--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > "others extol the fun of one-night-stands" > > Who was doing this?
Exactly. I can't speak about others, but I have written about such an event (and, to tell the truth, experienced one) only once on this forum, and that was long before Bronte ever arrived. People project what they want to see onto what they see. And what they want to see becomes a kind of reality for them. And that's fine in one sense, because that's the nature of percep- tion itself, but IMO one shouldn't confuse what one projects onto, say, a work of art with what the artist intended. My favorite example of this is Dylan. There are any number of people who have developed compli- cated, extensive theories of "the symbolism of his songs." And yet from his side, Dylan insists that he has never once in his life utilitzed symbolism. He use *imagery*. He just paints odd, abstract word art, and allows people to project onto it whatever they want. Remember the scene with Steve Martin looking at the painting in the museum in L.A. Story? The camera is pointed at him and the people with him as he describes what he sees in the painting: "I like the relationships. I mean, each character has his own story. The puppy is a bit too much, but you have to overlook things like that in these kinds of paintings. The way he's *holding* her...it's almost...filthy. I mean, he's about to kiss her and she's pulling away. The way the leg's sort of smashed up against her...Phew... Look how he's painted the blouse sort of translucent. You can just make out her breasts underneath and it's sort of touching him about here. It's really...pretty torrid, don't you think? Then of course you have the onlookers peeking at them from behind the doorway like they're all shocked. They wish. Yeah, I must admit, when I see a painting like this, I get emotionally...erect." The camera angle shifts and we see that he has been describing a painting of a red rectangle. 'Nuff said...
