Camille Paglia : selected quotes on 1990's PC feminism
Kerry Keane
Max Burke (mlvb...@deleteme.co.nz) wrote:
: Having taught at a wide variety of institutions over
: my ill-starred: career, I have
: observed that working-class or lower middle-class
: girls, who are from financially
: struggling families and who must take a patchwork
: of menial off-campus jobs to stay
: in school, are usually the least hospitable to feminist rhetoric.
: They see life as it is and have fewer illusions about sex. It is
: affluent, upper-middle class students who most spout the party
: line
Ah, Camille Paglia! She understands the working-class so well!
It just so happens that I come from such a background, and I attended
an "elite" university. In my experience, what she says is straight
up bullshit. The most enduring friendships I formed with with other
girls of working-class backgrounds. They went on to be feminist artists
and scholars, in fact. It is true that most of us didn't associate
with the granola types, who usually came out of prep schools. Their
concerns were different from ours, but that doesn't put us in
Paglia's camp either. We recognize this type of talk and roll our
eyes. When a person of privilege (her parents are academics)
talks this way, we call it "slumming it".
Oh, and it's not so much the poor and working-class kids who
take jobs off-campus. They're first in line for work-study.
And as everyone who's been on work-study knows, you make a hell
of a lot more money working *in town* (where the university
can't keep track of every dollar you make) than on campus.
But Camille really hasn't the faintest clue about that kind of
life, so she has to rely on what she's seen in a lot of bad
Broadway rags-to-riches productions.
: Do feminists, with their multicultural pretensions, really envision a
: massive export of white bourgeois good manners all around the world?
Which white bourgeois good manners are those? The ones
I observed at college include throwing parties in which the
participants wear grass skirts and blackface. Oh, I'm sorry,
I forgot that "bourgeois"=feminine, while labor is earthy,
masculine and savage.
Kerry Keane
Max Burke (mlvb...@deleteme.co.nz) wrote:
: >Kerry Keane wrote in message <6939o4$onp$1...@gail.ripco.com>...
: >Max Burke (mlvb...@deleteme.co.nz) wrote:
: snip....
: >Ah, Camille Paglia! She understands the working-class so well!
: >It just so happens that I come from such a background, and I attended
: >an "elite" university. =20
: Not sure if its done you much good,
Oooooo. That's a carefully measured observation for you.
: why is attending an 'elite' =
: university
: so important to you?
Well, I have worked and studied at several universities since
then, and I can say that it is important to me. Not because
it's something to brag about, but I've found out that elite
liberal arts schools tend to be the only ones left that have decent
facilities. I am extremely grateful, and I'd be a spoiled
brat not to be.
That's not the point. The point is that I've lived the kind
of life she describes, and she is dead wrong. Shouldn't she
allow her female working-class students to speak for themselves?
: >In my experience, what she says is straight up bullshit. =20
: OK, I guess I had better go out and burn all her books then, since
: 'your' experience so obviously proves what she wrote is plain 'wrong'!
The point is that what she says is pure conjecture.
: >The most enduring friendships I formed with with other
: >girls of working-class backgrounds. They went on to be feminist =
: artists
: >and scholars, in fact. =20
: And becoming artists and scholars is any sort of recommendation? what
: about living in the real world, and doing a real job.... 8-\
Do you think Camille would agree with this? She claims to be a
lover of the arts, above all. What kind of society only values
those who perform purely utilitarian tasks? Is that the kind
of society you'd want to live in? I don't think Camille would.
: >It is true that most of us didn't associate with the granola types, who =
: usually=20
: >came out of prep schools. Their concerns were different from ours, but =
: that=20
: >doesn't put us in Paglia's camp either. We recognise this type of talk =
: and roll our
: >eyes. When a person of privilege (her parents are academics) talks =
: this way,=20
: >we call it "slumming it".
: Typical feminist reaction, positively Victorian in fact.....
: Because they eat granola? they just play at being feminist's....
I see that your lack of appreciation for the arts has left
you unable to read a text with any complexity. Such is the
damage wrought by a society that encourages students to only
study business, agriculture or the sciences.
: >Oh, and it's not so much the poor and working-class kids who=20
: >take jobs off-campus. They're first in line for work-study.
: >And as everyone who's been on work-study knows, you make a hell
: >of a lot more money working *in town* (where the university
: >can't keep track of every dollar you make) than on campus.
: >But Camille really hasn't the faintest clue about that kind of
: >life, so she has to rely on what she's seen in a lot of bad
: >Broadway rags-to-riches productions.
: Yeah, right, I guess that's why she is a published feminist author....
: And your 'achievements' to date are?......
.....not having to endure the embarrassment of making the New
York Times Bestseller List, among other things. That would
totally cramp my style.
Seriously, my greatest achievement, I feel, is that right now, I am
supremely contented in just about every facet of my life. A lot of
people don't think it's possible; I didn't think it was possible, but
I've found that there are people who love their job, their home,
and are not lacking for anything, and one of them is me. For one
thing, I don't have to pound pegs into holes all day, or perform
some other "real" job that you value so much. What
about you--what is your measure of success? Paglia goes on
about her mythic status and that of others, but one's legend can't
give you any comfort in your own.
As for Paglia, I must have missed all of the books she published after
Sexual Personae. I mean, come on; if she's such a genius, where are her
other books? Vamps and Tramps, BTW, is a collection of magazine articles
and interviews. I'm waiting for that book on football that she said she
was writing about 3 or 4 years ago.
--
Pursuant to US Code, Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter II, '227,
any and all unsolicited commercial E-mail sent to this address
is subject to a download and archival fee in the amount of $500,000
US. E-mailing denotes acceptance of these penalties, along with
a summons from the supreme Creator-General of the universe. Oooo scary.
Max Burke
"Feminism, with it's bedlam of bellyachers, anorexics, bulimics, depressives,
rape victims, and incest survivors has become a catch-all vegetable drawer
where bunches of clingy sob sisters can store their mouldy neuroses."
"White middle-class girls at the elite colleges and universities seem to want the
world handed to them on a platter. They have been sheltered, coddled, and flattered.
Having taught at a wide variety of institutions over my ill-starred career, I have
observed that working-class or lower middle-class girls, who are from financially
struggling families and who must take a patchwork of menial off-campus jobs to stay
in school, are usually the least hospitable to feminist rhetoric.
They see life as it is and have fewer illusions about sex. It is affluent, upper-middle
class students who most spout the party line - as if the grisly hyperemotionalism of
feminist jargon satisfies their hunger for meaningful experience outside their eventless
upbringing. In the absence of war, invent one.
(Vamps & Tramps, p. 28)
"Feminist confidence that the whole human race can be "re-educated" to totally eliminate
the possibility of rape is pure folly...Wave after wave of boys hit puberty every year.
Do feminists, with their multicultural pretensions, really envision a massive export of white
bourgeois good manners all around the world?
Speak of imperialism!"(Vamps & Tramps, p. 33.)
"A major failing of most feminist ideology is its dumb, ungenerous stereotyping of men as
tyrants and abusers, when in fact-as I know full well, from my own mortifying lesbian
experience- men are tormented by women's flirtatiousness and hemming and hawing, their
manipulations and changeableness, their humiliating rejections.
Cock teasing is a universal reality.
It is part of women's merciless testing and cold-eyed comparison shopping for potential mates.
Men will do anything to win the favour of women. Women literally size up men- "What can you
show me?"- in bed and out. If middle class feminists think they conduct their love lives perfectly
rationally, without any instinctual influences from biology, they are imbeciles.
(Vamps & Tramps, p. 35)
"(Andrea) Dworkin's blanket condemnation of fellatio as disgusting and violent should make
every man furious. (Catharine) MacKinnon and Dworkin are victim-mongers, ambulance chasers,
atrocity addicts.
MacKinnon begins every argument from big, flawed premises such as "male supremacy" or
"misogyny," while Dworkin spouts glib Auschwitz metaphors at the drop of a bra.
Here's one of their typical maxims:
"The pornographers rank with Nazis and Klansmen in promoting hatred and violence." Anyone who
could write such a sentence knows nothing about pornography or Nazism....
In arguing that a hypothetical physical safety on the streets should take precedence over the democratic
principle of free speech, MacKinnon aligns herself with the authoritarian Soviet comissars.
She would lobotomize the village in order to save it."
--
mlvb...@deleteme.co.nz
Replace the obvious with IHUG to reply via email
Max Burke
>Kerry Keane wrote in message <6939o4$onp$1...@gail.ripco.com>...
>Max Burke (mlvb...@deleteme.co.nz) wrote:
snip....
>Ah, Camille Paglia! She understands the working-class so well!
>It just so happens that I come from such a background, and I attended
>an "elite" university.
Not sure if its done you much good, why is attending an 'elite' university
so important to you?
>In my experience, what she says is straight up bullshit.
OK, I guess I had better go out and burn all her books then, since
'your' experience so obviously proves what she wrote is plain 'wrong'!
>The most enduring friendships I formed with with other
>girls of working-class backgrounds. They went on to be feminist artists
>and scholars, in fact.
And becoming artists and scholars is any sort of recommendation? what
about living in the real world, and doing a real job.... 8-\
>It is true that most of us didn't associate with the granola types, who usually
>came out of prep schools. Their concerns were different from ours, but that
>doesn't put us in Paglia's camp either. We recognise this type of talk and roll our
>eyes. When a person of privilege (her parents are academics) talks this way,
>we call it "slumming it".
Typical feminist reaction, positively Victorian in fact.....
Because they eat granola? they just play at being feminist's....
>Oh, and it's not so much the poor and working-class kids who
>take jobs off-campus. They're first in line for work-study.
>And as everyone who's been on work-study knows, you make a hell
>of a lot more money working *in town* (where the university
>can't keep track of every dollar you make) than on campus.
>But Camille really hasn't the faintest clue about that kind of
>life, so she has to rely on what she's seen in a lot of bad
>Broadway rags-to-riches productions.
Yeah, right, I guess that's why she is a published feminist author....
And your 'achievements' to date are?......
>: Do feminists, with their multicultural pretensions, really envision a
>: massive export of white bourgeois good manners all around the world?
>Which white bourgeois good manners are those? The ones
>I observed at college include throwing parties in which the
>participants wear grass skirts and blackface. Oh, I'm sorry,
>I forgot that "bourgeois"=feminine, while labor is earthy,
>masculine and savage.
If YOU say so.......
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
# One of the reasons for the failure of feminism to dislodge deeply held perceptions of
male and female behaviour was its insistence that women were victims, and men powerful
patriarchs, which made a travesty of ordinary people’s experience of the mutual
interdependence of men and women.
Rosalind Coward (b. 1953), British author. Our Treacherous Hearts, ch. 9 (1992).
Max Burke
>Kerry Keane wrote in message <693nbl$7u4$1...@gail.ripco.com>...
>Max Burke (mlvb...@deleteme.co.nz) wrote:
>
>: >Kerry Keane wrote in message <6939o4$onp$1...@gail.ripco.com>...
>: >Max Burke (mlvb...@deleteme.co.nz) wrote:
>: snip....
>
>: >Ah, Camille Paglia! She understands the working-class so well!
>: >It just so happens that I come from such a background, and I attended
>: Not sure if its done you much good,
>Oooooo. That's a carefully measured observation for you.
No, I didn't measure it at all......
>: why is attending an 'elite' university so important to you?
>Well, I have worked and studied at several universities since
>then, and I can say that it is important to me. Not because
>it's something to brag about, but I've found out that elite
>liberal arts schools tend to be the only ones left that have decent
>facilities. I am extremely grateful, and I'd be a spoiled
>brat not to be.
Ah the elite liberal arts schools, the ones that put a crucifix it a tank
full of the 'artists' urine and call it art, the neatly stacked up pile of bricks
on the art gallery floor that is called art, and then the so called artist increase's
the value of his 'art work' when someone kicks the pile of bricks over in
protest at artist's stupidity....
>That's not the point. The point is that I've lived the kind
>of life she describes, and she is dead wrong. Shouldn't she
>allow her female working-class students to speak for themselves?
So, because you are one datum point, she is wrong.... As I said earlier
you so called education at these 'elite' universities does not appear to
have done you much good (education wise).....
By the way, is she (or any one else) 'stopping' you from speaking for themselves?
>In my experience, what she says is straight up bullshit.
>: OK, I guess I had better go out and burn all her books then, since
>: 'your' experience so obviously proves what she wrote is plain 'wrong'!
>The point is that what she says is pure conjecture.
I guess that's why her publisher paid her for her books then, and why she is
considered a leading feminist writer.....
>The most enduring friendships I formed with with other girls of working-class
>backgrounds. They went on to be feminist artists and scholars, in fact.
>: And becoming artists and scholars is any sort of recommendation? what
>: about living in the real world, and doing a real job.... 8-\
>Do you think Camille would agree with this? She claims to be a lover of the arts,
>above all. What kind of society only values those who perform purely utilitarian tasks?
>Is that the kind of society you'd want to live in? I don't think Camille would.
Whether she agrees with me, or I with her is not under discussion (is it?), I can claim
to be a lover of the arts as well (real Art, that is), and according to everyone I know,
I apparently have a considerable talent as an artist and photographer, however IMHO
I dont... (not enough talent and or dedication on my part).
As to the art world today, it has IMHO become an elitist cabal of talentless morons
who judge talent not on what the 'artist' creates, but what liberal arts school they attended,
and how they present their current psychosis to the world at large....
>It is true that most of us didn't associate with the granola types, who usually
>came out of prep schools. Their concerns were different from ours, but that
>doesn't put us in Paglia's camp either. We recognise this type of talk and roll our
eyes. When a person of privilege (her parents are academics) talks this way, we call it
>"slumming it".
>: Typical feminist reaction, positively Victorian in fact.....
>: Because they eat granola? they just play at being feminist's....
>I see that your lack of appreciation for the arts has left you unable to read a text with any
>complexity. Such is the damage wrought by a society that encourages students to only
>study business, agriculture or the sciences.
More 'rolling' of the eyes is it???
Business, agriculture, and/or the sciences is what runs the world, and, dare I say it,
allows enough 'economic' surplus to provide for the elite liberal art schools that you put
so much faith in....
>Oh, and it's not so much the poor and working-class kids who take jobs off-campus.
>They're first in line for work-study.
>And as everyone who's been on work-study knows, you make a hell of a lot more money working
>*in town* (where the university can't keep track of every dollar you make) than on campus.
>But Camille really hasn't the faintest clue about that kind of life, so she has to rely on what she's
>seen in a lot of bad Broadway rags-to-riches productions.
>: Yeah, right, I guess that's why she is a published feminist author....
>: And your 'achievements' to date are?......
>.....not having to endure the embarrassment of making the New York Times Best-seller List,
> among other things. That would totally cramp my style.
God forbid anyone gets mentioned in the NYT Best-seller list......
Sounds like the proverbial sour grapes to me....
Hint : Best-seller means Popular, a majority of buyers consider the author
worth spending money on, to read their book(s).....
Of course I realise that does not make it elitist enough for you.....
>Seriously, my greatest achievement, I feel, is that right now, I am
>supremely contented in just about every facet of my life.
So do the most human beings, how does the above rate as an 'achievement'
it just called living your life on planet earth, (unless you are in recovery from some
mental or physical illness of course).....
>A lot of people don't think it's possible; I didn't think it was possible, but
>I've found that there are people who love their job, their home,
>and are not lacking for anything, and one of them is me.
Again it's just called living, the thing everyone does every day of their
existence as a human being....
>For one thing, I don't have to pound pegs into holes all day, or perform
>some other "real" job that you value so much.
I pound Bits into Bytes for a living....
Its real jobs like these that you despise, that runs the world you are living in.....
Those that can do, those that cant live of the backs of those that do.....
So who is paying your living expenses then, who is supporting you and
your elitist liberal arts lifestyle.... (Taxpayer, Husband, father....)?
>What about you--what is your measure of success? Paglia goes on
>about her mythic status and that of others, but one's legend can't
>give you any comfort in your own.
What do I consider a personal achievement? Something I would do
'outside the square' of my normal lifestyle, something that provides either physical,
mental, and/or emotional value to someone else....
>As for Paglia, I must have missed all of the books she published after
>Sexual Personae. I mean, come on; if she's such a genius, where are her
>other books? Vamps and Tramps, BTW, is a collection of magazine articles
>and interviews. I'm waiting for that book on football that she said she
>was writing about 3 or 4 years ago.
Did I say she was a genius (checks previous post's), No, I didn't say she was
a genius..... She is, however a feminist who is prepared to criticise the feminist
movement when warranted...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kerry Keane
Max Burke (mlvb...@deleteme.co.nz) wrote:
: >Kerry Keane wrote in message <693nbl$7u4$1...@gail.ripco.com>...
: Ah the elite liberal arts schools, the ones that put a crucifix it a =
: tank
: full of the 'artists' urine and call it art,
It wasn't a crucifix in urine, it was a *photograph* of
a crucifix in a golden liquid. And why not? Some consider
Ansel Adams' dull pictures of mountains to be great technical
accomplishments--why can't someone do the same thing with
a crucifix and pee? BTW, Mapplethorpe was a controversial
photographer lumped into this group, and Paglia is a huge
admirer of his work. He photographed a man pissing
into another man's mouth, among other things. Do you
think the content alone renders it "not art"?
the neatly stacked up pile =
: of bricks
: on the art gallery floor that is called art, and then the so called =
: artist increase's
: the value of his 'art work' when someone kicks the pile of bricks over =
: in
: protest at artist's stupidity....
I'd have to view the work in question before judging it.
It might be a provocative piece. Personally, I think
that Monet is offensively dull.
: >That's not the point. The point is that I've lived the kind
: >of life she describes, and she is dead wrong. Shouldn't she
: >allow her female working-class students to speak for themselves?
: So, because you are one datum point, she is wrong.... As I said earlier
: you so called education at these 'elite' universities does not appear to
: have done you much good (education wise).....
: By the way, is she (or any one else) 'stopping' you from speaking for =
: themselves?
No, but she is arrogant enough to speak for others and to
assume their thoughts.
: >The point is that what she says is pure conjecture.
: I guess that's why her publisher paid her for her books then, and why =
: she is
: considered a leading feminist writer.....=20
If you love capitalism so much, you ought to understand how it
works. Publishers don't give a shit about the truth of
their books. Shit, they sure as hell don't care about the
quality.
: >Do you think Camille would agree with this? She claims to be a lover =
: of the arts,=20
: >above all. What kind of society only values those who perform purely =
: utilitarian tasks? =20
: >Is that the kind of society you'd want to live in? I don't think =
: Camille would.
: As to the art world today, it has IMHO become an elitist cabal of =
: talentless morons=20
: who judge talent not on what the 'artist' creates, but what liberal arts =
: school they attended,=20
: and how they present their current psychosis to the world at large.... =20
This may or may not be true, you'd be surprised at how sick I am
of some postmodern crap. Nonetheless, it used to be you couldn't
get your paintings hung anywhere unless you were a member of the
academy, so I'd say things have improved quite a bit since then.
[snip]
: Business, agriculture, and/or the sciences is what runs the world, and, =
: dare I say it,
: allows enough 'economic' surplus to provide for the elite liberal art =
: schools that you put
: so much faith in....
I know it! I got my education at the expense of a
bunch of rich benefactors and I love it!
: Hint : Best-seller means Popular, a majority of buyers consider the =
: author
: worth spending money on, to read their book(s).....
Yeah, like Deepak Chopra. Inspirational, sentimentalist
crap that goes out of its way to avoid disturbing anyone.
And the only reason everyone spends their money on the stuff
is because they think that the only books that exist
are the ones at Barnes & Noble or Borders. Life is so
much easier when someone else decides what you should
buy.
: >I've found that there are people who love their job, their home,
: >and are not lacking for anything, and one of them is me. =20
: Again it's just called living, the thing everyone does every day of =
: their
: existence as a human being....
No, I think most people are not happy, especially in these
newsgroups. There are too many people who obsess on an
alleged feminist conspiracy to make them miserable,
Camille Paglia included. She is, admittedly, not a
happy woman.
: I pound Bits into Bytes for a living....
: Its real jobs like these that you despise, that runs the world you are =
: living in.....=20
: Those that can do, those that cant live of the backs of those that =
: do.....
: So who is paying your living expenses then, who is supporting you and
: your elitist liberal arts lifestyle.... (Taxpayer, Husband, father....)?
Students. Students who have freely chosen to pursue an
education in the arts. People who will design your homes,
the chair you're sitting on, the clothes you wear.
People who make the movies and television shows
you watch.
You think these things are useless, and yet no system
produces useless objects more prolifically than capitalism.
Go to the store sometime and count every product you
see that you have absolutely no need for. That's
capitalism! That's how the majority of us
support ourselves. You ought to be a fan of bad
art, then--there's no difference between bad art and an
automatic card shuffler--they both provide a living
for someone, and somebody else wants to buy them,
but they really don't serve any "need".
Max Burke
>Kerry Keane wrote in message <6943sr$i5r$1...@gail.ripco.com>...
>Max Burke (mlvb...@deleteme.co.nz) wrote:
:>Kerry Keane wrote in message <693nbl$7u4$1...@gail.ripco.com>...
>: Ah the elite liberal arts schools, the ones that put a crucifix it a =
>: tank full of the 'artists' urine and call it art,
>It wasn't a crucifix in urine, it was a *photograph* of
>a crucifix in a golden liquid. And why not? Some consider
>Ansel Adams' dull pictures of mountains to be great technical
>accomplishments--why can't someone do the same thing with
>a crucifix and pee?
Because it's not art IMO, and in 6 months time, it will no longer exist (in all
probability), and it provided absolutely nothing to of benefit to anyone, whereas
Ansel Adam's art works will survive as long as there are human beings to benefit
from his work, and his works advanced the art of photography in a tangible and
measurable way....
>BTW, Mapplethorpe was a controversial
>photographer lumped into this group, and Paglia is a huge
>admirer of his work. He photographed a man pissing
>into another man's mouth, among other things. Do you
>think the content alone renders it "not art"?
Not having seen any of Mapplethorpe's work, I cant really comment....
But going by the example you provide I would probably not call it art...
pornography, yes, art ???? (Note I believe pornography has a place in
society, ie it serves a purpose).
>:the neatly stacked up pile of bricks on the art gallery floor that is called art,
>:and then the so called artist increase's the value of his 'art work' when someone kicks
>:the pile of bricks over in protest at artist's stupidity....
>I'd have to view the work in question before judging it.
>It might be a provocative piece. Personally, I think
>that Monet is offensively dull.
>That's not the point. The point is that I've lived the kind
>of life she describes, and she is dead wrong. Shouldn't she
>allow her female working-class students to speak for themselves?
>: So, because you are one datum point, she is wrong.... As I said earlier
>: you so called education at these 'elite' universities does not appear to
>: have done you much good (education wise).....
>: By the way, is she (or any one else) 'stopping' you from speaking for =
>: themselves?
>No, but she is arrogant enough to speak for others and to
>assume their thoughts.
Everyone assumes (at some time) what other people think. I'm doing it now
(assuming how you will respond to my words) you have assumed how I think,
in your response to my posts...
However I have yet to see where Camille Paglia is speaking for you, me or anyone
other than herself, and her criticism's of feminism...
>The point is that what she says is pure conjecture.
>: I guess that's why her publisher paid her for her books then, and why =
>: she is considered a leading feminist writer.....
>If you love capitalism so much, you ought to understand how it
>works. Publishers don't give a shit about the truth of
>their books. Shit, they sure as hell don't care about the
>quality.
Exactly, but they sure do research on what will sell, and define target markets
for what they publish, it short, produce what the market wants.....
>: As to the art world today, it has IMHO become an elitist cabal of
>: talentless morons who judge talent not on what the 'artist' creates, but
>:what liberal arts school they attended, and how they present their current
>:psychosis to the world at large....
>This may or may not be true, you'd be surprised at how sick I am
>of some postmodern crap. Nonetheless, it used to be you couldn't
>get your paintings hung anywhere unless you were a member of the
>academy, so I'd say things have improved quite a bit since then.
And 99.99% of ordinary amateur artists (who IMHO, produce top
quality art), dont get a look in, because of the elitist attitudes that pervades
the art world today....
snip....
>: >I've found that there are people who love their job, their home,
>: >and are not lacking for anything, and one of them is me. =20
>: Again it's just called living, the thing everyone does every day of =
>: their existence as a human being....
>No, I think most people are not happy, especially in these
>newsgroups.
>There are too many people who obsess on an
>alleged feminist conspiracy to make them miserable,
>Camille Paglia included. She is, admittedly, not a
>happy woman.
A you have verifiable proof of this statement?.....
>: I pound Bits into Bytes for a living....
>: Its real jobs like these that you despise, that runs the world you are
>: living in....
>: Those that can do, those that cant live of the backs of those that
>: do.....
>: So who is paying your living expenses then, who is supporting you and
>: your elitist liberal arts lifestyle.... (Taxpayer, Husband, father....)?
>Students. Students who have freely chosen to pursue an
>education in the arts. People who will design your homes,
>the chair you're sitting on, the clothes you wear.
>People who make the movies and television shows
>you watch.
The vast majority of what I own would have been designed for
the most part either by a computer CAD (computer aided design)
programme or an engineer.....
I dont buy 'designer' clothes/furniture/whatever on principle,
as I consider them a waste of resources (mine, why pay $100's
for designer gear, when you can get the equivalent item designed
by a computer/engineer) for a fraction of the price.....
>You think these things are useless, and yet no system
>produces useless objects more prolifically than capitalism.
>Go to the store sometime and count every product you
>see that you have absolutely no need for.
I dont need to go to any store, I just need to look around my home....
Just because I dont 'need' them does not mean I should not own them though...
>That's capitalism!
And Capitalism survives quite nicely without designer products, generic products
are cheaper to produce, market, and provide a direct benefit to the consumer
society we live in.....
>That's how the majority of us
>support ourselves. You ought to be a fan of bad
>art, then--there's no difference between bad art and an
>automatic card shuffler--they both provide a living
>for someone, and somebody else wants to buy them,
>but they really don't serve any "need".
The art I am a fan of (currently), is ethnic art, something produced out
of natural products, that serves a purpose and is at the same time an art
'object', and the best thing is, anyone can produce these art objects, without
having to attend an elitist art academy to learn how to be an artist....
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
# Art
Art is good when it springs from necessity.
This kind of origin is the guarantee of its value; there is no other.
Neal Cassady (1926-68), U.S. beat hero. Letter, 7-8 Jan. 1948, to Jack Kerouac.
Quoted in: Gerald Nicosia, Memory Babe, ch. 5, sct. 5 (1983).
Kerry Keane
Max Burke (mlvb...@deleteme.co.nz) wrote:
: Art is good when it springs from necessity. =20
: This kind of origin is the guarantee of its value; there is no other.
: Neal Cassady (1926-68), U.S. beat hero. Letter, 7-8 Jan. 1948, to Jack =
: Kerouac.=20
: Quoted in: Gerald Nicosia, Memory Babe, ch. 5, sct. 5 (1983).
Bah. You don't even understand what sort of "necessity"
he is talking about, do you? It's not "necessity" in
the consumer sense of the term.
Kerry Keane
Max Burke (mlvb...@deleteme.co.nz) wrote:
: # The first mistake of Art is to assume that it=92s serious.
: Lester Bangs (1948-82), U.S. rock journalist.=20
Really? I take it that Jeff Koons is your favorite artist, then?
averti
Max Burke wrote:
>
> >Kerry Keane wrote in message <6943sr$i5r$1...@gail.ripco.com>...
> >Max Burke (mlvb...@deleteme.co.nz) wrote:
> :>Kerry Keane wrote in message <693nbl$7u4$1...@gail.ripco.com>...
>
> >: Ah the elite liberal arts schools, the ones that put a crucifix it a =
> >: tank full of the 'artists' urine and call it art,
>
> >It wasn't a crucifix in urine, it was a *photograph* of
> >a crucifix in a golden liquid. And why not? Some consider
> >Ansel Adams' dull pictures of mountains to be great technical
> >accomplishments--why can't someone do the same thing with
> >a crucifix and pee?
>
> Because it's not art IMO,
Yeah, but your O doesn't count. Or it counts one votes' worth.
>and in 6 months time, it will no longer exist (in all
> probability),
It has already ''existed'' for about five years, to my knowledge. I
dare say more people have seen that image than have seen all of
Picasso's work together.
>and it provided absolutely nothing to of benefit to anyone,
Wo! A person can die of smugness, you know.
Your uninformed opinions as to the nature and value of art are not
very artistic in nature 8).
>whereas
> Ansel Adam's art works will survive as long as there are human beings to benefit
> from his work, and his works advanced the art of photography in a tangible and
> measurable way....
>
I didn't think there were any Victorians left who still propounded this
weird theory that art has to ''do'' something utility-wise, like sink
cleanser or teaching ESL. Boyoboy.
IF you like B and W pix of mountains, you like them. It does not make
the subject matter morally or esthetically superior to pictures of
Mapplethorpe's boy friends dick.
> >BTW, Mapplethorpe was a controversial
> >photographer lumped into this group, and Paglia is a huge
> >admirer of his work. He photographed a man pissing
> >into another man's mouth, among other things. Do you
> >think the content alone renders it "not art"?
>
> Not having seen any of Mapplethorpe's work, I cant really comment....
> But going by the example you provide I would probably not call it art...
> pornography, yes, art ????
I dunno. In context, _I_ don't think such an image is pornography,
because it does not arouse me nor arouse in me a desire to be on either
end of the fluid transfer. But it IS art by several well-know
criteria; it provokes an emotional reaction from the viewer (in some
cases a violent one 8)), it establishes a mood and suggestion that is
greater than the sum of its materials (that is, black and white lumps
of pigment on shiny paper) and so on.
AND, by the duck theory, it's art because it is part of a well-known
and extensive body of work by a major artist 8).
>?(Note I believe pornography has a place in
> society, ie it serves a purpose).
>
> >:the neatly stacked up pile of bricks on the art gallery floor that is called art,
> >:and then the so called artist increase's the value of his 'art work' when someone kicks
> >:the pile of bricks over in protest at artist's stupidity....
>
> >I'd have to view the work in question before judging it.
> >It might be a provocative piece. Personally, I think
> >that Monet is offensively dull.
Hehehe. I used to live a block from the Phillips Gallery in Washington
DC. Try spending a whole day sitting ten feet away from a huge
Impressionist
painting--it'll make your eyes itch 8).
[...]
> >: As to the art world today, it has IMHO become an elitist cabal of
> >: talentless morons who judge talent not on what the 'artist' creates, but
> >:what liberal arts school they attended, and how they present their current
> >:psychosis to the world at large....
I love a good grouch.
>
> >This may or may not be true, you'd be surprised at how sick I am
> >of some postmodern crap. Nonetheless, it used to be you couldn't
> >get your paintings hung anywhere unless you were a member of the
> >academy, so I'd say things have improved quite a bit since then.
Sure. Consider centuries before, when you couldn't even DO art unless
it was commissioned by some prince or pope and within a narrow range
of trite religious subjects.
>
> And 99.99% of ordinary amateur artists (who IMHO, produce top
> quality art), dont get a look in, because of the elitist attitudes that pervades
> the art world today....
I paint. I sell. I give some of it away. I don't have two spare seconds
to sit around in coffee houses bitching about elitist attitudes. That's
a load of crap in the context of todays' civilization. I haven't gotten
''anywhere'' in the local art scene out of sheer laziness, lack of
ambition, and indifference, not because a gang of elitists has conspired
to suppress me. Good greef.
>
> snip....
>
> >: >I've found that there are people who love their job, their home,
> >: >and are not lacking for anything, and one of them is me. =20
>
> >: Again it's just called living, the thing everyone does every day of =
> >: their existence as a human being....
>
> >No, I think most people are not happy, especially in these
> >newsgroups.
> >There are too many people who obsess on an
> >alleged feminist conspiracy to make them miserable,
> >Camille Paglia included. She is, admittedly, not a
> >happy woman.
>
> A you have verifiable proof of this statement?.....
Er, ''admittedly'' presumably means ''She has admitted it.'' I haven't
read very much Paglia in recent years, but what I did read was shot
through with unhappiness, confusion, frustration, and bitterness.
>
> >: I pound Bits into Bytes for a living....
> >: Its real jobs like these that you despise, that runs the world you are
> >: living in....
> >: Those that can do, those that cant live of the backs of those that
> >: do.....
> >: So who is paying your living expenses then, who is supporting you and
> >: your elitist liberal arts lifestyle.... (Taxpayer, Husband, father....)?
>
Where does this ''real jobs'' crap come from? You got a pile of old
IWW tracts from 70 years ago? Moving electronic misinformation back
and forth is not exactly the same as toiling in the rice paddies,
yaknow.
> >Students. Students who have freely chosen to pursue an
> >education in the arts. People who will design your homes,
> >the chair you're sitting on, the clothes you wear.
> >People who make the movies and television shows
> >you watch.
Woops! Let's go back to the chairs, it's a more defensible position.
>
> The vast majority of what I own would have been designed for
> the most part either by a computer CAD (computer aided design)
> programme or an engineer.....
None of whom were ever students? Engineers and program-makers spring
full-blown from Jove's forehead without any of that nasty and tedious
educational process? My my.
BTW, neither of your examples is ''design.'' Human beings designed the
Colt Revolver, the Fender Stratocaster, the Ford Thunderbird--highly
''useful'' art objects. Electronically calculating the proper curve
for a spoiler is not design. Just detail.
>
> I dont buy 'designer' clothes/furniture/whatever on principle,
> as I consider them a waste of resources (mine, why pay $100's
> for designer gear, when you can get the equivalent item designed
> by a computer/engineer) for a fraction of the price.....
>
Oy. What has this smug attitude to do either with feminism, art, or
Paglia? Sears Roebuck duds are not ''equivalent'' to Calvin Klein
or Versace. True, both will cover your body pretty much equally,
but part of the S100s is paid for the association with the artist
and the milieu in which the artist operates.
> >You think these things are useless, and yet no system
> >produces useless objects more prolifically than capitalism.
>
> >Go to the store sometime and count every product you
> >see that you have absolutely no need for.
>
> I dont need to go to any store, I just need to look around my home....
> Just because I dont 'need' them does not mean I should not own them though...
>
> >That's capitalism!
>
> And Capitalism survives quite nicely without designer products, generic products
> are cheaper to produce, market, and provide a direct benefit to the consumer
> society we live in.....
>
Hmmm. Then I guess we should have generic art by generic artists, and
generic philosophy chosen by marketing committees rather than all that
scary and contentious Paglia shit. And I won't ''need'' any more porn;
all I'll need is this white-packaged hunk of cardboard with ''Picture
of Generic Naked Babe'' printed on it 8).
Max Burke
>Kerry Keane wrote in message <695dsn$pgh$1...@gail.ripco.com>...
>>Max Burke (mlvb...@deleteme.co.nz) wrote:
No shit?, really?, I would NEVER realised that if you hadn't had been so kind to
point it out to me.....
And who was that complained that Camille Paglia doesn't have the right to speak
for anyone else.....
It's hypocritical that a 'pseudo intellectual like you seems to think you have the knowledge of
what I do and/or dont understand.....
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
# The first mistake of Art is to assume that it’s serious.
Lester Bangs (1948-82), U.S. rock journalist.
Who Put the Bomp (Winter/Spring 1971; repr. in Psychotic Reactions & Carburetor Dung,
“James Taylor Marked for Death,” 1987).
Unknown
In article <6943sr$i5r$1...@gail.ripco.com>, lud...@ripco.com (Kerry Keane)
wrote:
>
> Max Burke (mlvb...@deleteme.co.nz) wrote:
> : >Kerry Keane wrote in message <693nbl$7u4$1...@gail.ripco.com>...
>
> assume their thoughts.
That's a hoot. At least Paglia makes it clear who she's talking about.
Feminists have the intolerable arrogance to pretend they're speaking
for all women all the time. They say "women" when what they really mean
is "we feminists." It's so bad that women at large have to turn around
and emphasize explicitly (for instance) that "NOW doesn't speak for me."
>
> : Hint : Best-seller means Popular, a majority of buyers consider the =
> : author
> : worth spending money on, to read their book(s).....
>
> Yeah, like Deepak Chopra. Inspirational, sentimentalist
> crap that goes out of its way to avoid disturbing anyone.
I've never read Chopra, but I am sick and tired of people who think
art and literature ought to "disturb" people for the sake of disturbing
them. If it gives us pleasure, it's good. If it informs us in a way
that we can use, it's good. To say art ought to disturb or shock people
for the sake of doing it is infantile. It also appeals to neurotics
who seem to suffer intolerable guilt if they're not "worrying" or feeling
bad about the state of the world. That's their problem, and I'm tired
of them trying to dump it on the rest of us.
Some reviewer with a mind like this criticized *Forrest Gump* by saying
it was a good movie... but he thought it "let us off the hook too easily."
As if we had no right to feel good about ourselves, our recent history
and culture, or whatever. As far as I'm concerned people like this can
shove it up their ass. Part of the reason we live in a depressed and
angry society today is that we've allowed a whole generation of these
neurotics to *make* people worried, depressed, and angry. We could *use*
more inspiration, and sentiment as well, to cheer everyone up.
>
> No, I think most people are not happy, especially in these
> newsgroups. There are too many people who obsess on an
> alleged feminist conspiracy to make them miserable,
> Camille Paglia included. She is, admittedly, not a
> happy woman.
Females tend to be more depressive than men, and when give female
voices too big a platform in society all we seem to get is yowling and
complaints. At least that's been our experience for the last thirty
years. Mind you, I'm not saying all women are this way. It might be
simply that we've failed to slap a filter on the subset of females who
incessantly complain, as we did in medieval times with the ducking stool
and the scold's bridle -- both useful inventions that protect society's
morale.
But I don't see Paglia as a particularly unhappy woman. Not in herself.
She's pissed about what feminists have done to society, especially in
her own area, academe. But there she's in a majority; most people are
pissed, or they are when they're shown what's going on. The point is,
there's a big difference between complaining about fuckheads who have
spoiled something that used to work better (so we know it can work
better), and the kind of futile railing at the universe feminists do
all the time, whining about things that either can't be changed or can
only be changed at the expense of making everybody mad. That just gets
everyone down. We rarely hear zip from feminists about all the things
that are good and all the marvelous things we've done that we all have
a right to be proud of. (That's probably because men did most of them,
a reality that sourpuss feminists envy and hate.) But Paglia praises
us for what we've accomplished, and puts the blame for human failings
right back where it belongs -- on "Mother" Nature. Feminists at large
are the world's lousiest behavioral psychologists, but Paglia is good.
Gordon S. Little
(Gordon...@bull.com)
Nick Danger
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 11 Jan 1998 12:31:41 GMT, Gordon S. Little wrote:
:>Females tend to be more depressive than men, and when give female
:>voices too big a platform in society all we seem to get is yowling and
:>complaints.
I'd agree with the second part, but I don't think the first part
has much to do with that. I'm not even sure the first part is
true.
I think the 'yowling and complaints' have much more to do
with the way boys and girls are socialized to behave differently.
Complaining is not a behavior that men are generally rewarded
for exhibiting; instead of verbalizing their frustrations, men are
expected to either do something about them or to put up with
them.... but in either case, in silence. Girls, on the other hand,
are encouraged to seek help in alleviating their frustrations;
sometimes in preference to doing anything about their difficulties
for themselves.
Any society that gives men and women equal access to the media
will therefore find its media full of the complaints of women; we should
expect nothing else. There is a small and growing segment of women
who fully expect to have to pull their own wagons, but they are
still a tiny minority. Most women still feel that 'men' or 'society'
or somebody else is responsible for 'helping them' get what they
want.
None of that has much to do with depressed mood. If there is a
characteristic behavior of depressives, it is passivity in the
face of adversity. Active complaining and other goal-seeking
behavior is the last thing one sees in depressed people.
As for women tending to be more depressive than men, I
don't believe it. I know more women are diagnosed by
professionals, and more women are on antidepressive
medications, but I don't think that reflects the incidence
of the disease. I think more men than women try to
deal with it themselves, by hitting the bottle. Curiously,
if we add the alcoholics to the people on antidepressives,
we end up with almost identical numbers of men and
women. Personally, I don't think that's a coincidence.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBNLlRjCNiPAuPKh/ZAQEyWwP+LZ+C+5/NuSBsMIbR+/CmphjoeE3ANwCM
IdlffmxslrnzC+R03Rj2OSMxjrAHnrofmjvQZPz9kutRumwYlovsxX7ZsGiAUFzx
oR05u8xDmMuNIHtffYgdRRGTTdkqJMQ5BsZFofQPuiPbWom4iN7u9H6u+sDyxvAD
iueADQ2r6Mk=
=0PqY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--------------------------------------------
This article is made of 100% recycled electrons.
--------------------------------------------
Max Burke
>averti wrote in message <34B6AB...@hotmail.com>...
>Max Burke wrote:
>>Ah the elite liberal arts schools, the ones that put a crucifix it a =
>>tank full of the 'artists' urine and call it art,
>Yeah, but your O doesn't count. Or it counts one votes' worth.
From the reports I have read about this 'crap' some people choose to call art,
the negative votes are in the majority....
>>and in 6 months time, it will no longer exist (in all
>> probability),
>It has already ''existed'' for about five years, to my knowledge. I
>dare say more people have seen that image than have seen all of
>Picasso's work together.
Ah, so the so called artist recreates his 'work of art' every time he has a
piss does he?
>>and it provided absolutely nothing to of benefit to anyone,
>Wo! A person can die of smugness, you know.
What benefit has it provided (in art terms, and IYO)?....
>Your uninformed opinions as to the nature and value of art are not
>very artistic in nature 8).
Just as valid as yours, if opinions are judged by the same standards
you apparently apply to so called works of art....
Pray tell what do you consider to be the nature and value of this 'work of art'?
(Try to keep it under 500 words please).
>>whereas
>> Ansel Adam's art works will survive as long as there are human beings to benefit
>> from his work, and his works advanced the art of photography in a tangible and
>> measurable way....
>I didn't think there were any Victorians left who still propounded this
>weird theory that art has to ''do'' something utility-wise, like sink
>cleanser or teaching ESL. Boyoboy.
And you think my opinions are not very 'artistic' in nature?
Where in my comment do I imply Ansell Adams Works have to do something
utility-wise?
>IF you like B and W pix of mountains, you like them. It does not make
>the subject matter morally or esthetically superior to pictures of
>Mapplethorpe's boy friends dick.
Funny I dont see anything in my post to imply one was superior to the other...
I have checked out some of Mapplethorpes works, and guess what, IMHO the are just
as Good as anything Ansell Adams has produced (A Hell of a lot more controversial),
And certainly different.....
snip...
>Hehehe. I used to live a block from the Phillips Gallery in Washington
>DC. Try spending a whole day sitting ten feet away from a huge
>Impressionist painting--it'll make your eyes itch 8).
At least you get the opportunity to see them 8-((((
The art gallery has actually get chair just 10ft in front of these pictures???
(Fire the gallery director then... Obviously doesn't have a clue about how to display these
paintings then)
>> As to the art world today, it has IMHO become an elitist cabal of
>> talentless morons who judge talent not on what the 'artist' creates, but
>> what liberal arts school they attended, and how they present their current
>> psychosis to the world at large....
>I love a good grouch.
Yeah I'm real grouchy about it!!! ;-))))
This is what the art scene is like here in NZ, If you did not attend the right art school,
you're out of luck.....
>>This may or may not be true, you'd be surprised at how sick I am
>>of some postmodern crap. Nonetheless, it used to be you couldn't
>>get your paintings hung anywhere unless you were a member of the
>>academy, so I'd say things have improved quite a bit since then.
>Sure. Consider centuries before, when you couldn't even DO art unless
>it was commissioned by some prince or pope and within a narrow range
>of trite religious subjects.
Yeah, but look at what resulted from these [un]holy alliances....
>> And 99.99% of ordinary amateur artists (who IMHO, produce top
>> quality art), dont get a look in, because of the elitist attitudes that pervades
>> the art world today....
>I paint. I sell. I give some of it away. I don't have two spare seconds
>to sit around in coffee houses bitching about elitist attitudes.
Now you've really pissed me off.....
I have NEVER, EVER, sat around in a coffee house BITCHING about anything.. 8-P
>That's a load of crap in the context of todays' civilization. I haven't gotten
>''anywhere'' in the local art scene out of sheer laziness, lack of
>ambition, and indifference, not because a gang of elitists has conspired
>to suppress me. Good greef.
Neither have I, the reason I 'do art, photography, whatever is to relax, as I dont
hold any pretensions that what I 'create' is art in any shape or form, and I certainly dont
want to inflict it on anyone else, but I do know artists who dont get a chance because they
have not been to the 'right' school, or are not accepted at the 'right' galleries....
snip....
> I pound Bits into Bytes for a living....
> Its real jobs like these that you despise, that runs the world you are
> living in....
>Where does this ''real jobs'' crap come from? You got a pile of old
>IWW tracts from 70 years ago? Moving electronic misinformation back
>and forth is not exactly the same as toiling in the rice paddies,
>yaknow.
And its not the same as daubing paint on canvas, taking a photograph,
or pissing in a tank for that matter, but it sure is a hell of a lot more important....
Think about what is happening the next time you look at your bank account statement,
get a checkout receipt from the grocery store, book a ticket, make a phone call.....
>Woops! Let's go back to the chairs, it's a more defensible position.
>> The vast majority of what I own would have been designed for
>> the most part either by a computer CAD (computer aided design)
>> programme or an engineer.....
>None of whom were ever students? Engineers and program-makers spring
>full-blown from Jove's forehead without any of that nasty and tedious
>educational process? My my.
Yes, but do I see on my TV '21 inch colour TV, from the collection of engineer
No. 12498, with the able assistance of CAD programme EEDP Version 4.11123......
>BTW, neither of your examples is ''design.'' Human beings designed the
>Colt Revolver, the Fender Stratocaster, the Ford Thunderbird--highly
>''useful'' art objects. Electronically calculating the proper curve
>for a spoiler is not design. Just detail.
OK, detail then.....
>> I dont buy 'designer' clothes/furniture/whatever on principle,
>> as I consider them a waste of resources (mine, why pay $100's
>> for designer gear, when you can get the equivalent item designed
>> by a computer/engineer) for a fraction of the price.....
>Oy. What has this smug attitude to do either with feminism, art, or
>Paglia?
Read the thread from the beginning at www.Dejanews.com...
>Sears Roebuck duds are not ''equivalent'' to Calvin Klein
>or Versace. True, both will cover your body pretty much equally,
>but part of the S100s is paid for the association with the artist
>and the milieu in which the artist operates.
My point exactly..... If I buy a work of 'art' I'm that what I buy, not the 'artists' name....
How can a pair of Calvin Klien jeans, a pair of Rayban (sp?) sunglasses,
or a pair of Rebok shoes be considered art, design, or fashion when the only difference is some
designer sticking a label with their name on it just for image, In short, the 'artist' in this case
says I'm so brilliant (at designing these things) you have to pay for my name.....
>> I dont need to go to any store, I just need to look around my home....
>>Just because I dont 'need' them does not mean I should not own them though...
>>And Capitalism survives quite nicely without designer products, generic products
>>are cheaper to produce, market, and provide a direct benefit to the consumer
>>society we live in.....
snip....
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
# Image
The visual is sorely undervalued in modern scholarship.
Art history has attained only a fraction of the conceptual sophistication of literary criticism. . . .
Drunk with self-love, criticism has hugely overestimated the centrality of language to western culture.
It has failed to see the electrifying sign language of images.
Camille Paglia (b. 1947), U.S. author, critic, educator. Sexual Personae, ch. 1 (1990).
Max Burke
>Gordon S. Little wrote in message <69ae3d$10...@cass.ma02.bull.com>...
>> Max Burke (mlvb...@deleteme.co.nz) wrote:
>>>Kerry Keane wrote in message <693nbl$7u4$1...@gail.ripco.com>...
>>> No, but she is arrogant enough to speak for others and to
>>> assume their thoughts.
>That's a hoot. At least Paglia makes it clear who she's talking about.
>Feminists have the intolerable arrogance to pretend they're speaking
>for all women all the time. They say "women" when what they really mean
>is "we feminists." It's so bad that women at large have to turn around
>and emphasize explicitly (for instance) that "NOW doesn't speak for me."
>>Hint : Best-seller means Popular, a majority of buyers consider the =
>>author worth spending money on, to read their book(s).....
>>
>>> Yeah, like Deepak Chopra. Inspirational, sentimentalist
>>> crap that goes out of its way to avoid disturbing anyone.
>I've never read Chopra, but I am sick and tired of people who think
>art and literature ought to "disturb" people for the sake of disturbing
>them. If it gives us pleasure, it's good. If it informs us in a way
>that we can use, it's good. To say art ought to disturb or shock people
>for the sake of doing it is infantile. It also appeals to neurotics
>who seem to suffer intolerable guilt if they're not "worrying" or feeling
>bad about the state of the world. That's their problem, and I'm tired
>of them trying to dump it on the rest of us.
Which is why I bought up the point about this so called art work
that had a picture of a crucifix stuck in a tank of the artists urine....
All it was 'created' for (using the term very loosely), was to generate
controversy for the sake of it, and to create a name for the so called artist...
It's the quickest way to be 'accepted' into the elite of the art world today.....
snip......
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
# As the twentieth century ends, commerce and culture are coming
closer together. The distinction between life and art has been eroded by fifty
years of enhanced communications, ever-improving reproduction technologies and
increasing wealth.
Stephen Bayley (b. 1951), British design critic. Commerce and Culture, ch. 1 (1989).