I think what is being said here is:

If one *is not* going to use punctuation then OK

If one *is* going to use punctuation, it should be used correctly.

Roger



----- Original Message -----
From: "Deborah Russell" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2003 2:50 PM
Subject: Re: Delicate Pastel


> Your statements concerning Degas, Rembrandt and Rothko indicate that you
> enjoy certain aspects of their work, but do not indicate an understanding
of
> theory or technique. After reading your response, several times, it seems
> convoluted, confused and unrelated. What are you saying exactly? Deborah
>
>
>
> Morning, Deborah.  Degas, IMHO, was one of the greatest draftsmen of the
> 19/20th century.  The implication, perhaps, is that he was so in control
of
> his tools that he was able to do more or less what he liked but I bet he
> struggled as much as any other artist in order to achieve it.  There's a
> wonderful Rembrandt self-portrait in Kenwood House.  One of the eyes is
> painted in a way that, for me, encapsulates the utter mystery of 'seeing'
> because you can't see it.  The painting's so subtle, so observed, it takes
> my
> breath away.  He's painted the unseeable mystery.  The only other artist I
> can think of who sometimes gives me what that portrait gives me (in a
> completely different way) is Rothko (sorry if anyone reading this has seen
> it
> before: it's the best example I can think of).  You sense the enormity of
> the
> struggle to find what the artist ultimately presents to the viewer.
> I've a feeling we all need to find our own tools and methods and don't
> subscribe to the idea that this exercise or that formula is the route to
> producing something meaningful.  What I do think is that the artist/writer
> has a duty (and will probably have a natural desire) to at least try to
> discover how the tools s/he uses work.  I don't mean this in a restrictive
> way (the sort of attitude that says you can only work with the bristle end
> of
> the brush) because that seems, to me, absolutely anti-art/creativity.  But
> if
> our tools (punctuation, for example) get in the way, how on earth can we
> communicate effectively?  If a writer presents a reader with a stream of
> what
> appears to be fairly unstructured or badly structured thought, s/he may
have
> to accept that some readers prefer to try to find meaning in their own
> stream
> of unstructured/badly structured thought.
> Of course, this applies to any other kind of art/writing too.  We all
> find/seek our own audience (or not) LOL.
> bw
> christina
>
>
>
>  > "A painting requires a little mystery, some vagueness, some fantasy.
When
>  > you always make your meaning perfectly plain you end up boring
>  > people"...conversations are made up of fragments of information,
>  > half-finished sentences, and unanswered questions. Why shouldn't
painting
> be
>  > as well?" Edgar Degas
>  >
>  >
>  > Why shouldn't poetry be the same as any art form, and in this case,
real
>  > life?
>  >
>  > - Deborah
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*
> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus