_
The Beatles broke up on April 10, 1970 and just a few weeks later in May of 1970 John Lennon finished up his song IMAGINE. That song summed up the GOD IS DEAD movement of the 1960’s with the words “Imagine there’s no heaven, It’s easy if you try.”
In the film HOW SHOULD WE THEN LIVE? Episode 7 Francis Schaeffer noted concerning the generation of youth of the 1960’s, “This record, Sergeant Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band, became the rallying cry for young people throughout the world. It expressed the essence of their lives, thoughts and their feelings.”
It was during the 1960’s that the GOD IS DEAD MOVEMENT really got going strong and just a few weeks after the breakup of the Beatles their former leader John Lennon put this view into the song IMAGINE.
Is there a God or is the world just one big machine shaped by chance? It is my view that the Beatles suffered from an inferior complex when it came to book learning though they all were bright individuals. Maybe that is the reason they included the most brilliant man of the 20th century (Albert Einstein) on the cover of SERGEANT PEPPER’S LONELY HEARTS CLUB BAND album. John Lennon never did believe the theory of evolution but the growth of secular thinking and the general acceptance of the GOD IS DEAD movement in the 1960’s led many to buy into the view that we are all basically machines developed by chance and there is no grand designer. Francis Schaeffer rightly noted, “Humanist man has no place for a personal God, but there is also no place for man’s significance as man and no place for love, no place for freedom.”
John Lennon did later sing these words below:
Imagine there’s no heaven
It’s easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today…
Imagine there’s no countries
It isn’t hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace…
This indicates that he did hold the secular GOD IS DEAD view at least when he finished recording the song in May of 1970 (the month following the breakup of the Beatles).
John Lennon – Imagine HD
“Imagine”
Single by John Lennon
from the album Imagine
B-side
“It’s So Hard” (US)
“Working Class Hero” (UK)
Released
11 October 1971
Format
7″ vinyl
12″ vinyl
Recorded
May–July 1971 at Ascot Sound Studios, Ascot
Record Plant East, New York
Genre
Soft rock
pop
Length
3:03
Label
Apple
Writer(s)
John Lennon
Producer(s)
John Lennon
Yoko Ono
Phil Spector
Certification
Gold (FIMI)
Platinum (BPI)
John Lennon US singles chronology
“Power to the People”
(1971)
“Imagine” /
“It’s So Hard”
(1971)
“Happy Xmas (War Is Over)”
(1971)
John Lennon UK singles chronology
“Stand by Me”
(1975)
“Imagine” / “Working Class Hero”
(1975)
The Beatles – 51 Years Ago Today – All You Need is Love
All You Need Is Love
(Beatles playing the song REVOLUTION pictured above)
If the GOD IS DEAD crowd of the 1960’s is right then the world is just one big machine shaped by chance and what are some of the conclusions that can be drawn from that?
Francis Schaeffer in HOW SHOULD WE THEN LIVE? Episode 7 asserted:
There is one man who well understood the logical conclusion of the deification of nature, Marquis de Sade. “If nature is all then ‘what is’ is right and nothing more can be said….As nature has made us (the men) the strongest we can do with her (the woman) whatever we please.” The inevitable result was his cruelty to women. Thus there was no basis for either morals or law…Humanist man beginning only from himself has concluded that he is only a machine. Humanist man has no place for a personal God, but there is also no place for man’s significance as man and no place for love, no place for freedom.
In other words, if we get our values from nature then the answer is MIGHT MAKES RIGHT!!!! Woody Allen has demonstrated this in his 1989 movie CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS.
Geoffrey Rush plays the Marquis de Sade and Kate Winslet as Madeleine in the film ‘Quills’.
Dan Guinn posted on his blog at http://www.francisschaefferstudies.org concerning the Nazis and evolution: As Schaeffer points out, “…these ideas helped produce an even more far-reaching yet logical conclusion: the Nazi movement in Germany. Heinrich Himmler (1900-1945), leader of the Gestapo, stated that the law of nature must take its course in the survival of the fittest. The result was the gas chambers. Hitler stated numerous times that Christianity and its notion of charity should be “replaced by the ethic of strength over weakness.” Surely many factors were involved in the rise of National Socialism in Germany. For example, the Christian consensus had largely been lost by the undermining from a rationalistic philosophy and a romantic pantheism on the secular side, and a liberal theology (which was an adoption of rationalism in theological terminology) in the universities and many of the churches. Thus biblical Christianity was no longer giving the consensus for German society. After World War I came political and economic chaos and a flood of moral permissiveness in Germany. Thus, many factors created the situation. But in that setting the theory of the survival of the fittest sanctioned what occurred. ”
(Heinrich Himmler pictured below)
The Beatles – A Day In The Life
Tony Bartolucci’s Outline of HOW SHALL WE THEN LIVE? by Francis Schaeffer, Began: June, 2006 | Finished November: 2006
VII. Chapter Seven: The Rise of Modern Science
A. The Scientific Revolution
The Scientific Revolution came at the same time as the High Renaissance and the Reformation. According to Schaeffer, we can date the rise of modern science with Copernicus (1475-1543). The Scientific Revolution was almost exclusively a western phenomenon. The east (China, Islam, etc.) did have some contributions, but they were limited by their adherence to Aristotelian logic and Neoplatonism. It was at Oxford that scholars first attacked Aquinas’ philosophy based on Aristotle; this was in the 13 c. th
(J. Robert Oppenheimer pictured above with Albert Einstein)
(Pictured above is Alfred North Whitehead. While he is widely recognized for his collaborative work with Bertrand Russell on the Principia Mathematica, he also made highly innovative contributions to philosophy, especially in the area of process metaphysics.)
1. Christianity and Science
Both Alfred North Whitehead (d. 1947) and J. Robert Oppenheimer (d. 1967) maintained that modern science was born out of a Christian worldview. Apparently, neither man was a Christian. Whitehead wrote that Christianity is the mother of science because of “the medieval insistence on the rationality of God” (page 157). General consistent observations about nature were only reliable because they were based upon a rational and consistent God (cf. pages 158-59).
(Pictured below J. Robert Oppenheimer in 1944)
a. Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
Bacon could be called the major prophet of the Scientific Revolution Bacon believed in, and studied the Bible. For Bacon and these early scientists, science was not autonomous (as it is today).
b. Note the List of Christians who were Leaders in the Scientific Revolution Listed by Schaeffer on Pages 159-161
B. Christianity and Changing Worldviews of Science
1. Einstein’s Theory of Relativity
Some try to support a worldview of relativity on the basis of Einstein. But Einstein’s theory is based on the assumption that everywhere in the universe light travels at the same speed in a vacuum. “Nothing is less relative philosophically than the theory of relativity” (page 162). As Einstein once quipped, “I cannot believe that God plays dice with the cosmos.”
2. Werner Heisenberg’s Theory of Uncertainty or the Indeterminacy Principle
This principle has to do with a certain area of observation, specifically the location of an object and its velocity. A physicist cannot have an accurate observation of both the location of colliding atoms and their velocity. ISW the quantum theory does not support randomness. All of these things are based on the premise of a consistent, orderly universe (cf. page 162).
C. Benefits of the Christian Worldview
1. Gave a Foundation to the Observations of Science – There is a Fixed Uniformity
2. Man Can Endeavor to Learn Scientific Truth by way of Reason (man can reason because he is created in the image of God)
3. A Christian Base Meant that the World was Worth Learning About (nature reflects the handiwork of God, not the taboos of pantheistic deities)
4. There was no Inconsistency or Conflict Between the Bible and Science
D. Other Worldviews in Contrast Then and Now
1. Note that the Greeks, Moslems and the Chinese Lost Interest in Science
The Chinese, for example, never had the confidence that the laws ofthe universe could be understood since there was no assurance that a God more rational than ourselves had instituted such knowledge.
2. The Christian Uniformity of Natural Causes in an Open System
The early Christian scientists that were foundational to the Scientific Revolution upheld uniformity in an open system. God has made a cause and effect universe. But the universe is open (not closed) and God and man are outside of the uniformity of natural causes. “In other words, all that exists is not a part of a total cosmic machine” (page 164). The cause and effect universe may be changed in its direction by God or by man (of course, God is ultimately sovereign over man). This makes place for the importance of God as well as man in the cosmos.
The Beatles – Revolution
Francis Schaeffer in his book HOW SHOULD WE THEN LIVE? noted:
But we may ask, “Isn’t science now in a new stage, one in which the concept of an orderly universe is passe?” It is often said that relativity as a philosophy as a world-view, is supported by Albert Einstein’s (1879-1955) theory of relativity. But this is mistaken because Einstein’s theory of relativity assumes that everywhere in the universe light travels at a constant speed in a vacuum. In other words, we must say with the utmost force that nothing is less relative philosophically than the theory of relativity. Einstein himself stood implacably against any such application of his concepts. We can think of his often quoted words from the London Observer of April 5, 1964: ‘I cannot believe that God plays dice with the cosmos.’”
___
Quoting further from Francis Schaeffer in HOW SHOULD WE THEN LIVE? Episode 7:
MAN IS ONLY A MACHINE, BUT THE MEN WHO HOLD THIS POSITION COULD NOT AND CAN NOT LIVE LIKE MACHINES. If they could then modern man would not have his tensions either in his intellectual position or in his life, but he can’t. So they must leap away from reason to try to find something that gives meaning to their lives, to life itself, even though to do so they deny their reason.
Once this is done any type of thing could be put there. Because in the area of nonreason, reason gives no basis for a choice. This is the hallmark of modern man. How did it happen? It happened because proud humanist man, though he was finite, insisted in beginning only from himself and only from what he could learn and not from other knowledge, he did not succeed….Aldous Huxley the English philosopher and writer proposed drugs as a solution. We should, he said, give healthy people drugs and they can then find truth inside their own heads. All that was left for Aldous Huxley and those who followed him was truth inside a person’s own head. With Huxley’s idea, what began with the existential philosophers – man’s individual subjectivity attempting to give order as well as meaning, in contrast to order being shaped by what is objective or external to oneself – came to its logical conclusion. Truth is in one’s own head. The ideal of objective truth was gone.
With A Little Help From My Friends
The drug culture and the mentality that went with it had it’s own vehicle that crossed the frontiers of the world which were otherwise almost impassible by other means of communication. This record, Sergeant Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band, became the rallying cry for young people throughout the world. It expressed the essence of their lives, thoughts and their feelings. Later came psychedelic rock an attempt to find this experience without drugs. The younger people and the older ones tried drug taking but then turned to the eastern religions. Both drugs and the eastern religions seek truth inside one’s own head, a negation of reason. The central reason of the popularity of eastern religions in the west is a hope for a nonrational meaning to life and values.
How Should We then Live Episode 7 small
A Christian Manifesto Francis Schaeffer
Published on Dec 18, 2012
A video important to today. The man was very wise in the ways of God. And of government. Hope you enjoy a good solis teaching from the past. The truth never gets old.
______________
Francis Schaeffer pictured below:
_________________
Francis Schaeffer “BASIS FOR HUMAN DIGNITY” Whatever…HTTHR
Francis Schaeffer ended HOW SHOULD WE THEN LIVE? Episode 7 with these words:
When we think of Christ of course we think of his substitutionary death upon the cross when he who claimed to be God died in a substitutionary way and as such his death had infinite value and as we accept that gift raising the empty hands of faith with no humanistic elements we have that which is real life and that is being in relationship to the infinite personal God who is there and being in a personal relationship to Him. But Christ brings life in another way that is not as often clearly thought about perhaps. He connects himself with what the Bible teaches in his teaching and as such he is a prophet as well as a savior. It is upon the basis of what he taught and the Bible teaches because he himself wraps these together that we have life instead of death in the sense of having some knowledge that is more than men can have from himself, beginning from himself alone. Both of these elements are the place where Christ gives us life.
Francis Schaeffer on pages 178 to 179 of volume 1 THE GOD WHO IS THERE asserted:
I do not believe that there is a leap of faith needed; there are good and sufficient reasons to know why Christianity is true–and more than that, that is the Bible’s insistence. The Bible’s emphasis is that there are good and sufficient reasons to know Christianity is true, so much so that we are disobedient and guilty if we do not believe it.
The Christian system (what is taught in the whole Bible) is a unity of thought. Christianity is not just a lot of bits and pieces–there is a beginning and an end, a whole system of truth, and this system is the only system that will stand up to all the questions that are presented to us as we face the reality of existence. Some of the other systems answer some of the questions but leave others unanswered. I believe it is only Christianity that gives the answers to all the crucial questions.
What are those questions? The questions are those which are presented to us as we face the reality of existence. God shuts us up to reality. We cannot escape the reality of what is, no matter what we say we believe or think.
This reality of which I speak falls into two parts: the fact that the universe truly exists and it has form, and then what I would call the “mannishness” of man--which is my own term for meaning that man is unique. People have certain qualities that must be explained.
(Sartre pictured below)
God has shut up all people to these things, and I always like to go back to the statement of Jean-Paul Sartre, though he had no answer for his own statement, and that is that the basic philosophic question is that something is there. Things do exist, and this demands an explanation for their existence. I would then go beyond Sartre’s statement to one by Albert Einstein. Einstein said that the most amazing thing about the universe is that we can know something truly about it. In other words, it has a form that is comprehensible, even though we cannot exhaust it. And then I would say beyond that–no matter what people say they are, they are what they are, that is, man is unique as made in the image of God. Any system of thought, to be taken seriously, has to at least try to explain these two great phenomena of the universe and man. In other words, we are talking about objective truth related to reality and not just something within our own heads.
Now I would like to add a corollary to this: in WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE HUMAN RACE?, and especially the extensive notes of the fifth chapter, there is a third thing and that is the way the Bible measures up to history. Once we say that, this is very exciting. It is very exciting because other religions are not founded in history, they are “out there” somewhere, or you can think of them as inside of your own head–whichever way you are looking at it. On the other hand, the Bible claims to be rooted in history. Whether we are considering the history of the Old Testament, whether we are considering the history of Christ, including the resurrection, or Paul’s journeys, it is insisted on as real history. So now we have three interwoven parts. Usually I have dealt with the twentieth-century person, but the third is also there. We have to face the reality of the universe and its having an existence and having a form. We have to face the reality in the uniqueness of man. We are able to discuss the fact that the Bible is rooted in history.
Francis Schaeffer has correctly argued:
The universe was created by an infinite personal God and He brought it into existence by spoken word and made man in His own image. When man tries to reduce [philosophically in a materialistic point of view] himself to less than this [less than being made in the image of God] he will always fail and he will always be willing to make these impossible leaps into the area of nonreason even though they don’t give an answer simply because that isn’t what he is. He himself testifies that this infinite personal God, the God of the Old and New Testament is there.
Instead of making a leap into the area of nonreason the better choice would be to investigate the claims that the Bible is a historically accurate book and that God created the universe and reached out to humankind with the Bible. Below is a piece of that evidence given by Francis Schaeffer concerning the accuracy of the Bible.
TRUTH AND HISTORY (chapter 5 of WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE HUMAN RACE?, under footnote #96)
(SEEN BELOW) Wikipedia notes: The Mesha Stele (also known as the “Moabite Stone”) is a stele (inscribed stone) set up around 840 BCE by King Mesha of Moab (a kingdom located in modernJordan). Mesha tells how Kemosh, the God of Moab, had been angry with his people and had allowed them to be subjugated to Israel, but at length Kemosh returned and assisted Mesha to throw off the yoke of Israel and restore the lands of Moab. Mesha describes his many building projects.[1]
We should take one last step back into the history of the Old Testament. In the previous note we looked first at the Dead Sea Scrolls, dating to around 100 B.C. Then we went back to the period of the Late Monarchy and looked first at the siege of Hezekiah in Jerusalem by Sennacherib in 701 B.C. and also at the last years of Judah down to about 600 B.C. Then we went further back to about 850 B.C., to Ahab and Jezebel, the ivory house, the Black Obelisk, the Moabite Stone and so on–then back again to about 950 B.C., to the time of Solomon and his son Rehoboam and the campaign by Shishak, the Egyptian pharaoh.
(the Black Obelisk pictured below)
This should have built up in our minds a vivid impression of the historic reliability of the biblical text, including even the seemingly obscure details such as the ration tablets in Babylon. We saw, in other words, not only that the Bible gives us a marvelous world view that ties in with the nature of reality and answers the basic problems which philosophers have asked down through the centuries, but also that the Bible is completely reliable, EVEN ON THE HISTORICAL LEVEL.
The previous notes looked back to the time of Moses and Joshua, the escape from Egypt, and the settlement in Canaan. Now we will go back further–back as far as Genesis 12, near the beginning of the Bible.
Do we find that the narrative fades away to a never-never land of myths and legends? By no means. For we have to remind ourselves that although Genesis 12 deals with events a long time ago from our moment of history (about 2000 B.C. or a bit later), the civilized world was already not just old but ancient when Abram/Abraham left “Ur of the Chaldeans” (see Genesis 11:31).
Ur itself was excavated some fifty years ago. In the British Museum, for example, one can see the magnificent contents of a royal burial chamber from Ur. This includes a gold headdress still in position about the head of a queen who died in Ur about 2500 B.C. It has also been possible to reconstruct from archaeological remains what the streets and buildings must have been like at the time.
Like Ur, the rest of the world of the patriarchs (that is, of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob) was firm reality. Such places as Haran, where Abraham went first, have been discovered. So has Shechem from this time, with its Canaanite stone walls, which are still standing, and its temple.
Genesis 12:5-9New American Standard Bible (NASB)
5 Abram took Sarai his wife and Lot his nephew, and all their possessions which they had accumulated, and the [a]persons which they had acquired in Haran, and they [b]set out for the land of Canaan; thus they came to the land of Canaan. 6 Abram passed through the land as far as the site of Shechem, to the[c]oak of Moreh. Now the Canaanite was then in the land. 7 The Lord appeared to Abram and said, “To your [d]descendants I will give this land.” So he built an altar there to the Lord who had appeared to him. 8 Then he proceeded from there to the mountain on the east of Bethel, and pitched his tent, with Bethel on the west and Ai on the east; and there he built an altar to the Lord andcalled upon the name of the Lord. 9 Abram journeyed on, continuing toward the[e]Negev.
Haran and Shechem may be unfamiliar names to us but the Negrev (or Negeb) is a name we have all read frequently in the news accounts of our own day.
(Below is a painting of Abraham’s departure by József Molnár)
Negev Nuclear Research Center – Israel
The Negev – Israel’s Desert
Featured artist today is Allen Jones
Allen Jones (artist)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Allen Jones
Born
1 September 1937 (age 78)
Southampton, England
Nationality
British
Education
Royal College of Art
Alma mater
Hornsey College of Art
Known for
Sculptor, painter, artist, educator
Notable work
Life Class (1968)
Chair (1969)
The Tango (1984)
Style
Abstract expressionism
Movement
Pop art
Awards
Prix des Jeunes Artistes (1963)
Allen Jones RA (born 1 September 1937) is a British pop artist best known for his paintings, sculptures, and lithography. He was awarded the Prix des Jeunes Artistes at the 1963 Paris Biennale. He is a Senior Academician at the Royal Academy of Arts.
Jones has taught at the Hochschule für bildende Künste Hamburg, the University of South Florida, the University of California, the Banff Center School of Fine Arts in Canada, and the Berlin University of the Arts. His works reside in a number of collections; including the Tate, the Museum Ludwig, the Warwick Arts Centre and the Hirshhorn Museum.[1] His best known work Hatstand, Table and Chair, involving fibreglass “fetish” mannequins, debuted to protests in 1970.
Early life and education[edit]
“For my generation anyone who wanted to cut the mustard had to reckon withAbstract Expressionism…. I’ve never wanted to show the struggle involved in the making of the work, and to make it part of the painting the way it is with Pollock orde Kooning. That’s just not me; constitutionally I couldn’t abandon the figure. But I had to find a new way of doing it. Abstract Expressionism had swept everything away. You couldn’t go back to representing the figure through some moribund visual language.”
— Allen Jones in a 2014 interview[2]
Jones was born in the English city of Southampton on 1 September 1937. The son of a Welsh factory worker, he was raised in the west London district of Ealing,[2] and in his youth attended Ealing County Grammar School for Boys.[citation needed] Jones had an interest in art from an early age. In 1955, he began studying painting and lithography at Hornsey College of Art in London, where he would graduate in 1959.[2] At the time the teaching method at Hornsey was based on Paul Klee‘sPedagogical Sketchbook from the 1930s. While a student at Hornsey, Jones travelled to Paris and the French region ofProvence, and was particularly influenced by the art of Robert Delaunay.[3] He also attended a Jackson Pollock show at theWhitechapel Gallery in 1958, and according to Jones, “for me it was outside any known frame of reference. The scale, the ambition, the freedom. I felt like suing my teachers for not telling me what was happening in the world.”[2] He afterwards travelled to see the Musie Fernand Léger in the French commune of Biot,[3] and in 1959 he left Hornsey to begin attending the Royal College of Art.[4]
As one of the first British pop artists, Jones produced increasingly unique paintings and prints in the late 1950s and early 1960s, and in particular enjoyed combining different visual languages to expose the historical constructions underlying them.[5] According to Jones, about his early ambitions, “I wanted to kick over the traces of what was considered acceptable in art. I wanted to find a new language for representation… to get away from the idea that figurative art was romantic, that it wasn’t tough.”[2] He was part of a unique generation of students at the Royal College, among which his fellow students were R. B. Kitaj, Peter Phillips, David Hockney, and Derek Boshier, but was expelled from the Royal College of Art in 1960, at the end of his first year.[6] Explained by Mark Hudson in The Telegraph many years later, “horrified at the new developments brewing among their younger students, the college’s academic old guard decided to make an example of someone. They chose Jones.”[2] Dismayed, Jones signed up for a teacher training course and returned to his studies at Hornsey College of Art in 1960, graduating the following year.[4][7]
Art career[edit]
Early teaching and exhibits (1961–63)[edit]
Despite his expulsion from the Royal College, in January 1961 Jones’ work was included in the Young Contemporaries 1961 exhibit. The annual Royal Society of British Artists exhibition was described in the press as “the exhibition that launched British pop art,”[2]Young Contemporaries helped expose England to the art of Jones, David Hockney, R. B. Kitaj, Billy Apple, Derek Boshier, Joe Tilson, Patrick Caulfield, and Peter Blake, all of whom were variously influenced by American Pop.[8] Among his works, Jones entered several paintings of London buses on shaped canvases, which were afterwards put on display at the London West End gallery Arthur Tooth & Sons. One of the gallery’s directors then introduced Jones to the work of American pop artists such as Andy Warhol, Roy Lichtenstein and Claes Oldenburg, which proved inspirational to Jones.[2] In 1961, he took a job teaching lithography at Croydon College of Art in London, where he would remain until 1963. Around this time, Jones was influenced by the works of writers such as Friedrich Nietzsche, Sigmund Freud, and Carl Jung.[3] According to Jones, his 1963 painting Hermaphrodite, depicting “fused male/female couples as metaphors of the creative act,” draws from both Freud and Nietzsche.[4] In 1963, Jones was awarded the Prix des Jeunes Artistes at the Paris Biennale.[3] The following year, Jones and other Nouveau réalisme and pop artists such as Peter Phillips and Pauline Boty were featured in documentaries by Belgian director Jean Antoine, Evelyne Axell‘s husband.[9]
Travel in United States and abroad (1964–69)[edit]
“[In New York City Jones] found a scene dominated by the ideas of the influential critic Clement Greenberg: that the essence of painting lay in the flatness of the canvas, in hard edges, in the painting as object. Jones wanted to create a new kind of art that conformed to those principles… but which retained the human figure. He found the imagery that would allow him to do that in the seedy bookshops of Times Square.”
— Mark Hudson[2]
Intrigued by the “toughness” of American pop art, Jones moved to Manhattan in 1964 and took a studio at the Chelsea Hotel. In New York City, Jones recollects learning to “present what you were saying as clearly as possible,” and he developed an interest in making his images tangible.[2] For the year Jones remained in the city, he “discovered a rich fund of imagery in sexually motivated popular illustration of the 1940s and 1950s.”[4] According to Jones, about his art of the time:
Fetishism and the transgressive world produced images that I liked because they were dangerous. They were about personal obsessions. They stood outside the accepted canons of artistic expression and they suggested new ways of depicting the figure that weren’t dressed up for public consumption.”[2]
Among other projects at the time, Jones “worked on a three-dimensional illusionism with obvious erotic components.”[3] When Jones’ close friend Peter Phillips came to New York on a Harkness Fellowshipin 1964, for two years they spent much of their time travelling together throughout the United States.[3] Jones’ style continued to develop, and his 1966 painting Perfect Match “made explicit [his] previously subdued eroticism, adopting a precise linear style as a means of emphasizing tactility.”[4]
Prints by Jones (top left and bottom right corners) were included on the “multiples” prints by the xartcollection in the late 1960s.
In 1967, Jones’ work along with the works of artists such as <a title="Piero Gilardi" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P