A Boom and a Bust

It should come as no surprise to anyone that reads this blog that I am EXTREMELY happy about the creation of a new Star Trek franchise. It should also come as no surprise that I was very skeptical about the idea of new hands taking hold of the reins. I feared this new younger generation had no connection to the show and had not experienced the love of the original series. I doubted they would handle it with the respect and dignity that we true fans believe it deserves. My feelings were to either make the movie in good taste, or leave it alone. I was very happy that the movie was created with great passion and a new youthful energy that had been missing for the last couple of releases. It also looked like the cast had been well schooled on how to be good Starfleet officers. They also appeared to love and respect their characters. They looked like the sexy children of the original cast. If I were Shatner, Nimoy, Kelley, Nichols, Koenig, Takei, and Doohan, I would be very flattered.

The story was close to perfect. It gave us Vulcans, Romulans, the Kobayashi Maru. We had warp drive, phasers, photon torpedoes and deflector shields. We had an Enterprise that was built like a college boy’s hot rod. I believe this is the ship we would have had if Gene Rodenberry or Rick Berman had the technology to make it years ago. My only disappointment with this outing was a little story twist that involved time travel. I understand it was used as a device to give us Leonard Nimoy in a nostalgic homage to the original series. He gave the new guys the necessary LL&P as a blessing to continue. I appreciated that. However, time travel episodes get very complicated with their plots. It was cool that the “alternate universe” now gives us liberty to do almost anything with the new set of movies. But, stay in the present with these new kids now. Let them have fun and save the universe on their own without the help of the old guys. Our beloved Jimmy Doohan and D. Kelley are gone now. Let’s not try to bring back cast reunions without them. If any of the original cast deserves a cameo, let them appear as holographic computer references and move on with the new guys. And, as Captain Janeway was told a couple of times in Voyager, try to avoid time travel.

As much as I enjoyed the new Trek, I disliked the new Dan Brown movie, Angels and Demons. I went to this movie with the greatest sense of anticipation for good. Many of you have seen my drawing of Bernini’s Ganges from the Fountain of the Four Rivers in Rome. That drawing was inspired because I fell in love with it after reading Angels and Demons a few years ago. I posted the drawing here on this very blog.

We all have to agree that DaVinci Code the movie was awful. It was boring. I didn’t care if they solved the codex or destroyed it. I didn’t care if the main characters lived or died. I was angry that a great book had been made into a bad movie. Of course, we all hoped that Howard and Hanks had learned their lesson and would do a better job this time. The one good thing about these movies is the fact they are based on fantastic stories written by Dan Brown. Angels and Demons is an even better book than DaVinci so it should have been a better movie, right?

The show started out better than the last one. There was action, there was excitement, and there was the very adorable Ewan McGregor as a heroic and lovable camarlengo. Then they ruined it. Spoiler alert here! They made McGregor the villain. The joy of the book is that the hero is elected Pope after he risks his life to save the church he loves. When he shows he is willing to sacrifice himself for it, he is made leader of the church. It is a beautiful and optimistic ending that shows the possibility of a Catholic church that just might have the common man’s touch. Instead, Hollywood makes the church appear to be an institution of crime, misdirection, lies and conspiracy again. That’s how we left it at the end of the DaVinci Code. Wouldn’t it have been better to show a balanced interpretation of faith in this movie? Brown did. Brown showed that men of faith could be heroic, altruistic and noble. He allowed that the Christian faith could inspire men to greatness and allow them to find their better selves. Why did the makers of the movie feel it necessary to tarnish what was an optimistic and inspiring ending to the story?

Brown created a noble and honorable character, why did Hollywood feel it necessary to destroy him? Do the makers of the movie not believe that such men are realistic? Are good men so fictitious and unrealistic that Hollywood can’t portray them? If so, they are a very pessimistic lot. If that’s what they believe, then they should watch the new Star Trek. Those moviemakers believe in heroes and know that the good guys should always win.

Ganges Under Glass

Ganges has been laying around the house for a couple of years now. I postponed having him framed because I knew it would be expensive. Larger works cost more to frame, and let's face it, Ganges is a big ol' boy. This work is actually 16"X20". After matting the frame was a good size.


What was the inspiration for this drawing of Ganges? Let's go back a bit and review. A few years ago I read Dan Brown's "Angels and Demons". In my opinion its a better read than "DaVinci Code". It didn't get as much attention because the story isn't as controversial and scandalous. But, its a much more exciting and adventurous tale. Just as the works of DaVinci were the star of "Code", the art of the sculptor Bernini was featured in "Angels". The basic premise is that Bernini's many angel sculptures that are sprinkled all over Rome help our hero, Robert Langdon, solve the murders being comitted by a serial killer.



One of the most exciting scenes involves a fight to the death between Langdon and the villain in the Fountain of the Four Rivers. Bernini sculpted four anthropomorphic male figures to represent the major river of each of the four continents known to Europe at that time. There is the Nile to represent Africa, the Danube to represent Europe, the Rio da Platta for the Americas and Ganges to represent Asia. These four figures support an Egyptian obelisk that is crowned by a dove. The Post-Reformation symbolism meant that the power of the church (dove symbol) triumphs over every continent in the world (the male river figures). Each of the male figures holds another symbol to help identify him and attach him to his associated river. For instance, the head of the Nile was unknown at that time so the male figure has a cloak pulled over his head and hides his face. The American figure shows non-European features (some suggest it is a native American figure, others say it has Negro features) and includes piles of coins around him to represent the riches of the New World. Ganges is holding an oar to represent that river as a major transportation and trade route through Asia.

I chose to paint Ganges simply because the photo reference I had showed great compositional elements. There are two strong diagonal lines in the work. The reclined body and legs move upper left to lower right and the direction of the oar crosses the opposite direction. The two lines intersect at the center of the mid-point of the work. The right leg of the figure is extremely foreshortened and almost thrusts out of the picture plane. I thought this was a great artistic challenge for me and enjoyed working on the drawing.

I originally planned to do more finishing work on this drawing. But, I started having artistic arguments with myself. I often get too fussy and picky with my works. I sweat over every detail. I started adding the classical columns in the background, then I worked more on the stone. So I asked myself. What is the main focus of this drawing? Well, its the very dynamic pose and action of this beautiful classical figure, of course. So, I realized that if I kept scratching and smudging around on the other stuff in the drawing that I would just distract from the central theme. So, I saw that I had pretty much completed the figure. So, I followed Maestro DaVinci's saying, "... a painting is never completed, merely abandoned." So I stopped and put him away.

I hope everyone enjoys this piece as much as I enjoyed making it. Some of my friends have already perceived Ganges' oar as a phallic symbol and have given me quite a bit of harassment about that. Personally, I never even saw it that way until some of them pointed it out. So, I suggest that they may be reading too much into it. They should remember that sometimes an "oar is just and oar."