Piccasso was a terrible colorist. Turner couldn’t paint human beings worth a damn. Saul Steinberg’s formal drafting skills were appalling. TS Eliot had a full-time day job. Henry Miller was a wildly uneven writer. Bob Dylan can’t sing or play guitar.
But that didn’t stop them, right?
So I guess the next question is, “Why not?”
I have no idea. Why should it?
Well, it is a good question. Isn’t it?
via Dave
{ 7 comments… read them below or add one }
John 10.26.06 at 4:04 pm
The best argument that I’ve heard in defense of abstract art is that it democratized art, making artistic expression available to all people.
I don’t buy it, but it’s an interesting argument.
Kim 10.26.06 at 4:32 pm
Right on, brother!
Furthermore, Paul was a lousy preacher, Peter was henpecked (why else would he be living with his mother-in-law?), and our Lord himself couldn’t play baseball!
Beth 10.26.06 at 6:00 pm
I bet he could - he just never tried.
blonde 10.26.06 at 11:23 pm
which is reassuring for us mere mortals, n’est-ce pas?
Jonathan Marlowe 10.27.06 at 1:15 am
Proof that Jesus could indeed play baseball can be found here:
http://www.catholicsupply.com/christmas/_borders/34416.jpg
Richard 10.27.06 at 7:19 am
Blasphemous! Jesus played cricket!
Kim 10.27.06 at 8:59 am
Thanks, Jonathan, but actually the “proof” only demonstrates that Jesus could coach baseball. And you know what Shaw said: “He who can does, he who can’t teaches”!
But the picture certainly suggests, against Richard, that Jesus did not play cricket.