continuing adventures in torontoland
Yay Torontoland! I am very much enjoying my time here, staying with 
toft and doing Toronto things. As is the custom with toft and I, today we decided to do a wholesome activity that would allow us to learn and appreciate culture: a trip to the AGO!
However, I do want to tell you, the internet, that while looking at paintings and sculpture there developed a rather serious disagreement between toft and myself. It started slowly, with slight polite differences of opinion in the Early Canadian area, broke out into argument around The Group of Seven, and by the time we reached the trees-in-trees in the Galleria Italia, it had gotten out of hand. And this is how toft and I ended up having a slapfight over the relative importance of photorealism in early twentieth century landscapes. IT'S A TRUE STORY
It's not a true story. But it's sort of true, in that toft doesn't like Lawren Harris as much as I do, and is freaked out by how unobstructed his views can be. She prefers Tom Thomson! I ask you. I mean, I like a good obstructed view, and I do enjoy it when I am barred from colonizing the wilderness described in a painting, and I rather like the occasional suggestion that the landscape is going to eat me, but Lawren Harris! With the cleanness and the softness and the LIGHT and the ROCKS! It's so beautiful. Trees don't always need to obstruct the landscape FYI.
We also had a VERY SERIOUS ARGUMENT about abstract art, but came to the eventual agreement, via much thought, that we don't so much like the squiggly things, but do quite like shapes.
Finally, we had an argument about authorial intention and whether an artist's intention would count for more if she was a woman, but I can't remember who took which side in that one.
FOR SERIOUS, THOUGH, I really enjoyed the AGO and have decided to continue hanging out with
toft even though our respective positions on artistic realism differ so much as to create a near-insurmountable chasm of antagonism in the plains of our friendship.
also, last night we saw Up, and while
toft has basically summarized my feelings about the film in her post, I did want to mention that it is INCREDIBLY CLEAR that, in the beginning of the film, Ellie = Shawn and Carl = Gus. Isn't it true? With Shawn stalking Gus and making him walk a plank and hurt himself and jumping in his window late at night to tell him about all the ADVENTURES they would have together and saying, hey, you don't talk much do you kid? And Gus is completely terrified and also just COMPLETELY in love. Oh! The truth of it makes my heart hurt a little.
This entry was originally posted at http://thingswithwings.dreamwidth.org/65635.html. Please comment there using OpenID.
toft and doing Toronto things. As is the custom with toft and I, today we decided to do a wholesome activity that would allow us to learn and appreciate culture: a trip to the AGO!
However, I do want to tell you, the internet, that while looking at paintings and sculpture there developed a rather serious disagreement between toft and myself. It started slowly, with slight polite differences of opinion in the Early Canadian area, broke out into argument around The Group of Seven, and by the time we reached the trees-in-trees in the Galleria Italia, it had gotten out of hand. And this is how toft and I ended up having a slapfight over the relative importance of photorealism in early twentieth century landscapes. IT'S A TRUE STORY
It's not a true story. But it's sort of true, in that toft doesn't like Lawren Harris as much as I do, and is freaked out by how unobstructed his views can be. She prefers Tom Thomson! I ask you. I mean, I like a good obstructed view, and I do enjoy it when I am barred from colonizing the wilderness described in a painting, and I rather like the occasional suggestion that the landscape is going to eat me, but Lawren Harris! With the cleanness and the softness and the LIGHT and the ROCKS! It's so beautiful. Trees don't always need to obstruct the landscape FYI.
We also had a VERY SERIOUS ARGUMENT about abstract art, but came to the eventual agreement, via much thought, that we don't so much like the squiggly things, but do quite like shapes.
Finally, we had an argument about authorial intention and whether an artist's intention would count for more if she was a woman, but I can't remember who took which side in that one.
FOR SERIOUS, THOUGH, I really enjoyed the AGO and have decided to continue hanging out with
toft even though our respective positions on artistic realism differ so much as to create a near-insurmountable chasm of antagonism in the plains of our friendship.
also, last night we saw Up, and while
toft has basically summarized my feelings about the film in her post, I did want to mention that it is INCREDIBLY CLEAR that, in the beginning of the film, Ellie = Shawn and Carl = Gus. Isn't it true? With Shawn stalking Gus and making him walk a plank and hurt himself and jumping in his window late at night to tell him about all the ADVENTURES they would have together and saying, hey, you don't talk much do you kid? And Gus is completely terrified and also just COMPLETELY in love. Oh! The truth of it makes my heart hurt a little.
This entry was originally posted at http://thingswithwings.dreamwidth.org/65635.html. Please comment there using OpenID.