[Nicholas F.]

Ahhh, crap, I didn't know you're related to Carmine. I wouldn't have been such an ass in my post.

My final take is that the poem is "difficult." I'm sure this will invite reactions, but hey. Even if she's not searching for "meaning" (something I've been chastised repeatedly for doing recently), the reader will be slightly uneasy about a poem like this, since I think we naturally desire to comprehend what we encounter. For me, there is something "difficult" about looking at a Dali painting. In fact, I tell people that looking at one is like remembering a nightmare I never had. The "difficulty," for me, has more to do with coming to terms with uncertainty than the actual process of "understanding" the piece of art. I am not equipped to decode your poem, Rick. Maybe it's not meant to be parsed that way, but it would be unfair to call a reader square for trying.

(This is not to say that you have called us squares, but there have been a few condescending posts in this thread suggesting that those who are looking to grasp the poem beyond abstract apprehension are missing the point--and that we're fools for not realising how vain and off-base our tack is.)

[David Rosenthal]

Now let me get this straight: is it Yin before Yang, or Yang before Yin?

David R.

[Rick Mullin]

Ha!

Well...here's another cut at it. Back when they used to teach drawing at art school, there was an exercise in which you had to do a continuous line drawing without taking your eye off the model. Without looking at your drawing hand our your drawing. You are made to unplug from everything you know about what you are drawing and respond directly to the model. Even the results of the first of these exercises is somehow superior to a more "exact" rendition aided by the knowledge that "this part is this close to that part" and "a finger has three joints" and "the middle finger is the longest". After a few dozen, you begin to learn how to draw by unlearning a lot of other things. Nature becomes the boss.

Rick