Another question about poo
Amy Austin
Something has been bugging me about work lately, and I don't really know
how to find the answers I'm looking for, so I turn (once again) to AFCA.
For those of you who somehow missed it, I work for a residential facility
for children with mental retardation and behavioral disorders. The
population I work with is composed of kids from about age 6 to 20, boys
and girls.
There are a few kids, all of whom have different disorders (autism,
conduct disorder, pervasive developmental disorder) who are abnormally
fascinated with excrement. I have consulted a wide variety of
professionals, and asked them why these kids act the way they do with
regard to poop, and I have not gotten a satisfactory explanation. I have
seen a variety of behaviors, some kids will poop their pants while in time
out and rub the stuff all over the walls, others will rub it or throw it
at people, and yes, some of them eat it.
I suspect that the throwing it stems from the psychological thrill of
grossing someone out so thoroughly with one simple maneuver. However, I
can't understand finger painting with it or eating it - they're only
hurting themselves, since they have to clean it up.
I know that kids without disabilities sometimes go through a similar phase
at around age 2, but most of the kids' mental ages are well above 2 (one
isn't, he's the easiest to understand). Most of the kids I'm thinking of
are completely toilet trained, and most of them are aware enough to tell
me all the names of all the Pokemons, so I know they are cognitively
capable of understanding that this behavior is gross.
Are they anally fixated? Have they not been socialized enough to
understand that poop is gross? Can anyone explain this behavior to me?
L & k,
Amy (trying to remember if we have any shrinks here)
Oriole Adams
>understand that poop is gross?
That "poop is gross" is probably a learned behavior; perhaps they have not
learned this. There is a certain stage in development where the child regards
the excrement as part of himself, and has no inhibition about touching it, etc,
and does *not* want to flush it away.
On the other hand, this is from someone who will not defecate in a public
restroom unless no one else is in there.
~ Oriole ~~
The crows seemed to be calling his name, thought Caw...
Jarvis
my artistic talent coming out of me.
Jarvis
John Dean
Amy Austin <glea...@purdue.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.SOL.4.33.010622...@herald.cc.purdue.edu...
>
, so I know they are cognitively
> capable of understanding that this behavior is gross.
>
> Are they anally fixated? Have they not been socialized enough to
> understand that poop is gross? Can anyone explain this behavior to me?
>
this your own concept? Do you think it wise to work to work with people
displaying this kind of behaviour when you have this attitude?
Faeces are natural; they smell and they harbour bacteria and they attract
disease spreading life forms but 'gross' is not, IMO, the word. Nor, for a
professional, is 'poop'
It seems likely that different people play with their stool for different
reasons. Prisoners in this country (and, I assume, elsewhere) spread it on
their cell walls by way of protest. There is a whole niche area of sexual
activity surrounding excreta including coprophilia. Sports players here (and
maybe elsewhere) commonly play the joke in the after-match communal bath of
easing out a turd underwater which then bobs to the surface. Hilarity ensues
(apparently - I haven't stepped into a communal bath since I discovered
this). My wife works with dementia sufferers who have been known to work
creatively with their own bodily residues - putting them in somebody else's
underwear drawer or on their dinner plate, for example.
Young children see faeces as natural - parents teach them faeces are
disgusting. Who has the bigger problem?
Since I don't see turd-wrangling as *intrinsically* bad, I put it in that
category of behaviour where people should accept it can be offensive to
others and that it is socially inappropriate on most occasions - like
spitting baked beans at your cat or farting through letterboxes. If your
clients are not mentally able to appreciate social conventions I think it
behoves you to adapt to them, not the other way around.
--
John Dean -- Oxford
I am anti-spammed -- defrag me to reply
Amy Austin
>
> Amy Austin <glea...@purdue.edu> wrote in message
> news:Pine.SOL.4.33.010622...@herald.cc.purdue.edu...
> >
> , so I know they are cognitively
> > capable of understanding that this behavior is gross.
> >
> > Are they anally fixated? Have they not been socialized enough to
> > understand that poop is gross? Can anyone explain this behavior to me?
> Is it the view of the professionals you consulted that 'poop is gross' or is
> this your own concept?
It's my own concept, but I think it is pretty generally known.
> Do you think it wise to work to work with people
> displaying this kind of behaviour when you have this attitude?
Attitude? Christ.
> Faeces are natural; they smell and they harbour bacteria and they attract
> disease spreading life forms but 'gross' is not, IMO, the word. Nor, for a
> professional, is 'poop'
Well, excrement is hard to spell...
> It seems likely that different people play with their stool for different
> reasons. Prisoners in this country (and, I assume, elsewhere) spread it on
> their cell walls by way of protest. There is a whole niche area of sexual
> activity surrounding excreta including coprophilia. Sports players here (and
> maybe elsewhere) commonly play the joke in the after-match communal bath of
> easing out a turd underwater which then bobs to the surface. Hilarity ensues
> (apparently - I haven't stepped into a communal bath since I discovered
> this). My wife works with dementia sufferers who have been known to work
> creatively with their own bodily residues - putting them in somebody else's
> underwear drawer or on their dinner plate, for example.
Interesting variants of the same issue...
> Young children see faeces as natural - parents teach them faeces are
> disgusting. Who has the bigger problem?
You, apparently.l
> Since I don't see turd-wrangling as *intrinsically* bad, I put it in that
> category of behaviour where people should accept it can be offensive to
> others and that it is socially inappropriate on most occasions - like
> spitting baked beans at your cat or farting through letterboxes. If your
> clients are not mentally able to appreciate social conventions I think it
> behoves you to adapt to them, not the other way around.
Well, either that or I try to teach them another behavior to replace the
socially inappropriate behavior that they're displaying now... which *I*
*CAN'T* *DO* unless I know *WHY* they're doing it... And like I said,
most of the people I work with (social workers, etc.) have not given me a
satisfactory answer. Neither have you, really. Thanks anyway.
L & k,
Amy
Boron Elgar
wrote:
>When I spread my feces over the bathroom wall at age five my mom said it was
>my artistic talent coming out of me.
>
>Jarvis
>
Ever sell anything to MOMA?
Boron
Jerry Bauer
Jarvis <jar...@argybargy.com> wrote:
>When I spread my feces over the bathroom wall at age five my mom said it was
>my artistic talent coming out of me.
>
Sadly, the same can be said about much of what is called "artistic talent".
Anny Middon
news:Pine.SOL.4.33.010622...@herald.cc.purdue.edu...
>
>
> out and rub the stuff all over the walls
Maybe it's a form of protest. A kid put in time out is usually hyped up,
such causing the behavior that sparked the punishment. Also s/he is often
angry at being punished. Add to that that time-outs are boring and you have
the ideal situation for some protest action.
I remember reading a story years ago (which of course may not have been
true) about an actor that was being a prima donna and causing significant
friction with the cast and crew. One day another cast member took a box of
graham crackers and locked himself in the prima donna's dressing room. He
chewed up graham crackers and then smeared the brown goo on the dressing
room walls. Later when the prima donna entered her dressing room she saw
the mess and ran out screaming, "Shit! Shit! Someone has shit all over my
walls!" to the merriment of everyone else. (Even symbolic feces have
significant power to show contempt.)
Also there was the case a while back about the drunk airline passenger who
was so angry at being refused further cocktails that he defecated on the
serving cart.
Toilet paper with politicians' faces printed on it is often sold as a
novelty item. I doubt many Republicans bought TP with the Shrub's face on
it.
The thing is, there are few ways as forceful of showing contempt than to put
one's feces on something. Burning the American flag as a protest has
elicited strong feelings, including at least one serious effort to make
burning the flag a crime. Can you imagine the brouhaha if people took to
shitting on the flag as a protest?
So perhaps your students are merely saying, in a most forceful way, "Shit on
you! And your stinking school!"
Anny
Doug
>
> When I spread my feces over the bathroom wall at age five my mom said it
was
> my artistic talent coming out of me.
Literally ...
- Doug
Joe Shimkus
radioGO-SPAM-...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Jun 2001 05:28:24 -0700, "Jarvis" <jar...@argybargy.com> wrote:
>
> >When I spread my feces over the bathroom wall at age five my mom said it was
> >my artistic talent coming out of me.
> >
>
>
>
> The shit people consider 'art' sometimes amazes me.
>
> Next thing you know, they'll demand Federal funding for this shit.
>
Whoa, dude! He said "shit." Next thing you know The Plague will be
back. There's a reason it's a "curse" word.
- Joe (yea! for new "South Park" episodes)
--
Why is Bush's tax plan bad for the U.S.? Read "Fuzzy Math: The Essential Guide to the Bush Tax Plan."
--
PGP Key (DH/DSS): http://www.shimkus.com/public_key.asc
PGP Fingerprint: 89B4 52DA CF10 EE03 02AD 9134 21C6 2A68 CE52 EE1A
Boron Elgar
<An...@enteractNOSPAM.com> wrote:
>
>Maybe it's a form of protest.
>
>I remember reading a story years ago (which of course may not have been
>true) about an actor that was being a prima donna and causing significant
>friction with the cast and crew.
I heard a variation on this theatrical theme, with the "star" as the
perpetrator. The results were so horrific, that after we had all be
made aware of the tale, we forevermore referred to the actress as
"Tammy Grimey."
This all might be an UL, of course.
Boron
Dana Carpender
John Dean wrote:
>
>
> Young children see faeces as natural - parents teach them faeces are
> disgusting. Who has the bigger problem?
Human feces are *dangerous*. That's why we don't use them as fertilizer
-- they're a wonderful hotbed of pathogenic bacteria. To teach your
children that feces are, at any rate, dirty and to be avoided is simply
A) the truth and B) a good idea.
--
Dana W. Carpender
Author, How I Gave Up My Low Fat Diet -- And Lost Forty Pounds!
http://www.holdthetoast.com
Check out our FREE Low Carb Ezine!
ctc...@hotmail.com
> Amy Austin <glea...@purdue.edu> wrote in message
> news:Pine.SOL.4.33.010622...@herald.cc.purdue.edu...
> >
> , so I know they are cognitively
> > capable of understanding that this behavior is gross.
> >
> > Are they anally fixated? Have they not been socialized enough to
> > understand that poop is gross? Can anyone explain this behavior to me?
> >
> Is it the view of the professionals you consulted that 'poop is gross' or
> is this your own concept? Do you think it wise to work to work with
> people displaying this kind of behaviour when you have this attitude?
> Faeces are natural; they smell and they harbour bacteria and they attract
> disease spreading life forms but 'gross' is not, IMO, the word.
Well, unless the poop is smeared thinly on some solid substrate, it is
gross. Chunky poop is gross filth, while smeared poop is only superficial
filth.
Xho
--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet for the Web
ctc...@hotmail.com
> When I spread my feces over the bathroom wall at age five my mom said it
> was my artistic talent coming out of me.
Any chance we can get it back into you?
ctc...@hotmail.com
> There are a few kids, all of whom have different disorders (autism,
> conduct disorder, pervasive developmental disorder) who are abnormally
> fascinated with excrement. I have consulted a wide variety of
> professionals, and asked them why these kids act the way they do with
> regard to poop, and I have not gotten a satisfactory explanation. I have
> seen a variety of behaviors, some kids will poop their pants while in
> time out and rub the stuff all over the walls,
If you provided them with other recreational goos while in time out, they
might not resort to poop. File under boredom and defiance.
> others will rub it or
> throw it at people, and yes, some of them eat it.
>
> I suspect that the throwing it stems from the psychological thrill of
> grossing someone out so thoroughly with one simple maneuver.
Yeah, that's a good reason. Remember Rob and his crossposting, and the
ditz who decided to get even by crossposting Rob's stuff?
> However, I
> can't understand finger painting with it or eating it
Finger painting is just plain fun. Now the eating poop, I don't know.
Do they vomit or get sick or suffer any other obvious ill effects
afterwards?
> they're only
> hurting themselves, since they have to clean it up.
How do you make them clean it up?
> I know that kids without disabilities sometimes go through a similar
> phase at around age 2, but most of the kids' mental ages are well above 2
> (one isn't, he's the easiest to understand). Most of the kids I'm
> thinking of are completely toilet trained, and most of them are aware
> enough to tell me all the names of all the Pokemons,
I'm sure Pokemons are substantial proof of anything much.
> so I know they are
> cognitively capable of understanding that this behavior is gross.
Or perhaps to understand that *you* think this behavior is disgusting.
> Are they anally fixated? Have they not been socialized enough to
> understand that poop is gross? Can anyone explain this behavior to me?
Have you asked them?
Xho
If you wrestle with a pig, you both get covered in shit. But the pig
enjoys it.
Amy Austin
> Amy Austin <glea...@purdue.edu> wrote:
>
> > There are a few kids, all of whom have different disorders (autism,
> > conduct disorder, pervasive developmental disorder) who are abnormally
> > fascinated with excrement. I have consulted a wide variety of
> > professionals, and asked them why these kids act the way they do with
> > regard to poop, and I have not gotten a satisfactory explanation. I have
> > seen a variety of behaviors, some kids will poop their pants while in
> > time out and rub the stuff all over the walls,
>
> If you provided them with other recreational goos while in time out, they
> might not resort to poop. File under boredom and defiance.
Ah, but the whole point of time out is to take them out of a situation
that is reinforcing bad behavior. If we reward them (give them toys) in
time out, it reinforces the bad behavior, which defeats the purpose of
time out.
> > can't understand finger painting with it or eating it
>
> Finger painting is just plain fun. Now the eating poop, I don't know.
> Do they vomit or get sick or suffer any other obvious ill effects
> afterwards?
Nope... I've never heard of anyone getting sick from it. The one kid who
is a frequent eater of his own poo is on antibiotics all the time to
prevent him from getting sick. He also spits. Charming kid.
> > they're only
> > hurting themselves, since they have to clean it up.
>
> How do you make them clean it up?
Make them sit there until they're calm, do the time out, and then hand
them a brush and a bucket when they come out. If they don't clean it up,
they go right back in there (if they've really gotten themselves dirty, we
let them clean themselves up first, but since cleaning up poo is a dirty
job, it's better that they shower after they clean the quiet room).
> > I know that kids without disabilities sometimes go through a similar
> > phase at around age 2, but most of the kids' mental ages are well above 2
> > (one isn't, he's the easiest to understand). Most of the kids I'm
> > thinking of are completely toilet trained, and most of them are aware
> > enough to tell me all the names of all the Pokemons,
>
> I'm sure Pokemons are substantial proof of anything much.
Well, it's proof that they have at least enough cognitive ability to
remember and recite all the names and what they do... The kids I'm
talking about aren't vegetative or catatonic.
> > so I know they are
> > cognitively capable of understanding that this behavior is gross.
>
> Or perhaps to understand that *you* think this behavior is disgusting.
Could be.
> > Are they anally fixated? Have they not been socialized enough to
> > understand that poop is gross? Can anyone explain this behavior to me?
>
> Have you asked them?
"I don't know..." or "Cause..." are the usual responses.
L & k,
Amy
ctc...@hotmail.com
> > If you provided them with other recreational goos while in time out,
> > they might not resort to poop. File under boredom and defiance.
>
> Ah, but the whole point of time out is to take them out of a situation
> that is reinforcing bad behavior.
That's the point *to you*. To them, the point may be more along the lines
"You can take away my toys, and you can take away my freedom, but you can't
take away my poop!"
> If we reward them (give them toys) in
> time out, it reinforces the bad behavior, which defeats the purpose of
> time out.
Yes, I'm familiar with the theory of punishment. I'm not saying you should
give them gooey stuff in time out, just that if you did they might not
produce their own.
> > > they're only
> > > hurting themselves, since they have to clean it up.
> >
> > How do you make them clean it up?
>
> Make them sit there until they're calm, do the time out, and then hand
> them a brush and a bucket when they come out. If they don't clean it up,
> they go right back in there...
Do they do a good job? Require close supervision? Does this punish
you more than it does them? (Remember, they were the ones playing with
poop in the first place.)
> > > Are they anally fixated? Have they not been socialized enough to
> > > understand that poop is gross? Can anyone explain this behavior to
> > > me?
> >
> > Have you asked them?
>
> "I don't know..." or "Cause..." are the usual responses.
"I don't know" translates roughly to "You wouldn't understand"
"Cause..." translates to "If you don't know, I'm certainly not going
to tell you".
Xho
Dutch Jingleheimerschmidt
Date: 6/23/2001 6:10 PM Eastern Daylight Time writes:
>"You can take away my toys, and you can take away my freedom, but you can't
>take away my poop!"
Can't you just hear Tommy Pickles or Phil saying this?
-"Ain't gonna hang no picture, ain't gonna hang no picture frame
ain't gonna hang no picture, ain't gonna hang no picture frame
Well, I might look like Robert Ford, but I feel just like Jesse James"
Dutch Jingleheimerschmidt
Date: 6/23/2001 11:20 AM Eastern Daylight Time writes:
>On Sat, 23 Jun 2001 05:28:24 -0700, "Jarvis" <jar...@argybargy.com> wrote:
>
>>When I spread my feces over the bathroom wall at age five my mom said it was
>>my artistic talent coming out of me.
>>
>
>
>
>The shit people consider 'art' sometimes amazes me.
Hell, I bet you're amazed by your thermos, though Geno.
Dutch "how do it know?" Courage
Dutch Jingleheimerschmidt
Date: 6/23/2001 11:58 AM Eastern Daylight Time writes:
>Sadly, the same can be said about much of what is called "artistic talent".
Why do I get the feeling that dickheads like you and Geno and Boron who are
always willing to tell us what Art is and isn't couldn't draw well enough to
get into a matchbox art school, huh?
Yeah, that's what I thought.
Dutch "go fuck yourself, now" Courage
John Dean
Dana Carpender <dcar...@kiva.net> wrote in message
news:3B34E678...@kiva.net...
>
>
> John Dean wrote:
> >
> >
> > Young children see faeces as natural - parents teach them faeces are
> > disgusting. Who has the bigger problem?
>
> Human feces are *dangerous*. That's why we don't use them as fertilizer
> -- they're a wonderful hotbed of pathogenic bacteria. To teach your
> children that feces are, at any rate, dirty and to be avoided is simply
> A) the truth and B) a good idea.
Not disputing they're dangerous - I said in my original post:-
''Faeces are natural; they smell and they harbour bacteria and they attract
disease spreading life forms but 'gross' is not, IMO, the word''
There's lots of dangerous stuff in the world to teach children to avoid.
However, since they can't avoid faeces it seems more appropriate them into
safe ways of handling. An adult with an average lifespan is going to crap
somewhere betwen 30,000 and 90,000 times. Setting kids off to see this as
'disgusting' is, in my view, asking for trouble.
John Dean
you're ruling out the possibility they gave you the 'right' answers? Or that
regardless of whether their answers might be right or wrong, you just don't
like them.
Maybe it would help if you tell us what *kind* of professionals you've
asked - are we talking paediatricians, psychiatrists, psychologists or what?
And what answers have they given - trot 'em out & lets see whether any
strike a chord.
And FWIW I *did* give you an answer - which is the motivation in each case
is likely to be individual and, rather than looking for some blanket
solution you can apply equally to everyone, you have to work through the
issue with each individual to find a cause & then work together on a
solution. You may not, of course, have enough time for this as it isn't. as
I read you, the primary part of your job.
But I would ask you to consider that 'poop is gross' is an attitude (unlike
'poop is unhealthy' which is a fact) and may well not be an attitude shared
by your clientele. And if they don't share it, you perhaps have to rethink
your own approach in order to get them to adjust their behaviour.
Jerry Bauer
Dutch Jingleheimerschmidt <mutigho...@aol.comMMMS> wrote:
> ba...@shell3.ba.best.com (Jerry Bauer)
>Date: 6/23/2001 11:58 AM Eastern Daylight Time writes:
>
>>Sadly, the same can be said about much of what is called "artistic talent".
>
>Why do I get the feeling that dickheads like you and Geno and Boron who are
>always willing to tell us what Art is and isn't couldn't draw well enough to
>get into a matchbox art school, huh?
>
Really, it was a throwaway to an obvious straight line, certainly not
worth such a response. Perhaps it was not very witty -- what can I
say? we can't all be as sparkling as you.
> Yeah, that's what I thought.
OK, then:
Sadly, the same can not be said about much of what is called "artistic
talent".
Better?
Dutch Jingleheimerschmidt
Date: 6/23/2001 8:36 PM Eastern Daylight Time writes:
>Sadly, the same can not be said about much of what is called "artistic
>talent".
>
See, but I don't think you're qualified to have an opinion on artistic talent
and what separates that from "artistic talent." Tell me why I'm wrong.
Dutch Jingleheimerschmidt
>On 23 Jun 2001 22:46:45 GMT, mutigho...@aol.com (Dolt
>Jerkenheimerschidt)
>wrote:
>
>>
>>Why do I get the feeling that dickheads like you and Geno and Boron who are
>>always willing to tell us what Art is and isn't couldn't draw well enough to
>>get into a matchbox art school, huh?
>>
>> Yeah, that's what I thought.
>>
>>Dutch "go fuck yourself, now" Courage
>
>
>My first job out of high school was doing graphic art and design for a
>Chicago
>TV station.
Ah, I see. So, one of you could probably get into a matchbox art school,
maybe, or perhaps get a gig at a screen printers or sign shop.
Still, why do you think your opinions as to what constitutes art constitutes
the total of meaningful art criticism? See, so shut up.
>
>And I'll take company like Jerry and Boron any time over simmering scum like
>you
>any day.
Simmering Scum? Well, I guess balloon don't much care for needles.
>
> -- Geno "Hey Dutch Foole,
Smarter than you, Geno.
> kindly eat some of the shit you like so much
>between
>two slices of French bread ... and wash it down with a steamy stream of bat's
>piss."
I'm rather like a steamy stream of bat's piss, you know.
Jerry Bauer
Dutch Jingleheimerschmidt <mutigho...@aol.comMMMS> wrote:
>ba...@shell3.ba.best.com (Jerry Bauer)
>Date: 6/23/2001 8:36 PM Eastern Daylight Time writes:
>
>>Sadly, the same can not be said about much of what is called "artistic
>>talent".
>>
>
>See, but I don't think you're qualified to have an opinion on artistic talent
>and what separates that from "artistic talent." Tell me why I'm wrong.
>
I cannot tell whether you are wrong or not. You wrote that you think
me unqualified to have an opinion. If it is true that you do think
so, then you are not wrong that you think me unqualified to have an
opinion.
"I am as honest as you are, senator."
-- Alexander "I am in control here" Haig
Jerry "Can you draw 'Binky'?" Bauer
Mirhanda Sarko
>
> On the other hand, this is from someone who will not defecate in a
> public restroom unless no one else is in there.
>
You think you're bad? I won't do it at all. I mean, even if it's empty,
someone could walk in at any time!
Mirhanda
--
Decapitate my addy to email me
Greg Goss
>Well, unless the poop is smeared thinly on some solid substrate, it is
>gross. Chunky poop is gross filth, while smeared poop is only superficial
>filth.
I'm not sure whether I should killfile or applaud. If I were sane, I
would probably do both!
Greg Goss
I wrote the program to report our employee statistics to the Ministry
of Municipal Affairs. I guess this doesn't quite count as SELLING
anything, though.
Jason Quick
> Since I don't see turd-wrangling as *intrinsically* bad, I put it in that
> category of behaviour[...]
"Turd-wrangling...?"
My friend, you have a gift. Have you considered writing as your life's
work?
Jason
Rick Howard
Dutch Jingleheimerschmidt wrote .
> ctc...@hotmail.com writes:
>
> >"You can take away my toys, and you can take away my freedom, but you
can't
> >take away my poop!"
>
> Can't you just hear Tommy Pickles or Phil saying this?
Definitely something that Tommy would say.
Kirk Is
>> > > Are they anally fixated? Have they not been socialized enough to
>> > > understand that poop is gross? Can anyone explain this behavior to
>> > > me?
>> >
>> > Have you asked them?
>>
>> "I don't know..." or "Cause..." are the usual responses.
> "I don't know" translates roughly to "You wouldn't understand"
> "Cause..." translates to "If you don't know, I'm certainly not going
> to tell you".
At another attempt to provide a semiserious answer to the original
question:
this thread has talked about some of the behaviorial reasons why the
individuals may be into poop: seeking attention, trying to get a response
etc. But to a certain extent (esp for a certain level of function: high
enough to be aware, low enough to not 'know better') poop is just
interesting. The fact that your body manufacturers it is strange, and
once you have it, it probably bear more than a passing resemblance to
several arts-and-crafts base, modeling clay and/or fingerpaints. Often
times these people like to and our encourage to draw, this can partially
be another form of that.
I don't particularly have a "thing" for excrement, and I do have a little
experience with this kind of special population (high school and college
summers at a daycamp), but I'm surprised the original poster thought of
this as such a mystery: it gets attention, good or bad, and the substance
itself is interesting. People who can take partin "regular" society are
well versed in the etiquette of what is and isn't appropriate in these
regards, the population you're with just isn't.
--
Kirk Israel - kis...@cs.tufts.edu - http://www.alienbill.com
DEALING WITH MORTALITY: A Skeptic's Guide - http://kisrael.com/mortal/
Amy Austin
Because they're in time out (usually) when this happens, we (staff) ignore
it (at least, we're supposed to) until they have served their time out,
and then we (are supposed to) calmly tell them to clean it up, as if it
were spilt milk or something.
Granted, some staff do not do this, but because of the fact that MOST of
us do, I can't imagine that it is attention seeking behavior in this case.
I'm beginning to think that it's just fun. Ugh.
L & k,
Amy
Michael Lorton
> See, but I don't think you're qualified to have an opinion on artistic talent
> and what separates that from "artistic talent." Tell me why I'm wrong.
We don't know why you're wrong. We were hoping you know why you are
alway, alway wrong.
All we know is that you are wrong.
M.
Michael Lorton
> An adult with an average lifespan is going to crap
> somewhere betwen 30,000 and 90,000 times. Setting kids off to see this as
> 'disgusting' is, in my view, asking for trouble.
Okay, Mr. Potty Mouth, either you have serious math difficulties or
serious bowel difficulties. 70 years is 25,567 days. If you manage
to defecate 90,000 times, that's 3.5 times per day.
Maybe you pinch four loaves on the average day; if so, or even if not,
I don't want to hear about it.
M.
Dutch Jingleheimerschmidt
>mutigho...@aol.comMMMS (Dutch Jingleheimerschmidt) writes:
>
>> See, but I don't think you're qualified to have an opinion on artistic
>talent
>> and what separates that from "artistic talent." Tell me why I'm wrong.
>
>We don't know why you're wrong.
Why do you talk, anyway?
>We were hoping you know why you are
>alway, alway wrong.
Heh heh. Bad time for a typo, huh? what is alway, anyway? is it like amway?
How much does an alway, anyway?
>All we know
Don't refer to yourself in the plural; you're not the Queen of England.
Anyway, you don't know anything. hell, you don't suspect anything.
> is that you are wrong.
I'm only interested in the opinion of intelligent and honest people, so what
you "know" really doesn't matter.
But tell me, why do you type things like this:
> The kid was not drunk. The kid was, however, violating Indiana law,
> which says that during the first 3 months one has a license, one may not
> carry passengers, unless one of them is a licensed driver, over 21,
> sitting next to the new driver.
Let's review. Someone breaks a law and causes an accident. You
regard this as proof that the law prevents accidents.
Hmmmm, not quite right. You might claim, "IF the law were obeyed,
THEN it would prevent accidents."
Perhaps true, but certainly useless. IF fish had fur, THEN they would
be mice. IF my uncle had tits, THEN he'd be my aunt. The law ISN'T
(as you have demonstrated) being obeyed. The consequence of a
counterfactual antecent does not matter."
and then deny having said them:
> The kid was not drunk. The kid was, however, violating Indiana law,
> which says that during the first 3 months one has a license, one may not
> carry passengers, unless one of them is a licensed driver, over 21,
> sitting next to the new driver.
Let's review. Someone breaks a law and causes an accident. You
regard this as proof that the law prevents accidents.
Hmmmm, not quite right. You might claim, "IF the law were obeyed,
THEN it would prevent accidents."
Perhaps true, but certainly useless. IF fish had fur, THEN they would
be mice. IF my uncle had tits, THEN he'd be my aunt. The law ISN'T
(as you have demonstrated) being obeyed. The consequence of a
counterfactual antecent does not matter.
but then when it's the death penalty, which doesn't deter crime, we see:
bigi...@aol.com (Big Iron5) writes:
> Dana Carpender <dcar...@kiva.net> wrote:
>
> >Now, for a somewhat tangential question: I've read that when there is a
> >highly publicized execution, the homocide rate usually takes an *upward*
> >blip. Anyone know if this is true? If so, it would kinda weaken the
> >"deterrent" argument...
>
>
> The deterrent argument was already about as weak as an argument can get.
> Virtually nobody who has given the issue any serious thought believes there
is
> any net deterrent effect.
That's a joke, right?
People who think that criminals commit fewer crimes in response to
more severe punishment:
Economist Gary Becker
Criminology James Q. Wilson
Criminology John DeIulio
Cartoonist Scott Wilson
People who think that criminals prefer more severe punishment:
Noted self-abuser Big Iron5
Can you reconcile those, John Alway? And if not, then don't ever tell me I'm
wrong again.
Or, be your usual craven sniveling self and insult my from behind your
killfile. Hell, at least I refute what you say before I make fun of you for
buying third world women.
Kirk Is
> Because they're in time out (usually) when this happens, we (staff) ignore
> it (at least, we're supposed to) until they have served their time out,
> and then we (are supposed to) calmly tell them to clean it up, as if it
> were spilt milk or something.
> Granted, some staff do not do this, but because of the fact that MOST of
> us do, I can't imagine that it is attention seeking behavior in this case.
In that case, maybe being left alone is an opportunity. You probably
'leave them alone' in the bathroom stall as well, (well, depending on the
level of function), so maybe time-out reminds them of that? Eh, that
theory may be a reach.
> I'm beginning to think that it's just fun. Ugh.
Yes, and yes. At least, that's my guess.
Big Iron5
>>Sadly, the same can be said about much of what is called "artistic talent".
>
>Why do I get the feeling that dickheads like you and Geno and Boron who are
>always willing to tell us what Art is and isn't couldn't draw well enough to
>get into a matchbox art school, huh?
>
> Yeah, that's what I thought.
While I hereby chide Dutch for his churlishness with respect to these three
(and how Boron get's on his shitlist is something I completely fail to
comprehend, not that I haven't failed in that area before), but my experience
indicates that he is largely correct in defending the "weirdo" artists. Mind
you, that experience is mainly limited to having a lot of artist and art
student/professor pals (Bobbarino lacking any artistic talent himself, unless
you consider singing small range blues/country songs to be an artistic talent).
But what I have seen is that mainly these oddball/performance artists are
people who mastered "realistic" art long ago and decided to go on to try things
that were new and different. Clearly, not all of it is good -- nobody, artist,
scientist, or Ted Williams, though, hits 1.000.
Jerry Bauer
Big Iron5 <bigi...@aol.com> wrote:
>Dutch writes:
>
>>>Sadly, the same can be said about much of what is called "artistic talent".
>>
>> Why do I get the feeling that dickheads like you and Geno and Boron
>> who are always willing to tell us what Art is and isn't couldn't
>> draw well enough to get into a matchbox art school, huh?
>>
>> Yeah, that's what I thought.
>
>
> While I hereby chide Dutch for his churlishness with respect to
> completely fail to comprehend, not that I haven't failed in that
> area before), but my experience indicates that he is largely correct
> in defending the "weirdo" artists. Mind you, that experience is
> mainly limited to having a lot of artist and art student/professor
> pals (Bobbarino lacking any artistic talent himself, unless you
> consider singing small range blues/country songs to be an artistic
> talent). But what I have seen is that mainly these
> oddball/performance artists are people who mastered "realistic" art
> long ago and decided to go on to try things that were new and
> different. Clearly, not all of it is good -- nobody, artist,
> scientist, or Ted Williams, though, hits 1.000.
It is the "different" artists that change the state of the art. But
"different" does not mean "great". It may mean "courageous" or
"inventive" or just "naive", but in and of itself "different" is just
different.
Picasso is not remembered for his early, "realistic" art. There is
nothing wrong with it -- he was clearly a good artist -- but it is not
much different from others. Nor did it polarize criticism, and no one
said anything like "My kid can draw better than that!"
Something as subjective as art must be able to tolerate divergent
opinions. "Weirdo" artists need both defenders and antagonists. Art
without effect is insipid, and insipid art is not great.
I don't know what set off Dutch, but there is little I can do about
such volatility. Apparently, he cares deeply about public perception
of art, to the point where he is willing to leap to unsupportable
conclusions. Alternatively, he is occasionally intentionally
provocative -- it can be difficult for me to discriminate between real
and feigned passion in this medium.
Boron Elgar
(none of this rant is directed at you, Bob, you just innocently
provided the entree for me....)
I have never criticized weirdo art in general (especially as that is a
pretty broad characterization), but have reamed some works and am
entitled to criticism of particular pieces, schools, or even entire
oeuvres. Anyone is. Personal tastes aside, there has often been
debate among aestheticians as to judging art from the artist's view or
from that of the public to which it is offered. Nothing new here. I
like to debate.
This groups rarely enters into serious discussion of art or classical
music, opera, theater or any number of other topics near & dear to me,
and I am not trying to introduce them, either. Time & place for
everything, if the thread drifts that way, I love to be part of it, if
it doesn't, well, usenet is a big place.
I had my first formal training in art history when I was 16. It has
continued. I am not of the "I don't know much about art but I know
what I like," school, nor, frankly, do I feel as if I should have to
show ID in the group because some wet-behind-the-ears flatlander in
Ohio got up on the wrong side of the intellectual dumpster. The last
damned art discussion I got into around here is several months old,
too.
Boron
GrapeApe
>>
>>Why do I get the feeling that dickheads like you and Geno and Boron who
>are
>>always willing to tell us what Art is and isn't couldn't draw well enough
>to
>>get into a matchbox art school, huh?
>>
>> Yeah, that's what I thought.
I like the ashcan school.
The matchbook people sent me a check for 10 dollars once and sent a man into
town to see me.
Opus the Penguin
>This groups rarely enters into serious discussion of art
We're having fun yacking about the Pre-Raphaelites in another thread. What's
your take on them? Original, evocative style or just the ticket for the girl
who has 30 unicorn posters and wants to branch out?
We're also having fun dissecting Dutch's claim that France has not produced
many artists of merit and influence.
What's your favorite art museum?
>or classical music
Hey, in the Pre-Raphaelite thread we've also branched out into a discussion of
the Historically Informed Performance movement. What do you think about that?
Do you go for the big forces or the John Eliot Gardiner syle? What do you make
of Joshua Rifkin's controversial thesis that Bach's choral music was written
for only one singer per part?
>opera
Maria Callas in Madama Butterfly. It doesn't get any better than that.
Thread merge with the LOTR movie discussion. It is now possible to do the
special effects required to make a *really* cool tetralogy of movies for The
Ring of the Nibelung. Do you think this would detract from Wagner's vision or
finally allow us to realize that vision? How much longer until the technology
is such that a bright kid with a desktop computer could produce a passable
Ring movie using, say, Solti's version as the soundtrack?
>theater
Seems like there's been a critical backlash against Arthur Miller and
Tennessee Williams lately. Will they rebound or exit the canon?
>or any number of other topics near & dear to me,
>and I am not trying to introduce them, either.
Oh. Well, ignore everything I just said then.
Boron Elgar
<opusthe...@nettaxi.com> wrote:
>Boron Elgar wrote
>>This groups rarely enters into serious discussion of art
>
>We're having fun yacking about the Pre-Raphaelites in another thread. What's
>your take on them? Original, evocative style or just the ticket for the girl
>who has 30 unicorn posters and wants to branch out?
Schwepps ads.
>
>We're also having fun dissecting Dutch's claim that France has not produced
>many artists of merit and influence.
France comes up short until you get to the Impressionists. There are
certainly exceptions, Watteau, Fragonard, Boucher, some others. If
you really want a silly litmus test, look at the following site & tell
me how many paintings you can recall by these guys.
http://www.culture.fr/cgi-bin/liste-chronologique-eng
>
>What's your favorite art museum?
Toughie...I'd say one that lets me in, but...I have several
The Hermitage, as I have only been there once & I itch to return.
The Louvre & The Met & The British Museum as they have it all.
The Norton Simon & The Frick as they are perfect gemstones.
>
>>or classical music
Any Beethoven. There is nothing I have ever heard that I did not
adore. I am not accomplished enough on any instrument to play any of
it, though. For pure joy of choral singing, as a participant, though,
I go for Bach's B Minor Mass.
>
>Hey, in the Pre-Raphaelite thread we've also branched out into a discussion of
>the Historically Informed Performance movement. What do you think about that?
>Do you go for the big forces or the John Eliot Gardiner syle? What do you make
>of Joshua Rifkin's controversial thesis that Bach's choral music was written
>for only one singer per part?
HA HA...I wrote my above before I read your above.
My ex, whose musical erudition far, far surpasses mine (though he
could not carry a tune in a hand basket) got me very interested in
original instrument recordings...King's Consort, Ars Musica sort of
thing. Still, unless you sitting in some nifty Austrian church, you
don't get close to the real sound. I also think you have to retrain
your ear to appreciate it. Well worth it, tho.
Dont' sell Rifkin short on the Poor Johannes One Note thing. He is
quite accomplished & that seems to be the only thing anyone ever
mentions about him. My own opinion is that Bach could only afford to
pay one singer per. ;)
>
>>opera
>
>Maria Callas in Madama Butterfly. It doesn't get any better than that.
This one isn't fair. I adore Callas, but she does not make me cry.
Tebaldi makes me cry. Now here is the odd crying jag inspiration: the
acme remains firmly with Puccini...but wonder of wonders, it is Renata
Scotto (I know, but she really had a wonderful voice in the 70's)
There are 3 one acts, Il Trittico, consisting of ,Il Tabarro, Suor
Angelica, Gianni Schicchi. Suor Angelica is about a woman who is
forced by her family give up an illegitimate child & joins a nunnery.
She is told by a vengeful relative that her beloved child, about whom
she thinks day & night, has died. She concocts a poison from her herb
garden (she is a renown herbalist at the nunnery) and drinks it. As
soon as she does, devout Catholic that she is, she realizes that she
will never be united with her son in Heaven. As she dies, she has a
vision from the Virgin who leads her to her child.
Any Puccini is first rate. Only bits & pieces of Verdi (Traviata &
Requiem)
>
>Thread merge with the LOTR movie discussion. It is now possible to do the
>special effects required to make a *really* cool tetralogy of movies for The
>Ring of the Nibelung. Do you think this would detract from Wagner's vision or
>finally allow us to realize that vision? How much longer until the technology
>is such that a bright kid with a desktop computer could produce a passable
>Ring movie using, say, Solti's version as the soundtrack?
I love all the instrumental music from the Ring. That said, I detest
it when anyone starts singing. I do not know any the full recordings
of it well enough to make a judgement. I have also wondered if being a
Jew has something to do with my general uncomfortable feeling
listening to Wagner. Didn't stop Solti. No call here.
>
>>theater
>
>Seems like there's been a critical backlash against Arthur Miller and
>Tennessee Williams lately. Will they rebound or exit the canon?
Miller will remain for two plays, at minimum. These plays will be
performed (Death, as it is hard for a middle aged actor to refuse it)
& studied in school (Crucible).
Williams is an actor's dream and I think Streetcar will keep him in
the pantheon...Glass, too. I, myself, never had more fun on a stage
than performing "27 Wagons Full of Cotton." Rock a by baby....
>Oh. Well, ignore everything I just said then.
More more...
Boron
Dutch Jingleheimerschmidt
>We're also having fun dissecting Dutch's claim that France has not produced
>many artists of merit and influence.
Well, not compared to flanders-holland-and parts of what would later be
germany, Spain, or certainly Italy, fer pete's sake.
Dutch Jingleheimerschmidt
Date: 6/27/2001 9:06 PM Eastern Daylight Time writes:
>On Wed, 27 Jun 2001 15:24:42 GMT, ba...@shell3.ba.best.com (Jerry Bauer)
>wrote:
>
>>I don't know what set off Dutch, but there is little I can do about
>>such volatility. Apparently, he cares deeply about public perception
>>of art, to the point where he is willing to leap to unsupportable
>>conclusions.
>
>Just as apparently, he's a walking sphincter.
Aw, you're just mad I'm smart and thoughful and you intellectually lazy and
simplistic.
Hey, it's no crime, but don't be proud of it, or abusive when people come to
help.
Opus the Penguin
>Opus the Penguin wrote:
>>We're also having fun dissecting Dutch's claim that France has not produced
>>many artists of merit and influence.
>
>France comes up short until you get to the Impressionists.
No argument there. They get going right around the time the Dutch and the
Flemish peter out (Van Gogh excepted).
>There are
>certainly exceptions, Watteau, Fragonard, Boucher, some others. If
>you really want a silly litmus test, look at the following site & tell
>me how many paintings you can recall by these guys.
>
>http://www.culture.fr/cgi-bin/liste-chronologique-eng
Hmmm. Hang on, one'll come to me...
>>What's your favorite art museum?
>
>Toughie...I'd say one that lets me in, but...I have several
>
>The Hermitage, as I have only been there once & I itch to return.
>The Louvre & The Met & The British Museum as they have it all.
>The Norton Simon & The Frick as they are perfect gemstones.
Good suggestions. It's time to take the boy up to see the Norton Simon. And
maybe the Getty.
I loved the Vatican museums as well. Anything that can make the Sistine Chapel
seem almost anti-climactic is one dazzling exhibit.
Opus the Penguin
Boron Elgar wrote:
>>>or classical music
>
>Any Beethoven. There is nothing I have ever heard that I did not
>adore.
Wellington's Victory?
>I am not accomplished enough on any instrument to play any of
>it, though. For pure joy of choral singing, as a participant, though,
>I go for Bach's B Minor Mass.
Yeah, that's a good one, all right. Bach is one of the few composers that can
hold his own against Beethoven. I can listen to a piece by, say, Schubert and
like it just fine. But then a passage from Beethoven comes into my head and
Schubert suddenly seems shallow.
And what's up with "the three B's"? Bach, Beethoven, and ... Brahms. C'mon,
one of these does not belong. Forget the alliteration and just pick the three
greats for a second. I say Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven for classical (in the
broad sense). And for opera I say Mozart, Wagner, and Puccini. (I know I'm
supposed to put Verdi in there somewhere. So sue me.)
Then Opus the Penguin wrote:
>>Hey, in the Pre-Raphaelite thread we've also branched out into a discussion
>>of the Historically Informed Performance movement. What do you think
>>about that? Do you go for the big forces or the John Eliot Gardiner syle?
>>What do you make of Joshua Rifkin's controversial thesis that Bach's
>>choral music was written for only one singer per part?
>
>HA HA...I wrote my above before I read your above.
Good thing, too.
>My ex, whose musical erudition far, far surpasses mine (though he
>could not carry a tune in a hand basket) got me very interested in
>original instrument recordings...King's Consort, Ars Musica sort of
>thing. Still, unless you sitting in some nifty Austrian church, you
>don't get close to the real sound. I also think you have to retrain
>your ear to appreciate it. Well worth it, tho.
I agree. Occasionally I want more oomph -- in the Hallelujah Chorus say. But
overall I think the HIP movement has made a very convincing case. They've come
a long way since the '70s when they seemed to be saying "You must like our
dry, lifeless performance because it is *authentic*."
Still, they can miss. I think of Roger Norrington conducting Symphonie
Fantastique. You read through the liner notes and it sounds exciting--the
tempos Berlioz called for, the right tones on the bells, etc. etc. (And it's
especially exciting because Berlioz was apparently a stickler for such
things.) Then you hear the performance. Dullsville. Give me Abbado or Davis or
Monteux or even Dutoit fer cryin' out loud.
>Dont' sell Rifkin short on the Poor Johannes One Note thing. He is
>quite accomplished & that seems to be the only thing anyone ever
>mentions about him. My own opinion is that Bach could only afford to
>pay one singer per. ;)
I don't sell him short at all. He's almost got me convinced on the one singer
per part thing. (At least in theory. I still need to *hear* it to be really
convinced.) It is kind of ironic that he has such an amazing variety of
accomplishments in the musical world, but you mention Rifkin and this is the
first thing that pops into people's heads. (Once upon a time, when I first
heard that this thesis was from Joshua Rifkin, I said, "What? The Scott Joplin
guy?"
Opus the Penguin
>Opus the Penguin wrote:
>>Tennessee Williams lately. Will they rebound or exit the canon?
>
>Miller will remain for two plays, at minimum. These plays will be
>performed (Death, as it is hard for a middle aged actor to refuse it)
>& studied in school (Crucible).
Those two are generally considered his masterpieces. But I've heard critical
rumblings rising up against them. I agree that from an actor's standpoint
Death is hard to resist. Did you like Hoffman's performance or were you
distracted by his lack of the proper portliness?
You know who would've made a great Willie Loman? Carroll O'Connor. Oh well.
>Williams is an actor's dream and I think Streetcar will keep him in
>the pantheon...Glass, too. I, myself, never had more fun on a stage
>than performing "27 Wagons Full of Cotton." Rock a by baby....
Streetcar mainly. I think Glass is more an actor's play than a spectator's.
Opus the Penguin
>Opus the Penguin wrote:
>>
>>Maria Callas in Madama Butterfly. It doesn't get any better than that.
>
>This one isn't fair. I adore Callas, but she does not make me cry.
>Tebaldi makes me cry.
>Now here is the odd crying jag inspiration: the
>acme remains firmly with Puccini...but wonder of wonders, it is Renata
>Scotto (I know, but she really had a wonderful voice in the 70's)
>There are 3 one acts, Il Trittico, consisting of ,Il Tabarro, Suor
>Angelica, Gianni Schicchi. Suor Angelica is about a woman who is
>forced by her family give up an illegitimate child & joins a nunnery.
>She is told by a vengeful relative that her beloved child, about whom
>she thinks day & night, has died. She concocts a poison from her herb
>garden (she is a renown herbalist at the nunnery) and drinks it. As
>soon as she does, devout Catholic that she is, she realizes that she
>will never be united with her son in Heaven. As she dies, she has a
>vision from the Virgin who leads her to her child.
For me the real crying jag surprise is Victoria de los Angeles at the end of
La Boheme (with Jussi Bjorling as Rodolphe and Thomas Beecham conducting).
>Any Puccini is first rate. Only bits & pieces of Verdi (Traviata &
>Requiem)
Wow! It's always been my guilty little secret that I didn't get into Verdi as
much as I "should". So many think he's the greatest and like Puccini because
they feel he's continuing the tradition and is almost as good.
Still, *any* Puccini. I try and try and try to understand Manon Lescaut and
just get nowhere. Is it my recording? (I've got the one with James Levine
conducting, so it could very well be.)
>>Thread merge with the LOTR movie discussion. It is now possible to do the
>>special effects required to make a *really* cool tetralogy of movies for The
>>Ring of the Nibelung. Do you think this would detract from Wagner's vision
or
>>finally allow us to realize that vision? How much longer until the
technology
>>is such that a bright kid with a desktop computer could produce a passable
>>Ring movie using, say, Solti's version as the soundtrack?
>
>I love all the instrumental music from the Ring. That said, I detest
>it when anyone starts singing. I do not know any the full recordings
>of it well enough to make a judgement. I have also wondered if being a
>Jew has something to do with my general uncomfortable feeling
>listening to Wagner. Didn't stop Solti. No call here.
Yeah. Wagner's anti-semitism was rather creepy. And, of course, when it
flowers into Nazi Germany and he's posthumously co-opted as their composer
spokes-dude, I can see how that gets in the way of enjoyment.
Is it *just* the Ring, or all Wagner? I wouldn't want to be without Tristan
und Isolde.
Opus the Penguin
>Opus the Penguin wrote:
>>your take on them? Original, evocative style or just the ticket for the girl
>>who has 30 unicorn posters and wants to branch out?
>
>Schwepps ads.
Ouch! You cut me. You cut me real deep just now.
Opus the Penguin
>Opus the Penguin writes:
>
>>We're also having fun dissecting Dutch's claim that France has not produced
>>many artists of merit and influence.
>
>Well, not compared to flanders-holland-and parts of what would later be
>germany, Spain, or certainly Italy, fer pete's sake.
How did Italy get in here?
Dutch Courage
I think Max Ernst dropped it off when he immigrated to France.
Dutch Courage
Boron Elgar
Come, on...broaden those horizons...look at those paintings & tell me
if I am far off. Soft focus, soft core (for the day), soft subject
matter. You want class, go up a few years to the Edwardians...Look at
Sargeant & tell me if that stuff is not much deeper & complex, not to
mention much better eye candy.
Boron
Boron Elgar
<opusthe...@nettaxi.com> wrote:
>
>
>For me the real crying jag surprise is Victoria de los Angeles at the end of
>La Boheme (with Jussi Bjorling as Rodolphe and Thomas Beecham conducting).
I have that recording! It was the first one of Boheme I ever bought. I
never listen to those old recordings & I haven't the heart or thrill
of the chase to replace them all on CD.
>
>>Any Puccini is first rate. Only bits & pieces of Verdi (Traviata &
>>Requiem)
>
>Wow! It's always been my guilty little secret that I didn't get into Verdi as
>much as I "should". So many think he's the greatest and like Puccini because
>they feel he's continuing the tradition and is almost as good.
I think the emotion in Puccini is much more real than in Verdi,
generally. Nothing too melodramatic. AND, let us not forget, Puccini
wrote tons wonderful tunes. Even Jolson stole one. Puccini sued over
"Avalon" & won.
>
>Still, *any* Puccini. I try and try and try to understand Manon Lescaut and
>just get nowhere. Is it my recording? (I've got the one with James Levine
>conducting, so it could very well be.)
Ain't my fave. It is tougher to like & it seems we feel similarly
about some opera.
>
>
>Yeah. Wagner's anti-semitism was rather creepy. And, of course, when it
>flowers into Nazi Germany and he's posthumously co-opted as their composer
>spokes-dude, I can see how that gets in the way of enjoyment.
>
>Is it *just* the Ring, or all Wagner? I wouldn't want to be without Tristan
>und Isolde.
Same thing. I love the overture, the background, etc, but cannot sit
thru the singing. Parsifal , either. Meisersinger is the only one I
actually enjoy.
Still, the Rhine music is absolutely captivating. I listen & can "see"
the mist rising from the river at dawn. Nifty.
Boron
Boron Elgar
<opusthe...@nettaxi.com> wrote:
>
>>>What's your favorite art museum?
>>
>>Toughie...I'd say one that lets me in, but...I have several
>>
>>The Hermitage, as I have only been there once & I itch to return.
>>The Louvre & The Met & The British Museum as they have it all.
>>The Norton Simon & The Frick as they are perfect gemstones.
>
>Good suggestions. It's time to take the boy up to see the Norton Simon. And
>maybe the Getty.
Getty...well, the building is better than the collection. Tell me
what you think.
>
>I loved the Vatican museums as well. Anything that can make the Sistine Chapel
>seem almost anti-climactic is one dazzling exhibit.
Doh! What an ass, I am. Of course. Unique.
Boron
Boron Elgar
<opusthe...@nettaxi.com> wrote:
>Boron Elgar wrote:
>>Opus the Penguin wrote:
>>>Seems like there's been a critical backlash against Arthur Miller and
>>>Tennessee Williams lately. Will they rebound or exit the canon?
>>
>>Miller will remain for two plays, at minimum. These plays will be
>>performed (Death, as it is hard for a middle aged actor to refuse it)
>>& studied in school (Crucible).
>
>Those two are generally considered his masterpieces. But I've heard critical
>rumblings rising up against them. I agree that from an actor's standpoint
>Death is hard to resist. Did you like Hoffman's performance or were you
>distracted by his lack of the proper portliness?
I saw Hoffman do it on Bway. It was not his stature that detracted
from it, but his youth. He just did not seem to have the maturity.
Malkovic (sp) was terrific.
>
>You know who would've made a great Willie Loman? Carroll O'Connor. Oh well.
Yup
>
>>Williams is an actor's dream and I think Streetcar will keep him in
>>the pantheon...Glass, too. I, myself, never had more fun on a stage
>>than performing "27 Wagons Full of Cotton." Rock a by baby....
>
>Streetcar mainly. I think Glass is more an actor's play than a spectator's.
An actor's perspective is what I have. I read & watch all theater that
way. Force of habit.
Boron
>
Boron Elgar
<opusthe...@nettaxi.com> wrote:
>
>Boron Elgar wrote:
>>>>or classical music
>>
>>Any Beethoven. There is nothing I have ever heard that I did not
>>adore.
>
>Wellington's Victory?
I don't hate it.
>
>>I am not accomplished enough on any instrument to play any of
>>it, though. For pure joy of choral singing, as a participant, though,
>>I go for Bach's B Minor Mass.
>
>Yeah, that's a good one, all right. Bach is one of the few composers that can
>hold his own against Beethoven. I can listen to a piece by, say, Schubert and
>like it just fine. But then a passage from Beethoven comes into my head and
>Schubert suddenly seems shallow.
>
>And what's up with "the three B's"? Bach, Beethoven, and ... Brahms. C'mon,
>one of these does not belong. Forget the alliteration and just pick the three
>greats for a second. I say Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven for classical (in the
>broad sense). And for opera I say Mozart, Wagner, and Puccini. (I know I'm
>supposed to put Verdi in there somewhere. So sue me.)
Mozart operas are spectacular. Um...Magic Flute is my favorite,
though.
>
>
>>My ex, whose musical erudition far, far surpasses mine (though he
>>could not carry a tune in a hand basket) got me very interested in
>>original instrument recordings...King's Consort, Ars Musica sort of
>>thing. Still, unless you sitting in some nifty Austrian church, you
>>don't get close to the real sound. I also think you have to retrain
>>your ear to appreciate it. Well worth it, tho.
>
>I agree. Occasionally I want more oomph -- in the Hallelujah Chorus say. But
>overall I think the HIP movement has made a very convincing case. They've come
>a long way since the '70s when they seemed to be saying "You must like our
>dry, lifeless performance because it is *authentic*."
>
>Still, they can miss. I think of Roger Norrington conducting Symphonie
>Fantastique. You read through the liner notes and it sounds exciting--the
>tempos Berlioz called for, the right tones on the bells, etc. etc. (And it's
>especially exciting because Berlioz was apparently a stickler for such
>things.) Then you hear the performance. Dullsville. Give me Abbado or Davis or
>Monteux or even Dutoit fer cryin' out loud.
Symphonie Fantastique is, in my mind, forever intertwined with
Balanchine's choreography. I am a big ballet nut & so trusting of his
choices in music that it opened me up to things I never would have
studied otherwise. Four Temperments by Hindemith comes to mind.
>
>>Dont' sell Rifkin short on the Poor Johannes One Note thing. He is
>>quite accomplished & that seems to be the only thing anyone ever
>>mentions about him. My own opinion is that Bach could only afford to
>>pay one singer per. ;)
>
>I don't sell him short at all. He's almost got me convinced on the one singer
>per part thing. (At least in theory. I still need to *hear* it to be really
>convinced.) It is kind of ironic that he has such an amazing variety of
>accomplishments in the musical world, but you mention Rifkin and this is the
>first thing that pops into people's heads. (Once upon a time, when I first
>heard that this thesis was from Joshua Rifkin, I said, "What? The Scott Joplin
>guy?"
Renaissance Man.
Boron
>
Briar Rose
>>>The Norton Simon & The Frick as they are perfect gemstones.
>>Good suggestions. It's time to take the boy up to see the Norton Simon. And
>>maybe the Getty.
Blech. Haven't made it to the new Getty yet,
but I hate the Norton Simon. It's chock-full o'
Impressionists, and not much else.
Gimme a nice English Landscape painter at the
Huntington any day. Plus, the Huntington has
better coffee, and is free on Tuesdays.
:) Connie-Lynne
--
"Thank God for Frito-Lay. It did not market Chee-tos as 'dangerously
cheesy' until after, and ONLY after, it had developed a Chee-to whose
cheesiness exceeded acceptable safety standards."
-- The Onion
Lalbert1
Rose) writes:
>>"Opus the Penguin" <opusthe...@nettaxi.com> wrote:
>>> (sttributions lost)
>>>>The Norton Simon & The Frick as they are perfect gemstones.
>>>Good suggestions. It's time to take the boy up to see the Norton Simon. And
>>>maybe the Getty.
>
>Blech. Haven't made it to the new Getty yet,
>but I hate the Norton Simon. It's chock-full o'
>Impressionists, and not much else.
>
>Gimme a nice English Landscape painter at the
>Huntington any day. Plus, the Huntington has
>better coffee, and is free on Tuesdays.
>
>
"No nakeds! But a nice painting of a cow is alright." - Mel Brooks
Les
Boron Elgar
wrote:
>>"Opus the Penguin" <opusthe...@nettaxi.com> wrote:
>>> (sttributions lost)
>>>>The Norton Simon & The Frick as they are perfect gemstones.
>>>Good suggestions. It's time to take the boy up to see the Norton Simon. And
>>>maybe the Getty.
>
>Blech. Haven't made it to the new Getty yet,
>but I hate the Norton Simon. It's chock-full o'
>Impressionists, and not much else.
>
>Gimme a nice English Landscape painter at the
>Huntington any day. Plus, the Huntington has
>better coffee, and is free on Tuesdays.
The Getty has a very nice fruit & cheese platter and the view is
terrific.
Boron
Margaret Kane
"Boron Elgar" <boron...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1armjt4i34qvjlg7m...@4ax.com...
Well, if you like that, go up to the sculpture garden on the roof of the Met
sometime. (You're in Jersey, aren't you Boron?) The sculpture varies, but
the view of Central Park is amazing and they have snacks and wine for sale.
Margaret "art teacher's daughter" Kane
Boron Elgar
<margar...@zdnet.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> The Getty has a very nice fruit & cheese platter and the view is
>> terrific.
>>
>> Boron
>
>Well, if you like that, go up to the sculpture garden on the roof of the Met
>sometime. (You're in Jersey, aren't you Boron?) The sculpture varies, but
>the view of Central Park is amazing and they have snacks and wine for sale.
>
It is, indeed, a delight. I was up there the afternoon I went to the
Vermeer exhibit. From the Dutch to the rare instruments to the roof.
I miss the old sculpture garden at MOMA. I spent many a fine hour
there.
boron
GrapeApe
>The Getty has a very nice fruit & cheese platter and the view is
>terrific.
Yea, where the parking lot for that darn thing? It looks like it has its own
national park for its grounds. Can you see ugly civilization from there very
easily?
Tank
there.<
Shouldn't you say "I remember MOMA" ?
--
Tank
"Remember to pillage before you burn"
Boron Elgar
>>
>>The Getty has a very nice fruit & cheese platter and the view is
>>terrific.
>
>Yea, where the parking lot for that darn thing? It looks like it has its own
>national park for its grounds.
You park at the bottom of the mountain & take a choo-choo up.
> Can you see ugly civilization from there very
>easily?
Some days there is marine layer that blocks it, some days there is
smog, some days are so wonderful that the real delight of it all comes
through.
I confess to a pleasure-taking in urban as well as wide-open spaces.
Boron
Bill Diamond
alt.fan.cecil-adams back on Thu, 28 Jun 2001 10:52:29 GMT that ...
Heathens. Caillebot.
B
"You never know what is enough unless you
know what is more than enough." --William Blake
Bill Diamond
>>
>>Still, *any* Puccini. I try and try and try to understand Manon Lescaut and
>>just get nowhere. Is it my recording? (I've got the one with James Levine
>>conducting, so it could very well be.)
>
>Ain't my fave. It is tougher to like & it seems we feel similarly
>about some opera.
>>
It's a lovely opera, and the duet with the two lovers parting is just
too much too take.
Now, if you want some campy good operatic fun - try and find a company
performing "Agrippina". It's really the worst opera ever written. It
was revived a few years ago and turned into a camp opera, and it's
absolutely fabulous.
Even Deano, who hates opera, loves it.
Did we talk about Pique Dama yet? You got love operas where everyone
commits suicide.
Bill
GrapeApe
>>>>Schwepps ads.
>>>
>>>Ouch! You cut me. You cut me real deep just now.
I am ready for the pre-raphaelite Absolut ad. I could even suggest some modern
pre-raphaelites for the job.
Opus the Penguin
>Did we talk about Pique Dama yet? You got love operas where everyone
>commits suicide.
[Scene: Richard's apartment, later]
RICHARD: We're in the garden. Susanna is disguised as the Countess, the
Countess is disguised as Susanna, and they tell it all to Cherubino, who's
really a girl, playing a boy, pretending he's a girl.
DEL: Wasn't there a "Three's Company" like this?
SHELLEY: Yeah!
RICHARD: Why? Why do I bother?
DEL: No, come on. This is important. What next?
RICHARD: Okay, what next? Well uh, they all live happily ever after. See Del,
there are two kinds of opera: one where they all live happily ever after, and
one where they all commit suicide. They're not a subtle people.
SHELLEY: Del, if you get lost, just say 'Pavarotti'. Everybody loves
Pavarotti.
DEL: Let me see if I've got this right. [he reads off a notepad] The Count and
Countess get together, Barbarino and Cherubino are together...tell me again
what happens to Figaro.
RICHARD: He gets married. Hence the title "The Marriage of Figaro"!
Boron Elgar
<bi...@nospambilldiamond.com> wrote:
>Good old Boron Elgar <boron...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>alt.fan.cecil-adams back on Thu, 28 Jun 2001 11:01:51 GMT that ...
>>>
>>>Still, *any* Puccini. I try and try and try to understand Manon Lescaut and
>>>just get nowhere. Is it my recording? (I've got the one with James Levine
>>>conducting, so it could very well be.)
>>
>>Ain't my fave. It is tougher to like & it seems we feel similarly
>>about some opera.
>>>
>
>It's a lovely opera, and the duet with the two lovers parting is just
>too much too take.
>
>Now, if you want some campy good operatic fun - try and find a company
>performing "Agrippina". It's really the worst opera ever written. It
>was revived a few years ago and turned into a camp opera, and it's
>absolutely fabulous.
>
>Even Deano, who hates opera, loves it.
Handel? Opera? oh giggle giggle
>
>Did we talk about Pique Dama yet? You got love operas where everyone
>commits suicide.
>
I prefer his ballets.
Boron
Bill Diamond
>On Thu, 28 Jun 2001 20:31:30 -0400, Bill Diamond
><bi...@nospambilldiamond.com> wrote:
>
>>Good old Boron Elgar <boron...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>alt.fan.cecil-adams back on Thu, 28 Jun 2001 11:01:51 GMT that ...
>>>>
>>>>Still, *any* Puccini. I try and try and try to understand Manon Lescaut and
>>>>just get nowhere. Is it my recording? (I've got the one with James Levine
>>>>conducting, so it could very well be.)
>>>
>>>Ain't my fave. It is tougher to like & it seems we feel similarly
>>>about some opera.
>>>>
>>
>>It's a lovely opera, and the duet with the two lovers parting is just
>>too much too take.
>>
>>Now, if you want some campy good operatic fun - try and find a company
>>performing "Agrippina". It's really the worst opera ever written. It
>>was revived a few years ago and turned into a camp opera, and it's
>>absolutely fabulous.
>>
>>Even Deano, who hates opera, loves it.
>
>Handel? Opera? oh giggle giggle
And now for the punch line ... it's in Italian, of course.
Really - you'll need to bring a few spare "Depends". It's that good.
>>
>>Did we talk about Pique Dama yet? You got love operas where everyone
>>commits suicide.
>>
>I prefer his ballets.
Oh, all the Christmas fluff.
>
>Boron
Boron Elgar
<bi...@nospambilldiamond.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>Did we talk about Pique Dama yet? You got love operas where everyone
>>>commits suicide.
>>>
>>I prefer his ballets.
>
>Oh, all the Christmas fluff.
>>
Swan Lake? Sleeping Beauty? The music is great on those, as it is in
Nutcracker. No denying that.
I really do prefer the Balanchine type of ballet over the fluffy
Russian or Brit stuff, though. Stravinsky score, no set, no costume.
An incredible interweave of movement & music.
Boron
Bill Diamond
Now you're making me wish I were straight so I could properly pursue
you.
Boron Elgar
<bi...@nospambilldiamond.com> wrote:
>Good old Boron Elgar <boron...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>
>>I really do prefer the Balanchine type of ballet over the fluffy
>>Russian or Brit stuff, though. Stravinsky score, no set, no costume.
>>An incredible interweave of movement & music.
>>
>>Boron
>
>Now you're making me wish I were straight so I could properly pursue
>you.
>
>Bill
>
Wouldn't a subscription to the New York City Ballet be more practical?
Boron
Bill Diamond
Practicality be damned! It's -amore-, woman!
Boron Elgar
<bi...@nospambilldiamond.com> wrote:
>>>Now you're making me wish I were straight so I could properly pursue
>>>you.
>>>
>>>Bill
>>>
>>Wouldn't a subscription to the New York City Ballet be more practical?
>>
>>Boron
>
>Practicality be damned! It's -amore-, woman!
>
Caro mio ben! I cannot resist when you speak Italian! I am yours!
(did babel fish get that right?)
Boron
Rich Clancey
+ On Wed, 27 Jun 2001 21:48:26 -0700, "Opus the Penguin"
+ <opusthe...@nettaxi.com> wrote:
+ >Boron Elgar wrote:
+ >>Opus the Penguin wrote:
+ >>>We're having fun yacking about the Pre-Raphaelites in another thread. What's
+ >>>your take on them? Original, evocative style or just the ticket for the girl
+ >>>who has 30 unicorn posters and wants to branch out?
+ >>
+ >>Schwepps ads.
+ >
+ >Ouch! You cut me. You cut me real deep just now.
+ Come, on...broaden those horizons...look at those paintings & tell me
+ if I am far off. Soft focus, soft core (for the day), soft subject
+ matter. You want class, go up a few years to the Edwardians...Look at
+ Sargeant & tell me if that stuff is not much deeper & complex, not to
+ mention much better eye candy.
+ Boron
I've got to agree. They were the hippies of their day, trying
to recreate the bygone days of opium and incest and great literature
of the Coleridge/Shelley era, like a bunch of dumb suburban mall
bohemians trying to memorize old Bob Dylan albums. All they ended up
producing was a handful of stylish illustration quality paintings and
drawings. The impressionists were painting circles around them, and
fundamentally changing the way Europeans looked at paintings. Some
decent technitians in the bunch, but they had nothing to say...
--
rich clancey r...@world.std.com rcla...@massart.edu
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Every man who is not a monster, a mathematician, or a mad
philosopher, is the slave of some woman or other.
-- George Eliot, __Scenes of Clerical Life__
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Diamond
I think so .. unless it's "mio bene. "
O mio bambino caro!
Let Te Kanawa fill in the rest. Just don't jump off the bridge. What
is that opera insists on concluding lovely songs like this with
suicide?
N Jill Marsh
<bi...@nospambilldiamond.com>wrote:
> What
>is that opera insists on concluding lovely songs like this with
>suicide?
Most of them?
nj"I cannot libs without you!"m
"This old motel room, is losing its view.
Could you act a little crazier?
Just like she used to."
Lalbert1
<njm...@bigfoot.com> writes:
>On Sat, 30 Jun 2001 16:27:30 -0400, Bill Diamond
><bi...@nospambilldiamond.com>wrote:
>
>> What
>>is that opera insists on concluding lovely songs like this with
>>suicide?
>
>Most of them?
I don't like to put words in someone elses mouth (it's insanitary), but I think
he meant "what is [it] that opera insists on concluding lovely songs like this
with suicide?".
Anyway, maybe it has to do with the times when the operas were written. In an
article called, "Death Goes to the Opera" by John Hofsess he says: "Some opera
buffs are so moved by certain musical epiphanies that an orgasm would run a
poor second in emotional impact. Not only is opera a transcendental musical
experience (it has to be, to make us overlook those plots) but it offers a
highly seductive vision of death. In the world of opera, suicide is the first
choice of death on stage by every leading soprano and tenor. Glorious suicide,
noble suicide. Is this a dagger I see before me or a pretext for a great
aria?".
A funny web site called "Opera for the Culturally Illiterate" is at:
http://www.dn.net/schultz/opera.html
Les
Boron Elgar
Boron Elgar
<bi...@nospambilldiamond.com> wrote:
>Good old Boron Elgar <boron...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>alt.fan.cecil-adams back on Sat, 30 Jun 2001 19:14:59 GMT that ...
>>On Sat, 30 Jun 2001 14:57:39 -0400, Bill Diamond
>><bi...@nospambilldiamond.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>Practicality be damned! It's -amore-, woman!
>>>
>>Caro mio ben! I cannot resist when you speak Italian! I am yours!
>>
>>(did babel fish get that right?)
>>
>>Boron
>
>
>I think so .. unless it's "mio bene. "
>O mio bambino caro!
From Gianni Schicchi sung by babe Ruth. (1)
>Let Te Kanawa fill in the rest. Just don't jump off the bridge. What
>is that opera insists on concluding lovely songs like this with
>suicide?
Yeah, as if swan boats are better.
The most unusual rendition of this aria, tho, (for those not in the
know, it's "O mio babbino caro") is not the Maori Minx, but from Woody
Allen's "Bananas." There is a courtroom scene in which a witness
identifies herself as Miss America. To prove her crown, she launches
into her talent act. It is hilarious.
Boron
(1) Note to Opus, that is one of the operas in Il Trittico I was
talking about a few days ago
Robin Colleen Moore
I have to respectfully disagree here. If you've seen standard academic
painting from the mid-19th century, it was, for the most part,
*incredibly* stodgy, in terribly dark colors, and hemmed in by all sorts
of expectations of what was and wasn't appropriate as a subject matter
or how to depict said subject. The PRB, on the other hand, decided that
using brighter colors and painting from nature and/or actual models were
both very important, and took quite a lot of flack for that, believe it
or not. (There's the famous story of how John Everett Millais had
Lizzie Siddal lying in a bathtub while modeling for his Ophelia
painting; the lamps keeping the bathwater warm went out; Lizzie toughed
it out, not wanting to ruin the picture, but ended up with a nasty cold
as a result.) Believe it or not, they were also fairly revolutionary in
a way they probably never anticipated: using their own family, friends,
and girlfriends/wives as models--the latter in particular just wasn't
done back then (artist's models were usually seen as less than
respectable, and frequently the main models artists could actually get
were indeed of the lower ranks, as "nice girls" wouldn't do such a
thing), and they did go some way in terms of making it more socially
acceptible for respectable women to actually be involved with artists.
(Also, their models were considered for the most part rather
*unattractive* by the standards of the day, BION, so it wasn't exactly
softcore for the public at large.) I'm also thinking of how scandalous
it was considered that Rossetti had his sister posing as the Virgin and
their mother as St. Anne, and Millais getting various other ordinary
people posing as the Holy Family--we wouldn't see anything wrong with
how the characters were depicted, but the contemporary criticism was
*incredibly* scathing.
It might help to keep in mind that, when the PRB was first coming into
being in 1848, the average age of the artists involved was 20-21, so it
really was a movement of young men rebelling against their artistic
elders. Hey, it's a dirty job, but someone had to do it... :-)
Yes, a lot of the paintings seem awfully didactic for modern tastes, but
believe it or not, they're actually less offensive on that level than
most other English art of that period (well, except for Hunt, who I
really don't care for at all; and admittedly Millais got rather soppy
and sentimental as he got older and became popular...). I certainly
wouldn't claim that they were on a level with the Impressionists, not by
a long shot; but I do think it's reasonable to say that (in England, at
least) the PRB did help knock a big enough chink in the wall of academic
artistic tradition so that the Impressionists were able to break
through. Besides, if nothing else, they provided art historians with a
nearly inexhaustible supply of stories and anecdotes to yak about (no
incest, though, AFAIK, and Rossetti was the only real druggie of the
lot, and really the only moderately scandalous one due to his carrying
on with William Morris's wife Jane). Nothing against Sargent, who's for
the most part a better artist (esp. technically, although Millais might
be able to give him a run for his money in that department), but he was
mainly a society portraitist, and the PRB leaned more towards religious
or literary illustration, so in terms of subject matter, it's really
apples & oranges...
Robin the mad photographer (former art history minor and Pre-Raphaelite
buff, who also isn't crazy about the whole artsy-fartsy unicorn school
of interior design)
ro...@mindspring.com - Black Sheep Studios, Cambridge, MA
Purveyors of quality photographs & fine baked goods :-)
"Fortunately, Robin has never asked anyone to kill for her
brownies. She's very sweet that way."--Aimee Lortskell
Dutch Courage
Date: 6/30/2001 4:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time writes:
>They were the hippies of their day,
Amazingly enough, this isn't entirely accurate, the PR's were more
anti-hippies.
> trying
>to recreate the bygone days of opium and incest and great literature
>of the Coleridge/Shelley era, like a bunch of dumb suburban mall
>bohemians trying to memorize old Bob Dylan albums.
And again, no. The PR's were anti-romantics.
> and All they ended up
>producing was a handful of stylish illustration quality paintings and
>drawings.
Oh, the shame of it all.
>The impressionists were painting circles around them, and
>fundamentally changing the way Europeans looked at paintings.
The impressionists had all abandoned impressionism after 15 or so years,
except Manet went back to it a couple times.
> Some
>decent technitians in the bunch,
That ophelia guy is a real ace
>but they had nothing to say...
Apart from the academy's worship of Raphael was stultifying.
-"Ain't gonna hang no picture, ain't gonna hang no picture frame
ain't gonna hang no picture, ain't gonna hang no picture frame
Well, I might look like Robert Ford, but I feel just like Jesse James"
Boron Elgar
Colleen Moore) wrote:
> Believe it or not, they were also fairly revolutionary in
>a way they probably never anticipated: using their own family, friends,
>and girlfriends/wives as models--the latter in particular just wasn't
>done back then (artist's models were usually seen as less than
>respectable, and frequently the main models artists could actually get
>were indeed of the lower ranks, as "nice girls" wouldn't do such a
>thing), and they did go some way in terms of making it more socially
>acceptible for respectable women to actually be involved with artists.
>(Also, their models were considered for the most part rather
>*unattractive* by the standards of the day, BION, so it wasn't exactly
>softcore for the public at large.) I'm also thinking of how scandalous
>it was considered that Rossetti had his sister posing as the Virgin and
>their mother as St. Anne, and Millais getting various other ordinary
>people posing as the Holy Family--we wouldn't see anything wrong with
>how the characters were depicted, but the contemporary criticism was
>*incredibly* scathing.
I always thought Botticelli was doing the hanky-panky his
Venus/Madonna swan necked babe & then there's Rembrandt's Saskia.
Using family members to pose as religious subjects was not new. Maybe
scandalous to the mid 19th, but old news.
>
> Besides, if nothing else, they provided art historians with a
>nearly inexhaustible supply of stories and anecdotes to yak about (no
>incest, though, AFAIK, and Rossetti was the only real druggie of the
>lot, and really the only moderately scandalous one due to his carrying
>on with William Morris's wife Jane).
Woo-woo. I always got a big kick out of studying an artist's bio. One
of my favorite religious painters...Fra Filippo Lippi, had a kid or
two with a nun & had to leave the service. That can tie in with the
above as Botticelli studied with him & Lippi's son Fillipino studied
with Botticelli & someone wrote a novel that Lippi had a daughter,
Allesanda, who was the Venus/Madonna model.
Nice piece, Robin. Thanks.
Boron
Robin Colleen Moore
> On Sat, 30 Jun 2001 22:06:02 -0400, ro...@mindspring.com (Robin
> Colleen Moore) wrote:
>
> > Believe it or not, they were also fairly revolutionary in
> >a way they probably never anticipated: using their own family, friends,
> >and girlfriends/wives as models--the latter in particular just wasn't
> >done back then (artist's models were usually seen as less than
> >respectable, and frequently the main models artists could actually get
> >were indeed of the lower ranks, as "nice girls" wouldn't do such a
> >thing), and they did go some way in terms of making it more socially
> >acceptible for respectable women to actually be involved with artists.
> >(Also, their models were considered for the most part rather
> >*unattractive* by the standards of the day, BION, so it wasn't exactly
> >softcore for the public at large.) I'm also thinking of how scandalous
> >it was considered that Rossetti had his sister posing as the Virgin and
> >their mother as St. Anne, and Millais getting various other ordinary
> >people posing as the Holy Family--we wouldn't see anything wrong with
> >how the characters were depicted, but the contemporary criticism was
> >*incredibly* scathing.
> >
> I always thought Botticelli was doing the hanky-panky his
> Venus/Madonna swan necked babe
No, IIRC she was married to someone else, very chaste, and died quite
young (I don't think she even made it to 20), not to mention that
Botticelli was gay...but he was apparently obsessed with her on a
non-sexual level, and did paint her over and over from memory.
>& then there's Rembrandt's Saskia.
> Using family members to pose as religious subjects was not new. Maybe
> scandalous to the mid 19th, but old news.
Yeah, you would have thought that people would be used to this by now
(I'm also thinking of Rubens painting both his wives, esp. his second
one), but 19th century England in particular had a serious rod up its
collective ass in terms of Acceptible Female Behavior and The Proper Way
to Depict Religious Subjects. As much as I love the period, if I had to
live back then, I'd rather have done in it America...
> >
> > Besides, if nothing else, they provided art historians with a
> >nearly inexhaustible supply of stories and anecdotes to yak about (no
> >incest, though, AFAIK, and Rossetti was the only real druggie of the
> >lot, and really the only moderately scandalous one due to his carrying
> >on with William Morris's wife Jane).
>
> Woo-woo. I always got a big kick out of studying an artist's bio. One
> of my favorite religious painters...Fra Filippo Lippi, had a kid or
> two with a nun & had to leave the service. That can tie in with the
> above as Botticelli studied with him & Lippi's son Fillipino studied
> with Botticelli & someone wrote a novel that Lippi had a daughter,
> Allesanda, who was the Venus/Madonna model.
I don't think it's the same girl (I think her name may have been
Giulietta or some such), but that doesn't mean Lippi's daughter didn't
model for Botticelli at all--it's entirely possible. (Hey, those
Italian artists really got around... ;-)
>
> Nice piece, Robin. Thanks.
>
Thanks! It's nice to know my degree (BA in English, double minor in
Medeival Studies and Art History) wasn't totally a waste of time &
money...I get to be an educated legal secretary who grits her teeth over
the number of *supposedly* more educated people who can't write worth a
damn...but that's another thread entirely.
Robin the mad photographer (who, if you're interested in dish on the
PRB, suggests _Pre-Raphaelites in Love_ by Mary Daly and _The
Pre-Raphaelite Sisterhood_, which goes into a lot of detail on the
various women involved with the group)
Robin Colleen Moore
> r...@world.std.com (Rich Clancey)
> Date: 6/30/2001 4:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time writes:
>
> >They were the hippies of their day,
>
> Amazingly enough, this isn't entirely accurate, the PR's were more
> anti-hippies.
>
> > trying
> >to recreate the bygone days of opium and incest and great literature
> >of the Coleridge/Shelley era, like a bunch of dumb suburban mall
> >bohemians trying to memorize old Bob Dylan albums.
>
> And again, no. The PR's were anti-romantics.
I wouldn't call them anti-romantics per se, but they did believe in
painting from life as much as possible, which set them off from academic
painting as a whole at that time. They were rather fond of some of the
romantic poets, mainly Keats, though--one of the group efforts at one
point was for everyone to do a painting based on Keats's poem "Isabella,
or the Pot of Basil", which was originally written up in Boccaccio's
_The Decameron_. Millais actually did a painting at the time, a couple
of others attempted one but never got anywhere, and Hunt did his about
15 years later, using his then-pregnant wife as the model (it was
suggested that the hours of posing he demanded may have taken a toll on
her health and contributed to her dying shortly after giving birth).
Personally, my favorite Isabella was John White Alexander's painting,
but he was more PRB-influenced than anything, and his style in that one
at least reminds me more of Whistler, but that's MHO. (It's in the MFA
in Boston, FWIW.)
>
> > and All they ended up
> >producing was a handful of stylish illustration quality paintings and
> >drawings.
>
> Oh, the shame of it all.
>
That's typical of a lot of 19th-century painting in general, and
illustrating various stories and subjects has a long & honorable
tradition in art. Nothing wrong with that...
>
> >The impressionists were painting circles around them, and
> >fundamentally changing the way Europeans looked at paintings.
Apples & oranges again, besides which Impressionism didn't hit the scene
until about 1870, a good 20 years or so after the PRB first took off
(although the second waves of Pre-Raphaelites, led by Burne-Jones, were
still going strong).
>
> The impressionists had all abandoned impressionism after 15 or so years,
> except Manet went back to it a couple times.
I wouldn't say they abandoned it so much as they all eventually went
their separate artistic ways, which is what happened w/the PRB as well,
and what happens with most artistic or literary movements. It's just
the way things work out.
>
> > Some
> >decent technitians in the bunch,
>
> That ophelia guy is a real ace
Yes, Millais probably was the most technically proficient of them
all--Hunt was a decent painter, but was just so overly literal and
didactic that he really urks me (he may have painted from life etc., but
_The Awakening Conscience_ is possibly the single most moralistic and
didactic painting to be produced in mid-19th-century England. Can you
tell I'm not crazy about Hunt?
>
> >but they had nothing to say...
>
> Apart from the academy's worship of Raphael was stultifying.
>
Which was true, and the academic tradition *needed* to be shaken up.
It's hard to see, looking at it from our modern perspective, just how
dangerous and revolutionary some of their paintings were considered at
the time, but they were; and while I wouldn't rank them in the top tier
of great artists, they had their role to play in moving art along, and
did it quite well. That's my story, and I'm sticking to it... :-)
Robin the mad photographer (who will not spoil the fun by telling you
what was in the pot of basil, but you'll never see pesto in the same
light again...)
Boron Elgar
Moore) wrote:
>>
>> Woo-woo. I always got a big kick out of studying an artist's bio. One
>> of my favorite religious painters...Fra Filippo Lippi, had a kid or
>> two with a nun & had to leave the service. That can tie in with the
>> above as Botticelli studied with him & Lippi's son Fillipino studied
>> with Botticelli & someone wrote a novel that Lippi had a daughter,
>> Allesanda, who was the Venus/Madonna model.
>
>I don't think it's the same girl (I think her name may have been
>Giulietta or some such), but that doesn't mean Lippi's daughter didn't
>model for Botticelli at all--it's entirely possible. (Hey, those
>Italian artists really got around... ;-)
The book was fiction, I believe...I just mentioned the name of the
character in it.
>>
>> Nice piece, Robin. Thanks.
>>
>Thanks! It's nice to know my degree (BA in English, double minor in
>Medeival Studies and Art History) wasn't totally a waste of time &
>money...I get to be an educated legal secretary who grits her teeth over
>the number of *supposedly* more educated people who can't write worth a
>damn...but that's another thread entirely.
Ars gratia & all that...Take pleasure in knowing all of these things
for the pure joy it can bring you .... like in afca!
Boron
incandescent blue
>
> Robin the mad photographer (who will not spoil the fun by telling you
> what was in the pot of basil, but you'll never see pesto in the same
> light again...)
Heh. You have seen _The Pillow Book_, I hope?
A. "basil, bonsai, same difference..."
--
Ava Callison <die-bla...@hyacinthine.net> Washington, DC
"I'm sorry," I say, "if I give you the impression that it's only my
mouth that's rough. I do my best to be rough all over."
Peter Hoeg, _Smilla's Sense of Snow_
Daniel Bush
<boron...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 27 Jun 2001 22:35:15 -0700, "Opus the Penguin"
><opusthe...@nettaxi.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>>>What's your favorite art museum?
>>>
>>>Toughie...I'd say one that lets me in, but...I have several
>>>
>>>The Hermitage, as I have only been there once & I itch to return.
>>>The Louvre & The Met & The British Museum as they have it all.
>>>The Norton Simon & The Frick as they are perfect gemstones.
>>
>>Good suggestions. It's time to take the boy up to see the Norton Simon. And
>>maybe the Getty.
>
>Getty...well, the building is better than the collection. Tell me
>what you think.
Oh, dear. If the building is better than the collection, well the
collection must be pretty awful.
Don't get me wrong -- I'm a huge *huge* fan of Richard Meier's --
he's built an awful lot of absolutely stupendous buildings,
but...well...the Getty is IMO not one of them. By a long shot.
OK, I've never seen it in real life, but I have followed its
progress since its conception, while I was still in architecture
school. It just seems to be huge and confusing -- I can't figure
out what he's trying to do here, other than build a humongous
hilltop artcropolis. What I like about his other stuff is the
grace and slipperiness, the fun 'n' games. His High Museum in
Atlanta is a perfect example of this, I would say.
The Louvre, OTOH, is super -- elegant and fun, and a great
collection to boot, as is the east gallery of the National
Gallery in DC. Great architecture and some wonderful changing
exhibits (I recently saw an interesting retrospective of
Alexander Calder, fittingly, and an exhibit of the art of Angkor
Wat -- lovely).
The Met and the British Museum and the MOMA and the Guggenheim
(NY, 5th Ave. as opposed to any of the others which I haven't
seen yet) are all wonderful as is the MFA in Boston and the
National Gallery in London incl. the Sainsbury Wing and the neue
Nationalgalerie in Berlin.
The old Tate in London reintroduced me to non-abstract art with a
fabulous retrospective of Otto Dix, my most favorite, favorite
painter. The Tate is now living in a new building,
designed/renovated by Herzog et de Meuron which I haven't seen
yet, but which does look quite lovely.
Yeah, call me superficial, but for me the architecture is just as
important as the art it houses, though it shouldn't overbear it
(the architecture over the art, I mean), like Libeskind's Jewish
Museum here. I think Libeskind's design is really quite powerful,
but is too much for the art which it is expected to enclose.
>>I loved the Vatican museums as well. Anything that can make the Sistine Chapel
>>seem almost anti-climactic is one dazzling exhibit.
>
>Doh! What an ass, I am. Of course. Unique.
Dan
--
Daniel Bush
Berlin, Germany
Daniel Bush
<opusthe...@nettaxi.com> wrote:
>
>Boron Elgar wrote:
>>>>or classical music
>>
>>Any Beethoven. There is nothing I have ever heard that I did not
>>adore.
I'd like to say "Overture to Eroica," but that's not it --
there's a lovely and very regal overture to something beginning
with E -- starts out with a very pretty oboe solo.
>Wellington's Victory?
>
>>I am not accomplished enough on any instrument to play any of
>>it, though. For pure joy of choral singing, as a participant, though,
>>I go for Bach's B Minor Mass.
>
>Yeah, that's a good one, all right. Bach is one of the few composers that can
>hold his own against Beethoven. I can listen to a piece by, say, Schubert and
>like it just fine. But then a passage from Beethoven comes into my head and
>Schubert suddenly seems shallow.
>
>And what's up with "the three B's"? Bach, Beethoven, and ... Brahms. C'mon,
>one of these does not belong. Forget the alliteration and just pick the three
>greats for a second. I say Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven for classical (in the
>broad sense).
Let's alliterate:
Berg's "Wozzeck" is IMO the greatest opera ever.
Britten's "Billy Budd" is also pretty good, as is "Peter Grimes".
Bartok's "Concerto for Orchestra" is quite a tearjerker.
> And for opera I say Mozart, Wagner, and Puccini. (I know I'm
>supposed to put Verdi in there somewhere. So sue me.)
Mozart: "...plinkety-plink-plink-plonk..." ugh. Except for his
"Requiem" which is really out of this world. As I've mentioned
elsewhere here, I'm no Mozart fan.
Somehow I just can't get a grip on Wagner -- what I've heard of
his stuff is just so *thick*.
<...Johannes-and-the-one-note-thing...>
Big David
<snip interesting art history vignettes>
> Thanks! It's nice to know my degree (BA in English, double minor in
> Medeival Studies and Art History) wasn't totally a waste of time &
> money...I get to be an educated legal secretary who grits her teeth over
> the number of *supposedly* more educated people who can't write worth a
> damn...but that's another thread entirely.
Many lawyers, IME, cannot write worth a damn.
--
Big (Legal Documents Editor) David
Email copy of replies appreciated
"The two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity."
Boron Elgar
<daniel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>Getty...well, the building is better than the collection. Tell me
>>what you think.
>
>Oh, dear. If the building is better than the collection, well the
>collection must be pretty awful.
Not awful, just very, very limited.
>
>Don't get me wrong -- I'm a huge *huge* fan of Richard Meier's --
>he's built an awful lot of absolutely stupendous buildings,
>but...well...the Getty is IMO not one of them. By a long shot.
Meier's exterior placement is quite distinguished hanging on the
mountainside, but its real allure is the interior. The galleries
themselves often overshadow the works they house. There are large
slabs of wall at odd angles that intersect with pools & fountains & if
you gaze upwards at certain of them, you find that they are designed
to intersect, reflect & frame the sky.
Though there is no direct comparison, the closest feeling I can offer
you is somewhat of what Luis Barragan did in & around Mexico City.
Her is an idea of what I mean. These are from Barragan's house.
http://www.architectureweek.com/cgi-bin/awimage?dir=2000/1129&article=design_1-2.html&image=11199_image_1.jpg
http://www.architectureweek.com/cgi-bin/awimage?dir=2000/1129&article=design_1-2.html&image=11199_image_4.jpg
http://www.architectureweek.com/cgi-bin/awimage?dir=2000/1129&article=design_1-2.html&image=11199_image_5.jpg
These pictures show the color so indicative of Barragan, much more
color than Meier uses, but you get an idea of similarity of plane &
walls..
>OK, I've never seen it in real life, but I have followed its
>progress since its conception, while I was still in architecture
>school. It just seems to be huge and confusing -- I can't figure
>out what he's trying to do here, other than build a humongous
>hilltop artcropolis. What I like about his other stuff is the
>grace and slipperiness, the fun 'n' games. His High Museum in
>Atlanta is a perfect example of this, I would say.
It is huge, but not confusing for a visitor. It is built to be viewed
sitting where it is & the tram up gives differing vistas. It is a bit
of fun & games in that respect.
>
>The Louvre, OTOH, is super -- elegant and fun, and a great
>collection to boot, as is the east gallery of the National
>Gallery in DC. Great architecture and some wonderful changing
>exhibits (I recently saw an interesting retrospective of
>Alexander Calder, fittingly, and an exhibit of the art of Angkor
>Wat -- lovely).
The Louvre is a palace that was beautifully adapted. Lotta palaces got
turned into museums.
>The Met and the British Museum and the MOMA and the Guggenheim
>(NY, 5th Ave. as opposed to any of the others which I haven't
>seen yet) are all wonderful as is the MFA in Boston and the
>National Gallery in London incl. the Sainsbury Wing and the neue
>Nationalgalerie in Berlin.
I have not seen any of the "new" stuff, but the Met, MOMA & the
Guggenheim are my stomping grounds.
>
>The old Tate in London reintroduced me to non-abstract art with a
>fabulous retrospective of Otto Dix, my most favorite, favorite
>painter. The Tate is now living in a new building,
>designed/renovated by Herzog et de Meuron which I haven't seen
>yet, but which does look quite lovely.
I have never seen the new building at all
>
>Yeah, call me superficial, but for me the architecture is just as
>important as the art it houses, though it shouldn't overbear it
>(the architecture over the art, I mean), like Libeskind's Jewish
>Museum here. I think Libeskind's design is really quite powerful,
>but is too much for the art which it is expected to enclose.
Wasn't there controversy over the placement of this museum, or am I
confusing it with something else?
I think a museum can be almost anything...if it achieves its own
greatness, then it is another piece of art to be added to the viewing
of the day. I have seen some wonderful, individual pieces is a lot of
odd places & the works themselves were still appreciated.
What do you think of Frank Gehry in Bilbao? I have only seen pix.
Boron
Boron Elgar
<daniel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Let's alliterate:
>Berg's "Wozzeck" is IMO the greatest opera ever.
I'll give you my ex's phone number
>Britten's "Billy Budd" is also pretty good, as is "Peter Grimes".
I am very fond of Britten. I have Peter Pears doing Grimes
>Bartok's "Concerto for Orchestra" is quite a tearjerker.
A beaut
>Mozart: "...plinkety-plink-plink-plonk..." ugh. Except for his
>"Requiem" which is really out of this world. As I've mentioned
>elsewhere here, I'm no Mozart fan.
I don't like to sit through the early stuff, but some of the later
works are lovely....they sound almost like early Beethoven.
Boron
Robin Colleen Moore
> In article <1evva6v.1o5c0kk9a0pogN%ro...@mindspring.com>,
> Robin Colleen Moore wrote:
> >
> > Robin the mad photographer (who will not spoil the fun by telling you
> > what was in the pot of basil, but you'll never see pesto in the same
> > light again...)
>
> Heh. You have seen _The Pillow Book_, I hope?
No, but didn't that involve a rather, ahem, *interesting* book binding
material?...or did I misread some of the reviews?
>
> A. "basil, bonsai, same difference..."
>
Oh, and congratulations to you and Gary!
Robin the mad photographer (who always wanted to grow a really bigassed
pot of basil and scare people...)
GrapeApe
>
>Wasn't there controversy over the placement of this museum, or am I
>confusing it with something else?
Which one? The Getty? The last on that list, Libeskind?
incandescent blue
> incandescent blue <die-bla...@hyacinthine.net> wrote:
>
>> In article <1evva6v.1o5c0kk9a0pogN%ro...@mindspring.com>,
>> Robin Colleen Moore wrote:
>> >
>> > Robin the mad photographer (who will not spoil the fun by telling you
>> > what was in the pot of basil, but you'll never see pesto in the same
>> > light again...)
>>
>> Heh. You have seen _The Pillow Book_, I hope?
>
> No, but didn't that involve a rather, ahem, *interesting* book binding
> material?...or did I misread some of the reviews?
Nope. A book was involved. The eventual disposal of the book, however,
well, let's just say you'll see the similarity.
(Did the reviews mention Ewan MacGregor delivers the full monty? And did
they mention that he's, ahem, a very TALENTED boy?)
>> A. "basil, bonsai, same difference..."
>>
> Oh, and congratulations to you and Gary!
Gary who? *grin*
A. "wouldn't want Huey to get jealous, now, would you?"
(Seriously, thanks to you and all the other kind souls who've offered
well wishes. I'm getting all verklempt!)
Lalbert1
(Robin Colleen Moore) writes:
> Robin the mad photographer (who will not spoil the fun by telling you
> what was in the pot of basil, but you'll never see pesto in the same
> light again...)
>
[and then, re The Pillow Book, she wrote]
>
>No, but didn't that involve a rather, ahem, *interesting* book binding
>material?...or did I misread some of the reviews?
You have all this wonderful arcane information, but you are not sharing!
What was in the pot? What is the book bound with? How bad can the words be
that you don't want to mention them?
Les