MG 2.0 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 15, 2023 9:39 pm
Morley wrote: ↑Wed Nov 15, 2023 1:58 pm
You're certainly right, the larger picture is what's important. For example, if one were to look at a painting by Thomas Kinkade, even his most jaded critics might concede that some of the individual stokes or color choices might be acceptable. It's when one steps back from the painting, and considers the impact of the whole composition, that the overwhelming feeling of nausea embraces you. That there are some small parts of the work that might be worthwhile does not redeem the benign toxicity and saccharine artificiality of the whole.
That’s where we differ. As I look at the Monet I see the whole as being ‘good fruit’. The gospel of Jesus Christ is what it’s all about. He who was crucified for our sins, rose the third day, and lives today and guides and directs His church in order to bring souls back into God’s presence.
I do not view that as toxic.
Now you're mixing Monet and Kinkade.
You've repeatedly referred to the perceived mistakes made by the LDS Church, or the anachronisms in The Book of Mormon, as being like blotches that are unappealing when you're up close but look beautiful when you step back and look at the whole picture. Then you use Monet's work as an example.
Monet didn't paint ugly blotches or make what looked like unfortunate mistakes that, when taken taken as a whole, joined to make a larger composition that looked beautiful. His work is compelling whether seen up close or from afar. There are no questionable blotches. For the most part, you don't even have to step back to get the whole picture.
This is generally true for any piece of art that I can recall. Small, ugly parts don't usually combine to create a gigantic, beautiful, splendid whole. Maybe Huckelberry, or somebody else, can correct me on this.
It's irritating and offensive when you repeatedly misrepresent and misuse a discipline (and a painter) that I have some familiarity with to bungle your argument. All I'm asking you to do is to find a more appropriate analogy.