Poetry / Be forewarned (Analysis)

Thank you for reviewing it.

Each line has a very certain set meter – it is called iambic pentameter (five feet of iambic form), and as any good example of iambic pentameter can show (from Shakespeare to Auden), slight variations in the rhythm are what makes this rhythm attractive.

Quick example: here is a line from Shakespeare, which you may have heard,
“Hell hath no fury like the woman scorned”
– same iambic pentameter.

You cannot remove “The” in “The time” both from the standpoint of retaining the meter (the variations in the first syllable are damaging to the rest of the line), and from the standpoint of not necessarily obligatory, but certainly desirable, grammar.

Sentences in poetry can run as long or as short as feasible for the internal reasons – because the rhythm imposes it own breaks in reading, and sets caesuras and pauses where they are needed. Longer sentences (and there are again, examples from Shakespeare which run non-stop for 7-8 lines, or even more – and considering his use of inversions, some of these sentences may require reading and re-reading, just to understand) require a different kind of reading skills – different from those that are commonly acquired by readers today – because they require a reader to keep in his memory, as he reads, the sentence structure, and all the inversions, and turns of the phrase – all the way until he gets to the end.
Why write like this? Because Shakespeare did, and because I can. I do not really try to please everyone – I feel that a certain complexity in poetry sets a certain filter, a preferential treatment for those who take time to read and understand it, and whom I will eventually count in my very own audience.

Thank you for your review. You perfectly caught the “bittersweet feel” I imparted. For the rhyming concerns you expressed, please refer to other comments in this thread where I address them – I try not to repeat myself in comments, to keep them interesting for everyone.

Thank you.

If you don’t mind, I would like to ask you to read the reviews and comment threads here, particularly from people who did not get or did not like some of the meanings (you can skip all the praising ones); particularly reviews and threads from TheRealMC, groovieknave and, especially, Ch0ronzon – I prefer not to repeat myself in comments, to make them interesting for everyone to read, and in these threads, you will find explanations for all questions you asked.

There seems to be some mistake; I was not asking questions, but rather, providing a review of what you wrote, which presumably is what you put it on Urbis for.

Following what you wrote:

1. The meaning was unclear to you. But you said that you liked some of the imagery and rhyme scheme. To me, this would imply, that given the opportunity, you would enjoy the clarification of the meaning – because  it, in turn would open up the mentioned imagery to you a bit further.

2. “The line “An ugly dream is not a road of love:” is particularly obscure. It sounds both self-evident and vague at the same time.”  It is supposed to be both self-evident and obscure, and why it is so is already written up in other comments.

3. A direct question “Who is “we”?” answered there as well.

4. You did get part of the meaning in saying “It seems to be describing deities or natural forces who are perhaps arbitrary and emotional.” – but you did not get all of it. The comments and reviews I referred to, discuss this in greater detail.

I put my writing on Urbis both to share what I have with others, who may happen to appreciate or like it, and, at the same time, I do it to hear opinions of everyone – be it a kid still in school or someone old and wise, be it a smart person or an absolutely dumb one, be it a polite lady or a brash teenager – because regardless of the opinions themselves, the process tells me a lot about the audience, which I may eventually determine to consider as mine. Of course, there are also small editorial matters, but they are neither of interest to me, nor are the reason why I visit Urbis.

I think you are going to be continually disappointed and hurt here, because most people use Urbis to get critiques of their writing in order to improve it. Unless you are a very polished writer, you are going to get criticism, which you do not seem to take well.

I do take criticism well mainly because I do not get hurt – or even affected, really – by expressed opinions and/or feelings of others. People are entitled to them, just as much as I am entitled to my response – sorting both people (and their opinions) into useful and useless, and acting accordingly.

Urbis is not a place where I’d come to get the glory, the admiration, or the confidence – I have other, better sources for this in my life.

But Urbis does have a high utility value for me – the market research, the reader’s reaction, an occasional interesting find, an overlooked aspect of a piece – and zero value as a space for reassurance and nurturing. I am a grown-up.

If someone fails to understand me, I try to explain myself – not so much for the benefit of the world at large (even though, this also counts, as well as the common courtesy to a stranger), but mainly, to make sure that the content and style of my self-expression gets better with time.

And I pay attention to others to the extent that is determined by me, not by them. With me, it is never an instinctive reaction – I think, then I do (if I do).

Thank you for your kind words.
I don’t capitalize first words anymore, at all, just follow the phrases and capitalize the first words of the phrases. This is an older version that creeped in.

Thank you for your review and for your kind words. If you read some of the other reviews – especially those from people who didn’t get it, there are a few interesting discussions of meaning – I try to avoid repeating explanations in various comments, that’s why I do not repeat them here. But you may enjoy looking over these exchanges.

Thank you for reading it. What exactly did you mean by “playing safe”?

Thank you for reading it – even though, you seem to have missed most of it, coming and going.

But I have noticed your tender age, and therefore, instead of arguments, some explanations are in order.

First of all, poetry, as ANY artistic task, does not exist without limitations imposed by the form, chosen by the creator. As Orson Wells said once, “The enemy of art is the absence of limitations”. The artistic task performed without a problem stated and resolved by the artist (even if it was only stated to himself) is a child’s play, and I am sorry to disappoint you, it is not really worthy of consideration if you are at all serious about any form of art – be it done with words, paints, stone etc.

This does not mean that verse libre does not have a place within the poetry vast spaces – it does, but it has to know its own place, too. Rhyme, meter and style are not limits for words to be forced into – they are the structure of this artefact (built for and with art), part of the construct built with words, which then get a collective chance to unite into something possessing harmony (which is what all art is ultimately about).

Second, “clear and understandable” is not opposite to “rhymed and confusing”, because a) “confusing”by itself negates any applicable statements about others; b) you would not want “Jack and Jill” to serve as the sample of poetry to follow forever, just as much, as you would not want to use enigmatic pronouncements of 50s as such example.

Poetry is NOT better off just settling for either extreme. Every poem you have ever read, requires LEARNED understanding – if it would not have been the case, you wouldn’t be able to read virtually nothing, from Shakespeare to Auden.

And here I would like to stop, because the rest of explanations you need are already here, in this thread of reviews. I try not to repeat my comments to different reviewers (this makes it easier ad more interesting for everybody) – so, if you do want to understand what you have read (and you may, or may not – your choice), it would be very helpful if you read a few of the other reviews, where people may have had a problem with reading this piece, and we discussed it.

Start with the review by Ch0ronzon – and then look at others, at your own leisure. You may find a few surprises, you may agree or disagree – but you certainly will walk away with more than you started with.

I forgot to add – don’t bother reading the positive reviews. Instead, try to see the points of view similar to yours, where the reviewer either did not get it, or disagreed, and follow the subsequent discussion.

Thank you for reviewing it.

Number of syllables in any meter is not a rigidly set constant – this is where good and bad use of the meter differ. Meter sets the rhythm; syllable count sets the mood and flow. Despite what they teach everyone in college (to which most poets we know never went), these two variables are NOT directly related – they complement each other.

If you expect the lines to march syllables and walk like a platoon of goose-stepping soldiers, you are diminishing the possible impact of each line – in every meter, it is permissble to extend or to shorten lines, usually at the beginning or at the end, to suit the thought while retaining the rhythm.

The flow of the words here is conforming to a buildup of energy – and this buildup (as well as the ideas behind the piece) may become more visible to you, if you take a look at comments I posted for reviews done by TheRealMC and Ch0ronzon in this thread.

In the comment to The RealMC I explain, as much as I can do it in prose, the general scheme of meanings used. In the set of comments to Ch0ronzon, our exchange turned into a very unexpected conclusion – you may like it or dislike it, but I’m sure your reading will not be in vain.

Thank you – you are very kind.
The first line intentionally shakes up the reader a bit – it almost sounds conversational, like an old saw, almost something you could overhear on the street – and while it stands (abstraction-wise) apart, it allows for the fast introduction of the theme – which circles itself, in a way of Ouruboros, by the time the piece is finished. Try to read it this way – and tell me, if you see it.

Thank you for reading it. Of course, every little bit helps – this is why we all are here.

Just a note: you may want to flip through other reviews and fairly long comments I left for some of them, just to see what else is there. I try not to repeat myself in my comments, so everyone can read other’s comments and gain something from it.

The title is easy – yes, it is a warning, sort of an advice to uninitiated. Are we talking about afterlife or the life in front of us, or a dream – does not really matter, because they all follow the same structure, whether we like it or not. And the speaker could be anyone: a priest talking to a stranger, a voice in one’s head talking to oneself, even someone talking to his/her lover.

This is why it is hard to make it mean the same thing to all people – everyone sees it through the lens of their personal education, inclination, experience, and the key task is not to bring them all under one roof, or to some sort of common denominator – but it is to make sure that everyone carries away his very own reward that he got from/for reading the piece. “The mountain was there for al of us, but the beautiful – and ugly – photographs we carried home were all different.”

Hence, getting a variety of images and concepts is good. The confusion is only surface-deep. Any good advice goes from someone who knows to someone who doesn’t, at least yet. It also starts with something very simple, almost obvious (like you said, “duh…”)- and goes on to expand it – and then to add to it something that cannot be found anywhere else. The reason is simple: you cannot throw the presumed “uninitiated” one into the water without warning. So, again, the truth progresses from obvious to expanded to new.

I do not think that the line “an ugly dream is not a road of love” needs any additional explanation – it is an obvious truth, isn’t it?

Explaining poetry in prose is a bit like “dancing about architecture”, but still, the “leaving ship” may be an image of opportunity lost, or a rushed departure of a loved one, or simply an image of passing time – or any other image of an event in process, where it is inevitable, yet you may feel a need to stop it. And you shout – and your screams are not heard. But a whisper from above – and she may stop or even turn around.

“She” is the ship. This is how you are supposed to refer to the ship – “she”. And I think this would clarify things for you a bit.

Use of articles in poetry is not so much a matter of grammar, but a matter of imagery and rhythm (we do not stick articles in proper places when we think, and poetry is a thought compressed, and expressed).

“The time” because of many reasons (the rhythm is the last one) – addressing time, one may or may not see the parallel with your god (some people claim that god=time), with a physical, palpable entity (the knife) etc.

Hope this helps.

Thank you.  Very good and very explanatory.  Obviously, you’ve given this a considerable amount of thought.  You’ve carefully explained every detail of your poem to me, and the ideology that underlies it.  

Now, this is all great—it’s wonderful you feel that way and you have such a good understanding of what YOU mean when you write something.

So, let’s now consider something:  instead of having to comment and explain to me exactly what the underlying meaning of your poem is in a long and well-thought out comment, I would, as a reader of course, prefer that you convey all these things to me WITHIN the context of your poem--without, that is, the need to have to explain it to me, as you have with most of your other reviewers, as I can see.  The brutal truth is this:  most people don’t care about the underlying philosophy or set of beliefs within your work--the message within the message, if you will.  Most of us don’t care to dig that deep--we have our own ideas and beliefs.  That being said, if you want to say something, say it.  Don’t make us work too hard to find it.  Most people wont.  After all, you’re an anonymous person with no information and no picture--and since no one knows you, no one will care as much.  Generally speaking, of course. Don’t assume that people will WANT to understand this poem so intimately.  

Now, don’t take me the wrong way or start arguing with me here! =)  Allow me to continue:  

You say getting a variety of concepts and images is good.  Yes, it CAN be and it MAY be--but let us consider moderation and balance into the equation, yes?  I understand the “many roads to the top of the mountain, but they all lead to the same place” philosophy.  However, if TOO many images and TOO many concepts that do not correlate are presented within a single work, untied by one common thread of thought, then the reader essentially takes away NO message at all--which I think is exactly the opposite of what you are trying to achieve here, correct?  Now, obviously, YOU may feel that these ideas correlate on a deeper level.  However, WE, for the most part, may not see it.

It’s not even a matter of having to expand on this work.  Leave it the same if you want to!  Just weave the pieces together, and you will have sewed a beautiful peace of ARTWORK that one can emotionally and perhaps spiritually respond to.  Then will you have achieved your goal.  

I have indeed read your other comments.  You seem to understand poetry intellectually, and that is a good thing.  But more than this, remember, as I’m sure you already know, that the purpose of poetry is to be “FELT.”  I, as the reader, want to--I LONG to--FEEL what it is you are feeling.  I don’t want to study it.  I study on my own time.  

I am concerned for the person who never quite absorbs contructive criticism from others, for such a person never evolves or learns to understand anything beyond their own comprehension.  Please, don’t be that person.  Thank you for your commited response, and hope to read more of your work in the future!  

Sincerely,
Arthur.  =)

Arthur,

I am very pleased that you found time and expressed a desire to bring forth a strong argument.

Please allow me to respond.

I, just like you, believe that explanations – of whatever type – are extraneous to the work of art.

Even stronger: I feel that in any art – be it poetry, painting, music or sculpture – even the title is a redundancy that should be eliminated (in music, painting and sculpture, it is entirely foreign element – a set of words to match something that is not made of words; in case of poetry or literature in general, the argument is weaker, but still stands).

I speak from my own experience: I am a writer, an artist, a sculptor (and I do write songs, too – just don’t dare to call myself a composer).

However, while explanations and even the title should not be propping the artwork to stand straight, you have to accept another “brutal truth” (I am quoting your expression here):

All people are born different and they remain different after they are born, too.

Once you do, the rest is simple reasoning.

These differences, and not only ones observed across space, but also across time, forward and back, create a necessary filter, and, most of the time, it is a natural filter.

Here is how it works.

When someone publishes a poem (I am going to use hypothetical round numbers, for simplicity), it may be read, let’s say, by one hundred thousand people.

And let’s say that 10000 would get it right away and like it, and 90000 would not (without additional explanation). A stiff proportion – 1 out of 10.

Then the same author may live on, and produce more work.

In the body of work he’d produce, there may be total of 100 poems, written in the same basic ratio of understanding, 1:10, in terms of general public. After a while, then, there will be a million people who “get it” and like his work, and 9 million who do not.

But when someone’s work becomes known and accepted by a million people, it becomes a significant number, and the work becomes significant, too. What this does?

It brings this author the general acceptance, and eventually, moves him into the realm of textbooks – and then, eventually, the remaining 9 million get someone to boringly teach all his stuff to them in school or in college. Most of them still would not get it this way, either.

This process sometimes takes years, sometimes hundreds of years, and most real artists and poets and composers will tell you, that it is ok with them. They would agree to wait until there is enough of an audience to which they are speaking, rather than experience a fast and easy cut-through to today’s ears and eyes. And this is, of course, a matter of attitude, and a personal choice.

Of course, it is preferable to convey things directly, but it limits artistic choices… Let me give you an example.

I have (I wrote) poems with references to Greek mythology, animal psychology, theory of color, Biblical sources, literary theory and so forth. I know this stuff and feel comfortable around it. For me to use references to it – implied meanings, metaphors, analogies, clues – is a piece of cake, and I love it.

Instead of saying that “it was raining straight into the window, and the rain was golden-colored”, I may say “Danae was missing, but otherwise, the picture was complete.” For someone well versed in mythology, these two phrases carry virtually the same meaning (actually, the second image is sharper, and brings in the entire wealth of the myth to the reader).

Can I hope that I would give this material to someone and be 100% sure they understand it? No way. For the example I just brought up, the ratio is more like 1:50.

Should I chew out every detail to make sure that everyone understand it from the first reading? No way – it would stop being poetry, and become a “schooltest explained”. The poetry is a bare, graphic, compressed structure – not a hazy rambling mush.

But when someone reads/sees a piece, and the artwork – for the reason of ever-present harmony, even in a minute amount – encourages the viewer/reader to inquire further, and he follows this impulse, he would find himself in a different process, the process of discovery.

May not be your cup of tea – and that’s fine, too.

But when one tries to be a universal thing for all people – one ends up as a door rag, universal and yet, in a way, lowly. So, this one is not my choice.

And BTW, poetry is not about feeling. Poetry – as in “poesis” – is an art of creation, which has the feeling aspect as one of many, but never as “the one”.

If I were to venture a guess (because nobody really knows) I would say that search for harmony (and there are pretty good definitions of harmony all over creation, in philosophy, in art theory etc.) is the driving force of poetry.

The type of harmony you may seek not necessarily matches the one I would seek – because there are different levels of it, and because two of us, psychologically, may belong to different types – more or less rational, more or less emotional, more or less artistic, political, reactive, passive etc.

BTW, emotions are a set of evolutionary mechanisms, allowing us to deal with something we do not have exact information for – with the unknown. So, it comes back to knowledge, again.

You said “Most of us don’t care to dig that deep—we have our own ideas and beliefs.” I hope you do not truly believe this, because if you really do, then almost entire body of poetry, from Donne to Shakespeare, from Elliot to Auden, would be closed off for you – not completely, because you would get the 10-20% of the surfaced meaning, but the rest of the iceberg would remain invisible.  Yeah – just try Auden without thinking – you would not get past the first three pages.

You said “Don’t make us work too hard to find it.  Most people wont.”

This is true. Most people wont – but those few who will, to me, are worth so much as readers, that I would unashamedly lead others, who would not want to dig, to the altar of bloody human sacrifice to the Gods of Creation :).

As for staying anonymous – I have my reasons, and in light of my own statements above (about the work title), all I can say is: removing my own persona from the association with my work, I let everyone judge my work without any prejudice or preference. My work does not  - should not – get better or worse for you, if you were to find out that I am an athletic hero living on a North Pole, or a blind quadriplegic from Poughkeepsie, male or female, tall or short, etc.

And then you said “However, WE, for the most part, may not see it.” – and this is simply not true. Look at the reviews, even without reading the comments. See how many people got it right away, how many did not. Compare. It does not match what you said. You know why? Because there is no “WE”.

I hope, after writing all this, that you should understand – or, perhaps, feel – my commitment to the Word. And I understand – with you writing and reading all this stuff – that you do the same.

We just practice different types of worship.:)

By the way, if you want to know what I am feeling (you said that), just think about the time left for you to feel, think and create, in this life (may you live for a hundred years…). Think hard. Think often, Think deep. The feeling you’ll get will be the authentic one.

Thank you for taking the time to respond to me.  I think now I can understand better where it is you’re coming from and perhaps even why you write the way you do.  

So, I think I understand what you mean by this “natural filter.”  That those who CAN comprehend your work do take an interest in it, and those who don’t are filtered out…and eventually, you will have your own audience exclusively of those who DO understand have something to take from your work, is that correct?  For those with eyes to see it and ears to hear it, so to speak.      

I was inclined to disagree with you at first.  But then, I read your words more than once--and now I feel that I can truly appreciate your point of view.  I’ve learned from my old mistake--the mistake of looking for holes in someone’s argument and then inspecting it to find where they are wrong or inconsistent.  I thought I had seen it with you, as well.  While there may be things I yet disagree with you on, you summed it up very wisely when you said, at the end:  ”We just practice different types of worship.”  That was very well said.  I don’t think I would choose the word worship, but you know what?  It is irrelevant, because I’ve come to respect your knowledge and your method.  Your experience, which is likely greater than my own, has led you to these conclusions so I must acknowledge that it’s for a good reason.

Now I see that there’s perhaps nothing different between you and I other than the way in which we express this art.  Simply different expressions, but of the same thing, would you agree?    

When you mentioned names like Shakespeare and Donne in regard the ambiguous nature of your poetry, my first reaction was to think:  ”Well of course, these are well known people—so of course I’d want to get to know THEM and their ideas better, so no, that material would not be closed off to me, but what is so special about yours?”

Then I reconsidered.  After all, it’s not as if they were born famous.  And eveyone has something to offer—I feel I must have misworded myself when I said: “Most of us don’t want to dig that deep.”  You’ll have to accept my apology for that, (lol).  I meant only into YOUR work, personally, but enough of that, it’s not important anyway.

This discussion has been extremely thought provoking and stimulating for me.  I feel that I’m in a constant process of understanding how others think.  Now, I think, I understand you as well.  Whether I agree with everything or not seems to me like a small matter in light of this.  

Good luck to you in all your future works and thanks again for this stimulating discussion.

Respectfully,
—Arthur.

Thank you for taking the time to respond to me.  I think now I can understand better where it is you’re coming from and perhaps even why you write the way you do.  

So, I think I understand what you mean by this “natural filter.”  That those who CAN comprehend your work do take an interest in it, and those who don’t are filtered out…and eventually, you will have your own audience exclusively of those who DO understand have something to take from your work, is that correct?  For those with eyes to see it and ears to hear it, so to speak.      

I was inclined to disagree with you at first.  But then, I read your words more than once--and now I feel that I can truly appreciate your point of view.  I’ve learned from my old mistake--the mistake of looking for holes in someone’s argument and then inspecting it to find where they are wrong or inconsistent.  I thought I had seen it with you, as well.  While there may be things I yet disagree with you on, you summed it up very wisely when you said, at the end:  ”We just practice different types of worship.”  That was very well said.  I don’t think I would choose the word worship, but you know what?  It is irrelevant, because I’ve come to respect your knowledge and your method.  Your experience, which is likely greater than my own, has led you to these conclusions so I must acknowledge that it’s for a good reason.

Now I see that there’s perhaps nothing different between you and I other than the way in which we express this art.  Simply different expressions, but of the same thing, would you agree?    

When you mentioned names like Shakespeare and Donne in regard the ambiguous nature of your poetry, my first reaction was to think:  ”Well of course, these are well known people—so of course I’d want to get to know THEM and their ideas better, so no, that material would not be closed off to me, but what is so special about yours?”

Then I reconsidered.  After all, it’s not as if they were born famous.  And eveyone has something to offer—I feel I must have misworded myself when I said: “Most of us don’t want to dig that deep.”  You’ll have to accept my apology for that, (lol).  I meant only into YOUR work, personally, but enough of that, it’s not important anyway.

This discussion has been extremely thought provoking and stimulating for me.  I feel that I’m in a constant process of understanding how others think.  Now, I think, I understand you as well.  Whether I agree with everything or not seems to me like a small matter in light of this.  

Good luck to you in all your future works and thanks again for this stimulating discussion.

Respectfully,
—Arthur.

Arthur,

Thank you. I enjoyed our exchange very much – it was one of the most thoughtful I have had here, and I am glad you got it all: you really did, all your last questions are, indeed, answered wtih a firm “Yes”.

Arthur,

Thank you. I enjoyed our exchange very much – it was one of the most thoughtful I have had here, and I am glad you got it all: you really did, all your last questions are, indeed, answered wtih a firm “Yes”.

I agree--this was a very rewarding exchange for me.  You know what this makes me think?  That what is perhaps more important than two people absolutely agreeing on every point--is that two people can understand and respect one another.  I think I’ve realized it before, but our discussion served as a strong reminder.

I’d also like to say that I’m grateful for the kindness with which you responded to my arguement.  You were gentle and yet firm with your response, and that’s good.  It allowed me to do the same, otherwise I think only an arguement would have followed, which probably wouldn’t have been as beneficial to either of us.

Sorry, I haven’t shutup, lol.  Anyway, see you around!

I agree--this was a very rewarding exchange for me.  You know what this makes me think?  That what is perhaps more important than two people absolutely agreeing on every point--is that two people can understand and respect one another.  I think I’ve realized it before, but our discussion served as a strong reminder.

I’d also like to say that I’m grateful for the kindness with which you responded to my arguement.  You were gentle and yet firm with your response, and that’s good.  It allowed me to do the same, otherwise I think only an arguement would have followed, which probably wouldn’t have been as beneficial to either of us.

Sorry, I haven’t shutup, lol.  Anyway, see you around!

i must say.. just reading this discussion has planted several seeds in my mind. the both of you have interesting writing styles, almost poetic in and of themselves. and i do agree in that a poem must never need an explanation. as an expression of soul, it speaks for itself. whether the reader “gets it” or not, is irrelevant. i have several poems of my own that fall under a similar category. perhaps you may be interested in reading them? the closest to me being “Shattered Mirror”. i’d be curious to see what you have to say about that.

Thank you.  Yeah, this conversation did the same for me.  I understand anonymous’ reasons for ambiguity and not sacrificing artistic expression, even though, admittedly, my writing style will always remain different from his/hers.  For me, there is complexity and then there is TOO complex, wherein the subtle message and beauty of a poetic work is lost.  

Still, there is never anything to be lost from understanding the work of others.

Arthur,

As the time goes on, and humans evolve, the complexity that may appear TOO complex today, may find its follower very soon – maybe, even in just a couple of hundred years.

Just look at things written 2000 years ago – some of them are, indeed, TOO simple to contemplate – but some of them shine today as they never shined before.

These writers jumped ahead of the time – and now, we are in the same time frame.

Would you rather be in the company of Homer and Marcus Aurelius, or in the company of, let’s say, Pat Conroy or William Safire?

And wouldn’t you feel the exhilaration that comes from enjoying today, without waiting all these hundreds of years, something that will make you feel as if you had touched the future?

P.S. It is “his”, not “hers”.

    
“His,”

I’ve considered your ideas about the way in which humans evolve artistically.  I’m not so sure that I’m convinced that this kind of evolution is synonymous with greater artistic complexity.  Whether that is true or not--and most likely, it is in many cases (after all, I must be willing to see beyond my own ideas).  Nevertheless, I like to live in the moment--and in any given moment there will always be that which is beautiful and that which falls into extremes—regardless of past or future circumstances.

As always, your words of wisdom always plant seeds of profound thought in me, thank you!