Jonathan

Then you suppose that between drawing those two bottom lines of the frame the window rotated, explaining the strong convergence of the lines. But that is highly unlikely, as it would be obvious that the previously drawn line would then clearly deviate from the line of the image. It is impossible that Vermeer wouldn't have seen that, if he could see one line, he could also see the other line quite close to it, and see that it deviated significantly from his previously drawn line. No, it's not "impossible" that Vermeer wouldn't have noticed the deviation. I suspect that you've never used a camera obscura or balopticon to enlarge an image. I've used them many times when creating bas relief sculptures (it's a great way to blow up a sketch or a small maquette to full scale). As I said earlier, it's very easy to miss sections and to lose track of where you are. Depending on how lightly Vermeer may have traced lines, he might not have seen any of his previous lines as he was drawing new ones. And even if he was able to see them somewhat, he may not have been paying attention to them. An artist tracing a projection would have no reason to be making comparisons to previous lines. He wouldn't be gauging angles and proportions as he would while doing a life drawing. That's the purpose of using a projection: to avoid having to make those judgments and comparisons. Vermeer may have drawn the image in any number of ways other than what you've apparently imagined. Since he would have been tracing a projection of light, he may have traced value contours rather than object shapes. He may have traced positive spaces or negative ones (he may have first drawn the verticals and then the horizontals of the frame and lead strips, or he may have drawn, rectangle by rectangle, the spaces that they divide). He may have started at the window's bottom, changed his mind about where to start on it, worked his way down from the top, and then remembered that he had already drawn the bottom line even though he couldn't see it. After he finished tracing, he might have exited his darkened booth, gone for a candle or lantern to shine on the drawing to see if he had missed any segments, discovered that he had indeed missed some, including one of the bottom lines, and by the time he reentered the darkened booth, the wind had moved the window again. The perspective is accurate if Vermeer was unknowingly tracing a moving window. That's been my point. You've implied that the distorted window is evidence that a camera obscura was not used. I disagree - it is not evidence that a camera obscura was not used. An artist getting distorted results after tracing a window which is moving slightly is not an "improbable scenario." That Vermeer drew it free-hand is a possibility. Question: If you had free-handed Vermeer's window, would you have noticed that its perspective wasn't right, especially the bottom? Would an artist be more likely to fail to notice it if he had a good knowledge of perspective and an expert sense of proportion, or would he be more likely to fail to notice it if he had little knowledge of perspective and a mediocre eye for proportion and was the type who relied on a camera obscura for those things? I have a calendar which includes a much better image of the painting. In it, the upper right corner is less upturned. It looks more like a smudge of paint than a bend in the wood. Perhaps pixelization has exaggerated it in the image that you posted. Also, the bottom horizontal of the window isn't quite so angled in appearance. In the image that you posted, the far right section of the bottom line is missing, where in my calendar image it appears that the line in that area is a little lighter and slightly covered with scumbled background paint. (It's still incorrect perspective, but not quite as bad as it seems in your image). It's not "complicated" and "unlikely" that a window moved a few degrees while Vermeer was tracing it, and that he may not have noticed it while looking at a faint image in a darkened booth. That depends on the construction. A real pinhole camera gives a very faint image, but with a lens the image is much better, and all the proponents of the CO theory agree that it must have used a lens. When it's claimed that he drew the fine and complicated details of a map on the wall using the CO, the image must have been clear enough as the contrast on the map is very low (compared to the contrast in a window for example). Yes, but it still would have required a darkened enclosure. Even photographers using large-format cameras will hood themselves when looking at the camera's ground-glass viewing plane (which is about the same clarity and contrast that a camera obscura provides). But that is all putting the cart before the horse. The main argument for the theory that Vermeer used a CO was that his perspective is so accurate, and now to defend this theory all kinds of scenarios and excuses are suggested to explain why his perspective is not correct. Such reasoning makes me suspicious of the whole theory, it looks as if it has become a pet theory: the conclusion must be defended at all costs, while a much simpler explanation would be that he did not use the CO. I haven't been defending a theory "at all costs." I've simply presented a very reasonable case in which the window's poor perspective could be the result of using a camera obscura. J

My reconstruction is based on the largest reproduction that you posted. A large angle of rotation isn't required. The 8 degree rotation in the examples I posted is enough. Here's the original with green lines tracing the horizontals (notice that some of them are actually slightly curved): The pink lines are perfectly straight and vertical. Notice that the window's right side is not only off of vertical, but it is curved, as represented by the yellow lines. It's as if Vermeer traced it as it moved from 48 degrees to 43, as shown in my reconstruction (in this version I've overlayed the same green, pink and yellow lines that I've placed on the original above): The green lines (representing Vermeer's lines) are within the 8 degree swing (well, mostly -- an even higher resolution scan might reveal that another 2 or 3 degrees of rotation might be needed in one or two spots). Look at the bottom two green lines. The very bottom one traces the bottom of the yellow window (48 degrees), and the second from the bottom traces the top of the red window's (43 degree) lower horizontal frame segment. Have you ever looked at an image projected by a camera obscura? It's very faint. In order to trace it with any level of detail, you'd need to enclose the projection surface within a dark space. Under such conditions it can be very hard to see what you've already drawn. Have you ever traced an image projected through a cheap Artograph? It's very easy to miss sections and to lose track of where you are while tracing, and a cheap Artograph's projections are much less faint and dark than camera obscura projections. Vermeer could have very easily been unaware of how far off his tracings were, and how much something might have moved. By the way, I don't think that Vermeer painted while using a camera obscura. It would be almost impossible to accurately gauge values and hues while enclosed within a space that's dark enough to see detailed projections. If anything, he most likely would have only created his initial cartoons by tracing the projections. There could be any number of reason that Vermeer deviated from the camera obscura's projections, or that the perspective was not correct. The camera or painting surface might have been moved. The camera's point of view may have been intentionally altered after certain items had been drawn. Vermeer may have changed his mind after seeing his cartoon, then failed when trying to re-establish the same camera and painting surface positions for retracing. He may have traced some parts but not others. He may have used the camera on some paintings but not others. Etc. J

Here's a reconstruction of Vermeer's "A Girl Reading a Letter at an Open Window": The black window frame is at 40 degrees, the red one is at 43 degrees, and the yellow at 48 degrees. There's enough variation in perspective, both horizontally and vertically, to account for Vermeer's errors. Here's the scene from above, with the yellow frame now representing the window at the 40 degree position and the black one representing it at 48 degrees: That's not a large distance for the wind or the weight of the curtain (or whatever) to have moved the window while Vermeer was drawing. And here's a view which includes the girl's reflection, with the window at 43 degrees: J

Interesting. I've never heard the term "disks of confusion," and I've worked with countless professional photographers and technicians using some very advanced pre-digital special effects techniques. The effect seen in Vermeer's paintings was generally called focal blur or diffusion, and was often used as a soft-edge masking or shading technique. Thanks for the info, Christian. I have no time at present, but I'm hoping to geek out sometime soon on "A Girl Reading a Letter at an Open Window" by building a simple 3D simulation to see if Dragonfly is right that Vermeer's errors in perspective can't be explained by slight movements of the window. J

Dragonfly wrote: Not necessarily. The incorrect perspective might be evidence that a camera obscura was used. If something, perhaps a light breeze, had moved the window slightly while it was being traced, it might have gone unnoticed by Vermeer. From the exerpts Ellen posted in post #49: I think that should probably be disks of diffusion, not confusion. J

We use Blockbuster, and so far it's been good. I love the option of dropping discs off at the store and getting new ones instantly. We've gotten a couple of discs that have had enough fingerprints, scratches and sticky stuff on them that viewing would've been impossible if I hadn't washed them first (rubbing alcohol works well for the persistent stuff), but the same is true of any rental discs from any store. When did it become popular in America to eat pancakes with your fingers, with extra syrup and sand, and then touch every millimeter of surface area on a rental DVD? J

I think it depends on what one means by "a theme." I'd use the term to mean something like "the meaning or feeling that I get out of a work of art as a unit, whole, or sum of the parts." I think it's reasonable to expect that a work of art should be evaluated as a whole. If there's a better term than "a theme" to state that the whole should be evaluated, I'm fine with that. As a "better term," how about: "the whole should be evaluated"? Okay, that's fine with me. If a "theme" is an on-the-spot synopsis which has been condensed to as few words as possible, then, no, I don't think that identifying such a "theme" is necessary to evaluating a work of art. I think that a sum is what is evaluated, not a summary -- I think that one evaluates the thematic whole itself (the full meaning or feeling), not a condensed, emotionless substitute or brief description of the whole. J

LOL. I wouldn't go so far as to include her work either. (See my post #152.) E- ___ Thanks, E. Somehow I missed some of that post. I must have zipped through it, thinking that it was just clarifying your and Christian's old conversation. You wrote, I think it depends on what one means by "a theme." I'd use the term to mean something like "the meaning or feeling that I get out of a work of art as a unit, whole, or sum of the parts." I think it's reasonable to expect that a work of art should be evaluated as a whole. If there's a better term than "a theme" to state that the whole should be evaluated, I'm fine with that. (Some of my past gripes with Objectivists' interpretations of art have been based on the fact that those Objectivists haven't considered the whole in making their appraisals and moral condemnations. Joe Rowlands, for example, looks at Marc Quinn's sculpture of Alison Lapper, sees something that he doesn't like, ignores the rest, and judges it as if the thing he doesn't like is the whole. Pompy Pigero poops his diapers and storms out of a movie theater after three minutes of watching a film and proudly announces to his online toadies that his heroic integrity and character won't allow him to tolerate such evil art, or the ass-wipe doesn't even go to the theater because he's already "objectively" judged the film based on a 15-second TV commercial.) J

Jeff, thanks for posting more images of your work. I like it and I'm enjoying getting to know your styles. Jeff wrote, Doesn't that depend on what you mean by "communication" and "message"? I used to play with a couple of awesome improvisational guitarists. Their art "communicated" a variety of feelings whose "messages" were what it felt like to be alive and to feel what the music felt like. Would that count as communicating a message? If so, abstract art does the same thing for a lot of people. If your notion of art is that it must communicate something more than that -- that it must accurately convey the precise meaning that the artist intended, and that the artist must have chosen to communicate his deepest values and his overall view of man's place in the universe -- then there is probably very little in the world that would qualify as art. To whom must a work of art "communicate" its "message"? To the average man? To someone who isn't very interested in art or is mostly annoyed by it? To those who are the most passionate and sensitive to a particular art form? If one single person successfully identifies what an artist had in mind when creating a work of art, would that mean that it's art since it has communicated its meaning, even though others get nothing from it? Wouldn't those others have to recognize the possibility that they may not be any good at "reading" works of art? How would they determine if the art failed to convey meaning or if they were inept at grasping meaning? If the purpose of art is to communicate, what consequences does that have on the power of nuance or ambiguity in art? Wouldn't it mean that a true artist should artlessly spell out everything nice and clearly so that even the dopiest people get it? If an artist wanted to avoid any possibility that his work might be labeled "non-art" by the Official Objectivist Art Definition Committee, wouldn't he have to alter his expressions by taking into account others' tastes, perspectives, levels of emotional response, and their conceptual, visual, spatial or aural capacities and limitations rather than relying on his own? How would you decide whose interpretation of a work of art is correct, and, therefore, whether or not it has communicated its message? If the artist isn't around to answer our questions, and we disagree on what we think is his work's meaning, does that mean it's bad art or non-art? Should parody be banished from the realm of art? If the majority of people are blind to a form of sarcasm or satire, should their opinions be factored in when we decide which message has been communicated? (Speaking of parody, are some means, such as parody, acceptable when used in one art form but not in others? For example, is parody acceptable in literature but not architecture? If I build a building which includes, say, chain-link fencing because I want to use it, at least in part, as something akin to a fictional character -- perhaps a James Taggart or Lillian Rearden -- which mocks a certain type of person or attitude, shouldn't that meet the approval of those who demand "rational order" and "values proper to mankind" in art and architecture?) Jeff wrote, "Problems"? A good definition of art wouldn't have "problems" which eliminate most art forms except for some works of literature. Music and architecture are not art by Rand's definition and her further elaborations on issues such as intelligibility, even though she wanted to believe that they were. Dance too. And a hell of a lot of visual art doesn't communicate meaning by the standards implied, and most of it that could be said to communicate through strong narrative also requires knowledge of "outside considerations" in order to understand the "messages." The same applies to a lot of literature. In fact, the only art that seems to qualify as art according to all of Rand's definitions and standards is ~her~ work. Jeff wrote, I'll take such "hot air" any day over the disqualification of most art forms. There are complex concepts that can be difficult to define, and art is one of them. Victor wrote, Have you defined art yet? I don't remember seeing you do so. All I remember is that, during the past few months, you've apparently changed your mind about what is art and what is not, and your crusade to save the definition of art (Rand's, perhaps?) from charlatans has yet to be waged against charlatans such as composers, architects and dancers with the same passion that you employ against abstract modernists and postmodernists. Your selective passion/nonchalance seems to imply that the issue is purely personal, and not one of principle. J

I've sometimes thought that if Rand's description of Halley's Fifth were to be translated into architectural form, it would probably look like something designed by Calatrava. And that makes me wonder about how Objectivists might imagine that Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead and We The Living would translate into other art forms. As buildings or musical compositions, would they "soar"? Would they be like bursts of joy with only faint echoes of that from which they escaped, or, considering all of the pain, repression, conflict and struggle within the novels, would they "wriggle and writhe"? J

Basketball. It's almost constant action. It can be both very structured and very free-style, often at the same time. Both offensively and defensively there are opportunities for dramatic individual achievement as well as for becoming a part of a sum which is greater than the parts. Despite the common view that it's not a contact sport, there's actually a lot of very physical interaction. It requires great strength, stamina, focus and coordination, and it's one of few sports in which incredible physical grace is often displayed despite the fact that the beauty of the moves is not the primary purpose (as in, say, figure skating). J

I'm not trying to discredit your views. I'm asking for simple, specific examples in which Gehry has not taken the needs of his building's occupants into consideration, and I'm asking precisely because I want to be illuminated. Are the ceilings so low that the occupants' taller-than-average guests are uncomfortable in the building? If so, that might be an example of how human needs were not fully considered. Does "Fred and Ginger" have darkened hallways with grease and ball bearings on teflon floors which slope downward toward open elevator shafts into which people can fall and impale themselves on spears at the bottom if they're not extremely careful? If so, that would probably be a good example of why the building is nihilistic architecture. I'm simply asking if you've answered the questions that you've suggested we ask. In what ways does "Fred and Ginger" not serve the needs of its occupants? J

Jonathan: What's your position on this quote? Regards, -- Jeff I don't see the need to identify the artist's theme. I think that one identifies a theme based on observing the evidence that the work contains along with any relevant "outside considerations." (I don't think that "outside considerations" need to be excluded in trying to make an objective evaluation. Works of visual art which include strong narrative elements often have "outside" historical or mythological references, and it would be ridiculous to not take them into consideration.) J

The implication, at least to me, of your asking these questions in regard to Gehry's building, in conjunction with your appraisal that the building is nihilistic, is that you've determined that the building does not take into consideration the physical, psychological and spiritual requirements of its occupants. So, all I'm asking you is if you are indeed claiming that the building does not serve the requirements that you listed, and, if so, how you've determined that those requirements have not been considered or served. Have you visited the building, studied the blueprints or interviewed Gehry or the occupants? Why would the occupants' needs have to be the starting point? Couldn't they be the second or third, or seventh or twenty-third concern out of hundreds of issues, as long as the architect addresses them at some point? If an architect has had an itch to create, say, a spiral design - perhaps, an inverted Tower of Babel - and then along comes a client who wants him to create an art museum, and he finds a way to make the inverted Tower of Babel idea fit the purpose, serve the occupants and promote human values, what's the problem? Again, have you answered those questions in regard to "Fred and Ginger," and have your answers formed the basis for your negative appraisal of the building? If so, in which ways were the occupant's needs ignored by Gehry? I like the sense of playfulness that it evokes, but I don't know enough about the building to say much more than that. If it has serious functional issues, as you seem to suggest, I'd like to hear about them and factor them in to my opinion. Both. J

Does anyone here agree with this: "In essence, an objective evaluation [of a work of art] requires that one identify the artist's theme, the abstract meaning of his work (exclusively by identifying the evidence contained in the work and allowing no other outside considerations), then evaluate the means by which he conveys it — i.e., taking his theme as criterion, evaluate the purely esthetic elements of the work, the technical mastery (or lack of it) with which he projects (of fails to project) his view of life..." J

That's interesting, Jeff, but was your appraisal of "Fred and Ginger" objective? I agree with you that it's possible to speak objectively about a work of art, but were you doing so? Maybe you were, occassionally, but, as others pointed out, your were also highly subjective. An example: If the intention was to create a free-flowing feeling, like the the feeling that one might get from things hung like pictures on a wall, and that free feeling is also echoed in the rest of the building's features, why would you claim that the windows are not "integral" to the building? It seems that "not integral" means "not the way Jeff would design window placements if he were working on a completely different vision." It sounds as though your "objective" standard of evaluation is not how well an architect expresses his own vision, but how well he conforms to yours. More examples: Is that an "objective" requirement? Must a building fit into its surroundings? Like a man, can't it stand out from the herd? When Gehry improvisationally arranges plywood, corrugated metal and chain-link fence in his work because if reflects the landscape, you seem to complain that his work is designed to fit into its surroundings. So which is it? Must a building fit its surroundings or not? Do you know? You seem to have made your "objective" evaluation already, so apparently you do know. Which is it, commercial or residential, and how well does it serve its inhabitants' needs? You tell us. You've made your "objective" evaluation which is apparently based on the appraisal that the building doesn't accommodate its occupants. How doesn't it do so? Yeah, we understand that you don't like it, and that you seem to be very emotionally invested in trying to find "objective" reasons to explain why you don't like it. Your wrote, I think it says that you're not emotionally comfortable with artists who are capable of letting themselves go and relying heavily on their "stomach feelings" when creating art. I think you want nothing but "rational order" and you want to vilify those who are primarily improvisational or intuitive. J

In the way that you're using "nihilistic" here, would the term also describe Roark's work? J Jonathan, In my imagination his buildings are far from nihilistic. When I read the book in my twenties I saw them as somewhat Wrightian creations of stone, glass and steel augmented with a lot of landscaping within and without the structures. They sure didn't look like the monstrosities in the movie. I believe I read that the producers wanted Wright to design Roark's work for the movie, but he wanted too much money. Jim Okay, thanks. I thought that with what you had said in post #93, Roark might qualify with Gehry as being at least a bit "nihilistic" in your view. Regarding Wright and The Fountainhead film, I heard that he wanted not only too much money, but control over everything from the script to casting to wardrobe. I don't know if that's true or just a rumor. J

In the way that you're using "nihilistic" here, would the term also describe Roark's work? J

Why the "average man"? That's kind of "Naturalistic" in the Randian sense, isn't it? Why not the heroically tall man? What about the guests that the "average man" might have in his home? Or was he to not have taller than average guests? Was avoiding friendships with taller people one of the heroic lessons that the owners were to learn when having their souls improved by living in one of Wright's buildings? I wasn't speaking of just the home, but of Hillside as well, specifically its most public of spaces, the theater. The theater was being used on the day that I last visited, so many people were moving about, in and out. Several, about half, as I mentioned, were forced to duck uncomfortably or tilt their heads for long periods while waiting for the crowd to open up so they could get to areas with more headroom. Anyway, I agree with much of what you say about letting the architect do what he does best. I hope to comment more on that in the future. I didn't mean to characterize him that way. I simply meant to point out that he sometimes ignored the physical and psychological requirements of the occupants. There are many well-known complaints. Some are probably legitimate gripes, some probably aren't, and I'm sure that some have been exaggerated or even made up. What are the complaints from Gehry's clients? Btw, Jim, thanks for the web address. You've got some fabulous work there. Damn, what a talented bunch of people on OL! J

I've seen lots of pictures of interiors. Also, I live fairly close to the Weisman Art Museum, and I like it better up close and personal than from a distance. Yeah, well that's what people said about Wright as well. I think that a lot of Objectivists who love Wright's architecture, had they been born and raised in pre-Wrightian days, would have had fits of hysteria over his work once it came along. They would have been competing with each other over who could screech the loudest in agreeing with the critics of Wright's time who opined that his work was ugly, monstrous, awkward, unmodeled, rude, unfinished, without grace, bizarre, etc. And let's not pretend that Wright didn't sometimes ignore the physical and psychological requirements of the occupants of his buildings and assert the supremacy of his "whims" instead. He basically told his clients to get lost when they complained about the things that didn't fit their tastes or needs. The last time I visited Taliesin, including the campus buildings, about half of the people on the tour were quite uncomfortable walking through some of the spaces because they were designed to accommodate Wright's short height (5'7"). From what I've heard, the visitors and occupants of Gehry's work love it. Cool! You should share more of your work. Get those slides scanned, man! J

Here's a pretty safe project by Gehry which shouldn't make Objectivists scream "nihilism, nihilism!": http://www.realestatejournal.com/propertyr...113-silver.html Like the works by Frank Lloyd Wright that Objectivists are comfortable with, it directly mimics things from reality (like Wright mimicked a waterfall, forest, etc.), and spells things out nice and clearly. Personally, I like some of Gehry's work and some of it I don't. That which I like, I like for the same evil reasons that I like improvisational music, such as jazz (that destructive form of mindless nihilism): it's fun, free, intuitive, sleek, sexy, spontaneous, genuine, and not rigid, conformist, unoriginal, formulaic, boring or lifeless. Oh, and of course I also like it because its goal is to destroy the world. Wow, the Taliesin Fellowship. Will you share with us some of your architecture, Jeffery? I'd love to see it. J

(When You Say Nothing at All - Alison Kraus) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-avkwUUR74 (Melissa - Allman Brothers Band) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmr7nUPpAqE (No One Needs To Know - Shania Twain) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1Kjfy-Mkd0 (Red Headed Woman - Bruce Springsteen) Okay, maybe that one's a little closer to lust than love. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZMA5oRzMj0 (The Air That I Breathe - The Hollies) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isgxrtN6qs8 (We've Only Just Begun - Carpenters) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyHPnniqlTY (The Way you Look Tonight - Sinatra) Couldn't find a good clip of At Last by Etta James J

Ellen, Awesome post, #84. J

Well, okay, but I don't see "cow pies" in any of his work. Great. And I think that an abstract expression of an action or feeling (attributes or emotions as opposed to objects) would also qualify as a microcosmic expression, whether it was accomplished through a musical composition or through arrangements of forms and colors. Decay in still lifes is sometimes used to imply the feeling of superfluous abundance -- so much wealth that some of it is going to waste. The portrayal of "sickly trees" might have nothing to do with implying "a world where life is not successful." The artist could be trying to convey a sense of, say, mystery, or some other mood, symbol or metaphor. The fact that he hasn't illustrated some ideal that you would advise him to illustrate in the manner that you'd advise him to illustrate it doesn't mean that his work means to him or to anyone else what you interpret it to mean. An artist or viewer may want to savor and ponder the importance of the idea of mortality for any number of positive, rational, life-affirming reasons. A painting which includes death may not be about glorifying death, but about how we deal with it, or it may express the value of that which has been lost, or the importance of living life to its fullest in the time that we have. Is it your view that art should avoid confronting the inevitability of our demise and the implications it might have on the way we should live our lives? Is the idea that to ponder death in art, as one of countless important factors in human existence, is to necessarily place supreme metaphysical importance on it, and, therefore, to reveal that one has a "death-worshiping" metaphysical orientation? I hope that's not what you're saying. I'd rather view what moves the artist, and I'd prefer to experience his vision and discover how I might relate to it, perhaps even unexpectedly, rather than make a list of safe, acceptable expressions and styles that I expect or demand to see. As Ellen wrote, "Who's to say whose perspective on the world is 'a significant perspective' and whose isn't?" Roger, you've mentioned elsewhere that you've read "Color For Men" in order to learn how to color-coordinate your wardrobe so that it complements your skin tones. Good for you, but I'd humbly suggest that there might be at least an outside chance that my understanding of, experience with, and sensitivity to color could possibly be at least a little more advanced than that. So whose visual/spatial/emotional-response capacity is the standard for deciding what is and is not a visual "microcosm embodying a significant perspective"? Mine, yours, Ayn Rand's? All of the above, each according to his or her context? J

I'll have more to add to the discussion later, but for now... I'm guessing that these may be the pieces that Roger was referring to: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/graphics/2.../06/klein10.jpg http://www.contemporaryindianart.com/image...sh_kapoor-1.jpg http://www.toronto.ca/culture/images/mountain_200.jpg http://www.museomadre.it/artisti/opere360/Kapoor.jpg They don't look like poop to me. They're not my favorites of Kapoor's work, but they remind me somewhat of the feeling that I get from the tranquil microcosms of traditional Japanese rock gardens, like this: http://www.terragalleria.com/images/asia/japa6260.jpeg Wait a second! That kind of looks like poop to me now. Damn it, Roger, now all I see is poop in everything that I look at! Thanks a lot. ;-) J