Wiardgroup

Konkuro wrote:

> It takes a great deal of talent, skill and time to create 
> a painting of a person that looks like a person, and any defects in 
> such a painting will be immediately apparent to all eyes, trained 
> or untrained, because we all know what a person is supposed to look 
> like.

This is a highly offensive statement. I don't quite know what to say. 
Others with better verbal and English skills have already addressed 
this, so I will make my answer short and radical: this thinking is 
dangerous, defies communication, and can easily result in fascism. 
Your term "training" in this context is only acceptable as 
in "socialization" and communication, which is an ONGOING process of 
finding ways to meet individual and collective standards, not a 
process with an ultimately valid and static outcome.

I'm unfriendly? Yes. You say art is a form of communication, and I 
agree, but then you defy that statement with ignorance. Quoting you:

> I have never bought that argument.  There are universal constants
> of beauty that are built into the species.  A rose is as lovely and 
> smells as sweet in the USA as in China.  A plate of dog poo would 
> likely garner a negative reaction in both locales.

Certainly constants exist, but "universal" is a gross exaggeration of 
benchmarks. For example, you obviusly don't know about the fact that 
folks from different geographic locations see different colours. 
Japanese see blue and green as the same colour!!! And I have worked 
with so called "handicapped" people who used to eat things you 
LEARNED to abhor at since infancy, but which you used to eat as well 
when you were a baby. See my point here? Please be more specific than 
lazily referring to "universal" benchmarks. Even in such a most 
general thing as sexuality there are no universal rules.

> Then why even bother to create it?  If only you can understand and 
> appreciate something you create, why bother making it real?  Why 
> not just leave it as a thought in your own mind? 

Let's put this clear and honest: I'm sorry and at a loss of words for 
you poor guy if you have never enjoyed masturbation.


On another note: if you already abhor at the concept of decorative 
panel graphics from the start, then why are you concerned with the 
fact that the Wiard graphics aren't symmetric????
That's a contradiction and seems to me as if you just wanted to make 
n absolute statement at all costs.

I realize my statements may be offensive to you as well. But that's 
what you get for your gross black and white concept that everything 
that's not made the same way that Beethoven worked is just random 
nonsense. You ignor all inbetwen. At least that's what you sound like 
and I'm allergic to that.

SK