Michelle Marder Kamhi's "Who Says That's Art?"

[Francisco Ferrer]

...big government is God's scourge of the undeserving.

Wrong.

Big government is your own self inflicted scourge on the deserving. Your own individual personal experience of government was created out of your own unproductive needy dependence...

...so it's perfect moral justice that you should get what you made rammed down your gullet.

So choke on it, Frank, because you created it in your own image.

Sucker.

Greg

With the same absence of logic and evidence, one could assert that every victim of assault, credit fraud and vandalism had it coming. God's Will was done on them.

[william.scherk]

...big government is God's scourge of the undeserving.

Wrong.

Big government is your own self inflicted scourge on the deserving. Your own individual personal experience of government was created out of your own unproductive needy dependence...

...so it's perfect moral justice that you should get what you made rammed down your gullet.

So choke on it, Frank, because you created it in your own image.

Sucker.

Greg

Gee. What did you do to deserve to be so nasty?

--Brat[wurst]

I'd say Greg has hit a new low in stupid and ugly.

I think he gets a little surge of pleasure at being nasty, and I don't think he is socially aware enough to know what such recourse to nastiness might signal to observers. To my eyes the ugly comments exemplify one of Greg's motives. He likes to put people down, he likes to dehumanize, he likes to wield the moral cudgel, he likes to be Man on Top. He'll use the cheapest and nastiest tools to effect this man-topping.

Choke on it, Frank? Sucker? Deserving the scourge? Needy? Unproductive? Rammed down your gullet?

This is plain old spiteful trolling. It reflects the domineering irrationality of the religious, and it makes OL a cheaper and nastier place to inhabit.

I'd say Greg owes Francisco -- and Michael our host -- an apology. Barring that unlikely event, I think he'd benefit from a dose of moderation, preferably self-administered.

Edited March 1, 2015 by william.scherk

[Ellen Stuttle]

Unlike Roger, [Lakoff and Johnson] classify music as being more like abstract visual art than representational visual art. They see abstract visual art and music as "varying considerably" from being "realistic." And after quoting them in his article, Simon Zagorski-Thomas states that he agrees, and that he sees music as being "abstract representational." Their views are not in agreement with Roger's. In other words, Roger's position that abstract visual art = atonal music where realistic/representational art = tonal music is not a position that Jakoff and Johnson and Zagorsky-Thomas share.

I was referring to theories Roger has expressed earlier and published about regarding tonal drama, not to the statement you mention from this thread.

Music only rarely imitates natural sounds because it is generally an abstract art form. As you say, it is a medium of pure tones. It is a medium of abstract compositional relationships. The same is true of architecture and of abstract paintings and sculptures. They are media of pure forms, colors and textures. They are media of abstract compositional relationships.

I don't agree with the comparison. Exactly what is a pure form or color or texture? And although "abstract" paintings and sculptures use "compositional relationships," they don't have the precisely specifiable mathematical forms of musical relationships - a point I made earlier, I think on a different thread.

Also, again, I think the attempt to call music "representational" is unfortunate.

But this doesn't mean that I think that music should be classified with "abstract" painting and sculpture. I'd call music "abstract" in the sense of mathematics, but not in the sense applied to visual arts, which are depictive.

The term which I think is accurate regarding music's relationship to features of the world (dynamic features) is "analogical."

I've been reading Kandinsky's Concerning the Spiritual in Art, and I think your describing Kandinsky as sharing "some of" the mysticality of Mondrian is a big understatement.

Haven't time for more at the moment.

Ellen

[Brant Gaede]

...big government is God's scourge of the undeserving.

Wrong.

Big government is your own self inflicted scourge on the deserving. Your own individual personal experience of government was created out of your own unproductive needy dependence...

...so it's perfect moral justice that you should get what you made rammed down your gullet.

So choke on it, Frank, because you created it in your own image.

Sucker.

Greg

Gee. What did you do to deserve to be so nasty?

--Brat[wurst]

I'd say Greg has hit a new low in stupid and ugly.

I think he gets a little surge of pleasure at being nasty, and I don't think he is socially aware enough to know what such recourse to nastiness might signal to observers. To my eyes the ugly comments exemplify one of Greg's motives. He likes to put people down, he likes to dehumanize, he likes to wield the moral cudgel, he likes to be Man on Top. He'll use the cheapest and nastiest tools to effect this man-topping.

Choke on it, Frank? Sucker? Deserving the scourge? Needy? Unproductive? Rammed down your gullet?

This is plain old spiteful trolling. It reflects the domineering irrationality of the religious, and it makes OL a cheaper and nastier place to inhabit.

I'd say Greg owes Francisco -- and Michael our host -- an apology. Barring that unlikely event, I think he'd benefit from a dose of moderation, preferably self-administered.

Well, he could apologize--and join the ranks of the fallible. He can't get under Frank's skin. Frank's skin is made of iron. I don't see the need to monitor the self-refuting, however. It's all very educational. If anyone wants to monitor Greg, go ahead. You do that by not responding to him. I tried that. It was too boring.

--Brant

I am "The One"

[moralist]

Gee. What did you do to deserve to be so nasty?

Brant, I have no respect for unproductive failures who moan about the government they created and inflicted upon themselves as if they didn't do it. Frank is like the fool who complains about how much his thumb hurts while completely unaware of the hammer he's holding in his other hand.

And while this fantasy plays well with the other invertebrates who also regard themselves to be "helpless innocent victims of government oppression", I don't buy the crap he's peddling. Everyone else is free to swallow it if they want. Their choice has nothing to do with me or my life.

Greg

(edit) Hey, the discussion even got Scherk's liberal juices flowing...

...as usual.

[moralist]

Well, he could apologize--and join the ranks of the fallible.

I would if I was, but I'm not wrong about this.

People like Frank who complain about the problems they caused by granting their sanction are beneath contempt because they promote and peddle the lie of the victim. (liberals do that) Thank God that only other suckers with matching values could believe that crap, for they get what they deserve as the result of blaming (unjustly accusing) others or the government for their own problems that they caused themselves.

He can't get under Frank's skin. Frank's skin is made of iron. I don't see the need to monitor the self-refuting, however. It's all very educational. If anyone wants to monitor Greg, go ahead. You do that by not responding to him. I tried that. It was too boring.

The fun is in everyone's different views.

It would be boring if we were all the same.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

Gee. What did you do to deserve to be so nasty?

Brant, I have no respect for unproductive failures who moan about the government they created and inflicted upon themselves as if they didn't do it. Frank is like the fool who complains about how much his thumb hurts while completely unaware of the hammer he's holding in his other hand.

And while this fantasy plays well with the other invertebrates who also regard themselves to be "helpless innocent victims of government oppression", I don't buy the crap he's peddling. Everyone else is free to swallow it if they want. Their choice has nothing to do with me or my life.

Greg

(edit) Hey, the discussion even got Scherk's liberal juices flowing...

...as usual.

Frank is unproductive and a failure? That's questionable data. Your being nasty is not. Frank is nasty in his own way to you with his logically laced sarcasm, but he doesn't address you personally. You deal with Frank with relentless ad hominem and his arguments not at all. Frank is top down political-philosophical and you are bottom up out of your own personal context you too much generalize out of. You do not meet in the middle ground of ideas which I find annoying for that's where I am. That, however, is on you, not him.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Well, he could apologize--and join the ranks of the fallible.

I would if I was, but I'm not wrong about this.

People like Frank who complain about the problems they caused by granting their sanction are beneath contempt because they promote and peddle the lie of the victim. (liberals do that) Thank God that only other suckers with matching values could believe that crap, for they get what they deserve as the result of blaming (unjustly accusing) others or the government for their own problems that they caused themselves.

He can't get under Frank's skin. Frank's skin is made of iron. I don't see the need to monitor the self-refuting, however. It's all very educational. If anyone wants to monitor Greg, go ahead. You do that by not responding to him. I tried that. It was too boring.

The fun is in everyone's different views.

It would be boring if we were all the same.

Greg

Yeah, if it's true. If only the Jews had armed themselves to the teeth the Aryans would have treated them differently. A world without real victims means a world without victimizers. Then what's the point of going to Berlin to "shoot that Nazi son-of-a-bitch"?

--Brant

[PDS]

...big government is God's scourge of the undeserving.

Wrong.

Big government is your own self inflicted scourge on the deserving. Your own individual personal experience of government was created out of your own unproductive needy dependence...

...so it's perfect moral justice that you should get what you made rammed down your gullet.

So choke on it, Frank, because you created it in your own image.

Sucker.

Greg

Gee. What did you do to deserve to be so nasty?

--Brat[wurst]

I'd say Greg has hit a new low in stupid and ugly.

I think he gets a little surge of pleasure at being nasty, and I don't think he is socially aware enough to know what such recourse to nastiness might signal to observers. To my eyes the ugly comments exemplify one of Greg's motives. He likes to put people down, he likes to dehumanize, he likes to wield the moral cudgel, he likes to be Man on Top. He'll use the cheapest and nastiest tools to effect this man-topping.

Choke on it, Frank? Sucker? Deserving the scourge? Needy? Unproductive? Rammed down your gullet?

This is plain old spiteful trolling. It reflects the domineering irrationality of the religious, and it makes OL a cheaper and nastier place to inhabit.

I'd say Greg owes Francisco -- and Michael our host -- an apology. Barring that unlikely event, I think he'd benefit from a dose of moderation, preferably self-administered.

Well said, William, especially your point about the effect on OL.

[Jonathan]

My guess is that some on this thread have come to expect a Perry Mason moment when they take "glances" at paintings, partly because Rand impliedly taught them this "Gestalt" approach, and partly because, well, they aren't expert enough to look at a painting otherwise. Frankly, why should they be experts? Why should the average human know anything more about composition and technique (and many other things) in paintings than they do about cross-examination?

Rand has shoehorned aesthics into philosophy, and, impliedly, many who have no business making judgments about art now feel the need to do so. Is it any wonder that such judgments might vary so much?

My position isn't that anyone would have to be experts in visual art in order to get something out of it. I just think that those who are generally lacking in the ability to experience empathy, and clearly lacking in visual aesthetic sensitivity, interest and/or competence shouldn't feel such a strong need to believe and to shout that their personal limitations and deficiencies represent the experiences of all "ordinary people."

J

[Jonathan]

I'd say Jonathan is projecting, calling everyone he disagrees with a "hater" - but then he'd accuse me of projecting projecting onto him.

That's a really lame and transparent attempt at spin, Roger. Very dishonest. I do not call everyone with whom I disagree a "hater." I only call people who love to hate "haters."

Btw, Roger, enough with your trying to preemptively guess at what my responses will be to your attempts at spin. You've been doing that quite a lot on this thread, and not successfully. "Jonathan is going to say X about me, boo-hoo-hoo!" You should focus on your end of the conversations rather than trying to write mine as well. And instead of focusing your attention on what a poor little victim you are and all of the other irrelevant distractions that you're wasting your time on, I think you'd be much more productive if you were to address all of the substantive questions and challenges that I've issued which you haven't answered.

Quit crying and hating, and get down to something of substance.

Anyway, let's review examples of the haters hating:

Newberry very angrily tells us in post 844 that he doesn't feel any empathy for the "ugly loathing crap" that modern "sociopath" artists like Liu Xiaodong have inflicted on the world. Hmmm. Aren't sociopaths people who lack empathy? Heh. If a person can't feel empathy when looking at an image of his fellow human beings being treated like animals, then what in the hell could possibly make him feel empathy?!

Do you see how this gets us back to my interest in the subject of the relevance of judging viewers' fitness to judge art? If a viewer is lacking in sensitivity and aesthetic response, it would be false to claim that the art failed. If a person can't experience empathy, but rather expresses anger or indifference for victims, a general disdain for humanity, and is so fucked up that he believes that "sociopaths" are people who experience and value empathy, I don't think that we can accept any attempts to pretend that such a persons' lack of aesthetic response represents what "ordinary people" think and feel.

And, earlier, when Newberry first returned to OL on this thread, he returned with his silly, irrational hatred for Kantian Sublimity intact, despite having been corrected on the subject many times in the past. It's embarrassing. Newberry's position is sheer, stubborn stupidity, but he refuses to give it up and to accept reality, because having something to passionately hate is more important to him than reality.

Total hater.

In post 859, you, Roger, were not content to accept differences in taste and artistic appreciation, but instead had to express your hatred for those who value art which you do not. You needed to vent your hatred for someone that you hatefully labeled a "masochistic rich man who pays big bucks to have someone sadistically abuse him." Your irrational hatred made you indulge in the stupid psychologizing of claiming that the patron was "masquerading...in order to get some social approval to offset the misery of having purchased his own abuse." You hatefully called people who highly value art that you don't "losers."

Why are you so worked up about others' tastes in art and their ability to feel what you don't? Why are you such a moralizing/psychologizing busybody? Why do you feel such a strong need to hate?

What business is it of yours how others spend their money? In post 890 I asked all of you, "Which works of visual art do you, with your superior and purely objective tastes, rate as being worthy of being purchased for prices higher than any other art works? Identify your top five, please."

You haven't done so. Probably because you're not interested enough in visual art to know what's been created in the past ten years that you might like (other than by artists who are publicly associated with Objectivism: Newberry, Cordair's crew, etc.). Hating is the only thing you're interested in.

And a final example of haters on this thread :

Tony thinks that I was getting "carried away with human 'dignity', and so on," and states that, by Rand's standards, the painting of the men in the truck is "straight-up Naturalism. Life as it is (not life as it ought to be)."

It's funny that my merely asking if it might be reasonable and possible that some people might see the painting as containing characters maintaining their humanity and dignity is met with the implication that I'm getting "carried away" with touchy-feely poeticism! Heh. I wonder how artlessly and obviously the artist would have to overtly visually narrate the image in order for you haters to feel something in it, and to recognize any Romanticist elements.

Contrary to Newberry's hateful assertions, the modern world is not what is ugly and empty. You are!

I've noticed this pattern a lot, especially in on-line discussions. If you criticize someone (or something) not on the list, whether they're a politician, entertainer, artist, or whatever, someone else on the list will attack you personally.

You haven't merely "criticized." You're not content to simply state that you don't like a work of art, or why. No, instead, you have to piss on others for enjoying and valuing something that you subjectively don't happen to like. There's no valid reason for your anger and your attempt to belittle others. The painting in question is not an attack on you or your values. It is an expression of empathy for people who are experiencing oppression yet who are maintaining their humanity and dignity. There's no reason for you to hatefully attempt to mock those who are positively affected by that expression of empathy, humanity and dignity.

If you don't get anything out of the image, why not just say, "Hey, not my cup of tea, but I'm glad that you got something positive out of it"?

Answer: Because you're a hater!

I've noticed this pattern a lot, especially in on-line discussions. If you criticize someone (or something) not on the list, whether they're a politician, entertainer, artist, or whatever, someone else on the list will attack you personally.

I don't have to like or admire the people or artworks that you hate on in order to oppose your attitude. When I see you expressing your rage about other people's artistic tastes, the fact that I speak up doesn't necessarily mean that I am a member of the group that you're hating on. I don't feel attacked when you indulge in your hatreds. Rather, I feel that you need to be told that you're making a fool of yourself. You're being a hater.

...so they have to lash out not at your ideas..."

That's dishonest as hell. I've been doing nothing but criticizing your "ideas." I've been waiting for you to answer all of the questions and challenges that you've been avoiding. I've reminded you of all of the substance that you haven't addressed. Instead of addressing the ideas, you'd rather spend your time focused on the transparent distraction of crying about what a victim you are.

J

[Jonathan]

Below is a recent painting by Cesar Santos, oil and charcoal on linen. He didn't post the title or size, but its just a little smaller than lifesize I guess it's about 4 x 3'. It's my favorite work of his. He combines photo reference, "quotes" historic works, and his own particular style to mold and color the figure. He is a young artist, 32, lives in Miami and is from Cuba. And he is having a very successful early career. This is nice contrast to the two Chinese artists from above, they do not have the skill set to achieve anything on this level.

I think that Liu Xiaodong has the skill to paint at that level. The fact that he prefers a rougher style doesn't mean that he can't paint in a tighter style. Attempting to judging a painter's abilities based on one of his paintings is about as stupid as trying to judge Kant's notion of the Sublime while refusing to understand the history of the term prior to Kant. Quit being a hater.

J

[Jonathan]

I am on chapter six or so in Kahmi's book, just finishing up with photography as art discussion. I think she does an excellent non-judgmental job of describing the photo process, and contrasts that with drawing.

She does no such thing. Instead, what she does is describe her own very limited knowledge of photography, and she attempts to limit the medium to her own personal limitations.

And she does a superb job of getting quotes from some great and famous photographers, like Adams, about the nature of photography and how they compare it to fine art.

No, she doesn't do a superb job of anything but attempt to confirm her own biases. She started with a predetermined outcome, then didn't study the medium in any sort of depth, and then came to the conclusion that she wanted to come to.

Even though she classifies it as not art, I think the better way (at least in my mind) is simply that photography is photography, it works in a certain way. The distinctions would definitely change though when the photograph is manipulated into a totally different image.

The question is, how would Kamhi know or not if an image that she was looking at had been manipulated into a totally different image? She doesn't have the requisite experience or knowledge of the medium to have the slightest clue as to what might have been adjusted in a photographic image.

Two things I am enjoying tremendously is her calm style, and the very well researched facts, quotes, and experiences in seeing many works live. She is the real deal.

She's not the real deal. She's not even really engaged in the philosophy of aesthetics, but in nothing more than a personal report of her own aesthetic limitations. For someone who is so interested in the arts, she is amazingly lacking in sensitivity and response, and quite childish in refusing to accept others' depth of sensitivity and response.

J

[Jonathan]

Below is a recent painting by Cesar Santos...

Speaking of Santos, years ago I got a kick out of his sense of humor. Here's his painting called Picasso's Blue Period:

Hahahaha!

J

[Jonathan]

The goal is to see whether there is real world confirmation for the theory that "any subjective assessment a person makes of a work of art will always be driven by the moral values by which they live their life."

If the statement is true, then what is it about Hitler and Rand's moral values (by which they lived their lives) that drove their positive subjective assessment of Greek sculpture?

Hitler also liked to draw nude women who, in turns out, looked quite similar to Rand!

Which similarities in their moral values led Rand to stylize her physical appearance to match Hitler's aesthetic tastes?!!!

J

[Jonathan]

"Does it follow that [some of] the [crap] that I create is ugly since you've decided that I have ugly moral values and that I see beauty in that which is actually ugly?"

Yes.

So, therefore, using your "logic," these paintings must be ugly, and are "crap"?

J

[Jonathan]

I'd say Greg has hit a new low in stupid and ugly.

I think he gets a little surge of pleasure at being nasty, and I don't think he is socially aware enough to know what such recourse to nastiness might signal to observers. To my eyes the ugly comments exemplify one of Greg's motives. He likes to put people down, he likes to dehumanize, he likes to wield the moral cudgel, he likes to be Man on Top. He'll use the cheapest and nastiest tools to effect this man-topping.

Choke on it, Frank? Sucker? Deserving the scourge? Needy? Unproductive? Rammed down your gullet?

This is plain old spiteful trolling. It reflects the domineering irrationality of the religious, and it makes OL a cheaper and nastier place to inhabit.

I'd say Greg owes Francisco -- and Michael our host -- an apology. Barring that unlikely event, I think he'd benefit from a dose of moderation, preferably self-administered.

I keep trying to decide who is the dumbest person I've ever met. Currently there are three who are tied for the position, and they're all posting on this thread. Just when one of them says something that is the dumbest thing that I've ever heard, and I think that it is safe to give him the award for Dumbest Person Ever, another one of them steps up and says something even dumber. I think they'll continue to outdo one another in perpetuity. They have volumes and depths of dumbness that we can't even begin to imagine yet.

J

[moralist]

Frank is unproductive and a failure?

Yes.

That's questionable data.

It actually isn't at all. This moral principle doesn't just pertain to Frank who constantly complains of his "oppression", but applies to everyone impersonally.

If anyone living in America views themselves as a victim of government oppression, there is something very wrong with how they're living. It can only mean that they have failed to live a decent productive life.

And why is this so? And why does it pertain solely to America?

Because America is an exceptional nation which was born in an exceptional way...

...by Judeo/Christian moral values.

Greg

[william.scherk]

Below is a recent painting by Cesar Santos, oil and charcoal on linen. He didn't post the title or size, but its just a little smaller than lifesize I guess it's about 4 x 3'. It's my favorite work of his. He combines photo reference, "quotes" historic works, and his own particular style to mold and color the figure. He is a young artist, 32, lives in Miami and is from Cuba. And he is having a very successful early career. This is nice contrast to the two Chinese artists from above, they do not have the skill set to achieve anything on this level.

I think that Liu Xiaodong has the skill to paint at that level. The fact that he prefers a rougher style doesn't mean that he can't paint in a tighter style. Attempting to judging a painter's abilities based on one of his paintings is about as stupid as trying to judge Kant's notion of the Sublime while refusing to understand the history of the term prior to Kant. Quit being a hater.

J

I am a hater, too, or at least a disliker. I tend to dislike the Santos, especially in contrast to the body of work of Liu Xiaodong that I have spied out so far. The Santos seems a bit indifferent, lacking individual style, the cartoon unsure, hesitant. The effect on me is one of lifelessness -- though his other works are more satisfying to my eye.

Another Santos:

I would say Liu approaches mastery. There is a spirit and confidence and sure, quick gesture in his paintings that strike me as satisfying. The confidence of a master is in the technique underlying every daub. Liu paints and sketches from life, or from his imagination, not from photos. Here below are a few images that might cause a reassessment of Liu's worth (I recommend giving a gander to what is available via Google Image). If his painting shouldn't garner tens of millions of dollars, fine, I can see the point. But I also see the point that his high auction valuation cannot be mere art-market gaming. He rose to the big ten in China because his paintings are appreciated by the Chinese -- and because he is a very good artist.

I often have to go past my first impression of an artwork -- I hope the dislikers of Liu's artworks will look farther. The million dollar nudes in a truck is perhaps not appealing in subject, or somewhat unintelligible for some lookers-on, but for me the artist captured personality in each face and body, strongly and simply. These people were depicted as alive, alive, purposeful and at ease with the world. I thought it was a tour de force quick painting (in one session) of an artist at his best game.

Here are two Liu canvases and photos of him at work. Muses, forgive me for not appending titles, dates and dollar values.

Edited March 2, 2015 by william.scherk

[Brant Gaede]

Frank is unproductive and a failure?

Yes.

That's questionable data.

It actually isn't at all. This moral principle doesn't just pertain to Frank who constantly complains of his "oppression", but applies to everyone impersonally.

If anyone living in America views themselves as a victim of government oppression, there is something very wrong with how they're living. It can only mean that they have failed to live a decent productive life.

And why is this so? And why does it pertain solely to America?

Because America is an exceptional nation which was born in an exceptional way...

...by Judeo/Christian moral values.

Greg

Logic that goes nowhere is either not logic or the data is screwy.

There is no place in your cosmology for one person helping another--say by getting the government off that other's back. George Washington should have stayed home and tended the farm (with his slaves who deserved their slavery too boot). Instead of logic you are giving us one asseveration piled upon another.

--Brant

[Jonathan]

I am a hater, too, or at least a disliker.

I don't think that you're a hater, or even a disliker, at least not in the sense that I've been using the term "hater" on this thread.

Everyone has artworks which they personally don't like, or from which they get nothing. That doesn't make them "haters." What makes someone a "hater" is the need to vilify other people for their liking or responding to a work of art that the hater doesn't like or respond to.

J

[Newberry]

Bill, I really like the effort you put into your post above.

[moralist]

Yeah, if it's true. If only the Jews had armed themselves to the teeth the Aryans would have treated them differently. A world without real victims means a world without victimizers. Then what's the point of going to Berlin to "shoot that Nazi son-of-a-bitch"?

What I said applies to America today... not to Germany over 70 years ago. This is because America's government was formed in a uniquely different way from Germany's government.

In America today, if you're a weak whining victim of "government oppression" like Frank is, it's your own damned fault for failing to live like an American.

Greg

[anthony]

William, That last is something quite special, others very good, to me. There's more to him than I thought at first glance.

[moralist]

Logic that goes nowhere is either not logic or the data is screwy.

You're free to subjectively disagree with my subjective opinion, Brant. If you want to believe that the way you live has nothing to do with how you are treated by the government, that's fine with me, because I'm not the one who gets the consequences of believing in that tired old liberal "victim" lie.

There is no place in your cosmology for one person helping another--say by getting the government off that other's back.

Could you please describe in detail exactly how you are doing that? I'll wait till you do before responding so that it can be to what you actually say and not what I believe you'll say.

George Washington should have stayed home and tended the farm (with his slaves who deserved their slavery too boot). Instead of logic you are giving us one asseveration piled upon another

George Washington made it possible for you to enjoy the freedom of living like an American if you choose to do so. That's totally up to you and only you... not me or anyone else.Greg