Here's a link to "Death to All Humans." I am teaching myself the art of CSS and web design. The page is my first attempt at building something from scratch, and while I'm slowly grasping the assembly process of building a design, the mechanics of the process is still somewhat Greek.
Any help anyone can give me on the code would be greatly appreciated. Even more appreciated would be explanations as to why specific changes should be made... I'm the kind of person who needs to know why; what specifically is accomplished by adding or deleting a specific snippet of code...
Once you go the page you can see the code by using the shortcut CTRL+U. Everything inside the "script" tags is Blogger stuff... not mine.
Thanks, and enjoy the show.
The Issues I'm Having:
1) I can't get what's inside the "p" tags (Inside the "p" brackets in the CSS code), "...and your little dogs too!" to show up in the color white (#ffffff). Nor is the "bold" command working [at least, not in Firefox]. I can get both color and weight to work in the HTML, but not the CSS
2) The phrase "...and your little dogs too!" need to move up closer to the title
3) No matter what I've tried, I can't get the banner image to drop below the blogger bar at top. I want to see "crimson" (#CC0000) between the blogger toolbar and the image
4) As stated above, some help cleaning up the code would be appreciated
UPDATE: April 1st -- I've fixed Issue #2. Still need help on the others.
Did you get the "...dogs.." line font color white?
Guess I should'a said that in the post.
Been listening to your music by the way. LOVE Cinnamon Girl. Your music has a very Beatle-esque quality... I'm sure someone's told you that before. If I can ever get my head above this economy I'm going to buy some hard-copies.
Back to the CSS, I created a new Selector for the "...dogs..." line ( #dp ) and used both "margin" (with a negative ( -40px) value) to move the line up closer to the title, and "margin-left" (with a 250px value) to move the line away from the edge, heavily indenting it UNDER the title.
I know what you mean about retarded. I'm still there too, but it is starting to make some sense.
Cinnamon Days!
"...at the top of the stairs, screaming in the rain..."
"...as the days fly past
will we lose our grasp?
or fuse it in the sun?"
What was in that man's head? What was in his bloodstream?
Oh, and....Happy National Tartan Day!
I'm glad you're getting your HTML problems figured out. I wish I was more knowledgable in that department.
I'm very glad you like our music. Thanks for the kind words. And yes, the Beatle-esque reference is something we often hear, but we've always taken it as a compliment. People usually claim to mean they find our sound evocative, rather than derivative, of the Beatles. We certainly have never tried to hide our love of their music, but we've never tried to copy them either (although we have, at times, made a conscious effort at a stylistic tip of the hat, e.g., "Mrs. Pinkerton" -- in the same way that "Listen" has an intentional Pink Floyd vibe in tribute to a friend of Robby's who had died unexpectedly and was a huge PF fan).
We love melody and harmonies -- and diverse instrumentation -- and I don't know anybody who did it better than the Beatles. We also love the idea of there not being any limits on how a song has to sound. There's not much the Beatles didn't do creatively, so it's hard to ever completely escape their shadow if one is going to make pop/rock music.
We used to frustrate some band members when we'd encourage them to "think like the Beatles." They thought we meant try to sound like them -- but we kept having to expain that we meant, rather, to try to think outside the box; be as creative as they dared; nothing is too out there or ridiculous to try.
Robby and I always thought the songs were the most important aspect of Van Gogh, and that whatever made a song as good as it could possibly be was what we wanted. But it's amazing how hard it can be to get people to color outside the lines (luckily, Robby usually had the music already close to fully arranged in his head).
Also, if we found out a member played any other instruments, we immediately wanted to start incorporating that into any new songs. That's why there's mandoline, banjo, and flanjo (a banjo played through a flanger) on some albums -- and there's fute and sitar on others. Our desire was to utilize everyone's talent to it's fullest, and to stretch our creativity as far as it would go.
That's one of the song's I wrote for Patty. It's funny how many of the songs I write for her are also about God. Christ's love is reflected so vividly in her love for me that I am constantly amazed and humbled by both. The song "Love Like This" is another one. Paul's (the Apostle, not the Beatle;-) sentiment, in Ephesians 5, on the mystery of how marital love should be a model of Christ's love for the Church is something that always seems to find its way into the songs.
Since I write 99% of the lyrics, my faith finds its way into quite a few of our songs. I don't put any pressure on myself to do it, but neither have I ever been discouraged by Robby from doing it.
The line, "I was almost there at the top of the stairs / With her screamin' in the rain", brings two images to my mind simutaneously. One is of Neil standing at the top of a staircase , half-awake, watching the girl at the front door talking (or arguing) with her mother, who is outside in the rain. The other image is of Neil outside in the rain, trying to calm the girl's mother, who is apparently a bit unstable and standing outside the girl's apartment door. (On the other hand, it could all be symbolic -- what do I know?)
The lines, "As the days fly past will we lose our grasp / Or fuse it in the sun?", almost gives the impression that the rain mentioned earlier was metaphorical -- or perhaps it is only so in this verse. Will the relentless rain beat them down, like a damaged crop, or will the sun come out in time for them to grow up healthy and intertwined/stronger (i.e., will their relationship die or thrive)? Or is it just the attempted poetry of someone who took way too many drugs??? (Your "what was in his bloodstream" question brought to mind a reference to Keith Richards' drug use that said, "Keith Richards has ingested so many chemicals that he can pee new kinds of plastic.")
I'm usually hesitant to make a drug connection when discussing someone's creative output, since I know how much I hate it when people ask me what I was smoking or taking when I wrote some of my lyrics (I've never taken drugs). But Neil's drug use seems to be a pretty well established fact, so I don't feel as reticent about seeing that as being a possibility:-)
Do you tend to be a more visually oriented person? And, if yes, have you always been so?
I read this comment early this morning and thought long and hard on it. I have written on this subject before-- tangentially--but today I have to respond as Bill Clinton would... "it depends on what the meaning of 'IS' is..." or rather, what does "visually" mean?
In Opposition V, at my most obscure, and rarely entried blog, Book of Oppositions, I spell out, for myself, the differences between darkness and light in terms of physical, positional, and spiritual. The reason I did this is the argument I invariably encounter with other artists about the nature of Black and White, in terms of "color". Almost to the man I am told that Black is the presence of all colors at the same time, but this is false. These same people will then say that White is the absence of color, but again, this is ridiculous. Black is the absence of light, wherein color is perceived. You can have a rich colorful expressive painting but turn out the light and everything that made it rich, colorful, and expressive is lost in darkness.
So, again, it depends on what you mean by "visually". If we're talking strictly of color, then I'd say no, I do not tend to be a more visually oriented. There is, to my mind at least, much more to being a visually oriented person. As "In Opposition V" states....
Of Darkness/Physical:
"The realm of the unsighted, and the remaining senses the vehicles to unsighted perception; the apparatuses by which the physical world is perceived."
If to be visual is to be "sighted" then the answer is yes, but if visual is to be "perceptive" then no.
The long and short of it is I believe light allows visual perception, but hands that read braille experience expression as well. So to do ears when they intently study Mozart's Requiem Mass, the Complexity of Tears for Fears "Woman in Chains" or the aural pleasantries of "Cinnamon Days".
I've said all this to say that I find it terribly limiting to call myself a visually oriented person if all that is construed from such a statement is I rely more on my eyes than I do my ears, hands... or my heart, which is the chief mechanism by which we observe beauty. And beauty come in far more forms than mere eyes can perceive....
Like this, written by me:
Resurrection
I draw the muslin over my head
Feel my breath mist beneath its weight
Trapped and drawn again inward
Last moments breath
Called upon once more
Weaker now, but alive still
My brother lies near
No mist beneath the muslin
No breath revisited
No life ~ weak or otherwise
Only the sure knowledge that moments are fleeting
I pull the muslin down and away
I breathe in the cold chill of night
Fresh and unsullied air…
Open my eyes and see the heavens turn
Each breath new
Filled with life ~ strength
My sister lies near
Unmoving ‘neath the muslin opaque
Oblivious of the passing of moments
Oblivious to the sound of my hearts beating
And the sure knowledge of the song it sings
Sing Brother!
Sing Sister!
Draw the curtain from your eyes
And let life ~ Fresh and unsullied
Beneath equally pristine skies
Fill your bodies once more
With hope and new breath
Let your wounds draw closed
Your limbs bind with sinew and bone unshattered
And lets walk once more ‘neath the stars of heaven
In the sure knowledge of life everlasting
Or a question I once asked:
"To Reflect or Capture?
"What constitutes an 'Artist' or 'Artisan'? Is a man or woman an artist if they perform music, or perhaps paint? Are they Artisans simply because they craft the artistic? What if all the 'Artist' can do is perform on stage, or paint variations of the same theme/landscape? What do you call someone who is good at many things? Is the single-facet artist on equal par with the multi-faceted artist? Is a one-dimensional diamond as beautiful as a 3 dimensional diamond. The former is nothing more than a mirror to reflect light, while the latter captures light, and creates something infinitely more beautiful.
"Do I, as an artist, wish to merely reflect, or do I want to capture and create beauty?"
So yes, I am very visually oriented, but only if you mean I allow all my senses to experience those visions to which they are attuned, as well as the freedom to express themselves in like manner.
You know... PERSONALLY... know that music evokes visions far more those that are 'sighted'; the crafting of music requires vision.
LOL! Got carried away there, sorry to bore you!
But yes, I am drawn to the visual, but I would not be bereft of sight were I lose my eyes. But then what do I know? I've contradicted myself more than once since I began this.
I won my first art contest in second grade. Won another in tenth. I'm building graphics for a website now..... BUT.....
I have have five paintings languishing unfinished at home.... my vision lost.
But to answer your question... yes, I've always been this way. But I was much more succinct and terse in my younger years.
A thousand apologies for a tardy response. A hectic weekend, followed by two days without electricity (thanks to a storm snapping off the tops of 9 telephone poles on our street), and it seems like it's taking me forever to get caught up on things. (Short comments are easy. Longer attempts take a few days -- especially if I'm shooting for anything remotely coherent;-)
I'm sorry my question was so vague (that's what I get for trying to hurry). Your response was far more articulate and thoughtful than the question deserved.
The reason I asked is that I've noticed, over the years, that most people who are good at working in a visual medium (be it advertising, grahic design, painting, stage design, sculpting, etc.) have been visually oriented most or all of their lives. (Even if they can't remember having always been so, their parents or siblings usually can.)
I've also noticed a number of times where you've shared something you are currently working on, or did in the past -- such as advertisements, old sketches, or even something as playful as the Picasso head -- and I wondered if you had been visually creative all your life? (I had known you were musically talented, but didn't know, until visiting your blogs, about your other talents, such as poetry and painting.)
Robby is one of those people who tends to be good at whatever he tries his hand at. And the talents that he employs are qualities that he has exhibited all his life. It doesn't mean he hasn't worked very hard to develope those talents, only that the raw talents themselves were something he was born with.
Supposedly, I could talk and read at a very early age -- so, apparently, a love of words is something I exhibited early on. On the other hand, I have very little (if any) talent for the visual arts. (Seriously, I could screw up a surrender flag!) I use to draw fairly well when I was younger, but that seemed to decrease as my lyric writing emerged. Go figure. But, lucky for me, writing lyrics is one of the few things Robby doesn't excel at (hence, our songwriting partnership).
In other words, I'm one of the single facet diamonds you refered to (I'm really more cubic zirconia) -- whereas, you and Robby are examples of multi-faceted diamonds.
I actually believe that everyone is born with some talent or talents. But most people don't tend to think so, because most talents are not of the artistic variety. I think it takes talent to do anything really well. Unfortunately, in our fallen world (and corrupted culture), people too often miss, ignore, or neglect their talent, because it may not be the kind that draws a crowd or wins awards. But they do so, I think, to the detriment of their souls. Our talents are a big part of who we are, and we'll always be less than what God intends us to be if we don't realize the blessing of those talents, and try to enjoy them as we utilize them for His glory and the edification of others (but that doesn't mean the expression of one's talent will necessarily be overtly "religious"). And I don't believe how much talent one has is anywhere near as important as how much of it one uses.
I also don't think our talents (especially those of an artistic nature) are necessarily as constant as we'd sometimes like. As you're experiencing with your unfinished paintings, the well seems to go dry from time to time (sometimes for extended periods). Perhaps those are the times God is trying to teach us something; the times we must learn, as Milton did, that "They also serve who only stand and wait." I know the frustration of losing the ability to do one of the only things I ever knew with certainty I was born to do (play music). But I also know the JOY of writing songs, and of those songs having impacted peoples' lives in a powerful way. So in spite of all my frustration, there is also a humble and profound sense of wonder and gratefulness that I've even been allowed to play with such a wonderful gift.
I've actually written a few songs that started out being about the writers-block I was going through at the time, but ended up being about something completely different (e.g., "Light By Braille" ended up being about redemption).
I've always tried to get people to see that their seemingly mundane talents are no less amazing than those of people they admire. I think too many people are distracted by what others have, when they should be enamored with the gifts they themselves have been given. Unfortunately, it's sometimes too easy to forget that what truly makes a gift precious is the giver. Too often, it seems we'd rather focus on the accolades being heaped upon the celebrity du jour -- even if those accolades are completely unwarranted -- than to realize, celebrate, and enjoy what we've been given.
So that's all a very long-winded way of saying that I asked the question as a way of testing my hypothesis that people's talents have been with them (though often unrealized or unappreciated) for most or all of their lives. And, so far, I've yet to encounter anyone whose talent couldn't be traced back to their early years.
I should have also asked if you find that you are more talented in another area(s). Perhaps you're more creative in another medium (I think I just tend to notice and ask about the more visually oriented talents because those are so foreign to me).
And, just for the record, I did NOT find your elaboration on art, creativity, and perception to be boring. I thought it interesting and thought-provoking. Creativity is something that fascinates me (though I do worry that attempting to completely understand it is likely to kill it -- much in the same way that attempting to completely understand how a dragonfly works inevitably ends up killing the dragonfly). I think there is a mystical component to human creativity that will forever be a mystery (a bit of the Imago Dei that God graciously allowed fragments of to survive the Fall). In her book The Mind of the Maker Dorothy Sayers speculated that human creativity is a reflection of the Trinity.
Thanks for taking the time to give such a thoughtful answer.
------------
P.S. I suspect the confusion you've encountered -- where people think black is the presence of all colors, and white the absence -- is probably the result of memories of things like childhood finger-painting (where mixing all the colors together produced a grey/black mess), combined with a failure to distinguish between black & white as colors (or neutrals), and darkness & light as the absence or presence of a physical phenomenon. And since truth is no longer a fashionable concept, most people aren't going to care whether or not what they think is correct, so it's usually futile to try to disuss the issue (kind of like the guy trying to explain that there is a difference between $.002 and .002¢, only to have the customer service rep say that was a matter of opinion).