Questions about art:

[walterick]

Does anything take on meaning if you look at it long enough?

Does the Mona Lisa inherently have more "meaning" because it is art or does the rock in my garden have the same amount of meaning but one has to look harder to see it?

If an adult had never been exposed to the Mona Lisa and was sat down before 1) the Mona Lisa and 2) My Rock both hanging in a gallery, would the viewer then - having no preconceived notions that the 'Lisa is a famous artwork or that the rock is not - have similar reactions to both?

My coattailing question: is art trained?

and... (philosophical)

Why don't we as people spend more time looking for meaning in things where we normally wouldn't look?

whew

Rick

[darkman]

Hi Walter,

The few responces to the "Does a photo need to say something?" thread left me confused and perplexed.

Based on the responces either most art I like isn't, or I'm just not seeing any special inherent meaning except I like it. Obviousely, saracasticly speaking, Klee and Polack can't be artists. Munch must be because a lot of his painting are dark? Picasso, who btw, was a sevant draftsman, said he chose his style because it sells. So he's not an artist. The renesance painters only have meaning to those who are deeply religious. So it's only art to those people.

On the other hand, I suppose all art has meaning to someone. I see a painting I like. Therefore, it has meaning to me; I like it! I may just like it on face value. Thus, the meaning of it isn't any sort of deep emotion. I just enjoy looking at it. Just like I never seem to get board of sitting on a rock in the foothills watching the sunset. In this sense anything can be art and have meaning. Albeit, just you enjoy looking at it.

For some reason a lot of photographers seem to think that images must be dark or wierd or something off the wall before its art and has meaning. Which I don't get. Just like I don't get the phenomena of voyeurism in photography. Put two identical photos up, one of plain jane and the other of Pamela Anderson. The person who took the pamela shot is the better photographer.

I'm not sure I'm answering your questions. However, I do believe people have preconcieved notions of what art is.

[Dzerzhinski46]

Dear Rick,

You really come up with some really tricky ones don't you ? In my humble opinion, it seems that art is in the eye of the beholder, and if a majority agrees that something is art, then it is. Not that I agree with this. Or the definition that if it gets into a museum, it is art. This doesn't mesh with my feeling at all. So that leaves us with a sticky wicket. How is art defined, and by whom?

I shall now rant about one of the worst excesses I see as semi-art, Thomas Kinkade. Yes, I think his paintings represent a hollow art. An art used to arouse feelings of warmth, and humanity, but tempered with an isipid blandness. This leads to one of the first things I like about "good" art. It is not insipid. It not only expresses warmth, but a whole range of emotions, love, hate, sorrow, majesty, dirtiness, etc. WIthout hate, there cannot be love, and without evil, there cannot be good. A simple coexistence, the sacred and the profane.

Nature is perhaps the best expression for art in the world. It holds both elements in it. Death and life, peace and violence, I could go on. You do not have one without the other. I still have not attemted to explain what art is, and I shall not attempt to do so. I can ramble on about what art isn't. Unmade beds are not art, pornogrophy is not art, etc. I just can't explain what art is. A window to the soul? An imperfect creativity derived from a perfect divine creativity?

Dzerzhinski

[megan]

I shall now rant about one of the worst excesses I see as semi-art, Thomas Kinkade. Yes, I think his paintings represent a hollow art. An art used to arouse feelings of warmth, and humanity, but tempered with an isipid blandness.

Isn't it just ICKY?!

Ugh! But he's so prolific too. It's all over. Calendars, Christmas cards, cookie tins, you name it...

Megan

[megan]

Hi Walter,
Based on the responces either most art I like isn't, or I'm just not seeing any special inherent meaning except I like it. Obviousely, saracasticly speaking, Klee and Polack can't be artists. Munch must be because a lot of his painting are dark?

Yes, I have to say that the idea that something is or isn't art only if one considers it such is a little confusing. I don't agree with that philosophy, and, at the same time, I don't agree that something IS art becuse the so-called Art Establishment says it's art. I think defining art is a little in between these two extremes and hard to put one's finger on!

I've never really liked Pollack's work at all, but I certainly have a healthy respect for it as it was really revolutionary in the art world. (I understood your point )So, while I don't like it, I do consider it art. (I'm making things more complicated, I know!) There are some cutting edge contemporary artists out there that sell their work for $$$$ and the art world insists they are brilliant, yet I don't agree, and I think it's crap, and I don't respect them as artists.

I personally don't think photographs have to have a deeper mening to be works of art. They can just be beautiful photos. But defining it beyond that - I'm at a loss! One can take a snapshot of peeling paint for insurance purposes, and that's all it is. Utilitarian. Then you can look at a Siskind photograph of peeling paint and stand there enraptured by its simplicity, beauty, and poetry. I can't spell the difference out beyond that, though. Does it make sense? Am I making sense?



Megan

[Lara]

Lots of very insightful stuff here guys. The question "What is Art" will most likely be discussed/argued ad infinitum. That's what makes it so interesting.

I agree..... ICKY on the Kinkade stuff Megan. Just for curiosity I went to a site that has everything from calendars to music boxes with Kinkade images....37pages, 605 items full! Sheesh. Excess? Most definitely!

[drg]

There is a question unspoken in all this that needs examination I believe, that is in some form about what is often called "Pop" art. That is, popular art. Is an artistic work valid if it is popular?

Think about the works (classic Pop) of Peter Max, LeRoy Neiman, Warhol of course, and yes Pollack. Pollack suddenly became popular and thus was widely heralded and perhaps destroyed as result. They all are popular and mostly commercial. And some of their works are indeed art.

I believe that art can be popular and valid. The body of work of an artist may not all be very good. In fact some of the best work of an artist may be unknown for years or forever.

Jackson Pollacks great works (what are there, about 20?) were produced in a brief period, require a lot of time to process, and defy comparison. The add something to the conversation.

Another artist who grows on you is Rodrigue and his Blue Dogs. This artist on the other hand has lots of works and they've evolved over a long period. They remain unmistakable.

A final thought or two more related to photography. Helmut Newton (though commercially very successful) added to the conversation. It doesn't matter whether in his case you like the work or not, he put elements in his photography we didn't have previously. Newton gave us voyeuristic lust, if you will. But it was elegant and spartan.

Leni Riefenstahl in her later years turned to still photography as an outlet. Regardless of your opinion of her politics and collaboration, she produced an impressive body of work both in Africa and Underwater. Her command of color in her later years is sometimes astounding.

I believe we shouldn't confuse a style with a statement, and we shouldn't confuse subjects with substance. Popularity in art may be like truth, just because I don't like it doesn't mean it isn't important. Just because I can sell something, doesn't speak in of itself to its artistic value, it merely speak to its commercial worth.

Happy Holidays - C

[walterick]

I'm a proponent of the "if it's art to you..." camp. It seems to me the only way to level the playing field if everyone's "art" is given a chance. Yeah, there's a lot of stuff out there better than what I saw of Kinkade. What if some of that better art never made outside the studio because it was "too" edgey and not immediately liked? How many great artists have we lost because of this?

Creativity is fragile. I think the slightest blow could render an artist comatose effectively, ending her or his career. Which is why I am gentle in the Critique. Who knows what this photographer is going to become? I do my best to encourage them so that I don't trample the tender flower that would later rip up the sidewalk

Okay, so I have to admit:
I had to go Google every name that was mentioned in this thread. I found Kinkade... not my cup of tea, but I would consider it "art." It certainly envokes a reaction

I had a hard time figuring out who "pollack" was. My google search brought up several, a few of which I liked

If someone would like to link to an image by anyone discussed and start a discussion on WHY they like it or don't, I think that would be exemplary. I don't mean photography (for now) I mean any of the artist mentioned or otherwise. I want to know why it's icky, or repulsive, or wonderful. Then let's extrapolate that discussion to photography.

Just my thoughts,
Rick

[walterick]

Art... Meaning... and Liking.

I - personally - can like something without it having "meaning."

I can think something is art without it having "meaning."

I can think something has "meaning" without liking it.

I can think something is "art" without liking it.

I like landscapes plenty but they don't have "meaning" or rarely are they "art." Certain paintings certainly have meaning but I don't care for them at all. So it goes, the completely subjective experience of art... er... creations put on display for viewing Some like it, some think it's art, others see meaning. That's what makes the world go round! If we all agreed on stuff, how boring would it be! I think the disagreements create art because it encourages us to get out and do better

I think art is supposed to be subjective. I'd say let's leave it at that. If we're not going to define what art "is" for us in this forum, I think the only choice is to name it outwardly as "subjective" so everybody feels welcome, and there's no air of elitism or snobbery. If people post their art, and it sucks, then so be it. That's what we'll have to go through in order to get the really good stuff

I don't know if this board was meant to post art for critique association and feedback, or just to talk about art as a concept in discussions. Any of the moderators care to clear that up for me? I tend to think it's the latter.

Thanks,
Rick

[walterick]

I just thought of something:

For whom here is art cerebral? For whom here is art emotive?

I must say to me it is emotive. Which is to say, I respond to it with feeling, not with thoughts. I think that's one of the problems I have with art - I feel "unequiped" to discuss it properly. So I get intimidated. I don't know how to critique it or compare its style to other artists. Sometimes I can't even articulate why I like it, but I do!

But feelings. Ha! I'm good at that! I'll tell you exactly how it makes me feel!

That's just me. How about you all?

Rick

[drg]

I had a hard time figuring out who "pollack" was. My google search brought up several, a few of which I liked

Pollock, POLLock POLLOCK! Jackson Pollock.

I'm sorry I didn't proof my post!

- C

[darkman]

Kinkade isn't much different than many top photographers. I believe that many of the "top" photographers are best at selling themselves as opposed to making great work. Isn't Kinkade doing the same thing? BTW, if he produced less would we like him more? IOW, are we against him because of his commercialism? I wouldn't hang his work in my house, but it's not that bad. There's plenty worse!

I have no problems with pop art, or pop anything. There is some strange tendancy that if something is popular or commercial it can't be true art. That's such a crazy notion.

I'd rather look at a landscapes than most street photography. Landscapes are emotive and cerebral for me. I also tend to like preconcieved visions over luck of the draw. But that's me.

Newton? He did nothing new. Let's face it, pornagraphy was around and done before the day the first image capture was made. IMO, he brough soft porn mainstream. Or at least he was the first person reckognized by the so called artists or critics of the time for this "type" of work. Again, he probably sold himself better than the others. These others were probably labeled perverts.

As far as intent vs commercial value, just remember Pollock's (hopefully I got it right this time) toilet seat... Converseley, just because it's made for commercial value doesn't mean it's not art. Agian, just my opinion.

[Chunk]

Okay, so I have to admit:
I had to go Google every name that was mentioned in this thread. I found Kinkade... not my cup of tea, but I would consider it "art." It certainly envokes a reaction

I had a hard time figuring out who "pollack" was. My google search brought up several, a few of which I liked

Here's a good place to go to see some typical images from a lot of artists.
http://artchive.com/ftp_site.htm (No Kinkade listed )

[megan]

Guess I was hungry. I think I made salmon that night.

Megan

[megan]

I think art is supposed to be subjective. I'd say let's leave it at that. If we're not going to define what art "is" for us in this forum, I think the only choice is to name it outwardly as "subjective" so everybody feels welcome, and there's no air of elitism or snobbery. If people post their art, and it sucks, then so be it. That's what we'll have to go through in order to get the really good stuff

Ugh. I agree art is subjective, but I also believe that there is a hierarchy.... and it's hard for me to explain. And I truly don't believe that I'm beling elitist or snobbish, however, since it offends people's sensibilities, I suppose some of my opinions would tend to make people label me as an elitist and a snob. However, I don't mean to put people's efforts down at all, rather, to elevate talent and genius to where it should be. I think in current American society, being PC is taken too far, and the playing field is levelled to the point of producing utter mediocrity. Brilliance is not strived for or rewarded, and I find that frustrating. But I'm heaidng towards an ill-typed rant, so I'll stop here. We welcome all art, beginner and all.

I don't know if this board was meant to post art for critique association and feedback, or just to talk about art as a concept in discussions. Any of the moderators care to clear that up for me? I tend to think it's the latter.

It's both. It's sort of ambigious, actually, because we wanted to leave a bit up in the air so the participants could sort of define what was going to go on here as well. We can don our black berets and sit around a Paris cafe, discussing theory for hours, or throw our work up not for a critique, like in critique forum, but to discuss it as art.

Megan

[darkman]

Ugh. I agree art is subjective, but I also believe that there is a hierarchy.... and it's hard for me to explain. And I truly don't believe that I'm beling elitist or snobbish, however, since it offends people's sensibilities, I suppose some of my opinions would tend to make people label me as an elitist and a snob. However, I don't mean to put people's efforts down at all, rather, to elevate talent and genius to where it should be. I think in current American society, being PC is taken too far, and the playing field is levelled to the point of producing utter mediocrity. Brilliance is not strived for or rewarded, and I find that frustrating. But I'm heaidng towards an ill-typed rant, so I'll stop here. We welcome all art, beginner and all.
Megan

I'd rather be reading your ill typed rant Seriously!

While I agree with you, the problem is what is genious in the artistic realm? What's genious, or ingenious, to you may not be for me. I suppose this is the question that bothers me

Some people praised pollock. I remember watching a film on him. He was, IMO, splattering paint on the canvas. Don't a lot of 2 year olds do that? Did he or didn't he urinate on one? What a stroke of genious!

I think it was Renoir who was thrown out of art school because he lacked the technical skills required. Look what he did. At least if you like his work.

Now take street photography vs. landscapes vs. voyeouristic photography, etc.. Very little street photography does anything for me. Most of it I see as "cute." However, I'm not taking away from it. It's just not my bag. I don't see anything more special about someone skipping across a puddle than I do the half dome. Still, I can tell a well composed well done street photo from junk. Just like a snap shot of a landscape verses a well composed and timed one.

If I posted a picture of a young man and women next to each other with his hand on her breast most here will think I'm a... (btw, I was a little harsher in my wording in my previous post than intended)! Definately not a genious. Who would have ever thought of that?

Similarly, when I post something different I'm often told how to make it "right." I notice this in my photo club. The judges always assume the lowest level of competency. Therefore, you didn't mean to add that motion blur; it's a mistake! Low score...

OK, I'm rambling on, being a little sarcastic and all....

Mike

[walterick]

Megan,

I don't know how you could do it,

but could you give us an excample of how people "discuss art." I am not being viscious, just very ignorant actually. I have never so much as taken a formal art class in my life, I have no appreciation for it, no idea how it's traditionally viewed or responded to. I'd like to see someone post something up here (at this point, I think any art would do) and see how one "properly" responds to it. If the moderators could set an example, I think I'd better know how to preceed in the future.

Small order, huh?

[megan]

Yeah, art is weird that way - who decides what is art? Who is the hierarchy? I'm with you in that I don't always agree that what is presented to me as art is art. Some work these days makes me feel cheated, like they are trying to pull one over on the viewer - that the "artist" is more "con" than "artist" - and then of course, you're looked down on if you don't "get" it. I admit, it took me awhile to "get" Pollock. The only way I can "get" Pollock is in reference to what was going on at the time in art. He took abstract expressionism beyond the abstract to pain splatters and drips. It was a breakthrough for him and art at the time. But yeah - I still see paint splatters.

It's interesting what you said about not liking most street photography. It's interesting to think about street photography for a moment - I think the street scene is almost purely a photographic genre. Sure, there are paintings depecting street scenes. But a "decisive moment," if you will, on the street? Captured forever? That's photography at it's lowest and highest! I'm not saying I love it all - some of it is a little too one-liner-ish for me. But some is brilliant - I've always loved Winogrand. Our own Gerry Widen is a classic street photographer. When I came to NY to go to college for photography - man, was I in heaven! My work back then was all street photography.

As for your photo club and motion blur - well... I can't speak for them. But some people just don't get beyond technique. I was poring over the ads for juried shows to enter, and there was a photo club somewhere in middle America with calls for entries. I got excited - until I read the categories - one of which was "Bridges." The others were rather specific, screamed of formula. I decided that what they were looking for were the most banal and ubiquitous of calendar shots, they weren't looking for anything new or experimental, that they knew what they liked and they wanted more of the same. Some people just don't think outside of the box. Maybe you can shake them up a little bit - tell them, well, I wanted that motion blur to be there, I did that on purpose - so with that in mind, what do you think of it now? You might just stump them. (Look of horror - Why would he want motion blur?) That's gotta be fustrating, though. Critique should certainly include discussion other than technical aspects. And once in awhile, a photograph should just be what it is without any improvement whatsoever, motion blur and all.

Anyway, I don't know what genius truly is in the artistic realm It's one of those "I know it when I see it" things, I guess. And sometimes I need to be told and convinced, as well.

Megan

[megan]

For whom here is art cerebral? For whom here is art emotive?
... I think that's one of the problems I have with art - I feel "unequiped" to discuss it properly. So I get intimidated. I don't know how to critique it or compare its style to other artists. Sometimes I can't even articulate why I like it...
Rick

Sorry you feel that way. I'll do a better job of posting links when referencing other artists. I had my minor in art history. If ya'll were discussing economics, my eyes would glaze over, and I'd feel like an idiot! Please don't be intimidated though. The "equipment" is just information...

That said, I think it's both for me. I like discussing it (as one who has studied massage therapy would possibly discuss new techniques and new revelations from the practice? ;) ) as much as I like experiencing it. Has art ever overwhelmed you with emotion? Which emotion? And why?

Megan

[megan]

I believe we shouldn't confuse a style with a statement, and we shouldn't confuse subjects with substance. Popularity in art may be like truth, just because I don't like it doesn't mean it isn't important. Just because I can sell something, doesn't speak in of itself to its artistic value, it merely speak to its commercial worth.

Completely brilliant!!! YES!!!!!

Megan

[darkman]

It's interesting what you said about not liking most street photography. It's interesting to think about street photography for a moment - I think the street scene is almost purely a photographic genre. Sure, there are paintings depecting street scenes. But a "decisive moment," if you will, on the street? Captured forever? That's photography at it's lowest and highest! I'm not saying I love it all - some of it is a little too one-liner-ish for me. But some is brilliant - I've always loved Winogrand. Our own Gerry Widen is a classic street photographer. When I came to NY to go to college for photography - man, was I in heaven! My work back then was all street photography.Megan

Hi Megan,

I overstated that a tad. I was trying to drive home a point against a couple of comments that landscapes aren't art. Someone who catches that decisive moment on the street in a picture doesn't have any more _meaning_ to me than someone who catches that decisive moment with a landscape. Why should there be? Both people are in the right place at the right time and knew what to do. I appreciate them both. It just so happens that I like landscapes better! Plus, I often see street shots as something that goes in the family album.

Hmmm, maybe I'm onto something! My wife does creative memory (and complains she can't crop my images like her friends crop their's from their vacation - because I usually frame well). Anyway, people are usually impressed with the albums. They have brought me work (or offers to do work).

I also enjoy(ed?) Hess's street work. It was definately his strength.

As for your photo club and motion blur - well... I can't speak for them. But some people just don't get beyond technique.Megan

I used blur because it was simple. But you saw my point I pretty much gave up on the contest side of the club. Our club has very well known photographer. Founders and teachers at schools (including NY), advertising, Nat. Geog. photographers, etc. I live in the state with the most photographers per capita.

The best advice I got was from one of these people though. I showed her some pictures, then she asked to see the rest from the roll and told me to get someone to help me edit my photos. I was favoring the ones that took the most work. I was hanging by a cliff by one hand, blood running down my fingers... This one must be best! Now I know what I like. I still ask people's opinions but usually in choosing between a couple of images for use.

Still, I do something different with a portrait and get comments how to make mall lighitng! It's like this is engraved in our heads. My mom can't figure out why you wouldn't do just that. For me, if all I did was simple setups and work the person to get a nice percieved image all I'd be doing is commerce. I would go out of my mind! Again, it has a place but it's not my bag.

Anyway, I don't know what genius truly is in the artistic realm It's one of those "I know it when I see it" things, I guess. And sometimes I need to be told and convinced, as well. Megan

BTW, I do appreciate what pollack did historically. I just see it as splattered paint!

[drg]

I've been going back and reading several of the postings in this forum (Photography As Art) and one thread (partially inspired by Megan) that keeps recurring is the language used to discuss the topic.

Some writers want a quick (or so it seems) definition of "What is Art", some want to know how to discuss, critique, or just talk about art, and some want everything to be evaluated as potentially worthy of the moniker.

There's a long history of discussion of all of these topics and I like to refer to it (I think I posted something somewhere on this?) as a Conversation. That's not a particularly original
phrase but it leads to where I hope I'm going with this. This particular thread has evolved to include the emotive v cereberal (how about 'intellectual' to make it REALLY high-brow- join in virtual laughter here. . .) discussion. While I have a moment or two, I'd offer a couple of thoughts on that part of this Conversation.

When we write about Photography as Art we are entering into the old conversation started a long time ago. We have to respect but also can use what those before have already done or written. So we quote them or point out certain pieces of art or imagery and say "There, thats what I mean". Then the burden of proof usually falls the other way for someone else to respond and add to the discussion or say What The? (insert active verb or expression of choice here) . The comments from various people about Kinkade have already generated a consensus on one topic. That's an example of the Conversation.

This can be also be illustrated on the emotive level by discussion regarding pornography and narrowly or not offensive or obscene content, that for many the kind of mater generates a very strong emotional reaction, for many disgust. That is a valid response. Some wouldn't agree. The flip side to this for many are something calming and soothing and even perhaps inspirational like sunsets and sunrises. They will generate this warm fuzzy connected feeling that for many is almost like a hug. If you have vacationed in the Tropics (or as I have been lucky enough to live there for anytime) at Sunset some people wander out from homes businesses hotels and take a minute and watch the Sunset. The imagery of such will often produce the same response.

The cerebral (we are beret wearing intellectuals sipping espresso and chomping biscotti) part of this is taking an inventory of the good and bad points of a work. The scoring that Mike(darkman) refers to is an intellectual and objective critique. If you are going to work in Commercial Design and have to interface with a team to bring something to the market it can be extraordinarily important. If the Pantone selections must be perfect, the clarity and detail of a product must be exact, and no shadows or blown highlights are allowed then that's one thing. But as an element in art, by itself, it probably means little. Sometime the artist breaks specfic "rules" for a very good reason, emotive or cerebral.

The phone's ringing again, I'll finish and lauch off on another element I see in all this later.

- C

[Dzerzhinski46]

Dear Rick and Others,

Good grief! I go away for two weeks and this happens! Even with such a loaded and cumbersome (no disrespect, on the contrary, admiration) topic, you managed to get people's thought processes going.

Rick, I do not think it would be productive to start a discussion about Thomas Kinkade, especially with me. I loathe the man's paintings, and you would probably only get polemic on my part ! However, I shall attempt to elaborate a little. Whenever I view Kinkade's art, I always get the impression that his paintings are emotionally and spiritually limp. His paintings are like carnival masks, the feeling is only as deep as the mask itself. It lacks spirit and vitality. The paintings are warm and fuzzy, but lack substance. HIs work is a thousand miles wide (all embracing) but is only an inch deep. There is no interest in leting the veiwer explore the painting themselves, Kinkade wishes to make his viewers have a certain emotional response, not interact with the painting.

Here I come to shaky ground that shall probably be soon shot out from under me . The artist must allow the viewer to explore the painting (or what ever art form it is, photograph even) on their own, and draw their own conclusions. Otherwise the artist is manipulating his/her audience to a certain end. This then is not art, it is prpoganda. Alright, fire away! I probably just violated some people's views of art and artists, and I apologize. I call it how I see it. Perhaps we could get a Conversation going and hammer this out better. Thanks for letting me pontificate a while.

Dzerzhinski

[megan]

... then she asked to see the rest from the roll and told me to get someone to help me edit my photos. I was favoring the ones that took the most work. I was hanging by a cliff by one hand, blood running down my fingers... This one must be best!

Oh, I know that feeling. It's hard to take a step back and look at your work objectively. You work so hard for a certain photo, and since you had so much invested in it (hanging on a cliff, did you really, or were you being facetious?! if so, you're hardcore!) that darn it all, I'm going to show it, even if it stinks! I know what that's like.... sometimes you have to step back and let it go.

::sigh::

megan

[megan]

This then is not art, it is prpoganda. Alright, fire away! I probably just violated some people's views of art and artists, and I apologize. I call it how I see it. Perhaps we could get a Conversation going and hammer this out better. Thanks for letting me pontificate a while.

Not at all offended! I think the posts have been very well-stated and interesting.

It's interesting what you said about Kinkade - miles wide but only an inch deep. It's something I've been thinking about with my work lately. I'm sort of in a panic, to the point where I'm almost afraid to even start to work. I've just been questioning whether or not I'm just creating fluff, or is it really deeper than that. And I've also been thinking of going back and getting my master's.... to sort of get beyond that. I feel like I'm ready. But that will take $$.

Anyway, I'm going on a tangent! I hope to keep this Conversation going - This thread is a good one.

Megan