So you're Freudian then? I'd have to agree. Much of what people do has a highly charged sexual component, it's strength and persistence tied to the drive to live which seems to be tenacious as hell.
On Jul 8, 11:23 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > Indeed Jenkins - and I am more likely to consider you a work of art > than a Caravaggio. I might even forgive you a trip past my house in > your SUV with Jacko's 'Beat It' blaring. Of course, there would be no > possible repeat of this particular street theatre and I would charge > for the expended shotgun shells. A diamond cutter remains a rather > superior art form than the blue veiner, though the ravages of age do > rather extend one into the conceptual art arena and away from the > crudely physical. Francis' 400-year analysis is unnecessary - some of > us have already outlived Jacko and the presence of millions getting > their jollies watching his sad thrusting leaves a substantial shortage > of the ready and able with a few lines in the old art-crit department > of male sensitivity. There is, of course, no art except that of the > lies which lead to the truth. Sartre said he only wrote to attract a > better quality of woman, and judging by his plays, he does seem to > have been obsessed with boring them to consensual submission. Beauty > may well lie in that Mind's Eye in which one seeks to convince others > that one has the sensitivity to appreciate it. The origins of ballet > lie in prostitution and what purpose other than the tantric could > there be in opera or the art gallery? The phrase 'boring the pants > off' might well be the key of art-loving. > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
