With my Internet running at 128 kbits, and unreliably at that, it is folly to attempt a blog entry, but then that's me all over. :-) This may sound a very silly fear indeed, if not grandiloquently pompous, but I am in a state of continual concern that I confuse art with the archetypal. And yes, it is a real fear, and yes it does occupy my thoughts. Despite the philosophising, we all really know what art is: something that moves us through its beauty in a very personal communing with the work. Preconditions for this communing are an openness for new experience, unprejudiced but keen observation, and some knowledge of rules that can be made and rules that can be broken - in short the cultural context. However, once we have learned to pattern match a style (Art Deco), an artist (Van Gogh), or a painting (the Mona Lisa), do we enjoy what is quintessential or do we actually engage in sufficient observation to judge the art? The quintessential is comforting; art is discomforting. My castle is damningly quintessential, facilely archetypal, or as a child would put it, a really "castley-castle". It is a cube with turrets on the four corners. Was its purchase a quick fix, tick box in life (the quintessential) or a response to its art. There is no doubt that it was an investment in beauty and beauty alone, but was it commoditised, as with an artist with a name, or suitably and artfully reckless? I very much fear it was the former. Interestingly, a number of ruined buildings I tried to buy were by the same architect (William Burn) but I just did not know it at the time. I am certainly consistent, but this is the indistinguishable hallmark not just of good taste but of the archetypal. Castles are ripe for archetyping, and I very much enjoy this. I attach two such images from the Polanski film "The Ninth Gate." This film is severely under-rated, and somehow I felt vindicated in my admiration when he later came out with "The Pianist" which is both genius and the definitive holocaust film. This is possibly because it stays outside the concentration camp door - avoiding the emotionally undepictable rather than the technically so. Anyhow, the film features a recurring castle image throughout ( the attached photo) and mediaeval woodcuts which provide the clues for a bibliophilic puzzle: one example is the attached illustration. Did I like the film because of its art, because of its castles, because of its archetyping (I am a bit of a bibliophile) or because of its archetyped castles? :-) Oddly, in this instance I almost certainly liked the art, but then I am a cineast, but boy do I like those castles! :-) I am now looking at "classic period" light fitting designs for the castle's interior. This is fraught with danger, as the period enforces boundaries now that were not present then in the period. Should one like a light in order to go for it, or should it simply be in keeping with the period, or should it simply suit its location? I am trying to go for all three - but a little blurring in the period seems to be necessary. Victorian lighting is not hugely inspired, as the basic purpose was to make the best of low intensity light sources: oil, gas, candles. Electricity frees light fittings from this straight-jacket, and Art Deco starts to revel in colour and design - and I am a bit of a reveller. :-) So for "classic" read archetypal. Not all Victorian lighting looks Victorian, so one favours a look that is clearly Victorian, to prove to others/oneself that one has got it right. :-) Sadly, I am no further forward in my conundrum, even after its first expression in prose. Am I art or archetype? You decide!