Tuesday, February 19, 2008

Thank you, James Schuyler.

That a rose can be made of a real rose.

The question of originality. Can anything be original.

Can anything we make not be artificial even if made from non-artificial (organic, authentic, actually real) parts.

Somehow, combinations have become artificial, unoriginal. (But combos cost more at Wendy's -- sometimes as much as $1.29 more.)

A carefully constructed rose made from real roses. No longer a real rose? One petal/piece from several roses? A reconstructed rose, all of a single rose?

A man-made lake, the process of which: forcing hydrogen atoms and half as many oxygen atoms together in a pit blown out from the earth with dynamite? Is the water original? Unique? Different from our rose -- the rose of one other real rose -- the one from many any roses?

We do not think of a rose as the child of two other roses, or as siblings of other roses.

Perhaps metaphorical siblings, or siblings by association/stem. Not siblings of anthers, stamen, stigma, pistil, pollen, and bee-storks. Not that way.

Real roses, these. Not those of Schuyler.

Would our Schuyler roses need a lightning bug to pollinate them? Would they work?

1 comment:

Weevil said...

I had a dream about you the other night in which the word "Reconstruction" was painted on a giant office building. I think reconstruction is a lovely word.