Poetry: what is it?
JAS Carter
H" <donlhu...@bigpond.com> warbled oh so charmingly:
>My own definition of poetry is -
>"Poetry is an aid to memory, devised in pre-literate times, and consists of
>verbalisation which has metre, and often rhyme. This makes memorising, eg.
>of traditional myths, easier than would unformatted prose. It is usually
>told in chanting fashion, even in song, and recited by elders to the younger
>generation; repeated until memorised completely. Thus is the wisdom of the
>tribe transmitted from generation to generation. With the advent of writing,
>poetry fell into disuse to a large extent, as its original purpose was
>superseded."
So, you don't have a definition for what poetry is, just what it was?
Julie Carter
--
http://www.everypoet.com/poetry/general/ep_jasc.htm
Mike Billard
saying "painting is an aid to memory as tribes paint on cave walls to depict
major events. With the advent of writing, painting fell into disuse . . ."
Claiming that poetry is defined by an ancient utilitarian function is not
simply incorrect, its absurd.
Don H <donlhu...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:TSJG5.3171$e5....@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
> My own definition of poetry is -
> "Poetry is an aid to memory, devised in pre-literate times, and consists
of
> verbalisation which has metre, and often rhyme. This makes memorising,
eg.
> of traditional myths, easier than would unformatted prose. It is usually
> told in chanting fashion, even in song, and recited by elders to the
younger
> generation; repeated until memorised completely. Thus is the wisdom of
the
> tribe transmitted from generation to generation. With the advent of
writing,
> poetry fell into disuse to a large extent, as its original purpose was
> superseded."
> =========================================
>
>
>
>
>
Dale Houstman
"Don H" <donlhu...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:TSJG5.3171$e5....@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
> My own definition of poetry is -
> "Poetry is an aid to memory, devised in pre-literate times, and consists
of
> verbalisation which has metre, and often rhyme. This makes memorising,
eg.
> of traditional myths, easier than would unformatted prose. It is usually
> told in chanting fashion, even in song, and recited by elders to the
younger
> generation; repeated until memorised completely. Thus is the wisdom of
the
> tribe transmitted from generation to generation. With the advent of
writing,
> poetry fell into disuse to a large extent, as its original purpose was
> superseded."
> =========================================
A distinctly useless definition. While it is quite possibly true the
rhythmic and rhyming elements that make up some poetry did come about for
this reason, it is quite impossible that this is what poetry is now.
Rather - like most evolutinary processes - poetry is a concretion and
accretion of the ages: it survives because it represents the height of man's
greatest distinction: language. It has been put to so many uses since Oog
needed to remember the origin of the Bobo tree that your definition is
pointless.
As for the "idea" that poetry has falen into disuse since the advent of
writing. All one can say is "bizarre!" All we know of poetry (including the
word "poetry" itself) came about after the invention of writing. That there
is also a concurrent oral tradition of lesser or greater value is
irrelevant.
Clothes were invented to keep people warm. Why don't all those damn people
in Italy and Spain take off their pants in summer? Because - clothes now
serve a variety of functions: one being pleasure, another style, another
self-expression, another modesty, and so on.
Poetry's no different in this regard. It has grown along with the rest of
nature, and taken on new functions as needed. At any rate: writing a nice
love poem isn't the worse way to get some loving.
dmh
Brain Trepaning
calls it empty...
--
Brain Trepaning
Boring excitement into your skull
http://victorian.fortunecity.com/daddio/227
gga...@excite.com
wrote:
>poetry glorifies or vilifies life. it has to. if it doesn't, JAS Carter
>calls it empty...
Obsess much, Brian?
gg
thought so.
gga...@excite.com
Oh jeez, I just say that I misspelled your name, Brain.
sorry.
gg
"Hardly anybody is an expert poet,
but by discouraging people from writing poetry
you are narrowing down the creativity in the world."
Mangojeter
Brain Trepaning
default. Normally, I don't obsess. Sometimes, though, when I see the work of
anyone willing to put their ideas to words torn apart by another, it makes
me see red, as this may very well prevent that someone from writing again,
and that sucks big time.
JAS Carter: I know nothing of you, as you know nothing of me. We have a
difference of opinions when it comes to the need for harsh criticism, and I
have been having fun with that. tear my work apart all you want, it doesn't
bother me at all. But you should think about what harsh words may do to the
more thin-skinned. There is a reason some turn to poetry...
--
Brain Trepaning
Boring excitement into your skull
http://victorian.fortunecity.com/daddio/227
<gga...@excite.com> wrote in message news:39ef8c42.204893834@news...
gga...@excite.com
wrote:
>name is actually Brian, but so many people type it as Brain, it just became
>default.
Your circle of friends must include a lot of dyslexics or morons, or
both.
>Normally, I don't obsess.
But this is one of those rare exceptions, right?
>Sometimes, though, when I see the work of
>anyone willing to put their ideas to words torn apart by another, it makes
>me see red, as this may very well prevent that someone from writing again,
>and that sucks big time.
I see that you fit in well with the second set of personality types
that makes up your circle of friends. There is a faq for this group.
Read it. You're making yourself sound like a fool.
>
>JAS Carter: I know nothing of you, as you know nothing of me. We have a
>difference of opinions when it comes to the need for harsh criticism, and I
>have been having fun with that. tear my work apart all you want, it doesn't
>bother me at all. But you should think about what harsh words may do to the
>more thin-skinned. There is a reason some turn to poetry...
Your ridiculously naive attempt at a position regarding criticism is
one that we see all too often here. I'll bet you believe that ~Poets~
tend to be ~sensitive souls~ who are ~emotional~ and ~sensitive~ and
that ~harsh comments~ can crush their ~spirits~, and may even lead
them to be ~depressed~, maybe a harsh comment could even lead a
~sensitive poet~ to ~suicide~! Right Brain? So, in your fuzzy puppy,
rampant unicorn infested, fluffy cuddly, teddy bear world any comment
other than *I just loved it, I could really relate*, is an affront to
the tender sensitivities of the feeling soul that was brave enough to
share their emotions and feelings with the world. Right Brain? Have
I got you pegged? Check out my sigfile. You are the latest in a long
line.
gg
"Hardly anybody is an expert poet,
but by discouraging people from writing poetry
you are narrowing down the creativity in the world."
Mangojeter
"I just can't understand the nasty attitudes I've seen here, against
people only trying to express themselves and get a little pat on the
back. It warps people's creativity, and makes them paranoid, for fear
of displeasing the Poet Gods who are also the Good Time Group, or
Swine Club. (they shall remain nameless)" Cheryl Brown
"It's funny how jealous people will go out of their way to knock
someone else down. I've read your stuff and it stinks to be quite
honest. I have sold more poems than you have ever written....."
Candice Lee
"but you know, i've also noticed something else,
the other side of this coin is the bitter,
hateful no talent people who had nothing else to do but hassle
someone."
The Poetress
"The poem is a call to write, calling all writers to write, and it
muses on the genesis of a class of writer, writers who feel they were
born to write, and so, for many of these, I would imagine the sight of
a pen engendered a purity of lust from the very first sight. I know I
could scarcely put it down, I felt as if I was deserting somebody if I
did not write."
Carter Mobley
I think the lustful pen one is my favourite.
Michelle Vessel
Dude. Is it really that hard to get your trepanned brain around the fact that
this newsgroup is specifically for people who are actively seeking honest,
intelligent commentary on their poetry? Hence the name,
alt.arts.poetry.comments? If it's unabashed, feel-good gushery about every
psuedo-philosophic, cathartic piece of tripe you transcribe from your diary you
crave, try rec.arts.poems. If your self-esteem is deficient, get thee to group
therapy. In your case, I might recommend
alt.hapless-sonneteer-fixations-anonymous.
--Michelle
Brain Trepaning wrote:
> name is actually Brian, but so many people type it as Brain, it just became
> default. Normally, I don't obsess. Sometimes, though, when I see the work of
> anyone willing to put their ideas to words torn apart by another, it makes
> me see red, as this may very well prevent that someone from writing again,
> and that sucks big time.
>
> JAS Carter: I know nothing of you, as you know nothing of me. We have a
> difference of opinions when it comes to the need for harsh criticism, and I
> have been having fun with that. tear my work apart all you want, it doesn't
> bother me at all. But you should think about what harsh words may do to the
> more thin-skinned. There is a reason some turn to poetry...
> --
>
> Brain Trepaning
> Boring excitement into your skull
> http://victorian.fortunecity.com/daddio/227
>
> <gga...@excite.com> wrote in message news:39ef8c42.204893834@news...
> > On Mon, 16 Oct 2000 23:17:18 GMT, gga...@excite.com
> > (gga...@excite.com) wrote:
> >
> > >On Mon, 16 Oct 2000 15:51:47 -0700, "Brain Trepaning" <d...@37.com>
> > >wrote:
> > >
> > >>poetry glorifies or vilifies life. it has to. if it doesn't, JAS Carter
> > >>calls it empty...
> > >
> > >
> > >Obsess much, Brian?
> > >
> > >gg
> > >thought so.
> >
> > Oh jeez, I just say that I misspelled your name, Brain.
> >
> > sorry.
Mike Billard
Brain Trepaning <d...@37.com> wrote in message
news:39eb8e92$0$20...@fountain.mindlink.net...
> name is actually Brian, but so many people type it as Brain, it just
became
> default. Normally, I don't obsess. Sometimes, though, when I see the work
of
> anyone willing to put their ideas to words torn apart by another, it makes
> me see red, as this may very well prevent that someone from writing again,
> and that sucks big time.
>
> JAS Carter: I know nothing of you, as you know nothing of me. We have a
> difference of opinions when it comes to the need for harsh criticism, and
I
> have been having fun with that. tear my work apart all you want, it
doesn't
> bother me at all. But you should think about what harsh words may do to
the
> more thin-skinned. There is a reason some turn to poetry...
It wouldn't have anything to do with writing a poem would it? Nah, didn't
think so. Why do people "turn to poetry", Brian?
Don H
Redclay 6
anyone willing to put their ideas to words torn apart by another, it makes
me see red>>>
you should be so lucky.
Redclay 6
when the whiskey stops wukkin.
carmen
> Clothes were invented to keep people warm. Why don't all those damn people
> in Italy and Spain take off their pants in summer?
we do, we do
you have to go to marbella
carmen
Redclay 6
you have to go to marbella
carmen>>
oh my.
M.C Dijk
suck are black and white and very sad.
greetings Chantal Dijk
<gga...@excite.com> wrote in message news:39f190b5.206033043@news...
> On Mon, 16 Oct 2000 16:21:39 -0700, "Brain Trepaning" <d...@37.com>
> wrote:
>
> >name is actually Brian, but so many people type it as Brain, it just
became
> >default.
>
> Your circle of friends must include a lot of dyslexics or morons, or
> both.
>
>
> >Normally, I don't obsess.
>
> But this is one of those rare exceptions, right?
>
>
> >Sometimes, though, when I see the work of
> >anyone willing to put their ideas to words torn apart by another, it
makes
> >me see red, as this may very well prevent that someone from writing
again,
> >and that sucks big time.
>
> I see that you fit in well with the second set of personality types
> that makes up your circle of friends. There is a faq for this group.
> Read it. You're making yourself sound like a fool.
>
>
> >
> >JAS Carter: I know nothing of you, as you know nothing of me. We have a
> >difference of opinions when it comes to the need for harsh criticism, and
I
> >have been having fun with that. tear my work apart all you want, it
doesn't
> >bother me at all. But you should think about what harsh words may do to
the
> >more thin-skinned. There is a reason some turn to poetry...
>
>
> Your ridiculously naive attempt at a position regarding criticism is
> one that we see all too often here. I'll bet you believe that ~Poets~
> tend to be ~sensitive souls~ who are ~emotional~ and ~sensitive~ and
> that ~harsh comments~ can crush their ~spirits~, and may even lead
> them to be ~depressed~, maybe a harsh comment could even lead a
> ~sensitive poet~ to ~suicide~! Right Brain? So, in your fuzzy puppy,
> rampant unicorn infested, fluffy cuddly, teddy bear world any comment
> other than *I just loved it, I could really relate*, is an affront to
> the tender sensitivities of the feeling soul that was brave enough to
> share their emotions and feelings with the world. Right Brain? Have
> I got you pegged? Check out my sigfile. You are the latest in a long
> line.
>
> gg
> "Hardly anybody is an expert poet,
> but by discouraging people from writing poetry
> you are narrowing down the creativity in the world."
> Mangojeter
>
Ron S
The thread asked for definitions of poetry.
So what are your definitions.
If you wish to bicker amongst yourselves start a thread for that.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Samuel Vriezen
I liked Dutch poet Gerrit Krol's definition: Poetry is a printed text,
the layout of which was determined by the writer rather than by the
printer.
JAS Carter
<newre...@my-deja.com> warbled oh so charmingly:
>Why has every one gone of subject.
>
>The thread asked for definitions of poetry.
>
>So what are your definitions.
>
>If you wish to bicker amongst yourselves start a thread for that.
Why start a new thread when there is a perfectly good one sitting
here?
gga...@excite.com
wrote:
>ggam77, Let me make a mentall note - Note to read your commends again, they
>suck are black and white and very sad.
>
>greetings Chantal Dijk
Greetings Chantal,
I sincerely hope you can understand those notes you are making.
yer pal,
gg
"The ability to write is a gift, if one does not believe that, then
please take notice in the reasoning why your words need to be
written."
crowstouch
Brain Trepaning
anything, don't care. I don't know if poets are sensitive, and don't care. I
have had fun, though, and that's always worth the visit.
I make you think, therefore, I am.
ha.
Brain Trepaning
bite me, as well. like I care about anything another human has to say. fuck,
get over yourself. I'm set for life. what have you done?
ha.
o ya.
see ya, wouldn't want to be ya.
critique that.
you can be anything or anyone in this world. just pick a site and be it.
bye bye
troll-op
--
Brain Trepaning
Boring excitement into your skull
http://victorian.fortunecity.com/daddio/227
<gga...@excite.com> wrote in message news:39f190b5.206033043@news...
John Sullivan
s...@xs4all.nl.getridofthisone (Samuel Vriezen) wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Oct 2000 08:03:12 +1000, "Don H"
> <donlhu...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
> I liked Dutch poet Gerrit Krol's definition: Poetry is a printed text,
> the layout of which was determined by the writer rather than by the
> printer.
>
Well I guess it's supposed to be tongue in cheek, but plenty of prose
has layout determined by the author, where the section breaks are and
such. And much anthologized poetry has layouts _not_ determined by the
author, they use different fonts, lines have to be stair-stepped because
the pages aren't wide enough, etc.
-john s
Dale Houstman
"John Sullivan" <NOjo...@SPAMsprynet.com> wrote in message
news:NOjohns01-B6012...@nntp.sprynet.com...
> In article <39ec475...@news.xs4all.nl>,
> s...@xs4all.nl.getridofthisone (Samuel Vriezen) wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 17 Oct 2000 08:03:12 +1000, "Don H"
> > <donlhu...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> >
> > the layout of which was determined by the writer rather than by the
> > printer.
> >
>
>
> Well I guess it's supposed to be tongue in cheek, but plenty of prose
> has layout determined by the author, where the section breaks are and
> such. And much anthologized poetry has layouts _not_ determined by the
> author, they use different fonts, lines have to be stair-stepped because
> the pages aren't wide enough, etc.
>
one thing it doesn't begin to cover a major genre of poetry: the prose poem.
dmh
Dale Houstman
> I have to admit, this has been fun. I don't know why anyone turns to
> anything, don't care. I don't know if poets are sensitive, and don't care.
I
> have had fun, though, and that's always worth the visit.
>
> I make you think, therefore, I am.
>
You haven't elicited any deep thoughts in the least. You're just deluded by
your own sense of importance into thinking you're thinking. I suspect this
delusion is the one thing that distinguishes you from the food you void
every day.
dmh
Dale Houstman
"Ron S" <newre...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8sgt99$76$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Why has every one gone of subject.
>
> The thread asked for definitions of poetry.
>
> So what are your definitions.
>
> If you wish to bicker amongst yourselves start a thread for that.
>
essential about art is that it surprises and challenges your grasp of art.
As for going off subject: welcome to the concept of human conversation.
dmh
Dale Houstman
"carmen" <cc...@speakeasy.org> wrote in message
news:72QG5.17064$YX4.6...@news2.giganews.com...
Next year I am going (again!) to England, where the only reason men take off
their trousers is to get spanked.
Poetry is the art of spanking mediated through the lense of concentrated
disregard.
dmh
gga...@excite.com
wrote:
>. I have sold more poems than you have ever written....."
>
>bite me, as well. like I care about anything another human has to say. fuck,
>get over yourself. I'm set for life. what have you done?
>
>ha.
>
>o ya.
>
>see ya, wouldn't want to be ya.
>
>critique that.
>
>you can be anything or anyone in this world. just pick a site and be it.
>
>bye bye
>
>troll-op
One would think that a troll such as you
would know what a sig-file was.
gg
one would
carmen
> Next year I am going (again!) to England, where the only reason men take off
> their trousers is to get spanked.
>
puritans! and pointless.
you don't need to take off your trousers to get spanked
ask me
carmen
Don H
Painting a portrait or landscape, etc, was once the only way of permanently
producing an image of real objects - ie. prior to the invention of
photography. Once photography came along, then painting in this sense
became obsolete - hence "modern art" was invented. (As too, "free verse".)
The word "art" means a skill, and the test of pre-photographic art was the
skill shown in reproducing a likeness of someone or something; the closer
the likeness, the greater the skill.
In my view, anyone who spends lots of money on "modern art" is being conned.
=====================================
Mike Billard wrote in message <8sfu4t$sl9$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>...
>I'd recommend you do a little studying and then try again. This is akin to
>saying "painting is an aid to memory as tribes paint on cave walls to
depict
>major events. With the advent of writing, painting fell into disuse . . ."
>Claiming that poetry is defined by an ancient utilitarian function is not
>simply incorrect, its absurd.
Kevin Taylor
<donlhu...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>Yes, I take a utilitarian view of painting, sculpture,etc, also.
>
>Painting a portrait or landscape, etc, was once the only way of permanently
>producing an image of real objects - ie. prior to the invention of
>photography. Once photography came along, then painting in this sense
>became obsolete - hence "modern art" was invented. (As too, "free verse".)
That's a pretty Eurocentic view of things and not accurate either
unless you nail it down to specific schools and times. Many African
styles of art, as well as North American people's art were not based
on some form of empirical reality.
I don't see the "as too, "free verse"" relationship. Elaborate please.
Dale Houstman
One doesn't have to drop pants for a spanking of course, but some people
are really into the nautral order of things.
dmh
Dale Houstman
"Don H" <donlhu...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:52aH5.4098$e5.1...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
> Yes, I take a utilitarian view of painting, sculpture,etc, also.
>
> Painting a portrait or landscape, etc, was once the only way of
permanently
> producing an image of real objects - ie. prior to the invention of
> photography. Once photography came along, then painting in this sense
> became obsolete - hence "modern art" was invented. (As too, "free verse".)
The history of art belies your statements: art has abstracted elements
almost from the beginning, so obviously this isn't what art was for. As for
modern art: Impressionism, Abstract Expressionism, Expressionism itself, and
a whole host of other triumphs make your blanket statement rather ratty.
Henri Rousseau, Aborigine art, Indian sand paintings, the decorative arts of
Greece, the delicate waterpaintings of the Japanese, the odd hieroglyphs of
the Nile, and on and on and on: all speak to an entirely different notion
than mere "permanent production of an image of real objects." For one thing
the ancients illustrated the lives of otherwise invisible deities: they were
thus producing images that photography could not! The fact is photography
has spent an awful lot of time attempting to gain on the expressive pallette
of painting. An - obviously - photos will never quite achieve the effect of
sculpture.
>
> The word "art" means a skill, and the test of pre-photographic art was the
> skill shown in reproducing a likeness of someone or something; the closer
> the likeness, the greater the skill.
Simply untrue. For the vast amount of work done pre-photo, exact
reproduction was not the point. Even in portraiture of the later English,
Flemish, German, French, etc. the real point was to produce a psychological
portrait. In fact - in the case of many people - painters are specifically
instructed to "beautify" the sitter, or to add fantasy items of symbolic
measure. I don't know what museums you've been to, but you seem to have not
noticed that painting isn't about photographic verisimilitude at all. Turner
is about light; Blake is about visions (who could have photographed his
"Ghost of a Flea"), and though I would be happy if you went to the trouble
of photographing Hell so as to compete with Bosch I doubt your ability to do
so. Mona Lisa is placed against a mythical backdrop, statues of Hercules
have impossible musculature, Hermes has wings on his feet, Botticelli's
beautiful women have necks like swans and seem to float on the wind, El
Greco (well you know), and on and on and on: the enormous phalli seen on
certain painted males in Pompei (I've been there, and was quite giddily
guided to this quite non-photographic subject), fairies, monsters, etc.
You're quite simply (and demonstrably) incorrect.
>
> In my view, anyone who spends lots of money on "modern art" is being
conned.
You brought up the subject of money, so that's your venue. But there are
many many examples of modern art that are as compelling as anything produced
in this illusory "physical memory" age you love to speak of in rather
uneducated tones. As for being "conned." Well the scores of people who
resell modern art for exorbinant profits probably don't know what you're
talking about either.
But what is your idea of modern art? When does it begin? What are some
examples of these works you seem to disparage? Have you considered the
possibility that you are a mere philistine, and that you could be mistaken
in your notions?
dmh
John Sullivan
<donlhu...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> Yes, I take a utilitarian view of painting, sculpture,etc, also.
>
> Painting a portrait or landscape, etc, was once the only way of
> permanently
> producing an image of real objects - ie. prior to the invention of
> photography. Once photography came along, then painting in this sense
> became obsolete - hence "modern art" was invented. (As too, "free
> verse".)
>
> The word "art" means a skill, and the test of pre-photographic art was
> the
> skill shown in reproducing a likeness of someone or something; the closer
> the likeness, the greater the skill.
>
What about fiction?
This is a boring definition of art. And saying that art is skill begs
the question of what is skill, which itself presupposes a defined
end-state of art.
-john s
The Great Milenko~ General of the DCD
gga...@excite.com stunk up this news group with:
(To "Brain") "Your circle of friends must include a lot of dyslexics
or morons, or both."
~~~ So not only are you (ggam) an idiot snob, but you have to take a
cheap shot against dyslexics?!?!? How about nailing gays, blacks,
battered women and witches? I have friends that fit into all of those
categories AND I disagree with you, so, that MUST make me suspect,
right?
"I see that you fit in well with the second set of personality types
that makes up your circle of friends."
~~~ Key word there loser, "friends". He at least has some.
"There is a faq for this group. Read it.
You're making yourself sound like a fool."
~~~ And you are not?
"Your ridiculously naive attempt at a position regarding criticism is
one that we see all too often here. I'll bet you believe that ~Poets~
tend to be ~sensitive souls~ who are ~emotional~ and ~sensitive~ and
that ~harsh comments~ can crush their ~spirits~, and may even lead them
to be ~depressed~, maybe a harsh comment could even lead a ~sensitive
poet~ to ~suicide~! Right Brain? So, in your fuzzy puppy, rampant
unicorn infested, fluffy cuddly, teddy bear world any comment other than
*I just loved it, I could really relate*, is an affront to the tender
sensitivities of the feeling soul that was brave enough to share their
emotions and feelings with the world. Right Brain? Have I got you
pegged? Check out my sigfile. You are the latest in a long line."
~~~ And I say to you:
Your ridiculously naive attempt at a position regarding CYNICISM is
one that we see all too often here. I'll bet YOU believe that ~Poets~
should be
~insensitive asses~ who are ~cold~ and ~heartless~ and that ~harsh
comments~ can ~improve~ their ~poetry~, and may even lead them to be
~adored by other poetry snobs~, maybe a ~supportive comment~ could even
lead a ~beginning poet~ to ~feel good about themselves~! Right ggam77?
So, in your dead puppy, rampant demon infested, stuffy, unhappy,
no-teddy bear world any comment other than *I just hated it, I could
barely stand to read it*, is an affront to the ~human sensitivities~ of
the feeling soul that was brave enough to share their emotions and
feelings with the world. Right ggam77? Have I got you pegged? Check out
my SHITlist. You are the latest in a long line.
Mike Billard
> The following is a true story:
> The "public school" which I attended many years ago, had the tradition of
> commissioning a portrait of each retiring headmaster.
> While I was there, the current headmaster retired, so I was able to
compare
> the resultant portrait with "the original". The likeness was there, but
not
> quite - surely a good colour photograph would have been preferable. I
call
> this carrying tradition to the point of absurdity.
> =======================================
>
Obviously the color photograph wasn't preferable. Otherwise, they would have
gone with the color photograph. Contemplate that for awhile. But not so long
that it might infringe on the ignorance you've spent so long developing. We
wouldn't want you to actually learn something.
Mike Billard
> Some art may be purely symbolic, decorative, or just primitive - in that
the
> artist couldn't do any better;
This is so wrong as to be laughable. There is a lovely anecdote about
Picasso (probably a terrible artist by your incomplete and inaccurate
definition) in which a friend of his lost ownership of a painting by another
famous artist (Toulouse-Lautrec perhaps, but maybe not). The friend was
rather upset about the loss, but Picasso reassured her that he could
reproduce the painting perfectly from memory. Someone on the ng knows the
specifics of the story and will post the correct information, I'm sure. The
point (which you undoubtedly won't get on your own)? Picasso didn't paint
the way he did because he wasn't good enough to do otherwise; he did so
because that was what he intended to do. His skills were fully developed. He
was capable of producing any effect he chose to produce. He said in an
interview once that he could paint as well as Raphael as a child, but it
took him a lifetime to learn to paint like a child. Don't get it, do you?
Don't worry, it's more comfortable if you don't.
> but I still allege that it must have some
> contact with reality, and an attempt to portray it.
The notion that a painting's (or more generally any work of art's) intention
is to portray reality is misguided and short sighted. The intention of any
work of art is to portray the artist's vision. Whether that has any relation
to reality is up to the artist.
>
> When I was four years old, it seems that my mother took me to an art
gallery
> and a painting caught my eye. "What's that?" "I think it's supposed to be
a
> horse." "I could draw a better horse than that!"
Such an exchange must be predicated on either a) the artist was intending to
faithfully represent a horse in his painting but failed, or b) that the only
valid form of art (as defined by who?) is the faithful and accurate
representation of an object or scene. Of course neither is true. I would
expect a four year old to make that mistake. I suspect you're older than
that now.
> (Of course, I'll now get the response that I haven't advanced since four
> years of age. Ah well, maybe.) I remember the time when the winner of an
> abstract art award turned out to be a chimpanzee.
And, I suppose, all art that is not photographic quality and of a known and
recognizable object is abstract art. Monet, among thousands of others, would
be amused.
>
> But it seems to me that much so-called "art" is just garbage.
You've posted a number of things that seem to you to be correct but that
have no basis in fact or history. Seems to me you haven't taken even one
minute to study the subject about which you're so willing speak.
> Take modern pop-music.
Why?
> Most of this is just noise, even if it is acclaimed
> and sold on CDs.
As if this is a modern indicator of a piece's value as art? Not even
remotely true. Completely irrelevant, in fact.
> It consists of a single theme repeated and repeated; no
> lyrics to mention, and fades from the charts almost as soon as it hits
them.
>
> "Free verse" was invented (in my opinion)
And your opinion is based on what?
> by people who don't care for the
> discipline of composing regular metre and rhyme. Almost anything goes....
Your ignorance is so great it is almost awe inspiring. Most "free verse"
isn't free verse at all. There are measures and devices and rhythms based
on units other than meter (and rhyme). Whitman's non-metrical prosody, for
instance, was remarkably regular and used heavily devices and techniques
thousands of years old. Calling his poetry, as many do, "free verse" is
inaccurate at best. Simply put, just because you haven't the ability to
recognize what's going on in any poem, or painting, or sculpture, doesn't
mean nothing is going on. I suspect I'm wasting my breath -- keystrokes,
really. You've obviously never taken the time to study any of the
disciplines for which you've developed these silly opinions. And I doubt you
ever will.
Mike Billard
Redclay 6 <redc...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20001018225822...@ng-ct1.aol.com...
> The intention of any
> work of art is to portray the artist's vision. >>
>
Yeah, Monet's vision had a fairly major impact on his vision. Not to mention
the sizes of his paintings.
Aidan Tynan
Don H wrote in message <52aH5.4098$e5.1...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>...
>Yes, I take a utilitarian view of painting, sculpture,etc, also.
>
>Painting a portrait or landscape, etc, was once the only way of permanently
>producing an image of real objects - ie. prior to the invention of
>photography. Once photography came along, then painting in this sense
>became obsolete - hence "modern art" was invented. (As too, "free verse".)
>
>The word "art" means a skill, and the test of pre-photographic art was the
>skill shown in reproducing a likeness of someone or something; the closer
>the likeness, the greater the skill.
>
>In my view, anyone who spends lots of money on "modern art" is being
conned.
Oh shut up, you ignorant buffoon.
-Aidan
Don H
Don H
contact with reality, and an attempt to portray it.
When I was four years old, it seems that my mother took me to an art gallery
and a painting caught my eye. "What's that?" "I think it's supposed to be a
horse." "I could draw a better horse than that!"
(Of course, I'll now get the response that I haven't advanced since four
years of age. Ah well, maybe.) I remember the time when the winner of an
abstract art award turned out to be a chimpanzee.
But it seems to me that much so-called "art" is just garbage.
Take modern pop-music. Most of this is just noise, even if it is acclaimed
and sold on CDs. It consists of a single theme repeated and repeated; no
lyrics to mention, and fades from the charts almost as soon as it hits them.
"Free verse" was invented (in my opinion) by people who don't care for the
discipline of composing regular metre and rhyme. Almost anything goes....
=================================
Redclay 6
Dale Houstman
"Aidan Tynan" <aty...@iname.com> wrote in message
news:iSrH5.9027$Bw1....@news.indigo.ie...
dmh
Dale Houstman
the
> artist couldn't do any better; but I still allege that it must have some
> contact with reality, and an attempt to portray it.
>
> When I was four years old, it seems that my mother took me to an art
gallery
> and a painting caught my eye. "What's that?" "I think it's supposed to be
a
> horse." "I could draw a better horse than that!"
> (Of course, I'll now get the response that I haven't advanced since four
> years of age. Ah well, maybe.) I remember the time when the winner of an
> abstract art award turned out to be a chimpanzee.
If this really happened to you, why does it only "seem" that it happened to
you? A strange construction. Personally I think you're lying. This is the
central tale of the budding philistine!
As for the chimp tale: it's apocryphal. And even if it were true it would
reflect on the judges not the other artists.
>
> But it seems to me that much so-called "art" is just garbage.
You like to say "seems" don't you? Name some of this garbage, and tell me
why you think it is garbage.
> Take modern pop-music. Most of this is just noise, even if it is
acclaimed
> and sold on CDs. It consists of a single theme repeated and repeated; no
> lyrics to mention, and fades from the charts almost as soon as it hits
them.
Art is ephemeral at times, its position on any poll is not indicative of its
worth. But - at any rate - you are wrong about the music. You sound like an
old woman. I have a lot of music in my house, from the earliest lute music
to the latest Bjork, and I can tell you good music is still being produced
regularly and always will be. What "modern pop-music" is just noise? Name
some names. Everything you refer to is referred to in blanket terms: it only
appears to make you out to be ignorant.
>
> "Free verse" was invented (in my opinion) by people who don't care for the
> discipline of composing regular metre and rhyme. Almost anything goes....
Mike Billard answers this one more than adequately. But - again - when you
speak in blanket terms it makes you sound bitter but uniformed. Name some
free verse (which isn't) that particularly strikes you as lazy.
dmh
Aidan Tynan
>>
>He does seem beyond conversation. He isn't worth the effort.
Well, I gave him the chagrin off my back and nothing more.
-Aidan
>
>dmh
>
>
>
>
EL
"Don H" <donlhu...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> My own definition of poetry is -
> "Poetry is an aid to memory, devised in pre-literate times, and
consists of
> verbalisation which has metre, and often rhyme. This makes
memorising, eg.
> of traditional myths, easier than would unformatted prose. It is
usually
> told in chanting fashion, even in song, and recited by elders to the
younger
> generation; repeated until memorised completely. Thus is the wisdom
of the
writing,
> poetry fell into disuse to a large extent, as its original purpose was
> superseded."
> =========================================
The Arabic grammar was put into a thousand verses named "Alfeyat Ibn
Malik".
Also a famous tale "Abu Zaid and the Zanati Khalif" was put into lyrics.
This is to confirm by example that your hypothesis is not far from
truth about the usefulness of poetry.
Yet one would ask if it was found that poetry could be useful for such
a purpose or was poetry invented for such a purpose.
The Arabs used Poetry before the Britons learned to say more than
humph.
They used poetry for insulting each other and for pride, love, praise
and sarcasm.
Do you think that they were memorizing anything there? I guess not, and
what was going on was an instinctive emotional expression.
So yes, and psychologically speaking, poetry and music do put emphasis
on the emotional background which enhances the memorization of the
intellectual contents of complex material, which would be very
difficult to remember if it was never related with anything at all.
Thusly I do disagree with you that the original purpose of poetry was
for memorization or for any other purpose at all. Poetry has a very
long history, but I would not go into that within the context of this
thread.
To give you a very brief and accurate definition for poetry I would say
that it is the form of the emotional feelings when intellectual naked
words wear a dress. You should realize that pure logic and facts are so
naked functionally so that it may function as clear as possible, on the
other side of communication there are more than just logic and facts
that could be transmitted emotionally much faster than intellectually.
Let me give you some examples to understand what is poetry.
If I wanted to torment your soul and make you feel like an idiot while
looking down on you and mocking your ideas I would say.
Come, come see what a dim wit we have here.
His mouth is his ass and he speaks farts so hear.
Full of shit he lacks the wit and no idea he can steer.
I rose upon his empty logic and there he ran in fear.
These verses convey the mockery much more and penetrating than the mere
insults contained within.
Poetry also developed techniques for illustration by analogy and
simile. To emphasize romance and tenderness one could not escape from
a poetic form.
Though you bleed my heart severely, I remain your faithful, in love
with you dearly.
A gardener in love with a rose, seduced to grasp it tightly, pricked
and bled nearly.
Hence worship and sacrifice, adoring the petals, demanding to pay the
price.
Here, my heart is on fire tormented by your beauty, and there, yours in
ice.
As you can see that blood, gardens, roses, fire and ice are all tools
to carry the emotional experience of the poet.
I could go on forever demonstrating my point but I think you have got a
good picture of it by now.
--
EL Hemetis
=================================================
Only fools never change their mind.
=================================================
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
up...@webtv.net
Poetry is word music. Each word has a sound, and that sound conveys a
definite meaning. The poet chooses each word sound, and grammatically
composes phonic cords. When vocal cords pronounce these choices, a poem
is heard and it's meaning defines its self.
The reading of words in sentences void of punctuation, spelling, or
indication of grammatical music , is a word list, or a paragraph to
the reader.
To be present in one's own life, does not a poet make.
That is my definition of poetry. ~Upon~
Dale Houstman
> >>
> >>
> >He does seem beyond conversation. He isn't worth the effort.
>
> Well, I gave him the chagrin off my back and nothing more.
>
>
fatuously - that he was actually concerned with knowledge of some sort.
We both know better now...
dmh
Don H
I use the words "it seems" because I don't remember it happening (being only
four years of age at the time), but was told in later years that it did take
place. As to the chimpanzee episode, this too did take place, in Britain
(if I remember correctly) many years ago.
How do you make rabbit pie? First catch your rabbit.
How do you have a debate? First define your terms.
My definitions of "poetry" and "art" may be wrong, but that is basically how
I see them. Those who disagree are entitled to do so of course...
Pop music is part of the capitalist mass production scene, which MUST keep
on churning out products, even if the product is rubbish (with a few
exceptions). You can sell almost anything with the right marketing
technique.
================================
Aidan Tynan
Don H wrote in message ...
>Well, I've certainly stirred up a hornet's nest with this post!
>
>I use the words "it seems" because I don't remember it happening (being
only
>four years of age at the time), but was told in later years that it did
take
>place. As to the chimpanzee episode, this too did take place, in Britain
>(if I remember correctly) many years ago.
>How do you make rabbit pie? First catch your rabbit.
>How do you have a debate? First define your terms.
>My definitions of "poetry" and "art" may be wrong, but that is basically
how
>I see them. Those who disagree are entitled to do so of course...
You still haven't identified a single artist you find guilty of 'conning'
people.
>
>Pop music is part of the capitalist mass production scene, which MUST keep
>on churning out products, even if the product is rubbish (with a few
>exceptions). You can sell almost anything with the right marketing
>technique.
I find your analogy between pop music and modern bizarre in the extreme.
-Aidan
>================================
>
>
>
Redclay 6
what happens when you run this thu the transamulator?
Redclay 6
How do you have a debate? First define your terms.>>
i done want nobody hammerin with pliers to tell me how to make a birdhouse.
Dale Houstman
For myself, it came out "Honeybell, the dog's stuck in the grain auger
again, and I ain't got time to poke it out before I go to work at the Win
Dixie."
But my transamulator is admittedly old.
dmh
Dale Houstman
> Well, I've certainly stirred up a hornet's nest with this post!
Yes, but you're using a very short stick, so watch out.
>
> I use the words "it seems" because I don't remember it happening (being
only
> four years of age at the time), but was told in later years that it did
take
> place. As to the chimpanzee episode, this too did take place, in Britain
> (if I remember correctly) many years ago.
I doubt it, but - as I said - such an event only reflects on the vacancy of
the judges, or the pure awfulness of the entires, and is - in no way - a
critique of modern art. Such "tabloid giggles" are not good fodder for
honest or intelligent conversation.
> How do you make rabbit pie? First catch your rabbit.
> How do you have a debate? First define your terms.
> My definitions of "poetry" and "art" may be wrong, but that is basically
how
> I see them. Those who disagree are entitled to do so of course...
If you're this subjectivist and limp about your opinions, why post them at
all? Just because you call them "mere" opinions doesn't make them immune to
investigation.
>
> Pop music is part of the capitalist mass production scene, which MUST keep
> on churning out products, even if the product is rubbish (with a few
> exceptions). You can sell almost anything with the right marketing
> technique.
This is a pointless point. The Beatles (and almost all musical expressions)
end up being a part of the capitalist mass production scene, but this is no
indictment a priori of the music's quality.
But again you speak in generalities: list some of these "noises" you are so
beat up over.
At any rate, why do you keep returning to the subject of money, marketing,
etc? It seems this is a way for you to avoid the subject all together. No
one here would claim that all modern art is good, or that all modern music
was superb. You are making the blanket statements, so it behooves you to
clarify your meaning in some fashion.
dmh
Mike Billard
> I'll grant that any artist who can paint well in a "photographic" manner
> should be given some credence - but too often I suspect many "modern"
> artists paint that way because they're unable to paint any other way.
As has been the case with most everything you've said, your suspicions are
not supported by fact. But to know that, you'd have to actually learn the
facts. Which you haven't.
> If
> they can get away with it, ok, there's plenty of suckers ready to buy
their
> work;
You have an unnecessary fixation on money. You speak negatively about
capitalism and Hollywood, yet you cling quite firmly to what amounts to a
false, Hollywood created image of the snobbish, charlatan artist. It
wouldn't take much study at all to figure out how silly your idea about
artists bilking hapless morons out of millions of dollars really is. I can't
think of a single artist from any movement (Impressionism, Expressionism,
Abstract Expressionism, whatever) who's concern for selling his work was
greater than his concern for creating art. Why don't you (as you've been
asked repeatedly) name the specific artists to whom you refer so we can talk
specifics.
> and if the artist drops dead, there's even more demand.
> Picasso might have been more shrewd than we give him credit for - why
paint
> in the realistic way if you can do it symbolically; after all, it's
easier;
No, it's not. Not even close. But your attitude is pretty common among
ignoramuses and such. We get scads of idiots through this newsgroup who
think poetry (especially free verse as you would say) is a piece of cake.
Nothing to it, they say. As easy as rolling off a long they often opine. And
then they write the most God awful crap in the world. I suspect the same
would happen if you were to take to any of the easy arts. I challenge you to
paint in the style of any specific painter whose work you think is easy to
produce. After all, if it's easy to do, it's easy to copy. When you get a
Monet-like painting churned out, (which should be simple simple simple, what
with all those smeared colors and such!) let me know and I'll buy it.
> also, establishing a unique style has advantages.
Actually, it does. But not for any reason you'll ever find out.
Martijn Benders
Don H wrote:
>
> I'll grant that any artist who can paint well in a "photographic" manner
> should be given some credence - but too often I suspect many "modern"
> artists paint that way because they're unable to paint any other way. If
> they can get away with it, ok, there's plenty of suckers ready to buy their
> work;
I think holland is one of the countries with the most dense population
of artists and yet 80 percent of them live below the level of the
determined minimum. The things that usually sell are not abstracts or
conceptual works, but kitsch and cheap surrealism. It's in fact very
hard even in a rich country such as this to make a living as an artist -
but rather traditional as both Rembrandt and Van Gogh died piss poor.
The accusation that abstract painters paint that way 'because it sells'
is rather ridiculous.
> Picasso might have been more shrewd than we give him credit for - why paint
> in the realistic way if you can do it symbolically; after all, it's easier;
Not true at all.
Then again, you might not understand what Duchamp meant when he stated
that all art so far was just a 'celebration of the hand'.
I can garantuee you that making a kandinskyie is no less difficult as
painting a van gogh - in fact, van gogh took a lot more liberties than
kandinszkyie did. Moreover, 'realism' in art has very little to do with
a supposed mirroring of an outside world - it's a stylistic term, not a
judgemental catagory.
Martijn.
DE nederlandsche CACAOFABRIEK
http://www.cacaofabriek.com/
'The good life gives no warning.
It weathers the climates of despair
And appears, on foot, unrecognized, offering nothing,
and you are there'
Mark Strand
Don H
nowadays? A dearth of truly creative musicians?
===================================
.
Don H
should be given some credence - but too often I suspect many "modern"
artists paint that way because they're unable to paint any other way. If
they can get away with it, ok, there's plenty of suckers ready to buy their
Picasso might have been more shrewd than we give him credit for - why paint
in the realistic way if you can do it symbolically; after all, it's easier;
James Gillray (1757-1815), when young, was in the attic practising his
drawing. His father came in to check on his progress, and tried to bush
away a fly from the desktop - until he realised it was a drawing...
=======================================
John Sullivan
<donlhu...@bigpond.com> wrote:
So things that depict reality accurately are art.
Much "modern" "postmodern" whatever fabricated strawperson you are upset
about, is a depiction of the mind, or possible mind.
The mind is part of reality. Or is reality.
So "modern" or "postmodern" whatever etc. = art, even using your
definition.
?
-john s
Dale Houstman
> I'll grant that any artist who can paint well in a "photographic" manner
> should be given some credence
Why? You started this entire empty rant by insisting (with no evidence) that
the visual arts existed as a device for recording "real things" and so was
("obviously") supplanted when the superior technology of phtography arose.
In other words, as person who now paints in this fashion - according to your
entirely spurious notion - is no better than the idiot who uses a mud
poultice to treat a brain tumor: they are using outmoded and inferior
techniques. You seem to want it both ways: representational painting is
passe/ representational painting is the epitome.
>but too often I suspect many "modern" artists paint that way because
they're unable to paint any >other way.
Again, your suspicions are unsupported: they are merely prejudices.
>If they can get away with it, ok, there's plenty of suckers ready to buy
their
> work; and if the artist drops dead, there's even more demand.
> Picasso might have been more shrewd than we give him credit for - why
paint
> in the realistic way if you can do it symbolically; after all, it's
easier;
> also, establishing a unique style has advantages.
All great artists (representational or not) create a unique style. But it
has little to do with monetary advanatages, but rather with (A) the unique
neurology and psychology of the person & (B) the natural desire of any
person to create what has not already been created. Why do it otherwise?
If you think there are a lot of artists getting rich out there, you're
nuttier than a Pearson's.
> If we're on anecdotes, how about this one - the famous political
cartoonist,
> James Gillray (1757-1815), when young, was in the attic practising his
> drawing. His father came in to check on his progress, and tried to bush
> away a fly from the desktop - until he realised it was a drawing...
Cute? And the point?
dmh
Dale Houstman
> Why is it that Hollywood doesn't make any Musicals or Musical-Comedies
> nowadays? A dearth of truly creative musicians?
> ===================================
>
Are you asking, or do you suppose you've already found the answer?
I believe the answer might be found in a a complex of effects, the rise of
the recording industry as a separate entity, a simple change in tastes
(slapstick isn't a huge filmic favorite anymore either, or expressionistic
acting, or films using elaborate psychological sets, etc.), a melding of the
film musical with other conventions (in many ways almost all Hollywood films
are musicals: they exist to promote CDs of pop music), the natural narrowing
of convention and the subsquent "spin off" of elements into other media (the
fall of the filmed musical / the rise of the touring musical), and on and
on. Many critics think the musical itself is a sort of anomalous event
arising from the hardships of the Great Depression / World War II: when a
sort of fay escapism was the order of the day.
But all said, musicals do get produced now and then, albeit in a less
dramatic fashion. Bjork just acted in and composed one. Children's feature
length cartoons appear to have takien up much of the slack: what is Lion
King but a musical later turned into a musical? And I am sure that there
exist other examples.
As usual, your question is more of an uniformed pre-assumption than an
actual query.
dmh
sophie
>Some years ago the Australian Govt spent $3million purchasing an abstract
>painting called "Blue Poles". Surely, if they had blank wall-space, a can
>of blue paint for $30 would have been a better deal?
>=============================================
>
ok, I'm beginning to feel a little silly for replying to another post of
yours.
what is your agenda?
why?
--
sophie
Mike Billard
Don H <donlhu...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:8aoI5.6403$e5.1...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
> Some years ago the Australian Govt spent $3million purchasing an abstract
> painting called "Blue Poles". Surely, if they had blank wall-space, a
can
> of blue paint for $30 would have been a better deal?
Don't know. Why don't you post a link to the painting so we may look at it
and draw our own conclusions?
Mike Billard
Mike Billard <mbil...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:8st9sf$38o$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
Sorry, chief, couldn't wait for you to be bothered with a response, so I
looked it up myself. As I suspect so much of your information to be flawed
with, your facts in this case aren't correct. The Australian Govt paide $1.3
million for the painting, which is by Jackson Pollock, for those interested.
It almsot seems too obvious that it would be Pollock's work you'd offer as
an example for your grand pronouncements. Anyone interested in seeing the
painting, which is now evidently valued at $40 million (my God, Don, don't
drop dead on us!), here is a url to it:
http://www.beatmuseum.org/pollock/images/bluepoles.jpg And here is a url
for a little scientific explanation of the painting that actually qualifies
the work as okley dokley by Don's standards:
http://www.unsw.edu.au/media_releases/91198.html
Don H
painting called "Blue Poles". Surely, if they had blank wall-space, a can
of blue paint for $30 would have been a better deal?
Ron S
from your pot of blue paint I expected a blank blue painting; it could
not be further from this description. You should have had a look before
using it as an example.
Dale Houstman
philistine's cliched target) is a marvelous work. Now - since you have named
a piece (finally!) that you find to be garbage - please tell me why you find
it so.
And - really - it would be silly of you to say something like "because it
doesn't look like anything I've ever seen" since you yourself have gone to
great lengths to say that the representational function of art has been
supplanted by photography. Why then make this outmoded style an exemplar?
dmh
Aidan Tynan
Dale Houstman wrote in message
<39f2b901$0$28257$65a9...@news.citilink.com>...
Imagine what he'd think of Malevich's Black Square!
-Aidan
>
>dmh
>
>
Chuckk Hubbard
> an example for your grand pronouncements. Anyone interested in seeing the
> painting, which is now evidently valued at $40 million (my God, Don, don't
> drop dead on us!), here is a url to it:
> http://www.beatmuseum.org/pollock/images/bluepoles.jpg And here is a url
I really like that.
> for a little scientific explanation of the painting that actually qualifies
> the work as okley dokley by Don's standards:
> http://www.unsw.edu.au/media_releases/91198.html
That could raise the question of beauty. Which I won't define.
-chuckk
gga...@excite.com
<donlhu...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>There's more fools out there than I though.
Yeah, make our collective days and tell us you had a vasectomy a long,
long time ago.
gg
"I just know this mistake is going to get picked on--
has there ever been a newsgroup that would
ever think of sticking to my on-topic comments?
Oh well-- my g.p.a. really *is* 4.20. I swear it."
Ryan Deschamps
rthr...@my-deja.com
I checked out the URL:
It looks like a swatch from one of my Harris Tweed's under the
microscope! I feel the artist had exquisite taste, here and shows
much of the natural fiber that Austrailia is made from. The tweedish
weave immediately sends messages of Austrailia's role as a penal colony.
Not to mention that it was made up mostly of [Scotts]. The blue poles
jump out and scream about the "stitching" that holds Austrailia
together...
(I'm just kidding, of course)
r.
Don H
$40m now! There's more fools out there than I though.
======================================