sane

[Steven Vollom]

On Thursday 13 August 2009 01:19:54 pm Billie Erin Walsh wrote:
> Roy Smith wrote:
> > Bruce MacArthur wrote:
> >> Greetings --
> >>
> >> I shall top-post.
> >>
> >> Steven, please let me point something out to you.  While it often seems
> >> quite false, computing is essentially a matter of VERY strict logic and
> >> sequence.  When it seems otherwise, the perception is usually wrong --
> >> and is based on erroneous, deceptive, or missing information.  And I
> >> know the problem, first-hand, just about as well as anyone knows it; I
> >> am a COBOL programmer!

I am totally sure that you are right.  Nonetheless, I am invading foreign 
ground.  What is written just below is perfect.  It comes from someone who 
understands the plight of an artist.
> >
> > [..Major deletion for brevity..]
> >
> >
> > Wow, that was awesome!  I could not have said it better myself!
>
> Right brain and left brain work different. One is pure logic and the
> other is creativity. Steven uses the creative side of his brain. It
> deals mainly with intuitive thought process's. No logic involved. There
> are some people that use only one side of their brain and cannot make
> the jump to the other side.

I am not sure that no logic is involved, just a different view.  I see whole 
concepts, not the pieces.  I see them a lot faster than a logical thinker.   
It is almost instantaneous much of the time.

A painting which is similar to logical thinking is 'realism'.  In realism, 
each little detail must be copied exactly or the image does not look like the 
person you are painting or the building or whatever.  The shape of an eyelid 
that will succeed is one that is not only perfect in shape, but an exact 
distance from an eyebrow, with it's shape perfect.  Every flaw of the skin must 
be in place or you have in essence corrected something distinctive in the 
natural creation.  In portrait painting there is virtually no creativity 
involved.  The work is mechanical and exacting and requires a good technician.  
It is extremely hard work, and I take my hat off to portrait painters.  I can 
do it as well as anyone, but it gives me headaches and is no fun at all, just 
like when I am stymied by a computer problem that doesn't seem to have a fix.  
And if I hadn't quit painting realistic paintings about 25 years ago, I would 
have quit making art completely.  It took the fun out of being an artist.

And, if you paint a portrait of a person who has a bright purplish birthmark 
occupying half his or her face, and retain the intensity of the real color, 
you won't necessarily have a happy client.  It is not a flaw in those you love, 
so you don't even notice anything so irrelevant, but when it becomes a 
painting, you had better focus a bright light source in its direction so you 
can bleach out most of the color, because eliminating it or subduing it 
without a logical reason will make the work fail.  They know it is there.  It 
is not something they have ever been able to change, and yet in a painting, 
realism is not always your friend, even though for me such a condition can be 
quite beautiful.  

I remember a glorious friend who had very crooked teeth.  When she got enough 
money, she had them made perfect.  The trouble is, I loved her as she was, and 
the repair made her look not real.  In fact that imperfection was part of her 
uniqueness and beauty.  For me it was not an improvement over her original 
beauty.  

Re-manufactured boobs have the same effect on me.  Tiny real boobs are much 
more beautiful to me than large fake ones.  And they almost always look fake 
when they are.

Sorry to linger on, but the above comment nailed it for me.

Steven
>
> --
> Treat all stressful situations like a dog does.
> If you can't eat it or play with it,
> just pee on it and walk away