amis particuliers
The spotter is as carefully selected as one's tailor, as trusted as one's barber, more frequently visited than one's confessor, yet often as anonymous as one's tax collector. The relationship may or may not be reciprocal, but it is categorically not intimate, as if he were a personal trainer. In common with one's tennis coach or golf pro, he has a keen eye for what's off in one's form, but as a connoisseur of that standard, not of ourself. An architect, our house is not for him, and it is of indifference to him how we furnish it or how we use it.
His purview is the gym, his expertise is in what are called, free weights - plates of iron attached to bars for repeated movement through space under one's power. Bright machines were thought to make him obsolete; they are only averagers of elevations. He studies the arc of this transport for unwise deflection, for impetuous pace, for imbalance in parameters; and for completion. This is no rôle for a chum.
Yet, although a critic, he is also a giver of encouragement. This comes as much from his character as an enthusiast as from his own accomplishments. He will monitor whether we meet certain goals, set unilaterally by ourself, and will stand by to deliver us from miscalculation if necessary. Assuming a well-ordered self-awareness and self-discipline, his ultimate relationship with us, then, can be defined and appreciated instantly by anyone who blogs: he is our witness. He watches. This blog has a reader or two like him. I know it.
i, Mathias Lauridsen
Laurent, I confess, I am one! I am an appreciative redear of how you turn the everyday into the Exquisite, so am now becoming more vocal.
ReplyDeleteDavid, that's extremely kind; of your spotting I've been apprised since Thanksgiving at the latest, where I very much appreciated your contribution and engagement. But these remarks are very kindly, and that's different from kind. That's of the speaker's nature, and I'm very touched to have your readership.
ReplyDeleteI am not the second one... but I reserve the right to be critical on an unnecessary self-discipline applied with the form of censorship on frontal nudity in a work of art!
ReplyDeleteI have two bowdlerised images here. From the final portrait (which I was loathe to relinquish from 'the aviator series' but felt to be well cast for this rôle), I deleted a bright red stripe by simply chopping the image in two. In the middle portrait, this expedient was not available to me without inflicting serious incoherency. One's presentations suffer this malaise often enough, to do nothing conscious to inflate the symptom. Which half would you like, as Solomon might say?
ReplyDeleteYour criticism is not only welcome, it proves my point. (This discussion appeared at some length, in a posting of September 1st, stating a very strong tribute to your own blog. But you were out, and I suppose you missed it).
Not to burden you with that research now, I made pretty clear my sense of the flat ridiculousness of house rules which require one to occupy your sector of the blogger manse, or this one. Under no circumstances am I willing to pay the higher price for censorship that you pay, by casting your blog in the tenancy reserved for the illusion of liberty. I emphatically believe it does more to corrode by mockery than it does to migrate to a ghetto. But history has contradicted that belief more than once; and I also respect what I take to be your point, which is that censorship, like any other abuse, ought not to be indulged merely to exhibit how bad it is.
In the end, neither "cut" diminishes the appositeness of the 2nd portrait or the 3rd, for the rhetorical burden I impose on them; and with this act of censorship I exhibit its stupidity, where I would have been unable to do so, where you blog. The 2nd portrait is so natural, such a phenomenally "everyday" (in David Toms' precise characterisation) occurrence to the eye in the company of athletes.
I could not say, how much I value your opinions on such things; and if you do not feel you are wasting your time, please do not hesitate to amplify them here, now or later.
by the way, I am glad you did not practice your censorship for the eye shields brand on the aviator's portrait... we had to be reminded, once again, that the devil wears PRADA!
ReplyDelete;)
Found just the thing to confront the devil - neoclassical aviators without lenses, for today's posting. I don't rule out, however, that Prada may have designed them....
ReplyDelete