Defining *GOOD* ART
Excession
Would smashing several galaxies together be 'artistic'? I'm sure in
some sense of the word 'art' it could be deemed to be so.
A more interesting question (in that it will generate a much wider
response) is what comprises GOOD Art.
One of the better things about living in Canberra, is the Australian
National Gallery. It has wide range of stuff. Some works do nothing
for me, even though it is apparent that they took time and energy to
do.
Others make me cringe "people paid money for this?"
Examples:
Pages out of a telephone directory, with a kid's house hastily
scrawled on it. Less than 15 seconds work.
Dean Koons (?sp), the guy who did the Flower Dog, and the Stainless
Steel Inflated Bunny (and he just had the 'idea' the actual works are
built by 'subcontractors').
I am frequently fascinated by paintings, how the painters use their
skills to depict reality with a -just so- single brushstroke. Then
there are portraits that leave me cold, or wondering what all the fuss
was about.
Contrarily, one of the major pieces of art at ANG is Blue Poles, which
is the splash of paint on canvas. So it didn't seem to take much
skill to create, but even so, it's an imposing piece of work. It is
quite big, and has so many different colours and textures. So it
contravenes the 'it much take effort' rule, but still manages to be
Art.
I find that about 50% of the items on show in ANG don't strike me as
being GOOD art. The curators obviously think otherwise, and I have no
education in art, so I don't know why a particular carved bowl is
special.
I remember once getting fourth place in a woodturning exhibition at
the Royal Adelaide Show, for a bowl turned on a lathe. It was an ok
piece, done in high-school woodwork class, and it took some effort,
but was it art? I don't think so. :)
Excession
[Fractal piccies are artistic to me, even though little human effort
is involved in creating them!]
--
David Andrew Clayton # Please remove NOSPAM. when
d...@NOSPAM.pcug.org.au # sending email replies.
I post therefore I am. # http://www.pcug.org.au/~dac
Donna Leaf
>
> Defining what is Art, is difficult if not impossible.
>
I, too, find some of what is called 'modern art' questionable at best.
I currently attend classes about two blocks from San Francisco's Museum
of Modern Art (SFMOMA), and on occasion, when I have a longish break
between classes, I'll take a stroll down there and wander through the
galleries. There is a Mark Rothko 'color block' painting for which the
museum paid (IIRC) $1.5 million - it is simply a canvas with the top 1/4
painted one color, the bottom 3/4 painted another color, and a
horizontal line of a third color dividing them. There is a Robert
Rauschenberg which is simply three parallel white panels. I'm sorry,
that's not art, at least in my definition. Of course, the one that
really makes me shake my head is the urinal, laid on its 'back' and
presented as a piece of 'sculpture.'
I admit to having a personal bias in favor of what I would class as
'representational' art. I also tend to be more likely to consider
something as art is it's something I *couldn't* do just as well and/or
as easily myself.
I recently accompanied my daughter's gifted education class on a field
trip to MOMA. It was revealing to hear the observations of these
exceptionally bright but otherwise fairly typical 11-to-13-year-olds.
Rather like being in the Hans Christian Anderson (or maybe it was one of
the Brothers Grimm) tale. "But the Emperor isn't wearing any clothes."
MM
Gene Szedenits, Jr.
Gene Szedenits, Jr.
Donna Leaf <mrfi...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:3912F97E...@pacbell.net...
> Excession wrote:
> >
> > Defining what is Art, is difficult if not impossible.
> >
> (respectful snip of Excessions musings)
>
> I, too, find some of what is called 'modern art' questionable at best.
> I currently attend classes about two blocks from San Francisco's Museum
> of Modern Art (SFMOMA), and on occasion, when I have a longish break
> between classes, I'll take a stroll down there and wander through the
> galleries. There is a Mark Rothko 'color block' painting for which the
> museum paid (IIRC) $1.5 million - it is simply a canvas with the top 1/4
> painted one color, the bottom 3/4 painted another color, and a
> horizontal line of a third color dividing them.
To tie this to my own post, this is, indeed, a kind of 'art'. Arguably,
worth doing to explore the way those colors look. But IMO *NOT*
worth $1.5M.
Several books on learning to paint recommend the student just play
with the stuff a lot before trying to paint a picture. See how one color
looks next to another. See how to shade one into another. Scumble.
Wash. Like artistic fingering exercises rather than a performance
piece. This Rothko, by your description, strikes me as such an
exercise but done by a 'name' and therefore capable of getting
large sums from a museum.
Xthread. What if the museum saved a few bucks by slopping
such a 'color block' together and displaying it as a Rothko
replica or just in the style of Rothko? Would they be violating
some copyright laws or such?
> There is a Robert
> Rauschenberg which is simply three parallel white panels. I'm sorry,
> that's not art, at least in my definition. Of course, the one that
> really makes me shake my head is the urinal, laid on its 'back' and
> presented as a piece of 'sculpture.'
This is another case where I would, as a curator, head for the hardware
store and display it as an example of the kind of stuff XYZZY did.
> I admit to having a personal bias in favor of what I would class as
> 'representational' art.
Well, it is easier to tell when someone does it right. When it's
abstract daubs and shapes you can't really know if it looks that
way by craft or accident.
> I also tend to be more likely to consider
> something as art is it's something I *couldn't* do just as well and/or
> as easily myself.
Ah, but what if you're incredibly talented?
> I recently accompanied my daughter's gifted education class on a field
> trip to MOMA. It was revealing to hear the observations of these
> exceptionally bright but otherwise fairly typical 11-to-13-year-olds.
> Rather like being in the Hans Christian Anderson (or maybe it was one of
> the Brothers Grimm) tale. "But the Emperor isn't wearing any clothes."
>
> MM
Remember that being in a museum is like being in an old attic. Not all the
'treasures' are worth a lot and some are junk but they happen to be what
was around at some time and survived. Of course, the museum probably
paid more for their junk.
Gene
MaiaMoon
>something as art is it's something I *couldn't* do just as well and/or
>as easily myself.
My favorite *good* art has always been sculptures by Michelagelo or Rodin. I
also have a weakness for fantasy art and landscapes like Boris Vallejo and Bob
Ross. I have just as much of a hard time understanding modern art as I do
understanding modern music. Give me some Zepplin or Rush. :)
Sandy
Jette Goldie
Excession wrote in message ...
>Defining what is Art, is difficult if not impossible.
>
Eeeeh, but that's a DIFFICULT subject.
You see what YOU like, another may not. Your view MAY
match the majority, it may not. What is hated today may
be loved tomorrow, or vice versa.
If we try to pin labels like *good* art versus *bad* art
we end up getting into very dangerous waters.
Good art is for each person what that person enjoys
and it is worth paying what that person is prepared
to pay. That is as definite as I am willing to be.
Jette Goldie
jette....@u.genie.co.uk
HISTORICON 2001 - Setting the Standards for the Next Millennium
5th & 6th May 2001, Edinburgh, Scotland UK
http://you.genie.co.uk/jette.goldie/
http://www.onelist.com/subscribe/historicon
Adam Littman
>Excession wrote:
>>
>> Defining what is Art, is difficult if not impossible.
>>
>
> I, too, find some of what is called 'modern art' questionable at best.
>I currently attend classes about two blocks from San Francisco's Museum
>of Modern Art (SFMOMA), and on occasion, when I have a longish break
>between classes, I'll take a stroll down there and wander through the
>galleries. There is a Mark Rothko 'color block' painting for which the
>museum paid (IIRC) $1.5 million - it is simply a canvas with the top 1/4
>painted one color, the bottom 3/4 painted another color, and a
>Rauschenberg which is simply three parallel white panels. I'm sorry,
>that's not art, at least in my definition. Of course, the one that
>really makes me shake my head is the urinal, laid on its 'back' and
>presented as a piece of 'sculpture.'
Please tell me no taxpayer money went into purchasing those things. I mean for
God's sake, Robert Rauschenberg actually sold them a "Cow in a meadow
painting"? My art teacher in highschool would have nailed my hide to the wall
if I tried to get away with that.
> I recently accompanied my daughter's gifted education class on a field
>trip to MOMA. It was revealing to hear the observations of these
>exceptionally bright but otherwise fairly typical 11-to-13-year-olds.
>Rather like being in the Hans Christian Anderson (or maybe it was one of
>the Brothers Grimm) tale. "But the Emperor isn't wearing any clothes."
--
___________
Adam Littman / ^ \
AL...@cornell.edu /\ / \ /\
/__\__/___\__/__\
/ \( ) ( )/ \
\ /\ o /\ /
\ / \( )/ \ /
"Four minutes twenty-two seconds, \/____\_/____\/
Baldric, you owe me a groat" \ \ /
--Blackadder \ / \ /
---------
Adam Littman
>
>Donna Leaf <mrfi...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>news:3912F97E...@pacbell.net...
>Xthread. What if the museum saved a few bucks by slopping
>such a 'color block' together and displaying it as a Rothko
>replica or just in the style of Rothko? Would they be violating
>some copyright laws or such?
Hey, if microsoft can patent ones and zeros I don't see why not.
http://www.theonion.com/onion3311/microsoftpatents.html
Warning label: that is a humor piece.
VirtualBabe
"Excession" took computer in hand to bring the following question to the
patrons of callahan's
> Defining what is Art, is difficult if not impossible.
>
> Would smashing several galaxies together be 'artistic'? I'm sure in
> some sense of the word 'art' it could be deemed to be so.
>
> A more interesting question (in that it will generate a much wider
> response) is what comprises GOOD Art.
snippage occureth
> Excession
> [Fractal piccies are artistic to me, even though little human effort
> is involved in creating them!]
>
The VirtualBabe checks carefully to see if she will need to wear her
flame-proof dress on this one, but decides it will be ok.
"What is "good" art? Whatever you think is good art, is good art. I
personally do not see how throwing a bucket of paint at a canvas can be
considered artistic, and therefor for me, the end result is not art. OK,
somebody does. It is art to them. I personally do not like rap. It
sounds to me like a bunch of obcenities bering shouted out overtop a beat
that makes 70's disco sound positivly mellow in comparison. I do like Mike
Oldfield's music (surprise surprise!) Others think his work is the musical
equivalent of public masturbation. Who is right? We both are. I
understand His music, I don't understand rap. I understand Da Vinci's
paintings, I don't understand Pollock's. It seems to me that it is just
this understanding that makes art into good art.
Am I making any sense here? (And for the record I like fractal pics too.)
--
Debbie;
"And the man in the rain picked up his bag of secrets and journeyed up the
mountainside, far above the clouds, and nothing was ever heard from him
again, except for the sound of TUBULAR BELLS"
(Mike Oldfield)
peremptorius
>
> Defining what is Art, is difficult if not impossible.
>
> being GOOD art. The curators obviously think otherwise, and I have no
> education in art, so I don't know why a particular carved bowl is
> special.
peremptorius notes that the excession who must be taught has failed
to define 'good'. peremptorius further notes a probable difference
between 'good' and 'good example'.
peremptorius finally notes that curators have no need to liek the
art they display, merely to understand its importance.
peremptorius suggests that the excession who must be taught inquire
as the significance of such objects the next time it visits a
museum. peremptorius notes that that is the purpose of museums and
curators.
|||/
>
> I remember once getting fourth place in a woodturning exhibition at
> the Royal Adelaide Show, for a bowl turned on a lathe. It was an ok
> piece, done in high-school woodwork class, and it took some effort,
> but was it art? I don't think so. :)
>
> Excession
> [Fractal piccies are artistic to me, even though little human effort
> is involved in creating them!]
>
peremptorius
>
>
> I mean for God's sake, Robert Rauschenberg actually sold them a
> "Cow in a meadow painting"? My art teacher in highschool would have
> nailed my hide to the wall if I tried to get away with that.
>
peremptorius notes that few high school art teachers really
understand true art; most are merely competent at spreading paint
and baking clay.
|||/
David G. Bell
<8f0d87$sm1$4...@news01.cit.cornell.edu>
al...@nospam.cornell.edu "Adam Littman" wrote:
> In article <3912F97E...@pacbell.net>, dl...@juno.com wrote:
> >Excession wrote:
> >>
> >> Defining what is Art, is difficult if not impossible.
> >>
> >(respectful snip of Excessions musings)
> >
> > I, too, find some of what is called 'modern art' questionable at best.
> >I currently attend classes about two blocks from San Francisco's Museum
> >of Modern Art (SFMOMA), and on occasion, when I have a longish break
> >between classes, I'll take a stroll down there and wander through the
> >galleries. There is a Mark Rothko 'color block' painting for which the
> >museum paid (IIRC) $1.5 million - it is simply a canvas with the top 1/4
> >painted one color, the bottom 3/4 painted another color, and a
> >horizontal line of a third color dividing them. There is a Robert
> >Rauschenberg which is simply three parallel white panels. I'm sorry,
> >that's not art, at least in my definition. Of course, the one that
> >really makes me shake my head is the urinal, laid on its 'back' and
> >presented as a piece of 'sculpture.'
>
> Please tell me no taxpayer money went into purchasing those things. I mean for
> God's sake, Robert Rauschenberg actually sold them a "Cow in a meadow
> painting"? My art teacher in highschool would have nailed my hide to the wall
> if I tried to get away with that.
>
> > I recently accompanied my daughter's gifted education class on a field
> >trip to MOMA. It was revealing to hear the observations of these
> >exceptionally bright but otherwise fairly typical 11-to-13-year-olds.
> >Rather like being in the Hans Christian Anderson (or maybe it was one of
> >the Brothers Grimm) tale. "But the Emperor isn't wearing any clothes."
I've mixed feelings about modern art, but, quite a few years ago now, I
came to a tentative conclusion about the differences between modern and
"traditional" art.
It happened when an effort was made to get a set of prints, of a variety
of paintings, into every school in the country. There was an associated
series of short TV programmes on the BBC, in which art critics talked
about the paintings, and explained them.
It was obvious that the old paintings, the "classical" art, depended a
lot on the common knowledge of the educated man of the time. There were
symbols, even in portraits, and the paintings of scenes from the canon
of classical history. legend, and myth, had all sorts of significance
for those who could recall the details as they looked at the picture.
But those pictures also contained a lot of information, just by their
nature as pictures.
One of the more recent pictures in the set was by Piet Mondrian, and the
critic who spoke about that painting certainly seemed to present as much
'out-of-picture' data as those who has dealt with the traditional art.
But I found myself wondering just how much information there was in the
painting: how many bits of data would be needed to re-create a pattern
of coloured rectangles. And I found myself thinking that, however
pleasant that pattern was to look at, there wasn't much special about
the painting, and some of the art-critic spiel was almost a trick with
smoke and mirrors. All artists have a life, which influences their
work, but it seemed as if that was all there was, and only loosely
connected to the canvas.
And, while I've thought about this in several different ways, I think
there's a bit more to the change than a shift in the balance between the
in-picture and out-of-picture content. It's as much that the common
knowledge of the educated man has changed, and is no longer as coherent
as it used to be. We even struggle now with references to the Bible --
there isn't that cultural common ground in our society. The out-of-
picture knowledge required by some much modern art is so esoteric that,
even to the intelligent and well-educated, it is invisible.
--
David G. Bell -- Farmer, SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.
Copyright 2000 David G. Bell
Adam Littman
>Adam Littman wrote:
>>
>>
>> I mean for God's sake, Robert Rauschenberg actually sold them a
>> "Cow in a meadow painting"? My art teacher in highschool would have
>> nailed my hide to the wall if I tried to get away with that.
>>
>
>understand true art; most are merely competent at spreading paint
>and baking clay.
"Your majesty these clothes can only be seen by people of true errudition and
sophistication. Anyone who can't see them is a bumpkin" (paraphrase from "The
Emperors New Clothes)
Just in case anyone is unfamiliar with "Cow in a meadow". Present a blank
piece of canvas or paper. Call it "cow in a meadow". When they ask where the
grass is, say the cow ate the grass. When they ask where the cow is say the
cow left because there was no more grass. Pray your audience is so
sophisticated that they have looped back around to stupidity.
The Trinker
db...@zhochaka.demon.co.uk ("David G. Bell") wrote:
[massive snippage..]
>One of the more recent pictures in the set was by Piet
Mondrian, and the
>critic who spoke about that painting certainly seemed to
present as much
>'out-of-picture' data as those who has dealt with the
traditional art.
>But I found myself wondering just how much information there
was in the
>painting: how many bits of data would be needed to re-create a
pattern
>of coloured rectangles. And I found myself thinking that,
however
>pleasant that pattern was to look at, there wasn't much special
about
>the painting, and some of the art-critic spiel was almost a
trick with
>smoke and mirrors. All artists have a life, which influences
their
>work, but it seemed as if that was all there was, and only
loosely
>connected to the canvas.
Y'know, many, many people seem to feel that Piet Mondrian's
geometric paintings aren't artwork.
To them I pose a question. have you *tried* to reproduce his
art? I don't mean by mechanical means, I mean by hand. With
a paintbrush. Without looking at his original. I have. I've
created some "Mondrian-inspired" pieces, and...it's *work*.
It's damned hard. And then one day, you understand, and it
becomes easier, and you share Mondrian's vision. Even copying
it with the original at hand is illuminating. This is why some
art teachers have students work at copying/working from
masterwork.
Myself, I find the idea that "art" can only be found in museums
and galleries after critical/popular acclaim to be...silly, at
best. Look back at the Art Deco movement, and perhaps begin to
see that art can be everywhere, and in my own opinion, *should*
be everywhere. We've come to an age where we have thrown
esthetics out the window in the name of expedience or efficiency.
How sad...
The Trinker
The proper de-spammed address is
(kat at vincent dash tanaka dot com).
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Adam Littman
Note that the following is based on pictures of the work I found on the web.
Vertical and horrizontal black lines at irregular intervals on a white
background with color squares:
http://www.haberarts.com/mondrian.htm
What is hard about it? Did you paint the straight lines free-hand? With
appropriate masks one could do that sort of thing with spraypaint. A few
strips of that easy off tape to protect the areas you want to do in a
different color than the one you are using and painbrush becomes easy.
Heck it would be trivial to write a screen saver to do the same thing.
I mean it is somewhat pretty but nothing an average 12 year old couldn't do
with the right tools.
>becomes easier, and you share Mondrian's vision. Even copying
>it with the original at hand is illuminating. This is why some
>art teachers have students work at copying/working from
>masterwork.
>
>Myself, I find the idea that "art" can only be found in museums
>and galleries after critical/popular acclaim to be...silly, at
>best. Look back at the Art Deco movement, and perhaps begin to
>see that art can be everywhere, and in my own opinion, *should*
>be everywhere. We've come to an age where we have thrown
>esthetics out the window in the name of expedience or efficiency.
>How sad...
The main reason for functionality is mass production. If you are making things
one off it is easy to make them to order. The problem with that is it takes a
skilled craftsman several times as long to make a table or other piece of
furniture to order as it does to stamp out a few hundred pieces in a factory
with perhaps 10 semi-skilled workers.
It would be nice if we could all have stuff made by artists but most of the
people in the US can't afford that. I know I can't.
One might at this point suggest designed, mass produced, artistic pieces. The
problem with that is that it becomes that much harder to find something to fit
the look of the rest of the room. Not to mention the varying tastes of the
consumers.
For modern electronic items there is also the problem of disposal. When the
artistic TV breaks 6 years after you bought it, what are the chances of
finding a replacement that fits the decor?
It is possible to make some esthetic improvements (iMac) but too much clashing
art in one room looks kitchy.
David G. Bell
<8f1ubl$k1a$1...@news01.cit.cornell.edu>
al...@nospam.cornell.edu "Adam Littman" wrote:
Well, I think I'm actually somewhere in between the two of you. I think
that The Trinker is right to say that the choices and skills needed to
create such a work are non-trivial. Even if you have the skill, the
wrong choices of colour and shape can look ugly.
But Adam has picked up on the other side: I don't think that spray-paint
and masking tape will pass anything but the most cursory direct
examination, but if you used the same paints and the same general sort
of application methods as Mondrian, what information would you need to
make a copy? Measurements and colouring instructions? Stand six feet
away, and what can you see of a painting? How many bits of data do you
need for the texture of the paint.
And, to some extent, training yourself to create Mondrian patterns
sounds to me to be the sort of thing that resembles training a neural
network. Can you be sure that the rules that you learn are a match for
the reality?
peremptorius, the manhattan alley cat
>
> In article <391482EC...@bigfoot.com>, peremptorius <peremp...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> >Adam Littman wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> I mean for God's sake, Robert Rauschenberg actually sold them a
> >> "Cow in a meadow painting"? My art teacher in highschool would have
> >> nailed my hide to the wall if I tried to get away with that.
> >>
> >
> >peremptorius notes that few high school art teachers really
> >understand true art; most are merely competent at spreading paint
> >and baking clay.
>
> "Your majesty these clothes can only be seen by people of true errudition and
> sophistication. Anyone who can't see them is a bumpkin" (paraphrase from "The
> Emperors New Clothes)
peremptorius is familiar with the tale. its relevance to this
conversation has yet to be determined.
peremptorius notes that many works of art are actually 'works of
context' as opposed to 'works of creation'.
had the con men in the tale stated 'this outfit makes a unique
statement' without the exclusionary clause of "bumpkins will not see
it', the tale would have quite a different iterpretation.
>
> Just in case anyone is unfamiliar with "Cow in a meadow". Present a blank
> piece of canvas or paper. Call it "cow in a meadow". When they ask where the
> grass is, say the cow ate the grass. When they ask where the cow is say the
> cow left because there was no more grass.
peremptorius notes that such a painting is discussed in the play
"picasso at the lapine agile". peremptorius remembers that the name
of the painting in that case was 'sheep grazing in meadow, in fog'.
> Pray your audience is so
> sophisticated that they have looped back around to stupidity.
peremptorius notes that sophisticates often have a twisted sense of
humor, and that high school art teachers often do not.
|||/
Neil
>Myself, I find the idea that "art" can only be found in museums
>and galleries after critical/popular acclaim to be...silly, at
>best. Look back at the Art Deco movement, and perhaps begin to
>see that art can be everywhere, and in my own opinion, *should*
>be everywhere. We've come to an age where we have thrown
>esthetics out the window in the name of expedience or efficiency.
>How sad...
I agree with most of your post, Trinker, but I don't think this is
a function of the age we live in. Even at the peak of the Art Deco
movement, not every manufactured article or building was made
artistically. Unattractive goods have been made in every year.
Technical and economic considerations do make some attractive
designs difficult to produce. They also lead to a similarity of designs.
But they don't require unattractive designs.
"When I am working on a problem I never think about beauty.
I only think about how to solve the problem. But when I have
finished, if the solution is not beautiful, I know it is wrong."
Buckminster Fuller (1895-1983)
Luria
(Occasional industrial designer)
The Trinker
>>it with the original at hand is illuminating. This is why some
>>art teachers have students work at copying/working from
>>masterwork.
I find it interesting that you inserted your questions *before*
my explanation.
Let me try again. It's not the *mechanical* process which is
difficult. It's the same thing as with the camera. The process
of pointing and clicking isn't difficult.
You can create a screensaver easily to approximate it, or parody
it. Hell, I have a pair of Mondrian-like printed bicycle shorts,
and those aren't art. I've created, as an exercise, a Mondrian-
inspired loom-woven bead bracelet, which I don't consider art.
What makes Mondrian *art*, is the process, at least as it's been
defined in here. The proportion and layout, the color choices,
the balance...those decisions are *art*. You may need to read
a little further on what process Mondrian used, on what
principles,
on what inspiration...
But, given that you reject the idea that photographs taken
from life is art, if you reject the idea that the esthetics
of the final piece determines art, and that you define art
by the labor of the process, then by that definition, Mondrian's
work is art.
It seems to me that your definition of art is actually,
"that which appears *difficult* to me."
(You know, while we're at it, I'd argue that I *can* create
art with a photocopier...)
>>Myself, I find the idea that "art" can only be found in museums
>>and galleries after critical/popular acclaim to be...silly, at
>>best. Look back at the Art Deco movement, and perhaps begin to
>>see that art can be everywhere, and in my own opinion, *should*
>>be everywhere. We've come to an age where we have thrown
>>esthetics out the window in the name of expedience or
efficiency.
>>How sad...
>
I think you feel this way because of the way you define *art*.
And it's certainly possible to have an eclectic collection.
My Aiwa bookshelf stereo, by my own estimation, is esthetically
pleasing, and well designed. My Sony monitor (hell, *most*
monitors)
is ugly. The SO's monitor, a Radius, is beautiful. My desklamp
is
beautiful. The Rolodex I use is beautiful in its simplicity
(it's a
bent tube frame, with knobs on either side, and just the cards
hanging around the central cylinder.)
Not everything matches, nor would I want it to, but where I
could,
everything I've chosen is beautiful, designed by (often by some
faceless someone) who made sure that piece, individually, was
right.
And these things I've mentioned?
They're all massmarket items. Massmarket does *not* have to
equal
ugly. It does, all too often, but try going to your local
Target store
(assuming that you're in the U.S., which IIRC, you are, at
Cornell,
right?) and take a look. There's been a huge change in the idea
of
housewares (one that lags years behind Europe and Asia,
incidentally.)
The iMac is kitschy, which is why a roomful of iMac inspired
pieces
is a shlockfest. It has nothing to do with the idea of making
things
artful.
William Wright
is, there is something in 'good art' that cannot be completely explained
-- except by ambiguous references to 'spirit', 'beauty',
'understanding', 'transcendent', etc. Good art is beyond the mere
mechanics of creating a physical object (or obeying the rules of grammar
and plot development).
My other hobby is clarinet, and I've been listening to an argument
about tone color. The discussion seems always to end at the same
impasse. Phrases such as 'nice dark tone' _do_ carry meanings, but
nobody can define them satisfactorily. As a result, some clarinetists
hate to use these phrases, but nevertheless the qualities (whatever they
are) are essential for 'good' clarinet playing. The descriptions or
definitions remain a 'mystery'. In this context, 'pedestrian' art is a
put-down and is synonymous with 'not good' because there's no mystery or
magic to it.
I think that this accounts for some people's feeling that
photography is not art. This view holds that photography is a
technology mostly, and hence it lacks 'mystery' or 'profundity', and
hence it cannot be 'art'.
Cheers,
Bill
Adam Littman
>Adam Littman wrote:
>peremptorius notes that such a painting is discussed in the play
>"picasso at the lapine agile". peremptorius remembers that the name
>of the painting in that case was 'sheep grazing in meadow, in fog'.
That is an even better title.
>> Pray your audience is so
>> sophisticated that they have looped back around to stupidity.
>
>peremptorius notes that sophisticates often have a twisted sense of
>humor, and that high school art teachers often do not.
If it doesn't cost anything "sheep in fog" is funny. For the prices art is
going for these days, I wouldn't donate a cent or want my tax dollars going to
a museum that would hang such.
Adam Littman
>In article <8f1ubl$k1a$1...@news01.cit.cornell.edu>,
>al...@nospam.cornell.edu (Adam Littman) wrote:
>(You know, while we're at it, I'd argue that I *can* create
>art with a photocopier...)
Sure, a colage (sp?) for one. But not just by sticking a piece of art on it
and pushing the button.
Stacy & Matthew Peterson
<Maybe art has to do with the fact that while anyone could do it with a
screen-saver or masking tape, as has been claimed, this man had the inspiration to
do it first...
Anyone can tell you after the fact how a magician's trick is done. Not everyone
can replicate it. That may be the missing piece y'all are looking for.>
Maraud. Going back to Siegel & Shuster, you can make the case that, heck,
Superman's just a funnybook superhero... How hard is it to draw a man in his
underwear with a cape, hah? But this was the archetypical first one. The pieces
of superheroes were out there, waiting for competion. Just look at the Shadow,
or the Scarlet Pimpernel, or for that matter, S&S's own Dr. Occult. But then
there was a big black (later red) S...
M Blaze Miskulin
> Note that the following is based on pictures of the work I found on the web.
> Vertical and horrizontal black lines at irregular intervals on a white
> background with color squares:
http://www.haberarts.com/mondrian.htm
>
> appropriate masks one could do that sort of thing with spraypaint. A few
> strips of that easy off tape to protect the areas you want to do in a
> different color than the one you are using and painbrush becomes easy.
>
>
> with the right tools.
As much as I despise Mondrian's works, I must put in a defense.
You're taking the pieces out of context. The art isn't in the colored
blocks and lines; it's in the emotion they evoked when they were first
displayed. Nowadays, such things are common, even trite. Back then,
this was a bold and outlandish statement.
This is why Warhol was such a rave. And Duchamp. They put up works
that challenged the idea of art and made people think rather than just
accepting. Today, we are awash with "artists" who follow the mantra
"art is anything you can get away with". The reason they aren't getting
anywhere with it is that it's all been done before.
--
M Blaze Miskulin
Winterborne Scenic Studios
http://www.winterborne-ss.com
The Trinker
al...@nospam.cornell.edu (Adam Littman) wrote:
>In article <0244b7de...@usw-ex0104-031.remarq.com>, The
Trinker <katNO...@strigil.com.invalid> wrote:
>>In article <8f1ubl$k1a$1...@news01.cit.cornell.edu>,
>>al...@nospam.cornell.edu (Adam Littman) wrote:
>
>>(You know, while we're at it, I'd argue that I *can* create
>>art with a photocopier...)
>
of art on it
>and pushing the button.
That gets back to "what is a piece of art", again. I've
done photocopies that I subsequently framed (knowing that
it was an unstable medium) where the entire point was the
odd perspective that a (color) photocopier uses.
The Polymath (Jerry Hollombe)
> ... Massmarket does *not* have to equal
> ugly. It does, all too often, but try going to your local
> Target store
> (assuming that you're in the U.S., which IIRC, you are, at
> Cornell,
> right?) and take a look. There's been a huge change in the idea
> of housewares (one that lags years behind Europe and Asia,
> incidentally.)
For concrete demonstration of this, visit the Design Centre if you're
ever in London, England. It's full of beautifully designed, highly
functional, ordinary stuff.
> The iMac is kitschy, which is why a roomful of iMac inspired
> pieces
> is a shlockfest. It has nothing to do with the idea of making
> things
> artful.
The iMac's appearance strikes me as a bad joke. It hurts my eyes to
look at one. I'm guessing they gave it to an artist to design and told
them to make it look like a child's toy and/or a piece of candy so it
would seem less intimidating. The last company I worked for also gave
the design of the outer appearance of their product to an artist instead
of an engineer or ergonomicist. The result was butt ugly _and_ and
ergonomic disaster.
--
The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe)
http://www.babcom.com/polymath/
http://www.babcom.com/gla-mensa/
Query pgpkeys.mit.edu for PGP public key.
Joyce Melton
> I'm guessing they gave it to an artist to design and told
>them to make it look like a child's toy and/or a piece of candy so it
>would seem less intimidating.
Good guess. Piece of candy according to what I've read.
Joyce
Christopher Jahn
>
> The Trinker wrote:
>
> > The iMac is kitschy, which is why a roomful of iMac inspired
> > pieces
> > is a shlockfest. It has nothing to do with the idea of making
> > things
> > artful.
>
> them to make it look like a child's toy and/or a piece of candy so it
> the design of the outer appearance of their product to an artist instead
> of an engineer or ergonomicist. The result was butt ugly _and_ and
> ergonomic disaster.
The AMC Gremlin: what more need be said?
Xjahn
boy, those were ugly cars...
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( Dionysian Reveler
"The Wonder Twins had the right idea. I defy you to think of any
crisis situation that would not be vastly improved by the presence
of a gorilla with a bucket of water." Maraud
Matthew T. Russotto
}look at one. I'm guessing they gave it to an artist to design and told
}them to make it look like a child's toy and/or a piece of candy so it
}would seem less intimidating. The last company I worked for also gave
}the design of the outer appearance of their product to an artist instead
}of an engineer or ergonomicist. The result was butt ugly _and_ and
}ergonomic disaster.
The iMac's appearance may be a bad joke, but it was apparently good
commercial art -- that, at least, is fairly easy to determine; it
sells well.
--
Matthew T. Russotto russ...@pond.com
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue."
Excession
>> A more interesting question (in that it will generate a much wider
>> response) is what comprises GOOD Art.
>> [Fractal piccies are artistic to me, even though little human effort
>> is involved in creating them!]
>"What is "good" art? Whatever you think is good art, is good art.
Yes, but ... WHY is it good art.
Pointing to a train and saying 'that is a train', might be factual,
but it isn't very descriptive. "My otzatnighfooshwup is brilliant".
is just meaningless without knowing what an otzatwhatsit is.
>personally do not see how throwing a bucket of paint at a canvas can be
>considered artistic, and therefor for me, the end result is not art.
Blue Poles *is* impressive. You can be as sceptical as you like, many
others agree with you, but the actual picture is large, and
impressive.
>somebody does. It is art to them. I personally do not like rap. It
My favourite oxymoron "rap music"
I've hated it since it started in the eighties, and continue to hate
most of it. (Ok, some of the Beastie Boys stuff is ok).
>I do like Mike
>Oldfield's music (surprise surprise!) Others think his work is the musical
>equivalent of public masturbation. Who is right? We both are.
He does good things. His music makes my internal metronome go wonky!
"No, that beat doesn't go -there-, no, wait, arghgghg"
Good stuff.
>Am I making any sense here? (And for the record I like fractal pics too.)
Yep, I grok, but not necessarily agree.
Excession
[in the middle of a marauding cat alert ... oops, here she is, helping
me to type this article, sheesh -- winter is creeping up on us here in
Australia, and the cats are acting all frail, as if they are saying
'why are you making it so cold?']
The Polymath (Jerry Hollombe)
> In article <3915E25D...@pacbell.net>, The Polymath (Jerry Hollombe) <poly...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> }
> }The iMac's appearance strikes me as a bad joke. It hurts my eyes to
> }look at one. I'm guessing they gave it to an artist to design and told
> }them to make it look like a child's toy and/or a piece of candy so it
> }would seem less intimidating. The last company I worked for also gave
> }the design of the outer appearance of their product to an artist instead
> }of an engineer or ergonomicist. The result was butt ugly _and_ and
> }ergonomic disaster.
>
> The iMac's appearance may be a bad joke, but it was apparently good
> commercial art -- that, at least, is fairly easy to determine; it
> sells well.
I didn't say the plan wouldn't work. Making it look like a toy or candy
instead of a computer may just turn out to be a work of marketing
genius.
Excession
>Excession wrote:
>> I find that about 50% of the items on show in ANG don't strike me as
>> being GOOD art. The curators obviously think otherwise, and I have no
>> education in art, so I don't know why a particular carved bowl is
>> special.
>peremptorius notes that the excession who must be taught has failed
>to define 'good'. peremptorius further notes a probable difference
>between 'good' and 'good example'.
If you want to be obtuse, please, go ahead. By yourself.
>peremptorius suggests that the excession who must be taught inquire
>as the significance of such objects the next time it visits a
>museum.
I have little or no desire to enquire about the objects that fail to
please my internal sense of aesthetics. It would be a waste of the
museum's time, and a waste of my time too. There are many things to
appreciate in this world, taking time to LEARN to appreciate things
that aren't (at first glance) worthy, seems to be a pointless
exercise.
Of course, circumstances may prove otherwise.
For me, the complete mindfuck Object Oriented C++ coding involves, can
be a strain on my day to day existence. Some days it makes sense,
other days, it's just madness squared! I can understand a lot of OO
coding, but it is way more difficult when performed on an ad-hoc
basis.
But I fear my example will be too obtuse to be easily grasped.
Such is life.
Excession
[on holiday]
Jim
[]I didn't say the plan wouldn't work. Making it look like a toy or candy
[]instead of a computer may just turn out to be a work of marketing
[]genius.
Some years ago a few of us were talking about, on a mailing list
one of the bitnet ones, painting our Amiga computers. Several people
talked about 'marbelizing' the cover. Which spray paint was safer to
use on the mostly plastic case. One guy evidently just spray painted
his while the case was still on the computer. With metallic candy red
apple paint... supposedly it shorted out from the metallic particles.
He refused us a gif. One other guy said 'we can't do that'. Our
response was, he could take a flying leap at the moooon. This would
have been about 1989.
D.J
--
Spammers and junk emailers in jail !
djim55 at the datasync dotty com Disclaimer: Standard.
http://thinkmars.net/petition.html Leave out the boing to email me !
my web pages: http://www.datasync.com/~djim55/newlnks.html
peremptorius, the manhattan alley cat
>
> peremptorius <peremp...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
> >peremptorius notes that the excession who must be taught has failed
> >to define 'good'. peremptorius further notes a probable difference
> >between 'good' and 'good example'.
>
> If you want to be obtuse, please, go ahead. By yourself.
peremptorius notes that the inability of the excession who must be
taught to undertand the observations of peremptorius does not define
the clarity of said observations.
peremptorius further notes that the excession who must be taught has
still not defined its terms, leaving the terms "good" and "good
example" null sets.
>
> >peremptorius suggests that the excession who must be taught inquire
> >as the significance of such objects the next time it visits a
> >museum.
>
> I have little or no desire to enquire about the objects that fail to
> please my internal sense of aesthetics. It would be a waste of the
> museum's time, and a waste of my time too. There are many things to
> appreciate in this world, taking time to LEARN to appreciate things
> that aren't (at first glance) worthy, seems to be a pointless
> exercise.
peremptorius notes that the excession who must be taught demonstrate
a disapointingly narrow world view. by its own arguments, the
excession who must be taught has basically stated that only the
things of interest to the excession who must be taught are of value,
and only the things it is interested in now are of interest.
peremptorius also notes that if the excession who must be taught
chooses to wallow in ignorance, it ultimately forfeits the right to
be taken seriously in a discussion of topics that the excession who
must be taught has stated it has little interest.
> For me, the complete mindfuck Object Oriented C++ coding involves, can
> be a strain on my day to day existence. Some days it makes sense,
> other days, it's just madness squared! I can understand a lot of OO
> coding, but it is way more difficult when performed on an ad-hoc
> basis.
>
understanding the intricacies of coding is indeed high art, as are
physics, chemistry, medicine and many other fields of endeavour.
peremptorius notes tht it would presumption to declare some fields
"better" than others as fields of study.
> But I fear my example will be too obtuse to be easily grasped.
>
peremptorius notes that the excession who must be taught likes to
use the word "obtuse", although it is a weak choice in the examples
so far cited.
peremptorius suggests the excession who must be taught consider
"obscure".
while peremptorius notes that the excession who must be taught
apparently believes that only things easy for it to grasp are of
interest, many other entities believe that all knowledge has value.
the effort expended to learn new things never goes unrewarded.
|||/
mor...@niuhep.physics.niu.edu
>"The Polymath (Jerry Hollombe)" wrote:
>> The iMac's appearance strikes me as a bad joke. It hurts my eyes to
>> look at one.
Takes all kinds I guess.
>> [] The last company I worked for also gave
>> the design of the outer appearance of their product to an artist instead
>> of an engineer or ergonomicist. The result was butt ugly _and_ and
>> ergonomic disaster.
>The AMC Gremlin: what more need be said?
>Xjahn
>boy, those were ugly cars...
I can't say as I liked them, but ugly? Lousy if you were 6 foot and had
to sit in the back, but that's hardly unusual in small two door cars.
Of course I did like the Thing and the first? Toyota minivan, both of which
many people hate.
Robert
Martin Julian DeMello
>> The iMac is kitschy, which is why a roomful of iMac inspired
>> pieces is a shlockfest. It has nothing to do with the idea of making
>> things artful.
> The iMac's appearance strikes me as a bad joke. It hurts my eyes to
> look at one. I'm guessing they gave it to an artist to design and told
> them to make it look like a child's toy and/or a piece of candy so it
> would seem less intimidating. The last company I worked for also gave
The iMac does seem like a product with an endless supply of mickey.
--
Martin DeMello/zem
new text
Gyre Hart
Artist, here, and <grin> you just pushed a whole hell of alot of
buttons. I read so far in this thread before I decided to say my piece
and wander off... best for my mind that way.
"Good"?
"Modern" vs "Traditional"?
Eep.
One of the things I admit right at the beginning is that part of
the issue of "art" is the overwhelming division that seems, and this is
ALL IMO, have sprung up between the audiance and the creator. Jargon
and impressive sounds convey "meaning" to the phrases used to describe
art. It isn't necessary, nor is it really helpful to set up a situation
in which the audiance is made to feel that they cannot possibly
understand the object's value. Value? Ick.
Of course there is also, because of this, a tendancy of the
audiance to lay back and relinquish responsibility of thought. I will
either agree it is good art because I am told, or simply look at the
surface and ignore anything I MIGHT be able to gather from this and
simply label all as crap.
Both sides suck.
In short.
Good art is not quantifiable, it is not real. Art is something
that moves you. What is tantamount to crime for me is when people don't
see that movement is not directional. I have seen pieces that disturb
me to the point of revulsion. AMAZING art. It MOVED me from calm,
interested observer to some one confronting a concept or image such that
I instantly respond in one way or another.
Some modern art is simplistic, and appears as such. But art,
for me, has been about taking a simple observation of an obvious,
immediate "thing" and infusing it with a perspective that attempts to
give meaning. It is not effort, nor range of colour or depth of
preception. It is not size, or value. It is about a process of
communication.
And frankly we can say "Hi" or we can choose to expound for days
on the virtue of existence. Either is valid, and has a place and time.
Saying that there is a simple, easy, scale against which a
subjective, personally biased EXPERIENCE of preceiving a "thing" can be
measured not only seems silly, it bothers me. And the scale of
simplistic "one or two" that comes in the form of "good or bad" is...
well it pushes a button. Didja notice?
At the National Art Gallery in Ottawa they bought a painting
called "Voice of Fire" by Neuman. Spelled his name wrong. Anyway.
Described as "three stripes, two blue on either side of red" stripped a
whole experience down to a trival, and totally nonrepresentational,
expression. Standing a good 15 and more feet tall, this bugger is
overwhelming and beautiful. The skill in mixing two colours...
Quick side note : fauvism. The work with colour that deals with
the optic trick of "colour vibration". Basically? Certain colours at
opposite points in a "colour wheel" seem to move or "vibrate" when
placed next to each other. It creates the illusion of motion. And it
can get tricky as hell to match colours perfectly... sometimes.
VOF had anything I'd seen beaten for the perfection. One side
of the red was razor sharp, the other jagged, so the illusion of motion
was REALLY odd. I had an immediate set of associations, which took me
about half an hour to get out in language - from the name, from the
image, from it all.
Now, they paid alot of money. One point something million. Oh
my gawd, heaven is falling. What also, interestingly, comes into this
is Neuman's placement in the world of art history. His contemporaries,
what he ended up doing, etc etc.
Now, walk into that room, simply look at it as three stripes, be
impressed or not, but one has to ask... Did you QUESTION the image or
did you simply assume it was crap because it was three lines or
wonderful because some soppy artist said it was "SIGNIFICANT"?
Or did you make up your own mind? And USE your own mind?
Not to be flaming, it is a serious question, and I ask MYSELF it
all the time. So, no attacks intended.
Good art is a nonexistant creature, to me. As is, in many ways,
art. Art is a convient label for a /medium/ and /method/ rather than a
message, in my mind. It /was/ about paint and canvas, stone and metals,
glass and so on. NOW? With so many things that can be turned to
communication, silent and without direct words as a language... it
becomes something that is misleading.
Now, if you are going to judge something according to the way in
which it speaks, I think you might have missed some important stuff.
Like what it was speaking. So it had a lisp and a heavy accent, was the
message interesting?
And because you don't get the message, or think it earth
shaking, does it make it "bad"? For me simply finding out that some one
else has thought the same thought as well do, but decided to RECORD it
is interesting.
Anyway, I obviously could go on for ages. I am very much
involved in this, and as such know I am too involved to really get into
this discussion. <smile> So I'll take my shot into the void, know I
said some of my mind no matter who heard, and walk away before I annoy
people or myself.
-gh
--
Playing with a full deck...
unfortunately with no idea what the rules are...
- aa 1520
Excession
e.e. cummings, was (apparently) not playing with a full deck when it
wrote:
>> e.e. cummings <peremp...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>> >e.e. cummings notes that the excession who must be taught has failed
>> >to define 'good'. e.e. cummings further notes a probable difference
>> >between 'good' and 'good example'.
>> If you want to be obtuse, please, go ahead. By yourself.
>E.E. CUMMINGS NOTES THAT THE INABILITY OF THE EXCESSION WHO MUST BE
>TAUGHT TO UNDERTAND THE OBSERVATIONS OF E.E. CUMMINGS DOES NOT DEFINE
>THE CLARITY OF SAID OBSERVATIONS.
I may be a dictionary in my spare time, but that is surely my
prerogative. I tend to go by the accepted definitions of words,
rather than making it up as I go along. Although sometimes the latter
is most fruitful.
>E.E. CUMMINGS FURTHER NOTES THAT THE EXCESSION WHO MUST BE TAUGHT HAS
>STILL NOT DEFINED ITS TERMS, LEAVING THE TERMS "GOOD" AND "GOOD
>EXAMPLE" NULL SETS.
Look up the words in your dictionary, I am sure that the definitions
you find will suffice to imbue sufficient meaning as to make my
sentences parse. Whether or not you agree with my choice of examples
as to what comprises examples of goodness, is of course totally
subjective. I do not take upon myself the totally unrewarding
challenge of educating the masses.
Perhaps a Venn diagram would help? A pity that cheezy ascii graphics
cannot do them justice.
/-----------------------\
| ________ ______ |
| / Myself \/ You \ |
| | / \ | |
| | \Us/ | |
| \________/\______/ |
| Universe |
\-----------------------/
Grok?
>> I have little or no desire to enquire about the objects that fail to
>> please my internal sense of aesthetics.
>E.E. CUMMINGS NOTES THAT THE EXCESSION WHO MUST BE TAUGHT DEMONSTRATE
>A DISAPOINTINGLY NARROW WORLD VIEW.
I was referring to collections of artworks in a gallery, and not the
entirity of the universe. Another Venn diagram? No, I think that
would spoil the jape.
>BY ITS OWN ARGUMENTS, THE
>EXCESSION WHO MUST BE TAUGHT HAS BASICALLY STATED THAT ONLY THE
>THINGS OF INTEREST TO THE EXCESSION WHO MUST BE TAUGHT ARE OF VALUE,
>AND ONLY THE THINGS IT IS INTERESTED IN NOW ARE OF INTEREST.
You're extrapolating without cause. I was referring to ART, as the
subject of this thread so clearly states.
There are an infinity of other subjects about which I may (or indeed,
may not) be interested, but it is impolite to imply that I would be
disinterested in everything, based upon my stated disinterested in
certain kinds of opaque art.
>E.E. CUMMINGS ALSO NOTES THAT IF THE EXCESSION WHO MUST BE TAUGHT
>CHOOSES TO WALLOW IN IGNORANCE, IT ULTIMATELY FORFEITS THE RIGHT TO
>BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY IN A DISCUSSION OF TOPICS THAT THE EXCESSION WHO
>MUST BE TAUGHT HAS STATED IT HAS LITTLE INTEREST.
If I were to enter into a discussion where I had previously stated I
had little interest, without expanding upon my reasons for continuing
the interchange of ideas, then indeed, I should not be taken
seriously. That doesn't apply in this instance, and so your logic and
concomitant conclusions burst with a sad and lonely pop.
>> For me, the complete mindfuck Object Oriented C++ coding involves, can
>> be a strain on my day to day existence. Some days it makes sense,
>> other days, it's just madness squared!
>UNDERSTANDING THE INTRICACIES OF CODING IS INDEED HIGH ART, AS ARE
>PHYSICS, CHEMISTRY, MEDICINE AND MANY OTHER FIELDS OF ENDEAVOUR.
>E.E. CUMMINGS NOTES THT IT WOULD PRESUMPTION TO DECLARE SOME FIELDS
>"BETTER" THAN OTHERS AS FIELDS OF STUDY.
Indeed. But we were supposedly discussing art. I had to reach into
another field of human endeavour to extract a similar argument, which
held enough merit to meet your apparently exacting standards. You
seem to have evaded the concepts expressed, and have chosen to attack
the message (and the messenger) itself.
I stated that I don't know enough about certain kinds of 'art' to be
able to appreciate them; I further added that I don't believe it would
be a suitable personal pursuit to engage in further learning on the
subject. The C++/Object Oriented Programming digression was alluding
to the difficulty of appreciating/understanding a certain -style- of
programming, whilst being perfectly able to perform/admire a more
mundane kind of coding. I chose programming as my reference because I
have some better understanding of the medium than I do of certain
kinds of art -- but I am repeating myself. Is my meaning coming
through to you?
>> But I fear my example will be too obtuse to be easily grasped.
>E.E. CUMMINGS NOTES THAT THE EXCESSION WHO MUST BE TAUGHT LIKES TO
>USE THE WORD "OBTUSE", ALTHOUGH IT IS A WEAK CHOICE IN THE EXAMPLES
>SO FAR CITED.
>E.E. CUMMINGS SUGGESTS THE EXCESSION WHO MUST BE TAUGHT CONSIDER
>"OBSCURE".
I stand by my original choice. Your ability to make other word
choices is not challenged.
>WHILE E.E. CUMMINGS NOTES THAT THE EXCESSION WHO MUST BE TAUGHT
>APPARENTLY BELIEVES THAT ONLY THINGS EASY FOR IT TO GRASP ARE OF
>INTEREST, MANY OTHER ENTITIES BELIEVE THAT ALL KNOWLEDGE HAS VALUE.
>THE EFFORT EXPENDED TO LEARN NEW THINGS NEVER GOES UNREWARDED.
Illogical assumption when applied to the universe. When applied to
certain ART examples, then yes, some things are not worth -my- time
investigating.
Specialization is for insects.
Excession
[not an expert in anything]
mae...@bordeaux.enteract.com
> e.e. cummings, was (apparently) not playing with a full deck when it
> wrote:
<snippage>
My newsfeed is very spotty, so I may have missed a post. Or not. Excession,
did you alter someone's words, with regard to names and caps use, and present
it as quoted material from them?
maenad
--
____Anna________fun is good!_________BORDEAUX = spamblock____
The Wonder Twins had the right idea. I defy you to think of
any crisis situation that would not be vastly improved by the
presence of a gorilla with a bucket of water. <Maraud>
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lee S. Billings
whati...@hotmail.com says...
> Now, walk into that room, simply look at it as three stripes, be
>impressed or not, but one has to ask... Did you QUESTION the image or
>did you simply assume it was crap because it was three lines or
>wonderful because some soppy artist said it was "SIGNIFICANT"?
> Or did you make up your own mind? And USE your own mind?
Good point. My *personal* definitions follow:
It's "art" if someone is willing to pay money for it AS art.
It's "good art" if it evokes an emotional response in me. (Note that this
definition is ENTIRELY subjective, and will change with each observer.)
It's "real art" if I couldn't reproduce it. I have absolutely zero talent for
the visual arts, so anything I can do isn't real art by definition because it
doesn't require any talent. <g>
Also please note that I don't have to like a piece of art in order to recognize
it as art. There is plenty of art which is well-executed but not to my taste.
Celine
Gyre Hart
> Good point. My *personal* definitions follow:
>
> It's "art" if someone is willing to pay money for it AS art.
<wince>
Then I have never produced a work of art in my life. I a] have rarely
tried to sell anything b] never been successful in those four or five
times.
<grin>
-gh
who never said he was a GOOD artist... <lol>
mae...@bordeaux.enteract.com
>>did you alter someone's words, with regard to names and caps use, and present
>>it as quoted material from them?
> I most certainly did.
maenad's eyes glitter and her pointy teeth sparkle. "Thank you for the
confirmation."
Stacy & Matthew Peterson
<Pardon me? His what is a WHAT? You... son... of... a... BITCH!!!! HOW DARE
YOU?
Fachrissake, it's not even as if you are devoid of your own ridiculous
idiosyncracies... The above statement alone is proof enough that you, too, are
an aberration.
We're all aberrations. BECAUSE WE'RE INDIVIDUALS.
SIT DOWN AND GET OVER YOURSELF!
This is arrogance unbound, you know that? You have NO right to pull this sort of
thing, especially given the nature and tone of your entrance, Excession. You
walked into a group and said "I refuse to conform." That could be considered
admirable, but now you have the unmitigated gall to call Peremptorious' style
aberrant? You've completely negated your own point, and made the anger that I
felt during that argument return with a vengeance.
Think. That's all I ask. Just think. Put your words in someone else's mouth and
aim them at yourself before you fire them into the ether... I advise that you
consider for just a fraction that these are real people here, and not just foils
for your responses...
C'mon, man, I'm trying hard to hear YOUR message through YOUR metaphorical static,
you could at least pay Peremptorious the same courtesy.>
> Excession [Well I thought it was funny when I did it.]
<That would seem to have been a faulty thought process, wouldn't it?>
Maraud.
j.w.
Gyre Hart <whati...@hotmail.com> wrote
I was going to stay out of this because I know next to nothing on the
subject, but having seen the painting in question it turns out I do have
0.02 to add.
> At the National Art Gallery in Ottawa they bought a painting
> called "Voice of Fire" by Neuman.
I went to the gallery a couple of years ago with a school group and we had
a tour guide who sat the kids in that room and told them what they were
looking for. If we hadn't known, chances are we might well have passed it
by, not realizing what there was to see there (it takes a few minutes for
the full effect to become apparent).
I've been staying out of this conversation because my only real
contribution would be to say "I don't know if it's art but I know what I
like" which seemed pointless. However, remembering that painting makes me
wonder....maybe sometimes you have to know what to look for before you can
recognize art. Maybe to an untrained eye (which mine undoubtably is) some
kinds of art _can't_ evoke an emotional response _because_ the eye is
untrained. So, maybe, art isn't something you know when you see it, but
something you must be taught to appreciate (kind of like wine - I know what
I like, but I don't know what goes in to making the product that I like,
the fine points of style if you will).
Just my thoughts. Add IMO and IME and YMMV wherever you feel the need to.
j.w.
Gyre Hart
> something you must be taught to appreciate (kind of like wine - I know what
> I like, but I don't know what goes in to making the product that I like,
> the fine points of style if you will).
>
> Just my thoughts. Add IMO and IME and YMMV wherever you feel the need to.
>
> j.w.
EXACTLY.
The problem in the gap is that over time artists [and I am
including myself in that, correctly or not] have stopped explaining or
teaching the average person the points that might help in understanding
it.
For me it's a chicken and the egg situation. The public began
to pull away from art, forming the opinion that it was inscrutable or
silly - WHILE the artists began to withdraw into jargon and self
referencial language which isolated their work from the average viewer.
Both groups formed elitist opinions and stances on things, and slowly we
have ALL become rigid in our thinking on the subject.
Which, for me, is sad. Art... art is a common thing, and should
be shared with as many people as possible.
And which is why I drag people along with me to galleries and
get them to talk thru their reactions, and some of the histories [the
ones I know] and so on... Hell, half the time I learn as much as I
teach.
<grin>
Not that teaching is EXACTLY what I call it... <lol> Blind
leading...
-gh
all of the previous message is preffaced with IMO, etc...
Kerry J. Renaissance-McAdams
>posted and e-mailed despite standing request. Courtesy demands it.
>
>Fedor returns from alt.religion.wicca, where he is attempting to discover yet
>another way to describe spiritual balance. Just as he wonders why he is
>wasting his breath, he enters the Place in time to listen to two of our newest
>friends discuss or be discussed...
>
>On Wed, 10 May 2000 04:33:10 +1000, Excession <dac...@dingoblue.net.au>
>wrote:
>
>>mae...@BORDEAUX.enteract.com wrote:
>>
>>>Excession :
>>
>>>> peremptorius, the manhattan alley cat <peremp...@bigfoot.com> aka
>>>> e.e. cummings, was (apparently) not playing with a full deck when it
>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>My newsfeed is very spotty, so I may have missed a post. Or not. Excession,
>>>did you alter someone's words, with regard to names and caps use, and present
>>>it as quoted material from them?
>>
>>I most certainly did.
>>
>>I upper cased the all-lower-case peremptorius stuff, and renamed him
>>to e.e. cummings.
>>
>>To highlight how his style is an aberration.
>>
>>
>>Excession
>>[Well I thought it was funny when I did it.]
>>
>
>Fedor tosses a SBA at Mike, for peremptorius' next LactoseOC, and finishes
>reading the local xthreads.
>
>"Excession, it is quite possible you will only hear this from me... at least,
>at a volume suited to the ambient noise level of the Place.
>
>"The use of a Patron's persona, without the Patron's permission, is a fatal
>mistake. Most Patrons will simply ignore you, though I expect some will be
>vocal about doing so and why.
>
>"This does not imply the expected response from the Patron whose persona was
>abused. I suspect asbestos would not suffice.
>
>"Modifying text and presenting it as quoted is arguably persona abuse,
>particularly the way you did it."
Moreover, it's terrible netiquette, as I understand it. One can snip,
certainly, but actual modification of someone else's words -- at least
in certain other usenet groups I've been known to hang out in -- is
practically a hanging offense. And it reflects badly on one's
character, when one puts words in others' mouths or needs to alter
those which have come out in order to make the desired point.
We are, after all, _people_ behind our 'net-personae. Not merely
highly evolved machine-managed characters who can be edited to suit
another's preferences.
Kerry J. Renaissance-McAdams
-- Master Fireweaver
kerr...@circle-of-fireweavers.org
http://www.circle-of-fireweavers.org -- the Circle of Fireweavers' Website
Excession
>Excession :
>> peremptorius, the manhattan alley cat <peremp...@bigfoot.com> aka
>> e.e. cummings, was (apparently) not playing with a full deck when it
>> wrote:
>
>My newsfeed is very spotty, so I may have missed a post. Or not. Excession,
>did you alter someone's words, with regard to names and caps use, and present
>it as quoted material from them?
I most certainly did.
I upper cased the all-lower-case peremptorius stuff, and renamed him
to e.e. cummings.
To highlight how his style is an aberration.
Excession
[Well I thought it was funny when I did it.]
--
Fedor
Fedor returns from alt.religion.wicca, where he is attempting to discover yet
another way to describe spiritual balance. Just as he wonders why he is
wasting his breath, he enters the Place in time to listen to two of our newest
friends discuss or be discussed...
On Wed, 10 May 2000 04:33:10 +1000, Excession <dac...@dingoblue.net.au>
wrote:
>mae...@BORDEAUX.enteract.com wrote:
>
>>Excession :
>
>>> peremptorius, the manhattan alley cat <peremp...@bigfoot.com> aka
>>> e.e. cummings, was (apparently) not playing with a full deck when it
>>> wrote:
>>
>>My newsfeed is very spotty, so I may have missed a post. Or not. Excession,
>>did you alter someone's words, with regard to names and caps use, and present
>>it as quoted material from them?
>
>I most certainly did.
>
>I upper cased the all-lower-case peremptorius stuff, and renamed him
>to e.e. cummings.
>
>To highlight how his style is an aberration.
>
>
>Excession
>[Well I thought it was funny when I did it.]
>
Fedor tosses a SBA at Mike, for peremptorius' next LactoseOC, and finishes
reading the local xthreads.
"Excession, it is quite possible you will only hear this from me... at least,
at a volume suited to the ambient noise level of the Place.
"The use of a Patron's persona, without the Patron's permission, is a fatal
mistake. Most Patrons will simply ignore you, though I expect some will be
vocal about doing so and why.
"This does not imply the expected response from the Patron whose persona was
abused. I suspect asbestos would not suffice.
"Modifying text and presenting it as quoted is arguably persona abuse,
particularly the way you did it."
"I will offer my opinions of peremptorius' posting style else-thread."
---
Remove "thirty" from the address to respond by e-mail
This sig will self-destruct in five, four, three...
mae...@bordeaux.enteract.com
> "Modifying text and presenting it as quoted is arguably persona abuse,
> particularly the way you did it."
Indeed 'tis. Vile.
Fedor, my dear, please watch the attributions. I normally wouldn't sweat
it <much> but in this instance I really don't wish to be confused with the
abuser. BOYC?
Freyja
Fedor <them...@xxdvpn.xorg> wrote in message
news:3918ad0a...@netnews.worldnet.att.net...
| posted and e-mailed despite standing request. Courtesy demands it.
|
| Fedor returns from alt.religion.wicca, where he is attempting to discover
yet
| another way to describe spiritual balance. Just as he wonders why he is
| wasting his breath, he enters the Place in time to listen to two of our
newest
| friends discuss or be discussed...
| "Excession, it is quite possible you will only hear this from me... at
least,
| at a volume suited to the ambient noise level of the Place.
|
| "The use of a Patron's persona, without the Patron's permission, is a
fatal
| mistake. Most Patrons will simply ignore you, though I expect some will
be
| vocal about doing so and why.
|
| "This does not imply the expected response from the Patron whose persona
was
| abused. I suspect asbestos would not suffice.
|
| "Modifying text and presenting it as quoted is arguably persona abuse,
| particularly the way you did it."
Excession, persona abuse of a very egregious nature occurred within the
past year and a half. Mine was one of several abused. This is why
something gets said quickly when it rears its ugly head, like today.
Fedor is right. It is a very bad mistake. Those abused by the poster felt
many things, up to and including a sense of violation.
This is just a friendly warning that you have stepped in it.
--
Freyja the NurseWench
(de-spam e-mail)
http://pagina.de/eclecticeel
ICQ:9582706 AIM:FreyjaNurseWench
Friendly. Honest. Since it wasn't my persona used...
Excession
>> To highlight how his style is an aberration.
><Pardon me? His what is a WHAT? You... son... of... a... BITCH!!!! HOW DARE
>YOU?
Because I can. <shrug> It doesn't seem such a big deal to me.
I haven't said 'don't do this third person stuff', I just took the
written material and made it all upper case instead of all lower case.
Hardly a horrible crime? Perhaps your anaemic lack of irony is
clouding your vision?
>Fachrissake, it's not even as if you are devoid of your own ridiculous
>idiosyncracies...
Gee, I hadn't noticed :)
>SIT DOWN AND GET OVER YOURSELF!
You think I reply to messages standing up?
>This is arrogance unbound, you know that?
Sure. I'm "standing up" ("LOL") and pelting someone with their own
virtual muck, and trying to confer my meaning at the same time. I
could go into a spiel about what I wasn't doing, but that tactic seems
to fall flat in here.
>You have NO right to pull this sort of
>thing, especially given the nature and tone of your entrance, Excession.
So I have to kowtow to people? Unctuous, oleaginous, overly pious
preachy kinds of messages (written in the third person) laced with
dismissive undertones and belittling mannerisms, don't settle well
with me, and it is my "god given right" to reply as I see fit.
If presumptuous wants to rip into my lack of art appreciation, then he
can suffer the consequences of his actions. Capische?
>You walked into a group and said "I refuse to conform."
You noticed that much? I'm flattered. No, really.
>admirable, but now you have the unmitigated gall to call Peremptorious' style
>aberrant?
It is, an slightly abhorrant too.
>You've completely negated your own point, and made the anger that I
>felt during that argument return with a vengeance.
How have I negated my point? Please expound upon your critique.
>Think. That's all I ask. Just think. Put your words in someone else's mouth and
>aim them at yourself before you fire them into the ether... I advise that you
>consider for just a fraction that these are real people here, and not just foils
>for your responses...
Real people rarely write in the style of Precipitous. Real people who
take a simple statement, and turn it around to encompass -everything
and anything-, deserve to be rebuked. My non-silence on the matter is
part and parcel of being Excession. It isn't as though you weren't
-warned-. If you want to read slight ineffectual 'LOL' kinds of
responses, then slap me in a killfile and avoid having your sense of
right besmirched by those who don't sheepishly follow the dominant
paradigm.
>C'mon, man, I'm trying hard to hear YOUR message through YOUR metaphorical static,
>you could at least pay Peremptorious the same courtesy.>
Peregrination is, as another writer wrote, style over content. And
his repetitious dismissivness grates on -my- sense of what is right
and wrong. You're certainly not attacking the arguments posed by both
sides, but rather my 'style'; which is pretty silly of you,
considering the overstated 'style' of Mr Persecuted.
>> Excession [Well I thought it was funny when I did it.]
><That would seem to have been a faulty thought process, wouldn't it?>
Not at all.
Have you heard of Ruby Wax?
If so, do you understand her?
Excession
[it's a mindset thing]
Excession
>posted and e-mailed despite standing request. Courtesy demands it.
Emailed?
>Excession <dac...@dingoblue.net.au>
>>I upper cased the all-lower-case peremptorius stuff, and renamed him
>>to e.e. cummings.
>"The use of a Patron's persona, without the Patron's permission, is a fatal
>mistake. Most Patrons will simply ignore you, though I expect some will be
>vocal about doing so and why.
There are plenty of fish in the sea. (Or cavenewts in the caves). I
will not sit still to be chargrilled by some simile wielding monologue
generator!
>"Modifying text and presenting it as quoted is arguably persona abuse,
>particularly the way you did it."
Style over content?
I think you missed the point.
Excession
[there's a lot of it about]
Excession
wrote:
Fedor wrote:
>>"Modifying text and presenting it as quoted is arguably persona abuse,
>>particularly the way you did it."
>Moreover, it's terrible netiquette, as I understand it. One can snip,
>certainly, but actual modification of someone else's words -- at least
>in certain other usenet groups I've been known to hang out in -- is
>practically a hanging offense.
You miss the point.
Watch:
lower case only.
UPPER CASE ONLY.
Want to see it again?
Renaming persnicketty to 'e.e. cummings' should have been a big enough
clue.
There was no TEXT CHANGE. Just a CASE CHANGE.
If one is going to write in a particular style, eschewing formatting,
case change, and other reading aids in order to put forward a persona,
then it is surely within the bounds of reason for someone to MIRROR
the effect, and show it for what it really is -- jarring to the eye.
And the Soapbox effect is well and truly shining out in yours (and
others) responses; "THOU SHALT NOT ...", uh uh, I hear the distant
whining of some outraged sensibility, but I don't think that the CAUSE
of the whine is well thought out.
It is as though I had advocated drowning babies, or mulching cats ...
Or I might do this:
>Wmucus armucus, aftmucusr all, _pmucusoplmucus_ bmucushind our 'nmucust-
>pmucusrsonamucus. Not mmucusrmucusly highly mucusvolvmucusd machinmucus-
>managmucusd charactmucusrs who can bmucus >mucusditmucusd to suit
>anothmucusr's prmucusfmucusrmucusncmucuss.
Which is simply the global replacement of the letter 'e' with 'mucus'.
(It's much more effective when you use an expletive like 'fuck')
>We are, after all, _people_ behind our 'net-personae. Not merely
>highly evolved machine-managed characters who can be edited to suit
>another's preferences.
You're text on the screen. I'm text on your screen. We are
undeniably people behind the screens, behind the words, but we PROJECT
what we are by how we write.
"Hee hee, that was really funny, LOL"
"In closing, I find your lack of faith to be disturbing!"
"premonetary announces to the sloth that must be exorcised that the
dinner which was to be eaten has been removed until premonetary's
outraged sense of dignity is restored to a more acceptable calm"
etc.
Excession
[Get with the pogrom!]
Fedor
d...@nospam.pcug.org.au wrote:
> them...@xxdvpn.xorg (Fedor) wrote:
>
> >posted and e-mailed despite standing request. Courtesy demands it.
>
> Emailed?
Yah. <d...@NOSPAM.pcug.org.au> despammed, of course.
>
> >Excession <dac...@dingoblue.net.au>
I'll remember that for the next time this might happen.
>
> >>I upper cased the all-lower-case peremptorius stuff, and renamed him
> >>to e.e. cummings.
>
> >"The use of a Patron's persona, without the Patron's permission, is
a fatal
> >mistake. Most Patrons will simply ignore you, though I expect some
will be
> >vocal about doing so and why.
>
> There are plenty of fish in the sea. (Or cavenewts in the caves). I
> will not sit still to be chargrilled by some simile wielding monologue
> generator!
Rules of engagement. If you have no sensibility about persona abuse,
and prefer to hide behind personal perspective, you will find yourself
in an empty pub rather soon.
You are hardly an injured party in this. You are being advised to not
use this one particular mode of response.
Wake up and smell the akvavit, Excession. For emphasis, IT'S NOT ABOUT
YOU, IT'S ABOUT THE PEOPLE WHOSE PERSONAE ARE AFFECTED.
I'll give you an analogy. I made it up just now. It fits very well
from my POV. If you have sex with your girlfriend OVER HER OBJECTIONS,
it is rape. It makes no difference how many times you had sex with her
in the past with her consent. It only takes once to be rape. And,
it's all from her perspective.
Do you get it yet? Go ahead, admit that someone else can be right.
It'll only hurt for a second.
It's not about you. You want to make this personal, I'll fly to the
Aussie airport of your choice and we'll duke it out. There won't be a
reason for it, but we'll ignore that for the moment.
>
> >"Modifying text and presenting it as quoted is arguably persona
abuse,
> >particularly the way you did it."
>
> Style over content?
>
> I think you missed the point.
With unreliable news servers, uneven propogation across servers, and
downright transmission failures at the source, do you really want to
insist that lack of attribution is okay?
>
> Excession
> [there's a lot of it about]
>
You got that right.
--
Please do any e-mailing to <them...@dvpn.org>.
Deja.cow is only good as a spamtrap, anymore (oh, boo hoo moo!)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Elusis
> Several books on learning to paint recommend the student just play
> with the stuff a lot before trying to paint a picture. See how one color
> looks next to another. See how to shade one into another. Scumble.
> Wash. Like artistic fingering exercises rather than a performance
> piece. This Rothko, by your description, strikes me as such an
> exercise but done by a 'name' and therefore capable of getting
> large sums from a museum.
He's a "name" because no one had ever thought to do so before on that
kind of scale and then exhibit it as art.
My main beef with the "whatsa big deal? Anyone could do that!"
complaints about modern art (which is a thought that, admittedly, I've
had many times myself while in modern art galleries [and in the interest
of full disclosure I'll say that modern art is my favorite of all]), is
that "anyone" *didn't*. You didn't, I didn't, a room full of monkeys
didn't. That guy/gal did. I couldn't think up something original if I
were given the directive "make modern art or I'll brain you with this
brick here." That's why I'm not an artist, and Rothko, deKooning, et
al. are.
> > There is a Robert Rauschenberg which is simply three parallel white
> > panels. I'm sorry, that's not art, at least in my definition. Of course,
> > the one that really makes me shake my head is the urinal, laid on its
> > 'back' and presented as a piece of 'sculpture.'
>
> This is another case where I would, as a curator, head for the hardware
> store and display it as an example of the kind of stuff XYZZY did.
The urinal is almost certainly Marcel Duchamp, also of "Nude Descending
a Staircase" and "The Bride Stripped Bare by her Bachelors, Even" and
the various "this is not a _____" paintings. He went through a period in
which he displayed pre-fabricated items as artworks as a means of
commenting on the distinction between art and life. And we've now lost
the context that his original pre-fab pieces had - once you've seen or
heard about half a cow in formaldehyde being displayed in a gallery, is
a urinal shocking or upsetting to you? Probably not. But when Duchamp
did it, it had roughly the same effect that someone actually urinating
in the middle of a gallery would today.
Calvin Tomkins wrote an excellent biography of Duchamp, which might
interest those on both sides of this discussion. I also highly
recommend the book "The Bride and the Bachelors," as it explores the
avant-garde work of Duchamp, John Cage, Merce Cunningham, Robert
Rauschenberg, and one other poor fellow whom I can't recall.
Again, anyone could have sat in front of their piano in silence. But
only John Cage did it, and only he dared to call it a composition.
Anyone could stand perfectly still on a stage, but only Merce Cunningham
did and dared to call it dance. Same with Rauschenberg's "blank"
canvases (which, again IIRC, were actualy scraped and painted again and
again with layers and layers of carefully pigmented white paint.)
> > I admit to having a personal bias in favor of what I would class as
> > 'representational' art.
>
> Well, it is easier to tell when someone does it right. When it's
> abstract daubs and shapes you can't really know if it looks that
> way by craft or accident.
One question much modern art may ask is, "does it matter?" Look at de
Kooning's method of flinging and daubing paint - is it random enough to
be "accidental" or deliberate enough to be "craft" or both?
> > I recently accompanied my daughter's gifted education class on a field
> > trip to MOMA. It was revealing to hear the observations of these
> > exceptionally bright but otherwise fairly typical 11-to-13-year-olds.
> > Rather like being in the Hans Christian Anderson (or maybe it was one of
> > the Brothers Grimm) tale. "But the Emperor isn't wearing any clothes."
Personally, I liked modern art even as a kid. <shrug>
And we don't rely on pre-adolescents to tell us what is good music, for
example. Most p-as would probably say that Chopin is "boring" and
Philip Glass is "weird," just to name a couple of highly musicians whom
I like quite a lot and are generally critically acclaimed. We don't let
them tell us what is good food, or our finest restaurants would serve
pepperoni pizza and fries. We don't look to them to tell us what is
good dance or theatre (well, I always found most ballet and opera deadly
dull, and in general still do, but I'm more open to being convinced than
I was when I was a child).
Most kids at that age, even the bright ones, don't have a great
intuitive grasp of social commentary or irony or art history, so a great
amount of things in any given museum will probably pass right by them
unappreciated. Much depends on what kind of tour they were being given
- a "stick together while we wander through these galleries" tour or a
"let's all stand in front of this art object while the docent explains
something to you about the artist and hir aesthetic and intent."
> Remember that being in a museum is like being in an old attic. Not all the
> 'treasures' are worth a lot and some are junk but they happen to be what
> was around at some time and survived. Of course, the museum probably
> paid more for their junk.
And the same holds true for stuff from any period that is being
displayed. IMHO, much of the stuff in any museum's section of
landscapes or still lifes is crap (to my eyes). I don't enjoy it very
much, and it does little to add to the wonder or enjoyment in my life.
I'm sure it's very skilled and all, but I get more out of looking at
some amazing modern monstrosity, even if I laugh at it or hate it,
because my reaction to the landscape or still life is frequently
"ehhhh..."
Elusis
--
http://www.dreamscape.com/elusis ~*~ wear your butterflies proudly -TA
~*~ I am the rightful heir to the flaming global throne of evil. I WILL
TAKE THIS WORLD AS MINE so if you people could just cooperate it would
be very nice. -JV ~*~ Buttless chaps make good business sense! -Dances
Jacob Sommer
>
> Stacy & Matthew Peterson <pete...@terraworld.net> wrote:
>
> >> To highlight how his style is an aberration.
>
> ><Pardon me? His what is a WHAT? You... son... of... a... BITCH!!!! HOW DARE
> >YOU?
>
> Because I can. <shrug> It doesn't seem such a big deal to me.
>
> I haven't said 'don't do this third person stuff', I just took the
> written material and made it all upper case instead of all lower case.
> Hardly a horrible crime? Perhaps your anaemic lack of irony is
> clouding your vision?
Excession, this time you did truly lack in Netiquette. If you had
written something to the effect of "I am renaming Peremptorius in the
quoted parts, name of e.e. cummings, and retyping it all in caps" I
wouldn't have had a problem with it. In spite of it being fairly
obvious to me that this was what you did, it's a good idea to mention
any alterations made in quoted text.
I am serious. On general principles you likely would not like your
words to be even taken out of context, much less played with.
Jacob
Pat Kight
>
> them...@xxdvpn.xorg (Fedor) wrote:
>
> >posted and e-mailed despite standing request. Courtesy demands it.
>
> Emailed?
>
>
> >>I upper cased the all-lower-case peremptorius stuff, and renamed him
> >>to e.e. cummings.
>
> >"The use of a Patron's persona, without the Patron's permission, is a fatal
> >mistake. Most Patrons will simply ignore you, though I expect some will be
> >vocal about doing so and why.
>
> There are plenty of fish in the sea. (Or cavenewts in the caves). I
> will not sit still to be chargrilled by some simile wielding monologue
> generator!
>
> >particularly the way you did it."
>
> Style over content?
>
> I think you missed the point.
"Let's see," says the Spinster down in the Lounge (who thoroughly enjoys
writing in the third person in a.c, where she first encountered the
style)...
"You come into a community which has established folkways and
traditions.
"Upon arriving with great fanfare, you announce your intention of
ignoring those folkways and traditions, and even express disdain for
those who follow them.
"You characterize the community in ways that pretty clearly demonstrate
that you neither understand nor give a shit about the whole ethos of the
place and its inhabitants.
"You proceed to mock people for displaying ... well, individuality.
"And you think *we* miss the point?"
--Jezebel
kig...@peak.org
Lee S. Billings
elusis@*delight*.rmta.org says...
>
>Gene Szedenits, Jr. <szed...@servicelevel.net> wrote:
>
>> Several books on learning to paint recommend the student just play
>> with the stuff a lot before trying to paint a picture. See how one color
>> looks next to another. See how to shade one into another. Scumble.
>> Wash. Like artistic fingering exercises rather than a performance
>> piece. This Rothko, by your description, strikes me as such an
>> exercise but done by a 'name' and therefore capable of getting
>> large sums from a museum.
>
>He's a "name" because no one had ever thought to do so before on that
>kind of scale and then exhibit it as art.
>
>My main beef with the "whatsa big deal? Anyone could do that!"
>complaints about modern art (which is a thought that, admittedly, I've
>had many times myself while in modern art galleries [and in the interest
>of full disclosure I'll say that modern art is my favorite of all]), is
>that "anyone" *didn't*. You didn't, I didn't, a room full of monkeys
>didn't. That guy/gal did. I couldn't think up something original if I
>were given the directive "make modern art or I'll brain you with this
>brick here." That's why I'm not an artist, and Rothko, deKooning, et
>al. are.
>
>only John Cage did it, and only he dared to call it a composition.
>Anyone could stand perfectly still on a stage, but only Merce Cunningham
>did and dared to call it dance. Same with Rauschenberg's "blank"
>canvases (which, again IIRC, were actualy scraped and painted again and
>again with layers and layers of carefully pigmented white paint.)
Minor quibble here... how do you know that no one else ever thought of the idea
but discarded it as pointless showboating? (Which is what I consider most of
these "non-art" art pieces to be.) Being the first person with the chutzpah to
call silence a "musical composition" or three white panels a "painting" doesn't
make one original, only brash. Art requires ability, not just balls of steel.
Now, mind you, I have no quarrel with the creator of such an object selling it
as "art" if he can find someone silly enough to buy it! But calling it art does
not make it so unless there's something there to begin with. I've seen plenty
of modern art which is recognizably quality art even if it's not to my personal
taste. Three white panels does *not* qualify.
Celine
Fedor
d...@nospam.pcug.org.au wrote:> Didn't get here? Are you sure you sent an email? And I don't -want-
> email copies, thanks! :)
On the rare occasion that I can't trust the news feed, I will e-mail a
post despite the request. It will remain a rare thing, fear not.
>
> >> >Excession <dac...@dingoblue.net.au>
>
> >I'll remember that for the next time this might happen.
>
> Please don't! I don't check that mail account. It ONLY attracts
> SPAM.
Noted.
>
> >Rules of engagement. If you have no sensibility about persona abuse
>
> You're taking the 'abuse' stance rather hard.
I admit that I see no other stance appropriate to the issue. This is
as much out of respect for those who feel deeply about it, as it is for
my own perspective.
>
> I made it clear what I was doing, and I've explained it fifty times
> since. He wrote in lower case only, and to SHOW that lower case only
> is stylistically zero, I changed the case, and referred to the poster
> as e.e. cummings; (who also chose to use lower case only.) If that
> wasn't clear enough, and my explanations afterwards aren't clear
> enough, then WHETHER you have the ability to see the point I was
> making is probably moot. :-(
I see the dead horse as clearly as you do.
>
> >You are hardly an injured party in this.
>
> Shall we dissect his "excession who must be taught" posting, line for
> line, or would word for word be more 'fun'? :/
Your perspective is noted. I have no problem with it. Your right to
respond when you perceive injury or threat is not being questioned or
restricted. My original intent, clearly marked in context, was to
advise you on the issue of persona abuse.
>
> >Wake up and smell the akvavit, Excession. For emphasis, IT'S NOT
ABOUT
> >YOU, IT'S ABOUT THE PEOPLE WHOSE PERSONAE ARE AFFECTED.
>
> No matter how much you yell and pout, I'm standing by my reasoning, it
> was clear, it was solid, and it MADE A POINT. Others have commented
> over the style choice involved. I don't attempt to STOP people from
> doing whatever; I attempt to show the error of their ways.
Not shouting, but that's trivial. Think of it this way. Unbeknownst
to you, a room full of people have just been released from a hostage
situation. You enter carrying an AK-47. Many people perceive it as a
threat.
I advised you of the sensitivity. What you do with that advice is up
to you.
>
> >I'll give you an analogy. I made it up just now. It fits very well
>
> I refuse to accept that changing the case of someone's post, in an
> OBVIOUS manner, is akin to the scenario you made up.
Noted.
>
> >Do you get it yet? Go ahead, admit that someone else can be right.
> >It'll only hurt for a second.
>
> Hey, I admit when I'm wrong, when I'm PROVED wrong, not because
> someone says 'you better admit you're wrong, or you'll be sorry', ok?
Putting words into my mouth. You perceive a threat in my statements
where none exists.
>
> >It's not about you. You want to make this personal, I'll fly to the
> >Aussie airport of your choice and we'll duke it out. There won't be
a
> >reason for it, but we'll ignore that for the moment.
>
> Physical violence? Sheesh. "First resort of the incompetent". I'm
> 6'3", weigh quite a lot, and would be difficult to shove around even
> if I were stupid enough to put myself in such a situation.
>
> This is about words on the screen, patterns on the phosphor, and how
> people project their chosen personas and how people react to those
> projections. You're screeching 'NO, NO, YOU CANNOT DO THAT' without
> acknowledging what it was I actually DID.
>
> Your 'code' of 'not attacking someone's persona' is pretty brittle
> when it comes to taking their text and doing nothing to it other than
> changing it to upper case. Can't you see the storm-in-a-teacup aspect
> of this whole sorry mess? Or are you too intent on hopping on a jet
> and punching me in the nose?
I was being sarcastic. I regret that you didn't see that on the first
take. FTR, I don't have the money to take a 110-mile train ride, let
alone a jet to Australia.
My point, sarcasm aside, is that it is not personal. You are insisting
that it is personal. Dead horse twitches one more time.
>
> >> Style over content?
>
> >> I think you missed the point.
>
> >With unreliable news servers, uneven propogation across servers, and
> >downright transmission failures at the source, do you really want to
> >insist that lack of attribution is okay?
>
> I attributed the post. You're attacking me for wrongs that have not
> occurred. Blaming newsfeed propogation for your lack of nous, isn't
> very original. Use Deja, and look at the original, or ask me to post
> it again; no, wait, I'll save you the effort ...
[snip]
> Can you see that now? Or is your newsfeed conveniently non operative?
Deja is notoriously unreliable. Recently they've become even more so,
cf. "[BOARD] Deja, um, news." During weekdays at work, I am completely
at the mercy of Deja. Nights and weekends I have my ISP server, and it
seems to be about average.
>
> Here's a silver buck. Get yourself a calming drink from the bar, on
> me.
>
> Excession
> [what a lot of fuss!]
Many Patrons have significant investment in this issue. You are not
required to respect that. I felt compelled to at least give you the
data you lacked, for not having witnessed the investment.
Move over, and I'll bury that horse. Mike, I'll drink that lemonade
Excession's paid for, hold the towel.
Jacob Sommer
>
> Jacob Sommer <len...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >Excession wrote:
>
> >Excession, this time you did truly lack in Netiquette. If you had
> >written something to the effect of "I am renaming Peremptorius in the
> >quoted parts, name of e.e. cummings, and retyping it all in caps" I
> >wouldn't have had a problem with it.
>
I went back to look. While you did make a mention of it in the quote
part (so-and-so wrote type stuff) it should by rights have had a
separate mention. Also, you didn't state that you were retyping caps
into everything.
I'm not saying you needed to say *why* (although of course it would
get your point across) but it does need to be a separate mention IMO.
OK, time for an open floor consensus (both of you still reading), so
tell me if an explicit mention of changing the name Peremptorius and/
or specific mention of the retyping into caps would have been better
by you...?
> >I am serious. On general principles you likely would not like your
> >words to be even taken out of context, much less played with.
>
> Of course not!
>
> If someone took my words and deleted or exchanged words to change the
> meaning of my posts, I would be Most Outraged. Rather a large
> difference between "case-change" and "modification", in my arrogant
> opinion.
>
> See my post to Fedor for a fuller explanation.
Seen it.
<shrug>
Like I said, making it separate from the "this is the quoted stuff"
line prolly would go over a lot better.
Jacob
who isn't going to yell about this or simply say "you naughty naughty
monkey!"
mae...@bordeaux.enteract.com
> tell me if an explicit mention of changing the name Peremptorius and/
> or specific mention of the retyping into caps would have been better
> by you...?
Better? Sure. Still quite unacceptable.
I come here to have honest exchanges with fellow Patrons. Passersby who
exhibit dishonesty make their contributions pointless, in my view. Discussion
with people who hold differing opinions can be fun, or interesting, or
educational, or enraging, or all of the above. It's one of the things I enjoy
most about alt.callahan's.
But if a passerby dishonestly presents opinions as their own and later claims
the 'didn't mean it'[1], or alters the posts of others in order to fight with
their golem of a Patron, forget it. I'm sure there are people interested in
that kind of mindgame; I'm not one of them.
It *might* be a mitigating circumstance if they displayed an entertaining
sense of humor and were capable of taking what they dish out with any grace.
I don't know, as I've yet to meet such a person.
maenad (now, ask me how I really feel. *grin*)
[1] I don't have a problem with playing devil's advocate, as long as that is
*specified up front* and not used as a cop-out for bad behavior after the
fact
j.w.
Gyre Hart <whati...@hotmail.com> wrote in article
<1eadcsi.ntf...@hartmiket.cheos.ubc.ca>...
> > So, maybe, art isn't something you know when you see it, but
> > something you must be taught to appreciate (kind of like wine - I know
what
> > I like, but I don't know what goes in to making the product that I
like,
> > the fine points of style if you will).
> >
> > Just my thoughts. Add IMO and IME and YMMV wherever you feel the need
to.
> >
> > j.w.
>
> EXACTLY.
> The problem in the gap is that over time artists [and I am
> including myself in that, correctly or not] have stopped explaining or
> teaching the average person the points that might help in understanding
> it.
>
Yes.
But also, art itself has become less easy for the untutored brain to figure
out. I can look at Donatello's David, for example, and know several things:
a) exactly what I'm looking at; b) what the artist might have been trying
to say about his subject; c) that it's a powerful piece. Looking at a
modern piece of impressionist work (please correct me if my terminology is
wrong) I can't know those things. So - it becomes a kind of Catch-22
situation. I can't appreciate the art because I don't know enough about it,
but I have no way to learn about it unless I spend time learning about it
or being in it's presence which I am possibly unlikely to do because I
don't appreciate it because I don't know enough about it.
A possible equivalent example: Saturday night Pinchas Zukerman brought a
small ensemble to play in town. The theatre was almost sold out (there were
10 seats left) to an enthusiastic but for the most part uneducated crowd. A
crowd which doesn't get to go to a lot of classical concerts, and which
therefore clapped between movements. So, okay, you're not supposed to do
that. But how do you know you're not supposed to do that if nobody tells
you? I was at a reception afterwards for the musicians and Mr Zukerman
didn't so much as make an appearance. There was speculation that he was
pissed off at an ignorant audience (pure speculation, nobody knew for
sure). At which I thought, well then _tell_ them.
Nobody likes to be thought ignorant. Few people when faced with art they
don't understand are going to say it. So you're right when you say artists
need to take responsibility for educating the rest of us.
j.w. (I just reread this. It reads like a very long-winded way of saying
"Me too" Ah, well)
Gyre Hart
> Removing your focus from the group, and looking from a distance, can
> you perceive the clique behaviour? The "group legal" attacks on
> others ("because we are defending our faith") versus the somewhat less
> direct 'slurs' that attract such fanatical reactions?
>
> Had I truly attacked the author of the lower case third person style
> with any kind of sharp verbiage, then perhaps the protection of the
> flock would be warranted; however, the situation is clearly (to me)
> one where it is an unequal equation -- I can be described as 'the
> excession that must be taught', and words to the effect that
> *anything* I don't know about then I automatically don't care about,
> and when I debunk those very -attacking- claims, I get the full
> 'HERETIC!' treatment.
>
> Can't you see that?
>
> Please, take a moment to think about what I'm saying here, instead of
> just erupting "oh you heinous man!".
>
> Excession
> [not cowed]
Kay. Read that. Reread that. Reread it again.
Still. I have a question. And only a question - the inflection
is not anger, flame, or judgement - curiousity mixed with my
perspective.
Um. When and how do you separate other individual's specific
styles of personal representation from their persona? As in - style IS
the persona, to me, so how do you justify changing a style of another
person, who's whole persona seems to be structured around the style of
writing, as being ok?
Justify is the wrong word - you have no OBLIGATION to justify -
hell not even justify, period. Just I'd like to see the line for you.
See, for me, I take my writing fairly seriously. Ish. Off and
on. And when I write my persona, there is a style that sticks to it.
And if that style were altered by a second party I probably, actually
HAVE, get pissed as all hell.
What you said, to whom and why, is moot. I fully admit, I am
staying out of THAT discussion - that area is not something that caught
my "eye" the way this part of the discussion did. Nor am I saying that
the posts to which you responded were exactly... um... Well I can see
the point you make about their wording. <shrug> So sue me.
Now - the second point of this is the "group legal" concept. I
probably mistated it there, but the thing is... I don't personally see
the idea of "persona - hands off" as all that odd, or terrible. In fact
I am more than ALL for it. I have no idea how others go about it, or
what their motivation is, but I know mine and where I've come to the
edge of all out war with people.
See, I tend to consider myself some one who writes, an artist
even [visual crap, whatever]. And when I write, in persona, there is a
REASON for it. And a thought out set of things involved. In many ways
when other people write FOR my persona I feel like some one came along
and took a can of spray paint to the Mona Lisa. Not that my writing is
good, or worthy of protection, etc etc, just... It is important to me,
and has involved alot of work to develop and I'd rather NOT have people
play with it.
<shrug>
And for me, I guess part of it comes from approaching writing
from poetry where line length and word grouping is sometimes incredibly
important, such things as style ARE part of the whole persona.
So.. when I apply my "don't be a twit! YOU hate that, gh, do NOT
do it to some one else" personal rules, I keep my hands off others.
<shrug>
That's MY justification of things, and explanation, and whatever
word fits best. I'm just kinda interested in how you view it. I KNOW
you put alot in there, but I didn't see an acknowledgement that style
can be part of a persona, nor am I clear on your feelings about hands
off persona stuff. It's all there, I bet, but I just need small words.
Kay?
-gh
The Trinker
stard...@mindspring.com (Lee S. Billings) wrote:
>In article <1eaeu43.sqk29e13tg476N%elusis@*delight*.rmta.org>,
>elusis@*delight*.rmta.org says...
>>
silence. But
>>only John Cage did it, and only he dared to call it a
composition.
>>Anyone could stand perfectly still on a stage, but only Merce
Cunningham
>>did and dared to call it dance. Same with
Rauschenberg's "blank"
>>canvases (which, again IIRC, were actualy scraped and painted
again and
>>again with layers and layers of carefully pigmented white
paint.)
>
thought of the idea
>but discarded it as pointless showboating? (Which is what I
consider most of
>these "non-art" art pieces to be.) Being the first person with
the chutzpah to
>call silence a "musical composition" or three white panels
a "painting" doesn't
>make one original, only brash. Art requires ability, not just
balls of steel.
Actually, John Cage's piece, while I wouldn't really want to
listen to it over and over again, is fascinating. It invites
exploration of the perception of time in the absence of regular
markers, the *listening* to "silence", and the difference between
doing these actions alone and in a concert hall.
The Trinker
The proper de-spammed address is
(kat at vincent dash tanaka dot com).
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Gyre Hart
> out. I can look at Donatello's David, for example, and know several things:
> a) exactly what I'm looking at; b) what the artist might have been trying
> to say about his subject; c) that it's a powerful piece. Looking at a
> modern piece of impressionist work (please correct me if my terminology is
> wrong) I can't know those things. So - it becomes a kind of Catch-22
> situation. I can't appreciate the art because I don't know enough about it,
> but I have no way to learn about it unless I spend time learning about it
> or being in it's presence which I am possibly unlikely to do because I
> don't appreciate it because I don't know enough about it.
Part of me thinks alot of that has to do with the influences and
breadth or scale of the different worlds. I mean, at one point you had
people who had "classical" training in specific methods and mythos which
were called "classical". Now? We have umpteen cultures at our
fingertips, several hundred styles with observable examples and an
incredible array of media.
Point?
Well, when you have a comparative handful of specific myths to
recreate and interprete OF COURSE the images are going to be fairly
simple to identify and understand.
Now, however, I think the images can and do pull on a vast array
of influences and bias' which are getting incredibly fluid... As in a
painter can use specific iconic representations from several cultures,
purely at their own set of whims - say for exapmple : you don't know if
the broom is "witch" imagery or "spiritual healing" imagery.
So, YES. Yer right. It get's damn hard. Hell, I consider
myself fairly educated, not ALOT mind you just fairly, and I have
problems with the images sometimes.
Of course - I've also learned to ignore some of the more complex
mixes and reinterpret according to my own sets of responses to images.
<grin>
Me? A pushy queen? Neeeever.
> Nobody likes to be thought ignorant. Few people when faced with art they
> don't understand are going to say it. So you're right when you say artists
> need to take responsibility for educating the rest of us.
Yuppers.
Of course I run into the other side of it when people throw up
their hands and refuse to be taught. Because, for me, art requires more
about learning to think and "see" than "this means this". <shrug>
And as I think I've talked about here, how does one teach some
one how to think? Rather than teach them facts?
> j.w. (I just reread this. It reads like a very long-winded way of saying
> "Me too" Ah, well)
<LMAO>
So? It's a hobby of mine. Some day I will simply write a
twenty thousand page post of "me too"... I just know it... <lol>
Lee S. Billings
>"Let's see," says the Spinster down in the Lounge (who thoroughly enjoys
>writing in the third person in a.c, where she first encountered the
>style)...
>
>"You come into a community which has established folkways and
>traditions.
>
>"Upon arriving with great fanfare, you announce your intention of
>ignoring those folkways and traditions, and even express disdain for
>those who follow them.
>
>"You characterize the community in ways that pretty clearly demonstrate
>that you neither understand nor give a shit about the whole ethos of the
>place and its inhabitants.
>
>"You proceed to mock people for displaying ... well, individuality.
It's actually even simpler than that. He walks in announcing that he intends to
be a jerk, proceeds to be a jerk, and then gets horribly, terribly offended
when people treat him like a jerk.
NOT exactly the brightest bulb in the marquee...
Celine (amused)
Stacy & Matthew Peterson
> >> To highlight how his style is an aberration.
>
> ><Pardon me? His what is a WHAT? You... son... of... a... BITCH!!!! HOW DARE
> >YOU?
>
> Because I can. <shrug> It doesn't seem such a big deal to me.
<It does to me.>
> I haven't said 'don't do this third person stuff', I just took the
> written material and made it all upper case instead of all lower case.
> Hardly a horrible crime? Perhaps your anaemic lack of irony is
> clouding your vision?
<Personal attacks on me won't make me any less irritable, nor change my mind as to the
subjective wrongness of your original post.>
> >Fachrissake, it's not even as if you are devoid of your own ridiculous
> >idiosyncracies...
>
> Gee, I hadn't noticed :)
<Aha! So you DO post with a wallaby on your back! I KNEW IT! 8>}
> >This is arrogance unbound, you know that?
>
> Sure. I'm "standing up" ("LOL") and pelting someone with their own
> virtual muck, and trying to confer my meaning at the same time. I
> could go into a spiel about what I wasn't doing, but that tactic seems
> to fall flat in here.
<As a rule, I wouldn't call it a tactic, m'friend. I'd call it an attack. But your
mileage (milage?) may vary.>
> So I have to kowtow to people? Unctuous, oleaginous, overly pious
> preachy kinds of messages (written in the third person) laced with
> dismissive undertones and belittling mannerisms, don't settle well
> with me, and it is my "god given right" to reply as I see fit.
<It's your "right" to disagree. It's your "right" to state that you disagree.
It's your "right" to start a flamewar, if you really want. I take issue with what I
consider public mockery and the labeling of "aberration.">
>>If presumptuous wants to rip into my lack of art appreciation, then he can suffer the
consequences of his actions. Capische?
> >You walked into a group and said "I refuse to conform."
>
> You noticed that much? I'm flattered. No, really.
<By the way, snide remarks are pretty much wasted on me... To quote Sam Beauregarde,
"I use 'em myself. They're for suckers." 8>}
> >admirable, but now you have the unmitigated gall to call Peremptorious' style
> >aberrant?
>
> It is, an slightly abhorrant too.
<Judgment call.>
> >You've completely negated your own point, and made the anger that I
> >felt during that argument return with a vengeance.
>
> How have I negated my point? Please expound upon your critique.
<You enter filled with piss and vinegar, expounding upon how there's no reason you
should have to conform to anyone's demands, as you find our tone to be, I believe your
words were, cloying, condescending, sickly sweet. Terms to that end, yes?
Then, when someone you don't approve of posts in a tone you don't like, you alter their
words, and make a very large production out of calling their style "an aberration."
Thus, the inferrence that I received was "I have decided to be different. But your
kind of different is wrong, Peremptorious.>
> Real people rarely write in the style of Precipitous. Real people who
> take a simple statement, and turn it around to encompass -everything
> and anything-, deserve to be rebuked. My non-silence on the matter is
> part and parcel of being Excession. It isn't as though you weren't
> -warned-. If you want to read slight ineffectual 'LOL' kinds of
> responses, then slap me in a killfile and avoid having your sense of
> right besmirched by those who don't sheepishly follow the dominant
> paradigm.
<Point 1: Stop making fun of people's names.
Point 2: The real people of whom you speak, those who overreach themselves and their
statements, includes both yourself and me.
Point 3: You were also warned, or should have been by my posting style, that I don't
let these things go unchallenged. It's all part and parcel of being Maraud.
Point 4: My killfile is my business. What's in it is my concern.
Point 5: I am hardly a "follower of the dominant paradigm." But I do have respect for
mores and cultural touchstones that predate my presence here. In addition, I have
broken a great many rules, I have challenged a great many established traditions, and I
have tried very hard to have the grace to step back when it seems necessary.
Point 5.5: I don't know if you realize this, but you and I share a trait. When
angered, our use of high-level vocabulary words increases in direct proportion to how
vehemently we've been questioned. I'm not afraid of big words, man... 8>}
> Peregrination is, as another writer wrote, style over content. And
> his repetitious dismissivness grates on -my- sense of what is right
> and wrong. You're certainly not attacking the arguments posed by both
> sides, but rather my 'style'; which is pretty silly of you,
> considering the overstated 'style' of Mr Persecuted.
<That's your right... And I'm not questioning your style... I'm questioning where you
get the cojones to make the inferrence that YOUR stylistic issues are acceptable and
someone else's are not.>
> Have you heard of Ruby Wax? If so, do you understand her?
<Yes. I quite enjoy her work.
The second half of this question seems to be questioning my intelligence, doesn't
it... I hope that my words speak for themselves as to my ability for rational thought,
and thus will ignore it.>
>>Excession [it's a mindset thing]
Maraud. A mindset that feels the need to attack others will always find Maraud in a
defensive position.
Stacy & Matthew Peterson
> note at the end of the missive, which will probably take any of the
> fun aspect away, and just come out looking bitter and cynical. But it
> would have to be better than this gnashing and wailing.
<I didn't see any fun to begin with, Excession... And from various and sundry
accounts, I have yet to see anyone who did. You have been met with irrational
outrage on my part, disapproval from Jacob, and general disinterest from the
newsgroup at large... Perhaps you should check your bitter and cynical meter
now, David. Seriously.>
Maraud. Doesn't want to be in this thread...
Adam Littman
>Actually, John Cage's piece, while I wouldn't really want to
>listen to it over and over again, is fascinating. It invites
>exploration of the perception of time in the absence of regular
>markers, the *listening* to "silence", and the difference between
>doing these actions alone and in a concert hall.
"...Death played the empty note" - Soul Music, Terry Pratchett.
Works for fantasy. In reality I would say "The emperor has no clothes. I want
my money back".
--
___________
Adam Littman / ^ \
AL...@cornell.edu /\ / \ /\
/__\__/___\__/__\
/ \( ) ( )/ \
\ /\ o /\ /
\ / \( )/ \ /
"Four minutes twenty-two seconds, \/____\_/____\/
Baldric, you owe me a groat" \ \ /
--Blackadder \ / \ /
---------
Janet Miles
>> Have you heard of Ruby Wax? If so, do you understand her?
> <Yes. I quite enjoy her work.
I haven't. Who is she, please, and what sort of work has she done?
JanetM, ignorant on this topic, but ignorance is curable
posted
--
Janet Miles (jmi...@usit.net) <www.public.usit.net/jmiles>
Loyal Webcrafter: PenUltimate Productions <www.worthlink.net/~ysabet>
and SSBB DC <magenta.com/lmnop/users/xlator/ssbbcorps.html>
Member: SSBB Diplomatic Corps -- East Tennessee
Stacy & Matthew Peterson
> The seething background radiation emanating from patrons exclaiming "he said
> WHAT about alt.callahans" is obviously still addling some people's brains.
<So what's clogging up your thought processes, son?>
> I didn't see the great fanfare of which you speak, unless you're referring to
> the hearty cheers of 'sockpuppet bandwidth monster trawling lamer with a funny
> nick who leapt into my killfile on entry' from various people in the froup.
<Do you pride yourself on ignoring people's intent, or is it a gift? 8>}
> Now, if you're still reading, lets examine the issue of the care and
> feeding of the Sacred Cows.
<Thank you, no, I've had enough of your rhetoric today, David...
BOYC?>
Maraud.
Beth Jackson
are my opinion and not necessarly actual fact. They are my feelings at
the moment, primarily.
--There. ;-) ]
Fedor:
>>>>posted and e-mailed
>>>>despite standing request.
>>>>Courtesy demands it.
Excession:
>>>Emailed?
Fedor:
>>Yah.
Excession:
>>><d...@NOSPAM.pcug.org.au>
>>>despammed,
>>>of course.
>>>Excession
>>><dac...@dingoblue.net.au>
<snip>
>>>I upper cased the all-lower-case
>>>peremptorius stuff,
>>>and renamed him to e.e. cummings.
Fedor:
>>>>"The use of a Patron's persona,
>>>>without the Patron's permission,
>>>>is a fatal mistake.
>>>>Most Patrons will simply ignore you,
>>>>though I expect some will be
>>>>vocal about doing so and why.
Excession:
>>>There are plenty of fish in the sea.
>>>(Or cavenewts in the caves).
>>>I will not sit still to be chargrilled
>>>by some simile wielding
>>>monologue generator!
Fedor:
>>Rules of engagement.
>>If you have no sensibility
>>about persona abuse,
>>and prefer to hide behind
>>personal perspective,
>>you will find yourself in an empty pub
>>rather soon.
<very vigorous nod>
}}:-\
Damn, you got *that* right, Fedor!
(Boy, what a "twit", IMO. }:-\)
>>You are hardly an injured party in this.
>>You are being advised
>>to not use
>>this one particular mode of response.
Absolutely.
>>Wake up and smell the akvavit,
>>Excession.
(Hey-- a new word for moi! {:-)
Uhhh... just as a "for my own edification"
thing, will somebody please
lemme know what "akvavit" is?
--IYDMMA, of course... :-)
>>For emphasis,
>>IT'S NOT ABOUT YOU,
>>IT'S ABOUT THE PEOPLE
>>WHOSE PERSONAE
>>ARE AFFECTED.
<nod>
>>I'll give you an analogy.
>>I made it up just now.
>>It fits very well from my POV.
>>If you have sex with your girlfriend
>>OVER HER OBJECTIONS,
>>it is rape.
Yep.
>>It makes no difference
>>how many times you had sex with her
>>in the past with her consent.
>>It only takes once to be rape.
>>And,
>>it's all from her perspective.
Yup.
>>Do you get it yet?
>>Go ahead,
>>admit that someone else can be right.
>>It'll only hurt for a second.
<twinkle and eg>
>>It's not about you.
(Right; it's about "Net-iquette". At least IMO. ;)
>>You want to make this personal,
>>I'll fly to the Aussie airport
>>of your choice and we'll duke it out.
>>There won't be a reason for it,
>>but we'll ignore that for the moment.
<another eg>
>>"Modifying text and
>>presenting it as quoted
>>is arguably persona abuse,
>>particularly the way you did it."
*Oh*, yeah!
}:-)
<a bit of applause>
:-)
(Go, Fedor! }};-)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
the Canvas Canary
(Visit my website:-)
http://www.angelfire.com/nc/canvascanary/
Stacy & Matthew Peterson
<I just imagined Celine speaking in a W. C. Fields/Foghorn Leghorn voice, and I'm
about to have an aneurysm... 8>}
Maraud. Nice boy, but got the brains God gave a fish fillet...
Elusis
> The Trinker <katNO...@strigil.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> >Actually, John Cage's piece, while I wouldn't really want to
> >listen to it over and over again, is fascinating. It invites
> >exploration of the perception of time in the absence of regular
> >markers, the *listening* to "silence", and the difference between
> >doing these actions alone and in a concert hall.
>
> "...Death played the empty note" - Soul Music, Terry Pratchett.
>
> Works for fantasy. In reality I would say "The emperor has no clothes. I want
> my money back".
One presumes you haven't seen a John Cage performance. Please correct
me if I'm wrong.
Stacy & Matthew Peterson
> Maraud."
>
> maenad (d'you think he needs a tassel?) :->
<Gimme two and we'll see if they can spin in opposite directions.>
Maraud.
Stacy & Matthew Peterson
> >baddest flamewar that a.c. has ever seen, I've NEVER been about that.
>
> You couldn't. You are not even within the same galaxy of
> importance.
<Amen, John... Amen.
Them scorchmarks on the figurative wall ain't from barbecued beef.>
Maraud. Flamewar? Hell, this is a zippo on a stick compared to some of the
flames he used to see, lo, those many years ago... uphill, both ways, through
40 miles of snow.
peremptorius, the manhattan alley cat
>
> If presumptuous wants to rip into my lack of art appreciation, then he
> can suffer the consequences of his actions. Capische?
peremptorius notes that peremptorius did not "rip into" the
excession's lack of art appreciation. peremptorius made
observations, and offered tutelage.
peremptorius suspects that the excession projected its own rage onto
peremptorius.
peremptorius is not deterred. they who must be taught often behave
in this manner.
> >admirable, but now you have the unmitigated gall to call Peremptorious' style
> >aberrant?
>
> It is, an slightly abhorrant too.
>
> >You've completely negated your own point, and made the anger that I
> >felt during that argument return with a vengeance.
>
> How have I negated my point? Please expound upon your critique.
>
peremptorius notes that the excessions apparent motivation was to
cause peremptorius appear to be ludicrous (a near impossibility with
they who must be obeyed). all the excession acheived was a
demonstration of its own self importance, disdain of its fellows,
and "wit".
> Real people rarely write in the style of Precipitous.
peremptorius notes that this is in fact the point of peremptorius'
unusual writing style.
peremptorius is an artist, and artists percieve the world in unusual
ways, and strive to allow others to glimpse these perceptions.
peremptorius notes that those who are irritated begin to understand
those who must be obeyed.
> Real people who
> take a simple statement, and turn it around to encompass -everything
> and anything-, deserve to be rebuked.
peremptorius wonders if that means people who change a party's name
and scream the words that party whispered would not similarly
deserve rebuke.
peremptorius observes that as the excession has been rebuked by
several of those who must be taught, this must be the case.
My non-silence on the matter is
> part and parcel of being Excession. It isn't as though you weren't
> -warned-. If you want to read slight ineffectual 'LOL' kinds of
> responses, then slap me in a killfile and avoid having your sense of
> right besmirched by those who don't sheepishly follow the dominant
> paradigm.
>
"if you don't want to watch me piss in the punch, close your eyes"
peremptorius feels pity for the excession.
> >C'mon, man, I'm trying hard to hear YOUR message through YOUR metaphorical static,
> >you could at least pay Peremptorious the same courtesy.>
>
> Peregrination is,
peremptorius notes this listing of every member of those who must be
obeyed to be tiresome. after all, the subject is peremptorius.
[peremptorius imagines that this is what the excession uses in place
of wit.]
> as another writer wrote, style over content.
peremptorius notes that the excession must not actually read
messages from peremptorius, as peremptorius places much content in
these missives.
> his repetitious dismissivness grates on -my- sense of what is right
> and wrong. You're certainly not attacking the arguments posed by both
> sides, but rather my 'style'; which is pretty silly of you,
> considering the overstated 'style' of Mr Persecuted.
peremptorius notes that creating legible and informative missives in
the third person singular is not as easy as the excession might
think.
peremptorius notes that there might be humor in placing "excession"
and
"might think" in the same sentence.
>
> >> Excession [Well I thought it was funny when I did it.]
>
peremptorius wonders at the humor in shouting words originally
whispered.
peremptorius notes that comparison to ee cummings, however
flattering, also lacks entertainment value. peremptorius further
notes that ee cummings eschewed punctuation as well as used lower
case letters.
peremptorius points out that peremptorius uses punctuation (often
gratuitously)
|||/
peremptorius, the manhattan alley cat
>
> >> >Excession <dac...@dingoblue.net.au>
>
>
> Please don't! I don't check that mail account. It ONLY attracts
> SPAM.
>
>
> You're taking the 'abuse' stance rather hard.
peremptorius notes that the patronage of callahans take this shared
reality very seriously. peremptorius notes that all one sees of the
patrons are the words they write, and the style they write in.
peremptorius notes that the didi-sprite would not be the did- sprite
if it did not sprinkly ascii art into its posts.
pernicious would not be recognizable without his ongoing debat with
the barnstead who must be taught.
peremptorius notes that our writing styles serve as our virtual
faces, and the excession may be viewed by some as hurling boiling
water into peremptorius' face.
permptorius speculates that this is attached to the excession's
unwillingness to accept art forms it does not like as being art.
>
> I made it clear what I was doing, and I've explained it fifty times
> since. He wrote in lower case only, and to SHOW that lower case only
> is stylistically zero, I changed the case,
peremptorius notes that this does not prove that peremptorius lacks
style. it only shows what peremptorius might 'sound' like if
peremptorius 'shouted.'
>and referred to the poster
> as e.e. cummings; (who also chose to use lower case only.)
as peremptorius noted elsethread, ee cummings eschewed punctuation
all together, which is rather different than failing to use
uppercase letters.
peremptorius recalls an apocryphal tale of a broken shift key...
> >You are hardly an injured party in this.
>
> Shall we dissect his "excession who must be taught" posting, line for
> line, or would word for word be more 'fun'? :/
>
peremptorius, as a member of those who must be obeyed, refers to all
humans as they who must be taught, and has done so for quite a
period of time. peremptorius notes that perhaps the excession who
must be taught has decided that peremptorius has made a personal
judgement of the excession, which is not the case.
> >Wake up and smell the akvavit, Excession. For emphasis, IT'S NOT ABOUT
> >YOU, IT'S ABOUT THE PEOPLE WHOSE PERSONAE ARE AFFECTED.
>
> No matter how much you yell and pout, I'm standing by my reasoning, it
> was clear, it was solid, and it MADE A POINT.
peremptorius would like to know what point was made, as peremptorius
is still unclear due to the 'obtuse' nature of the excession who
must be taught.
Others have commented
> over the style choice involved. I don't attempt to STOP people from
> doing whatever; I attempt to show the error of their ways.
>
peremptorius notes that to show error, one must first be made.
otherwise, one merely looks like a blustering fool.
|||/
peremptorius, the manhattan alley cat
>
> All's fair in love and newsgroups. It was mocking -me-, and I mocked
> it back.
>
peremptorius finds it pointless to mock any of those who must be
taught.
peremptorius thus maintains that the excession was not mocked by
peremptorius.
peremptorius notes that the excession who must be taught must have
an issue with being offered advice on art appreciation.
peremptorius admittedly construes this to indicate that the
excession is unwilling or unable to accept new ideas or viewpoints,
and the discussion to date has done nothing to dissuade
peremptorius.
> Had I truly attacked the author of the lower case third person style
> with any kind of sharp verbiage, then perhaps the protection of the
> flock would be warranted;
peremptorius notes excession has not slung sharp verbaige, or sharp
anything.
however, the situation is clearly (to me)
> one where it is an unequal equation -- I can be described as 'the
> excession that must be taught',
peremptorius has noted elsethread that those of peremptorius' ilk
refer to all humans as they who must be taught. peremptorius
reccommends that the excession consult the usenet archive of its
choice.
and words to the effect that
> *anything* I don't know about then I automatically don't care about,
peremptorius reccomends that the excession should re-read its own
posts, as these are almost veratim words out of the excession's
mouth.
> and when I debunk those very -attacking- claims, I get the full
> 'HERETIC!' treatment.
peremptorius notes that peremptorius has not been 'debunked', nor
has peremptorius referred to the excession as an heretic.
> I think I'm being perfectly correct, in defending my position, my
> person, and putting forward refutations to the (few) arguments that
> the stylistically inclined author deigned to include in his dismissive
> missive.
peremptorius again notes that all the excession is defending itself
against is tutelage and advice, and what the excession percieves as
"arguments" were observations of its behavior.
peremptorius undisputedly speaks in a dismissive tone, but that is
the nature of those who must be obeyed.
> I want to discuss things, to have my opinions heard, or argued
> against.
peremptorius notes the vigor with which the excession has disproved
this last statement!!
|||/
peremptorius, the manhattan alley cat
>
>the Spinster says...
>
> >"Let's see," says
> >that you neither understand nor give a shit about the whole ethos of the
> >place and its inhabitants.
> >
> >"You proceed to mock people for displaying ... well, individuality.
>
> It's actually even simpler than that. He walks in announcing that he intends to
> be a jerk, proceeds to be a jerk, and then gets horribly, terribly offended
> when people treat him like a jerk.
>
>
peremptorius jumps into the lap of the celine who must be taught,
and will allow the celine to stroke peremptorius' back, while
peremptorius 'softens' the lap.
|||/
peremptorius, the manhattan alley cat
>
> >>Wake up and smell the akvavit,
> >>Excession.
>
> Uhhh... just as a "for my own edification"
> thing, will somebody please
> lemme know what "akvavit" is?
A variant of "aquavit", it means "water of life", and is a vodka
based liquer.
On Norwegian ships, if you drink a certain amount of it, they
declare you a Viking.
Xjahn, the theatreViking
(hell, all I had to do was keep up with the Chief Engineer.
I'm told it was only 30 shots.)
Werehatrack
cat" blew his cover entirely as he wrote:
>
>A variant of "aquavit", it means "water of life", and is a vodka
>based liquer.
>
>On Norwegian ships, if you drink a certain amount of it, they
>declare you a Viking.
>
>Xjahn, the theatreViking
>
>(hell, all I had to do was keep up with the Chief Engineer.
>I'm told it was only 30 shots.)
The tall piece of furniture in the corner makes a surreptitious note
in his journal to the effect that one must always be careful to stay
in character.
The Trinker
dji...@datasync.com (D.J.) wrote:
>
>elusis@*delight*.rmta.org (Elusis) wrote:
>[]One presumes you haven't seen a John Cage performance.
Please correct
>[]me if I'm wrong.
>
silence
>without having to pay a ticket for it. Or sit somewhere with an
>audience. Such things things, to me, are _pretend_ art waiting
for the
>gullible to buy it. I don't buy it, in any sense of the
word 'buy'.
I'm glad you added the word "to me" in there, DJ.
Because judgments from people about "what is art" tends
to raise my hackles. Calling things "not art" often leads
to justifying their destruction, historically, and it's a
sad thing, IMO.
And to add another datapoint, I think the "silence" in a
concert hall has a completely different quality from that
in a cave, or in a "silent" office, or underwater, or in
the forest...
The Trinker
al...@nospam.cornell.edu (Adam Littman) wrote:
>In article <0738db5d...@usw-ex0103-086.remarq.com>, The
Trinker <katNO...@strigil.com.invalid> wrote:
>>In article <391a1a22...@news.datasync.com>,
>>dji...@datasync.com (D.J.) wrote:
>>>
>>>elusis@*delight*.rmta.org (Elusis) wrote:
>>>[]One presumes you haven't seen a John Cage performance.
>>Please correct
>>>[]me if I'm wrong.
>>>
>>>Sorry, but I'll do my absolute best to miss it. I can hear
>>silence
>>>without having to pay a ticket for it. Or sit somewhere with
an
>>>audience. Such things things, to me, are _pretend_ art waiting
>>for the
>>>gullible to buy it. I don't buy it, in any sense of the
>>word 'buy'.
>>
>>
>>I'm glad you added the word "to me" in there, DJ.
>>
>>Because judgments from people about "what is art" tends
>>to raise my hackles. Calling things "not art" often leads
>>to justifying their destruction, historically, and it's a
>>sad thing, IMO.
>>
>>And to add another datapoint, I think the "silence" in a
>>concert hall has a completely different quality from that
>>in a cave, or in a "silent" office, or underwater, or in
>>the forest...
>
go down and the
>music starts. If I am paying for a performance it better be of
a quality that
>just any bum off the street could not deliver. Sitting there
without playing a
>piano is something I could do. Heck it is something a stuffed
aligator could
>do.
But you *didn't* think of doing it. Doing a copy of it isn't
the same thing, anymore than performing a play by Shakespeare
is the same as writing it.
Excession
>Yah. <d...@NOSPAM.pcug.org.au> despammed, of course.
Didn't get here? Are you sure you sent an email? And I don't -want-
email copies, thanks! :)
>> >Excession <dac...@dingoblue.net.au>
>I'll remember that for the next time this might happen.
Please don't! I don't check that mail account. It ONLY attracts
SPAM.
>Rules of engagement. If you have no sensibility about persona abuse
You're taking the 'abuse' stance rather hard.
I made it clear what I was doing, and I've explained it fifty times
since. He wrote in lower case only, and to SHOW that lower case only
is stylistically zero, I changed the case, and referred to the poster
as e.e. cummings; (who also chose to use lower case only.) If that
wasn't clear enough, and my explanations afterwards aren't clear
enough, then WHETHER you have the ability to see the point I was
making is probably moot. :-(
>You are hardly an injured party in this.
Shall we dissect his "excession who must be taught" posting, line for
line, or would word for word be more 'fun'? :/
>Wake up and smell the akvavit, Excession. For emphasis, IT'S NOT ABOUT
>YOU, IT'S ABOUT THE PEOPLE WHOSE PERSONAE ARE AFFECTED.
No matter how much you yell and pout, I'm standing by my reasoning, it
was clear, it was solid, and it MADE A POINT. Others have commented
over the style choice involved. I don't attempt to STOP people from
doing whatever; I attempt to show the error of their ways.
>I'll give you an analogy. I made it up just now. It fits very well
I refuse to accept that changing the case of someone's post, in an
OBVIOUS manner, is akin to the scenario you made up.
>Do you get it yet? Go ahead, admit that someone else can be right.
>It'll only hurt for a second.
Hey, I admit when I'm wrong, when I'm PROVED wrong, not because
someone says 'you better admit you're wrong, or you'll be sorry', ok?
>It's not about you. You want to make this personal, I'll fly to the
>Aussie airport of your choice and we'll duke it out. There won't be a
>reason for it, but we'll ignore that for the moment.
Physical violence? Sheesh. "First resort of the incompetent". I'm
6'3", weigh quite a lot, and would be difficult to shove around even
if I were stupid enough to put myself in such a situation.
This is about words on the screen, patterns on the phosphor, and how
people project their chosen personas and how people react to those
projections. You're screeching 'NO, NO, YOU CANNOT DO THAT' without
acknowledging what it was I actually DID.
Your 'code' of 'not attacking someone's persona' is pretty brittle
when it comes to taking their text and doing nothing to it other than
changing it to upper case. Can't you see the storm-in-a-teacup aspect
of this whole sorry mess? Or are you too intent on hopping on a jet
and punching me in the nose?
>> Style over content?
>> I think you missed the point.
>With unreliable news servers, uneven propogation across servers, and
>downright transmission failures at the source, do you really want to
>insist that lack of attribution is okay?
I attributed the post. You're attacking me for wrongs that have not
occurred. Blaming newsfeed propogation for your lack of nous, isn't
very original. Use Deja, and look at the original, or ask me to post
it again; no, wait, I'll save you the effort ...
Here is the beginning of the post in question, clearly attriubuted;
--------------------------------------------------------------------
.Message-ID: <861ghs01ghrlg9u56...@4ax.com>
.References: <g805hsgc841n8lld7...@4ax.com>
.<391481C3...@bigfoot.com>
.<q7vchsgvat1orp18n...@4ax.com>
.<3916FC03...@bigfoot.com>
peremptorius, the manhattan alley cat <peremp...@bigfoot.com> aka
e.e. cummings, was (apparently) not playing with a full deck when it
wrote:
>> e.e. cummings <peremp...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>> >e.e. cummings notes that the excession who must be taught has failed
>> >to define 'good'. e.e. cummings further notes a probable difference
>> >between 'good' and 'good example'.
>> If you want to be obtuse, please, go ahead. By yourself.
>E.E. CUMMINGS NOTES THAT THE INABILITY OF THE EXCESSION WHO MUST BE
>TAUGHT TO UNDERTAND THE OBSERVATIONS OF E.E. CUMMINGS DOES NOT DEFINE
>THE CLARITY OF SAID OBSERVATIONS.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Can you see that now? Or is your newsfeed conveniently non operative?
Here's a silver buck. Get yourself a calming drink from the bar, on
me.
Excession
[what a lot of fuss!]
--
David Andrew Clayton # Please remove NOSPAM. when
d...@NOSPAM.pcug.org.au # sending email replies.
I post therefore I am. # http://www.pcug.org.au/~dac
Excession
>Excession wrote:
>Excession, this time you did truly lack in Netiquette. If you had
>written something to the effect of "I am renaming Peremptorius in the
>quoted parts, name of e.e. cummings, and retyping it all in caps" I
>wouldn't have had a problem with it.
That is precisely what I did, at the top of the message in question.
>I am serious. On general principles you likely would not like your
>words to be even taken out of context, much less played with.
Of course not!
If someone took my words and deleted or exchanged words to change the
meaning of my posts, I would be Most Outraged. Rather a large
difference between "case-change" and "modification", in my arrogant
opinion.
See my post to Fedor for a fuller explanation.
Excession
Excession
>Excession wrote:
>> I think you missed the point.
>"You come into a community which has established folkways and
>traditions.
I purposefully entered the domain of alt.callahans, with a bit of
parading about, and exclaiming about things which I personally find
either demeaning, irritating, or simply devoid of content. I suffered
the slings and arrows of outraged opinion for my entrance, and had a
few conversations on other things as well. The seething background
radiation emanating from patrons exclaiming "he said WHAT about
alt.callahans" is obviously still addling some people's brains.
>"Upon arriving with great fanfare, you announce your intention of
>ignoring those folkways and traditions, and even express disdain for
>those who follow them.
I expressed disdain at one patron for their apparent carte blanche
"right" to belittle and bemoan someONE for THEIR decision to belittle
and bemoan someTHING. I went on to explain my reasoning, and to agree
to disagree with various entities, about various customs and their
accepted meanings. I didn't see the great fanfare of which you speak,
unless you're referring to the hearty cheers of 'sockpuppet bandwidth
monster trawling lamer with a funny nick who leapt into my killfile on
entry' from various people in the froup.
Perhaps the newsfeed swallowed a heap of messages which I didn't get
to see. And I do so love reading reactions to my messages. :)
>"You characterize the community in ways that pretty clearly demonstrate
>that you neither understand nor give a shit about the whole ethos of the
>place and its inhabitants.
I believe I have demonstrated that I DO understand how a.c. works,
with some lengthy discussions on virtues, virtual or otherwise, with
many different people.
>"You proceed to mock people for displaying ... well, individuality.
All's fair in love and newsgroups. It was mocking -me-, and I mocked
it back.
Now, if you're still reading, lets examine the issue of the care and
feeding of the Sacred Cows.
When in India, don't knock the cow, right? Whilst their quaint
religious customs may demand the respect of their countrymen, those
customs probably don't mean anything to people outside of that
country. Are their Sacred Cows in USEnet? My word, yes indeed. Don't
flame people in email, don't alter people's text (in order to change
it's meaning), and don't poo in your own back yard! They're sensible.
But then there are the other Sacred Cows particular to a.c. Don't
ascribe malice to the merely harshly worded, the 'shared pain is
lessened, shared joy increased' aphorism, and the concept of shouting
people drinks in a way of greeting.
Should one COMMENT on a certain Sacred Cow, in a -negative- fashion,
then the defenders of the faith leap to their feet and DEMAND
restoration of the status quo. "THOU SHALT NOT QUESTION THE
PROCEDURE, SIT AND SUFFER, OR LEAVE!".
Removing your focus from the group, and looking from a distance, can
you perceive the clique behaviour? The "group legal" attacks on
others ("because we are defending our faith") versus the somewhat less
direct 'slurs' that attract such fanatical reactions?
Had I truly attacked the author of the lower case third person style
with any kind of sharp verbiage, then perhaps the protection of the
flock would be warranted; however, the situation is clearly (to me)
one where it is an unequal equation -- I can be described as 'the
excession that must be taught', and words to the effect that
*anything* I don't know about then I automatically don't care about,
and when I debunk those very -attacking- claims, I get the full
'HERETIC!' treatment.
Can't you see that?
Please, take a moment to think about what I'm saying here, instead of
just erupting "oh you heinous man!".
I think I'm being perfectly correct, in defending my position, my
person, and putting forward refutations to the (few) arguments that
the stylistically inclined author deigned to include in his dismissive
missive.
You obviously see it as the thin edge of the wedge, an opening into
no-man's land where flames and newsgroup destroying opinionated bumf
will take over the entire world, if not checked.
I'm not interested in starting (or even participating in) the biggest
baddest flamewar that a.c. has ever seen, I've NEVER been about that.
I want to discuss things, to have my opinions heard, or argued
against.
What I do NOT want to do, is sit on my fat arse and bask in the
radiant glow of a bunch of people who are pretending to get along with
each other, rather than engaging in somewhat less dull activity like
arguing about what comprises art and not-art.
Thanks for reading
Excession
[not cowed]
Excession
>> That is precisely what I did, at the top of the message in question.
>I went back to look. While you did make a mention of it in the quote
>part (so-and-so wrote type stuff) it should by rights have had a
>separate mention. Also, you didn't state that you were retyping caps
>into everything.
So we again agree. That's nice. :)
>OK, time for an open floor consensus (both of you still reading), so
>tell me if an explicit mention of changing the name Peremptorius and/
>or specific mention of the retyping into caps would have been better
>by you...?
It's late, I can't parse that. Nope, doesn't seem to be directed at
me. I think that the point is dead.
>Like I said, making it separate from the "this is the quoted stuff"
>line prolly would go over a lot better.
If I ever use that mechanism again (highly unlikely), I'll make a big
note at the end of the missive, which will probably take any of the
fun aspect away, and just come out looking bitter and cynical. But it
would have to be better than this gnashing and wailing.
Excession
[no, really]
Excession
>> >Rules of engagement. If you have no sensibility about persona abuse
>> You're taking the 'abuse' stance rather hard.
>I admit that I see no other stance appropriate to the issue. This is
>as much out of respect for those who feel deeply about it, as it is for
>my own perspective.
Ok. Further reading was educational.
>> >You are hardly an injured party in this.
>> Shall we dissect his "excession who must be taught" posting, line for
>> line, or would word for word be more 'fun'? :/
>Your perspective is noted. I have no problem with it. Your right to
>respond when you perceive injury or threat is not being questioned or
>restricted. My original intent, clearly marked in context, was to
>advise you on the issue of persona abuse.
Yes, thanks for the warning.
>Not shouting, but that's trivial. Think of it this way. Unbeknownst
>to you, a room full of people have just been released from a hostage
>situation. You enter carrying an AK-47. Many people perceive it as a
>threat.
What's the name of that hostage <-> hostages bonding thing? Helsinki
syndrome? ;->
>> >Do you get it yet? Go ahead, admit that someone else can be right.
>> >It'll only hurt for a second.
>> Hey, I admit when I'm wrong, when I'm PROVED wrong, not because
>> someone says 'you better admit you're wrong, or you'll be sorry', ok?
>Putting words into my mouth. You perceive a threat in my statements
>where none exists.
If you didn't implicitly make a threat ("you will not be interacted
with in future") then I'm stumped.
You know the worst, unkindest, most horrible punishment, is for
someone to explicitly state that they're ignoring you. It becomes a
matter of pride/stubborness, and the dissent festers and blooms into
strange and not very pleasant strains. Note that it is also folly to
state "I will not respond to you anymore", especially if you have any
sense of empathy for -some- of that person's (or persona's) point of
view. Because once you turn your back in such a public fashion, then
the amount of kudos you lose by later RESPONDING to that person, far
outweighs any of the original merit that your act may have earned from
the audience (if indeed the audience exists :)
>> Physical violence? Sheesh. "First resort of the incompetent". I'm
>I was being sarcastic. I regret that you didn't see that on the first
>take. FTR, I don't have the money to take a 110-mile train ride, let
>alone a jet to Australia.
Yikes. Why?
>My point, sarcasm aside, is that it is not personal. You are insisting
>that it is personal. Dead horse twitches one more time.
Difficult for me to choose to take the stance that you're merely
providing information, when you're using UPPER CASE to emphasise your
point. But I can accept that, when you explain it as so.
>Deja is notoriously unreliable. Recently they've become even more so,
Used to be a good service -- then people hit on the idea of using the
Deja archive as a retrieval tool for -entire- chunks of newsgroup
history, and Deja took steps to stop such purloining of data. Then
they went very commercial.
Deja provide a neat service. But I'm glad that I don't depend upon
them.
>Move over, and I'll bury that horse. Mike, I'll drink that lemonade
>Excession's paid for, hold the towel.
I'm having a scotch, single malt, with just a smidge of ice.
Excession
[the miracle of morning has arrived whilst I typed]
Freyja
Excession <dac...@dingoblue.net.au> wrote in message
news:77ijhs062068a2722...@4ax.com...
| Fedor <mad_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
| >I was being sarcastic. I regret that you didn't see that on the
first
| >take. FTR, I don't have the money to take a 110-mile train ride,
let
| >alone a jet to Australia.
|
| Yikes. Why?
(quietly)
Excession? That's a bit of a nosy question. Wil you need some
aspirin?
--
Freyja the NurseWench
(de-spam e-mail)
http://pagina.de/eclecticeel
ICQ:9582706 AIM:FreyjaNurseWench
Boycott RemarQ!
Freyja
|
| Should one COMMENT on a certain Sacred Cow, in a -negative- fashion,
| then the defenders of the faith leap to their feet and DEMAND
| restoration of the status quo. "THOU SHALT NOT QUESTION THE
| PROCEDURE, SIT AND SUFFER, OR LEAVE!".
Stop yelling. I have a headache.
| I'm not interested in starting (or even participating in) the
biggest
| baddest flamewar that a.c. has ever seen, I've NEVER been about
that.
| I want to discuss things, to have my opinions heard, or argued
| against.
|
| What I do NOT want to do, is sit on my fat arse and bask in the
| radiant glow of a bunch of people who are pretending to get along
with
| each other, rather than engaging in somewhat less dull activity like
| arguing about what comprises art and not-art.
Then you and I are not in the same newsgroup. Pretending to get
along? Civility can coexist with animosity.
Matthew T. Russotto
Elusis <elusis@*delight*.rmta.org> wrote:
}Adam Littman <al...@nospam.cornell.edu> wrote:
}> The Trinker <katNO...@strigil.com.invalid> wrote:
}>
}> >Actually, John Cage's piece, while I wouldn't really want to
}> >listen to it over and over again, is fascinating. It invites
}> >exploration of the perception of time in the absence of regular
}> >markers, the *listening* to "silence", and the difference between
}> >doing these actions alone and in a concert hall.
}>
}> "...Death played the empty note" - Soul Music, Terry Pratchett.
}>
}> Works for fantasy. In reality I would say "The emperor has no clothes. I want
}> my money back".
}
}me if I'm wrong.
Is this the infamous 14:12 or whatever? I think I've got a pirate MP3
of it around somewhere...
--
Matthew T. Russotto russ...@pond.com
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue."
mae...@bordeaux.enteract.com
maenad carefully unwinds Maraud, then peruses a wall full of spools and
selects black, gold and glittering Kelly green threads, preparing to wind
him up again. "Hey kitten, Jez, wanta help? I'm ... er... rethreading
Maraud."
maenad (d'you think he needs a tassel?) :->
--
____Anna________fun is good!_________BORDEAUX = spamblock____
The Wonder Twins had the right idea. I defy you to think of
any crisis situation that would not be vastly improved by the
presence of a gorilla with a bucket of water. <Maraud>
-------------------------------------------------------------
John Palmer
<dac...@dingoblue.net.au> wrote:
>Should one COMMENT on a certain Sacred Cow, in a -negative- fashion,
>then the defenders of the faith leap to their feet and DEMAND
>restoration of the status quo. "THOU SHALT NOT QUESTION THE
>PROCEDURE, SIT AND SUFFER, OR LEAVE!".
Please demonstrate your facility with the English language by
explaining the difference between "commenting on, in a negative
fashion" and "questioning".
>
>Removing your focus from the group, and looking from a distance, can
>you perceive the clique behaviour?
I don't think it takes a clique to wish ill upon an attacking
smartass.
>The "group legal" attacks on
>others ("because we are defending our faith") versus the somewhat less
>direct 'slurs' that attract such fanatical reactions?
(Please note that it is not for nothing that I used the
occasionally pejorative term "smartass".)
>Had I truly attacked the author of the lower case third person style
>with any kind of sharp verbiage, then perhaps the protection of the
>flock would be warranted
I'm not sure I understand this. Are you saying that your rules
should apply to others? Else how do you get "warranted"? Perhaps,
instead, you wish to suggest that you didn't like it? Ah. . . but "I
didn't like it" would sound so much less meaningful, and you *DO* so
love to hear yourself speak in grand style, correct?
I can't understand how someone can come into a newsgroup and say
"I think a lot of your ideas are stupid" and then whine when people
apply their own standards to something (like when to attack what they
see as a breach of netiquette). . . as if there *WERE* absolute rules
governing that! If one feels that it's possible to judge the
stupidity of ideas/rules, certainly one should feel that others can do
the same.
>; however, the situation is clearly (to me)
>one where it is an unequal equation -- I can be described as 'the
>excession that must be taught', and words to the effect that
>*anything* I don't know about then I automatically don't care about,
>and when I debunk those very -attacking- claims, I get the full
>'HERETIC!' treatment.
>
>Can't you see that?
Perhaps if you were to be less abrasive, people would be more
caring about the treatment you receive. However, it is very rare that
*ANYONE* cares about 'unfair' treatment given to a person who is
inviting of scorn.
>Please, take a moment to think about what I'm saying here, instead of
>just erupting "oh you heinous man!".
Please, take a moment to realize you've just levelled an
accusation to Pat/Jez, which is unfair and foolish. It was akin to
your accusation that Celine was attacking a lack of "sweetness and
light" (was that the term you used? I hope I haven't misquoted it.)
You could claim that you did not suggest that it was extremely
likely that her first reaction would be an eruption of "oh you heinous
man". . . but that claim won't fly. You have to remember that people,
not computers, will be analyzing your statements.
If you did not wish to level an accusation, I would suggest
something like "I hope that you will think about this; I know that too
many people will simply shout back "oh you heinous man!"." would
better accomplish your objectives.
>
>You obviously see it as the thin edge of the wedge, an opening into
>no-man's land where flames and newsgroup destroying opinionated bumf
>will take over the entire world, if not checked.
I'm just curious: do you *BOTHER* to wonder if your blatant
mischaracterizations might be accurate before making them? Why not
ask Jezebel if she thinks that you are capable of causing flames and
newsgroup destroying opinionated bumf that will take over the entire
world? Why don't you, if you dare, ask her if you could be considered
*MEANINGFUL* in 'flames production' in alt.callahans?
I can tell you that you'd probably be disappointed in your level
of importance.
>I'm not interested in starting (or even participating in) the biggest
>baddest flamewar that a.c. has ever seen, I've NEVER been about that.
You couldn't. You are not even within the same galaxy of
importance.
>I want to discuss things, to have my opinions heard, or argued
>against.
You're using a bad method to accomplish that.
>What I do NOT want to do, is sit on my fat arse and bask in the
>radiant glow of a bunch of people who are pretending to get along with
>each other, rather than engaging in somewhat less dull activity like
>arguing about what comprises art and not-art.
Well, now. To use your style, I suppose I could now say "And
folks in alt.callahans don't want to hang around with a puffed-up
egotistical twit with delusions of intellect, but all the logical
ability of a can of maple syrup", and pretend that I have not
delivered an insult to you.
However, I have no desire to insult you specifically. I will
say, with all honesty and a lack of malice, that you're doing an
admirable job of that by yourself.
I *DO* hope you can figure out where you're going wrong
(assuming you're not getting what you want).
--
Everything I needed to know in life I learned in Kindergarten. Like:
Once you pull the pin on Mr. Hand Grenade, he is no longer your friend.
D.J.
elusis@*delight*.rmta.org (Elusis) wrote:
[]One presumes you haven't seen a John Cage performance. Please correct
[]me if I'm wrong.
Sorry, but I'll do my absolute best to miss it. I can hear silence
without having to pay a ticket for it. Or sit somewhere with an
audience. Such things things, to me, are _pretend_ art waiting for the
gullible to buy it. I don't buy it, in any sense of the word 'buy'.
D.J.
--
djim55 at tyhe datasync dot com. Disclaimer: Standard.
My Web pages Updated: May 6, 2000:
http://www.datasync.com/djim55/
mae...@bordeaux.enteract.com
>> Maraud."
>>
>> maenad (d'you think he needs a tassel?) :->
> <Gimme two and we'll see if they can spin in opposite directions.>
*giggle* *ponder* Well. I'm sure if we attach them in the right places
they will.
maenad ;-)
Lee S. Billings
>
>"Lee S. Billings" wrote:
>>
>>the Spinster says...
>>
>> >"Let's see," says
>> >that you neither understand nor give a shit about the whole ethos of the
>> >place and its inhabitants.
>> >
>>
>> to be a jerk, proceeds to be a jerk, and then gets horribly, terribly
>> offended when people treat him like a jerk.
>>
>> NOT exactly the brightest bulb in the marquee...
>>
>
>peremptorius jumps into the lap of the celine who must be taught,
>and will allow the celine to stroke peremptorius' back, while
>peremptorius 'softens' the lap.
the celine who provides the lap does not need to be taught where the good spots
behind the ears are... although if this goes on for very long she fears that
the mina-sheep-cat will become extremely jealous.
Lee S. Billings
>
>Excession wrote:
>> Others have commented
>> over the style choice involved. I don't attempt to STOP people from
>> doing whatever; I attempt to show the error of their ways.
>>
>
>peremptorius notes that to show error, one must first be made.
>
>otherwise, one merely looks like a blustering fool.
The celine who appreciates the validity of this point offers peremptorius a
BOHC, and notes that the error appears to be in the logical subroutines of the
excession who must be taught.
Stacy & Matthew Peterson
> > against.
<I wanna be an airborne ranger.
Whadda you want, folks?>
Maraud.
Adam Littman
>Adam Littman <al...@nospam.cornell.edu> wrote:
>> The Trinker <katNO...@strigil.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> >Actually, John Cage's piece, while I wouldn't really want to
>> >listen to it over and over again, is fascinating. It invites
>> >exploration of the perception of time in the absence of regular
>> >markers, the *listening* to "silence", and the difference between
>> >doing these actions alone and in a concert hall.
>>
>> "...Death played the empty note" - Soul Music, Terry Pratchett.
>>
>> Works for fantasy. In reality I would say "The emperor has no clothes. I want
>> my money back".
>
>me if I'm wrong.
Only on Ally McBeal. :-) But I somehow think you mean a different one.
Here I am just going by what was described. The comment applied to what was
described. If that was not what John Cage does then the comment doesn't apply
to John Cage.
By me any performance that can't be distinguished from "couldn't come up with
anything" isn't worth money to see.
I mean I could declare myself a great performance artiste. I am able to sit
around in a chair on stage watching TV and drinking beer. Save the applause
until the end please.
--
___________
Adam Littman / ^ \
AL...@cornell.edu /\ / \ /\
/__\__/___\__/__\
/ \( ) ( )/ \
\ /\ o /\ /
\ / \( )/ \ /
"Four minutes twenty-two seconds, \/____\_/____\/
Baldric, you owe me a groat" \ \ /
--Blackadder \ / \ /
---------