The Twilight of Painting.
Iian Neill
Some may find this book, "The Twilight of Painting" (by the late R.H.
Ives Gammell) of considerable interest, so I have typed up the blurb on
the back of my copy. It is as follows .....
In 1946 - at the very height of the revolt of the "modernists"
against the traditional painters and paintings of an earlier and more
disciplined era - R.H. Ives Gammell brought forth his TWILIGHT OF
PAINTING: a thoughtful and energetic defense of the older establishment
together with a forthright attack on what he regarded as the "clumsily
applied daubs of paint" which he saw characterizing the emerging school.
Much of the blame for the present state Mr. Gammell assigns to the
critics who have "interpreted" these new paintings to a gullible public.
As he notes in his introductory chapter, "the literature devoted to
Modern painting has emanated almost entirely from persons who have never
painted at all or whose attempts to paint only served to reveal their
inability to master the traditional techniques of art." Of the
paintings themselves it is his belief that "the ultimate importance of
Modern Painting in the history of art will be seen to lie in the fact
that it discredited and virtually destroyed the great technical
traditions of European painting, laboriously built up through the
centuries by a long succession of men of genius. The loss of these
traditions has deprived our potential painters of their rightful
heritage without which it will be impossible for them to give full scope
to such talents as they may possess."
Regards,
Iian Neill.
mdeli
>Some may find this book, "The Twilight of Painting" (by the late R.H.
>Ives Gammell) of considerable interest,
I read Gammel's book many years ago. It is written in clear English
and makes some good points. I'll make some points about your quoted
statements.
> Much of the blame for the present state Mr. Gammell assigns to the
>critics who have "interpreted" these new paintings to a gullible public.
The majority of the public is totally uninterested in Modern Art. What
critics and curators have done is to make sure that nothing but
politically correct art is seen or heard about by those even
interested in art. (My "modest proposal will explain this)
>As he notes in his introductory chapter, "the literature devoted to
>Modern painting has emanated almost entirely from persons who have never
>painted at all or whose attempts to paint only served to reveal their
>inability to master the traditional techniques of art."
A critic doesn't necessarily have to be a good artist.
> Of the
>paintings themselves it is his belief that "the ultimate importance of
>Modern Painting in the history of art will be seen to lie in the fact
>that it discredited and virtually destroyed the great technical
>traditions of European painting, laboriously built up through the
>centuries by a long succession of men of genius.
It hasn't. As long as museums exhibit classic art people will be able
to compare Modern Art with it. Let me point out that by Modern Art I
mean the crap in museums because in actuality there is just as much
fine work produced today as before.
> The loss of these
>traditions has deprived our potential painters of their rightful
>heritage without which it will be impossible for them to give full scope
>to such talents as they may possess."
It is not tradition which is lost. The science and techniques of
craftsmanship aren't generally taught anymore because we have had four
generations of artistic incompetents doing so-called teaching.
In the past most all students were taught a bit of drawing just like
they were taught a bit of music.
If music were taught by someone who puts you in a room with a piano
and plays a recorded musical passage and then says "play," it wouldn't
produce competent students.No scales no technique etc. Just "play,"
that's how art is taught; learning by doing to an extent bordering on
idiocy.
Most Art students rarely catch on because they are a naive dull lot
often uninterested in art. They mouth the pep talks and truncated art
history they learn in art school. They end up being more into a
religion then a craft and imagine they are persecuted if no one likes
there incompetent output.
And to the cranks here who call me bitter I can only say that none of
this has ever disturbed me because the more incompetence the more work
there is for those who have genuinely mastered their craft.
--
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
Check out my webpage to see some of my work and a Skeptical View of Modern Art at: http://www.interlog.com/~hugod
Iian Neill
> > Much of the blame for the present state Mr. Gammell assigns to the
> >critics who have "interpreted" these new paintings to a gullible public.
>
> The majority of the public is totally uninterested in Modern Art. What
> critics and curators have done is to make sure that nothing but
> politically correct art is seen or heard about by those even
> interested in art. (My "modest proposal will explain this)
The very indifference of the public is certain proof that the charlattans and anti-artists have succeeded. In the past
there at least used to be an awareness of contemporary art - in fact, certain Salons were real crowd-drawers. The decline
in such public attendance today probably has as much to do with radio, television and the movies as it does the corruption
of Art itself.
What critics and curators have also accomplished is to destroy the 'living tradition' of craftsmanship which continued in
an unbroken line from the Renaissance to the earliest years of this century. Through various obscurantist doctrines and a
lot of mystical nonsense they eroded the very foundations on which a contemporary tradition of art could flourish.
Academics slowly died off, were kicked out, or committed suicide like J.W. Godward.
Gammell was a pupil of Paxton, who was himself a student of Eakins, and through him Gerome (back to J.L David). So
Gammell speaks from a position of some authority when he comments on the state of the 'classical tradition' (as it has
misleadingly come to be known these days) in the 20th century.
> >As he notes in his introductory chapter, "the literature devoted to
> >Modern painting has emanated almost entirely from persons who have never
> >painted at all or whose attempts to paint only served to reveal their
> >inability to master the traditional techniques of art."
>
> A critic doesn't necessarily have to be a good artist.
Not necessarily, no. But a critic's criticisms are likely to be more accurate if he has himself some practical experience
of that which he speaks of. I could sit here and pass judgement of Vladmimir Horowitz's technique, but not being a
musician (merely a music-lover), my judgements would logically carry less weight than, say, a concert pianist.
> > Of the
> >paintings themselves it is his belief that "the ultimate importance of
> >Modern Painting in the history of art will be seen to lie in the fact
> >that it discredited and virtually destroyed the great technical
> >traditions of European painting, laboriously built up through the
> >centuries by a long succession of men of genius.
>
> It hasn't. As long as museums exhibit classic art people will be able
> to compare Modern Art with it. Let me point out that by Modern Art I
> mean the crap in museums because in actuality there is just as much
> fine work produced today as before.
I believe what Gammell refers to here is the notion of a 'living tradition'. Just as there is a 'living tradition' in the
performance of Classical music (but maybe not composition?). Now, we cannot say the same for the visual arts of our time.
Nine-tenths of 'artists' today have probably not even heard of certain 19th century masters; they will have been weaned on
the milk of Modernist propoganda - you know, the Academics (as Evil) versus the Impressionists (as Good).
We can certainly go to the museums and view the great art of the past (when they haven't locked it up in the basement,
like certain Bouguereau canvases), but how does this situation compare to living in an age when such art was actually
being PRODUCED? We have to content ourselves with mute observation, our aspiring artists relegated to mediocrity (or
worse) due to pernicious dogmas and ridiculous aesthetic theorems.
> > The loss of these
> >traditions has deprived our potential painters of their rightful
> >heritage without which it will be impossible for them to give full scope
> >to such talents as they may possess."
>
> It is not tradition which is lost. The science and techniques of
> craftsmanship aren't generally taught anymore because we have had four
> generations of artistic incompetents doing so-called teaching.
The situation is unlikely to change unless the artistic 'environment' also changes. We will never have such periods of
producivity as the 19th century was witness too unless there are again academies and ateliers which understand the meaning
of art, and who have at least competent teachers as their staff. The fact of the matter is, neither of these conditions is
fully met, so there is no 'soil' for new geniuses to grow from.
It is this 'soil' which I call 'tradition'.
> In the past most all students were taught a bit of drawing just like
> they were taught a bit of music.
>
> If music were taught by someone who puts you in a room with a piano
> and plays a recorded musical passage and then says "play," it wouldn't
> produce competent students.No scales no technique etc. Just "play,"
> that's how art is taught; learning by doing to an extent bordering on
> idiocy.
This analogy is very close to one I often use to explain why craft and a sound education is important for potential
artists. No one questions that you need technique and practise to be a Horowitz; but, apparently, painting is much less
important than music, so we may, as they say, 'leave it to the dogs'.
> Most Art students rarely catch on because they are a naive dull lot
> often uninterested in art. They mouth the pep talks and truncated art
> history they learn in art school. They end up being more into a
> religion then a craft and imagine they are persecuted if no one likes
> there incompetent output.
To be fair, such students would not even REACH the art schools were there to be teachers who truly understand the beauty
and meaning of art, and administrators more interested in producing artists than Post-Modern factory clones. ('We live in
a century of free expression ... you're allowed to express whatever you like, as long as it doesn't resemble in any part
the work of the Masters.' A nice little paradox.)
Regards,
Iian Neill.
N
In article <35642F20...@student.uq.edu.au>, Iian Neill
<s36...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote:
<<snip bombastic reactionary daitribe>>
> > A critic doesn't necessarily have to be a good artist.
>
> Not necessarily, no. But a critic's criticisms are likely to be more
accurate if he has himself some practical experience
> of that which he speaks of. I could sit here and pass judgement of
Vladmimir Horowitz's technique, but not being a
> musician (merely a music-lover), my judgements would logically carry
less weight than, say, a concert pianist.
What logic is that?
Criticism is about viewing art and articulating responses. Just because
one is an artist does not mean that they automatically gain the skills to:
1)articulate their response
2)have an extensive experience in viewing art
3)an appreciation, understanding, and first hand viewing of many forms of art
4)a clear theoretical or evaluative process, etc.
5)etc, etc.
> the milk of Modernist propoganda - you know, the Academics (as Evil)
versus the Impressionists (as Good).
Perhaps, if you were brought up to date art-historically you would be in a
better position to attack contemporary art, and to appreciate the
ineffectual effects of your criticisms . As it is, your references appear
as ignorant as you are of a tremendous variety of art. If your art world
is fixed upon 1865, or upon critics and artists who have little
understanding of what occured after 1865, you will be left clueless.
All artists exist within a tradition, resonating with the efforts of the
past. European Salon painting and its precursors are one simply one facet
of that tradition. Additionally, an enormous amount of that tradition has
been incorporated into contemporary art, in a vast spectrum of sensibility
and approaches. Your Either/Or thinking doesn't even begin to address the
complexity and work in this arena.
You would also benefit by being hipped to the last 30 years of western art.
A great freedom now exists.
Many dislike this freedom because freedom is difficult. One needs to think,
to make choices, to question and expend effort, placing more responsibility on
the artist for the reasons behind their alliegences and commitments. When
the Emporer or Salon Jury tell you what is THE FORMAT, it makes things
easier. Strong central authority giving out marching orders apppeals to a
certain mindset, in art, as in anything else.
Make the art you want to make and leave others to make the art that
pleases them: your cosmology is seeming hopelessly small when it cannot
allow for a variety of artists, viewers, and collectors in the universe of
art. To each their own.
-N.
--
N
To reach me, remove _xxx from my address.
mark webber
On Fri, 22 May 1998, N wrote:
> In article <35642F20...@student.uq.edu.au>, Iian Neill
> <s36...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote:
>
> <<snip bombastic reactionary daitribe>>
>
> > > A critic doesn't necessarily have to be a good artist.
> >
> > Not necessarily, no. But a critic's criticisms are likely to be more
> accurate if he has himself some practical experience
> > of that which he speaks of. I could sit here and pass judgement of
> Vladmimir Horowitz's technique, but not being a
> > musician (merely a music-lover), my judgements would logically carry
> less weight than, say, a concert pianist.
>
>
> What logic is that?
> Criticism is about viewing art and articulating responses. Just because
> one is an artist does not mean that they automatically gain the skills to:
> 1)articulate their response
> 2)have an extensive experience in viewing art
> 3)an appreciation, understanding, and first hand viewing of many forms of art
> 4)a clear theoretical or evaluative process, etc.
> 5)etc, etc.
>
>
> > the milk of Modernist propoganda - you know, the Academics (as Evil)
> versus the Impressionists (as Good).
>
This is all very well put, but I've noticed that anti-modernists and those
for whom "realism" is a be-all and end-all never allow for the possibility
that they may have more to learn.
(These are generally the same folks who say "don't go to art school
because your teacher will try to teach you something you don't know.")
Don't be surprised when those who think that Romanticism is Realism,
Picasso was a fraud, and technique is the apex of skill, cavort with the
logic of your post and call you a fool.
Mark
DFRussell
In article <Pine.PMDF.3.95.9805221...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU>, mark webber <webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU> writes:
[...] deletia
|> This is all very well put, but I've noticed that anti-modernists
"anti-modernists" -- as opposed to anti-realists :-)
We're not too biased, are we? :)
|> and those
|> for whom "realism" is a be-all and end-all never allow for the possibility
|> that they may have more to learn.
Classic pseudo-intellectual "argument".... if you can't blind 'em with
brilliance, baffle 'em with BS.
The canard that you're "thing" is really a *higher* level of seeing :-)
|> (These are generally the same folks who say "don't go to art school
|> because your teacher will try to teach you something you don't know.")
Actually, art school's fun: you don't really have to do much, you get
to hand around and pretend you're "sensitive" and score with whatever
it is that rocks your boat, and there is no real pressure because you
know that even if you do graduate, it won't have any effect on your
future earnings.
|> Don't be surprised when those who think that Romanticism is Realism,
|> Picasso was a fraud, and technique is the apex of skill, cavort with the
|> logic of your post and call you a fool.
Probably has more to do with your obvious blindness to your bias than it
does with "modernism".
And, yeah, I'm just bored and expect nothing rational from you.
--
Views expressed are personal and not necessarily shared by my employer.
mdeli
On Fri, 22 May 1998 10:51:06 -0500, redi...@earthlink.net_xxx (N)
wrote:
>In article <35642F20...@student.uq.edu.au>, Iian Neill
><s36...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote:
>> the milk of Modernist propoganda - you know, the Academics (as Evil)
>versus the Impressionists (as Good).
This is exactly what is taught in Modern Academic Art history (modern
art mythology) courses today. The 19th century academics are mentioned
in a few sentences and condemned in many. The average art student
couldn't name ten academics he is taught to condemn. Most art students
most have never seen any.
The analogy here would be to have a paragraph each about hitler and
Stalin in a history of the 20th century.
>Perhaps, if you were brought up to date art-historically you would be in a
>better position to attack contemporary art, and to appreciate the
>ineffectual effects of your criticisms .
.
The effects of his criticism on you are irrelevant.
>As it is, your references appear
>as ignorant as you are of a tremendous variety of art. If your art world
>is fixed upon 1865, or upon critics and artists who have little
>understanding of what occured after 1865, you will be left clueless.
If someone speaks about a past period it doesn't mean he knows nothing
about the present. I believe it is you who knows very little about the
past.
>You would also benefit by being hipped to the last 30 years of western art.
No you would, because you are only familiar with one side of what is
happening.
>A great freedom now exists.
>Many dislike this freedom because freedom is difficult. One needs to think,
>to make choices, to question and expend effort, placing more responsibility on
>the artist for the reasons behind their alliegences and commitments.
Nice pep talk. Now tell us whether this is particularly new.
> When
>the Emporer or Salon Jury tell you what is THE FORMAT, it makes things
>easier.
Are you kidding?
Do you really believe that the politically correct minimal
formularized crap hanging in museums is any different as far as
demands for subject matter is concerned. Mind you I did not mention
skill technique or craftsmanship.
>Strong central authority giving out marching orders apppeals to a
>certain mindset, in art, as in anything else.
Most all the great paintings of the past were painted at the demand of
someone. They are masterpieces never the less.
>Make the art you want to make and leave others to make the art that
>pleases them:
Touching aphorism.
>your cosmology is seeming hopelessly small when it cannot
>allow for a variety of artists, viewers, and collectors in the universe of
>art. To each their own.
In other words if someone doesn't like what you like their
"cosmology" is small. I suppose yours is vast.
mdeli
>What critics and curators have also accomplished is to destroy the 'living tradition' of craftsmanship which continued in
>an unbroken line from the Renaissance to the earliest years of this century.
I can't agree. There are artists who continue this tradition. They
just aren't allowed representation in museums at the moment.
>> > Of the
>> >paintings themselves it is his belief that "the ultimate importance of
>> >Modern Painting in the history of art will be seen to lie in the fact
>> >that it discredited and virtually destroyed the great technical
>> >traditions of European painting, laboriously built up through the
>> >centuries by a long succession of men of genius.
>>
>> It hasn't. As long as museums exhibit classic art people will be able
>> to compare Modern Art with it. Let me point out that by Modern Art I
>> mean the crap in museums because in actuality there is just as much
>> fine work produced today as before.
>The situation is unlikely to change unless the artistic 'environment' also changes.
Fashions change and the stuff of present fashion will find its way to
the museum basement as has the fashion of the past. Eventually when
the fashion is forgotten someone will go to the basement and pick out
those works which are technically superior. More and more 19th century
academic art is coming out of hiding.
When I was in Paris during the 60's nothing academic could be seen.
The situation has changed radically. Admiration for skill and
craftsmanship hasn't disappeared. Those who have it are well rewarded
for their efforts.
>We will never have such periods of
>producivity as the 19th century was witness too unless there are again academies and ateliers which understand the meaning
>of art, and who have at least competent teachers as their staff. The fact of the matter is, neither of these conditions is
>fully met, so there is no 'soil' for new geniuses to grow from.
> It is this 'soil' which I call 'tradition'.
I can't agree. THe craft though not universally taught is recorded and
not forgotten. What has changed is the subject matter of painting. My
favorite example is Dali, classical technique, modern subject matter
and ideas. There are many others, the best known are our finest
illustrators.
>> In the past most all students were taught a bit of drawing just like
>> they were taught a bit of music.
>>
>> If music were taught by someone who puts you in a room with a piano
>> and plays a recorded musical passage and then says "play," it wouldn't
>> produce competent students.No scales no technique etc. Just "play,"
>> that's how art is taught; learning by doing to an extent bordering on
>> idiocy.
>
>This analogy is very close to one I often use to explain why craft and a sound education is important for potential
>artists. No one questions that you need technique and practise to be a Horowitz; but, apparently, painting is much less
>important than music, so we may, as they say, 'leave it to the dogs'.
THe visual arts permeate us most everywhere some good some bad. It
just isn't in the traditional format which you admire.
Larry Seiler
> A great freedom now exists.
> Many dislike this freedom because freedom is difficult. One needs to
think,
> to make choices, to question and expend effort, placing more
responsibility on
> the artist for the reasons behind their alliegences and commitments.
I think you have made some good comments here and appreciate your speaking.
I myself am caught in the middle of this. I am a realist...tiring of
blending out all my brush strokes simply to hear "oOOoo's" and "aaAAaahhs".
I have won my share of competitions, made my place as if I
"arrived".....but the blending out of strokes and the 200-300 hours
invested in a painting to create what camera's could is saying less and
less of real talent and genius to me day by day.
I disagree also that the public is not interested in anything but flawless
perfection and photographic realism. I think people sense a vacuum and
void in their own lives living in a mediocre society that applauds passive
conformity, and art breathes life and promise that such needn't be the
case. Life can be a celebration, and art one of the means.
For 20 some years I could not tolerate any art other than flawless realism.
It was like the Old Testament God that showed judgement and "ungrace."
"Walk this way perfectly...or zzzZZAAP!" If we worship art like it is
some kind of god.....one becomes a slave to what they worship. If
perfection and one style is what that specific god demands.....it enslaves.
Just like Jesus was a "new" covenant of "Grace"......which I see liberates
from legalism.....I see that art to be "good" art need not be the sole
domain and property of one vein or camp of thought.
Good grief.....there are enough people drudging out their lives
daily....looking for a breath of fresh air that would make life worth
celebrating. Art needs less "ungrace" and more "Grace!"
For me.....I yet love realism. But...I'm having more fun seeing my work
look realistic 3-4 paces back....with less saying more, than laboring that
it looks real 12 inches away. Why fight over 3 lousy paces???? It's all
about where people should stand to view a piece of work when you come down
to it! Rembrandt told someone whom was inspecting one of his works up
close, "you have no right to smell my work!"
Well.....if we can get people to stand not nearly so close.....then why not
explore other possibilities as well?
Look. There are all kinds of ways to "get in shape!" Some people run,
and are thin as rails. Their health is good, their hearts strong. Some
weight lift and adjust diet, their bodies respond and sculpt differently,
yet can also be in great shape. Others do martial arts....others bicycle,
etc; All are seeking good health.
The problem is our search for the understanding and right to declare
something "good"
It would be like only the weight lifter assuming that his routine with
wieghts qualifies someone to be in good health. Nonsense.
Good is difficult to define in art. That doesn't mean there aren't better
contemporary artists than other modernists....or aren't better realists
than other realists. If you compare a body builder to an olympic figure
skater you have problems because the criteria is obviously different. Such
is the case with genre and style.
We would be better off discussing in light of a particular style that which
would more aptly define as successful in that style.....and hopefully for
the purpose of developing oneself.
Me.....my focus is to learn how to say more with less. To get to that
point where a brush stroke laid is a brush stroke stayed. To me, that is
mastery. To understand color and handling to that degree, sheer genius.
I bemoan that much of what the European artists had developed in technique
was lost. Used to bang my head against the wall wishing I could know what
they knew. I don't think it is so much the fault of impressionists in
retrospect as it was that those European artists working so hard to keep
their craft in secrecy...to assure their hold on the market. For such
reasons, only a few could hope even in their day to learn. Had they been
more generous in sharing the knowledge of what they learned rather than
being more concerned like usual with their earning potential in the free
market, perhaps their genius could have been passed along to more and the
Impressionists would not have to be seen as the criminals needing to be
dragged out to the stoning pits because their interests went another
direction.
I do not like a great deal of art.....but, I have learned to realize it is
who I am....and not necessarily my perception of what art is. Like if a
hockey player's opinion of the NBA would matter! Let's just all play the
game! Art. I love this game!
J-Bird
In article <6kubih$f...@newsops.execpc.com>, lse...@execpc.com says...
>For me.....I yet love realism. But...I'm having more fun seeing my work
>look realistic 3-4 paces back....with less saying more, than laboring that
>it looks real 12 inches away. Why fight over 3 lousy paces????
Aha. I sense a kindred aging spirit here. Making art that
looks good from further back is easy when you begin
losing that 20-20 vision of youth. I used to work all those
little niggling details to death too, but no longer, and it
has nothing to do with not wanting to. It has to do with
having to wear glasses and hating it. So I just muck around
and do without and the work has that quality that needs
appreciation from further and further away. J'Bird.
Larry Seiler
hahaha.....actually I have 20/10 vision which drives eye specialists crazy.
Genetics and luck. But I understand your point! Mine is simply tiring of
laboring to do something the vast majority of the public is not trained to
even see or appreciate, when with more ease and "fun" I can achieve a great
sense of realism further back, and create a greater body of work. Check
out my "landscapes" under "Gallery" on my web site. These are painted in
that loose fashion, and see if they do not yet appear realistic.
--
http://cwinc.net/larryseiler
"It's not what happens to you that matters, but
what happens in you!" (author unknown)
J
J-Bird
In article <6l183o$k...@newsops.execpc.com>, lse...@execpc.com says...
>Check
>out my "landscapes" under "Gallery" on my web site.
I had visited your site before and had trouble figuring out
how to access things. I see no listing for 'landscapes.'
I seem to only be able to view the work by repetitive
clicking on 'gallery.' Is that how it's supposed to work?
J'Bird.
Larry Seiler
J'Bird
ah.....I hope you are not one of the unfortunate 5% my web designer told me
about. He said about that percent would have trouble with their browsers
or systems opening the Java script applelet. It's been somewhat a pain, and
I hope someday to have the design altered somewhat. I don't have much right
to complain since my nearly 40 images on it and the design was all done
free by a former art student of mine. He even has given me space on his
system to store it.
What is supposed to happen is you arrived at the home page where you'll see
my state trout stamp design and links on the left side of the page.
When you click onto "Gallery".....an applelet is supposed to come up at the
top of your page that shows six portfolio areas...they are, landscapes,
wildlife art, illustrations, sporting portraits, stamp designs, and
sculptures. Sometimes the browser needs coaxing by using your mouse to
drag the cursor back and forth across the top of the page...clicking may
prime it to cooperate.
Some systems, like smaller Mac's monitors don't seem to get it. When I
subtaught at various schools where macs are popular, some can get
it.....many could not. Perhaps Java script can't be read by some of them,
I don't know.
If you do get the applelet to work, then just click onto "landscapes".
Hope that helps, but thanks alot anyway for trying. Doesn't happen often,
but I've had about a half-dozen that said they had the similar experience
as yours since I've had it up and running about 6 months now.
--
Larry
http://cwinc.net/larryseiler
"It's not what happens to you that matters, but
what happens in you!" (author unknown)
> I had visited your site before and had trouble figuring out
J-Bird
In article <6l2f0s$k...@newsops.execpc.com>, lse...@execpc.com says...
>J'Bird
>
>ah.....I hope you are not one of the unfortunate 5% my web designer told me
>about. He said about that percent would have trouble with their browsers
>or systems opening the Java script applelet.
Larry, I guess I must be. But then I've never upgraded to Windows 95
and there are some things that don't work well with the common
browsers unless you're running under W95 -- I know that. Everything
I want to do works so well under the old W3.1 and I had nothing but
trouble trying to upgrade to W95. I am awaiting W98 and its debugging
and will give myself a whole new computer for Xmas this coming one.
Cheeers, J'Bird.
Larry Seiler
looking to upgrade myself.....$$$$.....*sigh*.....good luck!
Larry
--
http://cwinc.net/larryseiler
"It's not what happens to you that matters, but
what happens in you!" (author unknown)
> I am awaiting W98 and its debugging