The purpose of art film?
- Thread starter Huy Vu
- Start date
snodart said:
Thanks dude. I cant believe i didint find this thread sooner!
jade8472 said:
A directors responsibilty is not to tell you what conclusion to come to when he has a greater meaning or symbolism in his movie. I think the problem lies in the fact that some directors take for granted that "intellectually lazy" people like himslef will watch his movie and based upon the information/ images/ sound given during the work, try to asses what the images are saying.
I mean, hey, i loved it in school when the teacher did the homework and tests for me, it my life sooooo easy!!! My brain could just sit and decay....
I think youre throwing terms like "intellectual lazyness" around with a little too much ease. When a person watches a piece of art that someone made, and thats all they can see i think its purely a preoccupation of the viewer.
I thnk everyone here, myslef included should read alot more, and try understanding the things that we find "stupid".
Last edited:
ydgmdlu
Veteran
jade8472 said:
Here's what you missed...jade8472 said:
In short, art consists only of its aesthetic qualities. That is all. That is what distinguishes art from everyday communication. And as with all communication, both the sender and the receiver of a message must make an effort. Supposing that film is art, it does not need to have any "messages" or "themes" or "deeper meanings." A filmmaker and an audience can create and appreciate, respectively, a film solely for its aesthetic qualities. Supposing that any given film was created to communicate a message, a director can only take expression so far before the responsibility falls upon his/her audience to decode the message.
Abstractions can speak to truths as well as spelling out things can. To deny this is intellectual laziness. In fact, to speculate on an artist's original intentions is intellectual laziness. Why? The fun in art, beyond appreciating its aesthetic qualities, is the freedom it allows for interpretation through the filter of one's own experiences. Art would be quite boring if every piece of art were established ONE SINGLE CORRECT INTERPRETATION. This is another point of distinction from everyday communication, where the precise apprehension of a message is absolutely necessary. Who says a proposed "deeper meaning" of a given film "isn't there" if the one who proposes it gives reasonable evidence for the interpretation? Read Jim Emerson's radical but extremely lucid reading of Donnie Darko, and compare it with Richard Kelly's official interpretation, and then tell me which one is invalid.
Given your stance on art (and "art film"), I wonder what you think of David Lynch's work.
Last edited:
Matthew B. Moore
Well-known member
Wow, It's back again.
Some one please get the shovel.
I love how the list above builds itself up only to end up with "All art is quite useless".
How "hippy-douche". Art is the essense of my life. I don't care if the entire world calls my stuff "shite", I would still never turn my back on it and call it useless. It, for what ever reason, saved my life while I was doing it.
The statements above make me think of the two types of artists. Those who truely live for the art and those who want every one to think they live for the art. There is a huge difference.
Art shouldn't require effort or tollerence from the viewer. It should invite and inspire.
Some one please get the shovel.
I love how the list above builds itself up only to end up with "All art is quite useless".
How "hippy-douche". Art is the essense of my life. I don't care if the entire world calls my stuff "shite", I would still never turn my back on it and call it useless. It, for what ever reason, saved my life while I was doing it.
The statements above make me think of the two types of artists. Those who truely live for the art and those who want every one to think they live for the art. There is a huge difference.
Art shouldn't require effort or tollerence from the viewer. It should invite and inspire.
Last edited:
CineMischief
Active member
"In short, art consists only of its aesthetic qualities. That is all."
I couldn't disagree with that more. That is NOT all for me and a lot of other people.
I couldn't disagree with that more. That is NOT all for me and a lot of other people.
ydgmdlu,
It appears that you misread what I wrote. Not once did I say that art must have ONE correct interpretation, and that interpretation is the artist's. What the artist intends and what we perceive can be completely different. What I did say was that it's crucial that the artist have an intention.
What I was responding to was the suggestion that an artist can simply sit down, follows some vague "insticts" and call the result art. Do you supposed Steven Spielberg just decides to show up on set, shoot whatever happens to pop into his head and came up with Schindler's List? Or did that take work, forethoughts and conscious planning to achieve? We've already acknowledged that all films are art work and all directors are artists, so why are we using two different sets of standards for "conventional" film and "experimental" film? The keyword here is consciousness. An artist must be aware of what he is creating and why he is creating it.
As you quoted, "The only excuse for making a useless thing is that one admires it intensely." An experimental film might be incomprehensible (useless) to an audience, but as long as the artist fully understands and appreciates what he has created, that is all that's required.
It appears that you misread what I wrote. Not once did I say that art must have ONE correct interpretation, and that interpretation is the artist's. What the artist intends and what we perceive can be completely different. What I did say was that it's crucial that the artist have an intention.
What I was responding to was the suggestion that an artist can simply sit down, follows some vague "insticts" and call the result art. Do you supposed Steven Spielberg just decides to show up on set, shoot whatever happens to pop into his head and came up with Schindler's List? Or did that take work, forethoughts and conscious planning to achieve? We've already acknowledged that all films are art work and all directors are artists, so why are we using two different sets of standards for "conventional" film and "experimental" film? The keyword here is consciousness. An artist must be aware of what he is creating and why he is creating it.
As you quoted, "The only excuse for making a useless thing is that one admires it intensely." An experimental film might be incomprehensible (useless) to an audience, but as long as the artist fully understands and appreciates what he has created, that is all that's required.
rsbush
Well-known member
jade8472,
You seem to have a way of taking things and bending them to mean whatever you want them to mean. Just to make sure that I'm not doing the same thing, do you mean to imply that art is driven by intellectualization and reason rather than compulsion,instict and an artist's fudamental concerns? If that's so, you might want to take a look at some of your favorite artists' writings on their art and see how they themselves explain their creative process. You're suggestion that I was suggesting that Steven Spielberg just shows up and shoots anything that pops up in his head is ludicrous and inflamatory. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, please extend the same courtesy to me.
You seem to have a way of taking things and bending them to mean whatever you want them to mean. Just to make sure that I'm not doing the same thing, do you mean to imply that art is driven by intellectualization and reason rather than compulsion,instict and an artist's fudamental concerns? If that's so, you might want to take a look at some of your favorite artists' writings on their art and see how they themselves explain their creative process. You're suggestion that I was suggesting that Steven Spielberg just shows up and shoots anything that pops up in his head is ludicrous and inflamatory. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, please extend the same courtesy to me.
Last edited:
I must say, this thread changed my views on art fundementally. Looking at my earlier posts, I was an ardent supporter of "story-driven" films, but I think BKLNDYV (did i get it right?) rightly pointed out, story is a convention, which films can transcend.
Interesting. Lets try a short film with no strictly-defined story, but one that conveys a feeling, or emotion instead. Got homework!
Interesting. Lets try a short film with no strictly-defined story, but one that conveys a feeling, or emotion instead. Got homework!
rsbush said:
rsbush, it was never my intention to insult you. I was simply responding to a assertion you made. This is a discussion and we should be focusing on the topic and not take it personally whenever someone else challenge our position.
rsbush said:
I think I need to clear up a common misconception here. It seems like many people here believes that:
Reason=Logic=Inhuman lack of emotion which doesn't translate into art.
This is a serious mistakes. How many writer/director/artist do you know can just sit down and make a perfect piece of art (to them) on the first try based just on their instincts? This simply doesn't happen. Even the greatest script requires revisions and the best painting requires many days of concentrations to create. Why it is that we never considered the hours and days that the artists put into looking at their own work, figuring out what's lacking with it, and then improving it? That is the work of a reasoning mind. If they refused to look at their work and consider what it is that they have made, and why, then they have no love for their own creation.
Recently I had a sudden flash of inspiration on a story, and so I sat down to write a script for it. What I discovered was that to make that moment of inspiration into a workable film requires many hours of thoughts, many revisions and tons of hard work. Few people are guided by inspirations alone; and no one is able to create art without putting serious thoughts into their work.
Nathyn
Low Budget Ninja
I always thought art films were a way to get hot chicks to take their clothes off for free. 
But seriously...
-Nate
But seriously...12 Monkeys was based on the French art film "Le Jette" which was a must see in film class. Terry Gilliam is pretty close to an art filmmaker even though he's mainstream now.Blaine said:
-Nate
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
This was a study on values of light and dark. We could only use black and white and the many shades of grey inbetween
It also was painted upside down for a good 90% of the painting. It was done purely on instinct.
This was day number 2 on the first art lessons I ever had at age 29 at the Robson Gallery in the gaslamp downtown San Diego with Lela Hartley. She was blown away (as was I) and we both wondered 'How did I do that?'
All gut. Total zone. Didn't think for a second, just did it in a hypnotic state.
I call this a 'happy lucky mistake'.
I see your point but I believe the best art can be both. Sometimes, inspiration is heavily calculated, while other times it is pure emotion and guttaral steering.
Some of the best jam sessions I ever had playing guitar, was when we all just 'jammed.' Just started playing without a thought or plan in the room and often, after careful practice did we experience the same highs.
-
What works for you (Careful and logical execution) may not work for others who prefer more flexibility
In contrast; this painting was heavily calculated (Usually has to be with Watercolor due to masking ...)
Some of the best works of art ever created are 'En plein air'.
Monet, Renoir, Degas ... all painted quickly with their instincts (as the light radically changed around them)
others, like Copley and Eakins relied on calculated effort
So, there you go ! :beer:
Joshua Provost
Veteran
Fugitive said:
After doing narrative films, you may find it difficult to jump out and do a completely conceptual piece. It is a challenge, but it should be fun.
I'm more in awe of people who come up with original concepts and thoughts for experimental films, than most narrative films I have seen.
It all looks so easy until you try to do it yourself...
rsbush
Well-known member
No insult taken. But I made no assertions about "vague instincts" being the end all of art. My assertion was that compulsions are the impetus to create, not intellectual reasoning. There is nothing vague about compulsions.jade8472 said:
Where did you get this "first try" thing? Not from me. I said "before they get to work", but as Hudson pointed out plenty of artists can and do. I'll add Kerouac, Coltrane, Picasso... And anyway your insticts are your talent. They'd better be guiding the process.
Of course, it goes without saying that you have to put some thought into your work, that's called your technique, but thinking about what you're doing isn't finding a reason WHY you're doing it. It's about HOW can you do this thing you're compelled to do. Also, I think most of us here know from experience that art requires commitment and hard work. And long long days.
I'll end with this quote:
"Academia is the death of cinema. It is the very opposite of passion." - Werner Herzog
Last edited:
rsbush, why do you assume that everything I write was in reponse to you? Many people have offered their opinions and I was simply branching off on it.
I believe that we are still not on the same page regarding reason vs. instinct, so I'll try to elaborate with an example. Let's say that you made an experimental film which includes a scene where a cat suddenly runs across a room. Watching it, I thought that there was no reason for the cat to be there. I approach you after the screening and I ask you why you thought that scene was important enough to include in your film. I certainly won't be expecting an answer that is similar to my own thoughts, but what I will be expecting is some kind of an answer. You need to be able to tell me that perhaps you think that it reinforces the isolation of the character (or some other reason). An inadequate answer would be "Oh, I just felt like putting it in."
That is what I was speaking of when I refer to "vague" instincts. If you don't know why you did it, then what value does the film offer to me or to you? You wasted your time filming that scene and I wasted my time watching it. I agree that talented individuals have a sharper artistic sense that guides them in the creative process. But they have to have some understanding of what their instinct is telling them to do and not treat it as some sort of all-powerful higher consciousness that needs no explaination.
I believe that we are still not on the same page regarding reason vs. instinct, so I'll try to elaborate with an example. Let's say that you made an experimental film which includes a scene where a cat suddenly runs across a room. Watching it, I thought that there was no reason for the cat to be there. I approach you after the screening and I ask you why you thought that scene was important enough to include in your film. I certainly won't be expecting an answer that is similar to my own thoughts, but what I will be expecting is some kind of an answer. You need to be able to tell me that perhaps you think that it reinforces the isolation of the character (or some other reason). An inadequate answer would be "Oh, I just felt like putting it in."
That is what I was speaking of when I refer to "vague" instincts. If you don't know why you did it, then what value does the film offer to me or to you? You wasted your time filming that scene and I wasted my time watching it. I agree that talented individuals have a sharper artistic sense that guides them in the creative process. But they have to have some understanding of what their instinct is telling them to do and not treat it as some sort of all-powerful higher consciousness that needs no explaination.
ydgmdlu
Veteran
You seem to have confused yourself. In my earlier post, I quoted that you had said that a director must make his vision clear to his audience and not "cloak his thoughts in abstractions," hoping that the audience will just get it. This has very little to do with your argument about how a filmmaker/artist must create with intention for a work to be called art. Reread your sentences and see for yourself. A director can cloak his thoughts in abstractions intentionally, thereby communicating his vision. David Lynch is the posterboy for that. There's an obscure experimental film that consists only of a zoom through an empty room; different things happen in the room occasionally; the film stock changes constantly; and the only thing constant besides the zoom is the sound track. This "art film" was called Wavelength. It can be read as an exploration of how sound, rather than visuals, guide the film experience. This isn't obvious, and anyone who doesn't "get it" may think that the director was just messing around with a camera and a bunch of film stock.jade8472 said:
The problem with art is the eternal question, "What is art?" Though I personally agree that "true art" is what an artist puts his/heart into making rather than "doodling" out of flights of fancy, telling the difference with only what's in front of you is a fruitless and pointless exercise. If you can read meaning into something like Wavelength, then it's art to you. Detractors of Jackson Pollock may see nothing but careless splatters of paint on a large canvas, but the passion and, yes, attention to detail with which he worked shows that he was a consummate artist. A layman may look at a Mondrian and see nothing special about a bunch of thick, black lines and colored squares. Deriders of minimalists believe that they don't put a whole lot of work into their so-called "art." And surrealism is nothing but abstraction. What is the point of all that I've written so far in this post? It all goes back to your original question of what the purpose of "art film" is. To you, "art film" is like a director's doodles, messing around with a camera and film stock and sounds and props just to see what "looks cool." That's fine. You can be like the critics of Pollock, Mondrian, surrealism, minimalism, modern and postmodern art, et. al. Art needs critics, like Oscar Wilde said. You don't have to like or accept everything presented as "art." In fact, nobody should. Just don't assume that there isn't intention behind any piece of art. For that matter, don't assume that there is any intention either, other than making a pretty picture.
Martin Scorsese has admitted to frequently breaking down on the set before shooting a scene, saying that he doesn't know how to do the scene. So are his movies just doodles, as you might claim? Obviously in his case, Scorsese may have a "vague" vision in his head, not knowing the specifics of any scene, but once he's on set, surrounded by his cast and crew, he becomes inspired, and the scene comes together before his eyes. At that point, he's not mindlessly doodling; his mind is taking that inspiration and shaping it, tweaking it with his skills and experience into something coherent and fitting with his overall vision. Clint Eastwood is famous for shooting as little as necessary and completing scenes in only a couple of takes. On the opposite end is Stanley Kubrick, who shot hundreds of times what would be left in the final cut: He said that the sole reason that he bothered with production was so that he'd have material for editting, his greatest joy in his work. For him, production was all about trying different things, not just brute-forcing his actors into saying their lines a certain way. Thus, his vision came together in postproduction. Ingmar Bergman famously advised his students to avoid making movies that didn't have a message, although he was sometimes unsure himself of what the message of one of his movies was. Bergman had intention, all right, but then would not knowing why he needed to tell a certain story be considered creating without intention? One last famous example: Ray Charles totally improvised "What'd I Say," a song widely considered one of the greatest of all time, one night in Milwaukee when he learned after his last song of the night that there were still 12 minutes left in the show. Oh yeah, and don't forget that a lot of jazz is notoriously improvisational. So, what is art, and what is just doodling?
I'd like to go back to what Oscar Wilde was saying. In the end, what does meaning matter? Either a piece of so-called art is valuable to you or it isn't. But if it is valuable, then it may be valuable in one or more of innumerable ways. You may just like it for its aesthetic qualities. Or you may read meanings into it that the artist may or may not have intended. Don't assume that just because a filmmaker included a scene because he felt like it, the scene/film has no meaning/value for him or for you. The artist doesn't need to be able to articulate why something was included; some things are simply ineffable -- and even doodling has its merits. And if you saw value/meaning in the scene before you learned that it was done without a second thought, then learning that fact shouldn't have to devalue the scene. But if it was truly a waste of your time, then that just simply means that it wasn't valuable to you in any way all along.
One more idea to consider: Some artists hold that all art is ultimately created out of instinct: We only rationalize that instinct so that our reasoning minds can let us express our ideas. Think about that the next time you make a creative choice.
ydgmdlu
Veteran
Matthew B. Moore said:
What Wilde meant was that art, in itself, is useless, as in there's no practical reason for it to exist other than to provide aesthetic enjoyment. Knives are made to cut things. Boxes are made to store things. But what are you supposed to do with art? There's nothing that you're "supposed to do." That's the point. Art is whatever you want it to be to you. However you respond to any piece of art, and what you do with it, is not due to the art itself but to your own values and sensibilities. Strip those away, and all that's left is the aesthetic qualities that define any work of art -- and art in general.CineMischief said:
That's actually the point that Wilde was making. In his mind, critics are "those who want everyone to think they live for the art," hence his reason for defining what a critic is, as opposed to a true artist. A true artist is someone just like you describe yourself to be, someone who creates art for its own sake (and for him/herself) without thinking about what others say about it. The point that I've been trying to make is that art needs no meaning or significance. If an audience wants to read meanings into a work of art, then that's their effort to do so. But the effort is not required, unlike with other forms of communication.Matthew B. Moore said:
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
Wow
Great posts ! Welcome to the board ! :beer:
Great posts ! Welcome to the board ! :beer:
This is an amazing thread. Intelligently written and well read. John sticky sticky this. This is important theory stuff for all filmmakers and artists.
I tend to enjoy films that lack a specific message or an all-consuming answer. This is part of a poetry analysis which summed it up quite nicely:
"Poetry may well be the art of the unsayable. A good poem lies somewhere beyond mere words: it is the intangible, an exultation in things vaguely apprehended, something which emerges out of its own form, and which cannot exist without that form. Poems are an act of discovery, and require immense effort — to write and to be understood." -I don't know who wrote this.
I feel the same way about film, or pieces of art with a level of abstraction. I always choose form over plot. It hits me harder in the chest and I feel it much longer.
I'm generalizing here, but here we go anyways. Commercial films are usually built completely around the structure of plot. Take a building block(or scene) away and the whole artiface will collapse on itself. They are so tightly woven that they leave little room for something unexpicable to happen, or for some deeper, complex truth to materialize. Of course there are commericial films which I enjoy, and even love...to many to mention actually. But I have to be REALLY convinced something is gonna be worth my time if I'm gonna step foot into a Blockbuster/Hollywood Video, because most of the time I just end up disappointed.
I also think that film is a tricky medium because its nature makes things so literal in every respect. Their are so many contributing functions(sound, visuals, actors, editing, etc) that it is a natural inclination to mold all of these with the same purpose in mind, which can make it easy for the viewer to to predict where it is going. For the most part, I seek out the elusive act of discovery which I usually find in films that require patience. Some recent favorites are the documentary "In the Real World with William Eggleston", "The Flowers of Shanghai", "Cache", and "How to Draw a Bunny".
Linear storytelling can be just as compelling, but non-fiction demonstrates complexity alot MUCH more readily than fiction. This American Life is my favorite show, and I always feel satisfied whenever I listen.
"Poetry may well be the art of the unsayable. A good poem lies somewhere beyond mere words: it is the intangible, an exultation in things vaguely apprehended, something which emerges out of its own form, and which cannot exist without that form. Poems are an act of discovery, and require immense effort — to write and to be understood." -I don't know who wrote this.
I feel the same way about film, or pieces of art with a level of abstraction. I always choose form over plot. It hits me harder in the chest and I feel it much longer.
I'm generalizing here, but here we go anyways. Commercial films are usually built completely around the structure of plot. Take a building block(or scene) away and the whole artiface will collapse on itself. They are so tightly woven that they leave little room for something unexpicable to happen, or for some deeper, complex truth to materialize. Of course there are commericial films which I enjoy, and even love...to many to mention actually. But I have to be REALLY convinced something is gonna be worth my time if I'm gonna step foot into a Blockbuster/Hollywood Video, because most of the time I just end up disappointed.
I also think that film is a tricky medium because its nature makes things so literal in every respect. Their are so many contributing functions(sound, visuals, actors, editing, etc) that it is a natural inclination to mold all of these with the same purpose in mind, which can make it easy for the viewer to to predict where it is going. For the most part, I seek out the elusive act of discovery which I usually find in films that require patience. Some recent favorites are the documentary "In the Real World with William Eggleston", "The Flowers of Shanghai", "Cache", and "How to Draw a Bunny".
Linear storytelling can be just as compelling, but non-fiction demonstrates complexity alot MUCH more readily than fiction. This American Life is my favorite show, and I always feel satisfied whenever I listen.
Last edited:
CineMischief
Active member
I can certainly appreciate what Wilde was getting at and while I think I understand it, I'm still not totally on board with him. I think it's a really good point and is something to consider, but...
There is a practical reason for art to exist: Because we need it to. Of course this isn't as true for every artist or piece of art created, nor does it need to be in order to be called art. But I can't agree with a blanket statement describing art as inherently useless beyond what can be sensed.
Every culture, from the earliest humans on, has created art. I'm not sure why this is other than to say we need it. Knives are created to cut, boxes hold stuff, art...does what we need it to do (as you said). What are we supposed to do with it? Whatever you want/need. It can and often does have more than one purpose, but the fact that it's "purpose" isn't universal for every person at all times doesn't mean that it lacks a purpose. Perhaps it's purpose, like a knife, is specific, but unlike a knife, infinetly broad. But maybe you're right. Maybe the enjoyment gained is what is necessary for us to exist. Makes you think about all that survival of the fittest stuff. "Me fight off T-rex, break Crocodile's face...and make stick doll for fun."
"However you respond to any piece of art, and what you do with it, is not due to the art itself but to your own values and sensibilities."
I'm not sure about that one either. Throughout history, artists have been among the first to suffer under repressive social/political/etc pressures. We are dangerous, subversive, revolutionaries, bad people. Why? Because as poor and starving as most of us have been through the ages, we are capable of being enormously powerful, swaying the masses, and toppling nations. To say that the response to a particular piece of art is not in some way influenced by the art itself strips all the power from the creation. Surely, art has the power to transform, inform, enbolden, and enlighten. Otherwise, what would be the point in jailing, banishing, and murdering artists before the general populace (i.e. Russia, China, Germany, Athens, etc)?
Of course art can be used to bring focus to already felt passions and emotions, but it also has the power to change. I'm not trying to get carried away here, and hyperbole is a fascination of mine, but I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle. I think that ydgmdlu (and others) have really kicked this up a notch. Thanks guys! I love learning stuff here. Thanks for the sticky, John.
Of course, these are just my opinions, and I love each and every one of you. And what do I know anyway? I cried during The Notebook. As has been mentioned above numerous times, this thread is amazing.
There is a practical reason for art to exist: Because we need it to. Of course this isn't as true for every artist or piece of art created, nor does it need to be in order to be called art. But I can't agree with a blanket statement describing art as inherently useless beyond what can be sensed.
Every culture, from the earliest humans on, has created art. I'm not sure why this is other than to say we need it. Knives are created to cut, boxes hold stuff, art...does what we need it to do (as you said). What are we supposed to do with it? Whatever you want/need. It can and often does have more than one purpose, but the fact that it's "purpose" isn't universal for every person at all times doesn't mean that it lacks a purpose. Perhaps it's purpose, like a knife, is specific, but unlike a knife, infinetly broad. But maybe you're right. Maybe the enjoyment gained is what is necessary for us to exist. Makes you think about all that survival of the fittest stuff. "Me fight off T-rex, break Crocodile's face...and make stick doll for fun."
"However you respond to any piece of art, and what you do with it, is not due to the art itself but to your own values and sensibilities."
I'm not sure about that one either. Throughout history, artists have been among the first to suffer under repressive social/political/etc pressures. We are dangerous, subversive, revolutionaries, bad people. Why? Because as poor and starving as most of us have been through the ages, we are capable of being enormously powerful, swaying the masses, and toppling nations. To say that the response to a particular piece of art is not in some way influenced by the art itself strips all the power from the creation. Surely, art has the power to transform, inform, enbolden, and enlighten. Otherwise, what would be the point in jailing, banishing, and murdering artists before the general populace (i.e. Russia, China, Germany, Athens, etc)?
Of course art can be used to bring focus to already felt passions and emotions, but it also has the power to change. I'm not trying to get carried away here, and hyperbole is a fascination of mine, but I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle. I think that ydgmdlu (and others) have really kicked this up a notch. Thanks guys! I love learning stuff here. Thanks for the sticky, John.
Of course, these are just my opinions, and I love each and every one of you. And what do I know anyway? I cried during The Notebook. As has been mentioned above numerous times, this thread is amazing.