ARTBASE (1)
PORTFOLIO (1)
BIO
The McElroys are a husband and wife collaborative artist, technology, and business team who bring significant artistic, technology and community development skills to Corporate Performance Artists. Joseph, is a graduate of Computer Science from Duke University and a former team leader at IBM. He has been a CEO of several companies, and has been responsible for raising $2 million to fund a startup company called EveryDayPrint.com, which while part of the dot-com boom and bust, he managed to bring to profitability and which still survives to this day.
Donna was an operations manager and PR specialist in the firms they have started together. She has recently been credited by several business leaders in the Bronx as being "top spokesperson for the Bronx." She is active in many community development projects, such as participating on the Board of the Bruckner Arts and Antique District, and working to promote many Bronx activities through an online newsletter called Cupcake Kaleidoscope.
Joseph was the leader of the Open Source Sig for the New York Software Industry Association. And was track co-chair for Open Source at the 2001 New York Software Industry Summit. He was on the advisory board for PostgreSql, Inc - the leading Open Source Database and has had articles published by Lutris Technologies and Open Magazine on Open Source business models and technology solutions. He is a database expert with extensive Fortune 500 experience. Among other awards, he won an IBM Division Award for Technical Excellence.
From magazine "Open" issue September 2001 - "The McElroys kick open the doors of old business models and capitalize on what they believe." The McElroys have achieved re-known as Open Source visionaries with interviews by Interactive Week, Infoworld, Fortune Technology, Open magazine, and others. Joseph and Donna make no claims of divine insight, but in review by Lewis Lacock, it is said, "that this dynamic duo of art are the closest things we have to true shamans today". They are doing their best to pursue the knowledge to support such claims someday.
HIGHLIGHTS
* Achieved reputation as Open Source visionarys with interviews by Interactive Week, Infoworld, Fortune Technology, Open magazine among others.
* National Columnist on Money Matters for Gather.com.
* Judge for the Advanced Technical Categories of the Emmys.
* Successfully raised $2 million funding for startup.
* Successfully built and sold two technology businesses.
* First Entry into the Multimedia wing of the Museum of Computer Art.
* Artwork collected by the Library at Cornell University.
* Artwork in the collection of Rhizome.org.
* Developed first ever Exhibition Catalog completely on CD Rom. Done for Alternative Museum. Reviewed by New York Times.
* Selected to attend first ever Summer Institute for Performance Art at The Kitchen in NYC.
* IBM Division Award for Technical Excellence.
* Various academic, mathematic and scholarship awards. Attended Duke University on a full scholarship in mathematics.
* Poetry published in various journals. Art exhibited in museum shows.
* Certificate of Artistic Excellence from Congressman Jose Serrano.
* Recognized by Bronx Borough President Aldofo Carrion for contributions to the community.
Donna was an operations manager and PR specialist in the firms they have started together. She has recently been credited by several business leaders in the Bronx as being "top spokesperson for the Bronx." She is active in many community development projects, such as participating on the Board of the Bruckner Arts and Antique District, and working to promote many Bronx activities through an online newsletter called Cupcake Kaleidoscope.
Joseph was the leader of the Open Source Sig for the New York Software Industry Association. And was track co-chair for Open Source at the 2001 New York Software Industry Summit. He was on the advisory board for PostgreSql, Inc - the leading Open Source Database and has had articles published by Lutris Technologies and Open Magazine on Open Source business models and technology solutions. He is a database expert with extensive Fortune 500 experience. Among other awards, he won an IBM Division Award for Technical Excellence.
From magazine "Open" issue September 2001 - "The McElroys kick open the doors of old business models and capitalize on what they believe." The McElroys have achieved re-known as Open Source visionaries with interviews by Interactive Week, Infoworld, Fortune Technology, Open magazine, and others. Joseph and Donna make no claims of divine insight, but in review by Lewis Lacock, it is said, "that this dynamic duo of art are the closest things we have to true shamans today". They are doing their best to pursue the knowledge to support such claims someday.
HIGHLIGHTS
* Achieved reputation as Open Source visionarys with interviews by Interactive Week, Infoworld, Fortune Technology, Open magazine among others.
* National Columnist on Money Matters for Gather.com.
* Judge for the Advanced Technical Categories of the Emmys.
* Successfully raised $2 million funding for startup.
* Successfully built and sold two technology businesses.
* First Entry into the Multimedia wing of the Museum of Computer Art.
* Artwork collected by the Library at Cornell University.
* Artwork in the collection of Rhizome.org.
* Developed first ever Exhibition Catalog completely on CD Rom. Done for Alternative Museum. Reviewed by New York Times.
* Selected to attend first ever Summer Institute for Performance Art at The Kitchen in NYC.
* IBM Division Award for Technical Excellence.
* Various academic, mathematic and scholarship awards. Attended Duke University on a full scholarship in mathematics.
* Poetry published in various journals. Art exhibited in museum shows.
* Certificate of Artistic Excellence from Congressman Jose Serrano.
* Recognized by Bronx Borough President Aldofo Carrion for contributions to the community.
Re: Re: Re: Fwd: FW: Digital Artists: Call for Entries
marc garrett wrote:
> not his buzz - not like some of the other rhizome dead-heads who used
> the
> identity of 'Karei' to personally attack users on the list as an
> in-house
> joke on the list users - kool eh!
>
Karei is now on other lists - he seems to have done the cover art for a Halfler Trio CD.
joseph
> not his buzz - not like some of the other rhizome dead-heads who used
> the
> identity of 'Karei' to personally attack users on the list as an
> in-house
> joke on the list users - kool eh!
>
Karei is now on other lists - he seems to have done the cover art for a Halfler Trio CD.
joseph
Re: Re: Re: Fwd: FW: Digital Artists: Call for Entries
I'd rather someone call me stupid when they are calling me stupid.
joseph
Michael Szpakowski wrote:
> Hi
> I just wanted to add my threepennyworth.
> I often disagree with T Whid but I always read his
> posts. They're informed, intelligent and often funny.
> I was *deeply* unhappy with the tone of his recent
> post and I said so.
> He replied in some detail and as far as I'm concerned
> we've said our pieces on this matter & we simply
> disagree. I've no wish to pursue endless pesonalised
> wrangling - my preference as always is for fierce but
> courteous debate on the issues.
> best
> michael
>
> --- furtherfield <info@furtherfield.org> wrote:
> > Hi Joseph,
> >
> > I kind of feel that T.Whid has always been one of
> > the more polite dudes on
> > rhizome, not actively attacking someone to make
> > himself feel better. That's
> > not his buzz - not like some of the other rhizome
> > dead-heads who used the
> > identity of 'Karei' to personally attack users on
> > the list as an in-house
> > joke on the list users - kool eh!
> >
> > That's why I was surprised...but I am beginning to
> > get the gist that it was
> > not personal - I hope.
> >
> > Also, when we visited New York recently, T.Whid was
> > one of the least snotty
> > and more openly friendly out of most of the rhizome
> > list users that we met
> > (other than you good self of course).
> >
> > marc
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > May I point out to one and all that the extent of
> > a certain t.whid's
> > brilliant critique of our own work consisted almost
> > entirely of the words
> > >
> > > "crappy work"
> > >
> > > <applause><applause>
> > >
> > > Q: What do you get when you cross a hippopotamus
> > and a black hawk?
> > > A: A Hippocritic dressed in black.
> > >
> > > <applause><applause>
> > >
> > > joseph
> > >
> > >
> > > t.whid wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ---- Michael Szpakowski <szpako@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > > See, T. - I think you're being just a bit
> > disingenuous
> > > > > here.
> > > >
> > > > how? I've been honest the entire time.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > All of the people involved in praising Jess's
> > work
> > > > > yesterday have posted rigorous, critical and
> > closely
> > > > > argued stuff over the last few months.
> > > >
> > > > no argument, i was responding specifically to
> > the posts i quoted in
> > > > my
> > > > original post.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Could it be that your reaction to the posts
> > has more
> > > > > to do with the fact that many of those posting
> > have
> > > > > either explicitly or implicitly adopted
> > positions on
> > > > > this list that are opposed to your idea of
> > what
> > > > > constitutes good or serious art.
> > > >
> > > > no, that could not be.
> > > >
> > > > > In an offlist mail to me you denied that you
> > had
> > > > > accused us of insincerity and yet the only
> > other
> > > > > possible reading of your post is that you
> > believe that
> > > > > you have some sort of privileged access as to
> > what
> > > > > constitutes the worthwhile.
> > > >
> > > > who's being disingenuous? I only posted that the
> > specific remarks
> > > > quoted in the post where not serious art
> > discussion but rather mere
> > > > back-slapping. I have no privilege other than
> > being able to read the
> > > > english language. I had no doubt that the
> > back-slapping was genuine,
> > > > my
> > > > critique was with the depth of the praise, not
> > that it wasn't genuine
> > > > or deserved.
> > > >
> > > > > Tell us please, just who *are* the Sunday
> > painters,
> > > > > the dilettantes of your post?
> > > >
> > > > people who aren't on this list. most on this
> > list don't fit into this
> > > > category. that was my critique, we are
> > collectively better than
> > > > that and i was hoping to raise the level of
> > discussion.
> > > >
> > > > > If you didn't think Jess's piece was any good
> > then why
> > > > > not address *that* rather than impugning the
> > motives
> > > > > of those who did?
> > > >
> > > > this is ridiculous. my opinions regarding Jess'
> > piece have nothing to
> > > > do with my post. i didn't want to mix up
> > whatever my reaction to the
> > > > piece might be and my criticism of the remarks
> > surrounding it.
> > > >
> > > > > I'd be more than happy to take part in an
> > extended
> > > > > and detailed discussion about the actual
> > artistic
> > > > > issues involved.
> > > >
> > > > that's all fine and good, but my point was to
> > address the level of
> > > > critical discussion and i think i'm through with
> > it.
> > > >
> > > > take care,
> > > > <twhid>
> > > > http://www.mteww.com
> > > > </twhid>
> > > + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> > > -> post: list@rhizome.org
> > > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> > > -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
> > http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> > > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> > > +
> > > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms
> > set out in the
> > > Membership Agreement available online at
> > http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> > -> post: list@rhizome.org
> > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> > -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
> > http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> > +
> > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set
> > out in the
> > Membership Agreement available online at
> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
>
> =====
> *DISCLAIMER:This email any advice it contains is for the use is that
> of the sender and does not bind the precautions to minimise authority
> in any way. If you copy or distribute this by software viruses email.
> We have taken the risk of transmitting software viruses, but we advise
> that you carry out your own virus attachment to this message. Internet
> email that you observe this lack is not a secure communication
> medium, and we advise of security when emailing us. District
> Postmaster. http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/ *
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
> http://calendar.yahoo.com
joseph
Michael Szpakowski wrote:
> Hi
> I just wanted to add my threepennyworth.
> I often disagree with T Whid but I always read his
> posts. They're informed, intelligent and often funny.
> I was *deeply* unhappy with the tone of his recent
> post and I said so.
> He replied in some detail and as far as I'm concerned
> we've said our pieces on this matter & we simply
> disagree. I've no wish to pursue endless pesonalised
> wrangling - my preference as always is for fierce but
> courteous debate on the issues.
> best
> michael
>
> --- furtherfield <info@furtherfield.org> wrote:
> > Hi Joseph,
> >
> > I kind of feel that T.Whid has always been one of
> > the more polite dudes on
> > rhizome, not actively attacking someone to make
> > himself feel better. That's
> > not his buzz - not like some of the other rhizome
> > dead-heads who used the
> > identity of 'Karei' to personally attack users on
> > the list as an in-house
> > joke on the list users - kool eh!
> >
> > That's why I was surprised...but I am beginning to
> > get the gist that it was
> > not personal - I hope.
> >
> > Also, when we visited New York recently, T.Whid was
> > one of the least snotty
> > and more openly friendly out of most of the rhizome
> > list users that we met
> > (other than you good self of course).
> >
> > marc
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > May I point out to one and all that the extent of
> > a certain t.whid's
> > brilliant critique of our own work consisted almost
> > entirely of the words
> > >
> > > "crappy work"
> > >
> > > <applause><applause>
> > >
> > > Q: What do you get when you cross a hippopotamus
> > and a black hawk?
> > > A: A Hippocritic dressed in black.
> > >
> > > <applause><applause>
> > >
> > > joseph
> > >
> > >
> > > t.whid wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ---- Michael Szpakowski <szpako@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > > See, T. - I think you're being just a bit
> > disingenuous
> > > > > here.
> > > >
> > > > how? I've been honest the entire time.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > All of the people involved in praising Jess's
> > work
> > > > > yesterday have posted rigorous, critical and
> > closely
> > > > > argued stuff over the last few months.
> > > >
> > > > no argument, i was responding specifically to
> > the posts i quoted in
> > > > my
> > > > original post.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Could it be that your reaction to the posts
> > has more
> > > > > to do with the fact that many of those posting
> > have
> > > > > either explicitly or implicitly adopted
> > positions on
> > > > > this list that are opposed to your idea of
> > what
> > > > > constitutes good or serious art.
> > > >
> > > > no, that could not be.
> > > >
> > > > > In an offlist mail to me you denied that you
> > had
> > > > > accused us of insincerity and yet the only
> > other
> > > > > possible reading of your post is that you
> > believe that
> > > > > you have some sort of privileged access as to
> > what
> > > > > constitutes the worthwhile.
> > > >
> > > > who's being disingenuous? I only posted that the
> > specific remarks
> > > > quoted in the post where not serious art
> > discussion but rather mere
> > > > back-slapping. I have no privilege other than
> > being able to read the
> > > > english language. I had no doubt that the
> > back-slapping was genuine,
> > > > my
> > > > critique was with the depth of the praise, not
> > that it wasn't genuine
> > > > or deserved.
> > > >
> > > > > Tell us please, just who *are* the Sunday
> > painters,
> > > > > the dilettantes of your post?
> > > >
> > > > people who aren't on this list. most on this
> > list don't fit into this
> > > > category. that was my critique, we are
> > collectively better than
> > > > that and i was hoping to raise the level of
> > discussion.
> > > >
> > > > > If you didn't think Jess's piece was any good
> > then why
> > > > > not address *that* rather than impugning the
> > motives
> > > > > of those who did?
> > > >
> > > > this is ridiculous. my opinions regarding Jess'
> > piece have nothing to
> > > > do with my post. i didn't want to mix up
> > whatever my reaction to the
> > > > piece might be and my criticism of the remarks
> > surrounding it.
> > > >
> > > > > I'd be more than happy to take part in an
> > extended
> > > > > and detailed discussion about the actual
> > artistic
> > > > > issues involved.
> > > >
> > > > that's all fine and good, but my point was to
> > address the level of
> > > > critical discussion and i think i'm through with
> > it.
> > > >
> > > > take care,
> > > > <twhid>
> > > > http://www.mteww.com
> > > > </twhid>
> > > + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> > > -> post: list@rhizome.org
> > > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> > > -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
> > http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> > > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> > > +
> > > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms
> > set out in the
> > > Membership Agreement available online at
> > http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> > -> post: list@rhizome.org
> > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> > -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
> > http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> > +
> > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set
> > out in the
> > Membership Agreement available online at
> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
>
> =====
> *DISCLAIMER:This email any advice it contains is for the use is that
> of the sender and does not bind the precautions to minimise authority
> in any way. If you copy or distribute this by software viruses email.
> We have taken the risk of transmitting software viruses, but we advise
> that you carry out your own virus attachment to this message. Internet
> email that you observe this lack is not a secure communication
> medium, and we advise of security when emailing us. District
> Postmaster. http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/ *
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
> http://calendar.yahoo.com
Re: Re: Re: Fwd: FW: Digital Artists: Call for Entries
marc garrett wrote:
> Hi Joseph,
>
> I kind of feel that T.Whid has always been one of the more polite
> dudes on rhizome, not actively attacking someone to make himself feel better.
To quote t.whid from 4/30/2002 post addressed to me
"you're tactics are tired and the little work i've seen from you is
sub-amateur. you're simply a loudmouth with nothing better to do then
get your panties in a ruffle by a little piece of art my collaborator
and i made long ago."
This was in response to a critique of a business plan they presented as art work, which I thought worked as neither...
"You already have given your idea away, so details are meaningless except to prove that you really have thought out how to make the idea into a reality. Not doing the details reflects a lack of desire to pursue the business opportunity, thus demonstrating that your plan is only intended as an art work and not as an actual business plan. And because it is such a shallow plan, it is also not even true to its purpose as an art work. It is only a sketch of an art work that you never intend to complete, for to complete the work would require a commitment that you are not willing to give."
He can dish it be he can't take it.
joseph
> Hi Joseph,
>
> I kind of feel that T.Whid has always been one of the more polite
> dudes on rhizome, not actively attacking someone to make himself feel better.
To quote t.whid from 4/30/2002 post addressed to me
"you're tactics are tired and the little work i've seen from you is
sub-amateur. you're simply a loudmouth with nothing better to do then
get your panties in a ruffle by a little piece of art my collaborator
and i made long ago."
This was in response to a critique of a business plan they presented as art work, which I thought worked as neither...
"You already have given your idea away, so details are meaningless except to prove that you really have thought out how to make the idea into a reality. Not doing the details reflects a lack of desire to pursue the business opportunity, thus demonstrating that your plan is only intended as an art work and not as an actual business plan. And because it is such a shallow plan, it is also not even true to its purpose as an art work. It is only a sketch of an art work that you never intend to complete, for to complete the work would require a commitment that you are not willing to give."
He can dish it be he can't take it.
joseph
Re: Fwd: FW: Digital Artists: Call for Entries
May I point out to one and all that the extent of a certain t.whid's brilliant critique of our own work consisted almost entirely of the words
"crappy work"
<applause><applause>
Q: What do you get when you cross a hippopotamus and a black hawk?
A: A Hippocritic dressed in black.
<applause><applause>
joseph
t.whid wrote:
>
>
> ---- Michael Szpakowski <szpako@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > See, T. - I think you're being just a bit disingenuous
> > here.
>
> how? I've been honest the entire time.
>
>
> > All of the people involved in praising Jess's work
> > yesterday have posted rigorous, critical and closely
> > argued stuff over the last few months.
>
> no argument, i was responding specifically to the posts i quoted in
> my
> original post.
>
>
> > Could it be that your reaction to the posts has more
> > to do with the fact that many of those posting have
> > either explicitly or implicitly adopted positions on
> > this list that are opposed to your idea of what
> > constitutes good or serious art.
>
> no, that could not be.
>
> > In an offlist mail to me you denied that you had
> > accused us of insincerity and yet the only other
> > possible reading of your post is that you believe that
> > you have some sort of privileged access as to what
> > constitutes the worthwhile.
>
> who's being disingenuous? I only posted that the specific remarks
> quoted in the post where not serious art discussion but rather mere
> back-slapping. I have no privilege other than being able to read the
> english language. I had no doubt that the back-slapping was genuine,
> my
> critique was with the depth of the praise, not that it wasn't genuine
> or deserved.
>
> > Tell us please, just who *are* the Sunday painters,
> > the dilettantes of your post?
>
> people who aren't on this list. most on this list don't fit into this
> category. that was my critique, we are collectively better than
> that and i was hoping to raise the level of discussion.
>
> > If you didn't think Jess's piece was any good then why
> > not address *that* rather than impugning the motives
> > of those who did?
>
> this is ridiculous. my opinions regarding Jess' piece have nothing to
> do with my post. i didn't want to mix up whatever my reaction to the
> piece might be and my criticism of the remarks surrounding it.
>
> > I'd be more than happy to take part in an extended
> > and detailed discussion about the actual artistic
> > issues involved.
>
> that's all fine and good, but my point was to address the level of
> critical discussion and i think i'm through with it.
>
> take care,
> <twhid>
> http://www.mteww.com
> </twhid>
"crappy work"
<applause><applause>
Q: What do you get when you cross a hippopotamus and a black hawk?
A: A Hippocritic dressed in black.
<applause><applause>
joseph
t.whid wrote:
>
>
> ---- Michael Szpakowski <szpako@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > See, T. - I think you're being just a bit disingenuous
> > here.
>
> how? I've been honest the entire time.
>
>
> > All of the people involved in praising Jess's work
> > yesterday have posted rigorous, critical and closely
> > argued stuff over the last few months.
>
> no argument, i was responding specifically to the posts i quoted in
> my
> original post.
>
>
> > Could it be that your reaction to the posts has more
> > to do with the fact that many of those posting have
> > either explicitly or implicitly adopted positions on
> > this list that are opposed to your idea of what
> > constitutes good or serious art.
>
> no, that could not be.
>
> > In an offlist mail to me you denied that you had
> > accused us of insincerity and yet the only other
> > possible reading of your post is that you believe that
> > you have some sort of privileged access as to what
> > constitutes the worthwhile.
>
> who's being disingenuous? I only posted that the specific remarks
> quoted in the post where not serious art discussion but rather mere
> back-slapping. I have no privilege other than being able to read the
> english language. I had no doubt that the back-slapping was genuine,
> my
> critique was with the depth of the praise, not that it wasn't genuine
> or deserved.
>
> > Tell us please, just who *are* the Sunday painters,
> > the dilettantes of your post?
>
> people who aren't on this list. most on this list don't fit into this
> category. that was my critique, we are collectively better than
> that and i was hoping to raise the level of discussion.
>
> > If you didn't think Jess's piece was any good then why
> > not address *that* rather than impugning the motives
> > of those who did?
>
> this is ridiculous. my opinions regarding Jess' piece have nothing to
> do with my post. i didn't want to mix up whatever my reaction to the
> piece might be and my criticism of the remarks surrounding it.
>
> > I'd be more than happy to take part in an extended
> > and detailed discussion about the actual artistic
> > issues involved.
>
> that's all fine and good, but my point was to address the level of
> critical discussion and i think i'm through with it.
>
> take care,
> <twhid>
> http://www.mteww.com
> </twhid>
Re: fresh air & real soul...
Eryk Salvaggio wrote:
>
> "When I talk about community, ...
>
> -Oro Bouros, Net.Art Outsider
>
THOUGHTS
by David Kelley, Cowboy Poet
Some matters a cowboy ponders, are
not often shared with another,
Though that saddle pal, or bunkmate, might
just be closer than a brother.
To hear a sweetheart say I love you, a
wrangler never would admit,
Yet most cowboys dream everyday dreams,
I would most humbly submit.
He'll spend a good deal of time alone, it seems,
when thoughts often run wild,
'Bout good horses, mother, and innocent
times when he was a child.
He'll remember the struggles with others or
battles had all alone.
The secret times he'll cry silently, while hurting
clean to the bone.
He might see the sky as a canvas, daily painted
by the hand of God,
Or a vast journal with messages and hints about
the life he'll trod.
It's the massive ceiling for that open air arbor
he call's his Church,
Where the Lord rides 'with' him, as opposed
to judging from a lofty perch.
Looking toward a bluff, puts him in mind of
that fortress from the past,
And those who gave the ultimate, in order that
our freedoms might last.
He sees the land as both a loving parent and
an innocent child,
Clearly able to feed the earth, ever ready to
return to the wild.
Many times his only confidant is the good horse
he sits astride.
Folks may come and go, but that's always one
pard he'll never set aside.
The mare, the gelding, the stud, from their
starting to the eventual end,
In spirit they are one, an equal relationship,
amigo, friend.
He'll ride to the east side of a ridge, for the
proclamation of the morn,
While carefully being ever thankful for those
things which seem inborn.
The newly rising sun brings thoughts of
moving afar from errant ways,
But evening reminds him, an end must come
to even the best of days.
His inner thoughts may be hard to behold
amongst the bold bravado,
They're the secret ingredients of one
possessing his own El Dorado.
>
> "When I talk about community, ...
>
> -Oro Bouros, Net.Art Outsider
>
THOUGHTS
by David Kelley, Cowboy Poet
Some matters a cowboy ponders, are
not often shared with another,
Though that saddle pal, or bunkmate, might
just be closer than a brother.
To hear a sweetheart say I love you, a
wrangler never would admit,
Yet most cowboys dream everyday dreams,
I would most humbly submit.
He'll spend a good deal of time alone, it seems,
when thoughts often run wild,
'Bout good horses, mother, and innocent
times when he was a child.
He'll remember the struggles with others or
battles had all alone.
The secret times he'll cry silently, while hurting
clean to the bone.
He might see the sky as a canvas, daily painted
by the hand of God,
Or a vast journal with messages and hints about
the life he'll trod.
It's the massive ceiling for that open air arbor
he call's his Church,
Where the Lord rides 'with' him, as opposed
to judging from a lofty perch.
Looking toward a bluff, puts him in mind of
that fortress from the past,
And those who gave the ultimate, in order that
our freedoms might last.
He sees the land as both a loving parent and
an innocent child,
Clearly able to feed the earth, ever ready to
return to the wild.
Many times his only confidant is the good horse
he sits astride.
Folks may come and go, but that's always one
pard he'll never set aside.
The mare, the gelding, the stud, from their
starting to the eventual end,
In spirit they are one, an equal relationship,
amigo, friend.
He'll ride to the east side of a ridge, for the
proclamation of the morn,
While carefully being ever thankful for those
things which seem inborn.
The newly rising sun brings thoughts of
moving afar from errant ways,
But evening reminds him, an end must come
to even the best of days.
His inner thoughts may be hard to behold
amongst the bold bravado,
They're the secret ingredients of one
possessing his own El Dorado.