Le petit bretzel

I find the high level of sexual innuendo used here in LS to be completely unseemly, if not shocking. What’s next here, scarf jokes? Really, people, we are better than this!

Akaky, what you say is undeniably true but the scene, from the distance, on the church lawn looked so idyllic and innocent that I was drawn to photograph it. It was only when I returned home and uploaded the photo to my computer that I became suspicious. Was that a fly on the right side of the little pretzel? I enlarged the section of the photo in question and was shocked, absolutely shocked, to discover the depravity of the situation: a lurking fly and ants doing who knows what with the pretzel— right there in the church garden!

!!

You guys are weird.

Barry…Did you know that the image of a fly in ancient paintings was a symbolic image of Christ. It’s a holy pretzel!

i am so glad that all is still well in the dark shadows of the ls community… jr

Holy pretzel, Sharko! I didn’t know that. I am aware of the symbolism of the rose and the Cross but not of the fly and the Christ. Is it based on the shape of the fly or is there some other reason for the symbolism? Where can I see these paintings— anything in the Metropolitan or BAM? The internet can be helpful but for paintings, as you know, you really need to see the real thing.

Yes, everything looked idyllic and innocent now, but if you keep this up LS will be swarming with Dennis Hopper wannabes taking hits off the nitrous oxide and chasing after Isabella Rosselini wannabes with a severed ear while Roy Orbison sings in the background. I hate it when that happens, but that’s what does happen when you start looking at anything too closely. And don’t say I didn’t warn you!

Is this pretzel just a mere cipher for the missing ear? Are pretzels the new conspiracy theory? Or just the new church garden adornment? So many questions…so little time…

being in lightstalkers since longtime now, i tell you that a couple of years ago i would have taken this post of yours as offensive and a clear intention to denigrate/boicot my post, titled “la petite mort” … now, since these kind of stupid and pseudo ironic games go over since longtime it just make me laugh and in a way feel sorry for your mental incapacity to shift over this stale jokes.
that’s it.
i deserve to myself the right to not respond to your anwer in case you do it.

Hey Dana. I think I know Barry and in my opinion was not intention of offense or include relationship between this post and yours. In fact, he share with me outside lightstalkers the same photo with the same title before he publish this post. I know this band of lightstalkers members have a bit of rampant humor. I saw the comments in your post and see that you can understand some out of place posts cause you are asking for critic and serious comments. But take their attitudes with a pinch of salt. They only have free time and want some diversion.

Barry/Akaky…

“You know what that sounds like to me?
No man. It sounds like irony.
Hey man, if we just found irony,
Do you know how ironic, that would be?”

Dom and Adrian…The Bondi Hipsters….

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HR4n6OVoyYQ

Barry…It was in Art History 101 a very long time ago. I was actually awake during that lecture. ;)

In LE PETIT PRINCE the Fox says to the little prince “On ne voit bien qu’avec le cœur. L’essentiel est invisible pour les yeux.” (“One sees clearly only with the heart. What is essential is invisible to the eye.”) And in BLOW-UP! we see what is normally invisible to the eye. That might explain my photo. But the reason for the post is different. It was intended, once and for all, to answer the question: “Leica M9 any good?” Unfortunately, after all this commotion, I can no longer remember if I took the photo with my M9 or with my iPhone 4.

Hey Gregory and Barry. I found this about the fly and the art:
Accord the Continuum Encyclopedia of Animal Sybolism in Art, by Hope B. Werness, in Late Medieval and Renaissance paintings (particularly in Northern Renaissance art) flies were “sometimes depicted on the edge of religious works, from the belief that their images repelled real flies (Hall, Illustrated Dictionary 25). In Christiann art, flies symbolize evil, pestilence, and sin -sometimes in conjunction with the goldfinch as a symbol of Christ as Savior (Cooper 70)”. Accord the same book, "in the far East, the fly was a symbol of the immaterial, incessantly wandering soul (Becker 117).
So, your photo, can mean some evil, pestilence of our sin but in the east your work can be understood as a reflex of your incessantly wandering soul. And this can explains some religious misunderstandings between occident and orient. Anyway, for the rest of the summer you can print the blow up of your photo to test if was real the belief that one portrait of a fly can repel other flies. Uh

More about this in the same book. Apparently flies symbolized dead and in some ancient cultures, together with butterflies, are symbols of the soul. So, what is essential is invisible to the eye but not for the M9. But what is invisible for the M9 is the several interpretations of art critics.

But is the M9 a critical success? Or can we say ‘There are no flies on the M9’?

Bring back the ‘Is the Leica M (whatever number it was when the post started…was it the M6?)’ post!

Let’s not, Lisa. That thread is like the shingles; it’s just waiting for our immune systems to crap out before exploding forth with fresh fury. Leicaphiliacs and Leicaphobes will have at it yet again, as if any of us were interested the forty-sixth times they’ve been at it before, and we will have to invest more time and brainpower than we want to thinking up new scarf jokes.

But Akaky….I have nothing to do now days as i have no gainful employment except to think up new scarf jokes…

oh oh, we’re in trouble now, boys and girls…

security!!! bug spray!!! something ?