Navigating Faith After Concluding Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham Are 19th Century Works by Joseph Smith

[pogi]

On 10/17/2020 at 8:06 PM, Derl Sanderson said:

Sigh ... looks like we're talking past each other. 

I agree.

On 10/17/2020 at 8:06 PM, Derl Sanderson said:

And you also lost me that Hey Jude and Honey Pie "can't be the same band." They are from the same band! 

That was my point.  The same artist, totally different feeling/approach/voice/elegance.  By saying "it can't be the same band!" I was being sarcastic in trying to emulate your voice in saying "it can't be the same author".  I was trying to portray that the same artist/author can sound very different when you compare their worst to their best.  It can sometimes surprise people that it was the same author/artist, yet, it is.   

On 10/17/2020 at 8:06 PM, Derl Sanderson said:

And just as a point of interest, which of those two do you consider more elegant? 🙂

funny.   

Edit to add: I meant "Wild Honey Pie", not "Honey Pie".

Edited October 22, 2020 by pogi

[pogi]

On 10/20/2020 at 9:43 AM, RevTestament said:

In my book there aren't enough nah, nah, nanananahs!

 

On 10/20/2020 at 9:45 AM, RevTestament said:

I am in the process of writing a book...

Perfect opportunity to add some more nah, nah, nah nanananah's to your book!

[pogi]

To clear up any confusion, I meant  "Wild Honey Pie":

Not Honey Pie (Which is a great song, but also a great example of different voicings):

 

Edited October 22, 2020 by pogi

[mfbukowski]

8 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

 

Your comment got my curiosity so I googled it... seems coil pottery has been in the America's for nearly 4,000 years not since 600 AD

You give a kid some modelling clay and the first two things he will do is make a ball and then a "snake".

I bet it goes a lot farther back than 4k years, not that it matters.  Kids make mud pies too!  And in the absence of a pottery wheel I can't imagine any other way to make a good sturdy pot.  It's like a step pyramid in reverse- and a little smaller.  Of course they took it to a wonderful extreme of design beauty, but to me the basic technology is pretty ... basic. 

Quote

 

Coiling is a method of creating pottery. It has been used to shape clay into vessels for many thousands of years. It is found across the cultures of the world, including Africa, Greece, China, and Native American cultures of New Mexico. Using the coiling technique, it is possible to build thicker or taller walled vessels, which may not have been possible using earlier methods. The technique permits control of the walls as they are built up and allows building on top of the walls to make the vessel look bigger and bulge outward or narrow inward with less danger of collapsing. To do this, the potter takes a pliable material (usually clay) then rolls it until it forms a coil, or long pliable cylinder. By placing one coil on top of another, different shapes can be formed. As this is done while the clay is still fresh and soft, individual coils can be joined seamlessly with simple pressure, rather than by scoring and/or applying slip to the surface. Optionally, coils may only be joined internally or externally, leaving them visible on the other side as an aesthetic choice.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coiling_(pottery)

 

Edited October 23, 2020 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

21 hours ago, pogi said:

I agree.

That was my point.  The same artist, totally different feeling/approach/voice/elegance.  By saying "it can't be the same band!" I was being sarcastic in trying to emulate your voice in saying "it can't be the same author".  I was trying to portray that the same artist/author can sound very different when you compare their worst to their best.  It can sometimes surprise people that it was the same author/artist, yet, it is.   

funny.   

Edit to add: I meant "Wild Honey Pie", not "Honey Pie".

I understand what you are saying and agree with it completely

But there is another twist to this line of thinking I think.

In art, (and that includes rock n roll, like it or not  ) there is a tendency for an exaggeration of a style to occur after the fully matured style has been expressed- it is like a comment on the previous style.   So for example, after painting had reached its highest point in the representation of reality, so that painting became capable of being "photographic" in its ability to represent, there was a tendency to intentionally question the role of representation itself.

Incidentally this tendency is also found in literature and theories about literature in trends like "post-modernism" where the nature of representation in language is questioned.   Can language represent reality in all its fullness?  Can painting represent reality in all its fullness?

So after the Renaissance for example, there was a period where art turned from representation of the human body, and intentionally exaggerated the human form to express another point - that this was ART, not reality, but an abstract representation of the human form.  Figures as painted became almost impossible to imagine as a "real" human body simply to exaggerate and alter the traditional expectations of what a painting was.  Note the intentional elongation of the forms in this nearly bizarre "representation" of the madonna and child by the artist Parmigianino 

So would a perfect representation of the human body be more "refined" than this one, which is stylized in the extreme?     Which is more "elegant" or "advanced"?

It's like the difference between representational art and what people call "modern art" which questions the very nature and purpose of what defines "art" itself.   Which is "better art"?  Is there such a thing as "bad" art?

So, with that in consideration, is "Wild Honey Pie" more or less advanced or elegant than than the other "Honey Pie"?? 

Surely it is more raw, but has a purpose behind it- questioning what qualifies as "music" as separate from "noise".   Which is better art and why?  It reminds me of "Revolution Number Nine"...  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNdcFPjGsm8

 

Edited October 23, 2020 by mfbukowski

[pogi]

54 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I understand what you are saying and agree with it completely

But there is another twist to this line of thinking I think.

In art, (and that includes rock n roll, like it or not  ) there is a tendency for an exaggeration of a style to occur after the fully matured style has been expressed- it is like a comment on the previous style.   So for example, after painting had reached its highest point in the representation of reality, so that painting became capable of being "photographic" in its ability to represent, there was a tendency to intentionally question the role of representation itself.

Incidentally this tendency is also found in literature and theories about literature in trends like "post-modernism" where the nature of representation in language is questioned.   Can language represent reality in all its fullness?  Can painting represent reality in all its fullness?

So after the Renaissance for example, there was a period where art turned from representation of the human body, and intentionally exaggerated the human form to express another point - that this was ART, not reality, but an abstract representation of the human form.  Figures as painted became almost impossible to imagine as a "real" human body simply to exaggerate and alter the traditional expectations of what a painting was.  Note the intentional elongation of the forms in this nearly bizarre "representation" of the madonna and child by the artist Parmigianino 

So would a perfect representation of the human body be more "refined" than this one, which is stylized in the extreme?     Which is more "elegant" or "advanced"?

It's like the difference between representational art and what people call "modern art" which questions the very nature and purpose of what defines "art" itself.   Which is "better art"?  Is there such a thing as "bad" art?

So, with that in consideration, is "Wild Honey Pie" more or less advanced or elegant than than the other "Honey Pie"?? 

Surely it is more raw, but has a purpose behind it- questioning what qualifies as "music" as separate from "noise".   Which is better art and why?  It reminds me of "Revolution Number Nine"...  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNdcFPjGsm8

 

 

I agree that art/elegance it is in the eye of the beholder.  But it should be noted that the same thought and "purpose" did not go into Wild Honey Pie as was placed in Hey Jude.  Wild Honey Pie was literally a case of Paul McCartney wanking the guitar out of boredom and layering his voice over it (referencing his other song Honey Pie) while John and Ringo were recording another song in a different room, and George was on vacation.  It was all Paul, all wanking, all rift and experimental fun.  It was not intended for the album and the only reason it was included is because George's wife liked it and convinced them to put it on.   While elegance is subjective, I think the intention behind each song lends one to a higher degree of purposeful elegance and meaning/intention by the artist.  

Speaking of "what qualifies as music separate from noise [or silence]"

Here is one of my favorite pieces by John Cage.  He is performing 4 minutes and 33 seconds.  It is 3 movements of rest notes.  I find it to be one of the most purposeful and eloquent songs ever written. 

You can read about it here https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/59902/101-masterpieces-john-cages-433

Pretty cool.

Edited October 23, 2020 by pogi

[OGHoosier]

On 10/22/2020 at 4:19 PM, Fair Dinkum said:

 

Your comment got my curiosity so I googled it... seems coil pottery has been in the America's for nearly 4,000 years not since 600 AD

600 BC. 

I found that website too. Shame they didn't give their sources, finding scholarly work on the firing techniques is proving to be extremely difficult. Everything I've found so far compares pottery based on stylistic elements and incisions, not firing techniques. 

Also, "coil-firing" doesn't sound right to me since from what I can see coiling was a way to mold the clay prior to firing. I would like some clarification but I'm not tossing it out yet. 

[california boy]

22 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

You give a kid some modelling clay and the first two things he will do is make a ball and then a "snake".

I bet it goes a lot farther back than 4k years, not that it matters.  Kids make mud pies too!  And in the absence of a pottery wheel I can't imagine any other way to make a good sturdy pot.  It's like a step pyramid in reverse- and a little smaller.  Of course they took it to a wonderful extreme of design beauty, but to me the basic technology is pretty ... basic. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coiling_(pottery)

 

Slab building is also a very common technique that does not require a wheel. Pinch pots are another technique that doesn't require a wheel.  These techniques have been around for centuries all across the world and across all cultures.  They are all still common pottery techniques.  

In a ceramics class (pre-covid) out of 40 students, only about 6 or 7 used the wheel.  It takes a while to learn.  Most people are doing hand built pots using all three of these hand building techniques.

[california boy]

2 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

600 BC. 

I found that website too. Shame they didn't give their sources, finding scholarly work on the firing techniques is proving to be extremely difficult. Everything I've found so far compares pottery based on stylistic elements and incisions, not firing techniques. 

Also, "coil-firing" doesn't sound right to me since from what I can see coiling was a way to mold the clay prior to firing. I would like some clarification but I'm not tossing it out yet. 

Coil pots are not a firing technique.  It is a pot building technique.  There are countless ways to fire pots once they are formed.  Dung firing has been around for centuries, but also pit fires, wood kiln firings, saggart firings, Raku firings.  These all date back for centuries.  Most but not all of these techniques are cross cultural.  Raku for instance is a Japanese firing technique that has only spread in the last 100 years.

I have been doing ceramics since college and have done all of these firings and hand building techniques.  I also taught a ceramics class for several years, and have done gallery work.  I could probably answer most of your questions.

[Bernard Gui]

10 hours ago, pogi said:

 

I agree that art/elegance it is in the eye of the beholder.  But it should be noted that the same thought and "purpose" did not go into Wild Honey Pie as was placed in Hey Jude.  Wild Honey Pie was literally a case of Paul McCartney wanking the guitar out of boredom and layering his voice over it (referencing his other song Honey Pie) while John and Ringo were recording another song in a different room, and George was on vacation.  It was all Paul, all wanking, all rift and experimental fun.  It was not intended for the album and the only reason it was included is because George's wife liked it and convinced them to put it on.   While elegance is subjective, I think the intention behind each song lends one to a higher degree of purposeful elegance and meaning/intention by the artist.  

Speaking of "what qualifies as music separate from noise [or silence]"

Here is one of my favorite pieces by John Cage.  He is performing 4 minutes and 33 seconds.  It is 3 movements of rest notes.  I find it to be one of the most purposeful and eloquent songs ever written. 

You can read about it here https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/59902/101-masterpieces-john-cages-433

Pretty cool.

Them Indetermineesters by Bernardo Gui

How about John Cage’s 4’33”, ain’t it just awful?
Some call it indolent, some call it slothful..
, .
, ,
, !
!
, .
, .
, , , .
Want to play John Cage’s 4’33”? Why, ain’t nothin to it.
Just git a tux, rent a hall, sit right there and do it!

Edited October 24, 2020 by Bernard Gui

[pogi]

8 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Them Indetermineesters by Bernardo Gui

How about John Cage’s 4’33”, ain’t it just awful?
Some call it indolent, some call it slothful..
, .
, ,
, !
!
, .
, .
, , , .
Want to play John Cage’s 4’33”? Why, ain’t nothin to it.
Just git a tux, rent a hall, sit right there and do it!

Now that is art!

[mfbukowski]

11 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Them Indetermineesters by Bernardo Gui

How about John Cage’s 4’33”, ain’t it just awful?
Some call it indolent, some call it slothful..
, .
, ,
, !
!
, .
, .
, , , .
Want to play John Cage’s 4’33”? Why, ain’t nothin to it.
Just git a tux, rent a hall, sit right there and do it!

The difference is that anybody can rent Carnegie Hall but who can fill it?  I myself attended a "concert" in the 60's in Carnegie Hall with about 10 other friends so that my room mate, who played the organ, could put it on his resume.   It cost him a pretty penny but he got the resume line and pictures to prove it.

Approval by the literati- THAT is the trick.

Yet another proof that context creates meaning.  You stick a common object in an art museum, or silence in a packed concert hall, and it says a lot to those who "get" it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_(Duchamp)

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, pogi said:

Now that is art!

Yes it is.

It is a bold assertion the meaning of which is self evident after we see it a dozen times.  Context makes meaning- there is no such thing as "representation" in art, literature, science or any man-made creation.  We see through a false mirror, darkly, wearing our human perceptions like a pair of the darkest sunglasses one can imagine.  ;

But how many times does it have to be repeated?

Warhol did it Cage did it, Duchamp did it, Dali did it, the Dada movement did it, minimalism did it, conceptual art did it, performance pieces did it, and in philosophy it was done many many times over in Pragmatism, phenomenology, post modernism et al.

And here we still argue about literal representation which doesn't exit, and can't exist until we take off our human - perception- sunglasses.  "Through a glass darkly, but THEN face to face.

Sigh.  

At least we could figure THAT out! 

Edited October 24, 2020 by mfbukowski

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

The difference is that anybody can rent Carnegie Hall but who can fill it?  I myself attended a "concert" in the 60's in Carnegie Hall with about 10 other friends so that my room mate, who played the organ, could put it on his resume.   It cost him a pretty penny but he got the resume line and pictures to prove it.

Approval by the literati- THAT is the trick.

Yet another proof that context creates meaning.  You stick a common object in an art museum, or silence in a packed concert hall, and it says a lot to those who "get" it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_(Duchamp)

How many halls have been filled to hear this? How many times would you sit through 4’33”? Speaking as a musician, I see only burlesque and pretense, but zero art or craft, a mental exercise and commentary, but no skill. I thought that when I first “heard” it in 1964. Once you’ve fallen for his trick, it loses its “charm.” Going into a performance knowing what is about to happen destroys the intent. There is no more there there. Once is more than enough. IMO, it’s  already been relegated to the junk heap of history and remains as a curious remnant of a weird musical era. 

I learned much about indeterministic or aleatoric music at a performance with a string quartet at the Western States Composers Symposium in 1966. It was all the rage then. Everyone thought it was “happening.” The composer and our quartet got a standing ovation for his piece, but at no time did we ever know if what we were playing was what the composer wrote. Neither did he. Maybe that was his intent. Who knows? Luckily we finished together. 
But some folks may still think it’s the dog’s meow. Maybe we’ll have to agree to disagree.

Edited October 24, 2020 by Bernard Gui

[mfbukowski]

17 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Maybe we’ll have to agree to disagree.

Not with me Pan Guiski.    I think I understand a tiny piece of the intensity you may feel about this after your decades of dedication and mastery of your Art.

But the object I think of this stuff is to have us question what "art" is.   Once you get that that is the question and you think it through the purpose of the question is gone, because you have already answered it for yourself.   And so the question rolls down to the next generation which needs to consider their own definition.

And on the generations roll.  😎

[Fair Dinkum]

On 10/23/2020 at 8:51 PM, OGHoosier said:

600 BC. 

I found that website too. Shame they didn't give their sources, finding scholarly work on the firing techniques is proving to be extremely difficult. Everything I've found so far compares pottery based on stylistic elements and incisions, not firing techniques. 

Also, "coil-firing" doesn't sound right to me since from what I can see coiling was a way to mold the clay prior to firing. I would like some clarification but I'm not tossing it out yet. 

Lol you are correct. 600 bc 

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Not with me Pan Guiski.    I think I understand a tiny piece of the intensity you may feel about this after your decades of dedication and mastery of your Art.

But the object I think of this stuff is to have us question what "art" is.   Once you get that that is the question and you think it through the purpose of the question is gone, because you have already answered it for yourself.   And so the question rolls down to the next generation which needs to consider their own definition.

And on the generations roll.  😎

I'm way beyond the point of questioning what art is. Think I'll go listen to some Mahler, but turn off the volume so I can experience the awesomeness of silence interrupted by the "music" of the planes taking off over our home while pondering the meaning of the life and the interactiveness between all creatures great and small. Starting with the small. 

Them Tardigrades by Bernardo Gui

How about them tardigrades, ain't they a hero?
Livin' and lovin' in absolute zero.

Stubby little legs, cute little face.

Crawlin' in they lichens, hangin' out in space,  

Look at them water bears, ain't they stout?

Fry 'em all up, wring 'em them all out.

Them pardy hardy tartigrades, ain't they creepy?

Soakin' up they roentgens don't make 'em sleepy.

How to be a tardigrade?  No need to be precocious,

Find yerself some moss, start yer cryptobiosis.

 

Edited October 25, 2020 by Bernard Gui

[mfbukowski]

52 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I'm way beyond the point of questioning what art is. Think I'll go listen to some Mahler, but turn off the volume so I can experience the awesomeness of silence interrupted by the "music" of the planes taking off over our home while pondering the meaning of the life and the interactiveness between all creatures great and small. Starting with the small. 

Them Tardigrades by Bernardo Gui

How about them tardigrades, ain't they a hero?
Livin' and lovin' in absolute zero.

Stubby little legs, cute little face.

Crawlin' in they lichens, hangin' out in space,  

Look at them water bears, ain't they stout?

Fry 'em all up, wring 'em them all out.

Them pardy hardy tartigrades, ain't they creepy?

Soakin' up they roentgens don't make 'em sleepy.

How to be a tardigrade?  No need to be precocious,

Find yerself some moss, start yer cryptobiosis.

 

OH MAN!  NOW we be talkin' ART!!

[pogi]

On 10/24/2020 at 5:46 PM, Bernard Gui said:

How many halls have been filled to hear this? How many times would you sit through 4’33”? Speaking as a musician, I see only burlesque and pretense, but zero art or craft, a mental exercise and commentary, but no skill. I thought that when I first “heard” it in 1964. Once you’ve fallen for his trick, it loses its “charm.” Going into a performance knowing what is about to happen destroys the intent. There is no more there there. Once is more than enough. IMO, it’s  already been relegated to the junk heap of history and remains as a curious remnant of a weird musical era. 

I learned much about indeterministic or aleatoric music at a performance with a string quartet at the Western States Composers Symposium in 1966. It was all the rage then. Everyone thought it was “happening.” The composer and our quartet got a standing ovation for his piece, but at no time did we ever know if what we were playing was what the composer wrote. Neither did he. Maybe that was his intent. Who knows? Luckily we finished together. 
But some folks may still think it’s the dog’s meow. Maybe we’ll have to agree to disagree.

Quote

 

The value people see in 4'33" is best explained by bread crumbs. One day, Cage was at a restaurant with the abstract painter Willem de Kooning, arguing about art. At one point, De Kooning made a rectangle with his fingers and dropped them over some crumbs on the table. “If I put a frame around these bread crumbs, that isn’t art,” De Kooning piped. Cage shook his head. The frame, he argued, meant everything.

Dump a virtuoso violinist on the street corner, and nearly everyone will walk past without a second look. Put the same violinist in a concert hall and 1,500 people will hang onto every note. The concert hall is a frame—a palace for listening—and when you frame silence there, incidental sounds may froth to the foreground. The hum of the lighting. The ticking of your wristwatch. The mad ringing in your ear. If you stop and contemplate the world buzzing around you, you may realize how rich and interesting it can be.

Cage’s point has largely fallen on deaf ears. A University of Virginia study published in July 2014 put hundreds of people in an empty, quiet room alone for 15 minutes. Most participants found it insufferable—25 percent of women and 67 percent of men opted to endure painful electric shocks rather than pass the time without any stimulation.

4'33" is a gentle reminder to embrace your surroundings, to be present. If art seems severed from life—isolated in concert halls and art galleries— that’s a matter of your perception. But, as Gann says, if you pay the same attention to the hum of traffic or the rustling of wind as you would your favorite album, you just might realize that the line dividing art and life, music and noise, doesn’t actually exist. If you treat every sound as you would music, you just might hear something unexpected, something beautiful. At its core, 4'33" isn’t about listening to nothing. It’s about listening to everything.

https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/59902/101-masterpieces-john-cages-433

 

Perhaps it is best appreciated by those who practice mindfulness and meditation.  It is the most beautiful piece of music I have ever heard!

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Perhaps it is best appreciated by those who practice mindfulness and meditation.  It is the most beautiful piece of music I have ever heard!

Mindfulness meditation was one of the life changers for me.  Suddenly I found that it was not necessary to have a mantra to meditate.  Suddenly I was paying attention to my surroundings and my body in space and "Being Here Now"  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Be_Here_Now_(book)

I will tell you a true story.  It was 1971 and I was a grad student in New York and lived in Greenwich Village, my roomate was in law school at NYU and that is how I was able to get an apartment there.   It was an amazing time in my life.  Even today when I see a shot of Washington Square- I actually see the building I lived in, in the background.  Bob Dylan lived around the corner.

I went to a movie at the local theater which was packed with counter-culture types- students, hippies, yippies and whoever else one would expect to see going to a movie in the local Greenwich Village theater.  Tourists don't go to popular movies when they are touring. 

One of the people in the audience was Salvador Dali.   After the movie was over, he started walking out of the theater and suddenly the guy in the 10th row with long hair just like everyone else in the theater, showed his face to the entire theater just by turning around and walking down the aisle.   Everyone with a piece of paper in their pockets went to go and get autographs.  Fortunately there were not that many people in the audience- a week night- and there were some who actually did not recognize his famous mustache. 

I instantly felt an uncontrollable urge to commit a work of conceptual art. 

There had been a lot of controversy about how artists could just throw some paint on a canvas- seriously- and then sign the canvas and sell it for thousands of dollars.  It was still early enough in the age of "modern art" that people who paid money for a Picasso were seen as fools in certain circles.  Andy Warhol lived "up the road a piece" was lambasted for painting a box to look like just a commercial delivery of Brillo pads, and getting it into prestigious galleries and museums.   It seemed like nobody "got it".

So here I am with Salvador Dali within an arms length.

It wasn't Duchamp, it wasn't Cage, it wasn't lot of people it could have been which would have made the "piece" better, but he was HERE NOW and so was I .

So I took a dollar bill out of my pocket, and instead of having him sign it for me- I SIGNED IT and GAVE IT TO HIM.   It was the most surreal project I could come up with in a few seconds.

He looked at it, put it in his pocket, said "Thanks" and grabbed another piece of paper to sign.

Like it or not, that is my true story.     Well a dollar bill WAS worth a lot more in those days...... 

 

 

[pogi]

33 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Mindfulness meditation was one of the life changers for me.  Suddenly I found that it was not necessary to have a mantra to meditate.  Suddenly I was paying attention to my surroundings and my body in space and "Being Here Now"  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Be_Here_Now_(book)

I will tell you a true story.  It was 1971 and I was a grad student in New York and lived in Greenwich Village, my roomate was in law school at NYU and that is how I was able to get an apartment there.   It was an amazing time in my life.  Even today when I see a shot of Washington Square- I actually see the building I lived in, in the background.  Bob Dylan lived around the corner.

I went to a movie at the local theater which was packed with counter-culture types- students, hippies, yippies and whoever else one would expect to see going to a movie in the local Greenwich Village theater.  Tourists don't go to popular movies when they are touring. 

One of the people in the audience was Salvador Dali.   After the movie was over, he started walking out of the theater and suddenly the guy in the 10th row with long hair just like everyone else in the theater, showed his face to the entire theater just by turning around and walking down the aisle.   Everyone with a piece of paper in their pockets went to go and get autographs.  Fortunately there were not that many people in the audience- a week night- and there were some who actually did not recognize his famous mustache. 

I instantly felt an uncontrollable urge to commit a work of conceptual art. 

There had been a lot of controversy about how artists could just throw some paint on a canvas- seriously- and then sign the canvas and sell it for thousands of dollars.  It was still early enough in the age of "modern art" that people who paid money for a Picasso were seen as fools in certain circles.  Andy Warhol lived "up the road a piece" was lambasted for painting a box to look like just a commercial delivery of Brillo pads, and getting it into prestigious galleries and museums.   It seemed like nobody "got it".

So here I am with Salvador Dali within an arms length.

It wasn't Duchamp, it wasn't Cage, it wasn't lot of people it could have been which would have made the "piece" better, but he was HERE NOW and so was I .

So I took a dollar bill out of my pocket, and instead of having him sign it for me- I SIGNED IT and GAVE IT TO HIM.   It was the most surreal project I could come up with in a few seconds.

He looked at it, put it in his pocket, said "Thanks" and grabbed another piece of paper to sign.

Like it or not, that is my true story.     Well a dollar bill WAS worth a lot more in those days...... 

 

 

That is a fantastic story!  I love it. 

[RevTestament]

On 10/22/2020 at 4:56 PM, pogi said:

 

Perfect opportunity to add some more nah, nah, nah nanananah's to your book!

You got me there.... what can I say??? (nah, nah, nah nananah... of course)

[RevTestament]

On 10/22/2020 at 4:19 PM, Fair Dinkum said:

 

Your comment got my curiosity so I googled it... seems coil pottery has been in the America's for nearly 4,000 years not since 600 AD

Yeah, I didn't say coiled pottery had not been in the Americas' before 600 AD. This is what I said with emphasis added: "For instance did you know that before 600 BC native north American pottery consisted of either carved stone or Fiber-tempered pottery, and that this suddenly changed after 600 BC (Lehi's voyage) to coil-fired pottery - a technique used in the Old World ie Middle East?" Your commenter's claim of how slowly pottery technology spread from Mexico only serves to make my point more relevant. In fact coiled pottery did not appear in the SW until after Christ so didn't spread to eastern N. America from there. It simply appeared after 600 AD. 

Archaeologists often will name cultures by their pottery. Pre Deptford Culture pottery in the SE and Atlantic coasts produced fiber-tempered pottery. About 500 BC the pottery changed to Deptford Culture pottery. "Diagnostic elements of the Deptford materials are coiling, simple stamped and check stamped surfaces, conoidal jar shape, tetrapodal supports, and straight or slightly flared rims (Griffin and Sears 1950)." This is about 1000 years before coiled pottery appeared in the SW. I believe it to be  highly relevant - take it or leave it I guess.

[OGHoosier]

2 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Yeah, I didn't say coiled pottery had not been in the Americas' before 600 AD. This is what I said with emphasis added: "For instance did you know that before 600 BC native north American pottery consisted of either carved stone or Fiber-tempered pottery, and that this suddenly changed after 600 BC (Lehi's voyage) to coil-fired pottery - a technique used in the Old World ie Middle East?" Your commenter's claim of how slowly pottery technology spread from Mexico only serves to make my point more relevant. In fact coiled pottery did not appear in the SW until after Christ so didn't spread to eastern N. America from there. It simply appeared after 600 AD. 

Archaeologists often will name cultures by their pottery. Pre Deptford Culture pottery in the SE and Atlantic coasts produced fiber-tempered pottery. About 500 BC the pottery changed to Deptford Culture pottery. "Diagnostic elements of the Deptford materials are coiling, simple stamped and check stamped surfaces, conoidal jar shape, tetrapodal supports, and straight or slightly flared rims (Griffin and Sears 1950)." This is about 1000 years before coiled pottery appeared in the SW. I believe it to be  highly relevant - take it or leave it I guess.

Are you holding to a North American geography then?

[RevTestament]

19 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

Are you holding to a North American geography then?

For the Book of Mormon? Yes. The Book of Mormon took place where there was no other "nation." MesoAmerica had a large Mayan nation by 500 BC.