That is purely hypothetical. His experience would be completely different and he probably would not have written the same. And I did not say Mikey lacked emotion, he lacked Turner's emotion.

In the main, no, I don't.

True Rubbish

Michelangelo devoted his life to works of art - how can you argue he would have lacked emotion?

I hit the chat and the screen comes up blue with a multicolored square at the top. I think mine is broken, or my computer sucks.

It seems you missed my point, maybe down to me expressing myself badly. I imagine not that Michelangelo would have recreated specific works, but that he could have created works of equal quality.

I agree, but they would be different based on the era and the experience.

Hey guys! Why don't we continue this fascinating discussion in the chat room!? Great!

Okay I'm going to clear up a few things: While Michelangelo was a very good painter, he hated painting. He painted because the church forced him to paint. Michelangelo is regarded as the finest sculptor of all time, nothing more or less. However, the only reason he worked was because it was his job - he did not produce work for his own consumption, gratifaction or resale. Second, artists steal all the time - or as a rather cynical instructor of mine once said they make things their own. Picasso said that the difference between a good artist and a great one is that the good one borrows while the great one steals. There is absolutely nothing new under the sun people - there is no invention but reinvention, and all that is unique to a work is its relationship with the moment in time within which it is experienced. Thirdly, this poem is pretty funny. Fourthly, there are people today who possess rendering abilities superior to Michelangelo, and many people who are superior draftsmen. The reason Michelangelo is so highly regarded is that all the things he did he did first, and everything he did is so perfect it needed only doing once. FIFTHLY I am NOT GAY people. I don't know who gets their jollies starting such rumours but I can guarantee that I am NOT GAY, and that I HATE DICK.n

Indeed. But you haven't addressed the issue. The issue is not whether or not the poetry on this site is better than poetry written years ago; the issue is whether or not the poets on this site are as talented - and my point was that they clearly are not. Michelangelo could reproduce any Turner prizewinning art; I can't imagine any artist today could, in his lifetime, reproduce a single square foot of the Sistine Chapel. And likewise (though not perhaps to the same degree) I doubt that any writer on this site could use the English language with skill approaching that of, say, Byron's - to use the language to its full extent while still producing rhythm and rhyme is true skill.

I do not think all "modern" is good. That would be lumping and modern could be Modern, or Post Modern or post Modern contemporary new pre modern. But I am hip with the times beaker. I do not live in an age gone by. And although I love the work of the dead poets as much as anyone, I am open to change and to new things and I may be ugly and hate the other ugly children but I can appreciate when someone writes a damn fine poem, like the one above here.

It is a different time and an expanded and different language, why stick with the old ways of doing something. It is not better; it is just different. Why would I want to write like Bryon. My experience is different; my language is different. I think you are a bit off base. Poetry evolves. The talent can be the same, just a different era. Respect the old, love it, but move on. And I believe that is the issue.

And could Mikey really do that; would the experience be there; would the love and understanding for the sea be there and show through? I don't think so. Could he paint it? Sure. Could he reproduce what the painting really says, well I think he would need Turner's experience.

Your point attacks a point I never made. What I said was that Byron, had he lived in our times, could have written poetry superior to that on this site - his mastery of English was clearly far greater. What I didn't say was that Byron's poetry was better as such. Goodness is far more subjective than skill.

I think the issue here is that we all hold true to our emotions, be they old fashioned or otherwise. Life is an adventure, guys! Let's open our hearts and live it to the full!

a well-trained technician can easily copy an existing painting, regardless of who originally painted it. there is an extensive market for copied paintings, and frauds are often, at first, deemed genuine 'lost masterworks' by experts. the true mastery lies in using the tools you have and creating something genuine of your own. as Turner did. as Mikey did. as Byron did. as we strive too. we wouldn't be dicking around on this site if we were on that level. some of us are trying to improve, and this site is an excellent forum in which one may present his writings to total strangers, and see if what they are writing resonates with anyone...i use it to gauge my ability to communicate my ideas to others. when i am being obscure or obtuse, generally someone points that out. when i write crap, that too is mentioned...

PAKI: what's your problem with the chat system? Just click on the chat button. Type in a nickname and press enter.

am i reading this right--the beak is saying that this is a mdiocre site populated by those who feel they are artistes?

If the discussion comes down to this, then it seems easily resolvable: this is a forum where people have their works judged, and I dislike most people's works.

again, i ask, do you find that people on this site present themselves to be masters?