Z: I've reconsidered
Stephen Morgana
I will continue to post technical questions even though they may not be
of interest to "real artists".
--
Stephen
http://homepages.go.com/~scm2000
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Alison A Raimes
deja.com> writes
>I've reconsidered leaving this group. So I am back.
>
>I will continue to post technical questions even though they may not be
>of interest to "real artists".
>
>--
>Stephen
>http://homepages.go.com/~scm2000
Damn right, Stephen !
But the issue you refer to was that *real* artists will make work out of
whatever resources they have available - discussing the make of
materials is pointless - it is too subjective. Mostly the *brand* names
are priced on packaging - didn't you see my post about the hand made
pastels factory I went to apply for a job at ? One half consisted of the
top brand name and the other of slight seconds - packaged cheaply - same
product. Its a fools game.
*Real* artists make art - isn't that what you do ? Tonight I am sitting
in my armchair in the studio reading. Thirty feet away, on a wall, is a
three foot by two foot pastel drawing I started doing (don't ask me the
make of pastels because there are probably five different ones in the
box). Been working on the drawing for a couple of days - I thought it
had me beat because bringing colour into my drawings is a new thing for
me. Suddenly, as I was reading and glancing at it every few minutes, I
resolved the thing. Haven't acted yet, but know exactly what needs to be
done. The thing has dominated me for two days - challenged me and nearly
beat me. Tonight I conquered it. Doesn't matter if I actually act on it
- in my head I resolved it. Does that make any sense ?
But then again - what do exactly do *you* think *art* is ?
Glad you stayed.
Cheers !
--
Alison
PS how am I supposed to categorise this post for Lauri ?????
ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk
http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk (new work updated)
Erik A. Mattila
Erik
Stephen Morgana wrote:
> I've reconsidered leaving this group. So I am back.
>
> I will continue to post technical questions even though they may not be
> of interest to "real artists".
>
> --
> Stephen
> http://homepages.go.com/~scm2000
>
Kay
Stephen Morgana wrote:
:I've reconsidered leaving this group. So I am back.
Well, I've never seen you be offensive to anyone so I apologize if I have
offended you in any arguements and I will try not to do so again.
:
:I will continue to post technical questions even though they may not be
:of interest to "real artists".
Real artists are all convinced their specific way, method, thoughts, syle,
etc. are true and correct. That's why I hate when people pick on Larry
Seiler even though our art is at opposite ends of the spectrum in all
manners, but I consider him a "real" artist because he is so damned serious
about what he does just as I am and so many others are. I think part of the
reason you were offended (of the myriad of possibilities!) is when Alison
or/and myself complained about focusing on the technical aspect of
artmaking. I still think this can be carried a bit too far. Some people
(thinking Peter Nelson here) will swear that if you don't grind your own
pigments and know the exact chemical analysis of the binding agents to use,
then the art your are producing is worthless and you are a fraud as an
artist. That is the type of thing I mean as not being a "real" artist. I
dont' worry about all that and if people want to mix their own, fine, I
prefer to buy them and, in a pinch, I will use any brand in the world,
though I like high quality just as much as the next person. I just mean,
the paint is great and I learn stuff too, but the work is the most important
thing, much more than the materials.
Kay
:
:--
Stephen Morgana
Alison A Raimes <Ali...@signature.in.address> wrote:
> In article <7qjtmq$1ie$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Stephen Morgana <scm2000@my-
> deja.com> writes
> >
be
> >of interest to "real artists".
> >
> >Stephen
> >http://homepages.go.com/~scm2000
>
> Damn right, Stephen !
>
> But the issue you refer to was that *real* artists will make work out
of
> whatever resources they have available - discussing the make of
> materials is pointless - it is too subjective. Mostly the *brand*
names
> are priced on packaging - didn't you see my post about the hand made
> pastels factory I went to apply for a job at ? One half consisted of
the
> top brand name and the other of slight seconds - packaged cheaply -
same
> product. Its a fools game.
>
your experience with pastels, but in my thread about Oil paint and
materials I was trying to make a point about paints. Granted my
experience is with watercolors, but I think it extends to oils and that
is that you really need to buy the best brand that you can afford even
though you may be a beginner. I've seen fellow students mixing cheap
paint together and getting something milky white with a tint of color
as a result. Why learn how to deal with inferior paint? It gets in the
way of the techniques you are REALLY trying to learn. I had the same
experience with guitars when i was into that. Try to learn to play on a
cheap guitar and you find that it is just difficult and painful. Many
people give up after that experience, where if they would have spent
$300 instead of $100 they would have gotten a real instrument that is a
pleasure to play.
I just got "The Artists Handbook of Materials and Techniques" in the
mail yesterday and from what I've read so far that author agrees with
what I just said (not about guitars :) if that matters.
Another reason I was concerned about brands was that if I stay with the
same brand for watercolor as for oils I can expect to have some
constancy of colors between my two palettes.
> *Real* artists make art - isn't that what you do ? Tonight I am
sitting
Maybe I'm spending too much time thinking about painting and not enough
time actually painting. Maybe thats what you mean by "*real* artists
make art". But still I have to have some concern about what materials I
am using because I want even my ugly experimental paintings to be as
easy as possible to execute and to last hundreds of years.
> in my armchair in the studio reading. Thirty feet away, on a wall, is
a
> three foot by two foot pastel drawing I started doing (don't ask me
the
> make of pastels because there are probably five different ones in the
> box). Been working on the drawing for a couple of days - I thought it
> had me beat because bringing colour into my drawings is a new thing
for
> me. Suddenly, as I was reading and glancing at it every few minutes, I
> resolved the thing. Haven't acted yet, but know exactly what needs to
be
> done. The thing has dominated me for two days - challenged me and
nearly
> beat me. Tonight I conquered it. Doesn't matter if I actually act on
it
> - in my head I resolved it. Does that make any sense ?
>
> But then again - what do exactly do *you* think *art* is ?
>
I dont know what art is but I know what I like -- to coin a phrase.
Personally I think I have made art when at least one person other than
I looks at something I've done and has a genuine emotion due to it. It
could be pleasure or disgust (if that is what I was after ((unlikely)))
but not indifference. Some art that I've seen seems pointless to me,
realistic and abstract. But I've had experiences with all kinds of art
that just grabs a hold of me, both realistic and abstract. There is a
small Van Gogh painting at the Albright Knox that I must drive 1 hour
to see that effects me in a way that I can not describe, I just have to
keep looking at it-- that is Art.
> Glad you stayed.
> Cheers !
> --
> Alison
> PS how am I supposed to categorise this post for Lauri ?????
Hmm. well it started out as a Z: but now it has some Y: components in
it. If I ask you how your day is going... we'll have to add an X: to
it :)
>
> ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk
> http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk (new work updated)
The new work is GREAT.
Paul Mesken
<scm...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>I've reconsidered leaving this group. So I am back.
>
>I will continue to post technical questions even though they may not be
>of interest to "real artists".
I think it's a good thing to post technical questions. After all: they
can be easily answered here so it makes sense to post them here and
although the artist's focus is on design rather than implementation,
mastering the material side is of paramount importance in order to
express the design the way one envisioned it.
Materials always limit execution of art and therefor need to be
understood intimitaly. It might be frustrating or boring but it is a
bare necessity (personally I think of it as interesting since I
envision the possibilities while learning about them).
Not caring about technical issues is not realistic unless one has
artisans working for one (quite rare in comparison to the music world)
So, go ahead, fire at will! :-)
Paul Mesken
<scm...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> Why learn how to deal with inferior paint? It gets in the
>way of the techniques you are REALLY trying to learn. I had the same
>experience with guitars when i was into that. Try to learn to play on a
>cheap guitar and you find that it is just difficult and painful. Many
>people give up after that experience, where if they would have spent
>$300 instead of $100 they would have gotten a real instrument that is a
>pleasure to play.
Your absolutely right. I'm not a guitar player but for some reason,
some years ago I felt the sudden urge to learn it. Ofcourse I bought a
full blown Washburn. I only held my interest long enough to play
"Michael row the boat ashore" but it sounded good on that guitar :-)
Alison A Raimes
deja.com> writes
>Sorry I didnt see that post. Maybe it was on raf. I cant argue with
>your experience with pastels, but in my thread about Oil paint and
>materials I was trying to make a point about paints. Granted my
>experience is with watercolors, but I think it extends to oils and that
>is that you really need to buy the best brand that you can afford even
>though you may be a beginner.
Not necessarily the *best* brands - because that is always measured by
price. What you need to do it try lots of different makes, regardless of
price, and find which one suits the way you work. You may well find that
some of the cheapest brands turn out to be the best for *your*
requirements.
>I've seen fellow students mixing cheap
>paint together and getting something milky white with a tint of color
>as a result. Why learn how to deal with inferior paint? It gets in the
>way of the techniques you are REALLY trying to learn.
Perhaps start then with a named brand that is in the medium price range.
I have been using a London firm called Spectrum - they are in the middle
price range but their paints suit what I am aiming at - the colours are
*electric*. I once decided the time had come to upgrade to a
manufactured paint with the word *professional* on the label. The cost
of the paints was almost three times and the result was extreme
disappointment. I am back to Spectrum and doubt I will ever move again.
> I had the same
>experience with guitars when i was into that. Try to learn to play on a
>cheap guitar and you find that it is just difficult and painful. Many
>people give up after that experience, where if they would have spent
>$300 instead of $100 they would have gotten a real instrument that is a
>pleasure to play.
Well this is true to a certain extent. I had a similar experience with
my saxophone. Had a 1000 dollar Boosey and Hawkes and had to sell it
when I was broke. I replaced it with a 200 dollar one that just made me
cry when I played it ... it sounded awful - so I gave it away to a kid
whose family were too poor to buy her one. She plays it like a dream
now. Maybe it was me that had the problem ?
>I just got "The Artists Handbook of Materials and Techniques" in the
>mail yesterday and from what I've read so far that author agrees with
>what I just said (not about guitars :) if that matters.
>
Maybe he is on commission to one of the suppliers ? Check the small
print !
>Another reason I was concerned about brands was that if I stay with the
>same brand for watercolor as for oils I can expect to have some
>constancy of colors between my two palettes.
>
Absolutely. But try lots of different brands first - only *you* can
decide.
>Maybe I'm spending too much time thinking about painting and not enough
>time actually painting.
the doing is important - but the thinking about the work is equally
important. Balance the two.
> Maybe thats what you mean by "*real* artists
>make art". But still I have to have some concern about what materials I
>am using because I want even my ugly experimental paintings to be as
>easy as possible to execute and to last hundreds of years.
You know, you can be an artist for ten years and only work for say a
tenth of your waking day on your art - or you can be an artist for ten
years and work half of your waking day on your art - which one do you
think will have made the most progress ?
>I dont know what art is but I know what I like -- to coin a phrase.
>Personally I think I have made art when at least one person other than
>I looks at something I've done and has a genuine emotion due to it. It
>could be pleasure or disgust (if that is what I was after ((unlikely)))
>but not indifference. Some art that I've seen seems pointless to me,
>realistic and abstract. But I've had experiences with all kinds of art
>that just grabs a hold of me, both realistic and abstract. There is a
>small Van Gogh painting at the Albright Knox that I must drive 1 hour
>to see that effects me in a way that I can not describe, I just have to
>keep looking at it-- that is Art.
you got it !
>
>Hmm. well it started out as a Z: but now it has some Y: components in
>it. If I ask you how your day is going... we'll have to add an X: to
>it :)
>
B (for Blow jobs): If I mention blow jobs we will have to add a B then ?
>The new work is GREAT.
C (for chat): Thanks - I've been working hard - sometimes through the
night like last night. This morning I get to clean toilets - clocked on
for three hours, spent an hour of that drinking tea, half an hour on the
computer and another half an hour talking about light sculptures with an
artist..... did an impersonation of a tornado on the toilets and it
looks like a normal person spent three hours on them :-) Got to go drive
the van for the rest of the day now.... when will I get a chance to
resolve the drawing, I ask ? What do you do for a living ?
Now I can't remember the name of the light sculpture artist we were
talking about, though I know his work from the fifties .... Turrell
maybe (help me out, Kay)
--
Alison
Keith O'Connor
There is no single road to art, if anything you
must invent your own. Your interest in materials
and their quality is just one of those roads.
I share your interest in materials and make use of
the Wilcox guide to water-colours as the basis for
selecting my pigments.
The more traditional approach to art stressed the
requirement for durable materials. The modern
artist, although very inventive, reflects the
transience of his or her time in being more
concerned with the perceptual delight that
combinations of materials and processes produce on
their perceptual system at the time of creation.
This may sound rather cold and intellectual, but a
number of artists on Brallen and RAF are dealing
with their feelings and view materials
considerations as a constraint on their primary
objective. This is their road. It may not be yours
at this point in time but don't discount it, you
don't know what road you will end up on.
I like to read their postings because I know that
I need a counter balance to my over
intellectualizing tendency. I am a kind of vampire
in that I need exposure to their emotional blood.
Don't get trapped into a discussion on "real
artist" it goes nowhere.
Have fun and follow your own path.
_____tinman end_______
Stephen Morgana wrote:
>
> In article <Y2JoHqA4...@raimes.demon.co.uk>,
> Alison A Raimes <Ali...@signature.in.address> wrote:
> > In article <7qjtmq$1ie$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Stephen Morgana <scm2000@my-
> > deja.com> writes
> > >I've reconsidered leaving this group. So I am back.
> > >
> > >I will continue to post technical questions even though they may not
> be
> > >of interest to "real artists".
> > >
> > >--
> > >Stephen
> > >http://homepages.go.com/~scm2000
> >
> > Damn right, Stephen !
> >
> > But the issue you refer to was that *real* artists will make work out
> of
> > whatever resources they have available - discussing the make of
> > materials is pointless - it is too subjective. Mostly the *brand*
> names
> > are priced on packaging - didn't you see my post about the hand made
> > pastels factory I went to apply for a job at ? One half consisted of
> the
> > top brand name and the other of slight seconds - packaged cheaply -
> same
> > product. Its a fools game.
> >
> Sorry I didnt see that post. Maybe it was on raf. I cant argue with
> your experience with pastels, but in my thread about Oil paint and
> materials I was trying to make a point about paints. Granted my
> experience is with watercolors, but I think it extends to oils and that
> is that you really need to buy the best brand that you can afford even
> though you may be a beginner. I've seen fellow students mixing cheap
> paint together and getting something milky white with a tint of color
> as a result. Why learn how to deal with inferior paint? It gets in the
> way of the techniques you are REALLY trying to learn. I had the same
> experience with guitars when i was into that. Try to learn to play on a
> cheap guitar and you find that it is just difficult and painful. Many
> people give up after that experience, where if they would have spent
> $300 instead of $100 they would have gotten a real instrument that is a
> pleasure to play.
> I just got "The Artists Handbook of Materials and Techniques" in the
> mail yesterday and from what I've read so far that author agrees with
> what I just said (not about guitars :) if that matters.
>
> Another reason I was concerned about brands was that if I stay with the
> same brand for watercolor as for oils I can expect to have some
> constancy of colors between my two palettes.
>
> > *Real* artists make art - isn't that what you do ? Tonight I am
> sitting
>
> Maybe I'm spending too much time thinking about painting and not enough
> time actually painting. Maybe thats what you mean by "*real* artists
> make art". But still I have to have some concern about what materials I
> am using because I want even my ugly experimental paintings to be as
> easy as possible to execute and to last hundreds of years.
>
> > in my armchair in the studio reading. Thirty feet away, on a wall, is
> a
> > three foot by two foot pastel drawing I started doing (don't ask me
> the
> > make of pastels because there are probably five different ones in the
> > box). Been working on the drawing for a couple of days - I thought it
> > had me beat because bringing colour into my drawings is a new thing
> for
> > me. Suddenly, as I was reading and glancing at it every few minutes, I
> > resolved the thing. Haven't acted yet, but know exactly what needs to
> be
> > done. The thing has dominated me for two days - challenged me and
> nearly
> > beat me. Tonight I conquered it. Doesn't matter if I actually act on
> it
> > - in my head I resolved it. Does that make any sense ?
> >
> > But then again - what do exactly do *you* think *art* is ?
> >
>
> I dont know what art is but I know what I like -- to coin a phrase.
> Personally I think I have made art when at least one person other than
> I looks at something I've done and has a genuine emotion due to it. It
> could be pleasure or disgust (if that is what I was after ((unlikely)))
> but not indifference. Some art that I've seen seems pointless to me,
> realistic and abstract. But I've had experiences with all kinds of art
> that just grabs a hold of me, both realistic and abstract. There is a
> small Van Gogh painting at the Albright Knox that I must drive 1 hour
> to see that effects me in a way that I can not describe, I just have to
> keep looking at it-- that is Art.
>
> > Glad you stayed.
> > Cheers !
> > --
> > Alison
> > PS how am I supposed to categorise this post for Lauri ?????
>
> Hmm. well it started out as a Z: but now it has some Y: components in
> it. If I ask you how your day is going... we'll have to add an X: to
> it :)
>
> >
> > ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk
> > http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk (new work updated)
>
> The new work is GREAT.
>
> >
>
Keith O'Connor
when you say:" not caring about technical issues
unless...", is only relevant if you are
subordinating your intuitive explorative
processes to a value structure that proclaims to
have answers in terms of rules.
You should try creating effects with unstable
materials. You know the work will die, but you
can't stop it. Working with unstable materials is
like workning on the edge of death and is a
different emotional experience than trying to
avoid death by creating something that will last
beyond the artists life span.
Your artistic insecurity is causing you to badger
others into your "security mould" by using
negative terms like "not realistic". You may wish
to reconsider your "only my way" the secure way
position.
______tinman end_______
Mesken wrote:
>
> On Wed, 01 Sep 1999 19:10:29 GMT, Stephen Morgana
> <scm...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> >I've reconsidered leaving this group. So I am back.
> >
> >I will continue to post technical questions even though they may not be
> >of interest to "real artists".
>
Erik A. Mattila
glue, and string, design a structure that will support a two pound object
from nature."
My solution was a affair built out of toothpick tetrahedorns, sssembled in a
way that produced three 'helix' towers that wanted to collapse, but were held
in place by a thread that wove between them to the 'head' and dropped down to
suspend an two pound piece of obsidian. It was the weight of the obsidian
that stabilized the three towers.
Part of the design problem, however, was its deadline. To meet this, I had
to try to figure out how to construct this model quickly. One solution was
to construct the basic tetrahedrons with rubber cement - I mean I would dip
the tips of the toothpicks into a pubble of rubber cement and then stick them
together in triangles, then tetrahedrons. I knew the rubber cement wouldn't
be strong enough, so I would then drop a gob of epoxy (which needs no
clamping pressure) on each interticies, making the structure strong enough.
I brought it to class, but class was already over. The instructor was a sell
guy, however, and accepted it in his office. I put it, in its glory, on top
of his file cabinet, and sat down to talk to him about the project and other
things. As we talked, the rubber cement and the epoxy were doing battle, and
the structure slowly caved in on itself, the obsidian gracefully setting
itself down on the file cabinet like as sinking feather. "That's ok" the
instructor said, "it stayed alive long enough for an 'A.'"
I kind of agree with Paul, while not necessarily disagreeing with you,
Keith. One way of establishing intimate knowledge of material is by aabusing
them, which I've always felt free to do ( and have freely done.) This has
produced a vast amount of 'unfinished' projects, which in turn have produced
better knowledge of techniques and materials. A 'no pain, no gain' sort of
thing.
When I was a kid you could buy a very nice balsa wood airplane model for a
dime (you remember that, I'll bet). The 'fun' of the two hour ordeal of
putting it together was being able to wind the rubberband propeller (the only
plastic part), lighting the firecracker taped to the fuselage, and sending
the machine off into the air on it's initiasl final mission. Ka-bang -- the
cherished moment of science. Dad made me feel guilty for years -- "Why do
you spend all that time building something just to destroy it?" It wasn't
until I read why Shiva had four arms that the guilt became philosophy.
Regards,
Erik
Paul Mesken
wrote:
>Hi Paul: tinman here
>
>when you say:" not caring about technical issues
>unless...", is only relevant if you are
>subordinating your intuitive explorative
>processes to a value structure that proclaims to
>have answers in terms of rules.
>
>You should try creating effects with unstable
>materials. You know the work will die, but you
>can't stop it. Working with unstable materials is
>like workning on the edge of death and is a
>different emotional experience than trying to
>avoid death by creating something that will last
>beyond the artists life span.
>
Sorry, I don't feel like it. I'm aiming at different goals here.
>Your artistic insecurity is causing you to badger
>others into your "security mould" by using
>negative terms like "not realistic". You may wish
>to reconsider your "only my way" the secure way
>position.
>
LOL!
Well, Tinman, it seems to me that you think you've figured it all out.
That must give you quite a secure feeling since it is knowledge which
provides security.
Keith O'Connor
covering, stuck together with glue that you now
have to be an adult to buy. The paper wet with
water and shrink dried quickly over an electric
element or wood stove. I remember one of my
brothers took my sisters silk slip to cover one
his models with. He survived.
The largest I ever built was a glider with a six
foot wing span. She was my pride and joy.
Thanks for reminding me Eric.
______tinman end_____
> Keith O'Connor wrote:
>
> > Hi Paul: tinman here
> >
> > when you say:" not caring about technical issues
> > unless...", is only relevant if you are
> > subordinating your intuitive explorative
> > processes to a value structure that proclaims to
> > have answers in terms of rules.
> >
> > You should try creating effects with unstable
> > materials. You know the work will die, but you
> > can't stop it. Working with unstable materials is
> > like workning on the edge of death and is a
> > different emotional experience than trying to
> > avoid death by creating something that will last
> > beyond the artists life span.
> >
> > Your artistic insecurity is causing you to badger
> > others into your "security mould" by using
> > negative terms like "not realistic". You may wish
> > to reconsider your "only my way" the secure way
> > position.
> >
Keith O'Connor
I am God.
have fun
_________tinman end______
Paul Mesken wrote:
>
> On Sat, 04 Sep 1999 16:09:50 GMT, Keith O'Connor <tin...@home.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Hi Paul: tinman here
> >
> >when you say:" not caring about technical issues
> >unless...", is only relevant if you are
> >subordinating your intuitive explorative
> >processes to a value structure that proclaims to
> >have answers in terms of rules.
> >
> >You should try creating effects with unstable
> >materials. You know the work will die, but you
> >can't stop it. Working with unstable materials is
> >like workning on the edge of death and is a
> >different emotional experience than trying to
> >avoid death by creating something that will last
> >beyond the artists life span.
> >
> Sorry, I don't feel like it. I'm aiming at different goals here.
>
> >Your artistic insecurity is causing you to badger
> >others into your "security mould" by using
> >negative terms like "not realistic". You may wish
> >to reconsider your "only my way" the secure way
> >position.
> >
Erik A. Mattila
Keith O'Connor wrote:
> Balsa wood model airlines with tissue paper
> covering, stuck together with glue that you now
> have to be an adult to buy. The paper wet with
> water and shrink dried quickly over an electric
> element or wood stove. I remember one of my
> brothers took my sisters silk slip to cover one
> his models with. He survived.
>
> The largest I ever built was a glider with a six
> foot wing span. She was my pride and joy.
>
> Thanks for reminding me Eric.
Hold on - you're way over my head here. I never had the patience to build those
kinds of models -- much too sophisticated for me. I'm talking about the pure
balsa ones, with the elements pressed into thin sheets of wood. The fuselage was
always squarish - Piper Cubs were perfect for this.
Boy, I never would have tied a firecracker on one like you're talking about. In
fact, I tried to make these a couple of times and ended up crumpling everything up
in total frustration. I definitely leaned towards the cheap, shoddy type.
But I always had fun with my real metal with sharp corners and finger crunching
electric motor gears erector set. One time I even made a morris code device,
hooked up to a train wistle. I understood electric circuits, but not insulation.
So I wired the base and the lever with an old lamp chord, but when I plugged it in
there was a great spark and the lights went out. Its really too bad that kids
today don't have equal opportunity to kill themselves like we had, eh?
Erik
M.
Once during those teen-age years my son wanted to have a birthday party for
his friend. Afterwards, he invited us all over to the football field for a
surprise. Then he launched a rocket, which he had made especially for his
friend's birthday. I don't know if Martin still remembers that birthday but I
will never forget watching that little rocket going up and away never to be
seen again, a perfect ending to the party.
Marilyn
Keith O'Connor
One time as a pre teen I went into my master
electrician mode. I cut a set of electric
christmas tree lights into pieces and decided to
stick them all back together. I then plugged them
in. The hydro had to come down and change the main
fuse. I learned that I was not as smart as I
thought.
I won't go into how as a pre teen I managed to put
my cigarette (covert underage smoker) out in
gunpowder and ended up in the hospital.
Your right, kids today don't get a chance to learn
how their ego can deceive them.
Have fun
______tinman end____
"Erik A. Mattila" wrote:
>
> Keith O'Connor wrote:
>
> > Balsa wood model airlines with tissue paper
> > covering, stuck together with glue that you now
> > have to be an adult to buy. The paper wet with
> > water and shrink dried quickly over an electric
> > element or wood stove. I remember one of my
> > brothers took my sisters silk slip to cover one
> > his models with. He survived.
> >
> > The largest I ever built was a glider with a six
> > foot wing span. She was my pride and joy.
> >
> > Thanks for reminding me Eric.
>
Chris
Keith O'Connor wrote:
>
> Eric: you bring back memories.
>
> One time as a pre teen I went into my master
> electrician mode. ...
[sorry, just saved what I needed for a lead-in; the rest was quite
amusing though..]
Electricity & childhood are always an interesting combination. One game
we used to play involved getting a number of kids together on a farm (in
rubber boots or sneakers). You'd form a line, holding hands, eyes
closed, with one kid holding the electric fence. Then the last kid on on
the line would put his hand on the ground. Good fun!
There's been a bit of a thread that kids don't have the fun (us) older
folks did, can't say I agree; I remember a couple of years ago the
neighbor's boy setting off aerobee rockets in the backyard (we're in an
urban area =:o); I look at my own 9 yr. old's pet leeches, dandelion
yellow hair, watch him burning plastic soldiers to hear the zip-zip of
the molten plastic as it drops; and wonder what it is he's building with
the remains of a shopping cart he dragged out of the lake last week & or
think about his turning his room into a spiderweb with strings & tacks -
at least these things help me understand why I believe art a primeval
(prime evil?) force...
Cheers;
Chris