Tag Archives: john keats

Who Would Throw Away Such An Alluring Nude Drawing?

.Anura Guruge December 2014 thumbnail
by Anura Guruge

Related posts:
++++ Search ‘nude for many other related posts >>>>


I found this very well rendered painting, of quite the alluring model, a few weekends ago, at the incredible ‘Swap Shop’ at our Alton (NH) dump.

We always check out the ‘Swap Shop’ (quite often even dropping off stuff to swap) since you never know what ‘treasures’ you may find. I have, over the years, picked up some great books at the dump.

This pictures was inside of a sparsely used, very large, artist’s drawing pad. Most of the pages were blank, but this beauty was in there, still attached to the spiral binding. I had picked up the pad because no paper goes a waste in this house — especially with Teischan around. She is a prolific user of paper for drawing and for her many other craft-related pursuits. Having this picture inside was a bonus.

Kind of feel sad and bad about it. Would love to know WHO painted it. Would love to give it back to them? Was the person forced to get rid of the image? Pity. Was that a real model or was it painted from a picture. I am curious.

IF you know who painted it or you know the subject please contact me. I will gladly relinquish the picture.

But till then ENJOY. “A thing of beauty is a joy forever”. That was the very first English that I had to memorize, as part of my elocution lessons, when I was about 7 or 8, growing up in Ceylon in the 1960s. Given how badly I speak, which such a pronounced oriental accent, would you have realized that they spent good money, for years, making me attend weekly, sometimes bi-weekly (as in twice a week) elocution lessons. The only good thing was that all my elocution teachers were fairly good looking, young, Sinhalese ladies (if not ‘girls’).

P.S., Though I was NOT taught this in Ceylon I have later found that “A thing of beauty is a joy forever” is the first line of a poem, ‘Endymion’, published by famed John Keats, in 1818. The phrase appeared without attribution as the end note of the English text book that my then elocution teacher used. I guess she must have liked it because she asked me to memorize it. I wish I could remember what she looked like. Was she a beauty that would be a joy forever. I could not, alas, tell you.

Why Oh Why Did They Make The Canon PowerShot G3X So Ugly?

.Anura Guruge December 2014 thumbnail

by Anura Guruge

Other Related posts:
Canon G3X: 80% my next camera.
** ‘Camera Labs’
review of Canon G3X.
** Sony RX10 II vs Canon PowerShot G3X.
I bought Sony stock, rather than RX10 II.
** Sony’s
2 new cameras: A7 RII & RX10 II.
** BuyDig
offering Sony RX10 II.

>> Search ‘camera’, ‘Panasonic’, ‘Canon’ & ‘Samsung’ for other related posts >>>>


That 20% uncertainty on my part as to getting a Canon G3X, that I talked about 2 days ago, is in my world a pretty BIG margin of latitude. I am still struggling mightily, within that 20% wiggle-room, as to whether I will be happy with the Canon G3X.

If nobody else will say it I will say it. I struggle with the fact that it is not an attractive camera. Actually it is a pretty ugly looking beast, made worse when you stick on the external, viewfinder. It then looks like something that was really badly cobbled together. It sure does NOT look like a $1,240 top-end camera.

Yes, I readily admit that I like attractive things — hence my Jaguars, my watches, my dogs! I don’t have to go further.

John Keats, the poet, in 1818, said in the opening line of one of his poems: “A thing of beauty is a joy forever”. Fifty years ago, as a boy growing up in Ceylon, that was one of the first English ‘sayings’ I had to learn. It resonated with me, and it often comes to mind. “A thing of beauty is a joy forever”. Well you will be hard pressed to call the Canon G3X a thing of beauty.

Don’t kid yourself. People notice the camera you use. Since I have been using the Canon T3i I can’t tell you the number of people who have asked me whether I was a photographer or commented on the camera. The G3x looks like a 1980s, $12 Kodak box camera. It sure does NOT look like a $1,240 top-end camera. Did I already say that.