r. murray, If "ears" became handles, and the Antique Road Show comes to your area, take it. Bet they'll show it as a "fake" clay jar by Dave, the Slave! At least, you'll get to see their reaction. LOL Why is it called a Weed Pot though? And, yes, it is reminscient of the Mad Potter of Biloxi! (We're addicted to Antique Road Show! LOL) As for rocks, depends on how big you're talking if what I do is considered the same. Got a container garden on our small concrete backyard, plus boulders are just too much for me to tackle -- but "rock collecting" kinda runs in the family. My older brother just had to stop and found a new career. He was a stone mason, who loved making decorations in his fireplaces. (His had a sun.) He drove everywhere in an old, beat-up flatbed truck, because that's how he got the boulders needed for a job. He lives in central VA, and has collected boulders every day, practically, for 50 years. (Strong as an ox, but very quiet.) His "rocks" were generally 25-50 pounds, at least. Even when he came to visit Dad in PA, he'd work towards emptying Dad's wooded lot of all boulders, and took them home each time. Good thing Dad was never crazy about the rock garden the previous owners had. LOL Most people collect souvenirs from a vacation at a gift shop. My husband takes me to a stony beach (what, purplemoon, Florida has no stones on your beaches? Weird! LOL), or dirt roads with wild flowers, so I can gather my two favorite souvenirs -- a bouquet of wild flowers to enjoy on our vacation (usually the vase is an empty pepsi bottle LOL), and "cool stones" that I bring home. Don't know if hubby thinks I'm nuts about this (he knows I'm nuts, in general), but he's found some cool looking rocks, too. I've found white, mauve, black and blue streaked, perfectly ovaled, and quartz like stones. (I can't believe anyone skips stones, since, if they're skippers, they're too cool to toss! LOL) My rock collection goes out into my portable butterfly drinking hole (a terra-cotta saucer with rocks and water in it on our "plantstand" - round plastic child's picnic table) and the rest go into the one souvenir I did buy out of a shop -- a large handblown glass, so you can see all the rocks, and some cool shells, too! jutes, I can't do cement either. Don't know from experience, just know this beat-up old body can't lift up anything heavier then 12 pounds, and can't lean over much anymore, so can't even dream of that as another hobby. Thanks for the pictures though! Been wanting some crazy faces out in my garden as planter, especially for my succulents, and you've just taught and showed me how! Lynn

This is what I found on Always Afternoon today. The second flower was a little better but still ugly. Could it be thrips too? The buds looked ok, and last year every flower was good, no damage at all. This year I have several other plants where buds look a bit yellowed and somewhat dry and like they are trying to open while still small. Like one segment would be sticking out. It looks similar to the picture in the Encyclopedia of Daylilies titled Thrip Damage.

Someone told me that thistles are one plant that you don't want growing on a prairie or meadow. Where thistles grow, nothing grows around them and they will crowd everything else out. It is like what walnut trees do - some sort of chemical in the plant doesn't allow other plants to grow close to them. Then they put out thousands of little seeds and every single one of them (or so it seems) germinates. But, the pictures are pretty and the color and shape of the flowers are pretty. I just wouldn't want them growing in a pasture or meadow if it was my land.

laura- the debate on what is art versus what isn't can only be resolved in your mind- as each of us makes our own, unique connection to what it is we are seeing, reading, hearing or (as in the case with quilts) feeling. As I mentioned on another forum (I forget where) I could spit on the sidewalk, frame it and call it art. And for me that would be true. Now for anyone else they make up their own minds. As an "artist" it is not (nor ever could be) my job to convince anyone else about the legitimacy of my work. The paths one takes internally to "get" art are as subjective and vast as art itself. Some people try to figure out what the artists was thinking while others internalize the art and try to unscramble their own reactions to it. None of these paths are the only way and every one of them is the right way. Does that make sense? So in the case with bare abstractions (a few yellow splats of paint on a canvas) perhaps the minimalist technique was only meant to evoke a minimal response. In other words, art isn't always "deep". My work- especially the abstracts- are always meant to show movement, balance and tension without being something specific. I like to think of them as short cerebral conversations between myself and the viewer: I present an idea represented by colors, lines and stitches. The viewer then has a reaction to it. Call and response. Usually, people have a much more tangible, visceral response to this next kind of work. The imagery is easier to internalize and therefore assessments on the work are easier to make. For most of my work I start with a solid piece of (black) fabric into which "windows are cut out and replaced with colored fabric. Of course, the edges are turned under and the pieces are joined with a zig-zag of clear or smoke monofilament.