Movie critics and Food critics tend to have a bad or even a mean reputation. A new movie comes out or a new restaurant opens and the critics go on the attack much to the dispair of the director or actors or the chefs and owners. But that's okay. That's what they're supposed to do. They are supposed to make some kind of judgement as to how "good" a movie or restaurant is. You see, to watch a movie takes time and it's an investment on the viewer's part. And, of course, enjoying a meal maybe even more so. So the critics play an important role in helping you to decide whether you should spend your time and/or taste buds on something new. The value of a restaurant or movie depends on how "good" it is. I put "good" in quotes because, yeah, it's still kind of a personal thing.
Art critics, however, fall into a different category. In general their job is not to decide how "good" a piece of art is, but rather how "real" it is. Most art gets its value from being "real" - I guess that's why some very expensive art looks like it came from a kindergarten class - but again, the value of art is not how good it is but how real it is. Okay, so I might be wrong about that, but really it seems to work like that.
So why the difference between art critics and other critics, like movie, food, or book critics? Because it only takes a few seconds of your time to view a work of art. So it's you who gets to judge how "good" it is on your own with very little investment on your part. Don't like it? No problem! Just go on to the next piece of art. Modern art tends to favor quick viewing. Some older art has a lot more detail to look at, so you'd want to spend more time. Those older masterpieces were kind of like the movies before movies were invented. "Where's Waldo?" being a modern exception.
However to buy a piece of art can get pretty scary. There is typically a huge investment and you want to make sure that what you are buying is really worth the money. And that piece of art gets its worth from the Artist not so much the Art. Pay attention, please! That's really important, so I'll repeat it. The piece of art gets its value and worth from the Artist.
Now what's all this have to do with evolution? I personally don't believe in the theory of evolution. The Bible clearly states that God created the universe, all that we see, in six days. Also, the evidence that evolutionists try to use to support their theory, actually disproves that theory and supports God's creative work of art.
Okay, so what's all this have to do with the false theory of evolution? A good art critic can not only determine whether a work of art is actually created by a particular artist, but they can tell you when the artist worked on it. Was it the "Blue Period" or the "Block Phase"? Was it early in the artist's career or one of their final pieces? You see, they can notice the evolution that takes place in the art throughout the artist's lifetime. So they notice all the little changes and the differences between each piece of art, some of which can be major.
Pablo Picasso is quoted as saying, "Every child is an artist. The problem is how to remain an artist once we grow up." He was trying hard to not evolve.
But an art critic's most important job is to tell you whether a particular work of art was actually created by a particular artist. They have to find the similarities - not the differences. They have to find the personality and the character in the art. They can see the Artist in the Art! It's amazing!
I dare you now to be an art critic of the most beautiful, the most famous and the most critiqued work of art ever viewed by humankind - The world around you. The most amazing creation. The most valuable work ever to flow from an artist's brush. So many peculiar people, crazy creatures and wonderful wildlife. It's definitely one of the older masterpieces. You can spend years searching out all the little details.
It's actually a collage of many smaller works of art. Each individual person is definitely a unique piece of art. All the different animals and plants are so varied. Pablo Picasso is also quoted "God is really only another artist. He invented the giraffe, the elephant and the cat. He has no real style, He just goes on trying other things." Ha!
The problem is that almost every evolutionist would disagree with Picasso. Not that God is another artist, but that He has no style. You see, they constantly get tripped up on all the similarities among the species. Evolution sounds like it's based on the differences in species, but rather, it's really based on the similarities. If there were no similarities, there never would have been a theory of evolution. Think about it.
So God definitely has a style and every evolutionist can see it. They just don't seem to be able to see the Artist. Apparently evolutionists are not very good art critics.
I dared you to be an art critic. Can you see the Artist?
