tremendous. It is great communication. It is like pop art. It is very destructive and just like the Theatre of the absurd although it destroys everything and leaves you with nonsense seemingly yet when you listen to the words with great care it has made a very selective destruction. Let me read the words.

You walk into the room
With your pencil in your hand
You see somebody naked
And you say who is that man?
You try so hard
But you don’t understand
Just what you would’ve said
When you get home

Something is happening
But you don’t know what it is
Do you Mister Jones?

You sneak into the window
And you say, “Is this where it is?”
Somebody points his finger at you
And says, “It’s his”
And you say, “What’s mine?”
Someone else says, “Where what is?”
And you say, “Oh my God, am I here all alone?”

Something is happening
But you don’t know what it is
Do you Mister Jones?

You hand in your ticket
And you go see the geek
Who walks up to you
When he hears you speak
And says, “How does it feel
To be such a freak?”
And you say, “Impossible”
As he hands you a bone

Something is happening
And you don’t know what it is
Do you Mister Jones?

You have many contacts
Out there among the lumberjacks
To get you facts
When someone attacks your imagination
But no one has any respect
Anyway they just expect
You to hand over your check
To tax deductible charity organizations

The sword swallower walks up to you
And he kneels
He crosses himself
And then he clicks his high heels
And without further notice
Asks you how it feels
And says, “Here’s your throat back
Thanks for the loan”

Something is happening
And you don’t know what it is
Do you Mister Jones?

You crawl into the room
Like a camel and you frown
You put your eyes in your pocket
And you put your nose into the ground
There ought to be a law
Against you comin’ around
You got to be made
To be wearing a telephone

But something is happening
And you don’t know what it is
Do you Mister Jones?

Something is happening here
And you don’t know what it is
Do you Mister Jones?

Songwriters
Bob Dylan

Francis Schaeffer observed:

In the June 28, 1966 issue of Look Magazine in the article on California the writer concludes, “It may seem ironical that a highly technical society demands a means for mystically exploration and this is LSD.” All of these may sound different. LSD and Bob Dylan may sounds miles apart. A tremendous art work in one of our great museums and the kids in a concert listening to Bob Dylan but in reality the message is the same. The tension is that according to all logic and rationality ALL IS ABSURD, yet man at the same time can not live with this and he is in this tremendous tension. He just can’t get away from being human. This is exactly what Paul was talking about in the Book of Romans and that man really knows about God and he knows about God in his conscience and from God’s external [creative] works.

_____________

At one point in his life Bob Dylan did come to the same final conclusion that Solomon did so long ago in the Book of Ecclesiastes  when he observed the world around him and Dylan expressed this same conclusion in his song “Gotta Serve Somebody” back in the early 1980’s.

Ecclesiastes 12:13-14:
13 Now all has been heard;
here is the conclusion of the matter:
Fear God and keep his commandments,
for this is the whole duty of man.

14 For God will bring every deed into judgment,
including every hidden thing,
whether it is good or evil.

Was Schaeffer right to point at that all people have to deal with the world that God has made around them and they must struggle with their own agnostic views because the conscience that God has given them and the evidence from the creation around them tells them that God exists? (Schaeffer’s terms are the universe and its form and the mannishness of man.)

I have a good friend who is a street preacher who preaches on the Santa Monica Promenade in California and during the Q/A sessions he does have lots of atheists that enjoy their time at the mic. When this happens he  always quotes Romans 1:18-19 (Amplified Bible) ” For God’s wrath and indignation are revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who in their wickedness REPRESS and HINDER the truth and make it inoperative. For that which is KNOWN about God is EVIDENT to them and MADE PLAIN IN THEIR INNER CONSCIOUSNESS, because God  has SHOWN IT TO THEM,”(emphasis mine). Then he  tells the atheist that the atheist already knows that God exists but he has been suppressing that knowledge in unrighteousness. This usually infuriates the atheist.

My friend draws some large crowds at times and was thinking about setting up a lie detector test and see if atheists actually secretly believe in God. He discussed this project with me since he knew that I had done a lot of research on the idea about 20 years ago.

Nelson Price in THE EMMANUEL FACTOR (1987) tells the story about Brown Trucking Company in Georgia who used to give polygraph tests to their job applicants. However, in part of the test the operator asked, “Do you believe in God?” In every instance when a professing atheist answered “No,” the test showed the person to be lying. My pastor Adrian Rogers used to tell this same story to illustrate Romans 1:19 and it was his conclusion that “there is no such thing anywhere on earth as a true atheist. If a man says he doesn’t believe in God, then he is lying. God has put his moral consciousness into every man’s heart, and a man has to try to kick his conscience to death to say he doesn’t believe in God.”

It is true that polygraph tests for use in hiring were banned by Congress in 1988.  Mr and Mrs Claude Brown on Aug 25, 1994  wrote me a letter confirming that over 15,000 applicants previous to 1988 had taken the polygraph test and EVERY TIME SOMEONE SAID THEY DID NOT BELIEVE IN GOD, THE MACHINE SAID THEY WERE LYING.

It had been difficult to catch up to the Browns. I had heard about them from Dr. Rogers’ sermon but I did not have enough information to locate them. Dr. Rogers referred me to Dr. Nelson Price and Dr. Price’s office told me that Claude Brown lived in Atlanta. After writing letters to all 9 of the entries for Claude Brown in the Atlanta telephone book, I finally got in touch with the Browns.

Adrian Rogers also pointed out that the Bible does not recognize the theoretical atheist.  Psalms 14:1: The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.”  Dr Rogers notes, “The fool is treating God like he would treat food he did not desire in a cafeteria line. ‘No broccoli for me!’ ” In other words, the fool just doesn’t want God in his life and is a practical atheist, but not a theoretical atheist. Charles Ryrie in the The Ryrie Study Bible came to the same conclusion on this verse.

Francis Schaeffer in his book HOW SHOULD WE THEN LIVE? noted:

In about A.D. 60, a Jew who was a Christian and who also knew the Greek and Roman thinking of his day wrote a letter to those who lived in Rome. Previously, he had said the same things to Greek thinkers while speaking on Mars Hill in Athens. He had spoken with the Acropolis above him and the ancient marketplace below him, in the place where the thinkers of Athens met for discussion. A plaque marks that spot today and gives his talk in the common Greek spoken in his day. He was interrupted in his talk in Athens, but his Letter to the Romans gives us without interruption what he had to say to the thinking people of that period.

He said that the integration points of the Greek and Roman world view were not enough to answer the questions posed either by the existence of the universe and its form, or by the uniqueness of man. He said that they deserved judgment because they knew that they did not have an adequate answer to the questions raised by the universe or by the existence of man, and yet they refused, they suppressed, that which is the answer. To quote his letter:

The retribution of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness. Because that which is known of God is evident within them [that is, the uniqueness of man in contrast to non-man], for God made it evident to them. For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived by the things that are made [that is, the existence of the universe and its form], even his eternal power and divinity; so that they are without excuse. [Roman 1:18ff.]

Here he is saying that the universe and its form and the mannishness of man speak the same truth that the Bible gives in greater detail. That this God exists and that he has not been silent but has spoken to people in the Bible and through Christ was the basis for the return to a more fully biblical Christianity in the days of the Reformers. It was a message of the possibility that people could return to God on the basis of the death of Christ alone. But with it came many other realities, including form and freedom in the culture and society built on that more biblical Christianity. The freedom brought forth was titanic, and yet, with the forms given in the Scripture, the freedoms did not lead to chaos. And it is this which can give us hope for the future. It is either this or an imposed order.

As I have said in the first chapter, people function on the basis of their world view more consistently than even they themselves may realize. The problem is not outward things. The problem is having, and then acting upon, the right world view — the world view which gives men and women the truth of what is.

Actually the answer to find meaning in life is found in putting your faith and trust in Jesus Christ. The Bible is true from cover to cover and can be trusted.

Thanks for your time.

Sincerely,

Everette Hatcher, everettehatcher@gmail.com, http://www.thedailyhatch.org, cell ph 501-920-5733, Box 23416, LittleRock, AR 7222

Featured artist is Gerard ‘t Hooft

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Gerard ‘t Hooft
Gerard 't Hooft.jpg

November 2008
Born July 5, 1946 (age 70)
Den Helder, Netherlands
Nationality Dutch
Fields Theoretical physics
Institutions Utrecht University
Alma mater Utrecht University
Doctoral advisor Martinus J. G. Veltman
Doctoral students Robbert Dijkgraaf
Herman Verlinde
Known for Quantum field theory, Quantum gravity, ‘t Hooft–Polyakov monopole, ‘t Hooft symbol, ‘t Hooft operator, Holographic principle, Renormalization, Dimensional regularization
Notable awards Heineman Prize (1979)
Wolf Prize (1981)
Lorentz Medal (1986)
Spinoza Prize (1995)
Franklin Medal (1995)
Nobel Prize in Physics (1999)
Lomonosov Gold Medal (2010)

Gerardus (Gerard) ‘t Hooft (Dutch: [ˌɣeːrɑrt ət ˈɦoːft]; born July 5, 1946) is a Dutch theoretical physicist and professor at Utrecht University, the Netherlands. He shared the 1999 Nobel Prize in Physics with his thesis advisor Martinus J. G. Veltman “for elucidating the quantum structure of electroweak interactions“.

His work concentrates on gauge theory, black holes, quantum gravity and fundamental aspects of quantum mechanics. His contributions to physics include a proof that gauge theories are renormalizable, dimensional regularization, and the holographic principle.

Personal life[edit]

He is married to Albertha Schik (Betteke) and has two daughters, Saskia and Ellen.

Biography[edit]

Early life[edit]

Gerard ‘t Hooft was born in Den Helder on July 5, 1946, but grew up in The Hague, the seat of government of the Netherlands. He was the middle child of a family of three. He comes from a family of scholars. His grandmother was a sister of Nobel prize laureate Frits Zernike, and was married to Pieter Nicolaas van Kampen, who was a well-known professor of zoology at Leiden University. His uncle Nico van Kampen was an (emeritus) professor of theoretical physics at Utrecht University, and while his mother did not opt for a scientific career because of her gender,[1] she did marry a maritime engineer.[1] Following his family’s footsteps, he showed interest in science at an early age. When his primary school teacher asked him what he wanted to be when he grew up, he boldly declared, “a man who knows everything.”[1]

After primary school Gerard attended the Dalton Lyceum, a school that applied the ideas of the Dalton Plan, an educational method that suited him well. He easily passed his science and mathematics courses, but struggled with his language courses. Nonetheless, he passed his classes in English, French, German, classical Greek and Latin. At the age of sixteen he earned a silver medal in the second Dutch Math Olympiad. [1]

Education[edit]

After Gerard ‘t Hooft passed his high school exams in 1964, he enrolled in the physics program at Utrecht University. He opted for Utrecht instead of the much closer Leiden, because his uncle was a professor there and he wanted to attend his lectures. Because he was so focused on science, his father insisted that he join the Utrechtsch Studenten Corps, an elite student association, in the hope that he would do something else besides studying. This worked to some extent, during his studies he was a coxswain with their rowing club “Triton” and organized a national congress for science students with their science discussion club “Christiaan Huygens”.

In the course of his studies he decided he wanted to go into what he perceived as the heart of theoretical physics, elementary particles. His uncle had grown to dislike the subject and in particular its practitioners, so when it became time to write his ‘doctoraalscriptie’ (Dutch equivalent of a master’s thesis) in 1968, ‘t Hooft turned to the newly appointed professor Martinus Veltman, who specialized in Yang–Mills theory, a relatively fringe subject at the time because it was thought that these could not be renormalized. His assignment was to study the Adler–Bell–Jackiw anomaly, a mismatch in the theory of the decay of neutral pions; formal arguments forbid the decay into photons, whereas practical calculations and experiments showed that this was the primary form of decay. The resolution of the problem was completely unknown at the time, and ‘t Hooft was unable to provide one.

In 1969, ‘t Hooft started on his PhD with Martinus Veltman as his advisor. He would work on the same subject Veltman was working on, the renormalization of Yang–Mills theories. In 1971 his first paper was published.[2] In it he showed how to renormalize massless Yang–Mills fields, and was able to derive relations between amplitudes, which would be generalized by Andrei Slavnov and John C. Taylor, and become known as the Slavnov–Taylor identities.

The world took little notice, but Veltman was excited because he saw that the problem he had been working on was solved. A period of intense collaboration followed in which they developed the technique of dimensional regularization. Soon ‘t Hooft’s second paper was ready to be published,[3] in which he showed that Yang–Mills theories with massive fields due to spontaneous symmetry breaking could be renormalized. This paper earned them worldwide recognition, and would ultimately earn the pair the 1999 Nobel Prize in Physics.

These two papers formed the basis of ‘t Hooft’s dissertation, The Renormalization procedure for Yang–Mills Fields, and he obtained his PhD in 1972. In the same year he married his wife, Albertha A. Schik, a student of medicine in Utrecht.[1]

Career[edit]

Gerard ‘t Hooft at Harvard

After obtaining his doctorate ‘t Hooft went to CERN in Geneva, where he had a fellowship. He further refined his methods for Yang–Mills theories with Veltman (who went back to Geneva). In this time he became interested in the possibility that the strong interaction could be described as a massless Yang–Mills theory, i.e. one of a type that he had just proved to be renormalizable and hence be susceptible to detailed calculation and comparison with experiment. According to his calculations, this type of theory possessed just the right kind of scaling properties (asymptotic freedom) that this theory should have according to deep inelastic scattering experiments. This was contrary to popular perception of Yang–Mills theories at the time, that like gravitation and electrodynamics, their intensity should decrease with increasing distance between the interacting particles; such conventional behaviour with distance was unable to explain the results of deep inelastic scattering, whereas ‘t Hooft’s calculations could. When he mentioned his results at a small conference at Marseilles in 1972, Kurt Symanzik urged him to publish this result.[1] He did not, and the result was eventually rediscovered and published by Hugh David Politzer, David Gross, and Frank Wilczek in 1973, which led to them earning the 2004 Nobel Prize in Physics.[4][5]

In 1974, ‘t Hooft returned to Utrecht where he became assistant professor. In 1976, he was invited for a guest position at Stanford and a position at Harvard as Morris Loeb lecturer. His eldest daughter, Saskia Anne, was born in Boston, while his second daughter, Ellen Marga, was born in 1978 after he returned to Utrecht, where he was made full professor.[1]

In 2007 ‘t Hooft became editor-in-chief for Foundations of Physics, where he sought to distance the journal from the controversy of ECE theory.[6] ‘t Hooft held the position until 2016.

On July 1, 2011 he was appointed Distinguished professor by Utrecht University.[7]

 

________

Link

 

1 2 2a 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Explanations:
1,2,3 ( 316 kb), 4,5: Spheres shining with color and reflecting a window.
6: Pythagoras’ Tree.
7: The 3-4-5 Triangle and its Fractal.
8: A Fractal Leaf.
9 ( 1,632 kb) and 10: Trees as 3 dimensional Fractals.
11: Tiling of the Plane with 7-fold Rotational Symmetry – a Mathematical Impossibility.
Then a 3 dimensional fractal produced from dodecaeders, followed by some 3-dimensional curved surfaces.
18:  my original design for the cover of my book “The Ultimate Building Blocks”. Unfortunately, the Editor didn’t like it. See my home page for what they did make.

These pictures have been reduced in size. Some of the pictures can be clicked to see the full resolution.
Poster format files (>10 times higher resolution) of all pictures can be obtained from Gerard ’t Hooft.

______________________________

Related posts:

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 135 H. J. Blackham Part C Featured artist is Richard Anuszkiewicz

________     H. J. Blackham H. J. Blackham, (31 March 1903 – 23 January 2009), was a leading and widely respected British humanist for most of his life. As a young man he worked in farming and as a teacher. He found his niche as a leader in the Ethical Union, which he steadfastly […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 134 H.J.Blackham Part B (Featured artist is Richard M. Loving)

H.J.Blackham pictured below: I had to pleasure of corresponding with Paul Kurtz in the 1990’s and he like H. J. Blackham firmly believed that religion was needed to have a basis for morals. At H. J. Blackham’s funeral in 2009 these words were read from Paul Kurtz: Paul Kurtz Founder and Chair, Prometheus Books and the […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 133 A Portion of my 1994 letter to H. J. Blackham on the 10th Anniversary of Francis Schaeffer’s passing (Featured artist is Billy Al Bengston )

H. J. Blackham pictured below:   On May 15, 1994 on the 10th anniversary of the passing of Francis Schaeffer I sent a letter to H.J. Blackham and here is a portion of that letter below: I have enclosed a cassette tape by Adrian Rogers and it includes  a story about  Charles Darwin‘s journey from […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 132 Part D Ellsworth Kelly (Featured artist is Ronald Davis )

  I featured the artwork of Ellsworth Kelly on my blog both on November 23, 2015 and December 17, 2015. Also I mailed him a letter on November 23, 2015, but I never heard back from him.  Unfortunately he died on December 27, 2015 at the age of 92. Who were the artists who influenced […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 131 Part C Ellsworth Kelly (Featured artist is Janet Fish )

__ I featured the artwork of Ellsworth Kelly on my blog both on November 23, 2015 and December 17, 2015. Also I mailed him a letter on November 23, 2015, but I never heard back from him.  Unfortunately he died on December 27, 2015 at the age of 92.       Who were the […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 130 Part B Ellsworth Kelly (Featured artist is Art Green )

Andy, Ellsworth Kelly, Richard Koshalek and unidentified guest, 1980s I featured the artwork of Ellsworth Kelly on my blog both on November 23, 2015 and December 17, 2015. Also I mailed him a letter on November 23, 2015, but I never heard back from him.  Unfortunately he died on December 27, 2015 at the age […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 129 Part A Ellsworth Kelly (Featured artist is Sherrie Levine )

How Should We Then Live – Episode 8 – The Age of Fragmentation   I featured the artwork of Ellsworth Kelly on my blog both on November 23, 2015 and December 17, 2015. Also I mailed him a letter on November 23, 2015, but I never heard back from him.  Unfortunately he died on December […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 128 Will Provine, Determinism, Part F (Featured artist is Pierre Soulages )

Today I am bringing this series on William Provine to an end.  Will Provine’s work was cited by  Francis Schaeffer  in his book WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE HUMAN RACE? I noted: I was sad to learn of Dr. Provine’s death. William Ball “Will” Provine (February 19, 1942 – September 1, 2015) He grew up an […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 127 Will Provine, Killer of the myth of Optimistic Humanism Part E (Featured artist is Jim Dine )

___ Setting the record straight was Will Provine’s widow Gail when she stated, “[Will] did not believe in an ULTIMATE meaning in life (i.e. God’s plan), but he did believe in proximate meaning (i.e. relationships with people — friendship and especially LOVE🙂 ). So one’s existence is ultimately senseless and useless, but certainly not to those […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 126 Will Provine, Killer of the myth of Optimistic Humanism Part D (Featured artists are Elena and Olivia Ceballos )

I was sad when I learned of Will Provine’s death. He was a very engaging speaker on the subject of Darwinism and I think he correctly realized what the full ramifications are when accepting evolution. This is the fourth post I have done on Dr. Provine and the previous ones are these links, 1st, 2nd […]

___

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 175 Nat Hentoff, historian,atheist, pro-life advocate, novelist, jazz and country music critic, and syndicated columnist (Featured artist is Gail Norfleet )

 __
Nat Hentoff on His Life in Journalism, Social History, Civil Rights and Antiwar Movements (1997)

Published on Feb 11, 2014

Nathan Irving “Nat” Hentoff (born June 10, 1925) is an American historian, novelist, jazz and country music critic, and syndicated columnist for United Media and writes regularly on jazz and country music for The Wall Street Journal.

Hentoff was formerly a columnist for Down Beat, The Village Voice, JazzTimes, Legal Times, The Washington Post, The Washington Times, The Progressive, Editor & Publisher and Free Inquiry. He was a staff writer for The New Yorker, and his writing has also been published in the New York Times, Jewish World Review, The Atlantic, The New Republic, Commonweal and in the Italian Enciclopedia dello Spettacolo.

Hentoff is known as a civil libertarian, free speech activist, anti-death penalty advocate, anti-abortion advocate. He supported the 2003 invasion of Iraq and is a supporter of Israel.
While once a longtime supporter of the American Civil Liberties Union, Hentoff has become a vocal critic of the organization for its advocacy of government-enforced university and workplace speech codes.[13] He serves on the board of advisors for the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, another civil liberties group. Hentoff’s book, Free Speech for Me—But Not for Thee, outlines his views on free speech and excoriates those whom he feels favor censorship in any form.
Hentoff was critical of Bush Administration policies such as the Patriot Act and other civil liberties implications of the recent push for homeland security. He was also strongly critical of Clinton Administration policies such as the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996.
In March and April 2003 Saddam Hussein was deposed by a U.S.-led invasion, launching the ongoing Iraq war. In summer 2003, Hentoff wrote a column for the Washington Times in which he supported Tony Blair’s humanitarian justifications for the war. He also criticized the Democratic Party for casting doubt on President Bush’s pre-war assertions about Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction in an election year.
An ardent critic of the Bush administration’s expansion of presidential power, Hentoff in 2008 called for the new president to deal with the “noxious residue of the Bush-Cheney war against terrorism”. Among the national security casualties have been, according to Hentoff, “survivors, if they can be found, of CIA secret prisons (“black sites”); victims of CIA kidnapping renditions; and American citizens locked up indefinitely as “unlawful enemy combatants”.[14] He has advocated prosecuting members of the Bush administration, including lawyer John Yoo, for war crimes.[15]
Hentoff holds what mainstream media may describe as idiosyncratic views. He espouses generally liberal views on domestic policy and civil liberties, but in the 1980s, he began articulating more socially conservative positions—opposed to abortion, voluntary euthanasia, and the selective medical treatment of severely disabled infants. Hentoff argued that a consistent life ethic should be the viewpoint of a genuine civil libertarian, arguing that all human rights are at risk when the rights of any one group of people are diminished, that human rights are interconnected, and people deny others’ human rights at their own peril.[16] After he “came out” as an opponent of abortion, several of his colleagues at The Village Voice stopped speaking to him.
Hentoff has sardonically described himself as “a member of the Proud and Ancient Order of Stiff-Necked Jewish Atheists”.[4][17]
Hentoff vigorously criticized the judicial gag order involved in Fistgate.[18]
In an April 2008 column, Hentoff stated that while he had been prepared to enthusiastically support Barack Obama in the 2008 U.S. presidential election, his view changed after looking into Obama’s voting record on abortion. During President Obama’s first year, Hentoff praised him for ending policies of CIA renditions, but has criticized him for failing to fully end George W. Bush’s practice of state torture of prisoners.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nat_hentoff

In addition to rescuing the Constitution from Barack Obama, there was another vitally essential issue addressed in the midterm elections. Last week, Carol Tobias, National Right to Life president, triumphantly explained:”As we witnessed Tuesday, in election after election, National Right to Life and its network of 50 state affiliates and more than 3,000 local chapters helped provide the margin of victory for pro-life candidates” (“Polling Shows Impact of Abortion Issue in Mid-Term Election,” nationalrighttolifenews.org, Nov. 6).

For example, National Right to Life, which describes itself as working “through legislation and education to protect innocent human life from abortion, infanticide, assisted suicide and euthanasia,” summarizes the midterms as such: “Despite being vastly overspent by pro-abortion organizations such as Planned Parenthood and EMILY’s List, pro-life candidates won … by significant margins. There were 26 races in which a candidate supported by National Right to Life was running against a candidate supported by the pro-abortion (and pro-Obama) PAC EMILY’s List. Nineteen (73 percent) of the National Right to Life candidates won.”

Readers who were heretofore unaware should know by this point that I’m a pro-life atheist, and I’ll explain how I came to have these views as we go on.

Now dig this, which was largely unreported by the media covering the midterm elections: “National Right to Life’s political committees were actively involved in 74 races. In those races, 53 (72 percent) pro-life candidates prevailed, including pro-life Senate candidates in Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Montana, North Carolina, South Dakota and West Virginia.”

Connecting abortion with the ending of “innocent human life” describes why pro-lifers throughout America have opposed Obama from even before he was elected president.

When he was a member of the Illinois Senate, Obama voted three times against versions of the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act, which did not pass until 2005. This legislation mandated that if a live baby fully emerged as a result of a failed abortion, its life would be saved.

I am convinced that disobeying that law is tantamount to infanticide, and I have been writing about it in this column and other publications over the past few years. As I reported in the Winter-Spring 2009 issue of Human Life Review about Obama’s unyielding support of abortion, including the high percentage of abortions among black women (“President Obama and ‘Black Genocide'”), I spoke with a registered nurse who worked in the Labor and Delivery Department at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Illinois, and had involuntarily taken part in a botched abortion.

Some of what she told me about these babies who were abandoned after “‘live-birth’ abortions” also appeared in a September 2000 House Judiciary Committee report on the proposed Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2000 (Report 106-835, gpo.gov). (This bill was passed in 2002.)

One of the babies “was left to die on the counter of the soiled utility room wrapped in a disposable towel. This baby was accidentally thrown in the garbage, and when they later were going through the trash to find the baby, the baby fell out of the towel and on to the floor.”

Another nurse “happened to walk into a soiled utility room and saw, lying on the metal counter, a fetus, naked, exposed and breathing, moving its arms and legs.”

But what was Obama’s reaction to Illinois’ Born-Alive Infant Protection Act?

As I reported two years ago, the state senator “opposed what he called the view that ‘you have to keep alive even a pre-viable child'” (“Election Day: I’ll Not Vote for Pro-Death President,” Oct. 3, 2012).

Therefore, “the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act interfered with a woman’s reproductive rights.”

My reactions even appeared in a column on LifeNews.com: “Liberal Nat Hentoff: I’m Not Voting for the Abortion President” (Steven Ertelt, Oct. 3, 2012).

But it should be noted that I do not vote against all pro-choice candidates, to say the least. I have voted for those with whom I agree on First and Fourth Amendment matters and other constitutional rights. Yet I can’t imagine any of them having opposed the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act and gone for infanticide.

So how did I become a pro-lifer, the most controversial position I have ever taken?

Just about all my conclusions about any issue have come from fact-based reporting. On this one, practically everyone I knew was pro-choice, but I became curious when more physicians — not pro-lifers, doctors — became involved in prenatal care. During my research, I read such standard texts as “The Unborn Patient: Prenatal Diagnosis and Treatment,” by Michael R. Harrison, Mitchell S. Globus and Roy A. Gilly (W.B. Saunders, a division of Reed Elsevier).

They wrote: “The concept that the fetus is a patient, an individual whose maladies are a proper subject for medical treatment as well as scientific observation, is alarmingly modern.

“Only now are we beginning to consider the fetus seriously, medically, legally and ethically.”

But in neither this nor other medical textbooks was God mentioned. And, hey, I even learned each fetus has DNA of its own!

Sadly, Obama has supported all abortions — however late or accidental.

Comment by clicking here.

Nat Hentoff is a nationally renowned authority on the First Amendment and the Bill of Rights and author of several books, including his current work, “The War on the Bill of Rights and the Gathering Resistance”.
Read more at http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/hentoff111214.php3#o6YYILugwaycHgyD.99
Read more at http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/hentoff111214.php3#o6YYILugwaycHgyD.99

Nat Hentoff like and Milton Friedman and John Hospers was a hero to Libertarians. Over the years I had the opportunity to correspond with some prominent Libertarians such as Friedman and Hospers. Friedman was very gracious, but Hospers was not. I sent a cassette tape of Adrian Rogers on Evolution to John Hospers in May of 1994 which was the 10th anniversary of Francis Schaeffer’s passing and I promptly received a typed two page response from Dr. John Hospers. Dr. Hospers had both read my letter and all the inserts plus listened to the whole sermon and had some very angry responses. If you would like to hear the sermon from Adrian Rogers and read the transcript then refer to my earlier post at this link.  Earlier I posted the comments made by Hospers in his letter to me and you can access those posts by clicking on the links in the first few sentences of this post or you can just google “JOHN HOSPERS FRANCIS SCHAEFFER” or “JOHN HOSPERS ADRIAN ROGERS.”

Image result for john hospers francis schaeffer

__

Image result for nat hentoff milton friedman

Likewise I read a lot of material from Nat Hentoff and I wrote him several letters. In the post I will include one of those letters.

Nat Hentoff on abortion

Published on Nov 5, 2016

__

10-30-14

To Nat Hentoff c/o Cato Institute,

I spoke to my friend Dan Greenberg on October 20th about you the other day. Dan is a former State Representative and his father Paul is the Editorial Page Editor of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette Newspaper here in Little Rock. I told him that I was intrigued by your writings and he corrected me in the way I was saying your first name. I had added an “e” and made you “Nate” which is a common name down here. We discussed how you were an atheist but yet pro-life.  With that in mind I was prompted to write you again after I heard my pastor’s sermon this last Sunday on October 26, 2014 by Brandon Barnard.

One of my favorite messages by Adrian Rogers is called  “WHO IS JESUS?”and he goes through the Old Testament and looks at the scriptures that describe the Messiah.  I want to encourage you to listen to this audio message which I will send to anyone anywhere anytime. I have given thousands of these CD’s away over the years that contain this message and they all contain the following story from Adrian Rogers.  Here is how the story goes:

Years ago Adrian Rogers counseled with a NASA scientist and his severely depressed wife. The wife pointed to her husband and said, “My problem is him.” She went on to explain that her husband was a drinker, a liar, and an adulterer. Dr. Rogers asked the man if he were a Christian. “No!” the man laughed. “I’m an atheist.”

“Really?” Dr. Rogers replied. “That means you’re someone who knows that God does not exist.”

“That’s right,” said the man.

“Would it be fair to say that you don’t know all there is to know in the universe?”

“Of course.”

“Would it be generous to say you know half of all there is to know?”

“Yes.”

“Wouldn’t it be possible that God’s existence might be in the half you don’t know?”

“Okay, but I don’t think He exists.”

“Well then, you’re not an atheist; you’re an agnostic. You’re a doubter.”

“Yes, and I’m a big one.”

“It doesn’t matter what size you are. I want to know what kind you are.”

“What kinds are there?”

“There are honest doubters and dishonest doubters. An honest doubter is willing to search out the truth and live by the results; a dishonest doubter doesn’t want to know the truth. He can’t find God for the same reason a thief can’t find a policeman.”

“I want to know the truth.”

“Would you like to prove that God exists?”

“It can’t be done.”

“It can be done. You’ve just been in the wrong laboratory. Jesus said, ‘If any man’s will is to do His will, he will know whether my teaching is from God or whether I am speaking on my own authority’ (John 7:17). I suggest you read one chapter of the book of John each day, but before you do, pray something like this, ‘God, I don’t know if You’re there, I don’t know if the Bible is true, I don’t know if Jesus is Your Son. But if You show me that You are there, that the Bible is true, and that Jesus is Your Son, then I will follow You. My will is to do your will.”

The man agreed. About three weeks later he returned to Dr. Rogers’s office and invited Jesus Christ to be his Savior and Lord.

When I was 15 I joined my family on an amazing trip with our pastor Adrian Rogers to the land of Israel in 1976 and the most notable event to me was our visit to the Western Wall (or Wailing Wall) where hundreds of orthodox Jews were praying and kissing the wall. At the time we were visiting the wall I noticed that Dr. Rogers was visibly moved to tears because he knew that these Jews had missed the true messiah who had come and died on a cross almost 2000 years before. They were still looking for the messiah to come for the first time sometime in the future.

That one event encouraged my interest in presenting the gospel to the Jews.  At about the same time in Little Rock two Jews by the names of Dr. Charles Barg and Dr. Jack Sternberg were encountering that gospel message.   I have posted before about their life stories and they can be easily found on the internet.

I THOUGHT OF YOU ON  10-26-14 WHEN OUR TEACHING PASTOR BRANDON BARNARD AT FELLOWSHIP BIBLE CHURCH IN LITTLE ROCK TAUGHT ON JESUS’ MESSAGE TO THOSE JEWS SKEPTICAL OF HIS CLAIMS TO BE THE MESSIAH AND THE SON OF GOD.  After hearing this message I went straight to our church bookstore and asked for any books that deal with Jewish skeptics and I bought the books BETWEEN TWO FATHERS by Dr. Charles Barg and CHRISTIANITY: IT’S JEWISH ROOTS by Dr. Jack Sternberg.  I highly recommend both of these books.

If  someone is truly interested in investigating the Old Testament Scriptures then all they have to do is google “Bible Evidence Archaeology” or  click on the links on my blog http://www.thedailyhatch.org and the evidence is there showing that Christ is the Messiah predicted in the Old Testament. Here are some of my past posts on this subject, 1. My correspondence with Daniel Bell and Irving Kristol about the rebirth of Israel!!!!, 2. My personal visit with Bill Kristol on 7-18-14 in Hot Springs, Arkansas!!!!, 3. Simon Schama’s lack of faith in Old Testament Prophecy, 4. Who are the good guys: Hamas or Israel?, 5. “A Jewish Doctor Speaks Out: Why I Believe that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah” written by Dr. Jack Sternberg (author of the book CHRISTIANITY: THE JEWISH ROOTS), and 6.  Jesus Christ in the Old Testament by Adrian Rogers,

Brandon’s sermon started with these words from Jesus to the Jewish skeptics of his day:

John 5:18-47 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

Jesus’ Equality with God

18 For this reason therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God.

19 Therefore Jesus answered and was saying to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever[a]the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner. 20 For the Father loves the Son, and shows Him all things that He Himself is doing; and the Father will show Himgreater works than these, so that you will marvel. 21 For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son also gives life to whom He wishes. 22 For not even the Father judges anyone, but He has given all judgment to the Son, 23 so that all will honor the Son even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.

24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.

Two Resurrections

25 Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live. 26 For just as the Father has life in Himself, even so He gave to the Son also to have life in Himself; 27 and He gave Him authority to execute judgment, because He is [b]the Son of Man. 28 Do not marvel at this; for an hour is coming, in which all who are in the tombs will hear His voice, 29 and will come forth; those who did the good deeds to a resurrection of life, those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection of judgment.

30 “I can do nothing on My own initiative. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is just, because I do not seek My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.

31 “If I alone testify about Myself, My testimony is not [c]true. 32 There is another who testifies of Me, and I know that the testimony which He gives about Me is true.

Witness of John

33 You have sent to John, and he has testified to the truth. 34 But the testimony which I receive is not from man, but I say these things so that you may be saved. 35 He was the lamp that was burning and was shining and you were willing to rejoice for [d]a while in his light.

Witness of Works

36 But the testimony which I have is greater than the testimony of John; for the works which the Father has given Me to accomplish—the very works that I do—testify about Me, that the Father has sent Me.

Witness of the Father

37 And the Father who sent Me, He has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time nor seen His form. 38 You do not have His word abiding in you, for you do not believe Him whom He sent.

Witness of the Scripture

39 [e]You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it isthese that testify about Me; 40 and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life. 41 I do not receive glory from men; 42 but I know you, that you do not have the love of God in yourselves. 43 I have come in My Father’s name, and you do not receive Me; if another comes in his own name, you will receive him. 44 How can you believe, when youreceive [f]glory from one another and you do not seek the [g]glory that is from the one andonly God? 45 Do not think that I will accuse you before the Father; the one who accuses you is Moses, in whom you have set your hope. 46 For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote about Me. 47 But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?”

Then Brandon gave the quote below from C.S. Lewis:

I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: ‘I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept His claim to be God.’ That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic—on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg—or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice.  Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronising nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.
     We are faced, then, with a frightening alternative. This man we are talking about either was (and is) just what He said or else a lunatic, or something worse. Now it seems to me obvious that He was neither a lunatic nor a fiend: and consequently, however strange or terrifying or unlikely it may seem, I have to accept the view that He was and is God. God has landed on this enemy-occupied world in human form.

Quotes from Mere Christianity, Part 20
For enquiring minds, see the Wikipedia article: Lewis’s trilemma
C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (1952; Harper Collins: 2001) 52-53.

In this passage from John Jesus gives his identity (Son of God verse 25) and his authority (v.27-28 to judge and give life). It also discusses the four witnesses in Christ behalf. Then Brandon asked, “How does the identity and authority of Jesus affect you? He asserted, “It is impossible to honor God apart from honoring Jesus Christ.”

Brandon’s last point of the sermon was this:

PEOPLE DON’T DESIRE THE GLORY OF GOD BECAUSE THEY WANT IT FOR THEMSELVES.

______________

If someone truly wants to worship the Jewish Messiah of the Old Testament then they should take a close look at what the Old Testament says about that Messiah. Both Dr. Barg and Dr. Sternberg found the Old Testament prophecies very convincing and they both are now members of my church in Little Rock which is Fellowship Bible Church. Take a look at some of these verses which are mentioned in Adrian Rogers’ short article below.

Jesus Christ in the Old Testament

Acts 10:43

“Digging Deeper” into Scripture, you’re going to find that all of the Bible—Old Testament as well as New—is about Jesus Christ.  Yes, He appears in the Old Testament—if you know how to find Him there. The Lord Jesus, the Second Person of the Trinity, is found throughout the Old Testament in prophecy, types and shadows.

In this study we’ll see how that occurs.

Did you know there are about 300 prophecies in the Old Testament about the coming Messiah? Professor Peter Stoner was chairman of the mathematics and astronomy departments at Pasadena City College until 1953, then was Chairman of the Science Department at Westmont College in Santa Barbara, California. He wrote a book titled Science Speaks. He proved that it is impossible, by the law of mathematical probability, for Jesus Christ not to be the one true Messiah of Israel and the Son of God

Later in this study we’re going to look at that, so keep reading.

But first let’s begin with something the apostle Peter said, confirming Jesus’ presence in the Old Testament:

1. Turn to Acts 10:43.  Peter, testifying in the household of Cornelius about Jesus, says:       “To Him,” [to Jesus,] “give all the prophets witness.”

When Peter made this statement, the New Testament had not yet been written. So when Peter says “the prophets,” who is he talking about?

Peter wanted Cornelius, a Roman officer, to know that throughout the Old Testament, the prophets were looking ahead, predicting and proclaiming the arrival of the Messiah.

When we get to the New Testament, we find the fulfillment.

  • In the gospels, we see Jesus as the Prophet preaching the kingdom of God.
  • In the epistles and Acts you see Jesus Christ, the ascended Priest, interceding for the people of God.
  • In the book of Revelation, you see Jesus Christ as the King, coming to rule and reign.

Each of these offices is a portrait of Jesus Christ.
All of the Old Testament pictures Jesus as prophet, priest, and king.
All of the New Testament shows Jesus as the fulfillment.
He is the Prophet, Priest, and King.

Portraits of Jesus in the Old Testament:

Jesus is the second Adam because the first Adam prophesied Him.
Jesus is a beloved, rejected, exalted son and world bread supplier like Joseph.
Jesus is that root out of dry ground, born of a virgin. (Is. 53:2)
Jesus is a priest like Aaron and Melchizedek because they prefigured Him.
Jesus is the fulfillment of the offering of Isaac on Mount Moriah (the same
mount as Mt. Calvary, where Jesus literally died.)
Jesus is the Passover lamb.
Jesus is a prophet like Moses because Moses typified Him.
Jesus is the water that came from the rock in the wilderness.
Jesus is the manna that fell from the sky.
Jesus is the brazen serpent lifted up in the wilderness.
Jesus is the scapegoat bearing away the sins of the people.
Jesus is pictured in the Ark of the Covenant.
Jesus is the mercy seat where the shekinah glory of God dwells.
Jesus is the sacrifice upon the brazen altar in the tabernacle and the temple.
Jesus is a champion like Joshua, whose name literally means “Jesus.”
Jesus is a king like David.
Jesus is a wise counselor like Solomon.
Jesus is the lion of Judah.
Jesus is the good shepherd, “The Lord is my shepherd.”
Jesus is the fruitful branch.
Jesus is that one without form or comeliness yet altogether lovely. (Is 53:2)

_________

Prophecies of Jesus in the Old Testament

Fulfilled prophecy is one of the great proofs of the Deity of Jesus Christ.

God began to prepare the world for the coming of Jesus with a multitude of prophecies in the Old Testament concerning Him. There can be no mistake that Jesus is the Messiah. As Professor Peter Stoner pointed out, the law of mathematical probability makes it totally impossible that anyone other than Jesus else could be the Messiah.

The law of probability is not an abstract law. Life insurance policies, for example, are based on mathematical probability.

Let’s look at just 8 out of 108 Old Testament prophecies Jesus fulfilled.

1. The Messiah will be born in Bethlehem. (Micah 5:2)
Fulfillment: Luke chapter 2 and Matthew 2:1

2. The Messiah will have a forerunner. (Malachi 3:1)
“Behold, I am going to send My messenger, and he will clear the way before Me. And the Lord, whom you seek, will suddenly come to His temple…”

Fulfillment: Matthew 3:1-3 “In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judea, and saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias [Isaiah], saying, ‘The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make His paths straight.’”

3. The Messiah would make His triumphant entry riding on a donkey (now what king does that?)
Zechariah 9:9 “Behold, your king is coming to you; He is just and endowed with salvation, Humble, and mounted on a ___________, Even on a colt, the foal of a ___________.

Fulfillment: Matthew 21:7, John 12:14-16

4. The Messiah would die by crucifixion. (Psalm 22, especially vv. 11-18)
“…for dogs have compassed me; the assembly of the wicked have enclosed me; they have pierced  my hands  and feet.”

Fulfillment: Luke 23:33, Matthew 27:35, Mark 15:24 John 19:23

5. Those who arrested Him would cast lots for His garments (Psalm 22:18)
“They part my garments among them, and _______ ______ upon my vesture.

Fulfillment: Luke 23:34
34 “Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted His raiment, and cast lots.” Also John 19:23, Mark 15:24, and
Matthew 27:35, “and parted His garments, casting lots.”

6. Messiah would be betrayed by one of His own friends. (Zechariah 11:6)
6 “And one will say to him, ‘What are these wounds between your arms?’ Then he will say, ‘Those with which I was wounded in the house of my ___________.’

Fulfillment: Matthew 26:14-16, “14 Then ____ of the __________, called Judas Iscariot, went unto the chief priests…” Also Mark 14:10-11, John 18:2

7. Messiah would be betrayed for 30 pieces of silver (Zechariah 11:12)

Fulfillment: Matthew 26:15-16
15 And said unto them, What will ye give me, and I will deliver Him unto you? And they covenanted with him for _________ pieces of _________. 16 And from that time he sought opportunity to betray Him.

8. The Messiah will remain silent when He is accused and afflicted. (Isaiah 53:7)
“He was oppressed, and He was afflicted, yet He opened not his mouth: He is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so He openeth not His mouth.”

Fulfillment: Mark 14:61, 61 But He held his peace, and answered nothing.”
1 Peter 2:23 23 Who, when He was reviled, reviled not again; when He suffered, He threatened not; but committed Himself to Him that judgeth righteously:”

These are just 8 examples of Old Testament prophecies Jesus fulfilled. There are at least 108, many of which He had no control over, if He were only a human being (such as the place of His birth and the prophesied “flight to Egypt” when He was a child.)

The odds of any one person being able by accident to fulfill even 8 of the 108 prophecies is a number so astronomical, our minds cannot conceive of it. Professor Stoner calculated it to be 1in 1017 or 1 in 100 quadrillion.

Is Jesus Christ found in the Old Testament? He is found in type and shadow in every book of the Old Testament.

Thank you for taking time to read this and feel free to contact me back at everettehatcher@gmail.com or 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002

__________________________________

Brandon Barnard pictured below:

Dr. Charles Barg’s book below:

Dr. Jack Sternberg below:

 _________________________

Dancing at the Wailing Wall in 1967:

Picture of Wailing Wall from 1863


Source: Earthly Footsteps of the Man of Galilee, p. 147.

President Carter with Adrian and Joyce Rogers in 1979 at the White House:
____

Adrian Rogers in the White House pictured with President Ronald Reagan below:

_____

Featured artist:Gail Norfleet

_______

Gail Norfleet Short

Jimmy Kimmel & President George W. Bush Sketch Each Other

Published on Mar 3, 2017

President Bush came on the show to promote his book “Portraits of Courage” which benefits veterans. Since Jimmy also shares a love for drawing, he and the former president put their artistic skills to the test and sketched each other.

Alec Baldwin on Playing Donald Trump https://youtu.be/TYjoSD8bXoQ

SUBSCRIBE to get the latest #KIMMEL: http://bit.ly/JKLSubscribe

Watch the latest Halloween Candy Prank: http://bit.ly/KimmelHalloweenCandy

Watch Mean Tweets: http://bit.ly/JKLMeanTweets8

Connect with Jimmy Kimmel Live Online:

Visit the Jimmy Kimmel Live WEBSITE: http://bit.ly/JKLWebsite
Like Jimmy Kimmel Live on FACEBOOK: http://bit.ly/JKLFacebook
Follow Jimmy Kimmel Live on TWITTER: http://bit.ly/JKLTwitter
Follow Jimmy Kimmel Live on INSTAGRAM: http://bit.ly/JKLInstagram

About Jimmy Kimmel Live:
Jimmy Kimmel serves as host and executive producer of Emmy-winning “Jimmy Kimmel Live,” ABC’s late-night talk show.

“Jimmy Kimmel Live” is well known for its huge viral video successes with 2.5 billion views on YouTube alone.
Some of Kimmel’s most popular comedy bits include – Mean Tweets, Lie Witness News, Jimmy’s Twerk Fail Prank, Unnecessary Censorship, YouTube Challenge, The Baby Bachelor, Movie: The Movie, Handsome Men’s Club, Jimmy Kimmel Lie Detective and music videos like “I (Wanna) Channing All Over Your Tatum” and a Blurred Lines parody with Robin Thicke, Pharrell, Jimmy and his security guard Guillermo.

Now in its fifteenth season, Kimmel’s guests have included: Johnny Depp, Meryl Streep, Tom Cruise, Halle Berry, Harrison Ford, Jennifer Aniston, Will Ferrell, Katy Perry, Tom Hanks, Scarlett Johansson, Channing Tatum, George Clooney, Larry David, Charlize Theron, Mark Wahlberg, Kobe Bryant, Steve Carell, Hugh Jackman, Kristen Wiig, Jeff Bridges, Jennifer Garner, Ryan Gosling, Bryan Cranston, Jamie Foxx, Amy Poehler, Ben Affleck, Robert Downey Jr., Jake Gyllenhaal, Oprah, and unfortunately Matt Damon.

Jimmy Kimmel & President George W. Bush Sketch Each Other
https://youtu.be/sriYmFBvOsE

See Paintings by George W. Bush’s Art Teacher on View at the Dallas Art Fair

APRIL 15, 2013
Unfortunately but not surprisingly, last week’s Dallas Art Fair did not feature the city’s most talked-about local artist, George W. Bush. (In case you’ve been hiding under a rock recently, news of the 43rd president’s new hobby went viral earlier this month after pictures of two of his self-portraits leaked online.) We here at ARTINFO searched high and low to find the next best thing, however, and we succeeded. Feast your eyes on paintings by George W. Bush’s teacher, Gail Norfleet.Bush called on Norfleet, a Southern Methodist University graduate and local Dallas artist, over a year ago when he first decided he wanted to try his hand at painting. Since then, she’s given him lessons about once a week, according to the Dallas Morning News.

Two of Norfleet’s recent works — both depicting her studio and paintings-in-process — were on display at the Dallas Art Fair this weekend at the booth of Dallas’s own Valley House Gallery & Sculpture Garden.

The most recent of the two canvases, the 2013 oil on canvas “Palette” (above), shares its off-kilter, not-quite-bird’s eye perspective with Bush’s oft-reproduced leaked self-portrait in the bathtub (below). Both compositions hover about 45 degrees above the picture plane, a point of view reminiscent of Matisse. The compositions simultaneously provide depth and acknowledge the canvas’s flatness. (Okay, formal analysis over.)

The Dallas Art Fair, meanwhile, is not the only place Bush’s new hobby is making its making its mark on the city — at least indirectly. ARTINFO hears that local collector extraordinaire Deedie Rose has a George W. Bush original painting on view in her home, a portrait of her dogs. Perhaps it was painted under the tutelage of Norfleet?

Julia Halperin

(Captions: Gail Norfleet, “The Blue Studio,” 2012, photo collage and acrylic enamel on two Lucite panels, 23 1/2 x 23 1/2 inches and “Palette,” 2013, oil on panel, 30 x 24 inches, both courtesy Valley House Gallery & Sculpture Garden.)

 

 

Related posts:

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 135 H. J. Blackham Part C Featured artist is Richard Anuszkiewicz

________     H. J. Blackham H. J. Blackham, (31 March 1903 – 23 January 2009), was a leading and widely respected British humanist for most of his life. As a young man he worked in farming and as a teacher. He found his niche as a leader in the Ethical Union, which he steadfastly […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 134 H.J.Blackham Part B (Featured artist is Richard M. Loving)

H.J.Blackham pictured below: I had to pleasure of corresponding with Paul Kurtz in the 1990’s and he like H. J. Blackham firmly believed that religion was needed to have a basis for morals. At H. J. Blackham’s funeral in 2009 these words were read from Paul Kurtz: Paul Kurtz Founder and Chair, Prometheus Books and the […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 133 A Portion of my 1994 letter to H. J. Blackham on the 10th Anniversary of Francis Schaeffer’s passing (Featured artist is Billy Al Bengston )

H. J. Blackham pictured below:   On May 15, 1994 on the 10th anniversary of the passing of Francis Schaeffer I sent a letter to H.J. Blackham and here is a portion of that letter below: I have enclosed a cassette tape by Adrian Rogers and it includes  a story about  Charles Darwin‘s journey from […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 132 Part D Ellsworth Kelly (Featured artist is Ronald Davis )

  I featured the artwork of Ellsworth Kelly on my blog both on November 23, 2015 and December 17, 2015. Also I mailed him a letter on November 23, 2015, but I never heard back from him.  Unfortunately he died on December 27, 2015 at the age of 92. Who were the artists who influenced […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 131 Part C Ellsworth Kelly (Featured artist is Janet Fish )

__ I featured the artwork of Ellsworth Kelly on my blog both on November 23, 2015 and December 17, 2015. Also I mailed him a letter on November 23, 2015, but I never heard back from him.  Unfortunately he died on December 27, 2015 at the age of 92.       Who were the […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 130 Part B Ellsworth Kelly (Featured artist is Art Green )

Andy, Ellsworth Kelly, Richard Koshalek and unidentified guest, 1980s I featured the artwork of Ellsworth Kelly on my blog both on November 23, 2015 and December 17, 2015. Also I mailed him a letter on November 23, 2015, but I never heard back from him.  Unfortunately he died on December 27, 2015 at the age […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 129 Part A Ellsworth Kelly (Featured artist is Sherrie Levine )

How Should We Then Live – Episode 8 – The Age of Fragmentation   I featured the artwork of Ellsworth Kelly on my blog both on November 23, 2015 and December 17, 2015. Also I mailed him a letter on November 23, 2015, but I never heard back from him.  Unfortunately he died on December […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 128 Will Provine, Determinism, Part F (Featured artist is Pierre Soulages )

Today I am bringing this series on William Provine to an end.  Will Provine’s work was cited by  Francis Schaeffer  in his book WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE HUMAN RACE? I noted: I was sad to learn of Dr. Provine’s death. William Ball “Will” Provine (February 19, 1942 – September 1, 2015) He grew up an […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 127 Will Provine, Killer of the myth of Optimistic Humanism Part E (Featured artist is Jim Dine )

___ Setting the record straight was Will Provine’s widow Gail when she stated, “[Will] did not believe in an ULTIMATE meaning in life (i.e. God’s plan), but he did believe in proximate meaning (i.e. relationships with people — friendship and especially LOVE🙂 ). So one’s existence is ultimately senseless and useless, but certainly not to those […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 126 Will Provine, Killer of the myth of Optimistic Humanism Part D (Featured artists are Elena and Olivia Ceballos )

I was sad when I learned of Will Provine’s death. He was a very engaging speaker on the subject of Darwinism and I think he correctly realized what the full ramifications are when accepting evolution. This is the fourth post I have done on Dr. Provine and the previous ones are these links, 1st, 2nd […]

___

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 174 Nat Hentoff, historian,atheist, pro-life advocate, novelist, jazz and country music critic, and syndicated columnist (Featured artist is Jim Woodson )

____

Culture

The Pleasures and Contradictions of Being Nat Hentoff

Read more: http://forward.com/culture/200348/the-pleasures-and-contradictions-of-being-nat-hent/

The writer and activist Nat Hentoff has died at 91, ‘surrounded by family and listening to Billie Holliday’s music,’ as his son put it on Twitter.

Here’s a look back at the bearded, jazz-loving, proudly aetheistic, First Amendment advocate and columnist, written after the release a 2013 documentary about his life and career.

The title of David Lewis’s documentary “The Pleasures of Being Out of Step/Notes on the Life of Nat Hentoff” begs a central question: Has Hentoff, 89, famed social commentator, critic, jazz writer and activist, really spent his life being out of step? Or is that largely a romanticizing conceit?

If one considers the prevailing conformity of Eisenhower-era culture out of which his career first flowered, the answer, of course, is yes; a bearded, left-leaning, jazz-loving, African-American-befriending agnostic Jew was about as out of step as a person could get. But situated more narrowly within his own milieu, among his own kind, this East Coast child of the Great Depression who lived in the heart of Greenwich Village, frequenting its lively night scene while helping to forge the distinctive tone of its own local newspaper, has spent most of his life not only in step, but also frequently choreographing those steps for his confreres.

Nevertheless, Hentoff was, in his way, in the vanguard. He developed a love for jazz early in life, and unlike many fans of his generation, took it seriously as art music rather than as glorified dance music. He brought to his listening a quality of focused, sustained attention that has always been rare. In Lewis’s film, Hentoff relates a story that seems as extraordinary as it is characteristic of the man: Unable to appreciate Charlie Parker’s genius — the ideas were too dense, he says, and came too quickly for him to grasp — he followed a friend’s advice and listened to Parker’s records at half-speed, closely and repeatedly. Slowed down, the music gradually became comprehensible, its intricacies less opaque, its beauties less veiled, and he began to understand the scope of the talent on display. It is no accident that Hentoff was the first non-musician to be named a Jazz Master by the National Endowment for the Arts.

Musicians themselves sensed in him a kindred spirit, and many became his personal friends. Charles Mingus wrote in his memoirs that Hentoff was one of the few white men with whom he found it possible to form a deep, abiding friendship. The writer’s admiration for his favorite artists was unfeigned, wholehearted and free of any consciousness of a racial divide. Interracial friendships were not so very rare in left-wing circles during the 1950s; nevertheless, there seems to have been a special quality of warmth and receptivity that Hentoff brought to these relationships.

Besides jazz, Hentoff’s other passion was the First Amendment. He was as consistent — and as fanatical — about civil liberties and freedom of speech as he was about music. When American Nazis wanted to march through Skokie, Illinois, a town with many Holocaust survivors among its denizens, it caused a schism in liberal circles. Did hateful expression as ugly and provocative as that of the march qualify as protected speech? Many said no, but Hentoff was unwavering, publicly and vociferously supporting the ACLU in its defense of the Nazis. No doubt this position remains controversial to many. But as Margot Hentoff said of her husband, he tended to feel it necessary “to take things to an absolute position.”

Lewis, the documentary’s producer and director, is a veteran journalist, and this his first feature-length film. So how should we assess it? Do we judge it as an aesthetic artifact without regard to its subject? Or do we like it or hate it depending primarily on our personal reactions to Nat Hentoff’s tastes and opinions? Can we simply ask whether it holds our interest?

According to this last criterion, the documentary emphatically succeeds. It is a compelling portrait of a specific time and place, easy to view in retrospect as a verdant intellectual oasis amid a vast gray desert. Hentoff is a fascinating figure worthy of our attention. Andre Braugher provides authoritative narration. And Lewis has assembled a congenial and lively group of witnesses, especially the witty, skeptical Margot Hentoff, the fine jazz historian Stanley Crouch, and Hentoff’s estranged but apparently still grudgingly affectionate Village Voice colleague Karen Durbin

Perhaps the most striking presence is that of the late Amiri Baraka; despite a history of having penned, along with a few superb plays, some repellently anti-Semitic screeds (quite a few of them produced after he claimed to have abandoned that prejudice), he nonetheless offers a sympathetic and insightful account of the natural alliance between African Americans and Jewish Americans, along with an acknowledgment that most of jazz’s early white enthusiasts tended to be Jews. His testimony in the film is gripping in its own right and startling when considered in its context.

But judging the film as a crafted object, one has to admit that it is not edited with anything resembling a sure hand. If Lewis was guided by some principle while shaping his documentary, if there is some overarching architecture governing the way the succession of historical footage and testimony is structured, I fail to perceive it. The film jumps around chronologically and in terms of subject matter, and cuts from witness to witness without apparent logic or purpose. Virtually every scene succeeds in holding our interest, but the way these scenes are assembled appears almost random.

With one exception. Mr. Lewis — or perhaps it’s Mr. Hentoff — has a surprise for us up his sleeve, and that surprise is saved for the final ten minutes or so of the film. In the last decade, Hentoff turned violently against abortion. He became as vociferously pro-life as the most zealous evangelical Christian. In the film, he presents this change of heart as a logical extension of his belief in individual freedom — a line of thought implicitly granting personhood to a developing fetus — along with his longstanding opposition to capital punishment.

Regardless of where one stands on this issue— and independent of how one weighs the logical consistency he claims to embrace — this stance comes as a shock (even his wife seems a little shocked). As does a final card superimposed over the film, telling us that in 2009 Hentoff became a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute. The film identifies the Cato Institute as “a libertarian think tank,” which, while not inaccurate, doesn’t do it justice. It is a rabidly right-wing entity founded by the Koch family; other than its stance on abortion, one can say with justice that it flies in the face of virtually every cause Hentoff has championed. But as if to confirm the thoroughgoing nature of his apostasy, Hentoff has recently endorsed Rand Paul’s presidential candidacy. An astonishing, an unthinkable development; it’s as if the word “libertarian,” all by itself, has overridden not only the man’s lifelong value system, but his higher cerebral functions.

Hentoff was fired from the Village Voice in 2008; many suspect it was because of his pro-life stance, although the paper’s owners deny it. He certainly lost friends; his combative forensic style was never gentle, and when it was turned on erstwhile allies, it seems to have alienated many of them permanently. In his ninth decade, Nat Hentoff has justified the film’s title. He’s finally, decisively, out of step.

Erik Tarloff is a screenwriter, novelist, and playwright. His latest novel is ‘All Our Yesterdays.’”

Read more: http://forward.com/culture/200348/the-pleasures-and-contradictions-of-being-nat-hent/

The Pleasures of Being Out Of Step Official Trailer (2014) – Nat Hentoff, Bob Dylan Documentary HD

_____________________

Dancing at the Wailing Wall in 1967:

Picture of Wailing Wall from 1863


Source: Earthly Footsteps of the Man of Galilee, p. 147.

President Carter with Adrian and Joyce Rogers in 1979 at the White House:
____

Adrian Rogers in the White House pictured with President Ronald Reagan below:

________

Adrian and Joyce Rogers with President Bush at Union University in Jackson, TN:

_______________________

Nat Hentoff like and Milton Friedman and John Hospers was a hero to Libertarians. Over the years I had the opportunity to correspond with some prominent Libertarians such as Friedman and Hospers. Friedman was very gracious, but Hospers was not. I sent a cassette tape of Adrian Rogers on Evolution to John Hospers in May of 1994 which was the 10th anniversary of Francis Schaeffer’s passing and I promptly received a typed two page response from Dr. John Hospers. Dr. Hospers had both read my letter and all the inserts plus listened to the whole sermon and had some very angry responses. If you would like to hear the sermon from Adrian Rogers and read the transcript then refer to my earlier post at this link.  Earlier I posted the comments made by Hospers in his letter to me and you can access those posts by clicking on the links in the first few sentences of this post or you can just google “JOHN HOSPERS FRANCIS SCHAEFFER” or “JOHN HOSPERS ADRIAN ROGERS.”

Image result for john hospers francis schaeffer

__

Image result for nat hentoff milton friedman

Likewise I read a lot of material from Nat Hentoff and I wrote him several letters. In the post I will include one of those letters.

Nat Hentoff on abortion

Published on Nov 5, 2016

__

_________________________

Adrian Rogers pictured below on national day of prayer with President Bush.

_____

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXX 4th Letter on Israel on 8-5-14 and Hot Springs

To Nat Hentoff, From Everette hatcher

Sent August 5, 2014

I know that I had written you about Israel back in May of this year, but Israel has jumped into the news a great deal since then so I thought I needed to write you again. Zechariah 12:3 (KJV) notes, “And in that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all people.”

It is amazing how up to date the Bible can be in many ways.
Mike Huckabee opened up his 8-2-14 Fox news show up with these words:
“You bet it is tragic that many civilians in Gaza have died, but when Palestinians pack their population around their military hardware and weaponry and then they fail to heed the leaflets, radio transmissions, dud warning bombs, phone calls and text messages, the results will be tragic…. I wonder if the Jew-haters would feel better if Israel was terrible at protecting and there were thousands of dead Jewish children?,,,,Every single agreed to cease-fire agreement pushed for by President Obama has resulted in Hamas violating it by firing more rockets right into civilian targets in Israel.”
Furthermore, Bible believers are not surprised that Israel doesn’t get along with their cousins in the Middle East because Genesis 16:12 notes concerning Israel’s neighbors “…he will live in hostility towards all his brothers.” Also we were not surprised when the Jews returned to the Holy Land after War World II because Isaiah 11:12 asserts, “And He will … gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.”
I visited Israel in 1976 and our tour guide was my pastor Adrian Rogers. During the trip he asserted  that the Jews had a divine right to be in the land, but they would never have peace until Christ came back.
Rogers also made 4 other points concerning the young nation of Israel.
First, the Old Testament predicted that the Jews would regather from all over the world and form a new reborn nation of Israel.  (Isaiah 11:11-12)
Second, it was also predicted that the nation of Israel would become a stumbling block to the whole world. (Zechariah 12:3)
Third, it was predicted that the Hebrew language would be used again as the Jews’ first language even though we know in 1948 that Hebrew at that time was a dead language! (Zeph 3:9; 2 Thess 2:3-4).
Fourth, it was predicted that the Jews would never again be removed from their land.(Amos 9:14-15)
I was fascinated to read a few years later these groundbreaking words by a famous columnist who happened to be a Jew. Irving Kristol in his article, “The Political Dilemma of American Jews,” COMMENTARY MAGAZINE, 7/1/84 , wrote:

The rise of the Moral Majority is another new feature of the American landscape that baffles Jews…One of the reasons—perhaps the main reason—they do not know what to do about it is the fact that the Moral Majority is strongly pro-Israel. Some Jews, enmeshed in the liberal time warp, refuse to take this mundane fact seriously. They are wrong… In short, is it not time for an agonizing reappraisal?

I later corresponded with Mr. Kristol and shared with him some of these same Old Testament Prophecies concerning the Jews returning to the promised land once again.

In a letter to me dated September 21, 1995  Irving Kristol wrote this comment, “I am leery of taking Biblical prophecies too literally. They always seem to get fulfilled, some way or other, whatever happens. They are inspiring, of course, which enough for me.”

It is my view that there is a master plan that is getting played out on the world stage and Israel is in the center of the plan. Jesus spoke to the skeptical Jews of his day with his words from John 7 :16-17, “My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.” In other words, if you are an honest doubter and are willing to search out the truth and live by the results then God will reveal to you that Christ is his son. However, if you are a dishonest doubter then you are just unwilling to serve God and that is the core problem. You can’t find God for the same reason a thief can’t find a policeman.

Just recently I got to visit with Irving Kristol’s son Bill in a political meeting in Hot Springs, Arkansas on July 18, 2014.  I gave him copies of letters I had received from both his father and their family friend Daniel Bell. He was amazed. He read the letters on the spot and thanked me for them. I told that Old Testament prophecies concerning Israel was the subject of the letters. Then I told him how much I respected his mother’s historical work and asked how she was doing.

Is there a master plan and does the universe have an ultimate purpose? The events playing out in the Middle East today seem to indicate that these Old Testament prophecies concerning the country of Israel returning to prominence are correct. Do you wish to explain them away like Irving Kristol did?

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

Everette Hatcher, P.O.Box 23416, Little Rock, AR 72221, everettehatcher@gmail.com,

Embedded image permalink

________

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

________

Featured artist is Jim Woodson

President Bush’s Powerful Veteran Portraits

Published on Mar 2, 2017

During his first in-studio appearance, President George W. Bush discussed his admiration for veterans, the meaning behind his collection of portraits, and his newest furry family member.

__

David Everett & Jim Woodson

DETAILS

Time:Sat., Aug. 29, 6-8:30 p.m. 2015
Free

LOCATION INFO:

Valley House Gallery and Sculpture Garden

6616 Spring Valley Road Dallas, TX
Dallas, TX  75254
972-239-2441

Tucked into a residential North Dallas neighborhood sits one of the city’s oldest and finest art galleries. Surrounded by acres of lush greenery and a small babbling brook, Valley House Gallery feels like an escape from the expansive swathes of concrete that comprise the rest of the city. This weekend, the gallery opens two exhibitions by Texas-based artists, one by sculptor, David Everett, and another by painter Jim Woodson. Both promise a unique perspective on the state’s landscape. See them in opening reception from 6-8:30 p.m. Saturday at Valley House Gallery, 6616 Spring Valley Rd. Admission is free. More information at valleyhouse.com.

Fort Worth’s Woodson Named State Painter

PAINTER OF DISTINCTION: JIM WOODSON ’65

After retiring from 39 years in the TCU School of Art, Jim Woodson ’65 is tabbed by the Texas Legislature as one of the state’s official visual artists.

For as long as 71-year-old painter Jim Woodson ’65 can remember, his hands were always clutching a pencil, poised to draw something.

Anything.

If he didn’t know that he was destined to become an artist, his childhood pals in his native Waco didn’t hesitate to remind him.

“My classmates kept on saying, ‘Jim draws all the time. He is bound to be an artist when he grows up,’” recalls Woodson, who retired in May after 39 years in the TCU School of Art.

His school chums were prophetic: Woodson not only has become an acclaimed painter and teacher, but, this year, the Texas Commission on the Arts announced him as the Legislature’s official state visual artist for two-dimensional work.

“I remember thinking how really nice it is just to be nominated,” Woodson says from his home away from Fort Worth, near Abiquiu, N.M. “But honestly, I didn’t think I had much of a shot because there were so many other good artists being considered.”

But Woodson did nab the statewide honor. In fact, the State Artist distinction amounts to a lifetime achievement commendation for Woodson’s decades of canvases that capture, in a transcendent way, new facets of Texas and New Mexico’s endless high desert landscape.

Woodson has shown his work in all corners of Texas, from the Modern Art Museum of Fort Worth to the compact Old Jail Art Center in Albany. Laura Bush has purchased a Woodson, while seven of his pieces are on view at the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway offices in Fort Worth. In September, Woodson completed a successful first show in the prestigious Wade Wilson Art gallery in Santa Fe.

Today, when asked for his take on the evolution of his prize-winning painting style, Woodson admits his earliest landscapes were spare, bereft of trees, yet full of undulating Palomino-colored hills of Northern California. Upon his return to Texas, in his early 30s, he was more influenced by those artists who were manipulating the landscape to create their work.

“In some extreme instances, I would actually build a three-dimensional form and bury it into the landscape, all to be as inventive as I could with the landscape,” says Woodson. “Pretty soon, I began imposing my own fantastical architectural or even interior shapes and spaces into the landscape in my mind and would then paint them. The landscape becomes an activity, not at all dead, but constantly in flux.”

Since 1982, Cheryl Vogel has been the chief curator of the Valley House Gallery and Sculpture Garden in Dallas, which has, since 1998, acted as Woodson’s primary DFW gallery representative and agent.

What first excited Vogel about Woodson’s artistry was his accomplished brush work and brash scale of a typical Woodson canvas. Many of his works average four-by-five feet.

“He always has such a sense of air and movement and energy in his paintings,” says Vogel. “They are never static.”

Even more appealing to Vogel is Woodson’s avowed refusal to burden the landscape with any obsessive, photographic meticulousness.

“He means his works to be paintings, though they are as far away from calendar paintings as you can get,” says Vogel. “They are muscular and masculine. His colors peer out between his final strokes, yet he is not impressionistic by nature. He wants to paint, as he says, ‘a verb not a noun.’ Meaning: He wants action in there.”

All in all, it’s the kind of singular artistic sensibility that, according to Vogel, prices Woodson’s work at $600 for graphite drawings, $2,000-$4,000 for works on paper, and $4,000-$25,000 for oil paintings. A standard four-by-five-foot Woodson oil will often fetches over $12,000.

* * *

That would have been a king’s ransom to the financially strapped household Woodson called home in Waco. Woodson’s father was a broom-maker, with an 8th-grade education, and his mother a school secretary. The 6-year-old Woodson passed the days by seeking out any flat surface on which to draw, usually with the blunt graphite of a humble pencil.

A self-styled little “terrorist” in high school, Woodson cultivated a greasy-haired, James Dean-like rebel image.

“I think I was just bored with everything going in class,” says Woodson who, despite his lackadaisical affect, was still elected president of his school’s art club. “I now feel bad that I must have caused my art teacher as much grief as I did.”

A very green college student, Woodson was the first in his family to ever get more than a high school education. He was lucky enough to encounter an inspirational painting teacher named Joe Farrell Hobbs while a sophomore at Arlington State College (now University of Texas at Arlington).

“The thing about Joe,” recalls Woodson, “is that he was such a solid example of how someone could actually make a living – pay his bills, have a family — while teaching and making art. At the time, I didn’t have a clue how I could manage to do that.

“While Prof. Hobbs taught us a pretty standard painting class,” continues Woodson, “he also taught us not only about using the core material properly, but about being in the world as a vital, working, living artist.”

Upon graduating from TCU in 1965 (Woodson transferred there from Arlington State), he enrolled in the Masters of Fine Arts program at the University of Texas at Austin. Unhappy with the excessively theoretical and academic bent of the art program at UT, the freshly married Woodson was itching to leave Austin.

And with a massive sale of his accumulated art, Woodson, his wife, Linda, and their dog, piled into their car and took off for San Francisco, arriving there in 1967’s “Summer of Love.”

“Suddenly, I was an artist caught in the hippy world,” says Woodson. “It was a wonderful time. I even got to hear Janis Joplin and the Grateful Dead in Golden Gate Park.”

A series of less-than-satisfying jobs, including one at the California Historical Society and at a plastic sign factory, would eventually chase Woodson from his perceived California nirvana back to Fort Worth.

An old teacher-acquaintance from TCU, Harry Geffert, had contacted Woodson about returning to his alma mater to apply for several open painting teaching positions.

So, one plane ride later in 1974, and the 33-year old Woodson was back at TCU, assuming a one-year appointment as a visiting artist, teaching painting and drawing.

Thirty-nine years later, up until his official retirement this past spring, Woodson was still “visiting.”

“I always felt very confident as a teacher,” Woodson says. “I’ve always known I had something to offer the kids.”

Throughout his years at TCU, Woodson’s teaching philosophy evolved into one of not wanting to fill up his students’ heads with too much theory.

“Sometimes getting out of the students’ way is one of the best things you can do,” admits Woodson. “Sure, I can improve their work with color and help them with some ideas and concepts, but what I fundamentally try to convey is how seriously they must be committed to being an artist. That’s what inspirational art teachers did for me.”

It must be uplifting for Woodson when he gets that occasional invite to a splashy art show featuring one of his former students. That would seem to be the ultimate validation of a job well done in launching a viable artist into the world.

“Whenever I see evidence of one of my students’ success,” says Woodson, “I think back to what my art teachers told me: ‘If you really feel like you have a choice to be an artist, then don’t do it. Because being an artist is not about having a choice.’ You’ve got to do it. For me it was totally clear.”

Exhibit:
The works of Jim Woodson will be shown at the Moudy Art Gallery in an exhibition from September 16 to October 11.

Related posts:

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 135 H. J. Blackham Part C Featured artist is Richard Anuszkiewicz

________     H. J. Blackham H. J. Blackham, (31 March 1903 – 23 January 2009), was a leading and widely respected British humanist for most of his life. As a young man he worked in farming and as a teacher. He found his niche as a leader in the Ethical Union, which he steadfastly […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 134 H.J.Blackham Part B (Featured artist is Richard M. Loving)

H.J.Blackham pictured below: I had to pleasure of corresponding with Paul Kurtz in the 1990’s and he like H. J. Blackham firmly believed that religion was needed to have a basis for morals. At H. J. Blackham’s funeral in 2009 these words were read from Paul Kurtz: Paul Kurtz Founder and Chair, Prometheus Books and the […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 133 A Portion of my 1994 letter to H. J. Blackham on the 10th Anniversary of Francis Schaeffer’s passing (Featured artist is Billy Al Bengston )

H. J. Blackham pictured below:   On May 15, 1994 on the 10th anniversary of the passing of Francis Schaeffer I sent a letter to H.J. Blackham and here is a portion of that letter below: I have enclosed a cassette tape by Adrian Rogers and it includes  a story about  Charles Darwin‘s journey from […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 132 Part D Ellsworth Kelly (Featured artist is Ronald Davis )

  I featured the artwork of Ellsworth Kelly on my blog both on November 23, 2015 and December 17, 2015. Also I mailed him a letter on November 23, 2015, but I never heard back from him.  Unfortunately he died on December 27, 2015 at the age of 92. Who were the artists who influenced […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 131 Part C Ellsworth Kelly (Featured artist is Janet Fish )

__ I featured the artwork of Ellsworth Kelly on my blog both on November 23, 2015 and December 17, 2015. Also I mailed him a letter on November 23, 2015, but I never heard back from him.  Unfortunately he died on December 27, 2015 at the age of 92.       Who were the […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 130 Part B Ellsworth Kelly (Featured artist is Art Green )

Andy, Ellsworth Kelly, Richard Koshalek and unidentified guest, 1980s I featured the artwork of Ellsworth Kelly on my blog both on November 23, 2015 and December 17, 2015. Also I mailed him a letter on November 23, 2015, but I never heard back from him.  Unfortunately he died on December 27, 2015 at the age […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 129 Part A Ellsworth Kelly (Featured artist is Sherrie Levine )

How Should We Then Live – Episode 8 – The Age of Fragmentation   I featured the artwork of Ellsworth Kelly on my blog both on November 23, 2015 and December 17, 2015. Also I mailed him a letter on November 23, 2015, but I never heard back from him.  Unfortunately he died on December […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 128 Will Provine, Determinism, Part F (Featured artist is Pierre Soulages )

Today I am bringing this series on William Provine to an end.  Will Provine’s work was cited by  Francis Schaeffer  in his book WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE HUMAN RACE? I noted: I was sad to learn of Dr. Provine’s death. William Ball “Will” Provine (February 19, 1942 – September 1, 2015) He grew up an […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 127 Will Provine, Killer of the myth of Optimistic Humanism Part E (Featured artist is Jim Dine )

___ Setting the record straight was Will Provine’s widow Gail when she stated, “[Will] did not believe in an ULTIMATE meaning in life (i.e. God’s plan), but he did believe in proximate meaning (i.e. relationships with people — friendship and especially LOVE🙂 ). So one’s existence is ultimately senseless and useless, but certainly not to those […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 126 Will Provine, Killer of the myth of Optimistic Humanism Part D (Featured artists are Elena and Olivia Ceballos )

I was sad when I learned of Will Provine’s death. He was a very engaging speaker on the subject of Darwinism and I think he correctly realized what the full ramifications are when accepting evolution. This is the fourth post I have done on Dr. Provine and the previous ones are these links, 1st, 2nd […]

___

MUSIC MONDAY George Harrison’s song “Dehra Dun” says MANY ROADS WILL GET YOU TO HEAVEN

__

 

George Harrison – “Dehra Dun”

Uploaded on Mar 21, 2011

George Harrison “Dehra Dun”

Dehra dehra dun, dehra dun dun
Dehra dehra dun, dehra dun dun
Dehra dehra dun, dehra dun dun
Dehra dehra dun…
Many roads can take you there, many different ways
One direction takes you years, another takes you days
Dehra dehra dun, dehra dun dun
Dehra dehra dun, dehra dun dun
Dehra dehra dun, dehra dun dun
Dehra dehra dun…
Many people on the roads looking at the sights
Many others with their troubles looking for their rights
Dehra dehra dun, dehra dun dun
Dehra dehra dun, dehra dun dun
Dehra dehra dun, dehra dun dun
Dehra dehra dun…
See them move along the road in search of life divine
Beggers in a goldmine
Dehra dehra dun, dehra dun dun
Dehra dehra dun, dehra dun dun
Dehra dehra dun, dehra dun dun
Dehra dehra dun…
Many roads can take you there, many different ways
One direction takes you years, another takes you days
Dehra dehra dun, dehra dun dun
Dehra dehra dun, dehra dun dun
Dehra dehra dun, dehra dun dun
Dehra dehra dun

__

George Harrison sings, “Many roads can take you there, many different ways.” However, Christ said in John 14:6:

Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”

John MacArthur: Is Jesus the Only Way?

Published on May 12, 2015

Religious pluralism is one of the greatest challenges facing Christianity in today’s world. Is Jesus Christ just one way among many valid paths to God? In this message, Dr. John MacArthur explains how pluralism conflicts with the exclusive claims of Christ and undermines Christ’s Great Commission.

This message is from our 2008 West Coast Conference, Tough Questions Christians Face: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=…

Purchase this conference on DVD: http://www.ligonier.org/store/tough-q…

_
__

If God has not revealed Himself, then there are no absolutes. Good is evil and evil is good. We see this in Hinduism.

The new theologians also have no way to explain why evil exists, and thus they are left with the same problem the Hindu philosophers have; that is, they must say that finally everything that is is equally in God. In Hindu thought one of the manifestations of God is Kali, a feminine representation of God with fangs and skulls hanging about her neck. Why do Hindus picture God this way? Because to them everything that exists now is a part of what has always been, a part of that which the Hindus would call “God”—and therefore cruelty is equal to noncruelty. Modern humanistic man in both his secular and his religious forms has come to the same awful place. Both have no final way to say what is right and what is wrong, and no final way to say why one should choose noncruelty instead of cruelty.

IN THE VIDEO BELOW take notice at the 14:00 minute mark Schaeffer talks about the BEATLES and at the 22:30 minute mark  Schaeffer mentions the Hindu god Kali.

How Should We then Live Episode 7 small (Age of Nonreason)

Rishikesh – Beatles With The Maharishi (1968)

The Biblical view concerning how sin entered the world is explained in the book GENESIS  IN SPACE AND TIME by Francis Schaeffer, Chapter 5  pages 33  -41:

chapter 5

The space-time fall and its results

Eve was faced with a choice, she pondered the situation and then she put her hand into the history of man and changed the course of human events.

The Fruit Is Eaten

The Genesis account is short and to the point: “And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat” (Gen. 3:6).1 The flow is from the internal to the external; the sin began in the thought-world and flowed outward. The sin was, therefore, committed in that moment she believed Satan instead of God. At this point the whole matter was decided. Nonetheless, a history is involved, for first she believed Satan, then she ate, and then she gave the fruit to Adam.

Genesis 3:17 refers to this historical flow, for God in speaking to Adam says that he has “hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree.” And we are reminded, as we have seen in 2 Corinthians 11:3, that as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety (at her point of history) so our own minds (at our point of history) may also be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

Paul in 1 Timothy 2:14 points out something further: “And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.” Temptation is extremely hard to resist when it is bound up with the man-woman relationship. For example, in Exodus 34:16 we are warned not to let the man-woman relationship lead us into idolatry (spoken of as going “a whoring after their gods”).

Two great drives are built into man. The first is his need for a relationship to God, and the second his need for a relationship to the opposite sex. A special temptation is bound up with this sexual drive. How many young women are there who are faithful as Christians until they come to a certain age and feel with their whole being, without ever analyzing it, the need for marriage and are then swept over into marrying a non-Christian man? And how many men are there who are faithful until they feel the masculine drive and give up their faithfulness to God by marrying a woman who carries them into spiritual problems for the rest of their life? I look upon such young men and young women as I see them going through this, and I cry for them, because in a way there is no greater agony than suddenly to fall in love and then to realize that one must say no to this natural drive because it leads in that particular case to a severing of our greater relationship-our relationship to God. While what happened in the Garden of Eden was a spacetime historic event, the man-woman relationship and force of temptation it must have presented to Adam is universal.

The Results of the Fall for the Human Race

The results of Adam and Eve’s action are recorded in many places in Scripture, but nowhere more clearly than in Romans 5:12-19 where Paul emphasizes that Adam and Eve’s action marked the entrance of sin into the human  race. I will quote here part of this passage: “Therefore, as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin; and so death passed [spread] unto all men, for that all sinned:-for until the law sin was in the world; but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the likeness of Adam’s transgression, who is a figure of him that was to come…. For if by the trespass of the one the many died…. For if, by the trespass of the one, death reigned through the one…. So then as through one trespass the judgment came unto all men to condemnation…. For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners . . .” (ASV).

The repetition makes the point obvious: By the action of one man in a historic, space-time situation, sin entered into the world of men. But this is not just a theoretical statement that gives us a reasonable and sufficient answer to man’s present dilemma, explaining how the world can be so evil and God still be good. It is that in reality, from this time on, man was and is a sinner. Though some men do not like the teaching, the Bible continues like a sledge hammer, driving home the fact that evil has entered into the world of man, all men are now sinners, all men now sin. Listen to God’s declaration concerning the human race in Jeremiah 17:9: “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?”

Incidentally, in one way it is easier today than it was a few years ago to proclaim the sinfulness of man. On every side artists, novelists and protest singers are saying, “What’s wrong with man? Something’s wrong with man.” The Bible agrees and gives us a realistic view of life: “The heart is deceitfully wicked.”

I think the strongest words were spoken by Jesus himself in John 8:44, where he turns on those who are claiming the fatherhood of God and says: “Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father it is your will to do” (ASV). In other words, Jesus is saying, “You choose to be in Satan’s parade.”

Isaiah writes, “All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way” (Is. 53:6). It is obvious that if “all we like sheep have gone astray,” I can no longer merely say they have gone astray, but I must say I have gone astray. I, too, sin. Paul picks this up in the letter to the Romans as he summarizes the status of all the races-first the Gentiles and then the Jews: “As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one” (Rom. 3:10-12). If there is none that is righteous, no, not one, then I am included. I have written the word me in the margin of my Bible at this place. Galatians 3:10 carries the force: “For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is everyone that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.” All mankind stands in this place. Not only the revealed law of God but also every moral motion of every man who has ever lived condemns men, because men keep neither the revealed law of God nor even live consistently according to their own moral motions. This is the point of Romans 2:1-2: “Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things. But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things.”

What Paul says involves the whole man as he comes to Scripture. The Bible never leaves this as a generalization or as an abstraction. Paul writes, “Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man.” Perhaps the most important part of this is that it is in the singular, for it speaks to every individual who hears or reads: “Whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.” The simple fact is that it is not only the man who has the written law of God, the Bible, who stands under the judgment of law, but every man who ever lived. I have pointed out elsewhere that wherever anthropologists and sociologists have been, they have found that men have moral motions. The specific standards may be different, but all men operate under moral categories. So Paul says here that a man stands condemned on the basis of his own moral motions, for every time he condemns another man he has put himself under the same condemnation. Every man makes moral judgments concerning other men and then does not keep them himself. The results? All men are sinners, and all men sin.

This indictment includes those who are now Christians as well as non-Christians. Men are not born Christians, a sort of special race. Every single man who is now a child of God was at one time a rebel. We are all hewn from the same rock, whether we come from a church background or a non-church background. No sacerdotalism can help man.

Am I a Christian today? Never forget, then, that yesterday I was as much a rebel as anyone who walks on the face of the earth. As Ephesians 2:2-3 says in burning words: “Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience.” He is talking here to the church at Ephesus. But he continues and adds himself to the list, he steps over and joins us, for it is not just “ye” but “we”: “Among whom also we all had our conversation [meaning here our total way of life, our “life-form”] in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.” This is who we are. If we are Christians today, this is who we have been. We had a different king-the father of lies. We must not be proud, for as Ephesians 5:8 says, “For ye were sometimes darkness, but now ye are light in the Lord.” Remember, you were also marked by Adam’s sin, and you were sinners: “And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled” (Col. 1:21).

Don’t be proud. As you look out across the world of sinners, weep for them. Be glad indeed if you are redeemed, but never forget as you look at others that you have been one of them, and in a real sense we are still one with them, for we still sin. Christians are not a special group of people who can be proud; Christians are those who are redeemed-and that is all!

Everywhere we turn we find the same thing: “For we ourselves [notice the “we” again] also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another” (Tit. 3:3). Paul never allowed those who followed his teaching to forget that they were not a special kind just because they may have been Jews at the beginning and circumcised or just because they were now baptized Christians. Each one must say, “I have been the rebel, I have been the sinner.” The force of this is perhaps brought most fully in the great statement in 1 John 1:10: “If we say that we have not sinned, we make him [God] a liar, and his word is not in us.” To forget in our emotional reactions as well as in our words that we indeed have been sinners, not only involved in the results of Adam’s sin but deliberately sinning ourselves over and over and over again -to forget this is to call God a liar.

Thus, all men are under the judgment of God. Even the marvelous chapter that speaks so clearly of hope, the third go chapter of the Gospel of John, twice emphasizes that men are under God’s judgment. We read, for example, these words in John 3:18: “He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.” The testimony of John the Baptist in the last verse of this chapter is even more emphatic: “He that believeth on the Son has everlasting life: but he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him” (v. 36). In a world that loves synthesis, the Bible stands with a message of total antithesis: He who believes has life but he who does not is subject to the wrath, the judgment, of God. Here, then, is the basic result of the space-time fall that we are considering in the flow of history-men are rebels and under the judgment of God.

Guilt before God

Other results of sin were immediately evident in the Garden of Eden: “And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons” (Gen. 3:7). The word aprons in the Hebrew is interesting. Actually, it simply means to “gird yourself about,” so people have translated the word in various ways. One Bible, the Breeches Bible of 1608, got its name from the way it translated this word. But whatever an apron is, it is something one puts around himself.

The significance is that Adam and Eve were brought to a realization of what they had done. They began to feel afraid and to feel guilt-and well they might, for their guilt feelings were rooted in true guilt. When a man has sinned against God, he not only has guilt feelings, he has true guilt; and he has true guilt even if he does not have feelings of guilt.

“And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden” (v. 8). This is the verse we have used in our previous studies to indicate the wonder of the open communication which God had with man. In the garden in the cool (or the wind) of the day, there was open fellowship, open communion-open propositional communication between God and man before the Fall. But now that which was his wonder and his joy, the fulfillment of his need, an infinite, personal reference point with whom he could have communion and communication became the reason for his fear. He was going to meet God face to face! Once man had shaken his fist in the face of God, what had been so wonderful became a just reason for fear, because God was really there.

So we read: “And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou? And he said, I heard the voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself. And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldst not eat? And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat. And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat” (vv. 9-13).

The first thing we notice here is that Adam and Eve immediately begin to try to pass the guilt from themselves to another, and we have, therefore, the division which is at the very heart of man’s relationship with man from this point on. The human race is divided-man against man. We do not have to wait for modern psychologists to talk about alienation. Here it is. Man is alienated from his wife-the wife from her husband-as they turn against each other, especially at the points of blame and guilt. All the alienation that any poet will ever write about is here already. In a way, both Adam and Eve were right. Eve had given the fruit to Adam, and Satan had tempted Eve. But that does not shift the responsibility. Eve was responsible and Adam was responsible, and they stood in their responsibility before God.

God’s Judgment on Man and Nature

As God speaks to the parties involved at this moment of history, we find four steps in his judgment of their action. First, he speaks to the serpent who has been used by Satan: “And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above [from among] all cattle, and above [from among] every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life” (v. 14). As we shall see, all nature becomes abnormal yet the serpent is singled out in a special way “from among all cattle.'”

Second, in verse 15 he speaks to Satan; we will return to that.

Third, he speaks to the woman: “Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy pain [this is more accurate than the King James word sorrow] and thy conception; in pain thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.” There are two parts here: the first relates to the womanness of the woman-the bearing of children-and the second to her relationship to her husband. In regard to the former, God says that he will multiply two things-not just the pain but also the conception. It seems clear that if man had not rebelled there would not have been as many children born.

In regard to the relationship to her husband, he says, “And thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.” This one sentence puts an end to any pure democracy. In a fallen world pure democracy is not possible. Rather, God brings structure into the primary relationship of man-the man-woman relationship. In a fallen world (in every kind of society-big and smalland in every relationship) structure is needed for order. God himself here imposes it on the basic human relationship. Form is given and without such form freedom would only be chaos.

It is not simply because man is stronger that he is to have dominion (that’s the argument of the Marquis de Sade). But rather he is to have dominion because God gives this as structure in the midst of a fallen world. The Bible makes plain that this relationship is not to be without love. As the New Testament puts it, the husband is to love his wife as Christ loved the church (Eph. 5:23). In a fallen world it is not surprising to find that men have turned this structure into a kind of slavery. It is not meant to be a slavery. In fact, it is in cultures where the Bible has been influential that the balance has been substantially restored. The Bible balances the structure and the love.

Nevertheless, it is still true: Since the Fall what God. says in verse 16 is to be the structure or the form of the basic human relationship-the man-woman relationship. It is right that a woman should feel a need for freedom, a feeling of being a “human being” in the world. But when she tries to smash the structure of this basic relationship, finally what she does is to hurt herself. It is like unravelling the knot that holds the string of human relationships together. All other things flow from it-the loss of her own children’s obedience and the crumbling of society about her. In a fallen world we need structure in every social relationship.

The Abnormal Universe

Fourth, God speaks to the man: “And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in toil [the word sorrow in the King James is inaccurate] shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life” (v. 17). In other words, at this point the external world is changed.

It is interesting that almost all of the results of God’s judgment because of man’s rebellion relate in some way to the external world. They are not just bound up in man’s thought life; they are not merely psychological. Profound changes make the external, objective world abnormal. In the phrase for thy sake God is relating these external abnormalities to what Adam has done in the Fall.

All of these changes came about by fiat. Creation, as we have already seen, came by fiat. And, though we have come to the conclusion of creation with the creation of Eve, yet fiat has not ceased. The abnormality of the external world was brought about by fiat. Putting it into twentieth-century terminology, we can say this: The universe does not display a uniformity of cause and effect in a closed system; God speaks and something changes. We are reminded here of the long arguments that date back to the time of Lyell and Darwin concerning whether there could be such a thing as catastrophe-something that cut across the uniformity of cause and effect. Scripture answers this plainly: Yes, God spoke and that which he had created was changed.

So now the earth itself is abnormal. We read, for example, in Genesis 5:29, which speaks of the world before the flood: “And he [Noah’s father] called his name Noah, saying, This same shall comfort us concerning our work and toil of our hands, because of the ground which the LORD hath cursed.” The name Noah itself simply means rest or comfort. The Scripture says that at this point in the flow of biblical history men knew very well that the toil of their hands was a result of God’s having changed the earth.

Why is it like this? Because, one might say, you, O unprogrammed and significant Adam, have revolted. Nature has been under your dominion (in this sense it is as an extension of himself, as a king’s empire is an extension of himself). Therefore, when you changed, God changed the objective, external world. It as well as you is now abnormal.

It is interesting that in each of the steps of God’s judgment toil is involved: The serpent goes upon his belly; the woman has pain in childbirth; the man has toil in his work.

Verse 18 continues: “Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee.” The word thistles here means luxuriously-growing but useless plants. The phrase it shall bring forth to thee has in the Hebrew the sense of “it shall be caused to bud.” This phrase, therefore, suggests that here, too, the change was wrought by fiat. Furthermore, the phrase suggests the modern biological term mutation, a non-sterile sport. That is, the plants had been one kind of thing and were reproducing likewise, and then God spoke and the plants began to bring forth something else and continue to reproduce in that new and different form.

The introduction of toil does not mean the introduction of work, because in Genesis 2:15, as we have seen, God took man and put him in the Garden of Eden “to dress it and to keep it.” There was work before the Fall, but certainly we can see the force of the distinction before and after the Fall, in the language of Genesis 5:29, where labor is called the “toil of our hands, because of the ground which the LORD hath cursed.” Since the whole structure of the external world has changed, the meaning of work has changed. Thus Genesis 3:19 says: “In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till [the concept of “until” is important here] thou return unto the ground; for out of it was thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.”

The results are twofold. First, man shall have his food (and all else) by the sweat of his brow. Second, there is an end to this-an end that is not a release. The end is the greatest abnormality in the external world-the dissolution of the total man. A time will come at the end of each man’s life when he physically dies and the unity of man the unity of body and soul-is torn asunder. Christianity is not platonic; the soul is not considered all-important. Rather, at physical death that unity which man is meant to be is fractured. This is the second kind of death brought about by the Fall, the first being immediate separation from fellowship with God and the third being eternal death as men are judged in their rebellion and separated from God forever.

Christianity as a system does not begin with Christ as Savior, but with the infinite-personal God who created the world in the beginning and who made man significant in the flow of history. And man’s significant act in revolt has made the world abnormal. Thus there is not a total unbroken continuity back to the way the world originally was. Non-Christian philosophers almost universally agree in seeing everything as normal, assuming things are as they have always been. The Christian sees things now as not the way they have always been. And, of course, this is very important to the explanation of evil in the world. But it is not only that. It is one way to understand the distinction between the naturalistic, non-Christian answers (whether spoken in philosophic, scientific or even religious language) and the Christian answer. The distinction is that as I look about me I know I live in an abnormal world.

Among contemporary philosophers Martin Heidegger in his later writings has suggested a sort of space-time fall. He says that prior to Aristotle, the pre-Socratic Greeks thought in a different way. Then when Aristotle introduced the concept of rationality and logic, there was an epistemological fall. His notion, of course, has no moral overtones at all, but it is intriguing to me that Heidegger has come to realize that philosophy cannot explain reality if it begins with the notion that the world is normal. This the Bible has taught, but the Bible’s explanation for the present abnormal world is in a moral Fall by a significant man, a fall which has changed the external flow of history as no epistemological fall could do. Heidegger’s problem is that, while he well sees the need of a fall, he will not bow before the existence of the God who is there and the knowledge that God has given us. Hence he ends up with an insufficient fall and an insufficient answer.

Separations

Another way to look at the results of the Fall is to notice the separations that are caused by sin. First is the great separation, the separation between God and man. It underlies all other separations, not only in eternity but right now. Man no longer has the communion with God he was meant to have. Therefore, he cannot fulfill the purpose of his existence-to love God with all his heart, soul and mind-to stand as a finite personal point before an infinite-personal reference point and be in relationship with God himself. When man sinned, the purpose of his existence was smashed. And modern man is right when he says that man is dead. It is not that man is nothing, but that he is no longer able to fulfill his mannishness. Genesis 3:23-24 shows this separation between man and God in a real, historic, graphic sense.

As evangelicals we sometimes emphasize the first separation and fail to properly emphasize all the others that now exist. The second great separation is separation of man from himself. Man has fear. Man has psychological problems. How does a Christian understand these? Primarily as the abnormal separation of man from himself. Man’s basic psychosis is his separation from God carried into his own personality as a separation from himself. Thus we have self-deception. All men are liars, but, most importantly, each man lies to himself. The greatest falsehood is not lying to other men but to ourselves. A related aspect is the loss of ability to acquire true knowledge. All his knowledge is now out of shape because the perspective is wrong, the framework is wrong. That is, man does not lose all his knowledge, but he loses “true knowledge,” especially as he makes extensions from the bits and pieces of knowledge he does have.

Furthermore, man has separated his sexual life from its original high purpose as a vehicle of communication of person to person. Sexuality loses its personal dimension; men and women treat each other as things to be exploited. Finally, at physical death comes the separation of the soul from the body, the great separation of a man from himself.

The third of the great separations is man from man. This is the sociological separation. We have seen already how Adam was separated from Eve. Both of them immediately tried to pass off the blame for the Fall. This signals the loss of the possibility of their walking truly side by side in utopian democracy. Not only was man separated from his wife, but soon brother became separated from brother, Cain killing Abel. And, as we will see in the following chapter, there is a separation between the godly and the ungodly line of men. The godly line (those men who have returned to God) and the ungodly line (the unsaved humanity going on in rebellion) constitute two humanities. In one sense, of course, there is one humanity because we all come from one source. We are one blood, one flesh. But in the midst of one humanity, there are two humanities the humanity that still stands in rebellion and the humanity that is redeemed.

Soon in the flow of history we come to the tower of Babel, and with it we have the division of languages. Modern linguistics has helped us to understand how great the issues are here. So much is involved with language. Then after the time of Abraham comes the division between Jew and Gentile. These separations (and others related to them) are like titanic sonic booms in the sociological upheavals coming down to, and perhaps especially in, our day.

The fourth separation is a separation of man from nature and nature from nature. Man has lost his full dominion, and now nature itself is often a means of judgment. There is, for example, the flood at the time of Noah and, of course, nature pitted against Job. The separation of man from nature and nature from nature seems also to have reached a climax in our day.

Man’s sin causes all these separations between man and God, man and himself, man and man, and man and nature. The simple fact is that in wanting to be what man as a creature could not be, man lost what he could be. In every area and relationship men have lost what finite man could be in his proper place.

But there is one thing which he did not lose, and that is his mannishness, his being a human being. Man still stands in the image of God-twisted, broken, abnormal, but still the image-bearer of God. Man did not stop being human. As we have seen in Genesis 9:6 and in James 3:9, even after the Fall men are still in the image of God. Modern man does not see man as fallen, but he can find no significance for man. In the Bible’s teaching man is fallen but significant.

Let us not be misled: Man is still man. The unsaved painter can still paint. The unsaved lover can still love. He still has moral motions. And, though twisted, the unsaved thinker can still think. And furthermore, he lives on after his own death. He doesn’t just come to the end of his life and suddenly the clock stops. Man has meaning and significance. He may think that his history is just trash and junk, but it is not so.

Watch a man as he dies. Five minutes later he still exists. There is no such thing as stopping the existence of man. He still goes on. He has not lost his being as a human being. He has not lost those things which he intrinsically is as a man. He has not become an animal or a machine. And as I look out over the human race and see the lost-separated from God, separated from themselves, separated from other man, separated from nature-they are still men. Man still has tremendous value.

(Francis Schaeffer pictured below)

Image result for francis schaeffer whatever happened to human race?

__

Before you even come to the Bible and begin to read it one must realize there are 2 ways to read the Bible. One is just one more religious thing among thousands of other religious is nothing more than another form of a trip, not very, very different actually from a drug trip. The other way is to understand that the Bible is truth and as such what we are listening to is something that is completely contrary to what here about us on every side namely merely statistical averages, relativistic things. Now having said this then I would have to guard myself for the simple reason that it doesn’t mean a person has to believe all of this before he can begin to read the Bible and find truth in the Bible.

I would just say in just passing I was not raised in a Christian family and I was reading much philosophy when I was a young man and I didn’t read the Bible because I believed it was true. I read it simply out of an intellectual honesty, but I did do one thing. I read it exactly as it was written beginning with Genesis 1:1 and going right on, I read it just as I would read another book expecting what was being given was a straight forward statement of what was meant and it wasn’t supposed to be read on a different level than that I would read in another kind of book. As I read it, it answered the questions already at that time I realized that humanistic philosophy couldn’t answer and over a six month period I came to conclude it was truth. Nevertheless, we must keep in the back of our mind how are we reading the Bible, just as another religious trip or am I really wrestling with the question of what is given in all the areas in which it speaks. Is it truth in comparison to merely relativism?

The Bible and Archaeology – Is the Bible from God? (Kyle Butt 42 min)

You want some evidence that indicates that the Bible is true? Here is a good place to start and that is taking a closer look at the archaeology of the Old Testament times. Is the Bible historically accurate? Here are some of the posts I have done in the past on the subject: 1. The Babylonian Chronicleof Nebuchadnezzars Siege of Jerusalem2. Hezekiah’s Siloam Tunnel Inscription. 3. Taylor Prism (Sennacherib Hexagonal Prism)4. Biblical Cities Attested Archaeologically. 5. The Discovery of the Hittites6.Shishak Smiting His Captives7. Moabite Stone8Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III9A Verification of places in Gospel of John and Book of Acts., 9B Discovery of Ebla Tablets10. Cyrus Cylinder11. Puru “The lot of Yahali” 9th Century B.C.E.12. The Uzziah Tablet Inscription13. The Pilate Inscription14. Caiaphas Ossuary14 B Pontius Pilate Part 214c. Three greatest American Archaeologists moved to accept Bible’s accuracy through archaeology.

Related posts:

MUSIC MONDAY Rolling Stones New Album Part 8 Blue & Lonesome is the album any Rolling Stones fan would have wished for – review Neil McCormick, music critic

MUSIC MONDAY Rolling Stones New Album Part 8 Rolling Stones – Hoo Doo Blues Blue & Lonesome is the album any Rolling Stones fan would have wished for – review 9 Comments Evergreen: The Rolling Stones perform in Cuba earlier this year CREDIT: REX FEATURES Neil McCormick, music critic 22 NOVEMBER 2016 • 12:19PM The Rolling […]

MUSIC MONDAY Rolling Stones New Album Part 7 The Rolling Stones Alexis Petridis’s album of the week The Rolling Stones: Blue & Lonesome review – more alive than they’ve sounded for years

MUSIC MONDAY Rolling Stones New Album Part 7 Rolling Stones – Everybody Knows About My Good Thing The Rolling Stones Alexis Petridis’s album of the week The Rolling Stones: Blue & Lonesome review – more alive than they’ve sounded for years 4/5stars Mick Jagger’s voice and harmonica drive an album of blues covers that returns […]

MUSIC MONDAY Rolling Stones New Album Part 6 Music Review: ‘Blue & Lonesome’ by the Rolling Stones By Gregory Katz | AP November 29

MUSIC MONDAY Rolling Stones New Album Part 6 Rolling Stones – Just Like I Treat You   Music Review: ‘Blue & Lonesome’ by the Rolling Stones By Gregory Katz | AP November 29 The Rolling Stones, “Blue & Lonesome” (Interscope) It shouldn’t be a surprise, really, but still it’s a bit startling to hear just how well […]

MUSIC MONDAY Rolling Stones New Album Part 5 Review: The Rolling Stones make blues magic on ‘Blue & Lonesome’ Maeve McDermott , USATODAY6:07 p.m. EST November 30, 2016

MUSIC MONDAY Rolling Stones New Album Part 5 Rolling Stones – Everybody Knows About My Good Thing Review: The Rolling Stones make blues magic on ‘Blue & Lonesome’ Maeve McDermott , USATODAY6:07 p.m. EST November 30, 2016 (Photo: Frazer Harrison, Getty Images) Before the Rolling Stones were rock icons, before its members turned into sex […]

MUSIC MONDAY Rolling Stones New Album Part 4 Rolling Stones, ‘Blue & Lonesome’: Album Review By Michael Gallucci November 30, 2016 1:34 PM

MUSIC MONDAY Rolling Stones New Album Part 4 Rolling Stones – Little Rain       Rolling Stones, ‘Blue & Lonesome’: Album Review By Michael Gallucci November 30, 2016 1:34 PM Read More: Rolling Stones, ‘Blue & Lonesome’: Album Review | http://ultimateclassicrock.com/rolling-stones-blue-lonesome-review/?trackback=tsmclip The Rolling Stones were never really a thinking band. A shrewd one, for sure, […]

MUSIC MONDAY Rolling Stones New Album Part 3 Rolling Stones – ‘Blue & Lonesome’ Review Barry Nicolson 12:52 pm – Dec 2, 2016

MUSIC MONDAY Rolling Stones New Album Part 3 The Rolling Stones Mick Jagger chats about new album “Blue & Lonesome” on BBC Breakfast 02 Dec 2016 Rolling Stones – I Gotta Go     Rolling Stones – ‘Blue & Lonesome’ Review Barry Nicolson 12:52 pm – Dec 2, 2016 57shares The Stones sound their youngest […]

MUSIC MONDAY Rolling Stones New Album Part 2 Review The Rolling Stones’ new blues album is an amplified death wheeze. And it rules

MUSIC MONDAY Rolling Stones New Album Part 1 Review: The Rolling Stones Reinvigorate the Blues on ‘Blue and Lonesome’ Our take on rock legends’ first LP since 2005

MUSIC MONDAY Rolling Stones New Album Part 1 The Rolling Stones – Ride ‘Em On Down Published on Dec 1, 2016 Taken from Blue & Lonesome, the brand new album out now. Buy it at http://www.rollingstones.com/blueandl…. Directed by François Rousselet http://www.riffrafffilms.tv/video/dir… Produced by Natalie Arnett Riff Raff Films http://www.riffrafffilms.tv http://www.rollingstones.com/http://www.facebook.com/therollingstones http://twitter.com/RollingStoneshttp://www.rollingstones.com/newsletter Rolling Stones […]

MUSIC MONDAY Karen Carpenter’s tragic story

_____________ Carpenters Close To You Karen Carpenter’s tragic story Karen Carpenter’s velvet voice charmed millions in the 70s… but behind the wholesome image she was in turmoil. Desperate to look slim on stage – and above all desperate to please the domineering mother who preferred her brother – she became the first celebrity victim of […]

MUSIC MONDAY The Carpenters!!!

carpenters -We’ve Only Just Begun The Carpenters – Yesterday Once More (INCLUDES LYRICS) The Carpenters – There’s a kind of hush The Carpenters – Greatest Hits Related posts: MUSIC MONDAY Paul McCartney Mull Of Kintyre November 13, 2016 – 10:29 am Paul McCartney Mull Of Kintyre-Original Video-HQ Uploaded on Nov 25, 2011 Paul McCartney Mull Of […]

__

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 173 Nat Hentoff, historian,atheist, pro-life advocate, novelist, jazz and country music critic, and syndicated columnist (Featured artist is Sedrick Huckaby )

_________

Nat Hentoff on abortion

Secular Pro-Lifer Nat Hentoff Showed Me the Holistic Power of Truth

Image: Waring Abbott / Getty Images

Nat Hentoff—author, jazz critic, and Village Voice columnist for 50 years—died this weekend at the age of 91. Hentoff was a liberal, progressive atheist—yet he profoundly shaped my Christian belief and practice.

In 1986, when he was already a wizened old civil libertarian and secularist pundit, Hentoff researched a number of high-profile cases of disabled infants who had been denied simple, life-saving procedures and instead allowed to die of starvation and dehydration. The resulting story, “The Awful Privacy of Baby Doe,” was published in The Atlantic and marked the awakening of Hentoff’s conscience on abortion.

He had to admit, he later explained in a lecture given to Americans United for Life, that the slope from abortion to infanticide to euthanasia is “not slippery at all, but rather a logical throughway once you got on to it”:

Now, I had not been thinking about abortion at all. I had not thought about it for years. I had what W. H. Auden called in another context a “rehearsed response.” You mentioned abortion and I would say, “Oh yeah, that’s a fundamental part of women’s liberation,” and that was the end of it.

But then I started hearing about “late abortion.” The simple “fact” that the infant had been born, proponents suggest, should not get in the way of mercifully saving him or her from a life hardly worth living. At the same time, the parents are saved from the financial and emotional burden of caring for an imperfect child.

And then I heard the head of the Reproductive Freedom Rights unit of the ACLU saying—this was at the same time as the Baby Jane Doe story was developing on Long Island—at a forum, “I don’t know what all this fuss is about. Dealing with these handicapped infants is really an extension of women’s reproductive freedom rights, women’s right to control their own bodies.”

That stopped me. It seemed to me we were not talking about Roe v. Wade. These infants were born. And having been born, as persons under the Constitution, they were entitled to at least the same rights as people on death row—due process, equal protection of the law. So for the first time, I began to pay attention to the “slippery slope” warnings of pro-lifers I read about or had seen on television. Because abortion had become legal and easily available, that argument ran—as you well know—Infanticide would eventually become openly permissible, to be followed by euthanasia for infirm, expensive senior citizens.

His words, although based in reason, not faith, demonstrate that all truth is God’s truth and that the truth of the Bible governs the nature of reality in ways that even the unbeliever can recognize.

Hentoff’s growing awareness of the nature of abortion-on-demand wasn’t an isolated incident; the 1980s raised consciousness for a lot of us on the issue of abortion. In 1987, a year following his Atlantic essay, I, too, became pro-life. For me it was the result of viewing The Silent Scream, a video showing via ultrasound a first-trimester abortion taking place.

As a cradle Christian who had never doubted Jesus or my saving faith in him, I, like Hentoff, had before my pro-life conversion relied on my own “rehearsed responses.” I had never needed to defend my faith (to others or, more importantly, myself) until I began to apply my Christian beliefs to the issue of abortion amid the culture wars.

But that was just the start. The abortion issue helped me to live out my Christian worldview more consistently and courageously. From the opposite end of the worldview spectrum, Hentoff’s example helped me to understand the holism of truth. The battle over abortion—or any “issue” at any time—must always be for the Christian a greater battle for truth, wherever, as Augustine said, it may be found.

Shortly after adopting my pro-life views, I began protesting at local clinics. Coincidentally (or, more likely, providentially), I had also just begun my PhD program. Imagine a pro-life Christian activist at the most liberal department in a liberal public university in one of the most liberal states in the country. As far as I know, I was the only Christian in my department. I was certainly the only one publicly opposing abortion. In such an environment, I knew I wouldn’t likely be popular—but I had no idea that I would be hated and silenced. I had thought we were all there to pursue truth in our learning, but it seems I was mistaken.

My officemate asked me to take my pro-life flyers down from our door (offering to take down her lesbian literature in return). A professor recorded a complaint about my protest activities in my grade report. Worst was how some professors and fellow students avoided eye contact with me in the halls. One student wrote a column in a student newspaper objecting to the pro-life week my club held on campus, exhorting students to spit on and kick the pro-lifers. The university ordered our club to cancel our display.

I was naïve enough to think that standing up for what I believed in would bring some respect even if others didn’t agree. Studying within the liberal arts, I thought truth might prevail. But I was mistaken. These liberals weren’t tolerant. They weren’t even truly liberal—not in the classical sense of freely pursuing knowledge.

I later came across Nat Hentoff’s 1992 book, Free Speech for Me—But Not for Thee: How the American Left and Right Relentlessly Censor Each Other. In the prologue, Hentoff explained that part of his inspiration was the oppression of pro-life activists and the failure of liberals to speak out against it—at last, a liberal thinker striving for consistency. His efforts helped me to see where Christians and conservatives must do the same.

Reading Hentoff’s work, I was awed at one for whom integrity meant more than merely marching in lockstep with his own kind. While Hentoff objected, rightly, in his book to the censoriousness of conservatives, he called out his fellow leftists for similar impulses, finding such behavior contradictory to liberal values.

As I began thinking through free speech issues, I realized that Christians, not liberal secularists, have more to lose from censorship. The legal cases piling up against my fellow pro-life activists and me attested to this. But even more important, I came to understand that not only do Christians have more to lose from restrictions on speech, but we have less reason to fear even wrong ideas.

The way to combat falsehood is not in suppressing it, but in countering it with truth. For just as light dispels darkness, so wisdom excels folly (Ecc. 2:13). The 17th century Puritan and poet John Milton was one of the first modern Christians to defend free speech. He did so by affirming truth’s undefeatable power:

For who knows not that Truth is strong, next to the Almighty? She needs no policies, nor stratagems, nor licensings to make her victorious; those are the shifts and the defences that error uses against her power. Give her but room, and do not bind her when she sleeps . . . And though all the winds of doctrine were let loose to play upon the earth, so Truth be in the field, we do injuriously, by licensing and prohibiting, to misdoubt her strength.

Let her and Falsehood grapple; who ever knew Truth put to the worse, in a free and open encounter? Her confuting is the best and surest suppressing.

In Milton’s day, suppression of truth was a matter of life and death. Nat Hentoff recognized that this is still true today. And when my university tried to prevent my pro-life student club from expressing our ideas about abortion in display of commemorative crosses, Hentoff was one of the first to call in support of our effort.

Despite my disagreements with Hentoff on other topics, to him I owe my understanding as a Christian that because we believe in and have access to the truth, we have the least to fear from the free and open exchange of ideas. When someone with such a dramatically different worldview recognized and upheld at great personal cost the belief that all lives are indeed created equal, I saw the power of truth at work.

Thank you, Nat. Your legacy of integrity and courage lives on.

Nat Hentoff like and Milton Friedman and John Hospers was a hero to Libertarians. Over the years I had the opportunity to correspond with some prominent Libertarians such as Friedman and Hospers. Friedman was very gracious, but Hospers was not. I sent a cassette tape of Adrian Rogers on Evolution to John Hospers in May of 1994 which was the 10th anniversary of Francis Schaeffer’s passing and I promptly received a typed two page response from Dr. John Hospers. Dr. Hospers had both read my letter and all the inserts plus listened to the whole sermon and had some very angry responses. If you would like to hear the sermon from Adrian Rogers and read the transcript then refer to my earlier post at this link.  Earlier I posted the comments made by Hospers in his letter to me and you can access those posts by clicking on the links in the first few sentences of this post or you can just google “JOHN HOSPERS FRANCIS SCHAEFFER” or “JOHN HOSPERS ADRIAN ROGERS.”

Image result for john hospers francis schaeffer

__

Image result for nat hentoff milton friedman

Likewise I read a lot of material from Nat Hentoff and I wrote him several letters. In the post I will include one of those letters.

Nat Hentoff on abortion

Published on Nov 5, 2016

__

 xxxxxxxxxxTo Nat Hentoff c/o Cato Institute,   From everettehatcher@gmail.com,        6-26-14 

 

You are one of my biggest pro-life heroes along with Leo Alexander!!!!      Just the other day I sent you the CD called “Dust in the Wind, Darwin and Disbelief.” I know you may not have time to listen to the CD but on the first 2 1/2 minutes of that CD is the hit song “Dust in the Wind” by the rock group KANSAS and was written by Kerry Ligren in 1978. Would you be kind enough to read these words of that song given below and refute the idea that accepting naturalistic evolution with the exclusion of God must lead to the nihilistic message of the song! Or maybe you agree with Richard Dawkins and other scholars below?

DUST IN THE WIND:

I close my eyes only for a moment, and the moment’s gone

All my dreams pass before my eyes, a curiosity

Dust in the wind, all they are is dust in the wind

Same old song, just a drop of water in an endless sea

All we do crumbles to the ground, though we refuse to see

Dust in the wind, all we are is dust in the wind

Now, don’t hang on, nothing lasts forever but the earth and sky

It slips away, and all your money won’t another minute buy

_________________________________

Humans have always wondered about the meaning of life…life has no higher purpose than to perpetuate the survival of DNA…life has no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference. —Richard Dawkins

______________

The vast majority of people believe there is a design or force in the universe; that it works outside the ordinary mechanics of cause and effect; that it is somehow responsible for both the visible and the moral order of the world. Modern biology has undermined this assumption…But beginning with Darwin, biology has undermined that tradition. Darwin in effect asserted that all living organisms had been created by a combination of chance and necessity–natural selection… First, God has no role in the physical world…Second, except for the laws of probability and cause and effect, there is no organizing principle in the world, and no purpose.  (William B. Provine, “The End of Ethics?” in HARD CHOICES ( a magazine companion to the television series HARD CHOICES, Seattle: KCTS-TV, channel 9, University of Washington, 1980, pp. 2-3).

That Man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; …that all the labors of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of Man’s achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins—all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain, that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand. Bertrand Russell

The British humanist H. J. Blackham (1903-2009) put it very plainly: On humanist assumptions, life leads to nothing, and every pretense that it does not is a deceit. If there is a bridge over a gorge which spans only half the distance and ends in mid-air, and if the bridge is crowded with human beings pressing on, one after the other they fall into the abyss. The bridge leads nowhere, and those who are pressing forward to cross it are going nowhere….It does not matter where they think they are going, what preparations for the journey they may have made, how much they may be enjoying it all. The objection merely points out objectively that such a situation is a model of futility“( H. J. Blackham, et al., Objections to Humanism (Riverside, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1967).

In the 1986 debate on the John Ankerberg show between Paul Kurtz (1925-2012) and Norman Geisler, Kurtz reacted to the point Blackham was making by asserting:

I think you may be quoting Blackham out of context because I’ve heard Blackham speak, and read much of what he said, but Blackham has argued continuously that life is full of meaning; that there are points. The fact that one doesn’t believe in God does not deaden the appetite or the lust for living. On the contrary; great artists and scientists and poets and writers have affirmed the opposite.

I read the book FORBIDDEN FRUIT by Paul Kurtz and I had the opportunity to correspond with him but I still reject his view that optimistic humanism withstand the view of nihilism if one accepts there is no God. Christian philosopher R.C. Sproul put it best:

Nihilism has two traditional enemies–Theism and Naive Humanism. The theist contradicts the nihilist because the existence of God guarantees that ultimate meaning and significance of personal life and history. Naive Humanism is considered naive by the nihilist because it rhapsodizes–with no rational foundation–the dignity and significance of human life. The humanist declares that man is a cosmic accident whose origin was fortuitous and entrenched in meaningless insignificance. Yet in between the humanist mindlessly crusades for, defends, and celebrates the chimera of human dignity…Herein is the dilemma: Nihilism declares that nothing really matters ultimately…In my judgment, no philosophical treatise has ever surpassed or equaled the penetrating analysis of the ultimate question of meaning versus vanity that is found in the Book of Ecclesiastes. 

________________

Kerry Livgren is the writer of the song “Dust in the Wind” and he said concerning that song in 1981 and then in 2006:

 1981: “When I wrote “Dust in the Wind” I was  writing about a yearning emptiness that I felt which millions of people identified with because the song was very popular.” 2006:“Dust In the Wind” was certainly the most well-known song, and the message was out of Ecclesiastes. I never ceased to be amazed at how the message resonates with people, from the time it came out through now. The message is true and we have to deal with it, plus the melody is memorable and very powerful. It disturbs me that there’s only part of the [Christian] story told in that song. It’s about someone yearning for some solution, but if you look at the entire body of my work, there’s a solution to the dilemma.”

Ecclesiastes reasons that chance and time have determined the past and will determine the future (9:11-13), and power reigns in this life and the scales are not balanced(4:1). Is that how you see the world? Solomon’s experiment was a search for meaning to life “under the sun.” Then in last few words in Ecclesiastes he looks above the sun and brings God back into the picture: “The conclusion, when all has been heard, is: Fear God and keep His commandments, because this applies to every person. For God will bring every act to judgment.”

XXXXXXXXXXX

Featured artist is Sedrick Huckaby

Artist Spotlight – Sedrick Huckaby – Painter

Published on Jul 14, 2016

His artworks hang in major museums, he was educated on the East Coast and in Europe. But Sedrick Huckaby still lives in Fort Worth and his subjects are still his own family, their quilts, their African-American neighborhood. He turns these subjects into canvases of such density, it’s like he’s compressing entire histories into paint. Part of Art&Seek’s Artist Spotlight series, exploring the personal journeys of North Texas creatives. Learn more at http://artandseek.org/spotlight.

Image result for sedrick e. huckaby paintings

__

Image result for sedrick e. huckaby paintings

 

___

Image result for sedrick e. huckaby paintings

Sedrick Huckaby

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sedrick Ervin Huckaby (1975) is an American artist who is known for his use of thick, impasto paint to create murals that evoke traditional quilts and to produce large portraits that represent his personal history through images of family members and neighbors.[1][2]Huckaby has worked with images from quilts for many years, moving them from background components of portraits into the subject of his work.[3] He was interviewed about his quilt-influenced abstract work in a podcast for Painters Table.[4] His work is on display at the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, the Whitney Museum of American Art, the Museum of Fine arts in Boston, the Minneapolis Institute of Art, The Art Institute of Chicago, and the Nasher Museum of Art at Duke University.

Biography[edit]

Huckaby is a native of Fort Worth, Texas. As a child, Huckaby spent time drawing characters from TV shows such as Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles and Battlestar Galactica. While in High School, he attended classes at the Modern Art Museum where he met fellow artist Ron Tomlinson, who encouraged Huckaby to pursue art as a career.[5] He studied art at Texas Wesleyan University before receiving a Bachelor of Fine Arts from Boston University in 1997 and a Master of Fine Arts from Yale University in 1999.[6] He has lectured on the Grant Hill Collection of African American Art at the Dallas Museum of Art, and through the The Artist’s Eye series at the Kimbell Art Museum in Fort Worth.[7] He is currently an assistant professor of painting in the Department of Art and Art History at UT Arlington, where he has been teaching since 2009. He is married to artist Letitia Huckaby.

Works[edit]

His 2008 series Big Momma’s House includes 65 paintings, pastels, and drawings created over a two-year period. The focus of this collection is his maternal grandmother, Hallie Beatrice Carpenter, the matriarch of his family and more affectionately known an “Big Momma”.[8] His work ” A Love Supreme (Spring)”, is based on the jazz song of the same name by John Coultrane, and depicts a series of quilts draped across the canvas emphasizing weight and texture. In this mural sized-oil painting, the painted folds of brightly colored fabrics mimic the rhythm and syncopation of Coultrane’s jazz hit while paying homage to his grandmother’s traditional African-American quilts.[9] His series The 99% – Highand Hills is a collection of portraits inspired by the 2011 Occupy Wall Street movement, showcasing the economic disparities of the U.S. population through sketches of community members alongside quotes from each person.[5]

Awards and Distinctions[edit]

In 1999, Huckaby was awarded the Kate Neal Kinley Memorial Fellowship from the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Illinois.[8] He was awarded the Alice Kimball English Traveling Fellowship from Yale University in 1999 which funded his travels to study the works of Henry Tanner.[10] Again in 1999 he was awarded the Provincetown Fellowship from the Fine Arts Work Center and subsequently spent siz months making work there.[10][8] In 2001, he was awarded the Best of Show and subsequently held a solo exhibition for the The 20th Carrol Harris Simms National Black Art Competition and Exhibition at the African American Museum in Dallas, Texas.[8]

In 2004, Huckaby was awarded a Joan Mitchell Foundation Painters and Sculptors Grant, which is given to acknowledge “painters and sculptors creating work of exceptional quality through unrestricted career support”.[11] In 2004 he also received the Beth Lea Clardy Memorial Award (first place) at Art in the Metroplex in Fort Worth, Texas.[8] In 2008 he received a Guggenheim Fellowship, one of the most prestigious art grants in the nation.[10][12] In 2014 he received the Visiting Artist Residency and Fellowship through the Brandywine Workshop as well as the Davidson Family Fellowship sponsored by Amon Carter Museum of American Art.[10] In 2016, he was one of the winners of the Outwin Boochever Portrait Competition, which is hosted by The Smithsonian’s National Portrait Gallery.[13] In 2017 he received the 2016 Moss/Chumley North Texas Artist Award, which is given annually by the Meadows Museum at Southern Methodist University in Dallas.[14]

Exhibitions[edit]

Selected Solo Exhibitions[8]

Selected Collections[edit]

References[edit]

  1. Jump up^ “”A Legacy of Love and Freedom” Unfolds at the TMA–Quilt Paintings by Texas Artist Sedrick Huckaby On View”. Tyler Museum of Art. April 12, 2011. Retrieved March 17, 2016.
  2. Jump up^ Sherer, Scott. “UTSA Art Gallery features exhibit “Fare Thee Well” through Feb. 20″. UTSA Today. Retrieved March 18, 2016.
  3. Jump up^ Simek, Peter (April 23, 2010). “Letitia and Sedrick Huckaby: An Artist Couple Reaches Into Shared Memory For Inspiration”. Front Row Blog–D Magazine. Retrieved March 17, 2016.
  4. Jump up^ “Sedrick Huckaby: Interview”. Painters’ Table. Retrieved March 17, 2016.
  5. ^ Jump up to:a b Calimbahin, Samantha (2016). “Sedrick Huckaby: Local Artist Gaining National Attention”. Fort Worth Business Press. 29: 28–29.
  6. Jump up^ Samantha Calimbahin. “Sedrick Huckaby: Local artist gaining national attention.” Fort Worth Business. Friday, July 8, 2016. http://www.fortworthbusiness.com/news/arts_and_culture/sedrick-huckaby-local-artist-gaining-national-attention/article_93859204-455a-11e6-b093-e3a02701db95.html
  7. Jump up^ “Artist Biography for Sedrick Huckaby”. AskArt. Retrieved March 18, 2016.
  8. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f Collins, Phillip (2008). “Big Momma’s House”. Valley House Gallery and Sculpture Garden: 38–41.
  9. Jump up^ Kurzner, Lisa (2008). “A patchwork of color, life: Quilts procide the texture in painter’s series”. The Atlanta Journal – Constitution. 23 March 2008.
  10. ^ Jump up to:a b c d “Sedrick E Huckaby | Explore University Of Texas At Arlington”. mentis.uta.edu. Retrieved 2017-01-28.
  11. Jump up^ “Joan Mitchell Foundation”. Retrieved March 17, 2016.
  12. Jump up^ “Fellows”. John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation. Retrieved March 17, 2016.
  13. Jump up^ “UTA Assistant Art Professor Among Winners of Prestigious Smithsonian Portrait Competition”. MyArlingtonTX. Retrieved March 17, 2016.
  14. Jump up^ Michael Granberry, Dallas Morning News, January 19, 2017. “‘Interpreter and innovator’ Sedrick Huckaby wins Meadows Museum’s Moss/Chumley Award. “http://www.dallasnews.com/arts/visual-arts/2017/01/19/noted-artist-sedrick-huckaby-winner-2016-mosschumley-award-given-meadows-museum.

External links[edit]

How’d he do? George W. Bush debuts his book of portraits – and we match them up against photos of their counterparts 

  • President George W. Bush  published a book of 66 portraits of wounded veterans that he painted
  • There is also an exhibit of the paintings at the George W. Bush Presidential Library and Museum in Dallas
  • Bush wrote about the veteran next to their portrait about how they are recovering physically and mentally

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4279914/George-W-Bush-debuts-book-portraits-veterans.html#ixzz4ikukDTJG
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

President George W. Bush spent a year creating portraits of veterans who were wounded during his time in office and published a book of the oil paintings.

The book of 66 portraits titled ‘Portraits of Courage: A Commander in Chief’s Tribute to America’s Warriors’ honors Marines, soldiers, sailors and airmen and women who were injured in the line of duty while Bush was in power.

The book was released on February 28 and there is an exhibit of the paintings at the George W. Bush Presidential Library and Museum in Dallas. It is Bush’s third book he has published since leaving office.

The former president’s passion for the arts is surprising to some, including his own family. Last year at a CNN town hall, former Gov Jeb Bush said his brother’s fondness for painting was was ‘really weird,’ but added, ‘He’s gotten pretty good at it’.

Scroll down for video 

Sergeant Leslie Zimmerman deployed to Kuwait and entered Iraq at the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom. She became an EMT-Intermediate and was honorably discharged when she was diagnosed with PTSD

She became an EMT-Intermediate and was honorably discharged when she was diagnosed with PTSD

Army Sergeant Leslie Zimmerman deployed to Kuwait and entered Iraq at the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom. She became an EMT-Intermediate and was honorably discharged when she was diagnosed with PTS

President George W Bush released his book of portraits of veterans which includes Army Sergeant Leslie Zimmerman (left), and has an exhibit of the paintings at the George W. Bush Presidential Library and Museum in Dallas

President George W Bush released his book of portraits of veterans which includes Army Sergeant Leslie Zimmerman (left), and has an exhibit of the paintings at the George W. Bush Presidential Library and Museum in Dallas

President Bush said the trickiest part of the oil painting portraits was capturing the veterans' eyes

President Bush said the trickiest part of the oil painting portraits was capturing the veterans’ eyes

Sergeant First Class Ramon Padilla lost his left arm in combat while serving in Afghanistan in 2007

His portrait is featured in 'Portraits of Courage: A Commander in Chief's Tribute to America's Warriors'

Sergeant First Class Ramon Padilla lost his left arm in combat while serving in Afghanistan in 2007

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4279914/George-W-Bush-debuts-book-portraits-veterans.html#ixzz4ikufgERe
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

In the book, Bush wrote about the veterans next to their portraits about how they recovered, both physically and mentally. The stories also highlight their families’ role in the veterans’ adjustment to civilian life.

President Bush took up painting as a hobby in his retirement. Many of the servicemen and women featured in his book have videos featured on the Bush Center YouTube channel.

Part of the description of the book on Amazon reads: ‘Our men and women in uniform have faced down enemies, liberated millions, and in doing so showed the true compassion of our nation.

‘Often, they return home with injuries—both visible and invisible—that intensify the challenges of transitioning into civilian life. In addition to these burdens, research shows a civilian-military divide.’

Army Sergeant Daniel Casara underwent 24 surgeries after his being injured in an explosion in 2005

Proceeds from the book will go to the non-profit George W. Bush Presidential Center

Army Sergeant Daniel Casara underwent 24 surgeries after his being injured in an explosion in 2005

‘Seventy-one percent of Americans say they have little understanding of the issues facing veterans, and veterans agree: eighty-four percent say that the public has “little awareness” of the issues facing them and their families.’

‘Each painting in this meticulously produced hardcover volume is accompanied by the inspiring story of the veteran depicted, written by the President. Readers can see the faces of those who answered the nation’s call and learn from their bravery on the battlefield, their journeys to recovery, and the continued leadership and contributions they are making as civilians.’

‘It is President Bush’s desire that these stories of courage and resilience will honor our men and women in uniform, highlight their family and caregivers who bear the burden of their sacrifice, and help Americans understand how we can support our veterans and empower them to succeed.’

Sergeant First Class Michael R. Rodriguez told the Bush Center in a video he has PTS

He also gets severe headaches from traumatic brain injuries or TBIs

Sergeant First Class Michael R. Rodriguez told the Bush Center in a video he has PTS. He also gets severe headaches from traumatic brain injuries or TBIs

Lance Corporal Timothy John Lang served in the U.S. Marine Corps

He was injured in 2006 in Iraq and his leg was amputated below the knee

Lance Corporal Timothy John Lang served in the U.S. Marine Corps. He was injured in 2006 in Iraq and his leg was amputated below the knee

Paintings of wounded US military veterans painted by former US President George W. Bush hang in 'Portraits of Courage', a new exhibit at the George W. Bush Presidential Library and Museum in Dallas

Paintings of wounded US military veterans painted by former US President George W. Bush hang in ‘Portraits of Courage’, a new exhibit at the George W. Bush Presidential Library and Museum in Dallas

Army Lieutenant Colonel Kent Graham Solheim has served in the Army from 1994 to present

He was wounded in 2007 in Iraq where he was shot four times which led to the amputation of his leg

Army Lieutenant Colonel Kent Graham Solheim has served in the Army from 1994 to present. He was wounded in 2007 in Iraq where he was shot four times which led to the amputation of his leg

U.S. Marine Corps Sergeant Michael Joseph Leonard Politowicz served from 2010 to the present

Proceeds from the book will go to the non-profit George W. Bush Presidential Center

U.S. Marine Corps Sergeant Michael Joseph Leonard Politowicz served from 2010 to the present

President Bush was inspired to learn oil painting after reading Winston Churchill's essay 'Painting as a Pastime'

President Bush was inspired to learn oil painting after reading Winston Churchill’s essay ‘Painting as a Pastime’

Proceeds from the book will go to the non-profit George W. Bush Presidential Center. The center has a Military Service Initiative that works to ensure that post-9/11 veterans and their families make successful transitions to civilian life.

Time asked the former president how he chose the subjects. Bush responded: ‘I had painted world leaders with whom I’d served, and my instructor Sedrick Huckaby said, “You know, you ought to paint the portraits of people you know well but who others don’t”.’

‘It instantly hit me that I ought to paint these wounded warriors I’d gotten to know. Most of them I had played golf with or ridden mountain bikes with through the events we host for them at the Bush Center. I’d gotten to know some better than others, of course, but I was equally moved by their stories.’

He said the hardest part of the portraits was capturing the veterans’ eyes.

He told his art teacher that he wanted to discover his ‘inner Rembrandt’ according to CNN .

At the exhibit opening at George W. Bush Presidential Library in Dallas, Bush said: ‘You have to understand when you’re the president you are going at 100 miles per hour and the next day it’s zero. I had this anxiousness to keep moving and to learn something.

Bush said Winston Churchill’s essay ‘Painting as a Pastime’ which inspired him to take up the hobby himself.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4279914/George-W-Bush-debuts-book-portraits-veterans.html#ixzz4ikuauQLR
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

UT’s visiting artist in residence uses quilts, illustration and other methods to capture people and places close to home.

FEB 20, 2014 1 PM

If the rarified, white-walled interiors of art galleries can seem far removed from everyday life, Sedrick Huckaby’s art might be the antidote. His paintings and drawings give place of pride to ordinary people — family members and people from the Fort Worth, Tex., neighborhood where he lives — as well as quilts, a homely object central to his personal history and broader American culture. In large-scale canvases, Huckaby imbues quilts with monumental presence and painterly texture; his portraits perform the same work on faces and personalities, embracing subjects well worn with love and normal hardships.
“I want them to have a type of reality to them, almost documentary in a certain way, where it really tells certain truths about life,” Huckaby says.

On Friday, the University of Tampa’s printmaking workshop, STUDIO-f, celebrates Huckaby with an open house and display of the monoprints he has created there during a residency over the past two weeks. At the same time, UT’s Scarfone/Hartley Gallery (adjacent to STUDIO-f) showcases a selection of Huckaby’s drawings and paintings, including his suite of four 7-foot-tall, 20-foot-wide paintings of draped quilts, A Love Supreme (2001-2009). The monoprints will show how Huckaby has been working to translate his chosen subjects and confident style of draftsmanship into the medium of screenprinting with UT printers, including Carl Cowden III.

“It’s a collaboration in that I’m trying to work the way that he works, and he’s working with the way we have to work with the process,” Cowden says.

The 38-year-old artist is an anomaly. Huckaby grew up in Fort Worth but moved away to pursue the gold standard in art education, an MFA in painting from Yale, after a BFA at Boston University. A 2008 Guggenheim fellowship and other honors have given him the kind of credentials that artists typically try to leverage into international careers, but Huckaby returned to Fort Worth to start a family and, as life unfolded, to make his surrounding community into one of the subjects of his art.

Through his confident handling of paint (and, in other work on view here, a lithographic pencil), Huckaby’s subjects gain universal appeal. The quilts are rendered as massive folds of patterned drapery that want to embrace a viewer, embodying both the monumental aura of abstract expressionist canvases and cozy domesticity. They are organized into a seasonal suite of colors, from warm summer to comparatively icy winter, and possess a delightful dimensionality up close, where fabric patterns are revealed as lovingly built-up in thick impasto daubs — a painterly method that echoes the careful, but creative and improvisational way quilts are stitched together.

The title of the series, A Love Supr eme, after the John Coltrane jazz composition, bolsters their association with that most noble of emotions.

“The idea is starting at a basic kind of love, like that of a mother for her children or a grandmother for her children, with the quilts,” Huckaby says.

“The thought is that, like seasons revolve, you can think about love in multiple ways. So it’s not just about the love of a grandmother. As you look and contemplate, on one level you might think about a connection with the music … then the seasons … then about the cycle of life. Alternately, I hope it would lead you to a place of thinking about a greater love, a love of God.”

The span of life, from birth to death, is the subject of two of Huckaby’s other oil paintings, which depict his grandmother and grandfather in the waning days of their lives. Set in the same bedroom about a decade apart, the images bring tenderness to an experience rarely made visible in contemporary art.

A third project called The 99 Percent focuses on members of his Fort Worth community. Loosely inspired by Occupy Wall Street, Huckaby began visiting public spaces in his neighborhood — the gas station, the Waffle House — to draw and talk to anyone who would let him. As a result, he’s made more than 100 small but robustly drawn portraits, some of which are captioned with a statement from a conversation between Huckaby and his subject about economic stress or political frustration. A selection of the images, which he made into lithographs during a residency in Pennsylvania last year, are on display here.

It’s refreshing that there’s no obscure conceptual angle to Huckaby’s work — just an earnest desire to grapple with the everyday world, and people in it, through drawing and painting.

“It might be that my work is a little too conservative for some groups, but it doesn’t concern me too much,” Huckaby
says.

“One of the things I have found out about art making is that our culture values uniqueness. Some of that uniqueness is a totally different form of art, where you come up with some unique idea. Or you can work in ways that have been worked in before, but you do it your way. That’s more the line that I follow. I’m not trying to make something that’s never been made, but I’m trying to do my own unique take on it.

See Huckaby’s works through Feb. 22 at the University of Tampa Scarfone/Hartley Gallery and STUDIO-f;  open-studio and gallery reception on Fri., Feb. 21, at 6 p.m., 310 N. Boulevard, Tampa, 813-253-6217, gallery.utarts.comstudiof.utarts.com

 

Related posts:

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 135 H. J. Blackham Part C Featured artist is Richard Anuszkiewicz

________     H. J. Blackham H. J. Blackham, (31 March 1903 – 23 January 2009), was a leading and widely respected British humanist for most of his life. As a young man he worked in farming and as a teacher. He found his niche as a leader in the Ethical Union, which he steadfastly […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 134 H.J.Blackham Part B (Featured artist is Richard M. Loving)

H.J.Blackham pictured below: I had to pleasure of corresponding with Paul Kurtz in the 1990’s and he like H. J. Blackham firmly believed that religion was needed to have a basis for morals. At H. J. Blackham’s funeral in 2009 these words were read from Paul Kurtz: Paul Kurtz Founder and Chair, Prometheus Books and the […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 133 A Portion of my 1994 letter to H. J. Blackham on the 10th Anniversary of Francis Schaeffer’s passing (Featured artist is Billy Al Bengston )

H. J. Blackham pictured below:   On May 15, 1994 on the 10th anniversary of the passing of Francis Schaeffer I sent a letter to H.J. Blackham and here is a portion of that letter below: I have enclosed a cassette tape by Adrian Rogers and it includes  a story about  Charles Darwin‘s journey from […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 132 Part D Ellsworth Kelly (Featured artist is Ronald Davis )

  I featured the artwork of Ellsworth Kelly on my blog both on November 23, 2015 and December 17, 2015. Also I mailed him a letter on November 23, 2015, but I never heard back from him.  Unfortunately he died on December 27, 2015 at the age of 92. Who were the artists who influenced […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 131 Part C Ellsworth Kelly (Featured artist is Janet Fish )

__ I featured the artwork of Ellsworth Kelly on my blog both on November 23, 2015 and December 17, 2015. Also I mailed him a letter on November 23, 2015, but I never heard back from him.  Unfortunately he died on December 27, 2015 at the age of 92.       Who were the […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 130 Part B Ellsworth Kelly (Featured artist is Art Green )

Andy, Ellsworth Kelly, Richard Koshalek and unidentified guest, 1980s I featured the artwork of Ellsworth Kelly on my blog both on November 23, 2015 and December 17, 2015. Also I mailed him a letter on November 23, 2015, but I never heard back from him.  Unfortunately he died on December 27, 2015 at the age […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 129 Part A Ellsworth Kelly (Featured artist is Sherrie Levine )

How Should We Then Live – Episode 8 – The Age of Fragmentation   I featured the artwork of Ellsworth Kelly on my blog both on November 23, 2015 and December 17, 2015. Also I mailed him a letter on November 23, 2015, but I never heard back from him.  Unfortunately he died on December […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 128 Will Provine, Determinism, Part F (Featured artist is Pierre Soulages )

Today I am bringing this series on William Provine to an end.  Will Provine’s work was cited by  Francis Schaeffer  in his book WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE HUMAN RACE? I noted: I was sad to learn of Dr. Provine’s death. William Ball “Will” Provine (February 19, 1942 – September 1, 2015) He grew up an […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 127 Will Provine, Killer of the myth of Optimistic Humanism Part E (Featured artist is Jim Dine )

___ Setting the record straight was Will Provine’s widow Gail when she stated, “[Will] did not believe in an ULTIMATE meaning in life (i.e. God’s plan), but he did believe in proximate meaning (i.e. relationships with people — friendship and especially LOVE🙂 ). So one’s existence is ultimately senseless and useless, but certainly not to those […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 126 Will Provine, Killer of the myth of Optimistic Humanism Part D (Featured artists are Elena and Olivia Ceballos )

I was sad when I learned of Will Provine’s death. He was a very engaging speaker on the subject of Darwinism and I think he correctly realized what the full ramifications are when accepting evolution. This is the fourth post I have done on Dr. Provine and the previous ones are these links, 1st, 2nd […]

___

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 172 Nat Hentoff, historian,atheist, pro-life advocate, novelist, jazz and country music critic, and syndicated columnist (Featured artist is Carmen Herrera )

Nat Hentoff on Free Speech, Jazz, and FIRE

“An early admirer of Bob Dylan, Hentoff wrote the liner notes for Dylan’s second album The Freewheelin’ Bob Dylan.

Image result for nat hentoff bob dylan

Nat Hentoff like and Milton Friedman and John Hospers was a hero to Libertarians. Over the years I had the opportunity to correspond with some prominent Libertarians such as Friedman and Hospers. Friedman was very gracious, but Hospers was not. I sent a cassette tape of Adrian Rogers on Evolution to John Hospers in May of 1994 which was the 10th anniversary of Francis Schaeffer’s passing and I promptly received a typed two page response from Dr. John Hospers. Dr. Hospers had both read my letter and all the inserts plus listened to the whole sermon and had some very angry responses. If you would like to hear the sermon from Adrian Rogers and read the transcript then refer to my earlier post at this link.  Earlier I posted the comments made by Hospers in his letter to me and you can access those posts by clicking on the links in the first few sentences of this post or you can just google “JOHN HOSPERS FRANCIS SCHAEFFER” or “JOHN HOSPERS ADRIAN ROGERS.”

Image result for john hospers francis schaeffer

 

__

Image result for nat hentoff milton friedman

Likewise I read a lot of material from Nat Hentoff and I wrote him several letters. In the post I will include one of those letters.

Nat Hentoff on abortion

Published on Nov 5, 2016

__

Nat Hentoff

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Nat Hentoff
Hentoff bio.jpg
Born Nathan Irving Hentoff
June 10, 1925
Boston, Massachusetts, U.S.
Died January 7, 2017 (aged 91)
New York, New York, U.S.
Nationality American
Occupation Columnist, historian, novelist, music critic
Spouse(s) Miriam Sargent (m. 1950; divorced)
Trudi Bernstein (1954–1959; divorced; 2 children)
Margot Goodman (1959–2017 his death; 2 children)

Nathan IrvingNatHentoff (June 10, 1925 – January 7, 2017) was an American historian, novelist, jazz and country music critic, and syndicated columnist for United Media. Hentoff was the jazz critic for The Village Voice from 1958 to 2009.[1] Following his departure from The Village Voice, Hentoff moved his music column to The Wall Street Journal, which published his work until his death. He often wrote on First Amendment issues, vigorously defending the freedom of the press.

Hentoff was formerly a columnist for Down Beat, JazzTimes, Legal Times, The Washington Post, The Washington Times, The Progressive, Editor & Publisher and Free Inquiry. He was a staff writer for The New Yorker, and his writing was also published in The New York Times, Jewish World Review, The Atlantic, The New Republic, Commonweal and in the Italian Enciclopedia dello Spettacolo.

Early life[edit]

Hentoff was born in Boston, Massachusetts on June 10, 1925,[2][3] the son of Lena (née Katzenberg) and Simon Hentoff.[2] As a teen, he attended Boston Latin School[2][3] and worked for Frances Sweeney on the Boston City Reporter, investigating antisemitic hate groups. Sweeney was a major influence on Hentoff; his memoir, Boston Boy, is dedicated to her.[4][5] He was awarded his B.A. with the high honors from Northeastern University[2][6][7] and did graduate work at Harvard University.[6][7] In 1950, he was a Fulbright fellow at the Sorbonne in Paris.[6][7]

Career[edit]

Hentoff began his career in broadcast journalism while also hosting a weekly jazz program on WMEX, a Boston radio station.[8] In the 1940s, he hosted two radio shows on WMEX: JazzAlbum and From Bach To Bartók.[9] Hentoff continued to do a jazz program on WMEX into the early 1950s, and during that period was an announcer on WGBH-FM on a program called Evolution of Jazz. By the late 1950s, he was co-hosting a program called The Scope of Jazz on WBAI-FM in New York City.[10] He went on to author numerous books on jazz and politics.[2]

Hentoff joined Down Beat magazine as a columnist in 1952.[11] From 1953 through 1957, he was an associate editor of Down Beat.[6][12] He was fired in 1957 after allegedly trying to hire an African-American writer.[13][8]

Hentoff co-authored with Nat Shapiro Hear Me Talkin’ to Ya: The Story of Jazz by the Men Who Made It (1955).[2] The book features interviews with jazz musicians such as Dizzy Gillespie and Duke Ellington.[9] Hentoff co-founded The Jazz Review in 1958,[2][9][14] a magazine that he co-edited with Martin Williams until 1961.[14] In 1960, Hentoff served as the A&R director of the short-lived jazz label Candid Records, which released albums by Charles Mingus, Cecil Taylor and Max Roach, among others.[14][15]

Hentoff became a member of the Board of Directors of The Jazz Foundation of America in 2002,[16] and worked with the foundation to help save homes and lives of America’s elderly jazz and blues musicians,[9] including musicians who survived Hurricane Katrina. Hentoff wrote multiple articles to draw attention to the plight of America’s pioneering musicians of jazz and blues. These articles were published in the Wall Street Journal[17] and the Village Voice.[18]

Beginning in February 2008, Hentoff was a weekly contributing columnist at WorldNetDaily.com.[19] In January 2009, the Village Voice, which had regularly published Hentoff’s commentary and criticism for fifty years, announced that he had been laid off.[2][20] In February 2009, Hentoff joined the libertarian Cato Institute as a senior fellow.[21][12]

In 2013, a biographical film about Hentoff, entitled The Pleasures of Being Out of Step explored his career in jazz and as a First Amendment advocate. The independent documentary, directed by David L. Lewis,[2][22] won the Grand Jury prize in the Metropolis competition at the DOC NYC festival[23] and played in theaters across the country.[2]

Political commentary[edit]

Hentoff was known as a civil libertarian, free speech activist,[24] anti-death penalty advocate and anti-abortion advocate.[3][12] He supported the 2003 invasion of Iraq,[20][3] and the State of Israel.[3] Hentoff espoused generally liberal views on domestic policy and civil liberties, but in the 1980s, he began articulating more socially conservative positions—opposition to abortion, voluntary euthanasia, and the selective medical treatment of severely disabled infants.[25] Hentoff argued that a consistent life ethic should be the viewpoint of a genuine civil libertarian, arguing that all human rights are at risk when the rights of any one group of people are diminished, that human rights are interconnected, and people deny others’ human rights at their own peril.[25]

While at one time a longtime supporter of the American Civil Liberties Union, Hentoff became a vocal critic of the organization for its advocacy of government-enforced university and workplace speech codes.[26] He served on the board of advisors for the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, another civil liberties group. Hentoff’s book Free Speech for Me—But Not for Thee outlines his views on free speech and excoriates those whom he feels favor censorship in any form.[2]

Hentoff was critical of Clinton Administration for the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996.[27] He also criticized the Bush Administration for policies such as the Patriot Act and other civil liberties restrictions on the basis of homeland security. An ardent critic of the Bush administration’s expansion of presidential power, Hentoff in 2008 called for the new president to deal with the “noxious residue of the Bush-Cheney war against terrorism”. Among the national security casualties have been, according to Hentoff, “survivors, if they can be found, of CIA secret prisons (“black sites“); victims of CIA kidnapping renditions; and American citizens locked up indefinitely as “unlawful enemy combatants”.[28] He advocated prosecuting members of the Bush administration, including lawyer John Yoo, for war crimes.[29]

Hentoff stated that while he had been prepared to enthusiastically support Barack Obama in the 2008 U.S. presidential election, his view changed after looking into Obama’s voting record on abortion. During President Obama’s first year, Hentoff praised him for ending policies of CIA renditions, but has criticized him for failing to fully end George W. Bush‘s practice of state torture of prisoners.[30] In a May 2014 column, titled My Pro-Constitution Choice for President, Hentoff voiced his support for Kentucky Senator Rand Paul‘s potential 2016 run for president. Hentoff cited Paul’s support for civil liberties, particularly his stand against the indefinite detention clauses in the National Defense Authorization Act as well as Paul’s opposition to the Obama administration’s use of drones against American citizens.[31] Hentoff subsequently rescinded his endorsement of Paul in light of the Senator’s support for normalizing relations with Cuba and his failure to completely repeal the Patriot Act.[32]

Awards and honors[edit]

Hentoff was named a Guggenheim Fellow in 1972.[33] He was awarded the American Bar Association‘s Silver Gavel Award in 1980 for his columns on law and criminal justice.[7] In 1983, he was awarded the American Library Association‘s Imroth Award for Intellectual Freedom.[7] In 1985, he was awarded an honorary Doctorate of Laws by Northeastern University.[34][6][12] In 1995, Hentoff was given the National Press Foundation‘s Award for lifetime distinguished contributions to journalism.[2][35][7] In 2004, Hentoff was named one of six NEA Jazz Masters by the U.S. National Endowment for the Arts, the first non-musician to win this award.[2] That same year, the Boston Latin School honored him as alumnus of the year. In 2005, Hentoff was honored by the Human Life Foundation at their third annual “Great Defender of Life” dinner.[9]

Personal life[edit]

Hentoff grew up attending an Orthodox synagogue in Boston. He recalls that as a youth, he and his father during the High Holidays would travel the city to listen to various cantors and compare notes on their performances. He said that cantors made “sacred texts compellingly clear to the heart,” and he collected their recordings.[36] In later life, Hentoff was an atheist[37][24] and has sardonically described himself as “a member of the Proud and Ancient Order of Stiff-Necked Jewish Atheists“.[38][39] He expressed sympathy for Israel’s Peace Now movement.[40]

Hentoff married three times, first to Miriam Sargent in 1950; the marriage was childless and the couple divorced that same year.[41] His second wife was Trudi Bernstein, whom he married on 2 September 1954, and with whom he had two children, Jessica and Miranda.[41] He divorced his second wife in August 1959.[41] On 15 August 1959, he married his third wife, Margot Goodman, whom he had two children: Nicholas and Thomas.[41] The couple remained together until Hentoff’s death in 2017.[2]

He died of natural causes in his Manhattan apartment on January 7, 2017, at the age of 91.[3] Survivors include his wife, Margot Goodman; two sons, Nicholas and Thomas; two daughters, Jessica and Miranda; a stepdaughter, Mara Wolynski Nierman; a sister, Janet Krauss; and 10 grandchildren.[2]

Books[edit]

Non-fiction[edit]

  • Hear Me Talkin’ to Ya: The Story of Jazz as Told by the Men who Made it, with Nat Shapiro (1955)[2]
  • The Jazz Makers, with Nat Shapiro (1957)[8]
  • The Jazz Life ISBN 0-306-80088-8 (1961)[2][42]
  • Peace Agitator: The Story of A. J. Muste. ISBN 0-9608096-0-0 (1963)[2][6]
  • The New Equality (1964)[2][6]
  • Our Children Are Dying (with John Holt) (1967)[6]
  • A Doctor Among the Addicts (1968)[6]
  • A Political Life: The Education of John V. Lindsay (1969)[42]
  • Journey into Jazz (1971)[42]
  • Jazz Is (1976)[8]
  • Does Anybody Give a Damn?: Nat Hentoff on Education (Random House; 1977)[6]
  • The First Freedom: The Tumultuous History of Free Speech in America (1980)[6]
  • American Heroes: In and Out of School (1987)[43]
  • John Cardinal O’Connor: At the Storm Center of a Changing American Catholic Church. ISBN 0-684-18944-5 (1988)[6][42]
  • Free Speech for Me — But Not for Thee: How the American Left and Right Relentlessly Censor Each Other. ISBN 0-06-099510-6 (1993)[2][6]
  • Listen to the Stories: Nat Hentoff on Jazz and Country Music. ISBN 0-06-019047-7 (1995)[6]
  • Living the Bill of Rights: How to Be an Authentic American. ISBN 0-520-21981-3 (1999)[2]
  • The War on the Bill of Rights and the Gathering Resistance. ISBN 1-58322-621-4 (2004)[44]
  • American Music Is (2004)[45]

Novels[edit]

  • Jazz Country (1965)[2]
  • Call the Keeper (1966)[13]
  • Onwards! (1968)[46]
  • I’m Really Dragged But Nothing Gets Me Down (1968)[47]
  • This School is Driving Me Crazy (1976)[2]
  • Does This School Have Capital Punishment? (1982)[2]
  • Blues for Charlie Darwin (1982)[13]
  • The Day They Came To Arrest The Book (1983)[2][6]
  • The Man from Internal Affairs (1985)[6]

Memoirs[edit]

Compilations[edit]

Edited volumes[edit]

  • Hear Me Talkin’ to Ya: The Story of Jazz by the Men Who Made It (with Nat Shapiro) (1955)[2]
  • Black Anti-Semitism and Jewish Racism (1969)[49]
  • Jazz: New Perspectives on the History of Jazz by Twelve of the World’s Foremost Jazz Critics and Scholars ISBN 0-306-80002-0 (with Albert McCarthy) (1975)[50]

External links[edit]

 

Nat Hentoff on abortion

Published on Nov 5, 2016

__

Nat Hentoff c/o Cato Institute

May 15, 2014

Dear Mr. Hentoff,

I am a great admirer of 5 men since 1980. Milton Friedman, Ronald Reagan, Francis Schaeffer, Dr. C. Everett Koop and Adrian Rogers. In 1980 I first saw the film series FREE TO CHOOSE by Milton and Rose Friedman and also the film series HOW SHOULD WE THEN LIVE? by Francis Schaeffer and WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE HUMAN RACE? by Schaeffer and Koop. (I also saw the film series COSMOS by Sagan.)

I really bought into what all of these film series had to say (except Sagan’s), but I have always been one to read material from the other side in order to challenge my own views. Adrian Rogers is the other person I mentioned and he was my pastor in Memphis where I grew up. He was very pro-life and he instilled in me a passion for the pro-life cause. That is why I have posted so many of your pro-life articles on my blog.

Today I am writing you for two reasons. First, I wanted to appeal to your Jewish Heritage and ask you to take a closer look at some Old Testament scriptures dealing with the land of Israel. Second, I wanted to point out some scientific evidence that caused Antony Flew to switch from an atheist (as you are now) to a theist.  Twenty years I had the opportunity to correspond with two individuals that were regarded as two of the most famous atheists of the 20th Century, Antony Flew and Carl Sagan. (I have enclosed some of those letters between us.) I had read the books and seen the films of the Christian philosopher Francis Schaeffer and he had discussed the works of both of these men. I sent both of these gentlemen philosophical arguments from Schaeffer in these letters and in the first letter I sent a cassette tape of my pastor’s sermon IS THE BIBLE TRUE? (CD is enclosed also.) You may have noticed in the news a few years that Antony Flew actually became a theist in 2004 and remained one until his death in 2010. Carl Sagan remained a skeptic until his dying day in 1996.

You will notice in the enclosed letter from June 1, 1994 that Dr. Flew commented, “Thank you for sending me the IS THE BIBLE TRUE? tape to which I have just listened with great interest and, I trust, profit.” It would be a great honor for me if you would take time and drop me a note and let me know what your reaction is to this same message.

Robert Lewis noted that many orthodox Jews believed through the centuries that God would honor the ancient prophecies that predicted that the Jews would be restored to the land of Israel, but then I notice the latest film series on the Jews done by an orthodox Jew seemed to ignore many of these scriptures. Recently I watched the 5 part PBS series Simon Schama’s THE STORY OF THE JEWS, and in the last episode Schama calls Israel “a miracle” but he is hoping that Israel can get along with the non-Jews in the area. Schama noted, “I’ve always thought that Israel is the consummation of some of the highest ethical values of Jewish traditional history, but creating a place of safety and defending it has sometimes challenged those same ethics and values”. There is an ancient book that sheds light on Israel’s plight today, and it is very clear about the struggles between the Jews and their cousins that surround them. It all comes down to what the Book of Genesis had to say concerning Abraham’s son by Hagar.  

Genesis 16:11-12  (NIV)

11 The angel of the Lord also said to her:

“You are now pregnant
    and you will give birth to a son.
You shall name him Ishmael,
    for the Lord has heard of your misery.
12 He will be a wild donkey of a man;
    his hand will be against everyone
    and everyone’s hand against him,
and he will live in hostility
    toward all his brothers.”

The first 90 seconds of episode 5 opened though by allowing us all to experience the sirens and silence of that day in Spring, each year, when Israel halts to mark the Holocaust and I actually wept while I thought of those who had died. Schama noted, “”Today around half the Jews in the world live here in Israel. 6 million people. 6 million defeats for the Nazi program of total extermination.”
After World War II Schama tells about the events leading up to the re-birth of Israel.  Here again Schama although a practicing Jewish believer did not bring in scripture to shed light on the issue. David O. Dykes who is pastor of Green Acres Baptist Church in Tyler, Texas has done just that:
The nation of Israel was destroyed in 70 A.D…Beginning in the early 20th century Jews started trickling back into Palestine at the risk of their lives. Then after World War II, the British government was given authority over Palestine and in 1948, Israel became a nation again through the action of the United Nations…This should not have come as a surprise to any Bible scholar, because this regathering of Israel is predicted many times in scripture. The prophet Amos wrote in Chapter 9:

14 And I will bring back the exiles of My people Israel, and they shall build the waste cities and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards and drink the wine from them; they shall also make gardens and eat the fruit of them.

15 And I will plant them upon their land, and they shall no more be torn up out of their land which I gave them, says the Lord your God.

Some people think the Amos prophecy was referring to the return of Israel after their Babylonian captitvity in 586 B.C. But the nation was uprooted in 70 A.D. And notice God said they would “NEVER AGAIN TO BE UPROOTED.”

Even the preservation of their language is a miracle. For centuries, Hebrew was a dead language spoken nowhere in the world. But within the last century, this dead language has been resurrected and now millions of Israelis speak Hebrew...Have you noticed how often Israel is in the news? They are only a small nation about the size of New Jersey.

I have checked out some of the details that David O. Dykes has provided and they check out. Philip Lieberman is a cognitive scientist at Brown University, and in a letter dated in 1995 he told me that only a few other languages besides Hebrew have ever been revived including some American Indian ones along with Celtic.

Also Zechariah 12:3 also verifies the newsworthiness of Israel now:  And in that day I will make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all peoples; all who lift it or burden themselves with it shall be sorely wounded. And all the nations of the earth shall come and gather together against it.

I do think that Isaiah also predicted the Jews would come from all over the earth back to their homeland Israel. Isaiah 11:11-12 states, “And in that day the Lord shall again lift up His hand a second time to recover (acquire and deliver) the remnant of His people which is left, from Assyria, from Lower Egypt, from Pathros, from Ethiopia, from Elam [in Persia], from Shinar [Babylonia], from Hamath [in Upper Syria], and from the countries ordering on the [Mediterranean] Sea.  And He will raise up a signal for the nations and will assemble the outcasts of Israel and will gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth. (Amplified Bible)

 I was reading  THE BOOK OF DANIEL COMMENTARY (Cambridge University Press, 1900) by the Bible critic  Samuel Rolles Driver, and on page 100 Dr. Driver commented that the country of Israel is obviously a thing of the past and has no place in prophecy in the future and the prophet Daniel was definitely wrong about that.  I wonder what Dr. Driver would say if he lived to see the newspapers today?

In fact, my former pastor Robert Lewis at Fellowship Bible Church in his sermon “Let the Prophets Speak” on 1-31-99 noted that even the great Princeton Theologian Charles Hodge erred in 1871 when he stated:

The argument from the ancient prophecies is proved to be invalid because it would prove too much. If those prophecies foretell a literal restoration, they foretell that the temple is to be rebuilt, the priesthood restored, sacrifices again offered, and that the whole Mosaic ritual is to be observed in all its details, (Systematic Theology. [New York: Charles Scribner & Sons, 1871; reprint Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdman’s Publishing Co., 1949], 3:807).__

Robert Lewis went on to point out that the prophet Amos 2700 years ago predicted the destruction of Aram, Philistia, Tyre, Edom, Ammon, Moab and Israel, but at the end of the Book he said Israel would one day be returned to their land and never removed. We saw from Isaiah 11:11-12 that the Lord “will assemble the outcasts of Israel and will gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.” And that certainly did happen after World War II.  I corresponded with some secular Jewish Scholars on this back in the 1990’s such as Irving Kristol and Daniel Bell but they dismissed these type of Old Testament prophecies. In his letter of September 23, 1995, Daniel Bell wrote, “As to the survival of the Jewish people, I think of the remark of Samuel Johnson that there is nothing stronger than the knowledge that one may be hanged the next day to concentrate the mind–or the will.”

After looking at the accuracy of Old Testament, I want to turn my attention to the accuracy of the New Testament. Recently I was reading the book GOD’S NOT DEAD by Rick Broocks and in it he quotes Sir William Ramsay who was a scholar who originally went to Palestine to disprove the Book of Luke. Below is some background info on Ramsay followed by his story.

From Wikipedia:

Sir William Mitchell Ramsay (15 March 1851, Glasgow –20 April 1939) was a Scottish archaeologist and New Testament scholar. By his death in 1939 he had become the foremost authority of his day on the history of Asia Minor and a leading scholar in the study of the New Testament. From the post of Professor of Classical Art and Architecture at Oxford, he was appointed Regius Professor of Humanity (the Latin Professorship) at Aberdeen. Knighted in 1906 to mark his distinguished service to the world of scholarship, Ramsay also gained three honorary fellowships from Oxford colleges, nine honorary doctorates from British, Continental and North American universities and became an honorary member of almost every association devoted to archaeology and historical research. He was one of the original members of the British Academy, was awarded the Gold Medal of Pope Leo XIII in 1893 and the Victorian Medal of the Royal Geographical Society in 1906. 

Sir William Ramsay

William Mitchell Ramsay was born on March 15, 1851 in Glasgow, Scotland. His father was a lawyer, but died when William was just six. Through the hard work of other family members, William attended the University of Aberdeen, achieving honors. Through means of a scholarship, he was then able to go to Oxford University and attend the college there named for St. John. His family resource also allowed him to study abroad, notably in Germany. It was under one of his professors that his love of history began. After receiving a new scholarship from another college at Oxford, he traveled to Asia Minor.

William, however, is most noted for beliefs pertaining to the Bible, not his early life. Originally, he labeled it as a ‘Book of Fables,’ having only third-hand knowledge. He neither read nor studied it, skeptically believing it to be of fiction and not historical fact. His interest in history would lead him on a search that would radically redefine his thoughts on that Ancient Book…

Some argue that Ramsay was originally just a product of his time. For example, the general consensus on the Acts of the Apostles (and its alleged writer Luke) was almost humouress:

“… [A]bout 1880 to 1890 the book of the Acts was regarded as the weakest part of the New Testament. No one that had any regard for his reputation as a scholar cared to say a word in its defence. The most conservative of theological scholars, as a rule, thought the wisest plan of defence for the New Testament as a whole was to say as little as possible about the Acts.”[1]

It was his dislike for Acts that launched him into a Mid-East adventure. With Bible-in-hand, he made a trip to the Holy Land. What William found, however, was not what he expected…

As it turns out, ‘ole Willy’ changed his mind. After his extensive study he concluded that Luke was one of the world’s greatest historians:

The more I have studied the narrative of the Acts, and the more I have learned year after year about Graeco-Roman society and thoughts and fashions, and organization in those provinces, the more I admire and the better I understand. I set out to look for truth on the borderland where Greece and Asia meet, and found it here [in the Book of Acts—KB]. You may press the words of Luke in a degree beyond any other historian’s, and they stand the keenest scrutiny and the hardest treatment, provided always that the critic knows the subject and does not go beyond the limits of science and of justice.[2]

Skeptics were strikingly shocked. In ‘Evidence that Demands a Verdict’ Josh Mcdowell writes,

“The book caused a furor of dismay among the skeptics of the world. Its attitude was utterly unexpected because it was contrary to the announced intention of the author years before…. for twenty years more, book after book from the same author came from the press, each filled with additional evidence of the exact, minute truthfulness of the whole New Testament as tested by the spade on the spot. The evidence was so overwhelming that many infidels announced their repudiation of their former unbelief and accepted Christianity. And these books have stood the test of time, not one having been refuted, nor have I found even any attempt to refute them.”[3]

The Bible has always stood the test of time. Renowned archaeologist Nelson Glueck put it like this:

“It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference. Scores of archaeological findings have been made which conform in clear outline or exact detail historical statements in the Bible.”[4]

1) The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament (1915)
2) Ibid
3) See page 366
4) See page 31 of: Rivers in the Desert: A History of the Negev (1959)

 Thank you again for your time and I know how busy you are.

Everette Hatcher, everettehatcher@gmail.com, http://www.thedailyhatch.org, cell ph 501-920-5733, Box 23416, LittleRock, AR 72221

_______

Featured artist is Carmen Herrera

CARMEN HERRERA-Artist in Exile part 1

Uploaded on Dec 9, 2009

Cuban born artist, Carmen Herrera.

CARMEN HERRERA Artist in Exile part 2

Carmen Herrera

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Carmen Herrera
Born May 31, 1915 (age 101)
Havana, Cuba
Nationality Cuban-American
Known for Painting
Style Minimalism
Movement Abstract Expressionism

Carmen Herrera (born May 31, 1915) is a Cuban-American abstract, minimalist painter. She was born in Havana and has lived in New York City since the mid-1950s. Herrera’s abstract works have brought her international recognition late in life. She turned 100 in May 2015.[1]

Early life[edit]

Born in Havana in 1915, Herrera was one of seven siblings. Her father was the founding editor of the newspaper El Mundo, where her mother was a reporter.[2] Herrera has lived in France, Cuba and the USA, moving frequently throughout the 1930s and 1940s. Returning to Cuba from Paris around 1935, Herrera studied architecture.[3][4] She met in 1939 English teacher Jesse Loewenthal, when he was visiting from America,[5] married him and moved to New York, abandoning her degree course.[4] From 1943-1947 she studied at the Art Students League in New York City.[6]

Abstract expressionism was blooming in late 1940s New York, which had become an art metropolis, but instead of taking advantage of that, Herrera moved to post war Paris. There she was inspired by the era of re-building after the war, and found her own style. Herrera got to know the young artists from Salon des Réalités Nouvelles, an art collective striving to challenge the traditions of the art scene. One of them, Fred Sidès, was enthusiastic about Herrera’s work, and wanted it in an exhibition. But when he said that her art seemed to be full of so many images, Herrera had an insight. “I said to myself: Oh God, what he is telling me is that I have too much in it.” From then on her work has always been a search from the greatest possible simplicity. Her art is about shapes and colour, and how they relate to each other.[7] In 1954 Herrera settled in New York.

Rondo by Carmen Herrera

Discovery by the art world[edit]

In 2004, her friend, painter Tony Bechara, attended a dinner with Frederico Sève, the owner of the Latin Collector Gallery in Manhattan, who had a much-publicized show of female geometric painters from which an artist had dropped out.[5] Bechara recommended Herrera.[5] When Sève saw her paintings, he at first thought they were by Lygia Clark, but found out that Herrera’s paintings had been done a decade before Clark did paintings in a similar style.[5]

Work[edit]

Herrera’s work has great precision and is highly reminiscent of Barnett Newman and Leon Polk Smith. She was a contemporary of many abstract expressionist artists – most notably, Wifredo Lam and Yves Klein[5] but since she painted in relative obscurity, remained unknown until her later years. Her works, viewed in light of the time period they were painted in, are important milestones in the evolution of the Geometric Minimalism movement. After six decades of private painting, Herrera sold her first artwork in 2004 when she was 89 years old.[5] Herrera has said of her work, “I do it because I have to do it; it’s a compulsion that also gives me pleasure.”[5]

Collections[edit]

In 2004 Agnes Gund, President emeritus of the Museum of Modern Art, bought several works by Herrera and donated one of her black-and-white paintings to Museum of Modern Art (MoMA).[5] The Tate Modern in London, the Walker Art Center in Minneapolis, and the Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden in Washington, D.C. have also acquired her works.

Exhibitions[edit]

Herrera exhibited several times at the Salon des Réalités Nouvelles beginning in 1949.[8] Solo exhibitions were hosted at the Galeria Sudamericana (1956), Trabia Gallery (1963), Cisneros Gallery (1965) and Alternative Gallery (1986).[9] The El Museo del Barrio in East Harlem, New York, mounted an exhibition of Herrera’s work in 2008. A retrospective exhibition opened in July 2009 at the nonprofit IKON Gallery in Birmingham, England, and travelled to the Pfalzgalerie Museum in Kaiserslautern, Germany in 2010. From 16 September 2016 Herrera will have her first museum retrospective at the Whitney Museum of American Art.[10]

List of works[edit]

The following works are currently displayed at Lisson Gallery.

  • Untitled, 2013[11]
  • Blanco y Verde, 1962
  • Red & Blue, 1993
  • Green Garden, 1950
  • Blue with White Line, 1964

Film[edit]

Beginning in 2014, Alison Klayman, director of the acclaimed “Ai Weiwei: Never Sorry,” worked on a documentary about Herrera.[12] This documentary, “‘The 100 Years Show‘,” premiered in 2015 at the Hot Docs Film Festival in Toronto.[13]

References[edit]

  1. Jump up^ Russeth, Andrew (2015-06-05). “‘Don’t Be Intimidated About Anything’: Carmen Herrera at 100”. ARTnews. Retrieved 2015-06-18.
  2. Jump up^ Helena de Bertodano (20 December 2010), Carmen Herrera: ‘Is it a dream?’ The Daily Telegraph.
  3. Jump up^ Hermione Hoby (21 November 2010), Carmen Herrera: ‘Every painting has been a fight between the painting and me. I tend to win’ The Guardian.
  4. ^ Jump up to:a b “Carmen Herrera 29 July — 13 September 2009”. Ikon Gallery. Retrieved 2015-05-22.
  5. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f g h Sontag, Deborah (2009-12-20). “At 94, She’s the Hot New Thing in Painting”. The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2015-05-22.
  6. Jump up^ Ship, Steve (2003). Latin American an Caribbean Artists of the Modern Era; A biographical dictionary of more than 12,700 Persons. Jefferson, North Carolina, and London: McFarland and Company Inc.,. p. 326.
  7. Jump up^ Jule Schlegel, One day I will just paint a dot and be gone, Some Magazine 2014
  8. Jump up^ Brodsky], [editor, Dorothy Feaver; text, Estrellita B. (2013). Carmen Herrera : works on paper = opere su carta, 2010-2012. London: Lisson Gallery. ISBN 9780947830397.
  9. Jump up^ Heller, Jules (1995). North American Women Artists of the Twentieth Century : A Biographical Dictionary. New York and London: Garland Publishing, Inc. ISBN 0-8240-6049-0.
  10. Jump up^ “Works in Progress”. The New York Times. 2015-05-15. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2015-05-22.
  11. Jump up^ “Carmen Herrera | Artists | Lisson Gallery”. http://www.lissongallery.com. Retrieved 2016-03-19.
  12. Jump up^ “Carmen Herrera at 99”. W Magazine. 2014-05-30. Retrieved 2015-05-22.
  13. Jump up^ Eileen Kinsella (31 May 2015). “Artist Carmen Herrera turns 100 years old—artnet News”. artnet News.

External links[edit]

Photo

The Carmen Herrera retrospective at the Whitney Museum of American Art includes signature paintings from 1948-78, like this untitled geometric abstraction. CreditCarmen Herrera, Collection of Yolanda Santos Art

At 101, the artist Carmen Herrera is finally getting the show the art world should have given her 40 or 50 years ago: a solo exhibition at a major museum in New York, where she has been living and working since 1954. The show, “Carmen Herrera: Lines of Sight,” caps off several years of festivities, many of which have focused on the artist’s centenarian status, including a documentary film, “The 100 Years Show, Starring Carmen Herrera”; a spring exhibition of recent paintings at the Lisson Gallery in Chelsea; and numerous profiles hailing Ms. Herrera as a living treasure and praising her acerbic wit.

There’s more to marvel at in the Whitney Museum of American Art’s compact but ravishing exhibition of about 50 works, which focuses on the pivotal period of 1948-78 — years in which Ms. Herrera developed her signature geometric abstractions, pared-down paintings of just two colors but seemingly infinite spatial complications. Installed with appropriate precision on the Whitney’s eighth floor, the show presents her as an artist of formidable discipline, consistency and clarity of purpose, and a key player in any history of postwar art.

There is so much to celebrate within the close-set parameters of “Lines of Sight,” in fact, that you have to wonder: Why didn’t the Whitney give Ms. Herrera not just the show she ought to have received some decades ago, but also the show that she deserves today? Meaning a full retrospective on the big stage of the fifth floor, like those the museum bestowed on Frank Stella last fall, or even a slightly more focused look at her oeuvre from maturity on, as in the Stuart Davis survey that’s now in its final weeks. Well-intentioned as it is, “Lines of Sight” gives us just a narrow slice of a career that’s seven decades strong and still going.

Photo

A painting from Carmen Herrera’s 12-year series “Blanco y Verde.” CreditCarmen Herrera, Private Collection, New York

Ms. Herrera’s only museum retrospective, before this one, was in 1984 at the Alternative Museum, now defunct. More frequently, this Havana-born artist’s work has been exhibited in a Cuban or Latin American context, at institutions like El Museo del Barrio and in group shows like “9 Cuban Artists,” even though she has not lived in Cuba since the 1930s and has a complicated relationship with Latin American art. She has been compared to Brazilian artists of the Neo-Concrete movement, such as Lygia Clark and Hélio Oiticica, but she had little direct contact with those circles; the lines of influence run through 1940s Paris, and the international gathering of abstract-art enthusiasts known as the Salon des Réalités Nouvelles.

Continue reading the main story

That is where the Whitney show begins, in postwar Paris in 1948, the same time and place that shaped Ellsworth Kelly’s entree into abstraction. Ms. Herrera spent six years in this richly intellectual expatriate scene, where she encountered, for the first time, canonical works by Malevich, Mondrian and other artists of Suprematism and De Stijl.

The first gallery finds Ms. Herrera gradually simplifying and intensifying her compositions of flat, interlocking forms, almost as if she were zooming in on them. Some of the hallmarks of her mature work are already there: backgammon-like motifs of elongated triangles, in “A City” (1948), and a gravitation to shades of deep green, in “Green Garden” (1950).

Photo

“Blue and Yellow” (1965).CreditCarmen Herrera, Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden, Smithsonian Institution, Washington

Returning to New York in the mid-1950s, she spent a decade making bracing, rigidly geometric works in black and white and in straight-from-the-tube colors, some of them on shaped and multipanel canvases. Ms. Herrera had plenty of encouragement from friends like Barnett Newman and Leon Polk Smith, but little from galleries and the critics who frequented them. Deteriorating relations with Cuba had something to do with this tepid reception, but so did her gender; Ms. Herrera recalls that the dealer Rose Fried told her, you can paint circles around the male artists that I have, but I’m not going to give you a show because you’re a woman.

She continued to paint circles around the men, even when she was painting squares (as in a black-and-white work from 1952 that anticipates Stella’s 1959 “Black Paintings”) and triangles, as in “Green and White” (1956), where four sharp white spikes induce vertigo as they direct our gaze from corners of an emerald green field to the center.

In 1959, working with those same colors and shapes, she embarked on her 12-year series “Blanco y Verde.” The Whitney has assembled nine paintings from that group of 15, in an installation that forms the core of the show and is a powerful argument for viewing Ms. Herrera’s work in serial form. It’s a room that would not look out of place at Dia:Beacon or some other temple of Minimalism, although there are other entry points for its elegant, iterative integration of painting and architecture.

Photo

“Green and Orange” (1958). CreditCarmen Herrera, Collection of Paul and Trudy Cejas

Ms. Herrera’s studies in architecture at the Universidad de La Habana, where she said she learned “to think abstractly and draw like an architect,” emerge forcefully in works from the late 1960s through the ’70s, especially in a monochromatic series called “Estructuras,” which moves from drawing to painting to sculpture. Some of these pieces take up a motif from a particular “Blanco y Verde” painting and turn its green triangles into negative space, creating a fault line between two L-shaped blocks: Picture two Tetris pieces that don’t quite fit together.

And in two assertively architectonic black-and-white paintings from 1974, Ms. Herrera alludes to Spanish cultural masterpieces: in “Escorial,” to the royal monastery near Madrid, and in “Ávila,” to a historic site (the hometown of St. Teresa) and to a butterflied composition seen in paintings by Francisco de Zurbarán, the 17th-century Spanish painter whom Ms. Herrera has described as a “minimalist.”

The Whitney pointedly paired one of Ms. Herrera’s “Blanco y Verde” paintings with a sculpture by Ellsworth Kelly in the inaugural exhibition for its new building. And the comparison comes up again and again in “Lines of Sight” and its catalog, organized by Dana Miller (a former director of the Whitney collection). It’s indicative of what the Whitney is trying to do, here and in rehangings of the permanent collection: to pry open the canon and make space for marginalized artists.

That strategy may be one explanation for the emphasis on just a portion of Ms. Herrera’s oeuvre, the part that corresponds to a particularly well-trodden stretch of art history, from Abstract Expressionism to Minimalism. MoMA and the Whitney each own just one canvas by Ms. Herrera, but after visiting “Lines of Sight,” you will not be able to walk through either museum’s painting galleries without seeing her work in your head, if not on the wall.

_______

Related posts:

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 135 H. J. Blackham Part C Featured artist is Richard Anuszkiewicz

________     H. J. Blackham H. J. Blackham, (31 March 1903 – 23 January 2009), was a leading and widely respected British humanist for most of his life. As a young man he worked in farming and as a teacher. He found his niche as a leader in the Ethical Union, which he steadfastly […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 134 H.J.Blackham Part B (Featured artist is Richard M. Loving)

H.J.Blackham pictured below: I had to pleasure of corresponding with Paul Kurtz in the 1990’s and he like H. J. Blackham firmly believed that religion was needed to have a basis for morals. At H. J. Blackham’s funeral in 2009 these words were read from Paul Kurtz: Paul Kurtz Founder and Chair, Prometheus Books and the […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 133 A Portion of my 1994 letter to H. J. Blackham on the 10th Anniversary of Francis Schaeffer’s passing (Featured artist is Billy Al Bengston )

H. J. Blackham pictured below:   On May 15, 1994 on the 10th anniversary of the passing of Francis Schaeffer I sent a letter to H.J. Blackham and here is a portion of that letter below: I have enclosed a cassette tape by Adrian Rogers and it includes  a story about  Charles Darwin‘s journey from […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 132 Part D Ellsworth Kelly (Featured artist is Ronald Davis )

  I featured the artwork of Ellsworth Kelly on my blog both on November 23, 2015 and December 17, 2015. Also I mailed him a letter on November 23, 2015, but I never heard back from him.  Unfortunately he died on December 27, 2015 at the age of 92. Who were the artists who influenced […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 131 Part C Ellsworth Kelly (Featured artist is Janet Fish )

__ I featured the artwork of Ellsworth Kelly on my blog both on November 23, 2015 and December 17, 2015. Also I mailed him a letter on November 23, 2015, but I never heard back from him.  Unfortunately he died on December 27, 2015 at the age of 92.       Who were the […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 130 Part B Ellsworth Kelly (Featured artist is Art Green )

Andy, Ellsworth Kelly, Richard Koshalek and unidentified guest, 1980s I featured the artwork of Ellsworth Kelly on my blog both on November 23, 2015 and December 17, 2015. Also I mailed him a letter on November 23, 2015, but I never heard back from him.  Unfortunately he died on December 27, 2015 at the age […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 129 Part A Ellsworth Kelly (Featured artist is Sherrie Levine )

How Should We Then Live – Episode 8 – The Age of Fragmentation   I featured the artwork of Ellsworth Kelly on my blog both on November 23, 2015 and December 17, 2015. Also I mailed him a letter on November 23, 2015, but I never heard back from him.  Unfortunately he died on December […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 128 Will Provine, Determinism, Part F (Featured artist is Pierre Soulages )

Today I am bringing this series on William Provine to an end.  Will Provine’s work was cited by  Francis Schaeffer  in his book WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE HUMAN RACE? I noted: I was sad to learn of Dr. Provine’s death. William Ball “Will” Provine (February 19, 1942 – September 1, 2015) He grew up an […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 127 Will Provine, Killer of the myth of Optimistic Humanism Part E (Featured artist is Jim Dine )

___ Setting the record straight was Will Provine’s widow Gail when she stated, “[Will] did not believe in an ULTIMATE meaning in life (i.e. God’s plan), but he did believe in proximate meaning (i.e. relationships with people — friendship and especially LOVE🙂 ). So one’s existence is ultimately senseless and useless, but certainly not to those […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 126 Will Provine, Killer of the myth of Optimistic Humanism Part D (Featured artists are Elena and Olivia Ceballos )

I was sad when I learned of Will Provine’s death. He was a very engaging speaker on the subject of Darwinism and I think he correctly realized what the full ramifications are when accepting evolution. This is the fourth post I have done on Dr. Provine and the previous ones are these links, 1st, 2nd […]

 

 

___

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 171 JIMI HENDRIX (Featured artist is Ed Ruscha )

_

The Jimi Hendrix Experience – Foxey Lady (Miami Pop 1968)

Published on Nov 5, 2013

Click to subscribe: http://smarturl.it/SubscribeJHVevo?IQ…

Listen to Jimi Hendrix on Spotify: http://smarturl.it/JimiHSpotify?IQid=…

Album’s from Jimi Hendrix’s:
Experience Hendrix: Click here to buy
iTunes: http://smarturl.it/JH_EHBE_iTunes?IQi…
Google Play: http://smarturl.it/JH_EHBE_GP?IQid=yt…
People, Hell and Angels: Click here to buy
Amazon: http://smarturl.it/JH_PHA_Amzn?IQid=y…
iTunes: http://smarturl.it/JH_PHA_iTunes?IQid…
Google Play: http://smarturl.it/JH_PHA_GP?IQid=ytd…
Electric Ladyland: Click here to buy:
iTunes: http://smarturl.it/JH_EL_iTunes?IQid=…
Google Play: http://smarturl.it/JH_EL_GP?IQid=ytd….
Are You Experienced: Click here to buy:
iTunes: http://smarturl.it/JH_AYE_iTunes?IQid…
Google Play: http://smarturl.it/JH_AYE_GP?IQid=ytd…

More from Jimi Hendrix:
‘Foxey Lady’ – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PVjc
‘Bleeding Heart’ – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COsVg

Follow Jimi Hendrix:
Facebook: http://smarturl.it/JH_YD_FB?IQid=ytd….
Twitter: http://smarturl.it/JH_YD_T?IQid=ytd.j…
Website: http://www.jimihendrix.com
YouTube: http://smarturl.it/JimiVEVO?IQid=ytd….

Lyrics:

Foxy
Foxy
You know you’re a cute little heartbreaker
Foxy
You know you’re a sweet little lovemaker
Foxy
I wanna take you home
I won’t do you no harm, no
You’ve got to be all mine, all mine
Ooh, foxy lady
I see you, heh, on down on the scene
Foxy
You make me wanna get up and uh scream
Foxy
Ah, baby listen now
I’ve made up my mind yeah
I’m tired of wasting all my precious time
You’ve got to be all mine, all mine
Foxy lady

The Jimi Hendrix Experience performing Foxey Lady (Miami Pop 1968). (C) 2013 Experience Hendrix L.L.C., under exclusive license to Sony Music Entertainment

Jimi Hendrix ‘Voodoo Child’ (Slight Return)

Published on May 21, 2014

“Voodoo Child (Slight Return)” on the Electric Ladyland, album.the third and final album by the Jimi Hendrix Experience. The song is known for its wah-wah-heavy guitar work. It is #101 on Rolling Stone’s list of 500 greatest songs of all time.[1]

The Jimi Hendrix Experience – All Along The Watchtower (Official Audio)

Published on Oct 5, 2012

Click to subscribe: http://smarturl.it/SubscribeJHVevo?IQ…

Taken from the album ‘Experience Hendrix’: http://smarturl.it/ExperienceHendrix?…

Listen to Jimi Hendrix on Spotify: http://smarturl.it/JimiHSpotify?IQid=…

Album’s from Jimi Hendrix’s:
Experience Hendrix: Click here to buy
iTunes: http://smarturl.it/JH_EHBE_iTunes?IQi…
Google Play: http://smarturl.it/JH_EHBE_GP?IQid=yt…
People, Hell and Angels: Click here to buy
Amazon: http://smarturl.it/JH_PHA_Amzn?IQid=y…
iTunes: http://smarturl.it/JH_PHA_iTunes?IQid…
Google Play: http://smarturl.it/JH_PHA_GP?IQid=ytd…
Electric Ladyland: Click here to buy:
iTunes: http://smarturl.it/JH_EL_iTunes?IQid=…
Google Play: http://smarturl.it/JH_EL_GP?IQid=ytd….
Are You Experienced: Click here to buy:
iTunes: http://smarturl.it/JH_AYE_iTunes?IQid…
Google Play: http://smarturl.it/JH_AYE_GP?IQid=ytd…

More from Jimi Hendrix:
‘Foxey Lady’ – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PVjc
‘Bleeding Heart’ – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COsVg

Follow Jimi Hendrix:
Facebook: http://smarturl.it/JH_YD_FB?IQid=ytd….
Twitter: http://smarturl.it/JH_YD_T?IQid=ytd.j…
Website: http://www.jimihendrix.com
YouTube: http://smarturl.it/JimiVEVO?IQid=ytd….

Lyrics:

All along the watchtower
Princes kept the view
While all the women came and went
Barefoot servants too
Outside in the cold distance
A wildcat did growl
Two riders were approaching
And the wind began to howl, hey
All along the watchtower
All along the watchtower

Music video by The Jimi Hendrix Experience performing All Along The Watchtower. (C) 2009 Experience Hendrix L.L.C., underexclusive license to Sony Music Entertainment

Three Days in 1969 for urban faithForty years ago this week, more than 400,000 concertgoers gathered on the muddy grounds of a 600-acre dairy farm in upstate New York to celebrate what was billed as “three days of peace and music.” The Woodstock Music & Art Fair transformed the way we think about popular music and youth culture. In fact, it became an emblem of the counterculture movement of the 1960s.

The past week has been filled with observances of the music festival’s anniversary, an “acid trip” down memory lane for many baby boomers. And next week the celebration continues with the release of Ang Lee’s Taking Woodstock, a cinematic tribute to that legendary gathering.

In a turbulent era that found the nation reeling from its involvement in the Vietnam War — a period that was just a year removed from the shocking assassinations of Martin Luther King Jr. and Bobby Kennedy — Woodstock represented the power of unbridled hope, freedom, and youthful exuberance. Of course, it also represented that great American trinity of “sex, drugs, and rock ‘n’ roll” — with newly embraced freedom also came the collateral damage of hedonistic living.

Out of all the acts that performed during Woodstock — artists like Janis Joplin, The Who, Santana, and Joan Baez — arguably none has become more identified with the event than Jimi Hendrix, whose two-hour set actually took place on August 18, after the music festival was officially over. Rain and technical snafus had pushed his performance to early that Monday morning. With only an estimated 80,000 people remaining to witness it, Hendrix delivered one of his most stirring performances.

If anyone could make his guitar weep, it was Jimi Hendrix. He made it sing — in ecstasy and sadness. He made sounds that had never been heard before. It’s no wonder that, in 2003, Rolling Stone ranked him as number one on its list of “The 100 Greatest Guitarists of All Time.”

Hendrix, who was a lefty, taught himself to play a Fender Stratocaster upside down, so that his right-handed guitar could be played left-handed. He experimented tirelessly with amplified feedback and unorthodox chord structures, while incorporating blues, jazz, funk, and his own electrified brand of psychedelic rock into a sound that has influenced virtually every rock guitarist since (not to mention urban funk and pop artists such as George Clinton and Prince).

Hendrix achieved worldwide fame following his performance at the Monterey Pop Festival in 1967. Two years later, he headlined Woodstock, where he played his enduring version of “The Star-Spangled Banner.” Through his blistering, sonic barrage, you could actually hear “the bombs bursting in air” and see “the rockets red glare.” And, with it being the era of Vietnam, he even threw in a few notes of “Taps” to keep things interesting.

The Jimi Hendrix Experience – Purple Haze (Music Video)

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part JIMI HENDRIX (Featured artist is )

 

Paul McCartney tells the story about Jimi Hendrix Toronto, August 9, 2010 Unique Video

Published on May 31, 2016

http://taurusvideo.com/
https://www.pond5.com/artist/taurusvideo
Camera Valeriy Orlov
Paul McCartney tells a funny story about Jimi Hendrix, how he played Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band in London, back in 1967.
This is the only video on YouTube!
Also watch this:
https://youtu.be/4Qp_9P6TrxA

Jimi Hendrix Documentary –

Night Bird Flying � Jimi Hendrix

By Michael Dalton
If anyone could make his guitar weep, it was Jimi Hendrix.  He gave voice to it, making it sing�in ecstasy and in sadness.  He wrung it for never heard before sounds.  It�s no wonder that in 2003, Rolling Stone named Hendrix as number one on the list: The 100 Greatest Guitarists of All Time.

He was self-taught and played a Fender Stratocaster guitar turned upside down (so that the right-handed guitar could be played left-handed).  He used it to pioneer a sound that incorporated amplified feedback.      

He inspired many imitators.  Robin Trower is the closest thing that I have heard to him, but he could not match the nuance of Jimi�s touch.  This was graphically depicted in the U2 video �Window in the Skies,� when it shows electricity emanating from Hendrix�s guitar�such was the magic of his sound.

Hendrix achieved worldwide fame following his performance at the Monterey Pop Festival in 1967.  Two years later, he headlined Woodstock, which included a version of the �Star Spangled Banner.� You could hear �the bombs bursting in air� and see �the rockets red glare.�  Sadly, he died in 1970 at age 27 from an apparent overdose of sleeping pills and alcohol.     

One of my favorite songs is �Night Bird Flying� from The Cry of Love.  Released on March 6, 1971, this was the second recording released after his death.  The first song on the album is fittingly called �Freedom.�  Hendrix yearned to be free.  All the wealth and pleasures that his fame brought were not enough to satisfy his soul.  He was crying out for love and freedom.  

This heart-cry comes through songs like �Night Bird Flying� that have a touch of melancholy.  It�s as if guitar, voice, words and music unite in longing for that inexpressible something more.  

She�s just a night bird flyin� through the night
Fly on
She�s just a night bird making a midnight, midnight flight
Sail on, sail on

A bird flying through the skies is a beautiful picture of freedom.  In this instance Hendrix may be using the imagery to express a one-night love affair.  All they have is �one precious night.�  He longs for her to carry him home.  He wants to fully know her.  You can hear the longing.  

It�s as if Jimi wants this night bird to rescue him.  There�s a real temptation to look to a romantic relationship to do that for us.  That�s not to discount the real comfort of intimacy with another person.  It�s just that we were also designed for a relationship with God, which is far more enduring and satisfying.  Being in a relationship with God has the added advantage of creating the potential for more meaningful and rewarding interactions with others.

When we are not rightly related to God, or not as close to Him as we should be, longing and a sense of alienation become more intense.  That�s when we are most likely to search for someone or something to fill the void.  As Augustine has said it, �Thou hast made us for thyself and our hearts are restless until they rest in thee.� 

This song gave voice to my own sense of alienation and longing when it first came out.  I remember flying back with my family from a trip that we had taken in Hawaii.  Just before we left I had a falling-out of some kind with a younger brother.  It grieved me.  As I sat in that plane by myself, flying back through the dark of night, I thought of �Night Bird Flying.�  How I yearned for a better day?  Would it ever come?  Few things are as troubling as the feeling that you are at odds with someone.  I was increasingly become estranged from the rest of my family, and it was my choice.

I still remembering the telling photograph that was taken on one of the Hawaiian Islands.  My whole family was arrayed in Hawaiian shirts while I leaned away from them in my T-shirt that displayed cannabis and a water pipe on the back and boldly proclaimed �Smoke It.�  In contrast to the scowl on my face, my siblings smiled in a way that showed they still had an innocence that would be lost when they eventually followed me into using drugs.

Though getting high brought temporary relief, I was a troubled soul.  It was no less so as I sat on the plane and felt the loneliness of separation.  Listening to the Hendrix song in my mind made me want to soar like some mythical Night Bird.  In the midst of trouble, the Psalmist David longed for wings that he might take flight and find relief in some place of refuge. �Oh, that I had wings like a dove! I would fly away and be at rest; yes, I would wander far away; I would lodge in the wilderness; I would hurry to find a shelter from the raging wind and tempest� (Psalm 55:6-8 ESV).

To have Max Lucado explain it, I was hearing the song of a nocturnal bird that is more often heard than seen. This night bird sings in the dark.   

�There dwells inside you, deep within, a tiny whippoorwill. Listen. You will hear him sing. His aria mourns the dusk. His solo signals the dawn.

�It is the song of the whippoorwill.

�He will not be silent until the sun is seen. We forget he is there, so easy is he to ignore. Other animals of the heart are larger, noisier, more demanding, more imposing. But none is so constant.

�Other creatures of the soul are more quickly fed. More simply satisfied. We feed the lion who growls for power. We stroke the tiger who demands affection. We bridle the stallion who bucks control.

�But what do we do with the whippoorwill who yearns for eternity?

�For that is his song. That is his task. Out of the gray he sings a golden song. Perched in time he chirps a timeless verse. Peering through pain�s shroud, he sees a painless place. Of that place he sings.

�And though we try to ignore him, we cannot. He is us, and his song is ours. Our heart song won�t be silenced until we see the dawn.

� �God has planted eternity in the hearts of men� (Ecclesiastes 3:10 TLB), says the wise man. But it doesn�t take a wise person to know that people long for more than earth. When we see pain, we yearn. When we see hunger, we question why. Senseless deaths. Endless tears, needless loss. Where do they come from? Where will they lead? Isn�t there more to life than death? 

�And so sings the whippoorwill.�

Jimi heard its song.  He yearned so strongly that his own instrument became an expression of his desire.  The sorrow of not finding the freedom that he sought seeps into his music.

After speaking of God�s judgement that would come upon the nation of Moab�an enemy of Israel�Isaiah, one of Israel�s prophets, writes,  �Therefore my heart intones like a harp for Moab and my inward feelings for Kir-hareseth� (Isaiah 16:11 NASB).  Isaiah mourned the destruction of Moab because he had the heart of God towards its people.  

God desires that all people would live according to his ways, but when people consistently rebel against Him and refuse to change their ways, judgement becomes his necessary work.  Rather than rejoicing over their destruction, Isaiah was filled with grief. His heart mirrored that of Jesus when the latter wept over the waywardness of the people of Jerusalem.  Isaiah cried for those who didn�t know God.  

In the April 2007 issue of Christianity Today, John Fisher states that author and philosopher Francis Schaeffer�s most crucial legacy was tears.  He writes, �Schaeffer never meant for Christians to take a combative stance in society without first experiencing empathy for the human predicament that brought us to this place.�  Schaeffer advocated understanding and empathizing with non-Christians instead of taking issue with them.  He believed that �instead of shaking our heads at a depressing, dark, abstract work of art, the true Christian reaction should to weep over the lost person who created it.�  Fisher concludes his article by saying, �The same things that made Francis Schaeffer cry is his day should make us cry in ours.�

In his book, A Sacred Sorrow, Michael Card reminds us that the Bible is full of lament�people, including Jesus, giving voice to the sorrow and anguish that fills their hearts. It�s a means of staying connected to God when the world is not as it should be.  It�s the mourning that Jesus commends. 

This is my lament for Jimi.

You were among the greatest of your generation.
You achieved heights that few know.
Through your guitar, 
You sang and wept, 
You laughed and mourned, 
You danced and lamented.
You kissed the sky in song, but your wings were broken�you could not fly.
Oh, how the mighty have fallen.
My soul aches for Jimi.
It weeps as for a brother and friend.

Jimi Hendrix – Hey Joe

Published on Aug 30, 2015

Jimi Hendrix – Documentary The Last 24 hours

In his book HOW SHOULD WE THEN LIVE? Francis Schaeffer noted:

This emphasis on hallucinogenic drugs brought with it many rock groups–for example, Cream, Jefferson Airplane, Grateful Dead, Incredible String Band, Pink Floyd, and Jimi Hendrix. Most of their work was from 1965-1958. The Beatles’Sergeant Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band (1967) also fits here. This disc is a total unity, not just an isolated series of individual songs, and for a time it became the rallying cry for young people throughout the world. As a whole, this music was the vehicle to carry the drug culture and the mentality which went with it across frontiers which were almost impassible by other means of communication.

Here is a good review of the episode 016 HSWTL The Age of Non-Reason of HOW SHOULD WE THEN LIVE?, December 23, 2007:

Together with the advent of the “drug Age” was the increased interest in the West in  the religious experience of Hinduism and Buddhism. Schaeffer tells us that: “This grasping for a nonrational meaning to life and values is the central reason that these Eastern religions are so popular in the West today.”  Drugs and Eastern religions came like a flood into the Western world.  They became the way that people chose to find meaning and values in life.  By themselves or together, drugs and Eastern religion became the way that people searched inside themselves for ultimate truth.

Along with drugs and Eastern religions there has been a remarkable increase “of the occult appearing as an upper-story hope.”  As modern man searches for answers it “many moderns would rather have demons than be left with the idea that everything in the universe is only one big machine.”  For many people having the “occult in the upper story of nonreason in the hope of having meaning” is better than leaving the upper story of nonreason empty. For them horror or the macabre are more acceptable than the idea that they are just a machine.

Francis Schaeffer has correctly argued:

The universe was created by an infinite personal God and He brought it into existence by spoken word and made man in His own image. When man tries to reduce [philosophically in a materialistic point of view] himself to less than this [less than being made in the image of God] he will always fail and he will always be willing to make these impossible leaps into the area of nonreason even though they don’t give an answer simply because that isn’t what he is. He himself testifies that this infinite personal God, the God of the Old and New Testament is there. 

Instead of making a leap into the area of nonreason the better choice would be to investigate the claims that the Bible is a historically accurate book and that God created the universe and reached out to humankind with the Bible. Below is a piece of that evidence given by Francis Schaeffer concerning the accuracy of the Bible.

TRUTH AND HISTORY (chapter 5 of WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE HUMAN RACE?, under footnotes #97 and #98)

A common assumption among liberal scholars is that because the Gospels are theologically motivated writings–which they are–they cannot also be historically accurate. In other words, because Luke, say (when he wrote the Book of Luke and the Book of Acts), was convinced of the deity of Christ, this influenced his work to the point where it ceased to be reliable as a historical account. The assumption that a writing cannot be both historical and theological is false.

The experience of the famous classical archaeologist Sir William Ramsay illustrates this well. When he began his pioneer work of exploration in Asia Minor, he accepted the view then current among the Tubingen scholars of his day that the Book of Acts was written long after the events in Paul’s life and was therefore historically inaccurate. However, his travels and discoveries increasingly forced upon his mind a totally different picture, and he became convinced that Acts was minutely accurate in many details which could be checked.

What is even more interesting is the way “liberal” modern scholars today deal with Ramsay’s discoveries and others like them. In the NEW TESTAMENT : THE HISTORY OF THE INVESTIGATION OF ITS PROBLEMS, the German scholar Werner G. Kummel made no reference at all to Ramsay. This provoked a protest from British and American scholars, whereupon in a subsequent edition Kummel responded. His response was revealing. He made it clear that it was his deliberate intention to leave Ramsay out of his work, since “Ramsay’s apologetic analysis of archaeology [in other words, relating it to the New Testament in a positive way] signified no methodologically essential advance for New Testament research.” This is a quite amazing assertion. Statements like these reveal the philosophic assumptions involved in much liberal scholarship.

A modern classical scholar, A.N.Sherwin-White, says about the Book of Acts: “For Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming…Any attempt to reject its basic historicity, even in matters of detail, must not appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken this for granted.”

When we consider the pages of the New Testament, therefore, we must remember what it is we are looking at. The New Testament writers themselves make abundantly clear that they are giving an account of objectively true events.

(Under footnote #98)

Acts is a fairly full account of Paul’s journeys, starting in Pisidian Antioch and ending in Rome itself. The record is quite evidently that of an eyewitness of the events, in part at least. Throughout, however, it is the report of a meticulous historian. The narrative in the Book of Acts takes us back behind the missionary journeys to Paul’s famous conversion on the Damascus Road, and back further through the Day of Pentecost to the time when Jesus finally left His disciples and ascended to be with the Father.

But we must understand that the story begins earlier still, for Acts is quite explicitly the second part of a continuous narrative by the same author, Luke, which reaches back to the birth of Jesus.

Luke 2:1-7 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

Now in those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus, that a census be taken of all [a]the inhabited earth. [b]This was the first census taken while[c]Quirinius was governor of Syria. And everyone was on his way to register for the census, each to his own city. Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and family of David, in order to register along with Mary, who was engaged to him, and was with child. While they were there, the days were completed for her to give birth. And she gave birth to her firstborn son; and she wrapped Him in cloths, and laid Him in a [d]manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.

In the opening sentences of his Gospel, Luke states his reason for writing:

Luke 1:1-4 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things[a]accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those whofrom the beginning [b]were eyewitnesses and [c]servants of the [d]word, it seemed fitting for me as well, having [e]investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellentTheophilus; so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been [f]taught.

In Luke and Acts, therefore, we have something which purports to be an adequate history, something which Theophilus (or anyone) can rely on as its pages are read. This is not the language of “myths and fables,” and archaeological discoveries serve only to confirm this.

For example, it is now known that Luke’s references to the titles of officials encountered along the way are uniformly accurate. This was no mean achievement in those days, for they varied from place to place and from time to time in the same place. They were proconsuls in Corinth and Cyprus, asiarchs at Ephesus, politarches at Thessalonica, and protos or “first man” in Malta. Back in Palestine, Luke was careful to give Herod Antipas the correct title of tetrarch of Galilee. And so one. The details are precise.

The mention of Pontius Pilate as Roman governor of Judea has been confirmed recently by an inscription discovered at Caesarea, which was the Roman capital of that part of the Roman Empire. Although Pilate’s existence has been well known for the past 2000 years by those who have read the Bible, now his governorship has been clearly attested outside the Bible.

Top Ten Biblical Discoveries in Archaeology – #6 Pontius Pilate Inscription

This post is a continuation of our Top Ten Biblical Discoveries in Archaeology series. To see the complete series please click here.

Pilate’s Role

Who is Jesus? You and I are sitting down in the Credo House, enjoying a delicious Luther Latte. We’re talking about the important questions of life and I lean forward asking you that simple question, “Who is Jesus?” What do you think about him? Is He everything the Bible communicates? Did He actually live, die for the sins of humanity, and rise from the dead? Do you consider Him your Lord? Is He the ultimate King of the Jews? Is He the King of Kings? These are important questions for all of mankind to consider.

One man, according to the Bible, was uniquely called upon to wrestle with the identity of Jesus. His name: Pontius Pilate. Pilate was the Prefect (governor) of the Roman province of Judea from 26-36 AD. The Jewish high priests at the time were unable to legally sentence a man to death. Most of the leading Jews wanted Jesus killed. In order for Jesus to be killed the death sentence had to be carried out under Roman law. The Jewish leaders needed Pontius Pilate to condemn Jesus to death. Early one morning a mob drives Jesus to Pilate. Pilate becomes responsible for deciding the fate of Jesus.

John 18 describes the scene:

So Pilate entered his headquarters again and called Jesus and said to him, “Are you the King of the Jews?” Jesus answered, “Do you say this of your own accord, or did others say it to you about me?” Pilate answered, “Am I a Jew? Your own nation and the chief priests have delivered you over to me. What have you done?” Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.” Then Pilate said to him, “So you are a king?” Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I have come into the world – to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice.” Pilate said to him, “What is truth?” (John 18:33-38)

Wow, what an amazing dialogue. Jesus forces Pilate to wrestle with his identity. Where does the conversation go from here? Pilate tells the crowd he believes Jesus to be innocent. The crowd finds a loop-hole in the system asking for a criminal, Barabbas, to be released from prison and for Jesus to be found guilty. Pilate appeases the crowd by sending Jesus away to be flogged. After experiencing the horror of flogging, the Bible tells us Jesus is sent back to Pilate. Pilate and Jesus have another conversation described in John 19:

He entered his headquarters again and said to Jesus, “Where are you from?” But Jesus gave him no answer. So Pilate said to him, “You will not speak to me? Do you not know that I have authority to release you and authority to crucify you?” Jesus answered him, “You would have no authority over me at all unless it had been given you from above. Therefore he who delivered me over to you has the greater sin.” (John 19:9-11)

Jesus speaks with determined clarity. Pilate continues to move in the direction of releasing Jesus. Those seeking the death of Jesus cry out to Pilate, “If you release this man, you are not Caesar’s friend. Everyone who makes himself a king opposes Caesar. (John 19:12)” Pilate eventually gives in and agrees to have Jesus crucified. Interestingly, the Bible explains, Pilate places on sign of the cross of Jesus which read, “Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews.”

Pilate Outside the Bible

What we know about Pontius Pilate comes primarily from the Bible. Three men named Tacitus, Josephus and Philo all lived around the time of Jesus and mention Pilate in their writings.

Tacitus writes:

To dispel the rumor, Nero substituted as culprits, and treated with the most extreme punishments, some people, popularly known as Christians, whose disgraceful activities were notorious. The originator of that name, Christus, had been executed when Tiberius was emperor, by order of the procurator Pontius Pilatus. But the deadly cult, though checked for a time, was now breaking out again not only in Judea, the birthplace of this evil, but even throughout Rome, where all the nasty and disgusting ideas from all over the world pour in and find a ready following.

Josephus writes:

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, for he was a performer of wonderful deeds, a teacher of such men as are happy to accept the truth. He won over many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. When Pilate, at the suggestion of the leading men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him at the first did not forsake him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct to this day.

Philo, more than the other men, speaks to the character of Pilate. He explains Pilate as, “a man of inflexible, stubborn and cruel disposition.” Philo explains several situations where Pilate provokes and is cruel to the Jewish people. The Bible and these three men speak plainly about Pilate, the world of Pontius Pilate, and the man from Nazareth whom He sentenced to be crucified. Pontius Pilate is seen by Tacitus, Philo and Josephus as the real governor of Judea and the real man who sentenced Jesus to be crucified.

Discovery

In 1961 the archaeological world was taken back to the first century Roman province of Judea. A group of archaeologists, led by Dr. Antonio Frova were excavating an ancient Roman theater near Caesarea Maritima. Caesarea was a leading city in the first century located on the Mediterranean Sea. A limestone block was found there with a surprising inscription. The inscription, on three lines, reads:

…]S TIBERIVM
…PON]TIVS PILATVS
…PRAEF]ECTVS IVDA[EA]

The inscription is believed to be part of a larger inscription dedicating a temple in Caesarea to the emperor Tiberius. The inscription clearly states, “Pontius Pilate, Prefect of Judea.” The inscription is significant on several levels.

Significance

It makes sense for Pilate to be dedicating a temple in Caesarea Maritima. The prefect usually lived in Caesarea and only went to Jerusalem for special purposes. An inscription of Pilate found in Caesarea fits with the first century world described in the Bible.

The dating of the inscription, in connection with its mention of Tiberius (42 BC-37AD) places the governor Pontius Pilate at the same place and time as the Bible’s information about Jesus.

As with the Caiaphas Ossuary mentioned in a previous post, the vast significance of the Pilate Inscription is attached to the significance of the crucifixion of Jesus. The inscription does not prove the conversations between Pilate and Jesus. The inscription does not prove Pilate condemned Jesus to be crucified. The inscription does not prove the forgiveness of mankind’s sin through the death of Christ. The inscription does, however, support the historical reliability of the cross, as with the Caiaphas Ossuary, by supporting the existence of one of its central characters.

What do you think? Do you find the Pilate Inscription to be a significant discovery in archaeology? Join the conversation by commenting on the post. In the next post we look again at crucifixion from a completely different perspective.

Archaeology Verifies the Bible as God’s Word

Sir William Ramsay

Defends the New Testament

Chapter 2

Sir William Ramsay, an atheist and the son of atheists, tried to disprove the Bible. He was a wealthy person who had graduated from the prestigious University of Oxford. Like Albright, Ramsay studied under the famous liberal German historical school in the mid-nineteenth century. Esteemed for its scholarship, this school also taught that the New Testament was not a historical document. As an anti-Semitic move, this would totally eradicate the Nation of Israel from history.

With this premise, Ramsay devoted his whole life to archaeology and determined that he would disprove the Bible.

He set out for the Holy Land and decided to disprove the book of Acts. After 25 or more years (he had released book after book during this time), he was incredibly impressed by the accuracy of Luke in his writings finally declaring that ‘Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy’ . . . ‘this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians’ . . . ‘Luke’s history is unsurpassed in respect of its trustworthiness.’

Luke’s accuracy is demonstrated by the fact that he names key historical figures in the correct time sequence as well as correct titles to government officials in various areas: Thessalonica, politarchs; Ephesus, temple wardens; Cyprus, proconsul; and Malta, the first man of the island. The two books, the Gospel of Luke and book of Acts, that Luke has authored remain accurate documents of history. Ramsay stated, “This author [Luke] should be placed along with the very greatest of historians.”

Finally, in one of his books Ramsay shocked the entire intellectual world by declaring himself to be a Christian. Numerous other archaeologists have had similar experiences. Having set out to show the Bible false, they themselves have been proven false and, as a consequence, have accepted Christ as Lord.

In an outstanding academic career, Ramsay was honored with doctorates from nine universities and eventually knighted for his contributions to modern scholarship. Several of his works on New Testament history are considered classics. When confronted with the evidence of years of travel and study, Sir William Ramsay learned what many others before him and since have been forced to acknowledge: When we objectively examine the evidence for the Bible’s accuracy and veracity, the only conclusion we can reach is that the Bible is true.

Later Archaeologists Confirm Ramsay

New Testament Higher Criticism Archaeology Verifies the Bible
Luke 3:1

In Luke’s announcement of Jesus’ public ministry (Luke 3:1), he mentions,“Lysanius tetrarch of Abilene.”

Scholars questioned Luke’s credibility since the only Lysanius known for centuries was a ruler of Chalcis who ruled from 40-36 B.C. However, an inscription dating to be in the time of Tiberius, who ruled from 14-37 A.D., was found recording a temple dedication which namesLysanius as the “tetrarch of Abila” near Damascus. This matches well with Luke’s account.
Acts 18:12-17

In Acts 18:12-17, Paul was brought before Gallio, the proconsul of Achaea.

At  Delphi an inscription of a letter from Emperor Claudius was discovered. In  it  he states,  “Lucius Junios Gallio,  my  friend, and the proconsul of Achaia . . .”

Historians date the inscription to 52 A.D., which corresponds to the time of the apostle’s stay in 51.

Acts 19:22 and
Romans 16:23
In Acts 19:22 and Romans 16:23, Erastus, a coworker of Paul, is named the Corinthian city treasurer.
Archaeologists excavating a Corinthian theatre in 1928 discovered an inscription. It reads,“Erastus in return for his aedilship laid the pavement at his own expense.”

The pavement was laid in 50 A.D. The designation of treasurer describes the work of a Corinthian aedile.

Acts 28:7

In Acts 28:7, Luke gives Plubius, the chief man on the island of Malta, the title, “first man of the island.”

Scholars questioned this strange title and deemed it unhistorical. Inscriptions have recently been discovered on the island that indeed givesPlubius the title of “first man.”

In all, Luke names thirty-two countries, fifty-four cities, and nine islands without error.

Featured artist is Edward Ruscha

Ed Ruscha: Buildings and Words

Published on Jul 28, 2016

Ed Ruscha: Buildings and Words is a short-length documentary, commissioned by MOCA, about Ruscha’s extraordinary body of work.​ The film is written and directed by Felipe Lima and narrated by Owen Wilson.

Director and Writer: Felipe Lima
Produced by: Ways & Means
Executive Producers: Lana Kim, Jett Steiger
Producer: Rachel Nederveld
Narrated by: Owen Wilson

Interviews:
Ed Begley, Jr.
Larry Bell
Billy Al Bengston
Irving Blum
Larry Gagosian
Jim Ganzer
Joe Goode
Kim Gordon
Ed Moses

Ed Ruscha

B. 1937, OMAHA, NEBRASKA  • LIVES AND WORKS IN LOS ANGELES

Edward Ruscha

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
“Ruscha” redirects here. For the Christian rock band, see Ruscha (band).
Edward Ruscha
Born Edward Joseph Ruscha IV
December 16, 1937 (age 79)
Omaha, Nebraska, United States
Nationality American
Education Chouinard Art Institute
Known for Painting, photography, printmaking, film, book art
Notable work Large Trademark with Eight Spotlights (1961)
Every Building on the Sunset Strip (1966)
Standard Station (1966)
Movement Pop art
Spouse(s) Danna Ruscha (née Knego)
Awards Guggenheim Fellowship (1971)

Edward Joseph Ruscha IV (roo-SHAY; born December 16, 1937) is an American artist associated with the pop art movement. He has worked in the media of painting, printmaking, drawing, photography, and film. Ruscha lives and works in Culver City, California.[1]

Early life and education[edit]

Ruscha was born into a Roman Catholic family in Omaha, Nebraska, with an older sister, Shelby, and a younger brother, Paul. Edward Ruscha, Sr. was an auditor for Hartford Insurance Company. Ruscha’s mother was supportive of her son’s early signs of artistic skill and interests. Young Ruscha was attracted to cartooning and would sustain this interest throughout his adolescent years. Though born in Nebraska, Ruscha lived some 15 years in Oklahoma City before moving to Los Angeles in 1956 where he studied at the Chouinard Art Institute (now known as the California Institute of the Arts) under Robert Irwin and Emerson Woelffer from 1956 through 1960. While at Chouinard, Ruscha edited and produced the journal “Orb” (1959–60) together with Joe Goode, Emerson Woelffer, Stephan von Huene, Jerry McMillan, and others.[2] Ruscha spent much of the summer of 1961 traveling through Europe. After graduation, Ruscha took a job as a layout artist for the Carson-Roberts Advertising Agency in Los Angeles.

By the early 1960s he was well known for his paintings, collages, and photographs, and for his association with the Ferus Gallery group, which also included artists Robert Irwin, John Altoon, John McCracken, Larry Bell, Ken Price, and Edward Kienholz. He worked as layout designer for Artforum magazine under the pseudonym “Eddie Russia” from 1965 to 1969 and taught at UCLA as a visiting professor for printing and drawing in 1969. He is also a lifelong friend of guitarist Mason Williams.

Work[edit]

Ruscha achieved recognition for paintings incorporating words and phrases and for his many photographic books, all influenced by the deadpan irreverence of the Pop Art movement. His textual, flat paintings have been linked with both the Pop Art movement and the beat generation.[3]

Early influences[edit]

While in school in 1957, Ruscha chanced upon then unknown Jasper JohnsTarget with Four Faces in the magazine Print and was greatly moved. Ruscha has credited these artists’ work as sources of inspiration for his change of interest from graphic arts to painting. He was also impacted by John McLaughlin‘s paintings, the work of H.C. Westermann, Arthur Dove’s 1925 painting Goin’ Fishin’, Alvin Lustig‘s cover illustrations for New Directions Press, and much of Marcel Duchamp’s work. In a 1961 tour of Europe, Ruscha came upon more works by Johns and Robert Rauschenberg, R. A. Bertelli’s Head of Mussolini, and Ophelia by Sir John Everett Millais. Some critics are quick to see the influence of Edward Hopper‘s Gas (1940) in Ruscha’s 1963 oil painting, Standard Station, Amarillo, Texas.[4] In any case, “Art has to be something that makes you scratch your head,” Ruscha said.

Southern California[edit]

Twentysix Gasoline Stations, 1963 by Ed Ruscha

Although Ruscha denies this in interviews, the vernacular of Los Angeles and Southern California landscapes contributes to the themes and styles central to much of Ruscha’s paintings, drawings, and books. Examples of this include the publication Every Building on the Sunset Strip (1966), a book of continuous photographs of a two and one half mile stretch of the 24 mile boulevard.[5] In 1973, following the model of Every Building on the Sunset Strip, he photographed the entire length of Hollywood Boulevard with a motorized camera.[6] Also, paintings like Standard Station (1966), Large Trademark (1962), and Hollywood (1982) exemplify Ruscha’s kinship with the Southern California visual language. Two of these paintings, Standard and Large Trademark were emulated out of car parts in 2008 by Brazilian photographer Vik Muniz as a commentary on Los Angeles and its car culture.

His work is also strongly influenced by the Hollywood film industry: the mountain in his Mountain Series is a play on the Paramount Pictures logo; Large Trademark with Eight Spotlights (1962) depicts the 20th Century Fox logo, while the dimensions of this work are reminiscent of a movie screen; in his painting The End (1991) these two words, which comprised the final shot in all black-and-white films, are surrounded by scratches and streaks reminiscent of damaged celluloid. Also, the proportions of the Hollywood print seems to mimic the Cinemascope screen (however, to make the word “Hollywood”, Ruscha transposed the letters of the sign from their actual location on the slope of the Santa Monica Mountains to the crest of the ridge).

Ruscha completed Large Trademark with Eight Spotlights in 1961, one year after graduating from college. Among his first paintings (SU (1958–1960), Sweetwater (1959)) this is the most widely known, and exemplifies Ruscha’s interests in popular culture, word depictions, and commercial graphics that would continue to inform his work throughout his career. Large Trademark was quickly followed by Standard Station (1963) and Wonder Bread (1962). In Norm’s, La Cienega, on Fire (1964), Burning Gas Station (1965–66), and Los Angeles County Museum of Art on Fire (1965–68), Ruscha brought flames into play.[7] In 1966, Ruscha reproduced Standard Station in a silkscreen print using a split-fountain printing technique, introducing a gradation of tone in the background of the print, with variations following in 1969 (Mocha Standard, Cheese Mold Standard with Olive, and Double Standard).[8]

In 1985, Ruscha begins a series of “City Lights” paintings, where grids of bright spots on dark grounds suggest aerial views of the city at night.[9] More recently, his “Metro Plots” series chart the various routes that transverse the city of Los Angeles by rendering schematized street maps and blow-ups of its neighborhood sections, such as in Alvarado to Doheny (1998).[10] The paintings are grey and vary in their degrees of light and dark, therefore appearing as they were done by pencil in the stippling technique.[11] A 2003 portfolio of prints called Los Francisco San Angeles shows street intersections from San Francisco and LA juxtaposed one over the other.[12]

Word paintings[edit]

As with Andy Warhol and Roy Lichtenstein, his East Coast counterparts, Ed Ruscha’s artistic training was rooted in commercial art. His interest in words and typography ultimately provided the primary subject of his paintings, prints and photographs.[13] The very first of Ruscha’s word paintings were created as oil paintings on paper in Paris in 1961.[14] Since 1964, Ruscha has been experimenting regularly with painting and drawing words and phrases, often oddly comic and satirical sayings alluding to popular culture and life in LA. When asked where he got his inspiration for his paintings, Ruscha responded, “Well, they just occur to me; sometimes people say them and I write down and then I paint them. Sometimes I use a dictionary.” From 1966 to 1969, Ruscha painted his “liquid word” paintings: Words such as Adios (1967), Steel (1967–9) and Desire (1969) were written as if with liquid spilled, dribbled or sprayed over a flat monochromatic surface. His gunpowder and graphite drawings (made during a period of self-imposed exile from painting from 1967 to 1970)[15] feature single words depicted in a trompe l’oeil technique, as if the words are formed from ribbons of curling paper. Experimenting with humorous sounds and rhyming word plays, Ruscha made a portfolio of seven mixed-media lithographs with the rhyming words, News, Mews, Pews, Brews, Stews, Dues, News (1970).[16]

In the 1970s, Ruscha, with Barbara Kruger and Jenny Holzer, among others, began using entire phrases in their works, thereby making it a distinctive characteristic of the post-Pop Art generation.[17] During the mid-1970s, he made a series of drawings in pastel using pithy phrases against a field of colour.[18] In the early 1980s he produced a series of paintings of words over sunsets, night skies and wheat fields. In the photo-realist painting Brave Men Run In My Family (1988), part of the artist’s “Dysfuntional Family” series, Ruscha runs the text over the silhouetted image of a great, listing tall ship; the piece was a collaboration with fellow Los Angeles artist Nancy Reese (she did the painting, he the lettering).[19] In a series of insidious small abstract paintings from 1994–95, words forming threats are rendered as blank widths of contrasting color like Morse code.[20] Later, words appeared on a photorealist mountain-range series which Ruscha started producing in 1998.[21] For these acrylic-on-canvas works, Ruscha pulled his mountain images either from photographs, commercial logos, or from his imagination.[22]

From 1980, Ruscha started using an all-caps typeface of his own invention named ”Boy Scout Utility Modern” in which curved letter forms are squared-off (as in the Hollywood Sign)[23] This simple font which is radically different from the style he used in works such as Honk (1962).[24] Beginning in the mid-1980s, in many of his paintings black or white ‘blanks’ or ‘censor strips’ are included, to suggest where the ‘missing’ words would have been placed. The ‘blanks’ would also feature in his series of Silhouette, Cityscapes or ‘censored’ word works, often made in bleach on canvas, rayon or linen.[25]

Surrealism[edit]

Paintings like Angry Because It’s Plaster, Not Milk (1965) and Strange Catch for a Fresh Water Fish (1965) are exemplary works from Ruscha’s group of paintings from the mid-1960s that take the strict idea of literal representation into the realm of the absurd. This body of work is characterized by what the artist termed “bouncing objects, floating things,” such as a radically oversized red bird and glass hovering in front of a simple background in the work and have a strong affinity to Surrealism, a recurring theme in the artist’s career.[26] The fish plays a prominent role throughout the series and appears in nearly half of the paintings.[27] Another frequent element is Ruscha’s continuous depiction of a graphite pencil – broken, splintered, melted, transformed.

Odd media[edit]

Fruit Metrecal Hollywood by Edward Ruscha, 1971, Honolulu Museum of Art

In his drawings, prints, and paintings throughout the 1970s, Ruscha experimented with a range of materials including gunpowder, vinyl, blood, red wine, fruit and vegetable juices, axle grease, chocolate syrup, tomato paste, bolognese sauce, cherry pie, coffee, caviar, daffodils, tulips, raw eggs and grass stains.[28] Stains, an editioned portfolio of 75 stained sheets of paper produced and published by Ruscha in 1969, bears the traces of a variety of materials and fluids. In the portfolio of screenprints News, Mews, Pews, Brews, Stews, Dues (1970), produced at Editions Alecto, London, rhyming words appear in Gothic typeface, printed in edible substances such as pie fillings, bolognese sauce, caviar, and chocolate syrup.[29] Ruscha has also produced his word paintings with food products on moiré and silks, since they were more stain-absorbent; paintings like A Blvd. Called Sunset (1975) were executed in blackberry juice on moiré. However, these most vibrant and varied organic colourings usually dried to a range of muted greys, mustards and browns.[30] His portfolio Insects (1972) consists of six screen prints – three on paper, three on paper-backed wood veneer, each showing a lifelike swarm of a different meticulously detailed species. For the April 1972 cover of ARTnews, he composed an Arcimboldo-like photograph that spelled out the magazine’s title in a salad of squashed foods. Ruscha’s Fruit Metrecal Hollywood (1971) is an example of the artist’s use of unusual materials, this silkscreen of the “Hollywood” sign is rendered in apricot and grape jam and the diet drink Metrecal on paper.[31]

Motifs in light[edit]

Notably different from many of Ruscha’s works of the same period, most obviously in its exclusion of text, his series of Miracle pastel drawings from in the mid-1970s show bright beams of light burst forth from skies with dark clouds. An overall glow is created by the black pastel not being completely opaque, allowing the paper to shine through.[32] In the 1980s, a more subtle motif began to appear, again in a series of drawings, some incorporating dried vegetable pigments: a mysterious patch of light cast by an unseen window that serves as background for phrases such as WONDER SICKNESS (1984) and 99% DEVIL, 1% ANGEL (1983). By the 1990s, Ruscha was creating larger paintings of light projected into empty rooms, some with ironic titles such as An Exhibition of Gasoline Powered Engines (1993).

Commissioned works[edit]

Ruscha’s first major public commissions include a monumental mural at the Museum of Contemporary Art, San Diego (1966) and a seventy-panel, 360-degree work for the Great Hall of Denver Public Library in Colorado (1995). Created as part of a public-art commission, The Back of Hollywood (1976–77) was made from a large sheet of sateen on a billboard and situated opposite the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, designed to be read in the rear-view mirror of a moving car.[33] In 1985 Ruscha was commissioned to design a series of fifty murals, WORDS WITHOUT THOUGHTS NEVER TO HEAVEN GO (a quotation from Hamlet), for the rotunda of Miami–Dade Public Library (now the Miami Art Museum) in Florida, designed by architects Philip Johnson and John Burgee.[34]

In 1998, Ruscha was commissioned to produce a nearly thirty-foot high vertical painting entitled PICTURE WITHOUT WORDS, for the lobby of the Harold M. Williams Auditorium of the Getty Center.[35] He produced another site-specific piece, three 13-by-23-foot panels proclaiming Words In Their Best Order, for the offices of Gannett Company publishers in Tysons Corner, Virginia, in 2002. The artist was later asked by the M. H. de Young Memorial Museum to create two large-scale paintings that flank his A Particular Kind of Heaven (1983), which is in the museum’s collection, to form a spectacular, monumental triptych.[36] For his first public commission in New York in 2014, Ruscha created the hand-painted mural Honey, I Twisted Through More Damn Traffic Today for a temporary installation at the High Line.[37]

In 2008, Ruscha was among four text-based artists that were invited by the Whitechapel Gallery to write scripts to be performed by leading actors; Ruscha’s contribution was Public Notice (2007). To celebrate the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art (SFMOMA)’s 75th anniversary, Ruscha was one of the artists invited to collaborate with the museum on a limited-edition of artist-designed T-shirts.[38] Ruscha is regularly commissioned with works for private persons, among them James Frey (Public Stoning, 2007),[39] Lauren Hutton (Boy Meets Girl , 1987),[40] and Stella McCartney (Stella, 2001).[41] In 1987, collector Frederick Weisman had Ruscha paint the exterior of his private plane, a Lockheed JetStar. The summer 2012 campaign of L.A.-based fashion label Band of Outsiders featured Polaroid shots of Ruscha.[42]

Books[edit]

Between 1962 and 1978, Ruscha produced sixteen small artist’s books:

  • Twentysix Gasoline Stations, 1962
  • Various Small Fires, 1964
  • Some Los Angeles Apartments, 1965
  • Every Building on the Sunset Strip, 1966
  • Thirtyfour Parking Lots, 1967
  • Royal Road Test, 1967 (with Mason Williams and Patrick Blackwell)
  • Business Cards, 1968 (with Billy Al Bengston)
  • Nine Swimming Pools and a Broken Glass, 1968
  • Crackers, 1969 (with Mason Williams)
  • Real Estate Opportunities, 1970
  • Babycakes with Weights, 1970
  • A Few Palm Trees, 1971
  • Records, 1971
  • Dutch Details, 1971
  • Colored People, 1972
  • Hard Light, 1978 (with Lawrence Weiner)

Later book projects include:

  • Country Cityscapes, 2001
  • ME and THE, 2002
  • Ed Ruscha and Photography, 2004 (with Sylvia Wolf)
  • OH / NO, 2008
  • Dirty Baby, 2010 (with Nels Cline and David Breskin)

In 1968, Ruscha created the cover design for the catalogue accompanying a Billy Al Bengston exhibition at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art. For the “Documenta 5” catalogue in 1972, he designed an orange vinyl cover, featuring a “5” made up of scurrying black ants.[43] In 1978, he designed the catalogue “Stella Since 1970” for the Modern Art Museum of Fort Worth. Leave Any Information at the Signal, a volume of Ruscha’s writings, was published by MIT Press in 2002. In 2010, Gagosian Gallery and Steidl published Ruscha’s version of Jack Kerouac‘s novel On the Road in an edition of 350.[44]

Ruscha’s artist books have proved to be deeply influential, beginning with Bruce Nauman’s Burning Small Fires (1968), for which Nauman burned Ruscha’s Various Small Fires and Milk (1964) and photographed the process. More than forty years later, photographer Charles Johnstone relocated Ruscha’s Twentysix Gasoline Stations in Cuba, producing the portfolio Twentysix Havana Gasoline Stations (2008). A recent homage is One Swimming Pool (2013) by Dutch artist Elisabeth Tonnard, who re-photographed one of the photographs from Ruscha’s Nine Swimming Pools and a Broken Glass (1968) and enlarged it to the size of a small swimming pool, consisting of 3164 pages the same size as the pages in Ruscha’s original book. The pages of this ‘pool on a shelf’ can be detached to create the life-size installation.[45]

Photography[edit]

Photography has played a crucial role throughout Ruscha’s career, beginning with images he made during a trip to Europe with his mother and brother in 1961, and most memorably as the imagery for more than a dozen books that present precisely what their titles describe. His photographs are straightforward, even deadpan,[46] in their depiction of subjects that are not generally thought of as having aesthetic qualities. His “Products” pictures, for example, feature boxes of Sunmaid raisins and Oxydol detergent and a can of Sherwin Williams turpentine in relatively formal still lifes.[47] Mostly devoid of human presence, these photographs emphasize the essential form of the structure and its placement within the built environment.[48] Ruscha’s photographic editions are most often based on his conceptual art-books of same or similar name. Ruscha re-worked the negatives of six of the images from his book Every Building on Sunset Strip. The artist then cut and painted directly on the negatives, resulting in photographs that have the appearance of a faded black-and-white film.[49] The Tropical Fish series (1974–75) represents the first instance where the photographic image has been directly used in his graphic work, where Ruscha had Gemini G.E.L.‘s house photographer Malcolm Lubliner make photographs of a range of common domestic objects.[50]

Films and documentaries[edit]

In the 1970s, Ruscha also made a series of largely unknown short movies, such as Premium (1971) and Miracle (1975).[51] With the assistance of a Guggenheim Foundation Fellowship, Ruscha arranged in Premium a scenario which he first projected in his photo-book Crackers from 1969 and subsequently transformed into a film which features Larry Bell, Leon Bing, Rudi Gernreich, and Tommy Smothers. Miracle contains the essence of the artist’s same-named painting, inasmuch as the story is told of a strange day in the life of an auto mechanic, who is magically transformed as he rebuilds the carburetor on a 1965 Ford Mustang.[52] The movie features Jim Ganzer and Michelle Phillips. In 1984, he accepted a small role in the film Choose Me directed by his friend Alan Rudolph, and in 2010, he starred in Doug Aitken‘s film Sleepwalkers.[53]

Ruscha was featured in Michael Blackwood‘s film documentary American Art in the Sixties. He appeared in L.A. Suggested by the Art of Edward Ruscha, a 1981 documentary by Gary Conklin shot at the artist’s studio and desert home.[54] Interviews with Ruscha are included in the documentaries Dennis Hopper: The Decisive Moments (2002), Sketches of Frank Gehry (2005), The Cool School (2008), Iconoclasts (2008), and How to Make a Book with Steidl (2010), among others.[55]

Exhibitions[edit]

Birth of “Pop Art”[edit]

In 1962 Ruscha’s work was included, along with Roy Lichtenstein, Andy Warhol, Robert Dowd, Phillip Hefferton, Joe Goode, Jim Dine, and Wayne Thiebaud, in the historically important and ground-breaking “New Painting of Common Objects,” curated by Walter Hopps at the Pasadena Art Museum. This exhibition is historically considered one of the first “Pop Art” exhibitions in America.

Ruscha had his first solo exhibition in 1963 at the Ferus Gallery in Los Angeles. In 1966, Ruscha was included in “Los Angeles Now” at the Robert Fraser Gallery in London, his first European exhibition. In 1968, he had his first European solo show in Cologne, Germany, at Galerie Rudolf Zwirner. Ruscha joined the Leo Castelli Gallery in 1970 and had his first solo exhibition there in 1973.[56]

Retrospectives[edit]

In 1970 Ruscha represented the United States at the Venice Biennale as part of a survey of American printmaking with an on-site workshop. He constructed Chocolate Room, a visual and sensory experience where the visitor saw 360 pieces of paper permeated with chocolate and hung like shingles on the gallery walls. The pavilion in Venice smelled like a chocolate factory.[57] For the Venice Biennale in 1976, Ruscha created an installation entitled Vanishing Cream, consisting of letters written in Vaseline petroleum jelly on a black wall. Ruscha was the United States representative at the 51st Venice Biennale in 2005, showing the site- and occasion-specific a painting cycle Course of Empire.[58]

He has been the subject of numerous museum retrospectives, beginning in 1983 with the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art (traveling to the Whitney Museum of American Art, the Vancouver Art Gallery, the San Antonio Museum of Art, and the Los Angeles County Museum of Art), the Centre Georges Pompidou in 1989, the Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden in 2000, and the Museo Nacional Centro de Arte Reina Sofia in 2001. In 2004, the Museum of Contemporary Art in Sydney mounted a selection of the artist’s photographs, paintings, books and drawings that traveled to the Museo Nazionale delle Arti del XXI Secolo, Rome and to the Scottish National Gallery of Modern Art.

In 1998, the J. Paul Getty Museum in Los Angeles organized a retrospective solely devoted to Ruscha’s works on paper. In 2004, The Whitney Museum of American Art exhibited a second Ruscha drawing retrospective, which traveled to the Museum of Contemporary Art, Los Angeles, and then to the National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C.

In 1999, the Walker Art Center mounted Edward Ruscha: Editions 1959-1999, a major retrospective of the artist’s prints, books, and graphic works, which number well over 300.[59] The show travelled to the LACMA in 2000.[60] Ruscha coauthored the catalogue raisonné with Walker curator Siri Engberg.[61] In July 2012, Reading Ed Ruscha opened at the Kunsthaus Bregenz in Austria.

In 2006, an exhibition of Ruscha’s photographs was organized for the Jeu de Paume in Paris, the Kunsthaus Zürich, and the Museum Ludwig in Cologne.

In October 2009, London’s Hayward Gallery featured the first retrospective to focus exclusively on Ruscha’s canvases. Entitled “Ed Ruscha: Fifty Years of Painting,” the exhibition sheds light on his influences, such as comics, graphic design, and hitchhiking.[62] The exhibition travelled to Haus der Kunst, Munich, and the Moderna Museet, Stockholm. “Ed Ruscha: Road Tested,” opened at the Modern Art Museum of Fort Worth, Texas in January 2011. The Hammer Museum in Los Angeles prepared an exhibition with Ruscha inspired by Jack Kerouac’s On the Road, which opened in mid-2011 (traveled to Denver Art Museum, Colorado in December 2011 and Museum of Contemporary Art, North Miami, Florida in May 2012).

In 2016, there was a large 99 piece exhibit of Ruscha’s paintings and prints in San Francisco’s M. H. de Young Memorial Museum. The exhibit, “Ed Ruscha and the Great American West,”[63] focuses primarily on how the artist drew inspiration from the American West. In 1956, Ruscha drove from his home in Oklahoma to Los Angeles where he hoped to attend art school. While driving in a 1950 Ford sedan, the 18 year old artist drew inspiration from dilapidated gas stations, billboards, and telephone poles cross the great expanse of the land. This inspiration from the American West across Route 66 stuck with Ruscha his whole life. The artists paintings of the West reflect both symbolic and ironic renditions of how we imagine the West.

Curating[edit]

In 2003, Ed Ruscha curated “Emerson Woelffer: A Solo Flight”, a survey of the work of the late Los Angeles-based Abstract Expressionist, for the inaugural exhibition of the Gallery at REDCAT (Roy and Edna Disney/CalArts Theater).[64] In 2012, Ruscha was invited to curate “The Ancients Stole All Our Great Ideas” at the Kunsthistorisches Museum in Vienna, the first exhibition in a series for which internationally renowned artists were invited to work with the national art and natural history collections.[65]

Collections[edit]

In 2000, the Achenbach Foundation for Graphic Arts, a branch of Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco, acquired Ruscha’s complete graphic archive of 325 prints and 800 working proofs. The museum bought the archive and negotiated for impressions of future prints for $10 million,[66] with funds provided by San Francisco philanthropist Phyllis Wattis.[67] Another major collection of Ruscha’s prints was compiled by the Los Angeles County Museum of Art.[68] In 2003, the Museum of Contemporary Art in Los Angeles acquired the Chocolate Room, then worth about $1.5 million.[69] In 2004, the Whitney Museum acquired more than 300 photographs through a purchase and gift from the artist, making it the principal repository of Ruscha’s photographic oevre. The gift, purchased from Larry Gagosian, includes vintage photographs that Ruscha took on a seven-month European tour in 1961.[70] In 2005, Leonard A. Lauder purchased The Old Tool & Die Building (2004) and The Old Trade School Building (2005) for the Whitney, both of which were part of “The Course of Empire: Paintings by Ed Ruscha” at the Venice Biennale.[71] Ruscha is represented by 33 of his works in the permanent collection of the Museum of Contemporary Art, Los Angeles;[72] the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art owns 25 important Ruscha paintings, works on paper, and photographs;[73] and the Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden has 21 Ruschas in its permanent collection.[74] Private collections holding substantial numbers of Ruscha’s work include the Broad Collection housed at the The Broad,[75] and the UBS Art Collection. Ruscha also has a small collection of books and lithographs in the Utah Museum of Fine Arts in Salt Lake City, Utah.[76] These works are currently not under exhibit, however, the museum regularly changes their exhibits by displaying art from archives.

Awards[edit]

Recognition[edit]

Fellow artist Louise Lawler included Ruscha in her piece Birdcalls (1972/2008), an audio artwork that transforms the names of famous male artists into a bird song, parroting names such as Artschwager, Beuys, and Warhol in a mockery of conditions of privilege and recognition given to male artists at that time.[85] The muralist Kent Twitchell painted an 11,000-square-foot mural in Downtown Los Angeles to honor Ruscha entitled the Ed Ruscha Monument between 1978 and 1987. The mural was preserved until 2006 when it was illegally painted over. The band Talking Heads Ruscha’s eponymous 1974 painting for their “Sand in the Vaseline” compilation album. The band Various Cruelties, based around Liam O’Donnell, was named after Ruscha’s painting of the same name of 1974.

Between 2006 and 2012, Ruscha served on the board of trustees of the Museum of Contemporary Art (MoCA) in Los Angeles where he had previously been included in eight special exhibits.[86] In 2012, he was the honoree of the Los Angeles County Museum of Art’s Art + Film gala; in a speech, the museums’s director Michal Govan paid tribute to the artist, quoting the novelist J. G. Ballard: “Ed Ruscha has the coolest gaze in American art.”[87] Ruscha was elected to a three-year term on the board of trustees of the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art in 2013.[88]

In 2009, Ruscha’s I Think I’ll… (1983) from the collection of the National Gallery was installed at the White House.[89] In 2010, during British prime minister David Cameron‘s first visit to Washington, President Barack Obama presented him with a signed two-colour lithograph by Ruscha, Column With Speed Lines (2003), chosen for its red, white and blue colours.[90] Obama gave Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott a similar lithograph during his visit to the White House in 2014.[91]

Art market[edit]

As early as 2002, the oil on canvas word painting Talk About Space (1963), a takeoff on the American billboard in which a single word is the subject, was expected to sell for $1.5 million to $2 million from a private European collection. It was eventually sold for $3.5 million at Christie’s in New York, a record for the artist.[92] In 2008, Eli Broad acquired Ruscha’s “liquid word” painting Desire (1969) for $2.4 million[93] at Sotheby’s, which back then was 40 percent under the $4 million low estimate.[94] A navy blue canvas with the word Smash in yellow, which Ruscha painted in 1963, was purchased by Larry Gagosian for $30.4 million at a 2014 Christie’s auction in New York.[95]

Angry Because It’s Plaster, Not Milk from 1965, which had been shown at Ferus Gallery that year, was later sold by Halsey Minor to Gagosian Gallery[96] for $3.2 million[97] at Phillips de Pury & Company, New York, in 2010. From the same series, Strange Catch for a Fresh Water Fish (1965) made $4.1 million at Christie’s New York in 2011.[98]

Ruscha’s classic prints, published as multiples, command up to $40,000 apiece.[99]

Hamilton Press[edit]

Hamilton Press came into being in 1990, as a result of a collaboration between Ed Ruscha and printer Ed Hamilton. It makes lithographs with artists like George Condo, Greg Colson and Raymond Pettibon.[citation needed]

Personal life[edit]

Ruscha was married to Danna Ruscha (née Knego[100]) from 1967 to 1972. They remarried in 1987. He has two children, Edward “Eddie” Ruscha Jr. and Sonny Bjornson, a daughter. In the late seventies, Ruscha bought land about ten miles from Pioneertown, California; he later built a house there.[101]

According to the Federal Election Commission (FEC), Ruscha donated $12,500 to the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton in September 2016.[102]

Legacy[edit]

In 2011, the J. Paul Getty Museum and the Getty Research Institute acquired over seventy photographs by Ruscha as well as his “Streets of Los Angeles” archive, including thousands of negatives, hundreds of photographic contact sheets, and related documents and ephemera. A portion of the material will go to the Getty as a promised gift from the artist. The “Streets of Los Angeles” archive acquired by the Getty Research Institute begins with the photographic and production material for Ruscha’s landmark 1966 book Every Building on the Sunset Strip, and includes the original camera-ready three-panel maquette used for the publication. This ongoing project subsequently evolved into a vast photographic archive that spans over four decades and documents many major Los Angeles thoroughfares, including Santa Monica Boulevard, Melrose Avenue, and Pacific Coast Highway, shot in 1974 and 1975, and more than 25 other Los Angeles streets that Ruscha photographed since 2007. In total, the archive comprises thousands of negatives, hundreds of photographic contact sheets, and related documents and ephemera.[103]

In 2013, the Harry Ransom Center acquired a Ruscha archive comprising five personal journals filled with preliminary sketches and notes; materials related to the making of his artist’s book On The Road (2010); notes, photographs, correspondence and contact sheets relating to the creation and publication of his many other artist’s books; and materials relating to his short films Miracle (1975) and Premium (1971); his portfolios; and several art commissions. Ruscha himself donated a substantial portion of the archive to the Ransom Center.[104]

External links[edit]

Ed Ruscha – The Tension of Words and Images | TateShots

Published on May 23, 2013

Ed Ruscha began his career as a layout artist at a Los Angeles advertising agency in the late 1950s. He has continued to draw on this background, producing works that demonstrate an ongoing interest in typography, signage and the West Coast of the United States.

His creates paintings in which text is superimposed over landscapes and traditional American vistas, where the bold lettering is in complete opposition to the idyllic, idealised and somewhat kitsch representations of the images. Through this playful and characteristically enigmatic conflation of image and text, Ruscha explores the viewer’s interpretation of language and transforms the words into subjects in themselves.

Subscribe for weekly films: https://goo.gl/lNZDZY

Ed Ruscha

Painter, Photographer, Draughtsman, and Conceptual Artist

Movement: Pop Art

Born: December 16, 1937 – Omaha, Nebraska

“All my artistic response comes from American things, and I guess I’ve always had a weakness for heroic imagery.”

Synopsis

For over 50 years, Ed Ruscha has delivered wryly detached portraits of the ephemera of our lives, found deeply embedded within various subcultures, most notably that of Southern California. Through his lens, familiar imagery such as specific architectural gems, common motifs within consumer culture, or font-specific words elevated as objects are bestowed an iconic status. His fodder is often garnered from the environments in which he lives and works, pulling in a mixed bag of visuals from the film and advertising industries as well as a thriving vortex of trends and memes stemming from an area often noted for being the birthplace of “cool.” Ed Ruscha is the quintessential Los Angeles artist whose work catapulted Pop art from a form that merely highlighted the universal ordinary into a form in which the ordinary could now be viewed in relation to its geographically intrinsic cultural contexts. In his hands Pop becomes personal.

Key Ideas

Rather than simply painting a word, Ruscha considered the particular font that might add an elevated emotion to the meaning much like the way a poet considers a phrase. By painting a word as a visual, he felt he was marking it as official, glorifying it as an object rather than a mere piece of text.
Ruscha’s skewing of everyday objects with a twist spurs the viewer to look at something ordinary in a new light. This can be seen in his trompe l’oeil word paintings in which oil paint resembles common viscous fluids or, with a touch of humor, in his paintings of LACMA and Norm’s – two Los Angeles institutions, both of which he depicts licked with flames.
The ever-present influence of Hollywood and media machines can be seen in the way Ruscha paints his solitary subjects upon the overall space of the canvas plane. Bold, large words or images floating on vast singular backgrounds mimic the opening screens of movies or fleeting glimpses of roadside billboards that must catch an audience’s attention in one compelling instant.
Ruscha’s homage to the ordinary monuments of our lives, seen all around us but typically relegated to background noise, extends beyond the canvas. As seen with his book Twenty Six Gasoline Stations and others, he offers a deadpan look at the common and humble elements that float on our periphery, presented as a form of simple documentation rather than pristine art subject. This furthers the idea of Pop art as a vehicle for pulling out the mundane from its obscurity within our collective consciousness.

Most Important Art

Boss (1961)
Ruscha claims that Boss was his first mature painting. It was the first of a long series of word paintings where Ruscha created single-canvas works each featuring a word with strong connotations and a powerful visual impact. Later versions included Honk, Smash, Noise, and Oof. Ruscha later stated that the word “boss” “was a powerful word to me, and it meant various things – an employer, and a term for something cool. Also, a brand of work clothes.” Ruscha uses this multiplicity of meaning to encourage the viewer to consider all the subconscious connotations of the word. This could be expanded to an exploration of the subconscious meanings hidden in all forms of language. Art historian Margit Rowell argues that looking at Boss is similar to looking at a billboard from a car window, which is not dissimilar from watching the opening screens of a movie.

Ruscha used thick layers of oil paint to create Boss. His use of impasto and dark-brown and black paint gives the word a heavy visual weight as an image-object as well as a linguistic signifier. It also has what Ruscha has called “a certain comedic value,” since there is an element of the surreal or the absurd about placing so much emphasis on a commonplace, mundane word. The painting doesn’t take itself too seriously, and is playful as well as thought provoking. Ruscha later said of his work, “I’m dead serious about being nonsensical.”

Read More …

Biography

Childhood

Ed Ruscha was born in Omaha, Nebraska to a Roman Catholic family that included his father Edward, mother Dorothy and siblings Paul and Shelby. His father worked as an auditor for an insurance company and his job took the family to Oklahoma City, where they lived for 15 years. Although Edward was very religious and strict, Dorothy was a lover of music, literature, and art, and introduced her children to these features of high culture.

Ruscha’s artistic talents developed at a young age. He particularly enjoyed drawing cartoons, an interest he maintained for many years. Although his mother supported his decision to apply to art school, Ed’s father was unhappy about the idea. Though, when his son gained a place at Chouinard Art Institute in California, he changed his mind because he had read that Walt Disney often offered well-paid jobs to its graduates.

Early Training

Ed Ruscha Biography

When Ruscha moved to Los Angeles in 1956 to attend Chouinard, (now known as the prestigious California Institute of Arts), he was instantly attracted to the Los Angeles lifestyle. He later recalled, “They had a hot-rod culture here, they had palm trees, they had blonde beach bunnies in the sand. There was progressive jazz happening at the same time. All of that added up to a possibly attractive future.” He dove into the lifestyle and got involved in editing and producing “Orb”, an art and design journal.

While he was studying in LA, his father died. His mother Dorothy decided that she needed to expand her horizons so after Ruscha graduated, he went on a trip to Europe in the summer of 1961 with his mother and brother. They traveled for four months, buying a small car in Paris and using it to visit countries all over Europe. Ruscha visited museums, but found he wasn’t gripped by the art of previous centuries. Instead, when he returned to Paris at the end of the trip, he spent time walking through the streets and painting local signage, such as those above the Metro stations.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Ed Ruscha Biography Continues

Legacy

Ed Ruscha is now seen as a Made in L.A. artist, with his borrowing from popular culture and his evocation of the landscapes of the city and its surroundings. Working as part of the Pop art movement, his work was to influence a younger generation of artists, particularly Neo-Pop artists such as Jeff Koons. Furthermore, Ruscha’s creation of canvases featuring single words were to influence other artists such as Martin Creed, whose text-based projects have a similar impact. His work also has a lot in common with conceptual text-based practices developed in the 1960s by artists such as Lawrence Wiener and Joseph Kosuth.

Ruscha’s artist books, such as his Twentysix Gasoline Stations (1962), have also been highly influential. Artists have responded to his books on an international scale over the last 60 years, including Bruce Nauman, whose Burning Small Fires (1968) consisted of a series of photographs of the artist burning a copy of Ed Ruscha’s artist book Various Small Fires and Milk (1964).

Influences and Connections

ARTISTS

Jasper Johns
Robert Rauschenberg
Marcel Duchamp

FRIENDS

MOVEMENTS

Surrealism
Dada
Ed Ruscha

Ed Ruscha
Years Worked: 1950s-2000s

ARTISTS

Lawrence Weiner
Joseph Kosuth
Jeff Koons

FRIENDS

MOVEMENTS

Pop Art
Conceptual Art

________

ED RUSCHA’S L.A.

An artist in the right place.

If you need cheering up, go to the Museum of Modern Art and look at a painting called “Oof,” by Edward Ruscha. The title and the subject are identical, just those three block letters, each one bigger than your head, in cadmium yellow on a background of cobalt blue. The six-foot-square canvas currently hangs in Gallery 19, on the fourth floor, along with Roy Lichtenstein’s “Girl with Ball,” Andy Warhol’s “Gold Marilyn Monroe” and “Orange Car Crash Fourteen Times,” and other Pop Art trailblazers of the early nineteen-sixties. “Oof” outdoes them all in its immediate, antic impact. This is not the kind of picture that reveals hidden depths on subsequent viewings. Everything is right there, every time, and it never fails to make me feel good.

Ruscha (pronounced Ru-shay) was twenty-six when he painted it, in 1963, three years out of art school, living in Los Angeles, and already hitting his stride. He had vetoed the spontaneous, loose-elbow, Abstract Expressionist style that still prevailed at the Chouinard Art Institute, where he studied in the late nineteen-fifties, shortly before it became the California Institute of the Arts (CalArts). “They would say, Face the canvas and let it happen, follow your own gestures, let the painting create itself,” he later recalled in an interview, but that didn’t pan out for him. Ruscha had seen, reproduced in the magazine Print, a Jasper Johns collage painting called “Target with Four Faces,” and it had opened up a new range of possibilities. He decided that whatever he was going to do in art would have to be “completely premeditated.”

He made a few Johns-influenced paintings. One showed a can of Spam rocketing through space; in another, a real box of Sun-Maid raisins was flattened on a canvas, above the partly painted-over place name “Vicksburg.” Very soon, he zeroed in on the Johnsian notion of painting words. “It was so simple, and something I could commit to,” he said last winter, when I visited him in Los Angeles. Ruscha, at seventy-five, is lean and fit, and his natural reserve is offset by an easygoing friendliness. We were sitting in the library and office space of his immense, warehouse-like studio in Culver City, which he moved into two years ago. Los Angeles was having a cold snap, the heat wasn’t working, and Ruscha had lent me a heavy-duty parka to wear. “I would settle on a word like ‘boss,’ “ he said. “That was a powerful word to me, and it meant various things—an employer, and a term for something cool. Also, a brand of work clothes.” “Boss” appeared in 1961, black letters on a dark-brown background, and was followed, during the next three years, by “Honk,” “Smash,” “Noise,” “Oof,” “Won’t,” and other word paintings. He chose commonplace, one-syllable words that had what he described as “a certain comedic value.” “Oof” was different—onomatopoeic, for one thing, and funnier. “It had one foot in the world of cartooning,” he explained, speaking slowly and lingering over a word now and then, as though to savor its quiddity. “You get punched in the stomach, and that’s ‘Oof.’ It was so obvious, and so much a part of my growing up in the U.S.A. I felt like it was almost a patriotic word.” Ruscha, who was born in Omaha in 1937, and spent his childhood in Oklahoma City, may be the only living American who can discern patriotism in a grunt. Our conversation was interrupted at this point by Woody, a large, thirteen-year-old mixed-breed and somewhat arthritic dog, who was making plaintive noises; Ruscha got up and helped him out the back door.

“Oof” had an adventurous early life. Ruscha lent it to his childhood friend Mason Williams, and a few years later, when Williams was working as the head comedy writer for the Smothers Brothers, he let Tommy Smothers borrow it. The picture fell off a wall in Smothers’s house and landed face down on a chessboard, whose sharp-tipped metal pieces punctured the canvas in several places. Ruscha took it back, got it repaired, did some repainting, and kept it until 1988, when a group of very wealthy donors bought it for the Museum of Modern Art.

Language has often invaded the visual arts during the past century, but no other artist uses it the way Ruscha does. His early paintings are not pictures of words but words treated as visual constructs. “I like the idea of a word becoming a picture, almost leaving its body, then coming back and becoming a word again,” he once said. “I see myself working with two things that don’t even ask to understand each other.”

Los Angeles was largely oblivious of the visual arts in the early nineteen-sixties. Unlike San Francisco, which considered itself the cultural capital of the West, L.A. had no significant art museum, few galleries, and only a handful of people who would even think of buying contemporary art. It did have a crop of obstreperous young artists, though, and in 1962 Walter Hopps, a former U.C.L.A. student who had just been named curator of the quaint, unassuming Pasadena Art Museum, put several of them in a group exhibition there called “New Painting of Common Objects.” It was the first American museum show of what would soon be known as Pop Art, and it included, along with works by Roy Lichtenstein, Andy Warhol, and Jim Dine, three recent paintings by Ed Ruscha.

A year later, Ruscha had his first one-man show at the Ferus Gallery, which Hopps and the artist Edward Keinholz had started in 1957, in the back room of an antique shop on North La Cienega Boulevard. In addition to his single-word images, the 1963 Ferus show included the more ambitious “Large Trademark with Eight Spotlights,” an eleven-foot-wide view of the Twentieth Century Fox logo as a three-dimensional monolith, and “Noise, Pencil, Broken Pencil, Cheap Western,” in which the word and the three objects, meticulously reproduced in their actual sizes, seemed to be trying to escape from the picture. The paintings were priced between a hundred and fifty and four hundred dollars, and six of them were sold—a remarkable début. That same year, Ruscha finished “Standard Station, Amarillo, Texas,” the first of his many paintings, drawings, and prints of gas stations, whose dramatic, raked perspective came from an effect he had observed in old black-and-white films. “You know those movies where a train starts out in the lower-right corner and gradually fills the screen?” he asked. “The gas station is on a diagonal like that, from lower right to upper left. It also had something to do with teachings I picked up in art school, about dividing the picture plane. I didn’t really know what I was up to then, or what direction to take. I was just following these little urges. It was pure joy, to be able to do something like that.”

Cartoon
“I liked it better before summoning the omnipotent demon Lord of Darkness became an app.”

In 1965, the opening of the Los Angeles County Museum of Art in its Wilshire Boulevard location signalled a new era in the city’s cultural development. Ruscha observed the event with another eleven-foot-wide painting that showed the museum complex in all its boxy, corporate-modern banality, but with smoke and flames shooting out of the Ahmanson Building, and not a single human being in sight. “Los Angeles County Museum of Art on Fire” and several other Ruscha paintings of burning buildings are sometimes cited as evidence of a “dark side” in his art, but they don’t seem dark to me. My guess is that he really liked painting orange flames. The lacma picture does give rise to thoughts about the city’s expanding cultural pretensions, though, and I asked Ruscha whether this had been part of his intention. Not really, he said. “I went on a helicopter ride over L.A., and took some Polaroid pictures of the museum from the air, and it just sort of went on from there.” But the fire? “Well, there’s always a little room for questioning authorities.” Joseph Hirshhorn, the uranium millionaire, bought the painting in 1968, and eventually gave it to the Hirshhorn Museum, in Washington, D.C. This is a source of undying regret to Michael Govan, the current director of the Los Angeles County Museum, who considers it a quintessential Los Angeles picture.

The engine of Los Angeles culture is Hollywood, but until quite recently there were few connections between the movie crowd and the Los Angeles art community. Film stars who collect art have been extremely rare, and lacma and the other art institutions that have emerged since 1965 have had amazingly bad luck attracting the financial support of Hollywood moguls. One of the few people with ties to both camps is Ruscha. He has dated starlets, models (Lauren Hutton, Léon Bing), and at least one bona-fide movie star, Samantha Eggar, with whom he lived for several years during the nineteen-eighties. Ruscha made two short, 16-mm. films in the nineteen-seventies, applying traditional Hollywood methods to weird plots. In “Premium,” a man takes a young woman (Bing) to a seedy room, has her strip and lie down on a bed covered with freshly tossed salad, then goes to an expensive hotel room, alone, and eats Premium crackers. “Miracle,” the second film, follows the lead actor’s unexplained transformation, while repairing a carburetor, from a greasy auto mechanic to an immaculate lab technician.

Hollywood films and cinematic perspectives have influenced many of Ruscha’s paintings, but the underlying subject of his work has always been Los Angeles itself. He saw the place for the first time when he was fourteen, on a car trip with his parents, and when he came back in 1956 to go to art school, driving from Oklahoma City with Mason Williams, there were no disappointments. Nearly everything about the city appealed to him—the endless sprawl, the two-story apartment houses with outdoor stairways, the hot rods, the jazz clubs, the billboards, the sunrises and sunsets, the boulevards that led to the ocean.

He roomed in a succession of boarding houses and cheap apartments in the Hollywood area, and took restaurant jobs to stay afloat. His parents were paying his tuition at Chouinard. Ruscha’s father, a strict Catholic and a rigid disciplinarian whose parents came from Germany (where the family name was Rusiska), worked for thirty years as an auditor with the Hartford Insurance Company in Oklahoma City. He had been unhappy about his son’s decision to go to art school, but he changed his mind after reading, in The Saturday Evening Post, that Chouinard was supported largely by Walt Disney, and that many of its students became well-paid animators for the Disney studio. During his second year at Chouinard, Ruscha lived with his former schoolmate Joe Goode and three other Oklahoma-born art students in a ramshackle house in East Hollywood, where the combined rent was sixty dollars a month. Several of them, including Ruscha, had live-in girlfriends. Ever since high school, girls had doted on Ruscha—they found him shy and laconic, but wickedly handsome, and cooler than Cary Grant.

After graduating from Chouinard, in 1960, Ruscha took a full-time job with the Carson/Roberts advertising agency. Although he (and his father) had assumed that he would become a commercial artist, he hated the work and quit after a few months. In 1961, he went to Europe, with his mother and his younger brother, Paul. Their father had died two years earlier, and their older sister, Shelby, had married a Venezuelan engineer and was living in Caracas. Dorothy Ruscha, whose zest for music and books and art had helped to make life in Oklahoma City more bearable for the three children, decided it was time that she, too, saw more of the world. They started in Paris, where Dorothy bought a blue Citroën 2CV, and during the next four months they drove through France, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Greece, Yugoslavia, Austria, Germany, and then Ireland (where her people came from), Scotland, and England. Paul left the tour early, to attend his high-school sweetheart’s graduation. Dorothy flew home from London, and Ruscha, on his own, returned to Paris for a month. Although he made dutiful visits to museums, older art didn’t interest him. He spent most of his time walking the streets and painting small pictures, with oil on paper, of signs (the Art Nouveau entrance to the Metro) and other local insignia.

Stopping off in New York City on his way back, he paid a call on Leo Castelli, whose gallery showed Jasper Johns, Robert Rauschenberg, and Frank Stella. No introduction, no calling beforehand—he just walked in with the Paris paintings under his arm. Castelli, all European charm and suavity, said that Ruscha’s work looked interesting, and told him to stay in touch. Ruscha stayed in touch for twelve years, visiting the gallery on his occasional trips to New York, and in 1973 Castelli became his New York dealer. Ruscha never seriously considered moving East. “That was too big a decision, and too big a jump,” he told me. “It just didn’t feel like it was meant to be.” He wanted to live in Los Angeles, and by the time he returned from Europe he knew that the only thing he could possibly be was an artist. “I could see I was just born for the job, born to watch paint dry,” he said.

Steve Martin and his wife, Anne Stringfield, live near the top of a steep drive in Beverly Hills. Martin is one of the renegade Hollywood stars who love and collect art—early modern and contemporary, although nothing as yet by Ruscha. I had dinner there one night, along with Ruscha and his wife, Danna, a vivacious woman with blond hair and a warm smile. Danna and Ed met in 1965, when Danna was working as an animator for the Hanna-Barbera studio, and they were married in 1967. Their son, Edward Joseph Ruscha, called Eddie, was born a year later. The marriage broke up in 1972, and Ruscha had a number of relationships with other women. His daughter, Sonny Bjornson, who is now in her twenties, works for the Gagosian Gallery in Los Angeles, and is about to be married. Eddie Ruscha, a CalArts graduate who paints and composes music, helps out in his father’s studio every Monday, filling in the backgrounds of some of the large-scale paintings. He and his wife, the artist Francesca Gabbiani, have two children. Ruscha is close to his children and grandchildren, and he has stayed friendly with many of his former girlfriends. He and Danna got together again in the nineteen-eighties, and they remarried in 1988, in Las Vegas, at the same chapel they used the first time.

After dinner, we all drove partway down the hill and stopped at the Ruschas’ house. Its previous owner was the Hollywood agent Swifty Lazar, and nearly every room offered sweeping views of the city. There were paintings by modern and contemporary artists on the walls, but only one, near the kitchen, was by Ruscha. Impressed by the twelve Kandinsky prints in the master bathroom, Martin asked whether we could watch Ed take a shower. A lot of barking came from the other end of the house, where Danna had put Woody and six other dogs she has adopted from rescue shelters. (She has found homes for around two hundred and fifty others.)

“Hollywood” (1968). For twenty years, Ruscha kept a studio in East Hollywood. “If I could see the Hollywood sign, I’d know the weather wasn’t too smoggy,” he said.
“Hollywood” (1968). For twenty years, Ruscha kept a studio in East Hollywood. “If I could see the Hollywood sign, I’d know the weather wasn’t too smoggy,” he said.Ed Ruscha, “Hollywood” (1968)

Oscar Wilde said that George Bernard Shaw had no enemies but his friends didn’t like him. Ruscha seems to have no enemies and his friends like him, but even old friends, like the artist John Baldessari, sometimes feel that they don’t know him very well. “You have to get through that veil,” Baldessari told me. Many observers have pointed out that human beings almost never appear in Ruscha’s work. During dinner, apropos of nothing, Martin had said, “I’ve known Ed for forty years, but I’ve only known him really well for the last fifteen minutes.”

By the mid-nineteen-sixties, Los Angeles had supplanted San Francisco as the West Coast center for contemporary art. Its art schools drew ambitious students from around the country, and many of them, lulled by the climate and by the availability of inexpensive studio spaces, elected to stay there. Although the Los Angeles County Museum of Art paid scant attention to anything done after 1950, a few more contemporary galleries had opened, and a California school of art and artists had emerged, with two main branches: Ferus artists such as Billy Al Bengston, Ed Moses, John Altoon, and Edward Kienholz, who applied Abstract Expressionist paint handling or Rauschenberg-inspired collage to their often scathing interpretations of popular culture; and the so-called “finish fetish” artists, including Larry Bell, Craig Kauffman, and Robert Irwin, whose pristine, obsessively worked forms became California’s version of minimalism. Irving Blum, a boundlessly optimistic young entrepreneur who had moved from New York to Los Angeles with the idea of starting an art gallery there, bought out Ed Kienholz’s share in the Ferus Gallery in 1958, and changed its focus, dropping many of the locals (but taking on Ruscha) and bringing in some of New York’s emerging Pop artists. He gave Andy Warhol his first one-man show anywhere, at the Ferus in 1962. A year later, Walter Hopps filled the rapidly modernizing Pasadena Art Museum with works by Marcel Duchamp—his first retrospective. Ruscha saw the show and met Duchamp, whose readymades—common manufactured objects elevated to the status of art by his act of choosing them—had made a big impression on him when he was in art school.

Leo Castelli used to say, in the late sixties, that Los Angeles was poised to rival and maybe surpass New York as the new art mecca, but that didn’t happen. The handful of West Coast collectors whom Hopps, Blum, Nicholas Wilder, and a few other dealers had worked so hard to develop were happy to look at contemporary art in L.A., but they preferred to buy it in New York. Blum had infuriated the Ferus group by showing New York artists at what they considered “their” gallery; he did this to keep the gallery afloat, and because he loved the work, but he could never sell enough of it. The Ferus closed in 1967. Artforum, the authoritative journal that had moved from San Francisco to Los Angeles in 1965, pulled up stakes and moved to New York. Later, so did Blum. Hopps left to work for the Corcoran Gallery, in Washington, D.C. Norton Simon, the California food-services billionaire, took over the financially shaky Pasadena Museum in 1975, deëmphasized its contemporary holdings, and filled the premises with his collection of Impressionists and Old Masters. In torching the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, Ruscha was a more accurate prophet than Castelli. The fizzling of expectations, though, left many Los Angeles artists with a lingering resentment of New York and New York artists.

Some of the original Ferus people had doubts about Ruscha, who was never really part of their macho, highly contentious fraternity. (Mary Dean, who has been his assistant and studio manager since 1998, told me that she has never seen him lose his temper.) “They thought he was too Pop-oriented,” Blum said. “But then the big paintings started appearing—‘Standard Station,’ and the Twentieth Century Fox one—and they came around.” There were certainly Pop elements in Ruscha’s paintings, along with echoes of Surrealism and Dada, but his work had more in common with the conceptual word games being played by Lawrence Weiner, Joseph Kosuth, and other language-based artists in New York. Ruscha’s style and subject matter, however, and the deadpan humor with which he deployed them, set him apart from anyone else on either coast. Reviewers had trouble dealing with Ruscha because his work fell into none of the useful categories. It still doesn’t, and this makes him something of a hero to younger artists who use video, film, live performance, photography, social interactions, and any other means at hand—including paint—to expand the definition of art. “Ed never seems to be speaking to grownups,” Adam McEwen, the British-born, New York-based conceptualist, told me recently. “He’s so unpretentious, so un-condescending. He actually does deal with great themes, but in an irreverent way.”

In 1966, Ruscha did a painting called “Annie, Poured from Maple Syrup,” which looked as though he had done exactly that, poured maple syrup on canvas to spell the word “Annie.” It led to a three-year series of immensely skillful trompe-l’oeil word pictures, in which he made oil paint resemble any number of viscous fluids. He also did paintings of bowling balls, olives, marbles, amphetamine pills, and other unrelated items that seemed to hover just above the canvas, and drawings in which three-dimensional words appeared to rise up from the surface like paper cutouts. Some of the drawings were done in graphite and others in gunpowder, a medium that he found easier to control than graphite. “I was just making up these things after frustrations with other ways of painting words,” he said. The frustrations, whatever they were, brought on what seems to have been the only crisis in Ruscha’s professional career. “I can’t bring myself to put paint on canvas,” he told the critic David Bourdon in 1972. “I find no message there anymore.” When I asked Ruscha about this statement, he said, “Well, I don’t have any deep recollections of what I was thinking when I said that. It wasn’t any kind of life factor.” Ruscha, as his mother sometimes pointed out, has always been “a master of evasion.”

He didn’t paint at all in 1970, but he continued to make drawings and prints. He also showed his work in New York for the first time, at the Alexandre Iolas Gallery, and he created a “Chocolate Room” at the 1970 Venice Biennale. Most of the other American artists invited to participate that year decided to boycott the Biennale in protest against the Vietnam War. “I was against the war, but I didn’t see any purpose in the boycott,” Ruscha told me. “I was never an activist in that respect.” A month earlier, in London, he had made a set of prints using “organic substances” (syrup, axle grease, raw egg, beet juice) instead of ink—an experiment that he carried over into many of the paintings he did after his brief falling-out with oil paint. In Venice, he silkscreened Nestlé’s chocolate paste on three hundred and sixty sheets of paper, and used them, shingle style, to cover all four walls of a room. To find the U.S. Pavilion, you could follow your nose.

The Getty Museum, in Los Angeles, does not show modern paintings. It shows photographs, though, and the museum currently has on view a sampling of archival prints from the sixteen photography books that Ruscha published between 1963 and 1972, and film strips from his “Streets of Los Angeles” project, which documents fifty years of what the Getty calls a “deep engagement with Los Angeles’s vernacular architecture and the urban landscape.” This is a lofty description of something that began, somewhat whimsically, with a forty-eight-page, paperbound booklet called “Twentysix Gasoline Stations.”

Cartoon

“I had the title of the book in mind before I even took the photographs,” Ruscha told me, on another chilly day in his Culver City studio. He used to drive back to Oklahoma City five or six times a year, to visit his parents, and the gas stations along Route 66 became, he said, “like a musical rhythm to me—cultural belches in the landscape.” He started photographing them in 1962, with a Yashica twin-lens reflex camera that he had used in his photography classes at Chouinard. He would stop the car, stand beside it, and shoot the filling station from across the road, deliberately avoiding any sort of composition or artful lighting. His snapshot non-style has been compared to the work of Robert Frank, the Swiss photographer whose seminal book, “The Americans,” came out in 1959. Although Ruscha has said that Frank’s work “hit me with a sledgehammer,” he added that it had no direct influence on his gas-station pictures. Ruscha didn’t believe in photography as an art form. He was just getting information and bringing it back, he said, to use in a book. “I just knew I had to make a book of some kind.”

A book of some kind. Not a livre dartiste, one of those high-quality collaborations between an artist and a fine-art printer, and certainly not a coffee-table buster. What he had in mind was a small, cheap, mass-produced publication that looked like an instruction manual, but with no text. He photographed many more than twenty-six gas stations during his trips to Oklahoma and back, and edited them down to twenty-six. (One became the model for his painting of the Standard Station in Amarillo.) “I like the word ‘gasoline,’ and I like the specific quality of ‘twenty-six,’ “ he explained. Ruscha had spent six months working for a printing firm while he was at Chouinard; he had learned how to set type and to use the photo-offset process, and he published the book himself, in an edition of four hundred copies, priced at three dollars apiece. A few years after the book came out, he realized that it had the “inexplicable thing” that he tries for in a lot of his work—“a kind of ‘huh?’ “ effect. “People would look at it and say, ‘Are you kidding or what? Why are you doing this?’ That’s what I was after—the head-scratching.” In 1970, he brought out a second edition of three thousand copies. The Library of Congress returned the copy Ruscha had sent, with a note saying that it did not wish to add the book to its collections. “Twentysix Gasoline Stations” has become a collector’s item, and a well-preserved, signed first edition can bring as much as twenty-five thousand dollars.

Next up was “Various Small Fires and Milk”—snapshots of people smoking, a Zippo lighter in action, a trash fire, and other mundane conflagrations—and, at the end, a cooling glass of milk. During the next nine years, fourteen more books appeared, among them “Some Los Angeles Apartments,” “Every Building on the Sunset Strip,” “Nine Swimming Pools and a Broken Glass,” “Real Estate Opportunities” (vacant lots), and “Royal Road Test”—a photographic record of what happened to Ruscha’s Royal Standard typewriter when Mason Williams threw it out the window of a car that was travelling ninety miles an hour, with Ruscha driving. Compared with his paintings, he said, “The books were easy for me. I didn’t have to struggle, and I felt like I was operating on blind faith more than on any kind of decisions. It was as though somebody else was designing them.” Ruscha’s books can be seen as a triumph of the “huh?” factor. “Wow, all the buildings on Sunset fucking Strip,” John Altoon, the Ferus artist, marvelled. The books’ appeal to other artists has been cumulative and worldwide. A recent exhibition that Bob Monk put together at the Gagosian Gallery featured self-published books in response to Ruscha by more than a hundred artists in the United States, Europe, Russia, and Japan, some done as recently as last year. Among the titles were “None of the Buildings on the Sunset Strip,” “Fiftytwo Shopping Trolleys,” “Every coffee I drank in January 2010,” “Eminent Erections,” “Vingt-Six Stations Service,” and “73 Häuser von Sinemoretz.”

As a boy in Oklahoma City, delivering newspapers on his bike every morning, Ruscha had thought about making a detailed model that showed all the houses along his route, something he “could study like an architect standing over a table and plotting a city.” He never did it, but the memory led to his Sunset Strip book. To photograph the approximately two-mile strip of Sunset Boulevard, Ruscha stood in the back of a pickup truck while a friend drove. They did it early in the morning, when there were no pedestrians and almost no traffic. Ruscha shot both sides of the street, and in the book the pages are joined to form an accordion-pleated panorama that unfolds to twenty-seven feet. In 1965, he photographed the entire twenty-two miles of Sunset Boulevard, which runs from downtown L.A., through Hollywood and Bel Air and Beverly Hills, to the Pacific Ocean.

“My intention was not to have a goal in mind, but just to record a street in a very faithful way,” he said. “Sometimes there are no storefronts and it’s just land, and I photograph that, too.” Ruscha was speaking in the present tense because he and his team, which includes Gary Regester, a professional photographer who is based in Colorado, and Paul Ruscha, re-photograph Sunset Boulevard every three years or so. Paul, who has worked for his brother since 1973, photographs and documents every piece of art Ruscha makes. After their father died, in 1959, he told me, “Ed became my dad, and he still is.” In addition to Sunset, they have photographed Sepulveda, which is more than forty miles long, Melrose, Hollywood Boulevard, La Cienega, and a number of other arteries, including the Pacific Coast Highway. Until the current Getty exhibition, Ruscha had never shown any of this material. Two years ago, the entire backlog—hundreds of reels of still photographs, plus a few experiments with film and video—was acquired by the Getty Research Center, which has the facilities to archive and preserve it, including the updates he keeps sending. Nobody seems to know whether the vast project is an art work or a form of urban documentation, but the general feeling is that it is both.

Ruscha and I spent a day driving around Los Angeles. The weather had turned warm again, and before we set off he showed me his garden, behind the studio. It is more like a small orchard. “Blood oranges and grapefruits right here, and some mandarin tangerines, and three avocados over there,” he said. “Lemon, kumquat, pomegranate, figs, cauliflower, lettuce, peppers, and looks like I also have a gopher.” He pointed to a hole, and then to a withered stalk a few feet away. “That was the world’s hottest pepper, called bhut jolokia, but it died.” When one of the plants dies, he scratches its name and dates on a metal disk and adds it to others on a wood plank that he keeps in the studio. Near the garden is an outdoor painting studio, and a parking space for his 2000 black Lexus and a couple of antique cars he’s reconditioned—a 1939 Ford and a 1933 Ford pickup. We got into the Lexus, and turned left onto Jefferson Boulevard.

Cartoon
“After we read every e–mail ever written, I’m gonna start on that new Dan Brown novel.”

Ruscha drives smoothly, both hands on the wheel, window open. We passed several boxlike warehouse buildings that looked like the ones in the “Course of Empire” paintings that he did in 2005. A little farther, he motioned toward a building on the left, and said he used to do freelance work there in the nineteen-sixties, for an outfit called Sunset House. He was becoming known as an artist by then, but he wasn’t earning much money, so for two weeks before Christmas he would hand-letter names on porcelain frogs and other gift items, including a receptacle for dentures called Ma and Pa Chopper Hopper. When we got to Western Avenue, in East Hollywood, he pointed out a low building where he’d had his studio for more than twenty years. “I would look out my window there, and if I could see the Hollywood sign I’d know the weather wasn’t too smoggy,” he said. The sign first appeared in Ruscha’s work in 1968, in an eight-color screen print. He painted it in 1977, from behind, so that the letters are reversed, and silhouetted against one of the lurid sunsets that L.A. used to have, in the years when the smog was especially bad. Ruscha had returned to oil paint by this time, but he soon shifted to acrylics for the long, narrow landscapes-with-words that he was doing then. The format made you think of CinemaScope.

The words on his new paintings were phrases and sentences, which rarely had a discernible connection to the image: “Thermometers Should Last Forever”; “That Was Then This Is Now”; “Honey . . . I Twisted Through More Damn Traffic to Get Here.” Some of the landscapes were more than thirteen feet long—he called them “grand horizontals,” the French term for top-of-the-line courtesans, and the words on several of these do suggest male-female relationships. Although Ruscha doesn’t paint people, they make their presence felt through language. He uses things that he’s overheard people say, or that he’s picked up from popular songs, the radio, or the movies. “Brave Men Run in My Family,” which appears as both image and title in several pictures, was a Bob Hope line in “The Paleface.”

We drove through other neighborhoods where he had lived or once had studios—Echo Park, Laurel Canyon, Silver Lake. “It was a different city then,” he said. “Slower. The most important changes I see are these old neighborhoods that are gradually crumbling. Every time they tear down a bungalow-style house, they replace it with a three-story box for twelve families. They’re like instant slums. Nevertheless, I like everything here. In some ways, the attraction is invisible. You can’t think of one thing to explain it.” In 1966, he had said to an interviewer, “Being in Los Angeles has had little or no effect on my work. I could have done it anywhere,” but he doesn’t say that anymore.

After driving for four hours, with a pause for lunch at Lucy’s El Adobe Café, and a detour to see the house where the Black Dahlia murderer was supposed to have lived, and a longer detour to search for and find a hilltop property once owned by George Herriman, whose “Krazy Kat” comics Ruscha had loved when he was growing up, we went back to Culver City and looked at photographs of the small, concrete-block house that Ruscha has owned for forty years in the California High Desert, near Joshua Tree National Monument. He designed it himself, with blueprints provided by his friend Frank Gehry in 1976. “Danna doesn’t go anymore,” he said. “It’s pretty remote—a three-hour drive, and the only other house out there is a mile away.” The property has an outdoor painting studio, a wind-powered generator, solar panels for heating, and plenty of wildlife, including rattlesnakes. Ruscha tries to go there every week, alone, for two or three days; he paints, takes long walks, watches baseball on TV (the Dodgers or the Red Sox), does maintenance work on the house, and reads. When I was in L.A., he was halfway through “Moby-Dick,” but he also reads a lot of nonfiction, mainly history and science. “I have periods when I feel frustrated living in Los Angeles, when the traffic bothers me and I hate the place,” he said. “But then I feel differently and I want to come back.”

Ruscha had his first retrospective in 1982, at the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art. On the cover of the exhibition catalogue was his 1979 word drawing “I Don’t Want No Retro Spective.” He was forty-five years old, and critics still couldn’t define what he did. In the catalogue, the writer Dave Hickey complained about the difficulty of summing up “a body of critical opinion which no one had been so bold as to venture.” The exhibition travelled to four other museums, including the Whitney and lacma, and the reviews were generally favorable but noncommittal. Writing in the Village Voice, Roberta Smith found the show “an inspiring example of what it means for an artist to be original in a very specific, even limited way, and to be so true to his originality that he is able to try something of everything.” At that time, Ruscha was the only Los Angeles artist represented by Leo Castelli, the most powerful name in contemporary art, but even there his status was unclear. He lived in California, and his work could make you laugh, and for some New York artists and critics that meant you didn’t take it seriously. “I had no illusions about my position in the art world or at the Castelli gallery,” Ruscha told me. “I didn’t feel like one of his leading artists, but that didn’t bother me, because I could actually make a living from the stipend he was giving me.”

Castelli priced Ruscha’s paintings between three and four thousand dollars, a lot less than Jasper Johns was getting, but considerably more than Ruscha had earned before joining the gallery. After the retrospective, his prices went up, and his work gradually found a larger audience. In 1985, he was commissioned to do a series of murals for the Miami-Dade Public Library, in Florida. He needed more space, so he moved from Western Avenue to a bigger studio on Electric Avenue, in Venice, and began working on a larger scale. He did a series of “City Lights” pictures, which looked like nocturnal views of Los Angeles from above, with words overlaid in white paint. In many Ruscha pictures, you are looking down on something—an oblique viewpoint he has favored ever since he saw, on his first trip abroad, John Everett Millais’s painting of the drowned Ophelia at the Tate, in London. Paul Ruscha gave him a reproduction of this picture, and it rests on an easel in the studio—a talisman of Victorian sentiment, and one of the few examples of older art that Ruscha cites, without irony, as an influence. For his next series, of very large, dark “silhouette” paintings in black-and-white, he used an airbrush to depict blurry images that echoed earlier times—a bison, a wagon train, a four-masted galleon. In the late nineteen-eighties, his work caught on with the new Japanese collectors whose avidity for contemporary Western art was driving auction prices to record highs. “That’s me, the twenty-five-year overnight sensation,” Ruscha joked. The worldwide recession in 1990 scared off the Japanese, and put an end to the eighties art boom. Ruscha’s prices slumped, and stayed down for the next dozen years.

Only in the past decade has he come to be looked upon, in New York and everywhere else, as a major artist. Since 1997, when Castelli retired, Ruscha has shown with Larry Gagosian, whose international network of thirteen galleries has apparently become an art empire too big to fail. Gagosian is Rome to Castelli’s Greece, and his most successful artists have proved impervious to the economic recession. Ruscha’s 1965-66 “Burning Gas Station” sold at Christie’s, in 2007, for just under seven million dollars, and the immense and startlingly kitsch “mountain paintings” that he has been doing since 1997 bring considerably more than a million dollars on the primary market. He borrows his snowcapped mountain landscapes from magazine illustrations or photographs, and uses them as “anonymous backdrops for words.” As he explained to me, “I’m not really painting mountains, but an idea of mountains. Maybe I faltered and started thinking it was acceptable to do a postcard-pretty picture.” We can assume that at some level he is also sending up the nineteenth-century tradition of nature as the American Sublime. His mountains are scenarios for word frolics, like “Tulsa Slut,” “Uh Oh,” and “Pay Nothing Until April.”

Cartoon
“O.K., we get it–big and dangerous.”

The ten large paintings in Ruscha’s “Course of Empire” suite, which premièred at the Venice Biennale in 2005 and came to the Whitney Museum a few months later, introduced a new and surprising element in his work, which looks suspiciously like social commentary. They were inspired by Thomas Cole’s allegorical cycle (1833-36) showing the birth, flowering, decline, and destruction of an imaginary city. Ruscha’s cool, minimalist treatment of the theme is quieter but more devastating. He took five of the black-and-white “Blue Collar” paintings of industrial sites that he had done in 1992—factories, a trade school, an isolated outdoor telephone booth—and painted five new ones of the same sites, in color, altered by time, circumstance, and his imagination. The trade school is shuttered, the telephone booth is gone, the “Tool and Die” insignia on a factory has given way to lettering in an indecipherable Asian language. A message is being delivered, and it’s hard not to think that it has to do with American decline. Donna De Salvo, the Whitney’s chief curator, cautioned me against specific readings. “I would never say Ed’s work is ‘about’ something,” she said. “The genius of it is that he takes something incredibly familiar and gives it this level of ambiguity.” Ruscha was gently dismissive when I brought up the subject of national decline. He said, “From the beginning, I’ve felt like America is the place where all this throbbing stuff is happening. I don’t see the American life style or American influence waning at all.” Ambiguity, De Salvo suggests, is his default mode. The (wordless) “Psycho-Spaghetti Western” paintings he showed at Gagosian in 2011 are gorgeous scenarios of waste and destruction—pileups of old mattresses, used lumber, shredded truck tires, and other debris, on desolate landscapes that run uphill on the familiar Ruscha diagonal.

Ruscha’s ascent to the upper echelons of art-world esteem has coincided with recurring assurances that Los Angeles is, once again, on the verge of becoming a major art center. Some people believe this has already happened. A great many internationally known artists now live in Los Angeles, including Charles Ray, Paul McCarthy, Chris Burden, Laura Owens, and Ryan Trecartin, and more and more artists are finding that L.A.’s relatively low rents, proliferating galleries, and unstressed openness to new ideas make it a viable alternative to New York. Three museums engage actively in contemporary art: lacma, the Hammer Museum, and the Museum of Contemporary Art, or moca, which opened in 1983 and mobilized big-time support from artists (who gave important works) and billionaire collectors, such as Eli Broad and the late Marcia Weisman, Norton Simon’s sister. moca eventually built a collection of post-1940 art that comes close to rivalling that of the Museum of Modern Art, and some of its thematic exhibitions have been bolder and more illuminating than anything being done in New York.

Support for contemporary art here is neither wide nor deep, however, as moca’s recent near-death experience makes clear. Having depleted its endowment from nearly forty million dollars in 2000 to five million in 2008, the museum’s board of trustees set off a tsunami of criticism last summer by parting company with their longtime chief curator, Paul Schimmel. All four of the artist-trustees, including Ruscha and Baldessari, quit the board in protest. “A lot of artists felt, man, moca is dead,” Ruscha told me. “The artists were not shaping its future anymore.” Proposals were floated for moca to merge or form a partnership with lacma or the University of Southern California, but the threat of such dire measures quickly receded. Jeffrey Deitch, the former New York gallery owner who became moca’s director in 2010, has doubled attendance with several highly popular shows (“Art in the Streets,” “Naked Hollywood: Weegee in Los Angeles”), and he and the board have solicited commitments for a large chunk of the hundred million dollars needed to rebuild the endowment. Schimmel, meanwhile, has become a partner in the internationally powerful Swiss gallery Hauser & Wirth, which will open a Los Angeles branch—called Hauser, Wirth & Schimmel—in 2015.

Like most successful artists, Ruscha would love to have a career-capping museum exhibition in New York. He has had discussions with the Metropolitan Museum (which did a Baldessari retrospective in 2010), and both the Museum of Modern Art and the Whitney are said to be interested. Never much of a self-promoter, Ruscha is content to wait, and to continue doing whatever interests him. Last year, he was asked to put together an exhibition composed of works in the Kunsthistorisches Museum, in Vienna, whose collection stops at circa 1800. He got permission to bring in some material from the natural-history museum across the street, and when I was in his studio he showed me photographs of his finds—kidney stones (called “bezoars”) from ancient animals, a multipurpose knife made in 1610, a slab of bright-blue argonite—to go with the paintings and the drawings he selected by Brueghel, Bosch, Rubens, Arcimboldo, and other Old Masters.

“Bosch and Brueghel were ahead of their time,” he said. “They were fighting against enormous odds to make statements that might be seen as sinful. Looking at their pictures, I see these brown and red tones that seem to evoke history and madness at the same time, and I want to commend them for taking this plunge into madness. I think every artist wants to make a picture that opens the gates to Heaven.” Ruscha’s title for the Vienna show comes from a line in Mark Twain’s autobiography: “The Ancients Stole All Our Great Ideas.”

______________

RESPONDING TO HARRY KROTO’S BRILLIANT RENOWNED ACADEMICS!! Part 137 Richard Feynman, theoretical physicist, Cal Tech, “I can’t believe the special stories that have been made up… because they seem to be be too simple, too local, too provincial”

___________

On November 21, 2014 I received a letter from Nobel Laureate Harry Kroto and it said:

…Please click on this URL http://vimeo.com/26991975

and you will hear what far smarter people than I have to say on this matter. I agree with them.

Harry Kroto

I have attempted to respond to all of Dr. Kroto’s friends arguments and I have posted my responses one per week for over a year now. Here are some of my earlier posts:

Arif AhmedHaroon Ahmed,  Jim Al-Khalili, Louise Antony, Sir David AttenboroughMark BalaguerMahzarin Banaji Horace Barlow, Michael BateSir Patrick BatesonSimon Blackburn, Colin Blakemore, Ned BlockPascal BoyerSean Carroll, Patricia ChurchlandPaul Churchland, Aaron CiechanoverNoam Chomsky, Brian CoxPartha Dasgupta,  Alan Dershowitz, Jared DiamondFrank DrakeHubert Dreyfus, John DunnAlan Dundes, Christian de Duve, Ken EdwardsBart Ehrman, Mark ElvinRichard Ernst, Stephan Feuchtwang, Sir Raymond FirthRobert FoleyDavid Friend,  Riccardo GiacconiIvar Giaever , Roy GlauberRebecca Goldstein, A.C.GraylingDavid J. Gross,  Brian Greene, Susan Greenfield, Stephen Jay GouldStephen F Gudeman,  Alan Guth, Jonathan Haidt, Chris Hann,  Theodor W. Hänsch, Brian Harrison,  Stephen HawkingHermann Hauser, Peter HiggsRobert HindeRoald Hoffmann,  Bruce HoodGerard ‘t HooftCaroline HumphreyNicholas Humphrey,  Herbert Huppert,  Sir Andrew Fielding HuxleyLisa Jardine, Gareth Stedman Jones, Steve JonesShelly KaganMichio Kaku,  Stuart KauffmanChristof Koch, Masatoshi Koshiba,  Lawrence KraussHarry Kroto, George Lakoff,  Rodolfo Llinas, Seth Lloyd,  Elizabeth Loftus,  Alan Macfarlane,  Rudolph A. Marcus, Colin McGinnDan McKenzie,  Michael MannPeter MillicanMarvin MinskyLeonard Mlodinow,  P.Z.Myers,   Yujin NagasawaAlva NoeDouglas Osheroff, David Parkin,  Jonathan Parry, Roger Penrose,  Saul Perlmutter, Max PerutzHerman Philipse,  Carolyn PorcoRobert M. PriceVS RamachandranLisa RandallLord Martin ReesColin RenfrewAlison Richard,  C.J. van Rijsbergen,  Oliver Sacks, John SearleMarcus du SautoySimon SchafferJ. L. Schellenberg,   Lee Silver Peter Singer,  Walter Sinnott-ArmstrongQuentin SkinnerRonald de Sousa, Victor StengerJohn SulstonBarry Supple,   Leonard Susskind, Raymond TallisMax Tegmark, Michael Tooley,  Neil deGrasse Tyson,  Martinus J. G. Veltman, Craig Venter.Alexander Vilenkin, Sir John Walker, James D. WatsonFrank WilczekSteven Weinberg, and  Lewis Wolpert,

Richard Feynman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
“Feynman” redirects here. For other uses, see Feynman (disambiguation).
Richard Feynman
Richard Feynman Nobel.jpg
Born Richard Phillips Feynman
May 11, 1918
Queens, New York, U.S.
Died February 15, 1988 (aged 69)
Los Angeles, California, U.S.
Resting place Mountain View Cemetery and Mausoleum, Altadena, California, U.S.
Nationality American
Fields Theoretical physics
Institutions Cornell University
California Institute of Technology
Alma mater Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Princeton University
Thesis The Principle of Least Action in Quantum Mechanics (1942)
Doctoral advisor John Archibald Wheeler
Doctoral students
Other notable students
Known for
Notable awards
Spouse Arline Greenbaum (m. 1941; d. 1945)
Mary Louise Bell (m. 1952–56)
Gweneth Howarth (m. 1960)
Children Carl Feynman
Michelle Feynman
Signature

Richard Phillips Feynman (/ˈfnmən/; May 11, 1918 – February 15, 1988) was an American theoretical physicist known for his work in the path integral formulation of quantum mechanics, the theory of quantum electrodynamics, and the physics of the superfluidity of supercooled liquid helium, as well as in particle physics for which he proposed the parton model. For his contributions to the development of quantum electrodynamics, Feynman, jointly with Julian Schwinger and Sin’ichirō Tomonaga, received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1965.

Feynman developed a widely used pictorial representation scheme for the mathematical expressions governing the behavior of subatomic particles, which later became known as Feynman diagrams. During his lifetime, Feynman became one of the best-known scientists in the world. In a 1999 poll of 130 leading physicists worldwide by the British journal Physics World he was ranked as one of the ten greatest physicists of all time.[1]

He assisted in the development of the atomic bomb during World War II and became known to a wide public in the 1980s as a member of the Rogers Commission, the panel that investigated the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster. In addition to his work in theoretical physics, Feynman has been credited with pioneering the field of quantum computing, and introducing the concept of nanotechnology. He held the Richard C. Tolmanprofessorship in theoretical physics at the California Institute of Technology.

Feynman was a keen popularizer of physics through both books and lectures, including a 1959 talk on top-down nanotechnology called There’s Plenty of Room at the Bottom, and the three-volume publication of his undergraduate lectures, The Feynman Lectures on Physics. Feynman also became known through his semi-autobiographical books Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman! and What Do You Care What Other People Think? and books written about him, such as Tuva or Bust! and Genius: The Life and Science of Richard Feynman by James Gleick.

Early life[edit]

Richard Phillips Feynman was born on May 11, 1918, in Queens, New York City,[2] to Lucille née Phillips, a homemaker, and Melville Arthur Feynman, a sales manager,[3] originally from Minsk in Belarus,[4] in those days part of the Russian Empire; both were Ashkenazi Jews.[5] They were not religious, and by his youth, Feynman described himself as an “avowed atheist“.[6] He also stated “To select, for approbation the peculiar elements that come from some supposedly Jewish heredity is to open the door to all kinds of nonsense on racial theory”, and adding, “at thirteen I was not only converted to other religious views, but I also stopped believing that the Jewish people are in any way ‘the chosen people‘.”[7] Later in his life, during a visit to the Jewish Theological Seminary, he encountered the Talmud for the first time and remarked that it contained a medieval kind of reasoning and was a wonderful book.[8]

Like Albert Einstein and Edward Teller, Feynman was a late talker, and by his third birthday had yet to utter a single word. He retained a Brooklyn accent as an adult.[9][10] That accent was thick enough to be perceived as an affectation or exaggeration[11][12] – so much so that his good friends Wolfgang Pauli and Hans Bethe once commented that Feynman spoke like a “bum”.[11] The young Feynman was heavily influenced by his father, who encouraged him to ask questions to challenge orthodox thinking, and who was always ready to teach Feynman something new. From his mother, he gained the sense of humor that he had throughout his life. As a child, he had a talent for engineering, maintained an experimental laboratory in his home, and delighted in repairing radios. When he was in grade school, he created a home burglar alarm system while his parents were out for the day running errands.[13]

When Richard was five years old, his mother gave birth to a younger brother, Henry Philips, who died at four weeks of age on February 25, 1924.[14] Four years later, Richard’s sister Joan was born, and the family moved to Far Rockaway, Queens.[3] Though separated by nine years, Joan and Richard were close, as they both shared a natural curiosity about the world. Their mother thought that women did not have the cranial capacity to comprehend such things. Despite their mother’s disapproval of Joan’s desire to study astronomy, Richard encouraged his sister to explore the universe. Joan eventually became an astrophysicist specializing in interactions between the Earth and the solar wind.[15]

Manhattan Project[edit]

Feynman’s Los Alamos ID badge

In 1941, with World War II raging in Europe but the United States not yet at war, Feynman spent the summer working on ballistics problems at the Frankford Arsenal in Pennsylvania.[43][44] After the attack on Pearl Harbor had brought the United States into the war, Feynman was recruited by Robert R. Wilson, who was working on means to produce enriched uranium for use in an atomic bomb, as part of what would become the Manhattan Project.[45][46] Wilson’s team at Princeton was working on a device called an isotron, which would electromagnetically separate uranium-235 from uranium-238. This was done in a quite different manner from that used by the calutron that was under development by a team under Wilson’s former mentor, Ernest O. Lawrence, at the Radiation Laboratory at the University of California. On paper, the isotron was many times as efficient as the calutron, but Feynman and Paul Olum struggled to determine whether or not it was practical. Ultimately, on Lawrence’s recommendation, the isotron project was abandoned.[47]

At this juncture, in early 1943, Robert Oppenheimer was establishing the Los Alamos Laboratory, a secret laboratory on a remote mesa in New Mexico where atomic bombs would be designed and built. An offer was made to the Princeton team to be redeployed there. “Like a bunch of professional soldiers,” Wilson later recalled, “we signed up, en masse, to go to Los Alamos.”[48] Like many other young physicists, Feynman soon fell under the spell of the charismatic Oppenheimer, who telephoned Feynman long distance from Chicago to inform him that he had found a sanatorium in Albuquerque, New Mexico, for Arline. They were among the first to depart for New Mexico, leaving on a train on March 28, 1943. The railroad supplied Arline with a wheelchair, and Feynman paid extra for a private room for her.[49]

At Los Alamos, Feynman was assigned to Hans Bethe’s Theoretical (T) Division,[50] and impressed Bethe enough to be made a group leader.[51] He and Bethe developed the Bethe–Feynman formula for calculating the yield of a fission bomb, which built upon previous work by Robert Serber.[52] As a junior physicist, he was not central to the project. He administered the computation group of human computers in the theoretical division. With Stanley Frankel and Nicholas Metropolis, he assisted in establishing a system for using IBM punched cards for computation.[53] He invented a new method of computing logarithms that he later used on the Connection Machine.[54][55]Other work at Los Alamos included calculating neutron equations for the Los Alamos “Water Boiler”, a small nuclear reactor, to measure how close an assembly of fissile material was to criticality.[56]

On completing this work, Feynman was sent to the Clinton Engineer Works in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, where the Manhattan Project had its uranium enrichment facilities. He aided the engineers there in devising safety procedures for material storage so that criticality accidents could be avoided, especially when enriched uranium came into contact with water, which acted as a neutron moderator. He insisted on giving the rank and file a lecture on nuclear physics so that they would realize the dangers.[57] He explained that while any amount of unenriched uranium could be safely stored, the enriched uranium had to be carefully handled. He developed a series of safety recommendations for the various grades of enrichments.[58] He was told that if the people at Oak Ridge gave him any difficulty with his proposals, he was to inform them that Los Alamos “could not be responsible for their safety otherwise”.[59]

At the 1946 colloquium on the Super at the Los Alamos Laboratory. Feynman is in the second row, fourth from the left, next to Robert Oppenheimer

Returning to Los Alamos, Feynman was put in charge of the group responsible for the theoretical work and calculations on the proposed uranium hydride bomb, which ultimately proved to be infeasible.[51][60] He was sought out by physicist Niels Bohr for one-on-one discussions. He later discovered the reason: most of the other physicists were too much in awe of Bohr to argue with him. Feynman had no such inhibitions, vigorously pointing out anything he considered to be flawed in Bohr’s thinking. He said he felt as much respect for Bohr as anyone else, but once anyone got him talking about physics, he would become so focused he forgot about social niceties. Perhaps because of this, Bohr never warmed to Feynman.[61][62]

Due to the top secret nature of the work, the Los Alamos Laboratory was isolated. Feynman indulged his curiosity by discovering the combination locks on cabinets and desks used to secure papers. He found that people tended to leave their safes unlocked, or leave them on the factory settings, or write the combinations down, or use easily guessable combinations like dates.[63] Feynman played jokes on colleagues. In one case he found the combination to a locked filing cabinet by trying the numbers he thought a physicist would use (it proved to be 27–18–28 after the base of natural logarithms, e = 2.71828…), and found that the three filing cabinets where a colleague kept a set of atomic bomb research notes all had the same combination. He left a series of notes in the cabinets as a prank, which initially spooked his colleague, Frederic de Hoffmann, into thinking a spy or saboteur had gained access to atomic bomb secrets.[64]

Feynman’s salary was $380 a month, about half what he needed to cover his modest living expenses and Arline’s medical bills. The rest came from her $3,300 in savings.[65] On weekends, Feynman drove to Albuquerque to see his ailing wife in a car borrowed from his good friend Klaus Fuchs.[66][67] Asked who at Los Alamos was most likely to be a spy, Fuchs speculated that Feynman, with his safe cracking and frequent trips to Albuquerque, was the most likely candidate.[66] When Fuchs confessed to being a spy for the Soviet Union in 1950, this would be seen in a different light.[68] The FBI would compile a bulky file on Feynman.[69]

Feynman (center) with Robert Oppenheimer (viewer’s right, next to Feynman) at a Los Alamos Laboratory social function during the Manhattan Project

Feynman was working in the computing room when he was informed that Arline was dying. He borrowed Fuchs’ car and drove to Albuquerque where he sat with her for hours until she died on June 16, 1945.[70] He immersed himself in work on the project and was present at the Trinity nuclear test. Feynman claimed to be the only person to see the explosion without the very dark glasses or welder’s lenses provided, reasoning that it was safe to look through a truck windshield, as it would screen out the harmful ultraviolet radiation. On witnessing the blast, Feynman ducked towards the floor of his truck because of the immense brightness of the explosion, where he saw a temporary “purple splotch” afterimage of the event.[71]

Cornell[edit]

Feynman nominally held an appointment at the University of Wisconsin–Madison as an assistant professor of physics, but was on unpaid leave during his involvement in the Manhattan project.[72] In 1945, he received a letter from Dean Mark Ingraham of the College of Letters and Science requesting his return to the university to teach in the coming academic year. His appointment was not extended when he did not commit to returning. In a talk given there several years later, Feynman quipped, “It’s great to be back at the only university that ever had the good sense to fire me.”[73]

As early as 30 October 1943, Bethe had written to the chairman of the physics department of his university, Cornell, to recommend that Feynman be hired. On 28 February 1944, this was endorsed by Robert Bacher,[74] also from Cornell,[75] and one of the most senior scientists at Los Alamos.[76] This led to an offer being made in August 1944, which Feynman accepted. Oppenheimer had also hoped to recruit Feynman to the University of California, but the head of the physics department, Raymond T. Birge was reluctant. Eventually, he made Feynman an offer in May 1945, but Feynman turned it down. Cornell did, however, match its salary offer of $3,900 per annum.[74] Feynman became one of the first of the Los Alamos Laboratory’s group leader to depart, leaving for Ithaca, New York, in October 1945.[77]

Since Feynman was no longer working at the Los Alamos Laboratory, he was no longer exempt from the draft and was called up by the Army in the fall of 1946. He avoided this by faking mental illness, and the Army gave him a 4-F exemption on mental grounds.[78][79] This may not have been an incorrect assessment; his father died suddenly on 8 October 1946, and Feynman suffered from depression.[80] On October 17, 1946, he wrote a letter to Arline, expressing his deep love and heartbreak. This letter was sealed and only opened after his death. “Please excuse my not mailing this,” the letter concluded, “but I don’t know your new address.”[81]

Unable to focus on research problems, Feynman began tackling physics problems, not for utility, but for self-satisfaction.[80] One of these involved analyzing the physics of a twirling, nutating disk as it is moving through the air, inspired by an incident in the cafeteria at Cornell when someone tossed a dinner plate in the air.[82] He read the work of Sir William Rowan Hamilton on quaternions, and attempted unsuccessfully to use them to formulate a relativistic theory of electrons. His work during this period, which used equations of rotation to express various spinning speeds, ultimately proved important to his Nobel Prize–winning work, yet because he felt burned out and had turned his attention to less immediately practical problems, he was surprised by the offers of professorships from other renowned universities, including the Institute for Advanced Study, the University of California, Los Angeles, and the University of California, Berkeley.[80]

Feynman diagram of electron/positron annihilation

Feynman was not the only frustrated theoretical physicist in the early post-war years. Quantum electrodynamics suffered from infinite integrals in perturbation theory. These were clear mathematical flaws in the theory, which Feynman and Wheeler had unsuccessfully attempted to work around.[83] “Theoreticians”, noted Murray Gell-Mann, “were in disgrace.”[84] In June 1947, leading American physicists met at the Shelter Island Conference. For Feynman, it was his “first big conference with big men … I had never gone to one like this one in peacetime.”[85] The problems plaguing quantum electrodynamics were discussed, but the theoreticians were completely overshadowed by the achievements of the experimentalists, who reported the discovery of the Lamb shift, the measurement of the magnetic moment of the electron, and Robert Marshak‘s two-meson hypothesis.[86]

Bethe took the lead from the work of Hans Kramers, and derived a renormalized non-relativistic quantum equation for the Lamb shift. The next step was to create a relativistic version. Feynman thought that he could do this, but when he went back to Bethe with his solution, it did not converge.[87] Feynman carefully worked through the problem again, applying the path integral formulation that he had used in his thesis. Like Bethe, he made the integral finite by applying a cut-off term. The result corresponded to Bethe’s version.[88][89] Feynman presented his work to his peers at the Pocono Conference in 1948. It did not go well. Julian Schwinger gave a long presentation of his work in quantum electrodynamics, and Feynman then offered his version, titled “Alternative Formulation of Quantum Electrodynamics”. The unfamiliar Feynman diagrams, used for the first time, puzzled the audience. Feynman failed to get his point across, and Paul Dirac, Edward Teller and Niels Bohr all raised objections.[90][91]

To Freeman Dyson, one thing at least was clear: Sin’ichirō Tomonaga, Schwinger and Feynman understood what they were talking about even if no one else did, but had not published anything. Moreover, he was convinced that Feynman’s formulation was easier to understand, and ultimately managed to convince Oppenheimer that this was the case.[92] Dyson published a paper in 1949, which added new rules to Feynman’s that told how to implement renormalization.[93] Feynman was prompted to publish his ideas in the Physical Review in a series of papers over three years.[94] His 1948 papers on “A Relativistic Cut-Off for Classical Electrodynamics” attempted to explain what he had been unable to get across at Pocono.[95] His 1949 paper on “The Theory of Positrons” addressed the Schrödinger equation and Dirac Equation, and introduced what is now called the Feynman propagator.[96] Finally, in papers on the “Mathematical Formulation of the Quantum Theory of Electromagnetic Interaction” in 1950 and “An Operator Calculus Having Applications in Quantum Electrodynamics” in 1951, he developed the mathematical basis of his ideas, derived familiar formulae and advanced new ones.[97]

While papers by others initially cited Schwinger, papers citing Feynman and employing Feynman diagrams appeared in 1950, and soon became prevalent.[98] Students learned and used the powerful new tool that Feynman had created. Eventually, computer programs were written to compute Feynman diagrams, providing a tool of unprecedented power. It is possible to write such programs because the Feynman diagrams constitute a formal language with a formal grammar. Marc Kac provided the formal proofs of the summation under history, showing that the parabolic partial differential equation can be reexpressed as a sum under different histories (that is, an expectation operator), what is now known as the Feynman–Kac formula, the use of which extends beyond physics to many applications of stochastic processes.[99] To Schwinger, the Feynman diagram was “pedagogy, not physics”.[100]

By 1949, Feynman was becoming restless at Cornell. He never settled into a particular house or apartment, living in guest houses or student residences, or with married friends “until these arrangements became sexually volatile”.[101] He liked to date undergraduates, hire prostitutes, and sleep with the wives of friends.[102] He was not fond of Ithaca’s cold winter weather, and pined for a warmer climate.[103] Above all, at Cornell he was always in the shadow of Hans Bethe.[101] Feynman did, however, look back favorably on the Telluride House, where he resided for a large period of his Cornell career. In an interview he described the House as “a group of boys that [sic] have been specially selected because of their scholarship, because of their cleverness or whatever it is, to be given free board and lodging and so on, because of their brains”. He enjoyed the house’s convenience and said that “it’s there that I did the fundamental work” for which he won the Nobel Prize.[104][105]

Caltech years[edit]

Personal and political life[edit]

Feynman spent several weeks in Rio de Janeiro in July 1949,[106] and brought back a woman called Clotilde from Copacabana who lived with him in Ithaca for a time. In addition to the cold weather, there was also the Cold War. The Soviet Union detonated its first atomic bomb in 1949, generating anti-communist hysteria.[107] Fuchs was arrested as a Soviet spy in 1950, and the FBI questioned Bethe about Feynman’s loyalty.[108] Physicist David Bohm was arrested on December 4, 1950,[109] and emigrated to Brazil in October 1951.[110] A girlfriend told Feynman that he should consider moving to South America.[107] He had a sabbatical coming for 1951–52,[111] and elected to spend it in Brazil, where he gave courses at the Centro Brasileiro de Pesquisas Físicas. In Brazil, Feynman was particularly impressed with the Samba music, and learned to play a metal percussion instrument, the frigideira.[112] He was an enthusiastic amateur player of bongo drums and often played them in the pit orchestra in musicals.[113] He spent time in Rio with his good friend Bohm, but Bohm could not convince Feynman to take up investigating Bohm’s ideas on physics.[114]

Feynman did not return to Cornell. Bacher, who had been instrumental in bringing Feynman to Cornell, had lured him to the California Institute of Technology (Caltech). Part of the deal was that he could spend his first year on sabbatical in Brazil.[115][101] He had become smitten by Mary Louise Bell, a platinum blonde from Neodesha, Kansas. They had met in a cafeteria in Cornell, where she had studied the history of Mexican art and textiles. She later followed him to Caltech, where he gave a lecture. While he was in Brazil, she had taught classes on the history of furniture and interiors at Michigan State University. He proposed to her by mail from Rio de Janeiro, and they married in Boise, Idaho, on June 28, 1952, shortly after he returned. They frequently quarrelled and she was frightened by his violent temper. Their politics were different; although he registered and voted as a Republican, she was more conservative, and her opinion on the 1954 Oppenheimer security hearing (“Where there’s smoke there’s fire”) offended him. They separated on May 20, 1956. An interlocutory decree of divorce was entered on June 19, 1956, on the grounds of “extreme cruelty”. The divorce became final on May 5, 1958.[116][117]

In the wake of the 1957 Sputnik crisis, the U.S. government’s interest in science rose for a time. Feynman was considered for a seat on the President’s Science Advisory Committee, but was not appointed. At this time the FBI interviewed a woman close to Feynman, possibly Mary Lou, who sent a written statement to J. Edgar Hoover on August 8, 1958:

I do not know—but I believe that Richard Feynman is either a Communist or very strongly pro-Communist—and as such as [sic] a very definite security risk. This man is, in my opinion, an extremely complex and dangerous person, a very dangerous person to have in a position of public trust … In matters of intrigue Richard Feynman is, I believe immensely clever—indeed a genius—and he is, I further believe, completely ruthless, unhampered by morals, ethics, or religion—and will stop at absolutely nothing to achieve his ends.[117]

The government did, however, send Feynman to Geneva for the September 1958 Atoms for Peace Conference. On the beach on Lake Geneva, he met Gweneth Howarth, who was from Ripponden, Yorkshire, and working in Switzerland as an au pair. Feynman’s love life had been turbulent since his divorce; his previous girlfriend had walked off with his Albert Einstein Award medal, and, on the advice of an earlier girlfriend, had feigned pregnancy and blackmailed him into paying for an abortion, then used the money to buy furniture. When Feynman found that Howarth was being paid only $25 a month, he offered her $20 a week to be his live-in maid. That this sort of behavior was illegal was not overlooked; Feynman had a friend, Matthew Sands, act as her sponsor. Howarth pointed out that she already had two boyfriends, but eventually decided to take Feynman up on his offer, and arrived in Altadena, California, in June 1959. She made a point of dating other men but Feynman proposed in the spring of 1960. They were married on September 24, 1960, at the Huntington Hotel in Pasadena. They had a son, Carl, in 1962, and adopted a daughter, Michelle, in 1968.