Art 08/02/2005 Many years ago, I harbored ambitions of being an artist. And not just a painter of pictures; in common with all the few ambitions I've had in my life, I wanted to be the best. I had some natural skill, talent I believe they call it. And, through accident, I had spent a while at university being taught how to draw.A few years later, I realized that I had a choice to make. My painting had developed to the point where I was reasonably proficient and I had, through force of circumstance, found a drawing style that was all my own. The problem was that I had two ambitions and they were beginning to interfere with each other. I knew that I could also write. Of course, being who I am, just writing wasn't good enough for me; I had to be the best since Shakespeare.Now, being the best at anything is hard enough. To attempt to do this in two fields at once is well nigh impossible. And I was beginning to understand this, young as I was. I had to choose.Writing won because I knew that I was better at that than the painting. I also knew, having come to understand the art world at the time, that I was in total disagreement with the experts of that world. That was a battle that I was not prepared to take on.Since those days I have grown much older and I no longer care whether I am the best at anything. I am happy if people read what I write and that's all. But I am glad that I had my dalliance with art, for the experience has left me with some thoughts on the whole business that have yet to be seriously challenged. Knowing that Harry and probably others have thoughts and experiences in this area, too, I thought that I'd lay these theories before you and let everyone trample on them, give them a good roughing up and explain where I'm getting it wrong. So here we go.The way I see it, all art (in the general sense to include writing, poetry, music and the visual arts) is communication. To be art, the thing must communicate. If it does not, then it is something else, that which we call design. Something may be very pretty and look good hanging on your wall but, if it doesn't grab you and say, "Listen to me!", then it's not art but design.Art might actually make you feel bad. You might look at a picture and experience feelings so terrible that your reaction would be, "I'd never hang that on my wall." And that would be fair enough; to be confronted daily with something that makes you feel uncomfortable is not something to be desired. But the painting is art; it has communicated with you.So my premise is that, to be art, it must communicate.If we turn to the specific thing that we call "art", that is, drawing and painting, we can now begin to sort the real thing from the false. Does the picture make you feel anything? If it does, it may well be art. Of course, this is complicated by the fact that we are dealing with subjective judgements here. A painting might have an effect on one person and not another. And this is where we stumble upon another suggestion of mine.Great art reaches us at a very deep level, a level so deep that it affects us all through our common humanity. Other art will speak of things that are conscious, that could be said in words. So, if we look at a Vermeer, we will find that there is something about it that draws us in, that makes us know that the scene we are looking at is beautiful. We cannot say why it affects us in this way; we only know that it is so. In effect, the painting is reaching inside us, beyond our conscious understanding, and plucking strings that we had no idea were there.If we then look at a painting of a kitten playing with a ball of wool, once again we can be affected. Many ladies will say, "Awwww, isn't it cute," for instance. But, in saying that they have revealed everything. The message in the picture is a conscious one that we can understand. And, by saying what the picture means to us, we have accidentally proved that it need never have been painted; we can say it in words.And that is another important point I wish to make: that if something is capable of being put into words, then go ahead and say it. The purpose of art is to say something that cannot be verbalized. This is why I laugh when I see modern artists explaining their work. The painting, or whatever it is, must stand alone; if it needs someone to stand next to it, telling us what it's supposed to mean, then I'm afraid it just isn't art. Since it can't communicate, throw it out.Do not mistake me; I am not one of those who would trash all of modern art as incomprehensible. There is some good stuff out there, it's true. But we must find some way of differentiating or this chaos will continue.In the latter part of the 19th century, artists began to study how painting worked, how colors affected us, how shape and form could convey meaning. The impressionists were the first to get to grips with color. Early in the 20th century, the cubists experimented with form, attempting to reduce to a common denominator so that they could communicate by symbol rather than image. It was a heady time of trying out new ideas and seeing what happened.The critics jeered at first, then began to understand and eventually applauded. Picasso rose to be the greatest artist of the age. But something else was happening at the same time.Art was being dissected, its component parts removed and studied separately in an effort to understand how it all worked. Each piece was extracted and worked with to see what effect on us it had. But then we all forgot what the purpose of the exercise was; we forgot to put it all back together again.The result was artists like Mondrian, the feller who reduced it to painting squares of color. I'll probably be shot for saying this, but Mondrian was a designer, not an artist. His paintings communicate nothing. To say that the color red, for instance, has such and such an effect on us, is not to produce art but science. If you do not use that effect within a complete statement, then you are telling me only what science could have told me anyway. You've found the principle, now use it!The great artists of the past understood and used all the effects of color, shape, form and texture to create a whole, something that could speak deep meaning to us. And they did this instinctively, without having to study the various component parts of their art. We have so studied it that we have forgotten that it's only when an artist puts all the parts together into a coherent whole that art is created. A pile of bricks is not art. It's a pile of bricks.So this is how I approach an art gallery: I walk through it. Quickly. And I will only stop when a painting says, "Wait! You have to look at me. I have something to say." Try it. You'll find you're through most galleries in a matter of minutes. But when a painting does say that to you, then you are rewarded beyond measure.In the British National Gallery, there is a section devoted to the Dutch painters of the 16th to 18th centuries. Not all of the artists are well known. Yet every one of those paintings is impossible to walk past. They all insist on being looked at. And how beautiful is what they're saying! I do not know how they do it, but those old Dutch geezers knew a thing or two about painting. One can look at the light in those paintings, the supreme technique, the composition, everything about them, but nothing explains this hold they have on one, how they draw us in and make us feel. That is art.Right at the end of the section is a large still life painting. It is a very complex scene, a table top with everything imaginable piled upon it. There are feathers and glasses, gold goblets and fruit, lace napkins and dishes, everything piled on just anyhow. The picture grabs you and makes you look. You see the perfect way in which the glass has been depicted, the way the light reflects in the metal of the implements, how the fruit are bursting with sweet goodness and the feathers so tactile in their softness. It is awe-inspiring, both in the mastery of technique and in the life that pulsates from the scene. You turn to the guidebook to see who painted this marvellous picture. And they don't know. The picture is, in fact, an exercise, an exercise set some poor apprentice painter in Holland three hundred years ago. He was learning his trade, his craft...Now that is art.
Clive
Way Zowie! What else can I add without disturbing the finish here? A couple of things do pop to mind, of course. The first is "The Scream." I do not know the artist; in fact, few do, but it is purported to be one of, if not THE most known work of art among paintings, outranking even Lisa-what's-her-name. I know so little about art, Gone, and in your sketch above, your own knowledge is at once apparant. "I know what I like" is indeed, however, a fair and just statement, when it comes to emotions, and no one has need of stuffy pundits to guide one; only an interest. One hero of mine, for his piss-on-you attitute, if not his inventiveness, is the great James Abbott McNeill Whistler. His rendition, Arrangement in Grey and Black: Portrait of the Painter's Mother, is perhaps the third best-known painting in the world (commonly called Whistler's Mother). I must include a couple of "colorful" quotes here. "In 1877 the critic John Ruskin denounced Whistler's Nocturne in Black and Gold: The Falling Rocket (1875; Detroit Institute of Arts), accusing him of "flinging a pot of paint in the public's face", and Whistler sued him for libel the following year. He won the action, but the awarding of only a farthing's damages with no costs was in effect a justification for Ruskin." Ya gotta love a guy like that. Then there is this: A Liverpool shipping magnate Frederick Leyland hired James to paint his library. The true facts are a bit muddy, but my favorite version states the official may have hire him as a lowly house-painter, and was incensed beyond belief after returning from holiday to discover what transpired in his grand home. The history books tell us: "Whistler's Peacock Room, or Harmony in Blue and Gold (1876-1877), done for Leyland, exerted a strong influence on the Aesthetic movement's interior design. What some fail to mention is that the room now rests, after being bought and dismantled, reassembled in all of its splendor at the Freer Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C., for all the world to see. I have, and it is stupendous. He also admired the Dutch, who knew how to sling paint well. This is an excellent bit, and I may add more later...there is yet the Wyeth dynasty to consider, as well as a few posers to chunk several dried-out tubes of paints toward. Kudos, kiddo. Date Added: 08/02/2005
Gone Away Ahhhh, Wyeth, now there was a painter.... "The Scream" was painted by Edvard Munch, a Norwegian artist of the late 19th and early 20th century. I thought of mentioning his painting as one that you wouldn't want on your wall but that was great art; then I remembered that it has been reduced to a poster and is on many a student's wall. Date Added: 08/02/2005
Mad And what say you to design that's so good it evokes a response like you've talked about? Date Added: 08/02/2005
Gone Away Is there such a creature? Date Added: 08/02/2005
Mad There is for me... I see design that makes me ache sometimes. Date Added: 08/02/2005
Way I done said this is the best-designed blog going, Mad. Somewhere. I forget where. Maybe I scribbled it on a napkin and the help took it. The unfortunate role of the designer, however, should be just below that of the artist, of whom, someone once said, "All should have their tongues removed." I think the actual quote used "cut out". I like to read that to myself a lot, and I do agree in principle, but don't vote me in office and get me to lying more. Revisit the cave, Gone. Eli allowed me to add his URL. Date Added: 08/02/2005
Snippit (any cheesy excuse for a number, Way) Date Added: 08/02/2005
Gone Away Then it must be art, Mad. Come to think of it, would not the room painted by Whistler, that Way mentioned, be art? Date Added: 08/02/2005
Gone Away Hmmm, this I gotta see... Date Added: 08/02/2005
Ned I agree with your statements on the definition of art completely. If one has to explain his art to another, then it has not reached that person, it has not had an effect. Worse, this says "this is what you must feel". True art will blend its objective with each person's subjective for a fresh and individual impact on each person it touches. Art elicits an emotional response, and there is nothing to be said. Date Added: 08/02/2005
Gone Away .oO(Hey, I haven't been lynched yet...) Date Added: 08/02/2005
w There's a saying here in Hoohooville: "The longer the wait, the stronger the rope" Date Added: 09/02/2005
Gone Away Uh oh... Date Added: 09/02/2005
Hannah As art conveys meaning without words, I will leave this box for you to interpret as you will. Date Added: 09/02/2005
Hannah () Date Added: 09/02/2005
Gone Away Now that's saying a lot, Hannah! Date Added: 09/02/2005
Harvey Young Your blog tends to illicit comments because you leave so much for the reader to yet discuss. In this case, the discussion for one that knows so little of the subject is to express awe. I think you nailed this one, a perfect 10. (now how do I do the paragraph thing?) On the issue of communication, I did have one thought. Is it possible that art communicates in various languages. If this is true then something that "speaks" to me may well sound like gibberish to you. Also, like human communication, whether or not we "hear" what the art may be saying can be impacted by our particular point of view or the context within which we view the art. Still, this is heady stuff. You continue to inspire me, and I guess that is as close as I can get to saying "this is cool". Date Added: 09/02/2005
Gone Away If one reads any of the many political blogs, one soon finds out what Harvey is talking about; they are so sure that they are right that there is obviously no point in getting into discussion with them. Me, I'm old enough to have been wrong so many times that I know there is someone out there who is going to refute me. So I leave it open for that person - how else am I ever to learn? Thank you for your generous score, Harvey; not sure that I deserve it. But to the paragraphs: I am going to have to break this up so that you can see what I'm doing or it will just put a break in and hide what I've typed. It's basic HTML. And the best way to do it is to put a couple of line breaks in - start with a < which tells the computer that you're about to put in a tag. Then type br with a space after it. And then a / which tells the pooter that the end is coming. Finally a > which ends the tag. Then repeat that to get another return - to separate the partagraphs. Now I only need to post this to see if that fooled the computer and it shows it as I typed it... ;) To return to your excellent comment, Harvey: the beauty of art is that it speaks a language we all understand. We could think of it as the language of the soul or spirit, for that is the depth at which it should speak to us. Consider that we have no problem in seeing the beauty of oriental art. It is very different from the Western art we're used to and yet we can understand immediately. In fact, to be art, this would be a very good litmus test for aspirant art - show it to a foreigner from a completely different culture. If it reaches that person, it must be art and good art at that. There is, however, one cultural factor that can intervene in our understanding of the language of art. We can be culturally predisposed not to be interested in art. This is very common in the West. Many schoolchildren become conditioned to think they do not like art because they have been prematurely exposed to it or because they have been forced to experience it when there are more exciting things happening. So they get the message that art is not cool and stop looking. It's a shame, but easily remedied. Just grab them when they are 20 years old, take them to an exhibition of Dutch masters and they are cured! Abracadabra! Actually, that was a bit tongue in cheek. The reality is that some art remains cool for kids who have been inoculated against all art. Graffiti is the most important example of this. They will go for that immediately because it doesn't announce itself as art and yet it is. I have found that this is a very good way of introducing kids to the idea that art can be cool. I trulty believe that art should reach all of us. Think of the cave paintings that we have all seen pictures of in books. Is that not beautiful? Does it not speak to us all? And that is how art can be, something that is a universal language, common to all. Date Added: 09/02/2005
Gone Away I like Harvey. We are all so used to each other that it is very easy for us to be flippant and make jokes, ignoring things when they get too close or serious for comfort. Harvey has introduced a much needed element of seriousness to our discussions that I, for one, am really appreciating. Thank you, Harvey. Date Added: 09/02/2005
Gone Away Oh, I nearly forgot. Go visit Harvey's blog from here. And leave a comment! Date Added: 09/02/2005
Way The lights are low but the door is still open, and I see my favorite booth is empty but clean. Drawing is little more than learned motor skills involving a bit of steady hand-and-eye coordination. Clive mentioned cave drawings. Well, I wasn’t there, but it is my guess that the cat that did those, did them with several base purposes in mind. The first was to relate to his woman. What real man doesn’t help fix the place up? Today, home improvement stores succeed, mainly because they understood what drove our hole-dwelling ancestors. Impress her with a flourish, be it trimmed hedges or a fancy butterfly garden, and the man might get lucky later on. “Trog, dear. I just love it. Yes, of course I can see the two other horses in the background. The reds are just gorgeous. Your hunkish sensitivity is simply wonderful, and I might even cry, so tonight, you may share my bearskin, but after you check the rock at the entrance. A rat got in before dawn today, so get it right this time, sweetie.” The second reason was keeping up with the Joneses, or as they were know back then, the Joneses. “TROG! Did you see the buffalo mural over at the Joneses cave? I want one too.” Imagine the creativity that must have inspired. The anxious Trog must have spent a few sleepless nights as he experimented with different types of tools available. “Ugh. Rock no good. But rat work fine.” Then there is the matter of the evening news, a most powerful force. Everyone “wants to know”. “Trog. The children are squabbling again. Make them stop, please?” “Ugh. Behave, or see image on six o’clock wall.” Now, anyone can draw. Visit an elementary school classroom, and spend a few minutes studying the walls. There you will see each and every child’s honest view of their individual surroundings, drawn with accurate honesty. You won’t see the more sophisticated skills of pleasing perspective or subtle shading, or even what we come to view as proper use of color, but you will see raw talent budding. Now the following is my personal pet theory, and I will comb and feed and water the thing forever, if need be. Every child has this natural ability. So what happens a long the way? Why do most “loose” it later in life? The simple answer is ignorance. A case in point: I drew a picture of a sheep once, around the age of four or five. I recall my parents making a huge fuss over the drawing, ooh-ing and ah-ing and carrying on. That singular act encouraged me. In the next few months and years, I soon discovered my mother’s huge collection of books. No one reread these books. I know this because I never got caught or punished for the deeds, but I spent hours laying on the floor, where I filled all the blank pages, front and back, with fanciful pictures. By the time I reached first grade, my skills, and my imagination, had a head-start on my peers, most of whom came to school barefooted. At some point during that year, Mrs. Turner stopped at my desk and asked if she could have the paper towel I had laying there. She then sent it to the state capitol in Georgia, to be entered in an art exhibit. That second act encouraged me. Then my parents packed the car and drove the family from Savannah to Atlanta, to visit my wonderful work. That third act nailed it. I was now an official artist, and no one has ever been able to steal that title away. Does any of that make me so special? Only in the fact that I am fortunate. I am fortunate because no one ever said to me, “Clean up that mess” or “Put that crap away; we need to go. We are late.” Those that will claim they cannot draw a straight line denies the existence of straight edges or rulers. I will have none of their excuses. Anyone can draw. You sign your name, don’t you? Well, pal, that is a drawing, and it is unique, so stop it. You can draw, if you want to. I don’t mind. And if you do, you better keep this in mind. Have fun doing it. Learn from little kids who do. Can I get another coffee? Date Added: 09/02/2005
Josh I must agree wholeheartedly with you, Mr. Gone. Ol' Piet Mon-dreeun made some stunning tablecloths, and the Dutch masters, well, Vermeer gets me every time. Not like say, a Caravaggio or Velasquez, but when it comes down to it , the light's the thing. It's all about the light. (yes, I am still just < 65 credits away from a BA in art history) Date Added: 09/02/2005
Gone Away Way is quite right. Anyone can draw. I learned this in my first two weeks at university, where I think I was the first ever to do something called a BA with Fine Arts (apparently no-one had picked English and Fine Arts as their majors before). On our first day in the Fine Arts department, the lecturer asked us if we could draw. We had all chosen to do the subject because we had an idea that we were God's gift to the arts so, of course, we all said yes. She said nothing but led us into a room in the middle of which was a pile of planks and pots of paint all resting on a chair. "Draw that," she said. We set to and she wandered around our circle, looking over our shouklders and pointing out where we were going wrong. "That line there is wrong. Look with your eyes. You can see it's not as vertical as that. And that one too. Are you blind?" And the fact is, we were all blind from a drawing point of view. We were not drawing what was there but what we thought was there. We were interpreting the scene without even being aware that we were doing so. In the next two weeks, we came to hate that pile of stuff. She made us do it over and over again until we got it absolutely right, every line at the right angle and every item in the right relationship to the rest. At the end of that time we could draw and at last she could begin to take us on to other things. That experience taught me two things. First, how to draw. Drawing is a matter of seeing, not making a line on a piece of paper. And second, the strangest fact of all. Anyone can be taught to draw. All it takes is a bit of practice. Thank you, Way. Date Added: 09/02/2005
Gone Away Josh has nailed it. The light's the thing. Every great picture I've ever seen has that in common: it's something to do with the light. In Warwick Castle there is a small room with a huge portrait on one wall. It's of Henry VIII and it's a Holbein. You've probably seen it as an illustration to books on the famous king. It's not bad; old Holbein was a fair painter, in a photographic sort of way. But, on the opposite wall there is a little picture that few people notice because it is so dwarfed by the monster opposite. It's a small thing of blues and golds and greens, a picture of a mother and child. It is very, very old, pre-Renaissance, in fact, done by a German feller by the name of Lucas Cranach. Whoever put it there knew exactly what he was doing. It dwarfs the Holbein in the painter's talent. Light glows from it, and life too. It does not have photographic reality; it is far better than that. It lives. I think it is one of the best three or four paintings I've ever seen. And it's the light that does it. Thank you too, Josh. Date Added: 09/02/2005
Hannah ( !) Date Added: 09/02/2005
Gone Away ROFLOL Date Added: 09/02/2005
Madmin Here's another little HTML tip: HTML doesn't "see" multiple spaces instead you have to use something called a non-breaking space for each extra intended space. A non breaking space looks like this: . Date Added: 09/02/2005
glenniah Yes, what Way and Ned said! And I think Hannah's comment was so brilliant it had to elicit a response. Personally, if I could spend every night on the stage and every day writing I would be the happiest and most fulfilled of all creatures and perhaps some chocolate to energise me Date Added: 09/02/2005
Gone Away .oO(That Glenni, she never sleeps...) Date Added: 09/02/2005
Harvey Young Waking up to the comments posted overnight is a wonderful way to start the writing day. Thanks to Glenniah for reminding me oh so gently of my spelling error late last night. Such a tender gesture. Also, thank you everyone for the HTML tips. I have much to learn about this, and based on this string of comments, I have so much more to learn about art. Now, this should be a new paragraph if I am a good student. Gone and Way are right. Anyone can be taught to draw, in fact, anyone can be taught to do anything. It just takes practice. Thank you Gone for referring folks to my site. I too am old enough to know that I am often wrong. Yet, putting your thoughts to paper and exposing them to comment, is where you realize that words and thought are something we can all enjoy sharing. Date Added: 09/02/2005
Gone Away Spelling error? What spelling error? I should point out that I am trying to spell the American way now that I am here but I often slip and use the British spelling of a word. It's fairly straightforward mostly. Americans hate U's and love Z's, the Brits are the other way about. So it's "armor" in the States and "armour" in Britain; "energize in America, "energise" in the UK (and Oz and other ex-colonies of course). Anyway, in this international free-for-all, it doesn't really matter about spelling, does it? Hey, lookey there, Harvey got it right first time! Nice paragraph breaks, Harvey. :D Date Added: 09/02/2005
Way *yawn and stretch* I have nothing. Winter jokes me with another inch of snow, as if anyone of us cares at this point in time. Might as well get my coat and trudge over to the Sit n Sip Inn and Ye Olde Coffee Shoppe and see if I can't scrounge an idea. Light! Let there be light! Suddenly ideas shoot from the gourd like some sort of natural occurring geezer. Oops. Make that geyser. It never fails around here. What is IN the grounds at this place, I wonder? Is it even legal? Can we bottle this stuff? But back to this thing of light... During a phase I call the Bleak Years, a friend got the part of Pancho Sanza in a stage production of The Man of La Mancha. This got me a free pass to see the show. Now, until this point, I had no interest in theatre. I had never sat and watched anything beyond tepid school productions, and had judged the whole idea as a silly waste of time that only foo-foo heads from New York liked. What dorks. "C'mon," My pal chided. "It'll get you out of the house, at least." So I went, and on his opening night. Then I came back for the second performance, and the third. I came along for the forth and lasted through the seventh, drawn by this literal light. I was astounded in this singular power that I saw on the bare stage, and it hit me fresh each time. This smaller version of Theatre in the Round and the troupe that inhabited it within told their story with a minimum of props. I only recall a rough table being used during certain acts. There were no painted sets, but only the darkened stage and the costumed actors. They used nothing but pure lighting, done with such subtle skill that one could forget it was happening at the time. There was no windmill, and not even the main character held any sort of prop to joust with the apparition. I sat enthralled at the power of this light as he made a frightening charge across the dim stage at moving shadows flickering on the backdrop curtain, as a twenty-foot-high version of wind mill blades rotated there, projected, I had to imagine, from a tiny set of blades held off-stage in front of a single spotlight. And then there were the characters. Suddenly I saw what the Dutch saw. The surrounding actors cast in soft dim shadows. Vague forms making an asymmetrical frame. A brilliant irregular crescent of a partially-lighted human face, set against black. The effect can only be described here as astounding. Had I an easel and tools beside me at the time, I would have gotten to it there and then. I fell in love during that week with Dulcenea. What a winsome lass she became to me and my heart throughout that week. But that particular spell was shattered later on at the cast party when I finally met the woman face-to-face. I stood and shook the hand offered me as I stammered out my pre-planned words of praise. They nearly choked me, half-way into the short script. Who had stolen her youth? What fiend had placed all of those aged wrinkles upon her recently-pubescent face? How can she possibly be this ancient, and how can I ever be in love with such a hag? Oh, but I left quietly soon after, slinking away without once insulting the fine woman, or removing her apparent joy, but I did take away a much deeper respect for the light. Thank you for bringing that up, Clive. Date Added: 09/02/2005
Gone Away I was thinking yesterday about blogging about nothing. After all, Seinfeld had a very successful run with it on the television. It could start with something like "Nothing succeeds like success." And nothing is about the only runner that can compete with success, blah, blah. See what I mean? Yours if you want it, Way. ;) But funny you should mention the stage. It has a very strong attraction. In Mad's last years at school, he discovered it and it held him fast for many years. He began in the school's production of the Crucible (the one about the Salem witch trials). When he'd had his years of finding out who he was, he went to university to get himself a Performing Arts degree. When he came out he did what all actors do: worked as a bar tender while he looked for acting work. Well, we all know about acting. If you ain't one of the in crowd, you don't get the work. Fortunately, Mad eventually realized that he really wanted to get into programming and this led him to web development and here we are. But he's just said to me that your comment has sparked the old nostalgia for the stage... You are so right about the importance of lighting in a piece of theatre. It's what makes the thing "theatrical". Totally involving, much more so than the TV or films. Thanks, Way. Date Added: 09/02/2005
Mad Now we're talking! The magic of the theatre. You just made me miss it all Way, all the enchantment of dusty boards and bright lights. I was involved in the theatre for many years and some of my happiest times have revolved around the stage. The best thing in the whole world, it seems to me, is to sit high up in the lighting rig, amidst the cables, gels and scaffolding, in the darkness, and watch the drama unfold beneath you. You can't beat the delicious feeling of secrecy that backstage has or the interest of musty prop rooms and endless fascination of costume departments. And you're right theatre done well doesn't need props, scenery or even costume but there is something about light that make a piece far more vivid. Maybe that's why I loved to rig almost as much as I loved to act? Thanks way for sending me off back in time on a very boring afternoon... Date Added: 09/02/2005
Harvey Young Light. In my youth it cost me many a bad night when I thought I had just met the prettiest woman in the world, only to find out in a different light that theatrical makeup and "props" are not only the tricks of the stage... Thanks Way. Date Added: 09/02/2005
Gone Away To the tune of that Herman's Hermits song, the one that I can't remember the title of: No blog today My muse has gone away And left me all forlorn Just empty in the dawn How could this be I really do not see I thought I'd got it right But lost it in the night I think I'll go play Another game of Slay Oh heck it saved me once From looking like a dunce... Date Added: 09/02/2005
Gone Away I remembered! It's called "No milk today.." Date Added: 09/02/2005
josh "Americans hate U's and love Z's, the Brits are the other way about." Around. Around I say! (space&nbs;space) just testing somethin' Date Added: 09/02/2005
josh Yeep, I think ol' madmin meant back a few parrgrefs ago. ;-) Date Added: 09/02/2005
Gone Away Well, the Brits say it either way, Josh: "the other way about" or "the other way round." Don't make no nevermind. ;) Want the job of Official Gone Away HTML Instructor? Date Added: 09/02/2005
Madmin The nice thing about being the DB admin is when a mistake is pointed out one can nip back and fix the error and "hey-presto!" it looks like the one pointing out the error is insane. :> Date Added: 09/02/2005
Gone Away Oh, you're a bad one Mad! LOL Date Added: 09/02/2005
Way Aye, Madson, I 'ear ya. Glad to oblige, but the Memory Meister is Yerdad...he done Gone and whipped up the best stew...I just drapped by to stir it some. Now I need to mosey on over to see what sort of beautiful distaff pleasures Mr. Harvey might be hiding there. Date Added: 09/02/2005
Harvey Young Way has forced me to pull out the well worn American Heritage College dictionary. Ah yes, here it is. Distaff - 2. Work and concerns traditionally considered important to women. Yes! I knew that if I can just make it as a writer women will be all over me. Thanks Way! Date Added: 09/02/2005
Gone Away Ever wondered what motivates a writer? ;) Date Added: 09/02/2005
Hannah Yes-- motivation, please Date Added: 09/02/2005
Way *relief* Distaff was NOT mistakened for distaste...whew. Brushing aside a cobweb or two, that ancient word was one of the first politically-correct ones used, in my small circle of the world. It appeared constantly on military memos, announcing this or that where the feminine portion of a unit might be involved, and served better than the more technical Woman Marine. WM, as a term, is lousy. Try saying it. The more commonly used BAM had the potential to cause a stir, so we never uttered "broad-assed marine" in mixed company, unless she was a good sport. Marines might be crazy, but they ain't schtoopid, ya know. Date Added: 09/02/2005
Harvey Young Thanks Way. I can't wait to ask my Marine Corp buddy about BAM. What company (is that the proper term?) did you serve with. My best buddy here was a Captain in Bravo Company, Second Marines if I recall correctly. Date Added: 09/02/2005
josh Aha! Snake in the grass! And here I was, fessing up to an error I made at 5:45am by using the standard non-destructive line-through!Cheeky munkey! Date Added: 10/02/2005
Josh [quote] Want the job of Official Gone Away HTML Instructor? [endquote] I know not this HTML you speak of.The above post is: Date Added: 10/02/2005
Josh Umm, that is to say... I think I am getting a bit of a bad rap for talking in webhead argot so much -- but I assure you, it is all in good dorky fun for moi and mad (I hope).I also would not dream of stepping on the toes of the local honcho (mad again), as he knows as much if not more about markup than I do. Date Added: 10/02/2005
Gone Away I love the way Josh comes in here and casually drops in little leaflets and stuff. Makes the place look well-used. :D All good fun, I agree, Josh. Date Added: 10/02/2005
Gone Away I've just read the tags to get those little leaflets Josh dropped and it's about a mile long. But your picture didn't come out, Josh. :( Date Added: 10/02/2005
josh Non? Zut Alors! Well, it shows up here. Regardless, it was a silly thing to do in the first place. :P Date Added: 10/02/2005
Gone Away Can't see it, Hosh. What is it, anyway? Date Added: 10/02/2005
Gone Away Hosh? I mean Josh! Date Added: 10/02/2005
josh nothin spethial, just an 80x15 "valid CSS" tag dealybob. Date Added: 10/02/2005
Gone Away OK, gotcha. Date Added: 10/02/2005
Way Scuttlebutt says I served at the same time Chesty Puller was cutting teeth, Harvey. See if he believes that small canard first of all, but then let him know I never once bloused my trousers for 11 of 12 years, so he can fergit his deserved salute, unless his cooler happens to be stocked with Red Dogs for devil dogs; then we might talk. Airwing pogues can't even begin to spell respeck. But to impress the distaff among the crew, here's my run-down: 1960-62, MCRD SanDiego; Pendleton; MAW Futenma, Okinawa, Subic Bay; 63-67, 29 Stumps; 68-72, HQMC and Quantico. Semper Fi to yer jarhead buddy. Date Added: 10/02/2005
Way Okay, kids. Decipher this for me, and in Cat and Dog terms, if you please. Error parsing RSS XML: Undefined root element: html This robot-speak appears on SharpReader where the preview should go, and Owl's site name now shows up as a scary red title. None of her latest blogs are listed either. I deleted the entire thing, thinking a reload might help, but nupe, it didn't. Nowwhat? Date Added: 10/02/2005
Gone Away Basically, it means there's something wrong with the feed to her latest blog, Way. SharpReader can't read it because of that. Blogger attends to the RSS feed itself so somehow a glitch has occurred in the program that writes to the XML file (which gives out the RSS information). I thought Blogger might fix it automatically but it's been like that all day, so I guess Hannah should contact them and yell. Loudly. Date Added: 10/02/2005
Way Fair enough. I need to do nothing but wait. See that, Owl? Go ruffle some feathers. Date Added: 10/02/2005
josh Undefined root element html is an indicator that somehow, somewhere, your sharpreader is attempting to parse not an RSS feed (XML) but a reggaler HTML document, which it is not designed to do (without the provision of a document type, but I shan't digress down that path). Dollars to doughnuts hannah has a "malformed" RSS document -- or somehow her feed listing got poophammered. Good news is, usually that problem (if caused by a non-systemic error) is remedied on the next publishing, as the rss file is usually overwritten from head to toe. Date Added: 10/02/2005
josh Umm, oops. I sorta overlooked mr Gone's perfectly good explanation there. Sorry :| Date Added: 10/02/2005
Harvey Young Thanks for the info Way. I passed this along to my buddy Dan Pultz. Where is Hanna's blog? Clicking on her name does not take me to her site. Information please? Date Added: 10/02/2005
Gone Away Josh: No problem, you explained stuff that I didn't even know, like it'll get fixed the next time Hannah posts. Harvey: That's because Hannah doesn't fill in the link part of the comment form. Naughty Hannah! Here's her URL. Date Added: 10/02/2005
Harvey Young Thanks for the link. I will be checking that out later today. Date Added: 10/02/2005
Eli I found this “art”icle to be very enlightening. I had often wondered how some people could call some things art, but I could never really put my finger on it. The difference between art and design that Clive presented in this piece most certainly cleared all of that up. I thought the definition of art in this bit of literature was right on target. Art absolutely NEEDS to communicate. The reasoning here is that the arts are how us humans tend to express ourselves. We can’t just sit around saying nothing and say that we are expressing silence or something. Communication and expression go together. It’s a little bit obvious. One thing that I didn’t quite agree on is the bit about art not being able to be expressed any other way. That I find impossible to swallow. Different sorts of people express themselves in different sorts of ways. Someone might paint and draw pictures in order to say that they are lonely, but another person could just be blunt and yell about how they feel. Then again, one person could be capable of both of these outlets of expression at the same time. To say that a picture expressing loneliness doesn’t need to be expressed because there are more efficient ways of saying it is robotic and cold. Same with kittens. Well, I seem to have said a lot more about the little bit that I didn’t like than I said about the large portion of the article that I enjoyed, so I’ll wrap this up on a positive note. I totally dug the art gallery technique sited in this piece. That’s how I originally went through an art gallery, but I felt uncultured and stupid due to all the pretentious dweeblings that I saw “examining” every bit of art. I haven’t been to any art galleries since reading this, but when I do, I’ll be sure to let something jump out at me. Date Added: 20/03/2005
Gone Away Thanks for the comments, Eli. I don't disagree with you when you say that all forms of expression are valid. It's just that I feel that anything that can be said quite simply in words should not be worshipped as "great art" when expressed as a painting for instance. As humans we are bound to rate and compare things and so we need to establish some criteria for the judgement of art if we are ever to get out of this meaningless morass in which modern art finds itself. And I would suggest that, just as in literature, it's the depth and breadth of what is communicated that must be the final yardstick of quality. Hmmm, does any of that make sense? LOL Date Added: 20/03/2005
Way The boy does go on. Tends to get that from his mother's side, methinks. But where he came acoss your "art" icle, I have no clue, which is normal for around here. Date Added: 20/03/2005
Eli alright then, I suppose I understand what your saying (although I did get somewhat lost at the end). but a piece of art could still say a simple message in a more beautiful way than just words. and at the same time you could express a simple idea with words in a beautiful way such as poetry. I don't quite see why either wouldn't deserve praise. After all, simplicity can be very lovely to perceive at times. Date Added: 20/03/2005
Gone Away LOL Way. Always good to meet a young un with opinions. I'm glad he found the art-icle. :D Date Added: 21/03/2005
Gone Away OK, Eli, a picture is worth a thousand words indeed. ;) And simplicity is good, I agree. What I'm really ranting against is the artist who creates something meaningless and then has to tell us what it means. Art, whether it be pictorial, musical or in words, must stand on its own. If it needs explanation, it's failed in some way. Can we agree on that? :D Date Added: 21/03/2005
Janus I have said it before, but I will say it again. I love classic art...most modern art makes me think that we are really culturally dying (as if most television didn't prove that) I saw a canvas with oil on it at the museum...that was all it had to it...it was cover with oil?! I thought, if I had turned that in to an art show, people would of thought I was drunk. Yet here it was in the Chicago Museum of Art. strange world we live in. Date Added: 12/10/2006
Gone Away I couldn't agree more, Janus. Art is in such a state today that the critics don't know what they're talking about. They dress everything up with long, meaningless words and then think they're so much more intelligent than the rest of humanity that whatever they say must be right. It really is time that ordinary people who can tell a spade from a work of art kicked them out of their jobs and brought back real art! Date Added: 12/10/2006
Back to the main blog
You may use HTML in comments. A carriage return is <br />, use two for a new paragraph. For bold text use <strong></strong> and for italic text use <em></em>. If you know what you're doing feel free to use more complex mark-up but please no deprecated tags or JavaScript.
Name * Comment * Email * URL Commenting has closed for this post
