Addendum

A couple of recent posts have resulted in a lot of personal comments to me both in person and in places where I post links to the blog such as Facebook and others. I thought it best to make just a couple of notes here in regards to those comments.

First in regards to the Morning Caress post, I am humbled by the sheer number of people who pointed out to me blues and greens are not warm colors. In fact, as I now understand it fully blues and greens are indeed considered by artists as cool colors. I am sure somewhere back in the very short art class I had in junior high or high school, I learned that fact. Further, I should point out that my art teacher had a rough furrow to plow with me. It was worth noting her husband was the computer science & physics teacher and always up to a good scientific, computer, mathematical, or just logical discussion most any day. And in fact, despite having no children I think to this day I am still considered son number three or four (I moved up in the ranking when I had long hair and a full beard, or so I was told).

I am obviously sidetracked. I am not sure if I can explain this or not, but I was thinking more of a something like a bolder blue, I guess as compared to like a very soft baby or pastel blue. And see, even as I try to describe I get lost. But the whole of it comes from something I used to do as a kid, with the sun shining on my face, closing my eyes. You could feel the sun when you looked right it and that was hot, RED-hot as a matter of fact. Next to that, when still almost what would have been direction of the sun was the oranges and maybe yellows. And next, when you were only catching the sun the peripheral area if one had their eyes open, were the bolder, manly blues and purples. And then right before the dark of the shade, the black of cool was the bolder greens.

A second post which has generated a lot of comments on Facebook was the Save Historic Perryville post of I believe possibly yesterday. First, let me say that some of the comments have been really good and I really wish they had clicked on through to the blog to post them. I do think a couple of the comments were made by folks who only read the teaser paragraph without clicking through. Regardless, I think the discussion of such a weighty matter is a good thing. I also think that my personal deeper understanding that has come from that is a good thing too.

I think that perhaps I was a little less than clear on the issue though and offer this up for clarification. I am in support of such things as historical preservation efforts. As a matter of fact, given my huge amateur interest in history of so many varied times and locations, probably much more so then the average person. Add to that the number of friends I have who are themselves in some way or another involved in the historical preservation field and conversations that ensue, I really get the importance of the matter.

I was just debating the in my head how I would feel as a land owner. Specifically the landowner who bought the land prior to any restrictions and then all the sudden is told by a board or other body, no, you may not construct a fence on your property, paint your house purple, or cover it with vinyl siding. Do not get me wrong, I am very torn on this. And I do feel strongly if the preservation status is in effect prior to my purchasing then that is a restriction I knew full well of and that sacrificed right (or additional gain in my own personal opinion) was included in the purchase price.

Maybe the solution I would like to see would be if some entity wanted to build a road through property I own, I should be fairly compensated at the very least. Of course that gets into a whole other can of worms of what is fair and what if as an owner I just do not want the road or historic preservation – if I own it should be my right to say no. Hence the nature of why I am so torn on the issue.

Two posts with in a couple of hours? I must be bored or otherwise just a loser with no life? Worse, I am thinking of a hat-trick.