View Full Version : What's your opinion about the discussion on the "the genesis of chlorophyl" thread?

Don Berendsen
03-16-2005, 12:03 AM
Just curious how people feel such exchanges, nothing to do with agreement or disagreement with what was said. The poll's anonymous, feel free to make comments.



03-16-2005, 12:33 AM
Personally, I liked the discussion. It was tactful and engaging. I wish more threads would be this engaging mentally without turning negative. Overall, I think this was a very postive exchange among the more active people in Ab/Con.
Larry C.

03-16-2005, 06:25 AM
Found it interesting: Two artists, mature and producing somewhat similar art (viewed objectively -- both rather purely abstract, both using color, form, and texture in largely organic as opposed to geometric shapes), but with completely different orientations to life, exchanging opinions, with respect and without name-calling.

Oh, wait, that's refreshing, not interesting! :D
To be honest, when I came into the forum this morning and saw this thread, I wondered if there had been an explosion in the other thread, so I read that first. A great exchange of views -- imo, the two major participants differ (using jargon from an esoteric field I studied) in that they exemplify opposite extremes along the dimension 'affective/intellectual.' They are a gift to each other; maybe a gift they don't enjoy exploring, but the exchanges are good for all of us, both for the content, and in the modeling of civilized behavior (edgy, but civilized!).

The interesting part with regard to visual art is that one sees values so strongly (it remains a major dimension of 'seeing' regardless of cues), and the other doesn't (perhaps to the point of obliviousness? I don't know).

Btw, Don, your allusion to b&w movies helped me understand, finally, why I don't 'see' in values myself: I can make out what's going on (mostly) when the characters are moving, because that defines the edges of the shapes for me. I can't see very well in shades of gray because without movement or color cues, I can't seem to find the edges of a 'whole shape' against its background. And Keith's discussion about how films use very common realistic gray-scale patterns (which I should recognize even in b&w) helped me see that, too.

Fortunately for me, older movies (which are most of the b&w ones) are also far more 'stagey' -- there's a lot more dialogue, so I tend to follow them through listening more than talking. (But I'm that kid in the drive-in who, when the shot rang out and someone fell, asked, "Who was shot? What just happened?") To this day I can't distinguish actors onscreen, unless they're very familiar to me, without helpful cues like wildly different clothes or hair or skin color or age -- presumably since clues to facial structure are almost purely tonal, without these. :rolleyes:
Didn't mean to hijack this thread. :D

03-16-2005, 09:50 PM
Terrific stuff. Allows me to contemplate some of the diversity of abstract art. I learn alot from such discussion. While in varsity it was great to throw around scientific leanings...this reminds me of that. More, more , more.

Anything that makes me consider new ways of approaching my art is most welcome.

PS...I say this even though I feel my post in this thread was the worst, least thought outm I have ever given. Hmmmm...live and learn, right?

Don Berendsen
03-20-2005, 04:41 AM
Thank you to everyone who voted and special thanks to Larry, Carol, and PearlGirl for sharing your views. I appreciate your input.

If found it interesting that few people cared to even express an opinion (147 looks and only 10 votes), and out of those 10 most (6) were positive and the others didn't care about the content.

Thanks again to those who expressed their opinion.

Best wishes,