Reuven, I very much agree with your comment.
My opinion may not be politically correct in the fly-tying world that exists
today, but to my way of thinking, there must be a point at which one
acknowledges that what some are now prepared to call a "fly" (made from such
esoteric materials as we are presently considering) has transcended any
rational traditional definition and entered the realm of abstract creation.
Now that is not to say that they are not interesting, creative with a
capital "C," and perhaps even effective.
But my friends, as long as I can catch fish on a regular basis with
traditional patterns, tied with historically traditional materials, I will
leave the modern approach to others.
Bluntly, when I look at some of the "flies" offered today, I think of the
modern "art" in most museums.... sitting next to a genuine Master's work,
one will find a canvas covered with pieces of glass, tin, or heavens knows
what. It is art within the modern definition, but not to plain and
traditional folks like me. And, I respectfully suggest, the likes of Cotton
and Bowlker, and other "greats" from our fly-tying past would tend to agree
with my view of the subject. But I may be wrong. And when the fish tell me
that I am wrong by preferring the modern creations to my offerings, I may
consider conceding the point. But not before.
Be well.
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Reuven Segal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 12:06 PM
Subject: RE: [VFB] Head Cups
I think it is going overboard. It is not a fly anymore. The arguments can
go
on forever, but it jus isn't a fly anymore.......hard to cast I am sure.
R
______________________________________________
Reuven Segal
