Appreciation

[Bill M]

Originally Posted by Jussi M.

I would like to change the words "great Art" with "what we identify with enjoyment". – Why? Because I personally feel that the usual associations we get from the word "Art" exclude most of what we identify with enjoyment but not the other way around

Fine with me. "what we identify with enjoyment" Whatever terminology you enjoy.

I know there are certain things that fill me, deeply fill me. I have realized that these things also always have new aspects. I have had oriental carpets for many years. I have looked carefully at them for years, yet every time I look at them, and relax, I see things that I have never seen before. New designs and patterns, patterns that I enjoy.

Yet, it takes relaxing and putting aside the rush of the daily activities. That Joshua Bell was playing some of the most intricate and powerful music -- in a subway while most people blindly walked by -- does not surprise me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=myq8upzJDJc
you will notice a few people who stood and listened. Some knew who he was, others heard something they enjoyed.

The majority of these people were focussed on the cares of the day, not a 'street musician looking for tips.' Yet later, I could guess, some of these same people may have bought tickets, sat down in cool darkness of the theater and were transported by the exact same music.

I have bought CDs of these pieces and his work is breathtaking. Without telling friends who he is, or who wrote the music, have played it in a relaxed atmosphere and have seen them moved to tears by the grandeur.

So, "what we identify with enjoyment". We, my wife Anne and I, have a diverse collection from many different countries, wide-ranging in scope. China, Indonesia, Philippines, Africa, India, Papua New Guinea, and others. "What is the common thread?"

Simply, we collect what we enjoy. But let me take that a little deeper we feel that it is not really the object itself that we enjoy, it is something beyond the object that gives us enjoyment. The object is a conduit.

Sometimes an overwhelming conduit! Earlier I mentioned the Stendhal Syndrome. For those not familiar, here is a definition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stendhal_syndrome

[David]

Originally Posted by Bill Marsh

Yet, it takes relaxing and putting aside the rush of the daily activities. That Joshua Bell was playing some of the most intricate and powerful music -- in a subway while most people blindly walked by -- does not surprise me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=myq8upzJDJc
you will notice a few people who stood and listened. Some knew who he was, others heard something they enjoyed.

The majority of these people were focussed on the cares of the day, not a 'street musician looking for tips.' Yet later, I could guess, some of these same people may have bought tickets, sat down in cool darkness of the theater and were transported by the exact same music.

I would like to comment that the Joshua Bell example does have a few problems. First and foremost, human beings will follow their survival instincts. Mr. Bell playing in a subway during rush hour doesn't receive the attention it deserves simply because people are rushing to get to their jobs on time. On time arrival to jobs = keeping those jobs=feeding ones family. If you put Mr. Bell in Central Park on a pleasant Sunday afternoon i believe you would see a completely different reception of then music. Their have been so many times when i have had to rush past a good musician playing in the NYC subways that my ear recognized as someone worth stopping to listen to, but my schedule would not allow. It wasn't a matter of venue so much as timing. Of course i would often drop a little something in their music case on my way past if i thought them worthy, but could not stay to listen, a recognition that seems missing in this Washington subway station show.

[Jussi M.]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Jussi, the reason I included "art" along with "objects" was because I wanted people to consider things like the performing arts. I considered "enjoyment" and "satisfaction" and a few other ways of phrasing the idea I had, but when I went that way I just couldn't get away from food, sex and drugs.

OK.

[A. G. Maisey]

Yes David, I agree completely.

Part of the act of appreciation is the time and place.

My original comment in post #1:-


We could argue that the concert goers are paying their hundreds of dollars for a total experience --- the atmosphere, the chance to rub shoulders with important people, the opportunity to be seen, photographed, and appear in the society pages. Maybe. But the violinist is the same --- subway : concert stage. Same man, same music. But unappreciated because of place.


I used the Josh Bell example because I believe that it is pretty well known. I've had it quoted to me in at least three different situations, and quoted to illustrate at least three different ideas. What I wanted to do was to give a simple, easily understood example to demonstrate that the act of appreciation does depend upon more than the thing being appreciated.

I keep coming back to this:-

for one reason or another art or an object can make us feel good

why?

if I read back through the posts to this thread I think I can see a common idea that has been expressed in a number of ways

I believe it is this idea that is what this thread is about.

[Bill M]

This Joshua Bell experiment continues to haunt me. I was talking recently with a well-known psychiatrist about this event. He said that one of the biggest factors influencing our behavior is environment. A huge difference in a subway and a concert hall. He was not at all surprised that Joshua Bell was mostly ignored. Obviously people are thinking of other things and usually intentionally ignoring buskers and panhandlers.

But he made a very interesting observation. Other than some people who recognized Bell, the one who paid the most attention was a 3 year old boy. His mother had to pull him away, but the entire time the boy was watching the violinist. This action was repeated by several other children. All the parents, without exception, forced them to move on.

I will be 67 soon. A few years ago I decided to make a conscious effort to relax more often and enjoy life. My wife, Anne, is a constant joy. She has this childlike quality to stop for a rose, a pebble, a sunset, things that I had blocked out.

I used to push her along like the mothers above, but now, I stop and respect her interest -- whole new worlds open.

"Verily I say unto you, Except ye turn, and become as little children, ye shall in no wise enter into the Kingdom of Heaven."

[Bill M]

Its a quiet Saturday morning and I have time to muse.

One of the topics in this fascinating thread has to do with Beauty. I worked my way through college as an Architectural photographer. I have always felt a bond with buildings and the men (and women) who designed them.

An architect takes an idea, translates it into form, function and substance, creating places where we live, work, are entertained, and worship. What a great occupation!

A photographer is always updating his portfolio. I was very good at my work, but I realized that I wanted to have spectacular, beautiful photos of, well, spectacular buildings. In short I wanted a perfect beautiful photo of a building whether the architect was paying me to photograph that building or not.

So I began a search for the perfect photographs for my portfolio. The most beautiful buildings photographed perfectly. I drove streets, studied buildings, waited for the sun to strike the building perfectly while I chose the right film, the right lens, the right angle.

I worked very hard, but the "right" picture, the "beautiful picture" eluded me. Something was always off! I took no pictures, none. My search for perfection created a log jam in my head that went so far as to effectively stop me from taking ANY pictures -- even the work for which I had been commissioned.

Stymied, angry, frustrated, I remember sitting on my camera case staring at a huge parking garage an architect wanted photographed. I thought, "A damn parking garage! Frank Lloyd Wright would never do anything like that!"

A moment, an epiphany struck me. I had it backwards. I had set up an impossible no-win situation -- find and take the perfect, beautiful picture? No, doesn't work that way! Find the beauty inherent in whatever you are seeing.

The parking garage seemed to change, huge, dramatic sweeping lines, massive white concrete punctuated by brilliantly colored automobiles, and much, much more. I felt a bond between me, my camera and the magnificent building.

The architects were thrilled! From that moment, from that perspective I did some of my best work. My portfolio glowed with beautiful photographs.

The point is that when we first seek beauty, that connection, the world gives it. From the right frame of reference, there is beauty everywhere.

[drdavid]

Bill, I think you have hit the nail on the head, beauty can be found anywhere, if we are open to seeing it
drd

[Jussi M.]

Originally Posted by Bill M

A photographer is always updating his portfolio. I was very good at my work, but I realized that I wanted to have spectacular, beautiful photos of, well, spectacular buildings. In short I wanted a perfect beautiful photo of a building whether the architect was paying me to photograph that building or not.

So I began a search for the perfect photographs for my portfolio. The most beautiful buildings photographed perfectly. I drove streets, studied buildings, waited for the sun to strike the building perfectly while I chose the right film, the right lens, the right angle.

I worked very hard, but the "right" picture, the "beautiful picture" eluded me. Something was always off! I took no pictures, none. My search for perfection created a log jam in my head that went so far as to effectively stop me from taking ANY pictures -- even the work for which I had been commissioned.

Stymied, angry, frustrated, I remember sitting on my camera case staring at a huge parking garage an architect wanted photographed. I thought, "A damn parking garage! Frank Lloyd Wright would never do anything like that!"

A moment, an epiphany struck me. I had it backwards. I had set up an impossible no-win situation -- find and take the perfect, beautiful picture? No, doesn't work that way! Find the beauty inherent in whatever you are seeing.

The parking garage seemed to change, huge, dramatic sweeping lines, massive white concrete punctuated by brilliantly colored automobiles, and much, much more. I felt a bond between me, my camera and the magnificent building.

The architects were thrilled! From that moment, from that perspective I did some of my best work. My portfolio glowed with beautiful photographs.

The point is that when we first seek beauty, that connection, the world gives it. From the right frame of reference, there is beauty everywhere.

I must say the above write up from Bill truly rang a bell on my head.

It actually hit it pretty hard. A knockout of Sorts? – Yes, or maybe a epiphany would be a better term.

Please let me ramble a bit – I will get to the point soon... So, lets speak about something else first... Lets talk about watches and audio: I´ve been always enamored with watches and within the past 10 years or so I´ve managed to get somewhat deep onto the watch-collecting game and all that comes along with it: trading, socializing on hobbyists forums with fellow collectors and photographing them tickers - you cannot play the game of show & tell on the forums unless you take pictures of ´em timepieces.

Many matured watch-collectors have a pretty good set of photographic equipment at their disposal. - Many feel that it is not sufficient to have neat tickers - you have to be able to take cool pics of them too. So, the cameras become upgraded regularly as does the rest of the equipment. - They use light tents, filters, macro-lenses... you name it. I however take my pictures (and I take them daily) with a 6 year old mobile phone camera having learnt a valuable lesson from the time I leaned heavily towards high-end audio.

This is where we loop back to Bill´s posting, please bear me. So... twenty-odd years ago when I was a freshman in the university I bought a new set of speakers for my stereo-equipment. I was astonished with the effect it had on the sound!

I was astounded, and, when I learnt out that playing romantic music for visiting girls with a good sounding rig was not a bad tactic from my part I became even more interested on the secrets of audio reproduction...

So... I went back to the audio store to see what else could be done... I soon learnt what differentiates an integrated amplifier from a separate pre- and power-amp combo, what are the pros and cons of them, how does room acoustics apply to the equation, what are the differences between solid state vrs. tube vrs. hybrid designs... why is a short signal path important, how does cabling affect the sound... Etc. Soon I had tons of Audio magazines all around the house and a rig that costed more than I could afford and which was always somewhat OK but still "wrong" sonically - there was always something that could be bettered... After years of enthusiastic upgrading and finally finding a setup in which all the components complemented each other on an almost perfect way... I decided to sell the equipment (save for the loudspeaker- and signal cabling which I still have... Just could not sell them as it took me bloody ages and countless hours of trial and error to find the "perfect" cabling ).

Why I sold?

Because somewhere along the line I had lost the spark that initiated my interest towards High-End Audio in the first place - the love for music. Instead of enjoying the music I had reached a learnt state in which I was listening to the setup instead of the actual music, trying to pinpoint the systems weaknesses looking already forward to the next upgrade. To put it frankly I lost the appetite for music for years. Even today I never concentrate to listen to it per se whilst I have learnt to enjoy it again. - Good music is good never mind the media it is reproduced via.

This is why I refuse to upgrade my watch-photographing rig beyond my six year old mobile phone. I much prefer to wait for a good light and hope some of the pics got out OK than start fiddling with light tents and be afraid of getting infected with a "gotta get a better camera-bug".

You may now ask what does any of the above has to do with what Bill wrote and the appreciation theme this thread is about? In my opinion appreciation is purest when it is not clouded by knowledge. A novice may appreciate a thing based on feeling only as much as a seasoned expert can but for different reasons and a different frame of mind. Which is the purer form of appreciation - appreciating something whilst not knowing anything about it ("cool" or "awesome") or appreciating something knowingly ("yes, this is a very rare specimen from the late Ming Dynasty")? In my personal opinion the innocence and clumsiness associated with novice amateurism is somehow admirably pure and spiritually elevating compared to professionalism and expertise for what is an expert but a novice who has lost his innocence (and with it the capability of wonderment?)? – I think what Bill found with that parking garage experience of his hence was renewed ability to see things through novices eyes past acquired technical skills and experience?

Not a good pic but good enough – yes, I also appreciate this old Seiko of mine




Thanks for taking the time to read this.

J.

[Rick]

Thanks Jussi .
You made your point quite well .

I couldn't disagree with a lot of it .



Did you have a vacuum tube amp ?

[Jussi M.]

Originally Posted by Rick

Did you have a vacuum tube amp ?

Yes

[A. G. Maisey]

Acting upon David's recommendation, I pursued, and finally obtained a copy of "F for Fake". I got hold of it through inter-library loan from a library in a rural area 400 miles from Sydney.

I found it a very difficult film to watch, and I watched it the first time in two sessions. But the second time I watched it I gritted my teeth and sat through it in one go. After these viewings of the movie, I then read quite a lot about this movie from several sites on the net. Apparently the vast bulk of people did not find it any easier to watch than I did, however I learnt that it was not really intended for light entertainment, but rather was intended as a masterwork of editing. Apparently this is recognised as the true value of this film:- it is a landmark in the art of editing. Because of this it has become an extremely important film for students of cinematography. The subject matter is secondary.

However, that said, David is absolutely correct in his opinion that this film is able to add considerably to this present discussion. The entire film is about, and is based upon, deception. In fact, in the film the point is made that all film making is in fact the practice of the art of deception. The purpose of what we are permitted to see is to create the impression that the film maker wishes to create.

If we reflect upon this, it is perhaps only a very short step to realise that in any avenue of life itself we base our feelings, knowledge, opinions upon that which we perceive. In other words, the opinions we form, and the feelings that something or someone can engender in us are formed from only those aspects of the person or thing of which we are aware.

If we apply this line of thought to our present discussion, it can be seen that our appreciation of anything, be it an art work or not, is based upon what we believe we know about that thing. Thus, if we believe that we are experiencing great art, to hold an opinion other than that would be contrary to human nature.

But in this discussion we have not really been addressing the ideas that apply to great art, rather, we have been considering the appreciation of things on a more personal basis. I believe that we have shown that the way in which we relate to the things that we appreciate is based in our previous life experience. To put this another way, when we encounter something for which we have an appreciation, that appreciation is rooted in some memory of the past, be it an active or a passive memory.

If we can accept this construct, then the same argument applies to these more personal objects of appreciation, as it does to the broader sphere of recognised art, the only difference is that we consider these personal objects in personal terms, whereas the more public objects of recognised art are considered in more formally specific terms.

I feel that this brings us back the that which has already been proposed here:- that we appreciate things because those things strike a chord within us. That chord can be one that has been accidentally created by life experience, or it can be one that is the result of learnt concept.

To return to our "F for Fake" movie.
Yes, that movie demonstrates very well that we can be guided , or perhaps deceived, into seeing things in a particular way.

Because of this perhaps it is now time to ask another question.

What part does knowledge play in the act of appreciation?

To take Jussi's watch story as a starting point:- is the appreciation of a genuine, certified, Watchaholic for a genuine, certified Audemars Piguet Royal Oak any greater than the appreciation of Freddy Bloggs from Nowhereville for his genuine, certified Audemars Piguet , made in China, Royal Oak?

Does knowledge sharpen appreciation, or does ignorance permit a personal response in the ignorant, as does knowledge in the educated?

[Jussi M.]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

To take Jussi's watch story as a starting point:- is the appreciation of a genuine, certified, Watchaholic for a genuine, certified Audemars Piguet Royal Oak any greater than the appreciation of Freddy Bloggs from Nowhereville for his genuine, certified Audemars Piguet , made in China, Royal Oak?

In my opinion the answer is both yes and no. – Yes in that a judged opinion based on how the item/act in question relates to others of the same ilk within a "standardized" set of criteria used to compare them is... in a way more solid - it appears more objective though the application and weightings of the said criteria is always subjective. - It should be remembered that branding originated as a means to mark ownership, not as a means to portray any given set of values to be associated with the said brand or make. So no, in my opinion the Freddy Bloggs opinion is just as valid - it´s just completely nude within its subjectiveness as it has not been disguised "objective" by the cloak of knowledge and experience. However... we live on a world in which the majorities opinion matter most and is thus perceived as "truth". So, if we look at things exclusively from the standpoint of appreciation they are both right and valid views. If we conclude the rest of the world onto the equation I feel that Freddy Bloggs opinion is easily countered. It´s just the way it is that we tend to appreciate more what the "expert" has to say about things than the "commoner". Why? - because reality as we have to deal with it is not formed by the latter. It is formed by the clan of "experts".

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Does knowledge sharpen appreciation, or does ignorance permit a personal response in the ignorant, as does knowledge in the educated?

In my opinion, yes.

Or rather, knowledge shines light to areas previously unnoticed. When this happens on a continuous state the previously "lighted" or acknowledged parts of the whole in question become dimmed by the new focus. In the extreme these areas become void in not so much different than what happened to my listening of music described a couple postings above - the focus turned from listening the actual music onto listening to the effects that the equipment used for listening the recording. In my case it become so difficult to get back to the original unlearnt state of just listening to the music that I stopped listening altogether - by becoming too aware, too "expert", I lost the ability to enjoy, not much different from Freddy Bloggs enjoying his "subjectively" genuine timepiece - how can it be "fake" if it fulfills and even exceeds Freddy Bloggs needs and expectations?

I would hence state that awe in ignorance and "genuine" appreciation that stems from knowledge and experience are the two sides of the same coin. When an expert realizes that his expertise is "nothing" but a set of learnt knowledge, connections and skill´s he is no longer bound by the expert role and he can widen his horizon by the subjective areas that were dimmed by the hard light of the expert search light.

Is it not funny when we contrast this with what the wikipedia has to say about "Emeritus":

"The term is used when a person of importance in a given profession retires, so that his former rank can still be used in his title. This is particularly useful when establishing the authority of a person who might comment, lecture or write on a particular subject. The word is typically used as a postpositional adjective but can also be used as a preposition adjective. It is frequently capitalized when it forms part of a title. The word originated in the mid-18th century from Latin as the past participle of emereri meaning to "earn one's discharge by service". Emereri itself is a compound of the prefix e- (a variant of ex-) meaning "out of or from" and merēre meaning "earn". Emeritus does not necessarily indicate that the person is retired from all the duties of his previous position; he or she may continue to exercise some of them."

An example:

Robert J. Smith
Professor Emeritus
Socio-Cultural Anthropology
(see: http://www2.ku.edu/~kuanth/people/faculty.shtml )

So, in a Emeritus we have what used to be the experts expert who has earnt the right to step out of the experts role and shine the unlighted areas of the whole he "was" partly an expert in. - So, the same unnoticed things that Freddy Bloggs might have written in the newspaper may become huge and widely casted top news when said by the Emeritus even though it might be the exact same thing Freddy Bloggs said. – There are no objective truths - only degrees of subjectiveness that may be perceived as such. So, the short answer is that Freddy Bloggs and the "expert" are both right and wrong at the same time.

In the end it is not about the act of appreciation itself. It is also not about the story either. Ultimately it is plainly about the way we can appreciate things. – A human brain has two sides that have different tasks assigned to them. Depending on the situation - time and place - we come across a new phenomena or item it is the state of mind (the brain) that mostly dictates our response and the rest will follow. A true expert (Emeritus) has become so saturated with the subject s/he is expert in that s/he can let the logical side run in parallel with the soft side in subconsciousness and let the soft lead the way. Thus s/he is able to see things a mere expert is not capable of as the hard focus of the logical re-search light dims what it is not focused on. If you contrast this to Bill´s experience with the parking garage you can see that this is what happened - he was able to transcend ("regress") beyond his analytical mindset and see the garage with novices eyes again while still being able to use his acquired expertise skills in taking photographs – using the hard side of the brain subconsciously in parallel with the soft side. If you think about it the word "research" is composed of "re" and "search", thus ultimately meaning to search for something already found but lost (like my partly failed quest to re-find the enjoyment of listening to music).

A mere novice is just a child. A mere expert is often just an adult convincing the rest and/or himself that he is an expert. A transcended expert - Emeritus - is a person who acknowledges his knowledge is just that and that there is more to the subject s/he is supposedly an expert in that meets the logical side of the brain. I guess that remaining or -gaining an innocent, uncorrupted childlike ability to see and experience things bare of excess (story) is what appreciation, at it´s highest order, really is about?


Main point:

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Does knowledge sharpen appreciation, or does ignorance permit a personal response in the ignorant, as does knowledge in the educated?

It has the capacity to do so but it is not automatically so.

Or?

Thanks,

J.

[Jussi M.]

See Bill reaching over the left side to the right?

Thanks,

J.

[A. G. Maisey]

Oh --- Jussi.

Matthew 5:37

[Jussi M.]

John 8:7

[A. G. Maisey]

Not throwing any rocks here Jussi.

Its just that after reading what you wrote --- 3 times -- I reckon you're having ten bob each way.

Which I guess is good in a way.

I'm not going to come back in and give my opinion on the question I've asked, because I'd like to hear a few opinions from other people.

Just one thing I'd like to mention, and that is this:- whichever way you look at it, the act of appreciation is a deeply personal thing.

[Jussi M.]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Not throwing any rocks here Jussi.

I know Mr. Maisey...


What can I say? - I am not a morning person and it was 7:30AM

Anyways my point is that appreciation is a multifaceted phenomena.



Thanks,

J.

[David]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4oKXagF3IE

[A. G. Maisey]

Ah yes.

The wisdom of Monty Python.

As Jussi remarked, appreciation is multi faceted, and Monty's parting remark is one of those facets.

[Jussi M.]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Ah yes.

The wisdom of Monty Python.

As Jussi remarked, appreciation is multi faceted, and Monty's parting remark is one of those facets.

Right on.

Me? - I consider this appreciation defined:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMD_L...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrUkK...eature=related

Nuff said.

Thanks,

J.

[Jussi M.]

Take III:

Go to http://www.strategichorizons.com/authenticity.html
Please choose video "go beyond the experience" (2:49).

The video is about marketing yet it is valid to keris also

IMO.

Thanks,

J.

[A. G. Maisey]

I cannot see it Jussi.

Read the spiel.

Its accurate comment, but I cannot locate the video.

[Jussi M.]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

I cannot see it Jussi.

Read the spiel.

Its accurate comment, but I cannot locate the video.

OK, lets try it this way:
1. please go to http://www.strategichorizons.com/
2. follow instructions written on below screen shot:

[A. G. Maisey]

OK. Got it.

[Bill M]

Ah, drop a pebble in the pond and watch the ripples . . . . .

Last week we visited a couple who have one of the largest private collections of contemporary African and print art in America. They also have 40 Andy Warhol, Man Ray, De Kooning, Picasso, William H Johnson, Bob Blackburn, Dali and others of that ilk.

The man has been collecting for about 30 years. Block prints, serigraphs, engravings, original art - oil and watercolors. He confided in me that the only money he ever borrowed was to buy art. He has never been in a high income bracket.

He has a very important collection. He lends pieces to museums for shows. Three good museums are currently displaying his pieces.

He knew or knows most of the contemporary artists, but he knows almost nothing about the techniques or circumstances involved in creating the art and does not want to know because he feels it would interfere with his enjoyment. I understood his point.

I have not been a fan of contemporary art, but began to feel a connection with many of the pieces. This was good art.

I asked him the common denominator of his varied collection? "I buy what I like!" he answered. He was not influenced by critics or investment value. "I buy what I like."

What he appreciates.

I begin another ramble that hopefully leads to a segue.

Yesterday we had about 40 docents from a major Atlanta museum, visit our home gallery. I gave a brief introduction. "Most of what you will see here was never considered art by its creators. These pieces were working tools that protected the makers from spirits, gave them fertility, were conduits to ancestors, were parts of initiation ceremonies, or protected and nurtured them after death.

"We have about 800 pieces from 100 to 5,000 years old from a wide variety of epochs and civilizations. We invite you to look around and enjoy and come back together to ask questions."

Bright, inquisitive minds. Delightful guests. It is always exciting to see your treasures from other peoples' perspectives. Many were focussed on particular objects. "What is the red hat?" "This hat identified a Zulu woman as being single." "Who is the blue man in the India picture?"

"What is your favorite sword and why? What is your latest acquisition? . . . " Then the inevitable, "What is the common theme in such a varied collection?"

Simple answer, "I buy what I like." A more penetrating question, "Have you ever examined why you like something?" "Because it makes me feel connected to something. Something important, perhaps sacred." Pause, a quiet moment.

Certainly I have studied many of the cultures that made these pieces. Many had no written language, their language, their history, their religion is told in the carefully carved and painted pieces. And I feel something -- a connection when I hold them. I feel battles and noise when I am quiet, holding a sword. Stories, but wordless - images, sounds. Something both episodic, but more of a long, enduring, overall picture. Something greater. And the more I appreciate this connection, the stronger it grows.

Let me say that again: The more I appreciate this connection, the stronger it grows!!!!

Another friend collects "Hudson River School" oil paintings. (American 1825 to 1870s) Landscapes. Snort. I have never appreciated landscapes. But when Anne and I visited him to see his collection, I was moved almost to tears. The oils had luminosity that connected me with deep emotions. It was like there was a light behind the painting that projected a spine tingling effect.

For a while, I ignored our hosts explanations for which painter painted what, lost in the images. Phasing back in to his narrative I heard him say, "This painter was from England. He came here and painted autumnal landscapes. He returned to England and was criticized for painting in colors that could not possibly be real. Leaves just could not be those colors." He returned to the Hudson River and collected leaves. He displayed them with his paintings.

Did this help me appreciate the paintings more? Possibly. Did this information give my conscious mind something to justify my deep subconscious feelings? Did I rely on the enormous value of these paintings to have a personal value? My host never mentioned monetary value, neither did my host with the Warhols, but I had an idea. However that was very much secondary.

What I FELT was much more important. Maybe we need to have some knowledge to feed the conscious mind while the subconscious feeds us with incredible feelings.

I asked my host the common denominator of the many artists who painted in the "Hudson River" style. He said simply.

"They were expressing their love of God through Nature." I think they achieved their goal.