feedback on this poem?
Sjpolanco
don't fall for sugar coated sandstorms,
cause you only uncover heads spinning underneath egregious cracker jack boxes,
the sex under a disparaging cacophony of discordant latex lovemaking,
and an insidious little humming bird,
bitchin about ethics,
but still cloning bones,
just a bag of bones.
zathan
debi z
"Sjpolanco" <sjpo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010802072355...@ng-cf1.aol.com...
Mike Billard
Sjpolanco <sjpo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010802072355...@ng-cf1.aol.com...
Sjpolanco
it was an improv poem,
i wrote it in just a few minutes.
an explanation......
1.sugar coated sandstorms = a lover
2.heads spinning under ergegious crack jack boxes = multiple disfunctional
personalities hidden beneath a surface that looks completely common
3.cacophony = just thinking about how sex here becomes JUST SEX.....the only
music is just dissonance of PLASTICS/RUBBERS..anti-romance...
4.humming bird = your individual conscience telling you its wrong, but a
collective conscience moving further from feeling than you are and cloning
non-humans (just a bag of bones) to be more cold than you are.......
how's that for B.S.'ing my an poem??!
this is just what i am extracting from my poem... when i wrote it i just wrote
the stuff that first popped into my head......
ben
Well, since the explanation is nonsensical and the poem just "popped into
your head", I'd conclude that "improvisational poetry" is a bad idea. Poetry
requires thought and meaning, not just the pretty sounding words and
delightful alliteration that you think up spontaneously.
b.
Paul Heslop
Too strict. That's formal. Of course there are works of poetry that just
popped out of people's heads. To believe otherwise is blinkered.
--
Paul
-------------------------------------------------------------
URL-- http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
Writings-- http://Stories.Com/authors/dreamst8
Artbooks-- http://www.bookdezine.com/page5.html
ben
> Too strict. That's formal. Of course there are works of poetry that just
> popped out of people's heads. To believe otherwise is blinkered.
Alright, let me rephrase: No good poem worth reading was written
spontaneously. A poem requires thought and depth that would not be allowed
by a improvisational piece. This is quite clearly demonstrated by the poem
in question, since it actually has no meaning whatsoever.
b.
Paul Heslop
Let me rephrase then... So you were sitting behind each poet as he
wrote? You cannot qualify that argument Ben, its impossible, most poets
are dead. I'm sure they didn't all write little addendas saying "Sorry
it took so long but the cat died and I had to rewrite it three times!"
you're still being formal. I don't mean to stick up for this particular
poem, just whether a poem of worth was ever written in one sitting, and
you cannot say for definite that it didn't happen. In fact I would go so
far to say I would bet it *did* happen. Life's like that Ben, sometimes
great things just happen.
shunichi waha
a weighty, measured tome decree:
where alf, the ache'd tough guy, ran
you damned them measureless to man
- without yr might or means.
so twice times five did you dryly pound
the tome with poise and patient soundings
"And there were gardens bright with sinuous rills,
Where blossomed many an incense-bearing tree;
And here were forests ancient as the hills"
enclosed in valleys, sung over, unfree.
--
the stupidity is limited to these areas -
www.geocities.com/shunichi_waha
or
http://members.dingoblue.net.au/~shunichi
Aidan Tynan
ben wrote in message <3b69...@news1.homechoice.co.uk>...
What about Breton and co.? In fact, the whole of surrealism?
-Aidan
>
>b.
>
>
zathan
if you two don't mind me rephrasing both of you?
I think ben meant to say, that if you want your poetry to be understood and
enjoyed by the generic reader, than it is best to take some time learning
the craft of poetry. Which means working a poem.
I think Paul meant to say that one can write down whatever comes into one's
head and should feel free to call it poetry.
I agree with both of you. In general though, the beginning poet who wants
to become good, who wants recognition for becoming good at crafting poetry
would benefit from ben's advice, which is why he gave it.
debi z
"Paul Heslop" <paul....@cableinet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3B6A0545...@cableinet.co.uk...
shunichi waha
let's hear one from freddles, eh? just for the suburban gothic boys with
guns:
"metre lays a veil over reality: it effectuates a certain artificiality of
speech and unclarity of thinking; by means of shadows it throws over
thoughts it now conceals, now brings into prominence. as beautification
requires shadows, so clarification requires 'vagueness'. - art makes the
sight of life bearable by laying over it the veil of unclear thinking."
yes, it is fabulous to be bearable, is it not?
row boats
ben
"zathan" <zat...@uswest.net> wrote in message
news:shya7.778$S75....@news.uswest.net...
> aahmm...
> if you two don't mind me rephrasing both of you?
Only if you do it right. :P
> I think ben meant to say, that if you want your poetry to be understood
and
> enjoyed by the generic reader, than it is best to take some time learning
> the craft of poetry. Which means working a poem.
Well, sort of. However, a poem itself should also take time to be written --
not months and months, as some people do, and most certainly not a minute of
improvisation. I usually write a complete piece in an hour or so, and polish
it over the course of a few days; sometimes returning years after to alter
it more.
> I think Paul meant to say that one can write down whatever comes into
one's
> head and should feel free to call it poetry.
Hmm...but then *everything* becomes poetry, much as *everything* has become
art. Tracey Emin's bed is not art, just as my shopping list is not poetry.
> I agree with both of you. In general though, the beginning poet who wants
> to become good, who wants recognition for becoming good at crafting poetry
> would benefit from ben's advice, which is why he gave it.
Damn straight. :)
And thank you, debi, for being the only person in aapc that doesn't
capitalise my name. :)
b.
ben
"shunichi waha" <ben_...@malthusian.ate> wrote in message
news:3b6ac19f$0$20970$7f31...@news01.syd.optusnet.com.au...
> yeah, but who's going to give poor ben advice?
Everyone else? Especially Aidan, he just enjoys it.
<snip rambling>
b.
ben
"Aidan Tynan" <aty...@eircom.net> wrote in message
news:Qlxa7.22110$Fk7.2...@news.indigo.ie...
Surrealism is an exception in general, since it doesn't conform to certain
rules of realism (hence "surreal"). If I wanted to be a surrealist poet, I
could write down a list of random nouns and adjectives and call it a poem.
My shopping list could be a surreal poem. And I doubt that Breton et al
didn't at least have some idea of what they were about to write before they
began.
How many Surrealists does it take to change a lightbulb?
Fish.
b.
> -Aidan
>
> >
> >b.
> >
> >
>
>
ben
"shunichi waha" <ben_...@malthusian.ate> wrote in message
> in scanning poo did double-you
> a weighty, measured tome decree:
> where alf, the ache'd tough guy, ran
Maybe "tough guy" sounds like "river" where you live...
Please don't do that to Coleridge again. Do it to Pound, he deserves it.
b.
Aidan Tynan
>
>Hmm...but then *everything* becomes poetry, much as *everything* has become
>art. Tracey Emin's bed is not art, just as my shopping list is not poetry.
>
You have Duchamp to thank for it. Obviously, if her bed was in her house and
not in a gallery it wouldn't be art. Although, since art is defined, simply,
as whatever it has become, it's not really up to you to decide what's not
art. Anyway, stop bringing Tracy Emin up, she's rather boring.
-Aidan
ben
>
>
> >
> >Hmm...but then *everything* becomes poetry, much as *everything* has
become
> >art. Tracey Emin's bed is not art, just as my shopping list is not
poetry.
> >
>
>
> You have Duchamp to thank for it.
Bloody French...
> Obviously, if her bed was in her house and
> not in a gallery it wouldn't be art. Although, since art is defined,
simply,
> as whatever it has become, it's not really up to you to decide what's not
art.
You're right. I just think that if artists and art-lovers are willing to
cheapen the definition of art to *that* extent, I feel truly sorry for them.
Secondly, if Tracy Emin's bed is art because she and others hold that
perception, I am fully allowed to perceive it as just a bed. Just like
beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so is art.
> Anyway, stop bringing Tracy Emin up, she's rather boring.
She's my perfect example. Who else would I find to so well prove a point? If
her bed is art, so is mine and everyone else's. If all of our beds are art,
what is to stop our refridgerators also becoming art? And so on until
everything is art, and art-lovers no longer need to go to the Louvre or Tate
Modern but simply stare for a while at a sock, or a disfigured postbox. If
Tracy Emin's bed is art, modern art loses all depth and meaning as a result,
and art-lovers cheapen everything that is actually artistic. You can argue
the symbolism and meaning of Tracy Emin's bed for hours, but eventually,
it's still just a bed.
b.
Paul Heslop
bringing her up is probably the best thing you could do with her...
though what the hell you would want to eat her for in the first place...
:O)
Aidan Tynan
>> You have Duchamp to thank for it.
>
>Bloody French...
Duchamp being a genius.
>
>You're right. I just think that if artists and art-lovers are willing to
>cheapen the definition of art to *that* extent,
Well, the idea of readymades as functioning cognates of traditional forms
seems like a natural development process answering to era of mass
production/repetition, and enriching, especially since we now have more
forms than we did before. The idea of 'cheapness' strikes me as a bit of a
bourgeois lament. But the whole 'what is art' argument is a bit of a joke,
especially when the media get involved, since it's not really an important
question.
>> Anyway, stop bringing Tracy Emin up, she's rather boring.
>
>She's my perfect example.
But ben, what do you know of art in general? How do you feel about Joseph
Cornell, or Carl Andre, or Bank? Emin, like Hirst, is just a figure picked
up by the media for shock value. The media don't care about art, so you
shouldn't take your art lessons from them.
-Aidan
Paul Heslop
Did you note that her theory is "If it's in a gallery then it must be
art" silly bint.
ben
>
>
> >> You have Duchamp to thank for it.
> >
> >Bloody French...
>
> Duchamp being a genius.
Just because someone is a genius doesn't not make them French. :)
> But ben, what do you know of art in general?
Not much, I admit. But I've seen the bed, and it's still just a bed.
> How do you feel about Joseph Cornell, or Carl Andre, or Bank?
Well, I think that *cough*...
> Emin, like Hirst, is just a figure picked
> up by the media for shock value. The media don't care about art, so you
> shouldn't take your art lessons from them.
Question: Do you think that the bed is art?
b.
ben
> Okay, I am going to put my two-blue-feathers in on this group ---
> again --- this to ben:
Oh no...
> Do individual artists give a hoot about the definition of art, or do
> they, to varying extents, care about *art* (making it, putting
> themselves in the zone to make it; maybe showing it, selling it).
> avoiding art scenes, etc.
Well, I am sure that what they care about is the art itself. However, if
there is no definition of what art is and isn't, people like Tracy Emin
(sorry, I'm not letting it go yet) can call a bed "art". I could call a
toaster "art" and be as famous as her. This is similar to the idea of what
poetry is, and indeed, what music is. There are people that would be
inclined to call modern dance, garage, bathroom and whatever, NOT music.
However, since there is no specific definition as to what music is, they
can't be correct. If someone calls it music, it's music -- it's just really
bad music. Similarly, some teen poet can post a hallmark poem on aapc, and
much as we'd like to yell "This isn't poetry!", we have to accept that it
is, but it is simply bad poetry. And then art, which is pretty much the same
in this respect. Well, I don't think that the bed is art, but I do think
that something by Dali, for instance, is art. What's the difference?
Ultimately, not much. Except for the Dali being a unique and original work
that says something to me. Perhaps the bed, to some, is unique and original,
and says something to them -- probably: "Make me! For the love of God,
please change my sheets!" At any rate, the only people that lose out on
calling such mundane things "art" are the artists and art-lovers themselves.
Once everything becomes "art", the novelty and concept of "art" loses all
significance. Alright, I admit. Things like the bed may be art to some,
since art is all in the eye of the beholder and the perspective of the
individual. Yes, it may be art. But really, really bad art.
b.
ben
> I don't think you know much if anything about surrealism or surrealist
> art ---
Hey, I can spell it.
> My two buttons worth: go to alt.surrealism and ask some questions
> of Dale, barrett, Parry, Brandon and john -- accept no substitutes.
Do I have to?
> Ask Brandon to repost the FAQ. But a warning: if you post something
> like this _there_, beware.
> :)
Don't worry, I'm only impetuous here and especially around Aidan.
> Excuse me ben, but that makes no sense whatsoever. "Surreal" is not
> a synonym for "bizarre", "non-sense", or "psychedelic." While I _do_
> recall a painting by Rene Magritte that depicts a being -- part fish
> part woman -- lying along the shore of a sea, your answer has nothing
> to do with surrealism as a living movement actively engaged in by
> living surrealists. Nor does it relate to surrealism's history.
It's a joke, not a statement pretending to be an accurate historical
document. :P
http://www.comicjunk.com/cgi-bin/cjp_page.cgi?JokeRef=65
See, at least Google appreciates my sense of humour.
b.
JAS Carter
yodeled:
>Yes, it may be art. But really, really bad art.
I think the more important modifier is "easy" art.
Isn't that a contradiction?
--
Julie Carter
Peter J Ross
news:fadef76.01080...@posting.google.com...
> Excuse me ben, but that makes no sense whatsoever. "Surreal" is not
> a synonym for "bizarre", "non-sense", or "psychedelic." While I _do_
> recall a painting by Rene Magritte that depicts a being -- part fish
> part woman -- lying along the shore of a sea, your answer has nothing
> to do with surrealism as a living movement actively engaged in by
> living surrealists. Nor does it relate to surrealism's history.
Yes, yes, yes, but the word "surrealism" has come to be used loosely, and
widespread use of a word makes its widespread definition "correct". I
recommend capitalisation if you want to confine the word to a particular
artistic or literary method:
surreal (lowercase, as in common use): flying toasters singing in the sea
Surreal (uppercase, as in ART): blued fish purpling in the algorithm
Maybe?
(Absurdism would be the putting of them the other way dnuor, together with
the deciding which had won.)
Perhaps?
PJR :-)
--
Or perbe not, mayhaps?
Dale Houstman
>
> > Excuse me ben, but that makes no sense whatsoever. "Surreal" is not
> > a synonym for "bizarre", "non-sense", or "psychedelic." While I _do_
> > recall a painting by Rene Magritte that depicts a being -- part fish
> > part woman -- lying along the shore of a sea, your answer has nothing
> > to do with surrealism as a living movement actively engaged in by
> > living surrealists. Nor does it relate to surrealism's history.
>
> It's a joke, not a statement pretending to be an accurate historical
> document.
You're correct of course, but it's effect on those of us who have dedicated
a certain amount of serious time to surrealism is a loathsome thing to see.
It is THE stupid knee-jerk reaction one is peppered with if they make the
mistake of mentioning surrealism about the barely-educated. There is an
irksome woman in my office who considers herself (quite incorrectly) to be
intelligent, and I hear this "joke" from her little face at least three
times a week. She thinks it is funny every time no doubt, but I have yet to
experience a similar level of jollity over its being trotted out.
In its niche-market way, it is as aggravating as the reflexively-hurled "I'm
a poet and I don't know it" is to a serious poet.
One must try to empathize with our irritation on the point.
dmh
Dale Houstman
Breton supposedly spent weeks (or longer) perfecting most of his
"automatic" poetry, of which I am a great admirer. He was pretty much of a
control freak, and was usually dissatisfied with the results of pure
automatic writing, as least as they pertained to aesthetic concerns. There
were - of course - works produced "on the run" but the surrealists tended to
think of them as "texts" rather than "poems." I think you'll find most of
the published poetic works of surrealists to be - while imagistically
hermetic - metaphorically organized, like other poetry. This is why they
considered Benjamin Peret to be the "purest expression of surrealism" as his
works defy easy analysis and are - for the most part - extremely
revolutionary in regards to "sense." But Eluard wrote mostly love poetry,
Desnos' works seem often narratively coherent (if high-romantic), and so on.
Most surrealists discover early on that there is a difference between pure
automatic writing and their secret yearnings for art, and only find
"scientific" interest in purely spontaneous work.
dmh
Dale Houstman
"Peter J Ross" <p...@britishlibrary.net> wrote in message
news:9kfo32$4h1q7$1...@ID-76477.news.dfncis.de...
> "cythera" <cyt...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:fadef76.01080...@posting.google.com...
>
> > Excuse me ben, but that makes no sense whatsoever. "Surreal" is not
> > a synonym for "bizarre", "non-sense", or "psychedelic." While I _do_
> > recall a painting by Rene Magritte that depicts a being -- part fish
> > part woman -- lying along the shore of a sea, your answer has nothing
> > to do with surrealism as a living movement actively engaged in by
> > living surrealists. Nor does it relate to surrealism's history.
>
> Yes, yes, yes, but the word "surrealism" has come to be used loosely, and
> widespread use of a word makes its widespread definition "correct". I
> recommend capitalisation if you want to confine the word to a particular
> artistic or literary method:
And the word "poetry" has come to popularly mean "Trees" Hallmark and Rod
McKuen, but a poet will fight this definition at any rate, and those of us
who are interested in surrealism will continue to insist on the proper
meaning of the word. This isn't an uncommon battle: pets are often
attempting to rescue words from flaccidity brought on by intemperate usage.
>
dmh
Rik Roots
> > your head", I'd conclude that "improvisational poetry" is a bad idea. Poetry
> > requires thought and meaning, not just the pretty sounding words and
> > delightful alliteration that you think up spontaneously.
> >
> > b.
>
> Too strict. That's formal. Of course there are works of poetry that just
> popped out of people's heads. To believe otherwise is blinkered.
I'll accept that "phrases", "snippets" and even "sentences" can form
in the subconcious [sp?] and be released in a seemingly spontaneous
format.
But I will not accept that "works of poetry" just pop out of people's
heads. Anyone who believes such poetry is "good" needs to raise their
critical standards. And anyone claiming that their own "poetry" is
produced in such a fashion must be, in my opinion, idiotically savant.
Good poetry isn't just a collection of words on a page! Ever!
> --
> Paul
Rik, knee deep.
--
http://www.kalieda.org/poems/
Pop in for a browse, when you have a moment to spare...
Rik Roots
Tracey Emin's bed is not art. It is a statement.
For me, art is an attempt by someone to communicate something to me
(the reader, listener, watcher, whatever) through some sort of
artificial medium or filter - words, paint, bricks, rocks and
metals, carved wood, bits and pieces of rubbish piled together in some
way.
Tracey Emin's bed did not communicate anything to me. It was just
there. Similarly, Damien Hurst's experiments with pickled animals
don't really communicate anything to me, except to say "Hello, I'm an
exhibit in an art gallery"
On the other hand, some of Picasso's statues and models made out of
bits of card, old toys, broken household items, etc communicate to me.
I can see each one as a collection of rubbish, and as a representation
of a goat, or a girl skipping, or a monkey, and also as a creation
formed by a person with a very keen sense of humour.
Picasso's models invite me to look at them, admire them, and to smile
alongside the artist who created them. Tracey Emin's bed (and Damian's
pickled cows) made me shrug my shoulders and move on.
>
> -Aidan
>
>
Rik, knee deep
Rik Roots
> rules of realism (hence "surreal"). If I wanted to be a surrealist poet, I
> could write down a list of random nouns and adjectives and call it a poem.
> My shopping list could be a surreal poem. And I doubt that Breton et al
> didn't at least have some idea of what they were about to write before they
> began.
>
piece of surreal art did have an underlying structure, just not the
same structure that underpins the "real world".
Can nineteenth century Nonsense Verse be considered surreal?
> How many Surrealists does it take to change a lightbulb?
>
> Fish.
>
> b.
>
Veronica
Veronica
Dennis M. Hammes
If "art" is "itself" (your definition, "since" you said "since" and
"what it has become" = "is"), then both the bed and shopping list are
art, even though you've not managed to find the gallery in which
they're exhibited.
Check: 1) if a thing is not art unless everybody has seen it, then
nothing is art no matter where exhibited; 2) if a thing is art when
one person has seen it, the bed and shopping list have been seen, and
are art; 3) assignment of any other number is a personal preference,
and is not to be legitimately preferred over any other assignment of
number.
N.B.: It really is up to me to decide what is, and what is not,
art; I produce the stuff. I merely refuse to confuse the condition,
"art," with the condition "salable commodity." There is a very large
market base who shun art to protect their imaginary playmates, yet who
will plink the plate for shiny objects. There is an even larger one
that will buy a turd from any source through any purveyor, provided
that it has been given a sufficiently mystical Title, since the buyer
doesn't want to be known as not knowing what the Title means (i.e., to
be in the strategically dangerous position of being identified with
the Out-Group). But I don't confuse strategic threats with art
criticism, either.
--
>^,,^<
When did it stop being true that an artist is somebody
who can do something more or less well which the rest of us
can only do badly or not at all? -- Tom Stoppard
http://t-independent.com/scrawlmark-press/
Dennis M. Hammes
popcorn just pops out of the kernel (or popper), then you have to
accept that works of poetry just pop out of people's heads, since
there is no other known source. If your quibble is with what was put
into the tube, kernel, or popper, and how it was stirred before it
popped, say so.
I'm sorry; this comment just popped out of my head.
Dale Houstman
"Rik Roots" <rikr...@enterprise.net> wrote in message
news:3B6BFBE0.MD-1...@enterprise.net...
>
>
> But I will not accept that "works of poetry" just pop out of people's
> heads. Anyone who believes such poetry is "good" needs to raise their
> critical standards. And anyone claiming that their own "poetry" is
> produced in such a fashion must be, in my opinion, idiotically savant.
Thr process occurs so quickly in some that it amounts to almost the same
thing. But really the original poster is confusing surrealist texts with
poems: they are not meant to serve an aesthetic purpose. The problem here
probably lies in the fact that "improv" is not really the same as
"automatic" as they imply differ states of mind. Surrealists usually did
automatic texts (alone or in groups) as a way to open their consciousnesses
minds to wider possibilties of language. They also used (as I use) certain
aleatory techniques to achieve the same effect. They didn't expect the
results to pass poetic muster and - in fact - disdained poetic muster for
the most part. The writer here has merely chosen the wrong audience and - I
think - taken the wrong attitude toward his creation, expecting it to be
seen as a poem, when - in fact - it isn't. As an automatic text, it could
only be judged by the intensity of his automatism, or open state of mind,
during its composition.
I must say that my work develops usually very quickly (as quickly as
possible) and that I attempt to head-off interpretation as long as possible,
allowing metaphors to arise naturally as it were. I've written automatic
texts, the composition of which - at least in my case - do appear to slowly
train one's mind to be more open to combinations and to seek striking
images. But I rarely confuse a "poem" with a "text" and find they have
different functions in the world.
dmh
Dale Houstman
> > Surrealism is an exception in general, since it doesn't conform to
certain
> > rules of realism (hence "surreal"). If I wanted to be a surrealist poet,
I
> > could write down a list of random nouns and adjectives and call it a
poem.
> > My shopping list could be a surreal poem. And I doubt that Breton et al
> > didn't at least have some idea of what they were about to write before
they
> > began.
> >
> Showing my ignorance again, but I was under the impression that each
> piece of surreal art did have an underlying structure, just not the
> same structure that underpins the "real world".
First, "surrealism" precisely about the "real world." Surrealism was meant
to extend the limits of accepted "commonsense" reality so as to reveal the
nature of reality in its entirety. Surrealism is about MORE (not "other")
reality.
>
> Can nineteenth century Nonsense Verse be considered surreal?
Well I think so, and Lewis Carroll was particularly admired by the original
surrealist. Of course, one can say it has a different (or no) "agenda": it
lacks the serious critical nature of surrealism as a whole, but it partakes
of certain core elements, such as free imagination, an overturning of common
expectations (linguistically and socially), and so on. It's not its "oddity"
thus which defines its relation vis a vis surrealism, but its stance toward
societal demands of "expected" behavior. This was what particularly
disturbing about NBC's "epic" production of Wonderland: although it was full
of marvelous effects and (I think) a good female lead, it had "artistic"
additions of a vastly inferior cast: in specific the framing of the tale as
a "trial by endurance" so Alice could overcome her social reticence and
perform before a group of authority figures at the end. A bastardization by
any standard.
But many of the smaller nonsense poems are as "wicked" when it comes to
conventions, and it is this aspect that most intrigues surrealists.
dmh
DE nederlandsche CACAOFABRIEK
> [I'm going in here over my head, but sod it...]
>
> Tracey Emin's bed is not art. It is a statement.
What nonsensic dualism, since later on you claim it doesn't communicate
anything to you. If it doesn't communicate anything, how on earth can it
be a statement? It would rather be art in that case, even though your
point is an impossible one to defend (nothing ever communicates
'nothing')
> For me, art is an attempt by someone to communicate something to me
> (the reader, listener, watcher, whatever) through some sort of
> artificial medium or filter - words, paint, bricks, rocks and
> metals, carved wood, bits and pieces of rubbish piled together in some
> way.
Following that definition, a telephone book would be art.
> Picasso's models invite me to look at them, admire them, and to smile
> alongside the artist who created them. Tracey Emin's bed (and Damian's
> pickled cows) made me shrug my shoulders and move on.
It wasn't just a bed, was it? I remember there was a melon on it.
Martijn
ben
"JAS Carter" <jsgo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3b6d5dc6...@news.supernews.com...
> On Sat, 4 Aug 2001 03:25:59 +0100, "ben" <be...@homechoice.co.uk>
> yodeled:
>
> >Yes, it may be art. But really, really bad art.
>
> I think the more important modifier is "easy" art.
True.
> Isn't that a contradiction?
Well, it depends upon your definition of art. ;)
b.
ben
> Okay ben (small b),
Thanks.
> I am letting you slide on the surrealism "fish" joke-thang <sniff>,
> but on this one, I really must protest. The proper terminology is
>
> Iiiieeeee!
> :)
Hmm.
<snip>
> First the media would have to "make you." <urg>
Yes, but we're the ones that have given the media the power to do so. There
is no media without an audience.
> And they/it in all likelihood wouldn't even like your "art", or you.
Perhaps.
> I wonder what going through that whole process turns people into.
Exactly. Once such mundane and easy things are defined as "art", art becomes
everything. Yes, people say that "everything is art" and "art is all around
us". But if her bed is art, my bed is art. I become an artist default, just
for needing somewhere to sleep. And if everyone is an artist and everything
"art", why need the concept of art or hold it in any importance? It is "easy
art" and by opening the proverbial door to it, everyone will suffer as a
result. Art should be something that the artist believes in, is passionate
about and works hard to achieve. Getting out of bed in the morning should
not be the creation of art, in my opinion. As a result of this new form of
modern art, *everything* is art. What makes her bed different from mine? The
fact that mine's at home, probably.
b.
ben
> If "art" is "itself" (your definition, "since" you said "since" and
> "what it has become" = "is"), then both the bed and shopping list are
> art, even though you've not managed to find the gallery in which
> they're exhibited.
The bed is exhibited, and I'm sure someone has done the same to a shopping
list.
> Check: 1) if a thing is not art unless everybody has seen it,
That can't be right. If "everybody" means the entire population of the
planet, nothing would be art at all.
> then nothing is art no matter where exhibited; 2) if a thing is art when
> one person has seen it, the bed and shopping list have been seen, and
> are art;
Art isn't just about something being seen, it's about something being
expressed. Yes, it's a bed, but it does represent all sorts of things about
society and gender inequality, just from the positioning of the pillows. But
since meaning and depth are subjective terms, not everything means something
to everyone.
> 3) assignment of any other number is a personal preference,
> and is not to be legitimately preferred over any other assignment of
> number.
What exactly does this mean?
<snip all>
"[The artist] speaks to our capacity for delight and wonder, to the sense of
mystery surrounding our lives; to our sense of pity, and beauty, and pain;
to the latent feeling of fellowship with all creation -- and to the subtle
but invincible conviction of solidarity in dreams, in joy, in sorrow, in
aspirations, in illusions, in hope, in fear.which binds together all
humanity -- the dead to the living and the living to the unborn." -- Joseph
Conrad
"Duchamps' Urinal and Tracey Emin's Bed have become works of art simply by
being admitted to galleries. But to display something in a gallery cannot
make it beautiful, or even pretty or elegant."
-- Rachel Browne
b.
ben
certain
> > rules of realism (hence "surreal"). If I wanted to be a surrealist poet,
I
> > could write down a list of random nouns and adjectives and call it a
poem.
> > My shopping list could be a surreal poem. And I doubt that Breton et al
> > didn't at least have some idea of what they were about to write before
they
> > began.
> >
> Showing my ignorance again,
You think that *you're* showing your ignorance? Heh...
> but I was under the impression that each
> piece of surreal art did have an underlying structure, just not the
> same structure that underpins the "real world".
And I'm sure they do.
> Can nineteenth century Nonsense Verse be considered surreal?
Depends how much nonsense. :P
b.
Aidan Tynan
>
>Exactly. Once such mundane and easy things are defined as "art", art
becomes
>everything.
Yes, but isn't it interesting that so many images of 'high art' surround us
in our everyday lives, on tv commercials, highstreet billboards, biscuit tin
lids, coasters, coffee mugs etc etc, yet the very place we expect to find
'true' art, the kind of art which hasn't been sullied by advertising or
proliferated into negentropy and eventual degradation by the media, is where
we actually find the most commonplace and inartistic objects of all: a bed,
a urinal, a torn t-shirt, a bicycle wheel etc. So, in a way, the phenomenon
of readymades is trying combat the lax over-proliferation, and falsifying,
of art being committed by non-art. In another way, readymades are exploiting
the irony, and the fact that a readymade object like a bed or a urinal has
gone through the same methods of design and aesthetic consideration that a
piece of 'true' art would.
-Aidan
Aidan Tynan
>>
>> What about Breton and co.? In fact, the whole of surrealism?
>>
>
>Breton supposedly spent weeks (or longer) perfecting most of his
>"automatic" poetry, of which I am a great admirer. He was pretty much of a
>control freak, and was usually dissatisfied with the results of pure
>automatic writing, as least as they pertained to aesthetic concerns. There
>were - of course - works produced "on the run" but the surrealists tended
to
>think of them as "texts" rather than "poems." I think you'll find most of
>the published poetic works of surrealists to be - while imagistically
>hermetic - metaphorically organized, like other poetry. This is why they
>considered Benjamin Peret to be the "purest expression of surrealism" as
his
>works defy easy analysis and are - for the most part - extremely
>revolutionary in regards to "sense." But Eluard wrote mostly love poetry,
>Desnos' works seem often narratively coherent (if high-romantic), and so
on.
>
>Most surrealists discover early on that there is a difference between pure
>automatic writing and their secret yearnings for art, and only find
>"scientific" interest in purely spontaneous work.
Yes, you're right. I've been reading From the Hidden Storehouse recently,
curiously the only in-print book I could find from Peret. I was just
pointing out to ben, in a crude way, something he probably hadn't heard
about before.
-Aidan
>
>dmh
>
>
Joshua P. Hill
wrote:
>I'll accept that "phrases", "snippets" and even "sentences" can form
>in the subconcious [sp?] and be released in a seemingly spontaneous
>format.
>
>But I will not accept that "works of poetry" just pop out of people's
>heads. Anyone who believes such poetry is "good" needs to raise their
>critical standards. And anyone claiming that their own "poetry" is
>produced in such a fashion must be, in my opinion, idiotically savant.
FWIW, it does happen often enough, both to the good and the great.
Shakespeare's contemporaries say that verse was like speech for him.
Verses came to Wordsworth fully formed, and in such profusion that
they tormented him. Everyone knows that "The Rime of the Ancient
Mariner" came to Wordsworth in an opium dream, and of course there's
Blake's flea.
Of course, what is good can almost always be improved through
revision. The dichotomy is perhaps akin to that between a composition
and an improvisation; most significant works are produced by the
former process, but the great composers were also great improvisers,
and a process akin to improvisation (as opposed to conscious
calculation) likely underlies the first versions of even their most
highly developed works.
Whatever the approach, I think that most of the process has to be
unconscious. A fiunctional description of even a short verse of any
quality requires pages of exegesis, and as such, I don't think it
possible that the poet was conscious of all but a tiny fraction of
what he was doing.
I know that my own mood and readiness seem to be far better predictors
of poetic quality than the compositional approach I use. I may sit
down with intention of writing something about a particular topic in a
given form, or I may not, in which case the topic and form --
frequently an interesting nonce-form -- will emerge as I write. I may
say to myself "hey, I think I need a strong visual image to convey
this feeling," or I may just come up with one unconsciously. Sometimes
extensive revision is required, rarely none at all. Either eay, the
results seem to be much the same, which is to say somewhere from lousy
to adequate, depending on whether or not I have a good head of poetry
steam. And while I'd very much like to have a series of algorithms
that produce better results whether applied up front or at the time of
revision, I've rarely come across any beyond the basic techniques that
any competent writer has to master.
OTOH, I've long harbored a suspicion that, among writers of similar
competence, those who rely more on conscious planning produce work
with different strengths than those who let their intuition take them
for a ride. Albert Einstein once observed that when he listened to
Beethoven, he had the impression he was listening to a composition,
while when he listened to Mozart, he felt as if the music had always
been there. Which is, I think, a rather straightforward reflection of
their favored compositional processes. Mozart sounds more natural;
Beethoven's works, at their best, have a perfection that Mozart's
lack. Does one prefer the
oh-so-stuck-up-yet-never-quite-as-good-as-the-French-would-like-to-think
planning of Paris, or the themed aleatoric grace of Rome, which seems,
through the hodge-podge succession of empires and popes, to have been
whispered to the earth by a supernal grace? Not that I'm prejudiced,
LOL, but works that have been planned on index cards always seem to me
to have been planned on index cards.
Josh
Paul Heslop
>
> > > Well, since the explanation is nonsensical and the poem just "popped into
> > > your head", I'd conclude that "improvisational poetry" is a bad idea. Poetry
> > > requires thought and meaning, not just the pretty sounding words and
> > > delightful alliteration that you think up spontaneously.
> > >
> > > b.
> >
> > Too strict. That's formal. Of course there are works of poetry that just
> > popped out of people's heads. To believe otherwise is blinkered.
>
> I'll accept that "phrases", "snippets" and even "sentences" can form
> in the subconcious [sp?] and be released in a seemingly spontaneous
> format.
>
> But I will not accept that "works of poetry" just pop out of people's
> heads. Anyone who believes such poetry is "good" needs to raise their
> critical standards. And anyone claiming that their own "poetry" is
> produced in such a fashion must be, in my opinion, idiotically savant.
>
> Good poetry isn't just a collection of words on a page! Ever!
>
> > --
Of course each poet will have created at least one poem first shot, it
just happens. If it hasn't happened to you so be it, but I doubt that
every single poem in the world worthy of that name has had a rewrite.
And it is impossible to prove either way. Elitists will want it to be
otherwise, but its blinkered. If you haven't written one single thing in
one shot and loved it then you haven't lived.
--
Paul
-------------------------------------------------------------
URL-- http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
Writings-- http://Stories.Com/authors/dreamst8
Artbooks-- http://www.bookdezine.com/page5.html
Paul Heslop
Thank you, a sane mind. It just has to be. There will always be
exceptions to every rule, otherwise the bloody world would be a bore and
art and poetry would be so tedious as to be unusable.
ben
> Mass media is a scam.
I agree to an extent, but not all of it is corrupt. Besides, you try
removing the media from the world and see how it grinds to a sudden halt.
> I guess a lot of people crave vicarious experience -- first chewed up,
> and then fed to them while they're asleep.
> When the revolution comes they'll be so much deadwood.
There will be no revolution. People are too content in the comfortable lives
they have. Those that don't have comfortable lives are too poor and
insignificant to do anything about it, and those that do want the world to
change aren't in a position to make it happen. The only way anything will
happen is if America were to fall, and perhaps Britain and other powerful
nations as well. Putting Bush in control was the worst thing you people
could ever do. I'd love to see his face when that oil spill kills everything
in Alaska, maybe it'll knock some sense into him. He's killing your country,
and our planet.
b.
ben
> Everyone knows that "The Rime of the Ancient
> Mariner" came to Wordsworth in an opium dream,
Um...
b.
Joshua P. Hill
Cynthia Moyer
Source cited: _Writing on Drugs_, by Sadie Plant.
From pages 7-8: "In both Britain and America, a wide range of opiated
preparations were on sale for much of the eighteenth and nineteenth
centuries. [...] Opium was cheap, plentiful, and without prejudice: the
perfect quick fix of its day. Mothers used it to keep babies quiet, and
workers in the foundries, the factories, and the mills used it to sleep at
night and survive the working day."
From page 9: "Scott, Shelley, Wordsworth, Southey, Byron, Keats...reams of
gothic fiction and Romantic poetry had taken something of their character
from the drug. In many cases, opium exerted a subtle influence that is
difficult to isolate from all the other themes explored by these writers."
From page 23: "But Coleridge could find no respite from the guilt that
accompanied his use of opium. When he described the serpents, the tortures,
the vicious circles in which he was trapped by his doses--fluid ounces
first, then pints--of the drug, his remorse was palpable."
"Joshua P. Hill" <XXjos...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:jo7pmtcovrrls0am5...@4ax.com...
I once claimed that that "Rime" wuz writ by Longfellow.
"*doh*"
\\//_ - cyn
ben
> And it also depends on how you define "comfortable." There are plenty
> of people with money who aren't comfortable with how things are.:)
Comfortable means either an entire blissfully ignorant contentment with the
way the world is, to which I would remedy with: "Open your eyes and wake up"
or a sort of futile apathy where people know that they aren't happy but
can't/don't see the point in trying to do something about it. People don't
seem to understand that although one person cannot change the world,
*people* can. Although I can't do anything on my own, if ten million people
think in _exactly_ the same way, we may have a start.
> >The only way anything will happen is if America were to fall,
>
> It will go like Rome. Not necessarily in our lifetimes, but we _are_
> seeing the stress-cracks.
Unfortunately, the fall of Rome was a big set-back in history. It may take
centuries to recover what may be lost in a future revolution.
> >and perhaps Britain and other powerful nations as well. Putting Bush
> >in control was the worst thing you people could ever do. I'd love to
> >see his face when that oil spill kills everything in Alaska,
>
> First that plan has to pass the Senate. Let's hope the Democrats
> and some Republicans still know how to do the right thing.
Are you kidding? The Republicans will do the right thing, except that their
"right" involves anything that puts money in their pockets and keeps them in
control. The Democrats are outnumbered and heavily-influenced by Bush. First
the Kyoto and now this. My, he's doing well. All we need now is for him to
say: "What does this important looking red button do?" and nuke the planet.
> He's just a puppet who has inherited a mess. In all likelihood he will
> be gone in 2005 and we'll have another, maybe Hillary the Liar (Sequel
> to Bill the Liar.) Anyway, that's what "we New Yorkers" think.
Clinton was the best President you've had in a while -- which isn't saying
much. Gore would have been a better choice than Bush, but still not a patch
on Clinton. So the man had an affair -- big deal. That was his personal
life, and did not affect the way in which he ran the country. Hillary would
make a fantastic President and even do wonders for egalitarianism in
society.
Yes, I realise that some of the above may be horribly wrong and/or idiotic.
I'm seventeen, apolitical and British. I reckon I'm doing quite well,
considering. :)
b.
ben
What's funnier is that you said "Everyone knows..." whereas in reality, I
don't think even Wordsworth was convinced of that. :)
b.
JPHl
>>The only way anything will happen is if America were to fall,
>
>It will go like Rome. Not necessarily in our lifetimes, but we _are_
>seeing the stress-cracks.
Thanks for the prognostication, oh Wise One. It's like totally awesome
to be in the presence of such -- certitude.
Josh
O O O O that Shakespeherian Rag
It's so elegant
So intelligent
'What shall I do now? What shall I do?'
shunichi waha
do anything about it, and those that >do want the world to change aren't in
a position to make >it happen.
i suppose that all the s11, m1, g8 protestors were all middle-class liberals
with nothing else to do but risk the lives that were so comfortable to them.
'insignificant', hahahahahaha.
and guns aren't that hard to come across for the poor
which female artist wrote "gun make wrong right fast"?
believe me, cythera is right when she says usa will go the way of rome. the
world has never seen such a frightening level of decadence and nihilism, and
it appears that bush wants to point a big ol' gun to his country's head and
pull the trigger. i've never seen such internal indifference. yikes to the
world, george bush has come!
--
the stupidity is limited to these areas -
www.geocities.com/shunichi_waha
or
http://members.dingoblue.net.au/~shunichi
Joshua P. Hill
wrote:
>Clinton was the best President you've had in a while -- which isn't saying
>much. Gore would have been a better choice than Bush, but still not a patch
>on Clinton. So the man had an affair -- big deal. That was his personal
>life, and did not affect the way in which he ran the country. Hillary would
>make a fantastic President and even do wonders for egalitarianism in
>society.
>
>Yes, I realise that some of the above may be horribly wrong and/or idiotic.
>I'm seventeen, apolitical and British. I reckon I'm doing quite well,
>considering. :)
It gives you, I think, a welcome objectivity. I'd say you've pretty
much seen the essence of the circus!
Josh
Joshua P. Hill
wrote:
Just another of many reminders that I should proofread these things
before I send them . . .
Josh
It won't happen though
I'm way too lazy.
ben
> It gives you, I think, a welcome objectivity.
Well, I wouldn't go that far. I'm only apolitical because politics is a
corrupt waste of time and effort. I'm quite liberal in my views, if you
haven't already noticed; although I refuse to align myself with anything.
> I'd say you've pretty much seen the essence of the circus!
Thanks, Josh. All I can say is that it wasn't hard to see. :)
b.
ben
"shunichi waha" <ben_...@malthusian.ate> wrote in message
news:3b6cab4f$0$20923$7f31...@news01.syd.optusnet.com.au...
> >Those that don't have comfortable lives are too poor and insignificant to
> >do anything about it, and those that do want the world to change aren't
in
> >a position to make it happen.
>
> i suppose that all the s11, m1, g8 protestors were all middle-class
liberals
> with nothing else to do but risk the lives that were so comfortable to
them.
Middle-class, lower-class; some were even from the lofty upper echelons of
society. I'd be willing to bet that most were liberal, though. Most
conservatives (?) don't actually care about poverty or the environment since
it doesn't affect them or their world directly.
> 'insignificant', hahahahahaha.
Thanks.
> and guns aren't that hard to come across for the poor
Yes, but what good will a poor man with a gun do against the entire National
Guard? Besides, killing rank and file won't solve this, neither will killing
the President or other high-ranking officials. If you cut of the head,
another will take its place. The only solution is for something really bad
to happen in America, get full media coverage and force Bush to do something
about it. The impending Alaskan oil crisis would be ideal.
> which female artist wrote "gun make wrong right fast"?
> believe me, cythera is right when she says usa will go the way of rome.
Yes, I agreed.
> the world has never seen such a frightening level of decadence and
nihilism, and
> it appears that bush wants to point a big ol' gun to his country's head
and
> pull the trigger. i've never seen such internal indifference. yikes to the
> world, george bush has come!
Yep. And guess who you guys can blame?
b.
ben
"JPHl" <j...@nospam.mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:7dapmtg4285ht2fbs...@4ax.com...
> On 4 Aug 2001 18:39:53 -0700, cyt...@my-deja.com (cythera) wrote:
>
> >>The only way anything will happen is if America were to fall,
> >
> >It will go like Rome. Not necessarily in our lifetimes, but we _are_
> >seeing the stress-cracks.
>
> Thanks for the prognostication, oh Wise One. It's like totally awesome
> to be in the presence of such -- certitude.
>
> Josh
I'm glad that you like me, because I'd hate to get on your bad side. :)
b.
ben
> Just another of many reminders that I should proofread these things
> before I send them . . .
Nah, proofreading is for wimps!
> Josh
>
> It won't happen though
> I'm way too lazy.
Right on.
b.
Mike Billard
news:3b6c...@news1.homechoice.co.uk...
> <snip>
>
>
> Clinton was the best President you've had in a while -- which isn't saying
> much. Gore would have been a better choice than Bush, but still not a
patch
> on Clinton. So the man had an affair -- big deal. That was his personal
> life, and did not affect the way in which he ran the country.
This I have to disagree with, at least in part. Adultery is still considered
a socially unacceptable behavior in the U.S. Now, I'm not making any sort of
moralistic judgment on that, only stating our current condition. But,
because of that fact people will have a natural desire to keep such behavior
a secret. And that desire exposes the person to blackmail. It would be great
if we could say "Big deal!", but it's not that simple. If Congressman
Porkbarrel learns of the affair he can say to the president, "I've got this
wildlife preserve in my district that *really* needs a couple of oil fields
planted in it, if you know what I mean. BTW: You still taking executive
privilege with that intern?" Can we say that his desire to keep his affair
secret didn't really affect the way Clinton ran the country? Nope. Maybe we
got lucky and the affair had no bearing on any of Clinton's decisions, but
we don't really know that for sure. The risk certainly was there. And we
have to acknowledge that.
We had an incident several years ago in the U.S. military where a female
officer and pilot of a nuclear capable B-52 bomber was caught having an
affair with a married enlisted man. People couldn't understand the nature
and scope of the risk involved there. Again, I'm not going to make any
moralistic judgments about the situation, or even about the double standard
that exists between men and women when it comes to sexual indiscretions, but
I fully support her court martial and discharge from the military. Not
because what she did was so bad, but because she left herself vulnerable to
blackmail. She was the pilot of a *nuclear capable* B-52 bomber for Christ's
sake! No one knows to what extent she would have gone to keep her affair
secret. Who's to say she wouldn't have been willing to miss a target if
threatened with exposure? And that possibility is more than enough reason to
relieve her of her responsibility. For the record, I think the same standard
should apply to men, too.
There is no personal life for people in such positions because *every*
personal decision they make can potentially be manipulated or exploited to
affect public decisions. Let's look at another example: Congressman Gary
Condit had an affair with an intern. She turned up missing several months
ago. Even though Condit probably had nothing to do with her disappearance,
it was important enough to keep the affair secret that he impeded the
investigation. If it was *that* important to him, was it not likely also
important enough for him to change his vote on one or two key pieces of
legislation? Sure.
Would it be just great if a public official's private life had no bearing on
his public responsibilities? Oh yeah! But until that happens we have to
demand that our public officials exercise a level of control that exceeds
that of the average citizen. A public official having an affair *is* a big
deal because it compromises what little integrity his office may actually
hold, and exposes him to an additional level of corruption. (I'm not
cynical enough to say that since all politicians are already 100% corrupt
all the time, nothing can add to their corruption.)
shunichi waha
fair dinkum
--
throw another shrimp on the barbie.
www.geocities.com/shunichi_waha
or
http://members.dingoblue.net.au/~shunichi
Joshua P. Hill
wrote:
LOL -- rest assured, that requires more than a little effort. Baseless
insults, obnoxious and fallacious projective imputations of motive,
in-your-face bigotry, and death threats aimed at newsgroup particpants
are good starting points for the aspiring bad sider.
Given that in years gone by I've been noted less for venom than for
kindliness, the fact that I currently find myself at odds with several
here (three of them killfiled, one or two still active) is a sad
commentary on the degree to which the group has deteriorated.
Josh
shunichi waha
i can't see anything good about being 'apolitical', but i don't see that it
is really possible, either. it's more like a good way of being underhand and
manipulative.
but then again, you are seventeen.
j r sherman
says...
>
>>>cyt...@my-deja.com (cythera) wrote in message
>>>news:<fadef76.01080...@posting.google.com>...
>> > > <be...@homechoice.co.uk> wrote on Sun, 5 Aug 2001 01:44:15 +0100:
>
><snip>
>
>>>Mass media is a scam.
>
>>I agree to an extent, but not all of it is corrupt. Besides, you
>>try removing the media from the world and see how it grinds to a
>>sudden halt.
>
>>>I guess a lot of people crave vicarious experience -- first chewed up,
>>>and then fed to them while they're asleep.
>>>When the revolution comes they'll be so much deadwood.
>
>>There will be no revolution.
>
and what do we gain by having a revolution? every revolution in the 20th century
ended with a grinning, blood covered Stalin at the end of it.
>>People are too content in the comfortable lives they have. Those that
>>don't have comfortable lives are too poor and insignificant to do
>>anything about it, and those that do want the world to change aren't
>>in a position to make it happen.
>
>Not immediately. Unfortunately they rejected the only sane choice
>for President.
indeed, Al Gore.
>But grassroot action is still alive and well.
unless it's the Greens, who worked very hard to elect George Bush, thank you.
>>The only way anything will happen is if America were to fall,
>
>It will go like Rome. Not necessarily in our lifetimes, but we _are_
>seeing the stress-cracks.
as i've stated before, it took Rome 1400 years to fall. if we're going by Roman
Standard Empire Time, the US has 1200 good years left.
enjoy.
>>and perhaps Britain and other powerful nations as well. Putting Bush
>>in control was the worst thing you people could ever do. I'd love to
>>see his face when that oil spill kills everything in Alaska,
>
>First that plan has to pass the Senate. Let's hope the Democrats
>and some Republicans still know how to do the right thing.
if the Greens hadn't supported the mad-man Nader, none of this would be a
concern.
>>maybe it'll knock some sense into him. He's killing your country,
>>and our planet.
>
>He's just a puppet who has inherited a mess. In all likelihood he will
>be gone in 2005 and we'll have another, maybe Hillary the Liar (Sequel
>to Bill the Liar.) Anyway, that's what "we New Yorkers" think.
no one seriously thinks Hilary Clinton will be elected president, ever. but even
the dumb-left must admit that she's smarter than Bush. but most inanimate
objects are.
>cythera (resident of California -- and no, I don't even have a car :).
somewhere near the Peoples Republic of Santa Cruz? Santa Cruz, taking political
correctness even farther than Berkeley, and that's scary.
most sincerely,
j r sherman
JAS Carter
yodeled:
>(I'm not cynical enough to say that since all politicians are already 100% corrupt
>all the time, nothing can add to their corruption.)
I am.
--
Julie Carter
Dennis M. Hammes
...and was interrupted by a subway bum from Porlock Station who
wouldn't let him go to the wedding but kept hanging around his neck
like an albatross.
Everyone knows that.
--
>^,,^<
When did it stop being true that an artist is somebody
who can do something more or less well which the rest of us
can only do badly or not at all? -- Tom Stoppard
http://t-independent.com/scrawlmark-press/
Joshua P. Hill
>Would it be just great if a public official's private life had no bearing on
>his public responsibilities? Oh yeah! But until that happens we have to
>demand that our public officials exercise a level of control that exceeds
>that of the average citizen. A public official having an affair *is* a big
>deal because it compromises what little integrity his office may actually
>hold, and exposes him to an additional level of corruption. (I'm not
>cynical enough to say that since all politicians are already 100% corrupt
>all the time, nothing can add to their corruption.)
I'm reminded of rumors to the effect that Nelson Rockefeller may have
lost the Republican nomination to Richard Nixon because he was late
entering the race because he had to pay off a woman he'd knocked up.
But it politicians are any less apt than the general population to
have affairs, I'm not aware of it: Franklin Roosevelt, JFK, and George
Bush Sr. had them, and those are the ones I know about. I've heard it
said that leaders are apt to have large sexual appetites. I don't know
whether that's fact or fiction. But it has been demonstrated that
testosterone levels rise with power. That can be particularly
problematic when one is stuck in a bad marraige through political
necessity. And I wonder whether one of the personality traits that
makes an effective politician -- a desire to please a multitude --
doesn't carry over into personal relationships as well.
But overall I'd say I'm of the old school when it comes to personal
hanky-panky. Affairs are hardly admirable, but I see no relationship
between sexual fidelity and performance in public office, and I
wouldn't want to do without an FDR or a JFK on account of something
50% (or something like that) of American men have done. We all have a
skeleton or two in the closet and I wonder if the real problem here
isn't that the deeds themselves are subject to blackmail, but that
after Watergate the press lost its ability to separate Nixonesque
political evils from personal peccadilloes, thereby casting all
politicians in the same dour light and obscuring for the public the
difference between the well and bad intentioned, and handing to the
evil the very tools they needed to further their never-ending attempts
to smear the good.
Josh
j r sherman
>
>ben <be...@homechoice.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:3b6c...@news1.homechoice.co.uk...
>> <snip>
>>
>>
>> Clinton was the best President you've had in a while -- which isn't saying
>> much. Gore would have been a better choice than Bush, but still not a
>patch
>> on Clinton. So the man had an affair -- big deal. That was his personal
>> life, and did not affect the way in which he ran the country.
>
>This I have to disagree with, at least in part. Adultery is still considered
>a socially unacceptable behavior in the U.S. Now, I'm not making any sort of
>moralistic judgment on that, only stating our current condition.
this is not the current condition, mike, this is what a small minority and the
mass media believe is the current condition of american morality. on the whole
most americans don't give a shit who sleeps with who. we're even getting to a
point in this sometimes backwards country where people are better excepting of
gays and lesbians, as well as the sexual lives of others, which is the business
of no one but the individuals involved.
>But,
>because of that fact people will have a natural desire to keep such behavior
>a secret. And that desire exposes the person to blackmail. It would be great
>if we could say "Big deal!", but it's not that simple.
indeed, because of the media and the small minority of americans who believe
they have a right to dictate the morals of of other individuals, which they do
not.
>If Congressman
>Porkbarrel learns of the affair he can say to the president, "I've got this
>wildlife preserve in my district that *really* needs a couple of oil fields
>planted in it, if you know what I mean. BTW: You still taking executive
>privilege with that intern?" Can we say that his desire to keep his affair
>secret didn't really affect the way Clinton ran the country? Nope.
mike, it was a tempest in a teapot and a should never have been an issue in the
first place. the rest of the world roared with laughter over our idiotic, nazi
congress attempting to impeach a powerful, popular and effective president over
an issue as ridiculous as the "intern" affair.
>Maybe we
>got lucky and the affair had no bearing on any of Clinton's decisions, but
>we don't really know that for sure. The risk certainly was there. And we
>have to acknowledge that.
or, we as a nation can mind our own business, there's an idea.
>We had an incident several years ago in the U.S. military where a female
>officer and pilot of a nuclear capable B-52 bomber
mike, there aren't any nuclear weapons in B-52s, and haven't been for a long
time, since before the Gulf War.
>was caught having an
>affair with a married enlisted man. People couldn't understand the nature
>and scope of the risk involved there.
what was the risk of her having an affair with anyone she wanted? that one still
mystifies me.
>Again, I'm not going to make any
>moralistic judgments about the situation, or even about the double standard
>that exists between men and women when it comes to sexual indiscretions, but
>I fully support her court martial and discharge from the military. Not
>because what she did was so bad, but because she left herself vulnerable to
>blackmail. She was the pilot of a *nuclear capable* B-52 bomber for Christ's
>sake! No one knows to what extent she would have gone to keep her affair
>secret.
she was going to bomb New York? mike, don't you think you're being a little
over-dramatic here?
>Who's to say she wouldn't have been willing to miss a target if
>threatened with exposure? And that possibility is more than enough reason to
>relieve her of her responsibility. For the record, I think the same standard
>should apply to men, too.
for the record the personal lives of others shouldn't be the concern of anyone
but the indivisuals involved.
>There is no personal life for people in such positions because *every*
>personal decision they make can potentially be manipulated or exploited to
>affect public decisions. Let's look at another example: Congressman Gary
>Condit had an affair with an intern. She turned up missing several months
>ago. Even though Condit probably had nothing to do with her disappearance,
>it was important enough to keep the affair secret that he impeded the
>investigation. If it was *that* important to him, was it not likely also
>important enough for him to change his vote on one or two key pieces of
>legislation? Sure.
>
>Would it be just great if a public official's private life had no bearing on
>his public responsibilities? Oh yeah! But until that happens we have to
>demand that our public officials exercise a level of control that exceeds
>that of the average citizen.
bullshit! how can we demand that others follow a path that we're not willing to
follow ourselves?
i don't give a fuck who sleeps with who. and it shouldn't matter to anyone who
sleeps with who.
you perpetuate the hypocrisy by demanding that they do. all of us have things we
could be blackmailed for. but if we would life by the principle that the lives
of others are none of our business, then this wouldn't be an issue.
>A public official having an affair *is* a big
>deal because it compromises what little integrity his office may actually
>hold, and exposes him to an additional level of corruption. (I'm not
>cynical enough to say that since all politicians are already 100% corrupt
>all the time, nothing can add to their corruption.)
it's interesting, Clinton was an effective president. he was an intelligent
leader and did many good things for this country. yet because we have this
absolutely ridiculous idea of how others should live their lives he gets knocked
for the most trivial issues. he balanced the budget, he reformed the welfare
system, and most importantly he kept back the madness that threatened to engulf
our government after the 1994 elections, yet for all his accomplishments he gets
knocked because we can't mind our own business, the congress at that time was
nuts, and the media blew the whole affair out of proportion?
sometimes the fault lies not in the stars.
shunichi waha
>because what she did was so bad, but because she left >herself vulnerable
to
Christ's
>sake! No one knows to what extent she would have >gone to keep her affair
>secret.
yeah, but only because of the knowledge that being found out would have the
consequences it did. remove those consequences, and you remove all
susceptibility to blackmail. her only relevant misdeed pertaining to the
military or state security was in being exposed.
as one scientist said of dr manhattan 'god exists and he's american'. at
least that what american society believes. i mean by that - the society as
expressed in its culture and its cultural product also.
"My name is Ozymandias, king of
kings:
Look on my works, ye mighty, and
despair!"
Nothing beside remains. Round the
decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and
bare,
The lone and level sands stretch far
away.
lots of this is in alan moore's graphic novel, the watchmen.
j r sherman
says...
>
>In article <fadef76.01080...@posting.google.com>, cyt...@my-deja.com
>says...
>>
>>>>cyt...@my-deja.com (cythera) wrote in message
>>>>news:<fadef76.01080...@posting.google.com>...
>>><be...@homechoice.co.uk> wrote on Sun, 5 Aug 2001 01:44:15 +0100:
>
>[...]
>
>>>>The only way anything will happen is if America were to fall,
>>
>>>It will go like Rome. Not necessarily in our lifetimes, but we _are_
>>>seeing the stress-cracks.
>
>>as i've stated before, it took Rome 1400 years to fall. if we're
>>going by Roman Standard Empire Time, the US has 1200 good years left.
>
>>enjoy.
>
>_tonight._
perhaps one prefers the kind and gentle ways of Stalinist Russia, or the
all-caring polices of Nazi Germany, or, no, the wise methods of Mao's Cultural
Revolution to the mean ol' Pax Americana of the last 56 years?
>>>and perhaps Britain and other powerful nations as well. Putting Bush
>>>in control was the worst thing you people could ever do. I'd love to
>>>see his face when that oil spill kills everything in Alaska,
>>
>
>>>First that plan has to pass the Senate. Let's hope the Democrats
>>>and some Republicans still know how to do the right thing.
>
>>if the Greens hadn't supported the mad-man Nader, none of this would
>>be a concern.
>
>Algour couldn't even carry his own state.
so naturally working very hard to help George Bush get elected was the best
possible solution to the world's ills?
>>>>maybe it'll knock some sense into him. He's killing your country,
>>>>and our planet.
>>
>>>He's just a puppet who has inherited a mess. In all likelihood he
>>>will be gone in 2005 and we'll have another, maybe Hillary the Liar
>>>(Sequel to Bill the Liar.) Anyway, that's what "we New Yorkers"
>>> think.
>
>> no one seriously thinks Hilary Clinton will be elected president,
>> ever. but even the dumb-left must admit that she's smarter than Bush.
>> but most inanimate objects are.
>
>Presidents don't have to be smart, though that helps. What they need
>most are good advisers and a good Congress.
Bush doesn't even have those two options. his advisors, when not Republican
tokens, like in case of Colin Powell, or raving madmen, like the attorney
general, are oil company consultants.
again, what were the benefits of voting for Nader?
>>> cythera (resident of California -- and no, I don't even have a
>>> car :).
>
>> somewhere near the Peoples Republic of Santa Cruz?
>
>No, somewhere near the Cliff House.
god, i hope you never eat there. it's strictly for the tourists. over priced
bland food. i didn't know it was possible to make garlic shrimp taste boring,
but the Cliff House has found a way.
Rik Roots
>
> > [I'm going in here over my head, but sod it...]
> >
> > Tracey Emin's bed is not art. It is a statement.
>
> What nonsensic dualism
Martijn - I said I was going in over my head. I cannot back up what I
say in any rational, or reasonable, way. But the fact remains that the
effect that bed had on this artisan was "so what?"
If the artist was aiming for a "so what?" reaction from her audience,
they she succeeded in her objective. If she was trying to convey
something meaningful and significant to me through her "art", then she
failed.
I've not yet found a decent definition of what I mean by Art, but I
live in hope that the definition will include a point about the piece
successfully conveying the artist's intent (message, story,
inspiration, whatever) to its audience. Otherwise, what's the fucking
point?
Rik, knee deep
--
http://www.kalieda.org/poems/
Pop in for a browse, when you have a moment to spare...
Rik Roots
Well, yes...
> I didn't say poetry, I said poems.
I'll be interested in how you categorise "poetry" and "poems"
> Of course each poet will have created at least one poem first shot, it
> just happens. If it hasn't happened to you so be it, but I doubt that
> every single poem in the world worthy of that name has had a rewrite.
Yes, I can physically write a complete poem in 5 minutes, and yes, the
euphoria will last for minutes, sometimes hours. But then, reality
returns, I start to read the piece without my pride filtering my eyes,
and the errors, inconsistencies, flats and flourishes come into focus.
Joshua mentions Shakespeare and Wordsworth as being able to write
complete verse straight out. But I wonder how many years they spent
training, rehearsing, testing themselves on friends, perfecting this
ability before using it to create their latest book of verse
(In the case of Wordsworth, I would feel that perhaps he was using
"inspired" verse for much of his later work. But then I have nurtured
a deep, abiding hatred for the man's more mature stuff for well over
30 years)
For what it's worth, I feel my first drafts are beginning to get
better, but I remain convinced that even the most brilliant of
first draft jewels will gain extra lustre from a quick, objective
edit before they are posted (or published).
> And it is impossible to prove either way. Elitists will want it to be
> otherwise, but its blinkered. If you haven't written one single thing in
> one shot and loved it then you haven't lived.
>
Then my life is a worthless sham. Perhaps I should crawl back under my
rock and not disturb people with my ramblings again...
>
> --
> Paul
Rik, knee deep.
Dale Houstman
"Dennis M. Hammes" <scraw...@cableone.net> wrote in message
news:3B6BF9C3...@cableone.net...
> >
> If you accept that toothpaste just pops out of the tube or that
> popcorn just pops out of the kernel (or popper), then you have to
> accept that works of poetry just pop out of people's heads, since
> there is no other known source. If your quibble is with what was put
> into the tube, kernel, or popper, and how it was stirred before it
> popped, say so.
> I'm sorry; this comment just popped out of my head.
And I am afraid it tends to affirm what Rik said: as a thought this is very
much less than astute. I think he ( and everyone else) knows that poetry
comes from the mind. The important word here is "pops." Certainly the raw
material of art "pops" from the head, but then that material is manipulated
in different ways. In this regard it is more like biscuit baking dough: it
surely pops from its tube, but then it has to be unrolled and baked at a
certain temperature and for a certain period of time. Your analogy is rather
unformed.
dmh
Dale Houstman
"Aidan Tynan" <aty...@eircom.net> wrote in message
news:AQZa7.22438$Fk7.2...@news.indigo.ie...
>
>
> >>
> >> What about Breton and co.? In fact, the whole of surrealism?
> >>
> >
> >Breton supposedly spent weeks (or longer) perfecting most of his
> >"automatic" poetry, of which I am a great admirer. He was pretty much of
a
> >control freak, and was usually dissatisfied with the results of pure
> >automatic writing, as least as they pertained to aesthetic concerns.
There
> >were - of course - works produced "on the run" but the surrealists tended
> to
> >think of them as "texts" rather than "poems." I think you'll find most of
> >the published poetic works of surrealists to be - while imagistically
> >hermetic - metaphorically organized, like other poetry. This is why they
> >considered Benjamin Peret to be the "purest expression of surrealism" as
> his
> >works defy easy analysis and are - for the most part - extremely
> >revolutionary in regards to "sense." But Eluard wrote mostly love poetry,
> >Desnos' works seem often narratively coherent (if high-romantic), and so
> on.
> >
> >Most surrealists discover early on that there is a difference between
pure
> >automatic writing and their secret yearnings for art, and only find
> >"scientific" interest in purely spontaneous work.
>
> Yes, you're right. I've been reading From the Hidden Storehouse recently,
> curiously the only in-print book I could find from Peret. I was just
> pointing out to ben, in a crude way, something he probably hadn't heard
> about before.
>
I have that, and "A Marvelous World" and "Death To The Pigs & Other
Writings." "Death To The Pigs" is interesting because it gives his prose and
letters, and provides a clearer sense of where he is coming from. Taken as a
poet in the traditional sense, he is merely aggravating, but in the context
of "freedom of the word" he is fascinating. He is - willfully - an affront.
dmh
ben
"Mike Billard" <mbil...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:9kidek$2it$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
Well, that does make a surprising amount of sense. Thanks, Mike. And again I
return to my motto: "People suck." And perhaps in addendum: "Especially
interns"?
b.
ben
"shunichi waha" <ben_...@malthusian.ate> wrote in message
> <with his hand a plug upon his bleeding heart>
>
> i can't see anything good about being 'apolitical', but i don't see that
it
> is really possible, either. it's more like a good way of being underhand
and
> manipulative.
I don't vote, and I ultimately don't care who runs the country because
they're all as corrupt as each other. I would, if forced, side with the
liberals.
> but then again, you are seventeen.
And how old are you?
b.
shunichi waha
than for the outcome of the election? i'd be fighting against that, bro.
Chuck Lysaght
out, and formal poetry by a mile. And it did in this case too.
"ben" <be...@homechoice.co.uk> wrote in message news:<3b698b96$1...@news1.homechoice.co.uk>...
> "Sjpolanco" <sjpo...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20010802130152...@ng-ci1.aol.com...
> > hmmm....
> > it was an improv poem,
> > i wrote it in just a few minutes.
> >
> > an explanation......
> >
> > 1.sugar coated sandstorms = a lover
> > 2.heads spinning under ergegious crack jack boxes = multiple disfunctional
> > personalities hidden beneath a surface that looks completely common
> > 3.cacophony = just thinking about how sex here becomes JUST SEX.....the
> only
> > music is just dissonance of PLASTICS/RUBBERS..anti-romance...
> > 4.humming bird = your individual conscience telling you its wrong, but a
> > collective conscience moving further from feeling than you are and cloning
> > non-humans (just a bag of bones) to be more cold than you are.......
> >
> >
> > how's that for B.S.'ing my an poem??!
> > this is just what i am extracting from my poem... when i wrote it i just
> wrote
> > the stuff that first popped into my head......
>
> Well, since the explanation is nonsensical and the poem just "popped into
> your head", I'd conclude that "improvisational poetry" is a bad idea. Poetry
> requires thought and meaning, not just the pretty sounding words and
> delightful alliteration that you think up spontaneously.
>
> b.
Peter J Ross
news:baeb9763.01080...@posting.google.com...
<snip>
Poetry stolen by Charles Lysaght:
http://www.aapcsite.plus.com/plagiarism.htm
ben
"shunichi waha" <ben_...@malthusian.ate> wrote in message
> 25.
Hmm.
> did you know more people voted on the outcome of the english big brother
> than for the outcome of the election? i'd be fighting against that, bro.
Why? Doesn't bother me. I thought it was quite funny, actually.
b.
j r sherman
so ben, i'm curious. you mention you don't vote, i guess because you're 17. the
voting age in the UK is 18, right? same as here in the US, if i am correct, and
do correct me if i'm wrong.
but anyway, are you against voting in general, or is it that you can't vote at
17 is why you don't vote, is that correct?
like i said, i was just curious.
shunichi waha
ok, ok. it's not true. i'll tell you when i feel i need to.
>I thought it was quite funny, actually.
yes. you *are* 17 after all. no, really - it is pretty funny.
ben
"j r sherman" <jr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:9kk24...@drn.newsguy.com...
Well, I can't vote -- but if I could, I wouldn't.
b.
Martijn Benders
Rik Roots wrote:
>
> > Rik Roots wrote:
> >
> > > [I'm going in here over my head, but sod it...]
> > >
> > > Tracey Emin's bed is not art. It is a statement.
> >
> > What nonsensic dualism
>
> Martijn - I said I was going in over my head. I cannot back up what I
> say in any rational, or reasonable, way. But the fact remains that the
> effect that bed had on this artisan was "so what?"
And because of that you claim it wouldn't be art but 'a statement'?
What kind of statement is an unmade bed? I mean I agree about it being a
dull piece of work, most of all because this kind of 'tricks' are nice
once and get old really really fast. After Duchamp 'readymades' had
little future if they were not somekind of variation on the joke that
could still be considered funny. Why the media gave so much attention to
this hyped artist is really quite beyond me, but my guess is it's
because of the high prices she asked for the works.
> I've not yet found a decent definition of what I mean by Art, but I
> live in hope that the definition will include a point about the piece
> successfully conveying the artist's intent (message, story,
> inspiration, whatever) to its audience. Otherwise, what's the fucking
> point?
I don't really share this view - since a single person can't be said to
constitute 'an audience' and I don't necissarily see anything wrong with
an artist who creates things only he himself comprehends at first. To
quote a statement: 'Fashion is about beautiful things that grow more
ugly with time, while art is about ugly things that grow more beautiful
with the same...'
Martijn
j r sherman
well...it doesn't sound like you have anything better to do, ya know?
ben
> well...it doesn't sound like you have anything better to do, ya know?
Than vote? Cleaning the gunk out of the drainpipes is better than THAT.
b.
Paul Heslop
Rik, it is easy to see that you remain blinkered. I don't care who the
poet is or how long he has been writing, he has done as I say, written
the poem in one sitting. You cannot deny it, and whether you like your
work, mine or anyone else's isn't relevant to the discussion. Did the
poets ever write a good work in one sitting? Answer? Yes, of course they
did, as other things are occasionaly done in one sitting.
The difference between poetry and poems. distinguishing the difference
between one poem and the whole of poetry. I would venture a guess that
for every ninety nine good poems written in two or three sittings there
is one single sitter, fair enough? Poetry, is all poetry, poems are some
poems, a poem is singular. Am I being too vague for you still?
--
Paul
-------------------------------------------------------------
URL-- http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
Writings-- http://Stories.Com/authors/dreamst8
Artbooks-- http://www.bookdezine.com/page5.html
Mike Billard
news:3b6d...@news1.homechoice.co.uk...
> <snip>
>
> > well...it doesn't sound like you have anything better to do, ya know?
>
> Than vote? Cleaning the gunk out of the drainpipes is better than THAT.
>
Paul Heslop
>
> 25. did you know more people voted on the outcome of the english big brother
> than for the outcome of the election? i'd be fighting against that, bro.
>
> --
shunichi waha
still says a lot about peoples 'involvement' in the community.
j r sherman
>
><snip>
>
>> well...it doesn't sound like you have anything better to do, ya know?
>
>Than vote? Cleaning the gunk out of the drainpipes is better than THAT.
like you actually clean out drainpipes. but hey, that's cool, you can do what
you want, just as long as you don't bitch about the way things are run. because
if you don't vote, then you can't bitch about the situation. it's sorta like
bitching about never winning the lottery when ya never buy a ticket...know what
i mean?
j r sherman
>
>shunichi waha wrote:
>>
>> 25. did you know more people voted on the outcome of the english big brother
>> than for the outcome of the election? i'd be fighting against that, bro.
>>
>> --
>I don't really think this is true.
>
i don't either. the UK has one of the best records in western europe on voting.
and i hear many of them not only vote, but also clean out drainpipes too. it's
amazing.