Post your paintings

[greg]

fun"?

what's fun 

[Saul]

what's fun 

Ok.


Its like if I told you that you look like a squeaky squirrel.

That would be considered as "Making Fun" of you....

[greg]

Ok.


Its like if I told you that you look like a squeaky squirrel.

That would be considered as "Making Fun" of you....

don't be dissin' my squirrel culture, yo 

[Saul]

don't be dissin' my squirrel culture, yo 

"Dissin"?

Aight....

[greg]

"Dissin"?

Aight....

you missed a comma in A'ight. I be dissin' your culture, now

[Saul]

you missed a comma in A'ight. I be dissin' your culture, now

Whateva

[greg]

SAUL MALL


did i hurt your feelings yet?

[Saul]

SAUL MALL


did i hurt your feelings yet?

No you didnt.

[Catison]

Dont you have anything else to do?

Just to "Make fun"?

Are you a clown?

Could we not ask you the same?

[beer]

We could but he wouldent reply because he is busy making fine art.

Or something

[Saul]

Could we not ask you the same?

You could do whatever you want, CAT MIAO MIAO

[greg]

No you didnt.

SAUL PAUL

there. Now I hurt your feelings and dissed your culture. yo yo yo! 

[Saul]

SAUL PAUL

there. Now I hurt your feelings and dissed your culture. yo yo yo! 

No you didnt.

[greg]

No you didnt.

what can i do to hurt your feelings?....... 

[pjme]

Yes, a clown - that's a good idea.

[greg]

Yes, a clown - that's a good idea.

Are your feelings hurt now, Saul?

[Kullervo]

Do you really want to hurt me? Do you really want to make me cry?

[Saul]

What are you doing?

Stop this stupid nonsense, please.

[pjme]

Actually, of course, the Schlegels' irony had also an objective side, one that was less reassuring, however, than Hegel's objective moral truth. Friedrich had found it "strikingly ironic" that der grosse Maschinist behind the chaos "finally discloses himself as a contemptible betrayer." In riot quite so disillusioned a way, this objective source of irony moved to the foreground in Solger's aesthetic. In Solger's view, the human artist created a beautiful work "just as the essence of God, in its non-actuality, reveals itself intact as the very core" of a human being. In both cases the idea inhabits a particular "thing." For Solger the situation was ironic, because, on the one hand, although the "thing" appeared to suggest the infinite, it was really only a thing, and on the other hand, although the "infinite" appeared to transcend the thing, it could not really do so—it must inhabit finite reality. Schlegel's tension of opposites had become the "concrete universal," the ironic symbol of a universe which intimated meanings that could not be reached in an eternal form. But at least in the artistic symbol "all contradictions annihilate themselves": irony is a unifying structure.

"Without irony," then, "there is no art." Considering the tension of opposites as moving rather than static, Solger found that irony "begins with the contemplation of the world's fate in the large": "we suffer when we see the most elevating and noble ideals dissipated through their necessary earthly existence." A. W. Schlegel had barred irony from the "proper tragic," but for Solger satiric and "tragic irony" were simply different aspects of the irony common to all art: in the first, false ideals were destroyed; in the second, admirable ones, and the audience is not detached: "we suffer." Although the dominant movement in both satiric and tragic irony was toward defeat, Solger saw an opposing comic movement arising out of destruction, as had Friedrich Schlegel in his "self-creating alteration." The very moment that breaks the brief union of idea and thing affirms both the value of the idea and the necessity of its embodiment. When Hamlet dies, Fortinbras must appear. (For discussions of and references to Solger's statements about irony, see Wellek, Mueller, pp. 225-26, Sedgewick, p. 17, and Strohschneider-Kohrs.) 

[greg]

SAUL MALL


did i hurt your feelings yet?

Actually, of course, the Schlegels' irony had also an objective side, one that was less reassuring, however, than Hegel's objective moral truth. Friedrich had found it "strikingly ironic" that der grosse Maschinist behind the chaos "finally discloses himself as a contemptible betrayer." In riot quite so disillusioned a way, this objective source of irony moved to the foreground in Solger's aesthetic. In Solger's view, the human artist created a beautiful work "just as the essence of God, in its non-actuality, reveals itself intact as the very core" of a human being. In both cases the idea inhabits a particular "thing." For Solger the situation was ironic, because, on the one hand, although the "thing" appeared to suggest the infinite, it was really only a thing, and on the other hand, although the "infinite" appeared to transcend the thing, it could not really do so—it must inhabit finite reality. Schlegel's tension of opposites had become the "concrete universal," the ironic symbol of a universe which intimated meanings that could not be reached in an eternal form. But at least in the artistic symbol "all contradictions annihilate themselves": irony is a unifying structure.

"Without irony," then, "there is no art." Considering the tension of opposites as moving rather than static, Solger found that irony "begins with the contemplation of the world's fate in the large": "we suffer when we see the most elevating and noble ideals dissipated through their necessary earthly existence." A. W. Schlegel had barred irony from the "proper tragic," but for Solger satiric and "tragic irony" were simply different aspects of the irony common to all art: in the first, false ideals were destroyed; in the second, admirable ones, and the audience is not detached: "we suffer." Although the dominant movement in both satiric and tragic irony was toward defeat, Solger saw an opposing comic movement arising out of destruction, as had Friedrich Schlegel in his "self-creating alteration." The very moment that breaks the brief union of idea and thing affirms both the value of the idea and the necessity of its embodiment. When Hamlet dies, Fortinbras must appear. (For discussions of and references to Solger's statements about irony, see Wellek, Mueller, pp. 225-26, Sedgewick, p. 17, and Strohschneider-Kohrs.) 

that was an excellent response to my post