General Conference was this weekend. I typically avoid broadcasts and print media emanating from SLC because I'm happier that way. However, living with mom and dad and having cable TV made conference inescapable.
I avoided Saturday sessions altogether, thanks to sleeping in and a well-timed shopping trip with the matron of honor. Sunday, I dragged out of bed in time to see the last hour of the first session and the last 30 minutes of the second.
I'm having trouble adjusting to the new conference center. I much prefer the ambiance of the Tabernacle. Now there's greenery behind the podium. Nice ferns and such, but it makes the speakers look like they're on location at OSH's garden center.
I also don't care for the graphics that seem to accompany most talks. Just because you have the technology to show us pictures of flowers poking through the snow, a champion jumping horse named Snowman or a shot of Earth ripped off from the Big Blue Marble, doesn't mean you should use it. What's the value added?
I see the logic in putting long block quotes onto the screen that we'd otherwise doze through, but the rest seems like overkill. Plus the renderings of people--especially Jesus--were just BAD.
Did anyone else see the pic used in the last talk Sunday morning--with the Chuck Norris Jesus emerging from the tomb? I couldn't resist commenting on the resemblance aloud, which cracked up my parents. Yeah, I bet there's a six-shooter under that robe. Someone in Correlation is slacking.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
The supernacle isn't for the locals. It's for all the visitors who scrimp for decades to make their once-in-a-lifetime pilgrimage to SLC. If they're lucky, they'll get their picture in the conference edition of the Ensign or Church News.
And if one opts to spend an obscene amount on a building--rather than say, feeding the poor--shouldn't it at least have an attractive steeple? Not some stubby short steeple with a fountain shooting out of it?
Is it just me or is the "art" in the Ensign--particularly the depictions of Jesus--looking campier and campier? I saw a cover a year or so ago that I seriously thought was a copy of the Jehovah's Witnesses "Watchtower" magazine. Perhaps an artist for the JW's joined the church and is now doing the art for the Ensign?
Speaking of Mormon art, it's tragic that the quality is declining. Whatever happened to the focus on art that existed in the early 19th century that included sending Mormon artists to Europe to study under the masters? The current mileau (did I spell that right?) is disheartening and flat.
As for listening to/watching/reading GC--I got out of that one. Dad wanted to listen to it whilst we were painting the house, but the only place to do that was in the basement in front of the t.v. and that made painting impossible!
Whoops! Sorry, that should have said "early 20th century," not 19th. I was thinking 1900s, not 1800s...
JMK
That's what happens when you have a bunch of people who think their taste in art = good taste in art.
I blame that and the groundswell of religious clip art.
Post a Comment