Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (86454)	8/25/2000 1:14:15 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

For me classics will almost always be old. For one thing- I know they've stood the test of time, and changing fashions, and that they have something enduringly appealing about them. I don't like a lot of new stuff. Especially with art. Art after impressionism doesn't really exist for me. Fragonard is just awful. But other than HIM, I can't think of anyone else I don't like. Titian, Brueghel, Vermeer, Ruebens, Durer, Lippi, Rembrandt for old masters (gosh just about nay old master entertains me). I like the New England Renaissance painters, and the California school, and the prarie school- but I consider them old and classical. I like representational art. That's just the way I am. In poetry and literature my preferences are for the older material as well. Although I read a LOT of modern stuff looking for gems amid the rubble. And I find a few. I think when you read what survived from previous generations you don't have to read the rubble- since it is gone. SO appreciating the past is, perhaps, less exhausting than trying to figure out what to appreciate in the present. And my time is limited.