Anybody want to talk about workshop etiquette?
Ejucaided Redneck
I've ever been part of is how so often a critique sparks a defense from
the writer. There are two rules in the workshop I'm off to in about an
hour and a half:
1. During a critique session the writer says nothing at all, unless
asked a direct question by a reader.
2. A writer _never_ defends his or her work, or "critiques the
critique."
Goes without saying this is not a go-for-the-jugular sort of workshop,
but rather has the same cordial and civil ambience a.f.o might have if
it happened in real life. I've been part of those sorts of gang-bangs
in the past, and will never do so again, nor do I tolerate it anywhere
that I have any control or significant input into what's going on.
Anybody want to talk about this?
--
"Fictionalizing yourself is one of
the great perks of writing fiction."
-- Jane Somebody-or-Other, in an email,
discussing Bob Gover's books..
--
New stories, new essays, new pages:
http://bobsloan.home.mindspring.com/
Alaric
What I don't want to put a lid on is interesting discussion arising from
critiques. If I want to explain why I did something a particular way, I want
that facility so people can say - right, I know what you were going for
now - here's why I think you didn't achieve it for me as a reader. The
you're wrong I'm right argument is something I've only seen a coupla times
here, and the guys didn't last long. But again, if you say this is crap
because and I say this is great because then there might be an interesting
discussion between you, me and the writer.
I'd be very hesitant to cut off the writer's way back, but watchful where
it's abused. I do understand your concerns.
"Ejucaided Redneck" <briarh...@yall.com> wrote in message
news:3D3480B5...@yall.com...
Amanda Tarr
> I've ever been part of is how so often a critique sparks a defense from
> the writer. There are two rules in the workshop I'm off to in about an
> hour and a half:
>
> 1. During a critique session the writer says nothing at all, unless
> asked a direct question by a reader.
>
> 2. A writer _never_ defends his or her work, or "critiques the
> critique."
My initial thoughts: No, I don't believe a writer should defend his or her
work against a critique. It should be taken on good faith that the person
offering the critique is giving input they believe would truly help the
writing.
However, the practice of _response_ to the critique I believe is something
unique and necessary here. It allows the critiquer to see that their
comments are not cast out into the abyss. I think this is important, due to
the format. I'm not physically around to see Alaric laboring over my
stories, but I definitely want to reinforce the notion that I am paying
attention to what he says. And that I'm grateful, of course.
As far as defense of the work, the reader is always right when it comes to
their perceptions of the piece. The writer is free to disagree (although
perhaps not publically); but should be encouraged to heed the comments.
Sometimes, here, I think that a response to the critique can help the writer
"vocalize". By responding to a comment, he or she may gain further insight
into the feedback. Or perhaps illicit more explanatory feedback from the
reader. Or perhaps the story was unclear. A direct response to a critique
might help the writer see what they were missing in terms of explanation.
ie.
writer: She ate it.
critique: I dont understand. Ate what?
writer: The apple from the tree of knowledge, causing the pair to be
expelled from the garden.
from then on, the writer knows what he or she should add to the piece.
And sometimes, a dialog is spawned that is helpful for everyone.
Oop, have to run out for a bit. Just some brief thoughts.
Amanda
Fedallah
Ejucaided Redneck wrote:
>
> One thing that is quite different in this newsgroup than any workshop
> I've ever been part of is how so often a critique sparks a defense from
> the writer. There are two rules in the workshop I'm off to in about an
> hour and a half:
>
> 1. During a critique session the writer says nothing at all, unless
> asked a direct question by a reader.
>
> 2. A writer _never_ defends his or her work, or "critiques the
> critique."
>
> Goes without saying this is not a go-for-the-jugular sort of workshop,
> but rather has the same cordial and civil ambience a.f.o might have if
> it happened in real life. I've been part of those sorts of gang-bangs
> in the past, and will never do so again, nor do I tolerate it anywhere
> that I have any control or significant input into what's going on.
>
> Anybody want to talk about this?
Well, I'll admit I've been "defending" more with my last
posted work here than I normally even think of, but with an
ulterior motive... trying to show another perspective that I
really don't think gets voiced enough here and elsewhere,
even where I agree with a suggestion in a particular case.
On a more general note though, it may be a matter of what's
being termed "defending" one's work. The difference in
medium here calls for a different response than a real-time
critique session, for me. Obviously, not every suggestion
or critique is going to be followed by all of us here in
re-writing or revising something. If I'm not going to use a
suggestion, for me it's a matter of politeness and
acknowledgement of that fact that it's been considered
seriously to show why I'm hesitant to use it, rather than
give the impression that it's simply been ignored when that
suggested change doesn't show up in the revision.
And I also think in some cases that it's very helpful for a
third party to show disagreement with a critique and
demonstrate why something important works for them that
doesn't work for someone else. It can only enrich the
writer's understanding of how other's are reading their
work. The only recent case I can think of is Janet's
"Nadine Must Die"... someone suggested that a line didn't
work in the piece that I personally thought _made_ the
piece. Not voicing that isn't a favor to the writer.
Rick
R. Westermeyer
<briarh...@yall.com> wrote:
You come here from alt.writing, I believe, which, I think, is so
overrun with fuckers it's a ruined group as far as I'm concerned.
There's a woman in that group who is so fucking offensive and stupid
that to read just one of her posts is enough churn your bowels.
So you're probably used to a lot of animosity. That's what strikes me
as strange about your post; almost like your asking for more of it.
this is the most civil writing group on Usenet, I have little doubt.
By the way, those rules for your writing class suck.
They assume that the one critiquing has the upper hand. I admit, most
people critiquing a story do so with good intentions and the writer
should be grateful that he/she took any time whatsoever to read it.
It's an honor to have another total stranger take time to give you
feedback with nothing in return.
However, there are true idiots and there are assholes who use a
critique as a passive aggressive method of getting back at someone
they don't like; there are professorial asscorks who will pathetically
disect your work, missing forest for trees, condeming anything that
swerves from the "orthodox" because that's how they've been programed.
I don't like the narcissistic author who disagrees with every single
bit of advice she/he receives, or the one who, in response to a
critique offers seven literary influences and the milestones in their
writing careers. but nor do I like the candy ass who accepts
everything he/she is given with a "thank you." A tool always has more
limitations than uses.
--R
Alaric
I think it's fair game to assess why those views differ, and an interesting
discussion too.
"Fedallah" <reha...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3D34A5B5...@earthlink.net...
Alaric
llife.
It's a quiet night.
Attendees:
Robert Westermeyer.
Opus.
Decaying Atheist.
Barry Aitchison.
Patrick Null.
Amanda Tarr.
Huw Lyan Thomas.
Bradley Stoke.
Story, anyone?
"Ejucaided Redneck" <briarh...@yall.com> wrote in message
news:3D3480B5...@yall.com...
Amanda Tarr
May I please plagiarize the term "professional asscork" in the future? I
find myself hunting for words like this all the time, but usually end up
with a flaccid "suck-ass loser". I promise to only say it when my car window
is rolled up.
Thanks in advance,
Amanda
Amanda Tarr
"Alaric" <alar...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:ah29id$eu5$1...@paris.btinternet.com...
> It did occur to me to wonder what AFO would be like if it happened in real
> llife.
>
> It's a quiet night.
>
> Attendees:
> Robert Westermeyer.
> Opus.
> Decaying Atheist.
> Barry Aitchison.
> Patrick Null.
> Amanda Tarr.
> Huw Lyan Thomas.
> Bradley Stoke.
>
> Story, anyone?
I'm in the kitchen with the revolver.
Anopheles
"Ejucaided Redneck" wrote:
> One thing that is quite different in this newsgroup than any workshop
> I've ever been part of is how so often a critique sparks a defense from
> the writer. There are two rules in the workshop I'm off to in about an
> hour and a half:
>
> 1. During a critique session the writer says nothing at all, unless
> asked a direct question by a reader.
>
> 2. A writer _never_ defends his or her work, or "critiques the
> critique."
>
> Goes without saying this is not a go-for-the-jugular sort of workshop,
> but rather has the same cordial and civil ambience a.f.o might have if
> it happened in real life. I've been part of those sorts of gang-bangs
> in the past, and will never do so again, nor do I tolerate it anywhere
> that I have any control or significant input into what's going on.
>
> Anybody want to talk about this?
Everyone has the right to defend their work against misunderstanding or
deliberately vicious attacks. I appreciate this place is not a.w. and we
don't have anyone of the calibre of Poisonous Patty or the other white
pointers there but they do drift in from time to time. Still, it is better
to accept all crits without the need for a defence where possible.
Misunderstandings of the writing do require input from the writer.
Anopheles
Ejucaided Redneck
> On Tue, 16 Jul 2002 16:23:17 -0400, Ejucaided Redneck
> <briarh...@yall.com> wrote:
>
> You come here from alt.writing, I believe, which, I think, is so
> overrun with fuckers it's a ruined group as far as I'm concerned.
> There's a woman in that group who is so fucking offensive and stupid
> that to read just one of her posts is enough churn your bowels.
I "came here" from several newsgroups. I rarely post to alt.writing, or
involve myself in what goes on there.
> So you're probably used to a lot of animosity. That's what strikes me
> as strange about your post; almost like your asking for more of it.
> this is the most civil writing group on Usenet, I have little doubt.
I don't understand why what I described in the original post equates to
asking for more animosity.
> However, there are true idiots and there are assholes who use a
> critique as a passive aggressive method of getting back at someone
> they don't like; there are professorial asscorks who will pathetically
> disect your work, missing forest for trees, condeming anything that
> swerves from the "orthodox" because that's how they've been programed.
Who would pay attention to those fools anyway? Or even bother reading
their posts, once they show themselves for what they are?
--
"Some woman gave that thing to me, but you
can have it. Only I wouldn't wear it around town
next spring. It belongs to her husband, and he's
getting out of the penitentiary in May."
--Ollie K, at Freight Station Liquors, presenting
a hat to the young man who'd been admiring it
Dart...@webtv.net
Hehehe... asscork.
Interesting thread.
I don't defend my pieces against critiques, either in this newsgroup or
anywhere else. A written piece must speak for itself. When I read a
book, the author isn't perched on my shoulder to clarify things that
aren't working-- it either works, or it doesn't.
If I read something here that I feel doesn't work, I say so. When the
author responds with "well, you don't really get it," that doesn't make
me suddenly see the error of my opinion.
By the same token, my "explaining" why my piece really does work, and
why the critic is wrong, is silly and pointless. The critic isn't
wrong. If they had a problem with something I wrote, then I failed that
particular reader.
The less readers I fail, the more successful the writing. The more
readers I fail, the more attention I should pay to advice.
I see the same problem here that I do with other writer's groups, both
on the net and the few I've met with-- ego.
Now, it's extremely important to have a strong ego as a writer-- only
your faith in your talent will keep you going through the tough times.
The hard part (the really hard part) is letting your talent speak for
itself. When you start speaking for your talent, all you are doing is
broadcasting insecurity.
Rejection of any kind is tough. But the best reaction is to find out
why something was rejected, and then to fix it or keep it in mind for
the next piece. One of my favorite examples comes from a Robert Crais
book-- a rookie Marine is practicing hand to hand combat, and the
instructor breaks his arm. Rather than moan, the rookie says "teach me
how to do that."
Leaving yourself open to pain is the only way to grow.
Joe
"Straddling the line between helpful and condescending."
Bradley Stoke
The nature of rules and laws is that they are only set when there is a
problem or a situation to correct. In the case of authors defending
their stories from critiques, this is only necessary when there has
arisen a culture where criticisms cannot be made without it firing off
a series of unreflective defences; which in turn leads to more
justifications of what the critic was trying to say; finally
spiralling into a vortex of ill-feeling.
On the whole such regulation hasn't been necessary on AFO, although
that's not to say this harmonious situation will last forever. In the
meantime, we're all better off just as we are. And what is that?
Someone submits a story or a chapter of a novel. One person at least
(Alaric) critiques it, and maybe others. The author comes back and
thanks people for their critiques and might raise a point that's come
out of it.
The nice thing about this cozy relationship is that those who take the
trouble of critiquing are assured that someone's bothering to read
what they had to say. Another nice thing is that it can often become
the basis of a kind of Internet conversation between different
contributors on the newsgroup. A kind of bonding thing if you like.
It can be argued that the worst thing about the group are these
protracted dialogues which so often descend into banality, but I think
it's an invaluable part of the group. It's the equivalent of the small
talk that in real life people engage in.
Perhaps if there are more bad-tempered, occasionally rude contributors
of the kind who sometimes come into the group (whose names I won't
mention, but whose correspondence has been a source of so much
pleasure to the disengaged reader), then maybe the group needs some
code of conduct. But, until then, I think it's best left unregulated.
Bradley Stoke
--
http://www.bradleystoke.barrysworld.net/index.htm
Huw Lyan Thomas
news:4847-3D3...@storefull-2372.public.lawson.webtv.net...
> I don't defend my pieces against critiques, either in this newsgroup or
> anywhere else. A written piece must speak for itself. When I read a
> book, the author isn't perched on my shoulder to clarify things that
> aren't working-- it either works, or it doesn't.
Are you equating defence with clarification - they're not the same thing at
all IMO. Personally I'd often be pleased to be able to speak with the
author - and on AFO I can!
--
Bradley Stoke
I was inspired by Ejucaided Redneck's posting to have a
look at the alt.writing newsgroup and find out about
"Poisonous Patty". The Usenet's a huge place, isn't
it?
By the looks of it, alt.writing is quite a different
forum to this. Rather a lot less critiquing, much fewer
pieces of fiction to read and a lot more of people
writing in with questions about writing issues to the
rest of the group. It appears to be a place
for people to discuss getting published rather than a
place to discuss writing fiction.
However, what I was most interested in was finding out
about "Poisonous Patty". I guess she's the one with the
nym "PButler111". I don't think she's as bad as all that,
though she does seem to go out of her way to attract rancour.
Someone might say "Hello. Allow me to introduce myself. I'm
a writer." And she'll answer "How dare you presume to call
yourself a 'writer' unless you're published by an international
publishing house." Or you might say "Please review my short story."
And she'll say "Not only do I not have the time to waste on
crap like this, but the incorrect use of the subjunctive
which I instantly spotted in the third paragraph is
sufficient reason for me to proceed to insult you in the
following sixty lines." Or you might say "I'm
not sure your criticism was totally justified" and
she'll tell you to stick something unpleasant up your
sphincter.
Well, it's fun to read. But I'm glad AFO doesn't host
her ranting. And I think I'd give a wide berth to
actually posting anything to a group where contributors
go out of their way to be unpleasant. But if PBbutler111
were indeed to start posting to AFO (God Forbid!) such
is the freedom of the Internet that nobody would be able
to do anything about it. And such is her tenacity that
she's been posting (by all accounts) for more than two
years despite having made very few friends (that I
could see) in the process.
Pat J O'Brien
We all know what Ed Red's talking about. You were a little bit out of
control with the Borges. I'm guilty of it too, I know. I realize you'r only
trying to help.
Pea Jay to the Izzo
"Fedallah" <reha...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3D34A5B5...@earthlink.net...
>
>
Fedallah
We all know what Ed Red's talking about. You were a little
bit out of
control with the Borges. I'm guilty of it too, I know. I
realize you'r only
trying to help.
Pea Jay to the Izzo>>
(Pasted in, checking n2w to see if some stuff got sent by my
server one last time before leaving)
Yah, yeah, Pat. I made a passing reference to him. That
reference was basically called bullshit in a polite manner,
I demonstrated that it wasn't bullshit with relevant quotes.
And remained cordial and general-point directed throughout.
Just a question... I don't take your attempts to rile that
seriously, but I'm wondering if you do. If so, try
alt.writing. Much more fun there, much better reaction.
Rick
Decaying Atheist
> llife.
>
> It's a quiet night.
>
> Attendees:
> Robert Westermeyer.
> Opus.
> Decaying Atheist.
> Barry Aitchison.
> Patrick Null.
> Amanda Tarr.
> Huw Lyan Thomas.
> Bradley Stoke.
>
> Story, anyone?
I'm sorry but I doubt you'd see me with the likes of that Null guy. :)
--
Decaying Atheist. He's the right man for the job.
http://members.cox.net/harker/index.htm
Subscribe: shartiswrit...@yahoogroups.com
ICQ: 161624095
9:36:02 AM ---- Wednesday, July 17, 2002
Quote 30 of 108
* you are not a beautiful and unique snowflake
you are the same decaying matter as everything else
we all are a part of the same compost heap
we are the all singing all dancing crap of the world*|tyler durden
Joe Konrath
>>>>I don't defend my pieces against critiques, either in this newsgroup
or anywhere else. A written piece must speak for itself. When I
read a book, the author isn't perched on my shoulder to clarify things
that aren't working-- it either works, or it doesn't.>>>>>>
>>>>>>Are you equating defence with clarification - they're not the same
thing at all IMO. <<<<<<<
Disagree. If a piece needs defense, it wasn't written correctly. If a
piece needs clarification, same thing.
If you want to clarify a point, do it in the rewrite, not in the
rebuttle.
Joe
Ejucaided Redneck
Far as I'm concerned --assuming a reasonably astute, sensitive reader--
if "clarification" is required, then I've failed as a writer. Either
that or the story isn't aimed at that particular reader. (There are
people who assure me "good "metafiction" isn't an oxymoron. For me that
genre is like most forms of jazz: I just don't get it. There's
something other people whose opinions I respect hear that I don't.
Obviously nobody who writes it ought to pay any attention at all to
me-as-critic.)
--
"Then there is the other secret. There isn't any
symbolysm (sic). The sea is the sea. The old man
is an old man. The boy is a boy and the fish is a
fish. The sharks are all sharks no better and no
worse. All the symbolism that people say is shit.
What goes beyond is what you see beyond when
you know"
-- Ernest Hemingway to Bernard Berenson, 1952
Huw Lyan Thomas
news:9597-3D3...@storefull-2374.public.lawson.webtv.net...
>>>>>>Are you equating defence with clarification - they're not the same
thing at all IMO. <<<<<<<
> Disagree. If a piece needs defense, it wasn't written correctly. If a
piece needs clarification, same thing.
Just because I don't get something doesn't mean it wasn't "written
correctly". I'm always pleased to hear the author's thoughts on a piece that
interested me enough to comment.
> If you want to clarify a point, do it in the rewrite, not in the
rebuttle.
I don't have time to read everything here, but I don't recall seeing
anything I'd class as a rebuttal on AFO. But we're probably not going to
agree on that, since we have a basic difference as to whether clarification
is the same as defence ;-)
--
Huw Lyan Thomas
> Far as I'm concerned --assuming a reasonably astute, sensitive reader--
> if "clarification" is required, then I've failed as a writer. Either
> that or the story isn't aimed at that particular reader. (There are
> people who assure me "good "metafiction" isn't an oxymoron. For me that
> genre is like most forms of jazz: I just don't get it. There's
> something other people whose opinions I respect hear that I don't.
> Obviously nobody who writes it ought to pay any attention at all to
> me-as-critic.)
Yep, I agree with that. I think one thing AFO encourages is for people to
read (and write :-) outside their familiar genres, which may be where some
of the "didn't get it" comments come from.
In that sense I don't think that "didn't get it" is necessarily a
criticism - it depends on the context.
--
R. Westermeyer
Now wait one minute. So what you're saying is that ANY reader is
ALWAYS right. Ha. As I said earlier, it is best to consider all the
feedback you can get, but occasionally, you will be met with someone
whose critique is driven by a different motive. When I first came
here, I posted a parody of the last supper that involved heroin and
lemons instead of bread and wine. It offended some religious person,
who attacked the story because she was angry about the content. If
some beach read nimrod puts down Faulkner's Sound and the Fury and
says, this is terrible. I don't get it, bye your statements, Faulkner
has not written it correctly.
--Robert
Pat J O'Brien
Sometimes a joke is too obvious to ignore. I'm not trying to a offend
anybody. A joke is a joke is a joke.
You wanna piece of me?
Pat E. O'Furniture
"Fedallah" <reha...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3D357A86...@earthlink.net...
Janet Sever
> One thing that is quite different in this newsgroup than any workshop
> I've ever been part of is how so often a critique sparks a defense from
> the writer. There are two rules in the workshop I'm off to in about an
> hour and a half:
>
> 1. During a critique session the writer says nothing at all, unless
> asked a direct question by a reader.
>
> 2. A writer _never_ defends his or her work, or "critiques the
> critique."
>
> Goes without saying this is not a go-for-the-jugular sort of workshop,
> but rather has the same cordial and civil ambience a.f.o might have if
> it happened in real life. I've been part of those sorts of gang-bangs
> in the past, and will never do so again, nor do I tolerate it anywhere
> that I have any control or significant input into what's going on.
I don't know if I would agree that critiques spark a defense by the
writer. I think there is a big difference between:
Critter: Janet, I didn't like the part where there seems to be no
reason for Doris to kill Nadine. Why does Doris hate Nadine so? I
think you need to explain this.
Crittee: Hmmm. Well, what I was going for was a sort of random act of
violence that was spurred by nothing in particular. And I wanted to
show that Doris was such a freak that anything could set her off.
Maybe I need to show that a little more clearly.
Critter: I see. Maybe you could have her spurred to other acts of
violence as well to show it doesn't take anything to set her off.
Crittee: Good idea. I will consider that on my rewriter. Thanks!!
versus:
Critter: Janet, I didn't like the part where there seems to be no
reason for Doris to kill Nadine. Why does Doris hate Nadine so? I
think you need to explain this.
Crittee: Well, I think you're wrong. If you had just taken the time
to read it more carefully, you would see that it's clear that anything
Doris does would set Nadine off.
I don't think responding to Crits or discussing Crits is the same
thing as defending your work. I think an important part of crits with
other writers is the dialogue that says, "Wow. I guess what I was
trying to say didn't come across. How can I make this better?" I like
that about AFO, when it happens, because a lot of time in my "life"
crit group, we simply don't have time to discuss things in quite so
much detail.
J
Alaric
"Decaying Atheist" <har...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:WpeZ8.134525$DB.43...@news1.east.cox.net...
>
>
> I'm sorry but I doubt you'd see me with the likes of that Null guy. :)
>
Decaying Atheist
Is simply a joke, see the smile at the end.
Getting touchy Alaric? Go drink a pint. :)
--
Decaying Atheist. He's the right man for the job.
http://members.cox.net/harker/index.htm
Subscribe: shartiswrit...@yahoogroups.com
ICQ: 161624095
4:07:10 PM ---- Wednesday, July 17, 2002
Quote 97 of 108
The trouble with quotes about death is that 99.999 percent of them are made
by people who are still alive.
- Joshua Bruns
Fedallah
Joe Konrath wrote:
>
> >>>>I don't defend my pieces against critiques, either in this newsgroup
> or anywhere else. A written piece must speak for itself. When I
> read a book, the author isn't perched on my shoulder to clarify things
> that aren't working-- it either works, or it doesn't.>>>>>>
>
> >>>>>>Are you equating defence with clarification - they're not the same
> thing at all IMO. <<<<<<<
>
> Disagree. If a piece needs defense, it wasn't written correctly. If a
> piece needs clarification, same thing.
Nope. The most you can say is that it wasn't written
correctly for _that reader_. Again, unless you're trading
in empty truisms, this approach has everyone literally
writing "see spot run" books for little kids. Not the
intended audience, so some 5 year old's comment doesn't
count? Same thing with many readers who might not see
something clearly... sometimes it's just a case of not the
right reader for the work.
> If you want to clarify a point, do it in the rewrite, not in the
> rebuttle.
Really, I think you're assuming much more defensiveness and
ego than is usually present. Not every response to a
critique is a "rebuttle"... we aren't in an argument with
the submitters and reviewers. If something is suggested
that I'm not going to use, it's often a matter of politeness
and acknowledgment to me to explain why it isn't going to be
used, to demonstrate that it's been listened to and
considered carefully. Sometimes the clarification is
simply: "I was going for X, which didn't work for you. You
suggest soandso, but that doesn't work either. So, I'll
think about this and try something different." The other
side of that coin is offering critiques to someone who posts
here, who never responds to those critiques, and doesn't
often use the suggestions offered. The impression? Oh,
they're ignoring the advice... no worries, but not much
reason to critique their work in the future either.
Personally, I'd much prefer a response from a writer on any
major suggestion that won't be touched. At least I know it
was read and considered.
Yeah, some are going to read things like explaining why
something won't be used or why something in general is
disagreed with as defensiveness and ego--IF they're
insistent on listening for that from the start. Fuck 'em.
They need to relax and not be so damn defensive about their
reviews.
This has never been a problem in afo, and I don't think it
will be unless egg-shell ego-ed folks insist on making it
one. afo's run great for at least the year or two I've
bounced in and out of here, we've never had much of a
problem or issue at all with this.
Rick
Fedallah
Pat J O'Brien wrote:
>
> Farfalle,
It's "Fedallah," asshole. Get it right. <rest snipped
unread ;)>
Rick
R. Westermeyer
<marlonb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Farfalle,
>Sometimes a joke is too obvious to ignore. I'm not trying to a offend
>anybody. A joke is a joke is a joke.
>
>You wanna piece of me?
What piece are you trying to get rid of?
>Pat E. O'Furniture
>
>
Dart...@webtv.net
Joe
Now wait one minute. So what you're saying is that ANY reader is ALWAYS
right. Ha. As I said earlier, it is best to consider all the feedback
you can get, but occasionally, you will be met with someone whose
critique is driven by a different motive. When I first came here, I
posted a parody of the last supper that involved heroin and lemons
instead of bread and wine. It offended some religious person, who
attacked the story because she was angry about the content. If some
beach read nimrod puts down Faulkner's Sound and the Fury and says, this
is terrible. I don't get it, bye your statements, Faulkner has not
written it correctly.
--Robert
I stated in my earlier post, every piece of writing is bound to fail
somebody. The less people you fail, the more successful the piece.
In the above mentioned case, Faulkner failed that particular nimrod. If
everyone agreed with said nimrod, Faulkner would not be famous.
But while personal taste is subjective, the abilty to conform to a
narrative structure is less so. It's easy to weed out those who dislike
theme vs. those who feel the format could be improved.
Still, in either case, responding to critiques is needless. If a reader
didn't like your work, you failed that reader. Try to learn something
from the experience-- and it may be nothing more than, "Man, that guy's
a nimrod."
Joe
R. Westermeyer
Actually Web tv playname,
Your reasoning is as tarry as a geriatric stool. When Bunuel's film
Un Chien Andalou was released, it was torn to shreds by the critics,
and I believe the theatre was destroyed by the audience (Un Chien or
L'age D'or, can't remember). We can think of numerous similar episodes
in which the majority opinion was downright narrow and that time would
be the barometer of an artwork's worth. YOu give far too much credit
to "the reader", which, by the way, includes the rabble. Some people
are doomed to be chronically disappointed, or "failed" as you put it.
By the way, YOu might consider a new nickname. It interferes with any
serious discussion you might have here. Sounds like some avatar on
Runescape.
Love and Kisses,
Robert
Pat J O'Brien
shit. Uh-oh, I think my mom and dad are home. Gotta go.
P
"R. Westermeyer" <wst...@cts.com> wrote in message
news:vbnbju0q21rpe3er6...@4ax.com...
R. Westermeyer
<marlonb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Westermeyer?! What're you, kidding me? I got chunks of guys like you in my
>shit. Uh-oh, I think my mom and dad are home. Gotta go.
>
>P
Yeah, sonny, better go shove those cum towels to the bottom of the
hamper. wipe the sweat off your brow.
--R
PButler111
>
>I was inspired by Ejucaided Redneck's posting to have a
>look at the alt.writing newsgroup and find out about
>"Poisonous Patty". The Usenet's a huge place, isn't
>it?
And yet we keep running into the same unimaginative trolls over and over again.
Let's see... you've never posted to alt.writing before, you suddenly pop up
with no apparent purpose other than to slag me, you're bitching about things
that actually never happened (hey, don't let the facts trip you up, troll) and
you have created a website which you purport to be a fan club for -- yes,
that's right -- yourself. Yeah, everything you say is to be taken *mighty*
seriously. Truly.
Keep your baseless bullshit on your own newsgroup. Alt.writing has more than
its share of troublemaker trolls as it is.
Joe Konrath
>>>>Your reasoning is as tarry as a geriatric stool<<<<<
Poor metaphor. Consider cutting.
>>>>> When Bunuel's film Un Chien Andalou was released, it was torn to
shreds by the critics, and I believe the theatre was destroyed by the
audience (Un Chien or L'age D'or, can't remember).<<<<
Un Chien Andelou was torn to shreds because it was both violently and
sexually offensive to the mindset of the 20s. Can you come up with an
example not 80 years old?
>>>>We can think of numerous similar episodes in which the majority
opinion was downright narrow and that time would be the barometer of an
artwork's worth. <<<<<
Newslash-- art is a popularity contest. If time passes, and the work
becomes accepted, then we call the artist ahead of his time. But
failure to secure an audience during an artist's lifetime means that
artist has failed.
As for your example, both Bunel and Dali were considered geniuses at the
time of their film collaberations.
>>>>YOu give far too much credit to "the reader", which, by the way,
includes the rabble. Some people are doomed to be chronically
disappointed, or "failed" as you put it. <<<<
The rabble dictates the worth of any artist. Popular opinion is what
connotes greatness.
As for those who don't like anything, then the artist fails them. Since
when are people wrong for their opinion? Even the rabble? Artists
display their work, and if enough people like it, the artist is
successful. The artist is the one asking for opinions-- the rabble
can't offer any input unless there is something to view. Once an artist
takes that risk, he leaves himself open to criticism. And if enough
people criticize, he's failed.
>>>>>By the way, YOu might consider a new nickname. It interferes with
any serious discussion you might have here. Sounds like some avatar on
Runescape. <<<<<<
Thank you for your opinion. I'll get to conforming right away, Massah.
Joe
Bradley Stoke
group was re-posted to alt.writing by someone who clearly enjoys
baiting people. Clearly, his/her posting had the expected result.
The original post was not intended as a personal attack, but quite
obviously can be interpreted as such.
Mea Culpa,
Bradley Stoke
PButler111
Really? You don't know me, you've never spoken to me, you obviously have never
bothered to even so much as check out my posting history, yet you make up an
insulting name for me and post an overlong rant against me, full of lies,
cross-posting it to as many groups as possible. That wasn't meant as a
personal attack? Kindly explain how it could possibly be interpreted any other
way.
Dr Zen
> One thing that is quite different in this newsgroup than any workshop
> I've ever been part of is how so often a critique sparks a defense from
> the writer. There are two rules in the workshop I'm off to in about an
> hour and a half:
>
> 1. During a critique session the writer says nothing at all, unless
> asked a direct question by a reader.
>
> 2. A writer _never_ defends his or her work, or "critiques the
> critique."
>
> Goes without saying this is not a go-for-the-jugular sort of workshop,
> but rather has the same cordial and civil ambience a.f.o might have if
> it happened in real life. I've been part of those sorts of gang-bangs
> in the past, and will never do so again, nor do I tolerate it anywhere
> that I have any control or significant input into what's going on.
>
There's a big difference, Bob, between asking for fair and honest
critique of your work with a view to improving it and thinking you are
already there and simply asking for a pat on the back. Most writers
who argue with a critique are in the latter camp or a troll like our
friend Westermeyer, who's looking for a horse to ride, and does so in
varied newsgroups. Either way, they more or less deserve what they
get.
Zen
R. Westermeyer
Stoke) wrote:
Yeah, thanks a lot, Bradley. I can't read that fucking woman's posts
without retching. Now get her to leave.
--Robert
R. Westermeyer
Go away. Don't you have some research on Barry Manablow to complete?
--Robert
R. Westermeyer
Konrath) wrote:
>The rabble dictates the worth of any artist. Popular opinion is what
>connotes greatness.
>
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
Isn't there an episode of "Friends" on right now. Hurry, don't want to
miss the greatness.
--R
PButler111
>
>--Robert
Since my book about Barry Manilow was published in November, and is currently
being brought out in a second, updated edition, no, I'd say my research is
pretty much over.
PButler111
>without retching. Now get her to leave.
>
>--Robert
Too stupid to learn to use your killfile, eh? Color me shocked.
doc
> Since my book about Barry Manilow was published in November, and is
> currently being brought out in a second, updated edition, no, I'd say my
> research is pretty much over.
On Wed, 17 Jul 2002 21:11:58 -0500 (CDT), hak...@webtv.net (JoeKonrath)
wrote:
>The rabble dictates the worth of any artist.
Bob,
After looking at these two posts, I believe you owe Mr. Konrath an apology.
doc
cmaj7dmin7
"Dr Zen" <gol...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5e7da04d.02071...@posting.google.com...
>
> There's a big difference, Bob, between asking for fair and honest
> critique of your work with a view to improving it and thinking you are
> already there and simply asking for a pat on the back.
>
How's the baby, Davey? She ever come to you with refrigerator magnet art
asking for a fair and honest critique when you know what she really needed
is a pat on the back? In any event, she ever come to you with anything she
created in her hand only to hear you curse abusively at her because you
concluded she only wanted your approval when what you "knew" she needed was
"critique?"
Okay, she's not in a ng when she's doing that and there's not the
competition factor that pervades the writers' group setting; but the analogy
doesn't break down completely. You're dismissing everybody who's not a
really good writer (by your definition) as "simply asking for a pat" when
you neither have a substantive basis to do so nor are you objective enough
to have so concluded. Plus, your style of providing the fair and honest, in
classic, competitive ng fashion, makes brutal honesty look like
paternalistic punch-pulling. I'm not complaining about that as it may or may
have applied to me since I've seen a lot of (editorial if not literary)
merit in your observations, I'm not expecting to write fiction for a living
and it's just as much fun to provoke (and more productive of entertainment)
you as it is to obtain usable guidance.
I/II
R. Westermeyer
>
>Bob,
>
>After looking at these two posts, I believe you owe Mr. Konrath an apology.
>
>doc
I thought you found this sort of thing amusing. "Taunting the
mavins", I think you said in recent email.
--R
Fedallah
Joe Konrath wrote:
> The rabble dictates the worth of any artist. Popular opinion is what
> connotes greatness.
>
> As for those who don't like anything, then the artist fails them. Since
> when are people wrong for their opinion?
They aren't, but since when is an artist nothing more than a
circus act whose success is gauged by however many people
who happen to stumble on his act also happen to like it?
I'd say 99.9% of people would read Beckett's later stuff and
absolutely it. For a few, it's fucking brilliant though.
It's not about trying to please the most people in some
cases. Instead, it's about trying to communicate the
artist's vision to those who want to see/are open to it in
the first place. If the majority aren't, too bad, guess
some work isn't for the majority.
Since when is an artist a failure based soley on the
_number_ of people that happen to like his or her work?
Under your take on things, it's artists who consistently aim
for the lowest common denominator that are the greatest. If
you really want to say "The Bourne Identity" 'r whatever is
more succesful as art than "The SOund and the Fury," the
general American public might even agree with you. And all
200 million would be wrong. (try disagreeing with that
statement, and you'll see your problem: that's my opinion,
which can't be wrong, about there opinion that can't be
wrong about... etc.)
Guess the height of art in the last twenty years has been
something like the "Just Do It" ad campaign for someone with
this "art is a popularity contest" view... look how many
people liked that. I don't see people running around with
pictures of Saramago on their t-shirts, so compared to the
literary genius behind that short piece "just do it," the
guy's a second-rate hack.
> Even the rabble? Artists
> display their work, and if enough people like it, the artist is
> successful. The artist is the one asking for opinions-- the rabble
> can't offer any input unless there is something to view. Once an artist
> takes that risk, he leaves himself open to criticism. And if enough
> people criticize, he's failed.
Bull. Burroughs is another example, he disgusts most
people. There's an almost cult-like devotion to him for
some though. No matter how many might criticize, he's
succeeded in having _his_ vision communicate to _the right_
audience for it. That "right audience" concept is key. Not
all work is meant for every goofball that's able to open a
book.
Rick
Bryan Kolar
is more than a little harsh in this newsgroup, it is just a message on a
screen. If a would-be writer cannot handle criticism from a stranger on the
other end of the faceless internet, they won't last a minute when it comes
time to submit their manuscripts to a publisher.
"Dr Zen" <gol...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5e7da04d.02071...@posting.google.com...
Joe Konrath
------They aren't, but since when is an artist nothing more than a
circus act whose success is gauged by however many people who happen to
stumble on his act also happen to like it?------
So you're saying there are successful artists that no one knows about?
-------I'd say 99.9% of people would read Beckett's later stuff and
absolutely it. For a few, it's fucking brilliant though. It's not about
trying to please the most people in some cases. Instead, it's about
trying to communicate the artist's vision to those who want to see/are
open to it in the first place.---------
So in historical terms, the few dictate greatness rather than the many?
----If the majority aren't, too bad, guess some work isn't for the
majority.
Since when is an artist a failure based soley on the _number_ of people
that happen to like his or her work? -----
Since always. Only a wide acceptance of an artist makes him or her
famous. Art is just a form of entertainment, like sports and games.
-----Under your take on things, it's artists who consistently aim for
the lowest common denominator that are the greatest. If you really want
to say "The Bourne Identity" 'r whatever is more succesful as art than
"The SOund and the Fury," the general American public might even agree
with you. And all 200 million would be wrong. (try disagreeing with that
statement, and you'll see your problem: that's my opinion, which can't
be wrong, about there opinion that can't be wrong about... etc.)----
Hmm, you set yourself up here. 200 million would be wrong according to
1 (you). Time will dictate what survives, your single opinion, or that
of the masses. My money ain't on you.
This isn't saying you're wrong to prefer one to the other, as your
personal taste is valid. But after telling the tenth, hundreth,
thousandth, millionth, hundred millionth person that they are wrong and
you're right won't convince anyone.
-----Guess the height of art in the last twenty years has been something
like the "Just Do It" ad campaign for someone with this "art is a
popularity contest" view... look how many people liked that. I don't see
people running around with pictures of Saramago on their t-shirts, so
compared to the literary genius behind that short piece "just do it,"
the guy's a second-rate hack.------
Wow. You've managed to quantify artistic merit for the entire
population based on your own personal taste. I suppose that's so much
more valuable than what society dictates.
Even the rabble? Artists
display their work, and if enough people like it, the artist is
successful. The artist is the one asking for opinions-- the rabble
can't offer any input unless there is something to view. Once an artist
takes that risk, he leaves himself open to criticism. And if enough
people criticize, he's failed.
------Bull. Burroughs is another example, he disgusts most people.
There's an almost cult-like devotion to him for some though. No matter
how many might criticize, he's succeeded in having _his_ vision
communicate to _the right_ audience for it. That "right audience"
concept is key. Not all work is meant for every goofball that's able to
open a book. ------
And that's why Burroughs will never be taught in schools with the
frequency of Hemingway or Shakepeare.
What don't you get, here? I'm not discounting personal taste, and I
love several ecclectic and unheard of artists.
But the ones who are revered by the most are the ones who have the
biggest impact. Want proof? Ask people to name their favorite composer,
or artist. See how many say Bach and Beethoven, and see how many say
Orf and Listz. How many know the Mona Lisa, and how many know Guarnica.
I could make a vaild arguement that the Carmina Barana is just as
powerful as Ludwig's 5th, but DA DA DA DUM will always be more popular,
and more people can describe the plot of King's Christine than Of Human
Bondage.
Is this fair? Perhaps not. I didn't make the rules. But you're taught
from a young age what art is, and what you're taught it what's
universally recognized as genius based soley on popularity, not based on
any quantifiable measure of genius.
If your goal is to be known as brilliant to a cult following, rather
than be read by millions, then go for it. But to infer that Ludlum is a
lessor writer because of his fame makes very little sense in the long
run.
Joe
fundoc
"Bryan Kolar" <kol...@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:k8JZ8.138$dA2.76...@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
> Gotta say I agree with Zen on this one. Even though the style of critiquing
> is more than a little harsh in this newsgroup, it is just a message on a
> screen. If a would-be writer cannot handle criticism from a stranger on the
> other end of the faceless internet, they won't last a minute when it comes
> time to submit their manuscripts to a publisher.
Publishers don't critique manuscripts, they reject them, and it's unlikely that
they do so by saying dear cunter: you suck, your book sucks and fuck you. Now,
show me your pussy.
Fedallah
Joe Konrath wrote:
Rick:
> I'd say 99.9% of people would read Beckett's later stuff and
> absolutely it. For a few, it's fucking brilliant though. It's not about
> trying to please the most people in some cases. Instead, it's about
> trying to communicate the artist's vision to those who want to see/are
> open to it in the first place.
Joe:
> So in historical terms, the few dictate greatness rather than the many?
Often, yes. If we're going to use the yardstick you try to
sneak in below under the guise of "popularity," anyway:
survival through time.
Look at the nobel prize winners vs. best sellers, etc. One
of the roles of "the Academy"/university system, for right
or wrong, is the canonization of work in our culture
considered great that, quite often, isn't popular.
Acceptance there has much more to do with a work surviving
decades than does something like being at the top of a
bestseller list for weeks on end. Joyce'll still be talked
about 100 years from now, I doubt Sheldon will, though Joyce
rarely moves from the bookshelves in comparison. The
situation is similar to junk science that sells popular
books vs. what makes it into moderated and peer reviewed
journals.
Rick:
> If the majority aren't, too bad, guess some work isn't for the
> majority.
> Since when is an artist a failure based soley on the _number_ of people
> that happen to like his or her work? -----
Joe:
> Since always. Only a wide acceptance of an artist makes him or her
> famous. Art is just a form of entertainment, like sports and games.
Bull again, see above. Unless you're using "wide
acceptance" in an odd sense. I'd lay money on a bet that
Beckett'll still be talked about long after Sheldon and
Clancy are footnotes to literary history.
Rick:
> Under your take on things, it's artists who consistently aim for
> the lowest common denominator that are the greatest. If you really want
> to say "The Bourne Identity" 'r whatever is more succesful as art than
> "The SOund and the Fury," the general American public might even agree
> with you. And all 200 million would be wrong. (try disagreeing with that
> statement, and you'll see your problem: that's my opinion, which can't
> be wrong, about there opinion that can't be wrong about... etc.)----
Joe:
> Hmm, you set yourself up here. 200 million would be wrong according to
> 1 (you). Time will dictate what survives, your single opinion, or that
> of the masses. My money ain't on you.
My money ain't on either me or the masses, but the few whose
lives are dedicated to literature as art and its
preservation: English departments, respected journals and
the like. (btw--In my opinion, they often preserve crap, but
do a better job than the majority at least, anyway.)
Joe:
> This isn't saying you're wrong to prefer one to the other, as your
> personal taste is valid. But after telling the tenth, hundreth,
> thousandth, millionth, hundred millionth person that they are wrong and
> you're right won't convince anyone.
Well, as you've just about summed up again, the whole
"reader is right" now under the guise of "all opinions are
valid" is a truism-that opinion is right for each individual
person. Wow, shocking. But as you said above, time
determines what survives, and mass appeal often has little
to do with that. See above. That's one of the reasons art
isn't another form of entertainment analagous to sports and
the rest. Its continued veneration doesn't depend on
appealing to a mass whose opinion is swayed extremely easily
by whatever publishing companies and the like decide to
flood marketing dollars into.
Rick:
> Guess the height of art in the last twenty years has been something
> like the "Just Do It" ad campaign for someone with this "art is a
> popularity contest" view... look how many people liked that. I don't see
> people running around with pictures of Saramago on their t-shirts, so
> compared to the literary genius behind that short piece "just do it,"
> the guy's a second-rate hack.------
Joe:
> Wow. You've managed to quantify artistic merit for the entire
> population based on your own personal taste. I suppose that's so much
> more valuable than what society dictates.
Well, according to your standards, "just do it" is one of
the greatest works of literature in the past twenty years...
because you think it _can_ be quantified by a numbers count
of who likes it. If you don't think "just do it" is better
art than, say, the work of Saramago, then obviously you're
using some standard beyond what achieves the widest
acceptance.
Joe:
> Even the rabble? Artists
> display their work, and if enough people like it, the artist is
> successful. The artist is the one asking for opinions-- the rabble
> can't offer any input unless there is something to view. Once an artist
> takes that risk, he leaves himself open to criticism. And if enough
> people criticize, he's failed.
Rick:
> Bull. Burroughs is another example, he disgusts most people.
> There's an almost cult-like devotion to him for some though. No matter
> how many might criticize, he's succeeded in having _his_ vision
> communicate to _the right_ audience for it. That "right audience"
> concept is key. Not all work is meant for every goofball that's able to
> open a book. ------
Joe:
> And that's why Burroughs will never be taught in schools with the
> frequency of Hemingway or Shakepeare.
And yet he's already taught in schools where Sheldon et al
won't see the light of day.
Joe:
> What don't you get, here? I'm not discounting personal taste, and I
> love several ecclectic and unheard of artists.
> But the ones who are revered by the most are the ones who have the
> biggest impact. Want proof? Ask people to name their favorite composer,
> or artist. See how many say Bach and Beethoven, and see how many say
> Orf and Listz. How many know the Mona Lisa, and how many know Guarnica.
What don't you get here? The ones that are revered by the
most at any particular time are often the first to go by the
way-side of history. And your examples above show proof...
both Beethoven and Orff are still going to be referenced
long after Britney Spears is hardly remembered. Why?
Because art ain't a popularity contest where what happens to
entertain the most number of people at any given time
survives. If it were, just about every piece and person
you've named above woulda been forgotten long ago,
continually replaced by the artists who happen to catch mass
popularity for a few years.
Joe:
> I could make a vaild arguement that the Carmina Barana is just as
> powerful as Ludwig's 5th, but DA DA DA DUM will always be more popular,
> and more people can describe the plot of King's Christine than Of Human
> Bondage.
I love Carmina Burana, and think Beethoven represents a
certain fall in music. But niether is in the top of the
charts, so according to your take on things, they aren't
very succesful as artists, when compared to Britney Spears.
More people can recognize her lyrics than even know what DA
DA DA DUM has its source in, guess he's a hack compared to
that singer then by your standards.
Joe:
> Is this fair? Perhaps not. I didn't make the rules. But you're taught
> from a young age what art is, and what you're taught it what's
> universally recognized as genius based soley on popularity, not based on
> any quantifiable measure of genius.
Even if we're going to use the yardstick of "what survives
generations", it's popularity among a self-appointed
elite--who take an interest in literature as art and not
mere vehicle for entertainment-- that has much more of a
role in determining survival and enshrinement as Art than
does mass appeal or popularity at any given time.
Joe:
> If your goal is to be known as brilliant to a cult following, rather
> than be read by millions, then go for it. But to infer that Ludlum is a
> lessor writer because of his fame makes very little sense in the long
> run.
Two straw men. First, this has little to do with what my
goals are, we're talking about a general point. Second, I
never inferred, nevermind claimed, that mass popularity made
something less worthy as art. What I did claim was that it
doesn't _determine_ what's worthy as art. If you really
think worthiness of art is determined by popularity, I don't
see how you avoid claiming that "just do it" is better art
than Hemingway. If that's the case, I can't think of much
more of a response than a shoulder shrug.
But of course, you've been trying to use two standards and
sneak them in as the same thing: Mass appeal and lengthy
survival as something recognized as artistically worthy.
The two often don't coincide. Thank god. I'd hate to hear
Spears' butchering of the Stones being piped over whatever
media we're using 20 years from now.
Rick
Pat J O'Brien
I hand you a straight line like "Uh-oh, I think my mom and dad are home.
Gotta go," and, "better go shove those cum towels to the bottom of the
hamper," is the best you can do?
The for the love of God, man, show me some wit,
Pat
p.s.
You'll let me know if that's asking too much?
"R. Westermeyer" <wst...@cts.com> wrote in message
news:9kvbjushm3mjc5d1c...@4ax.com...
Opus
> majority.
> Since when is an artist a failure based soley on the _number_ of people
> that happen to like his or her work? -----
>
> Since always. Only a wide acceptance of an artist makes him or her
> famous. Art is just a form of entertainment, like sports and games.
>
and bitterness, IF you lump it into such a highly subjective category as
you've done.
Picasso would roll over in his grave at your ignorance. "Art is an act
of war." HIS quote. He NEVER created Francis of Guernica with the
explicit purpose of "going commercial." He eschewed that line of bogus
thinking, and believed strongly that his paintings spurred nations to
war; that his paintings were political motivators and created change for
the common good. And yet, he blows your argument to hell with the
simple historical fact that he was one of the most popular painters to
the masses of his time. But it sure as hell wasn't his commercial
successes that made him great: it was his quirk of having the ovaries
to think outside the standard box, and get off his ass and use the gift
he was given for something other than adorning walls. Someone very
precious said to me recently that he found beauty in talent, and not the
other way around. I think this a beautiful sentiment, and would like to
believe that more people feel this way than are attributed.
For some artists, art is a form of therapy, of self-expression. Still
for others, it's a representation of visible reality or of private
visions. For still others, it may simply be a job, and that's the
barometer you seem to be fixated on.
Do you REALLY think Mozart, Bach and Beethoven, who died penniless, btw,
are *really* being taught in schools today because they were so damned
popular at the time? HAH. Each one of those men crawled, clawed,
begged, borrowed and in some cases stole, just to earn *some* semblance
of respect for what they did, and even in their meagre successes, most
of it was begrudged them. They were treated like indentured servants,
made to leave like cattle by way of the kitchen back door.
There are different reasons a person creates other than to become
"famous" as you put it. *I* know what fame is. I've been scrutinised
over my hair colour and mascara preferences, and people have recognised
me buying cat litter. Trust me, it's neither all it's cracked up to be,
nor is it a sole reason to be creative and engage within the arts. It's
as fickle a reason as Donald Trump selling buildings simply to make a
buck.
And what of the constant division between critics and the masses? Are
all of those book reviewers in the Washington Post constantly wrong for
running new novelists into the ground, based solely on their track
records for commercial appeal and success to the masses?
Who wins?
I'd wager you believe no one, just as I do.
> Hmm, you set yourself up here. 200 million would be wrong according to
> 1 (you). Time will dictate what survives, your single opinion, or that
> of the masses. My money ain't on you.
>
Again I ask you: who said MONEY was the motivating and determining
factor for whether art is really great?
Do you *really* believe the movie Titanic was an artful masterpiece,
worthy of being taught? Nuff said.
NOT EVERYONE IS ATTRACTED TO ART FOR THE SAME REASONS! You're lumping
everything into one single, subjective category again.
> Wow. You've managed to quantify artistic merit for the entire
> population based on your own personal taste. I suppose that's so much
> more valuable than what society dictates.
>
Sounds like what you're doing, only on a much larger scale. Society, is
a general term you've applied, and means nothing. I think it's about as
stupid to think that the general population is smart enough to purchase
any form of art based on their intimate intuition that it's "great," as
it is to think that George Bush really believed he was doing the country
political benedicite when he declared war on Afghanistan. It was far
deeper motivated than our chivalry or his personal anger, and he knew
it.
Society's people are sheep. They're dumber than cucumbers. And
generally, it is their latest flight of fancy -- their fickle impulses
-- that determine whether they feel like Harry Potter or War & Peace in
the checkout lane. That, and a pretty book jacket.
Based on your argument, it must be the models and beautiful actresses
that also set the standard for beauty in this county, because it is THEY
who are vaunted and publicised for their stunning beauty, based on the
public's seeming hunger for more of it. Having a hard time swallowing
THAT one in my personal life as of late, and this is bullshit as well.
> And if enough
> people criticize, he's failed.
>
Hardly. People criticise for differed and varying reasons. Ever kick
the dog just after a fight with a spouse? Anger and belittlement are
hardly ever based on solid, non-judgemental reasoning.
> And that's why Burroughs will never be taught in schools with the
> frequency of Hemingway or Shakepeare.
>
Bullshit reasoning. We studied a hell of a lot of obscure artists while
I was in college pursuing my jazz trumpet degree. Why? Because the
public bought their records and made them successful? NO. Because the
instructors had the taste and intelligence to recognise their merit, NOT
based on successful sales, but because of their inherent qualities that
spoke to them on some sub-level, and the college I attended was second
in merit only to Berkeley, in Boston, for its COMMERCIAL music program.
What's that? Commerciality AND artistic integrity residing within the
same school's four walls? You betcha. It CAN be reconciled if you stop
assigning generalities and lumping it all into subjective categories.
> Is this fair? Perhaps not. I didn't make the rules.
>
Ah, but such an easy way out, don't you think? By propagating the idea,
you're supporting it. And you've certainly been arguing FOR it the last
two days. Can't have it both ways.
> But you're taught
> from a young age what art is,
>
Since when? Since when does ANYONE know categorically just what the
hell art is? Please, give me the name of the school in which you
received this priceless gem, for I want it, and I know many of my peers
and colleagues have been ceaselessly searching for this answer for eons.
> and what you're taught it what's
> universally recognized as genius based soley on popularity, not based on
> any quantifiable measure of genius.
>
Again, pure bullshit.
Genius: another subjective term, and I know whereof I speak, for I have
experience in this area as well.
Opus
MerryKat
>
>
> Do you *really* believe the movie Titanic was an artful masterpiece,
> worthy of being taught? Nuff said.
>
>
BRAVO!! Yeah. ;-> Thank you, my dear, for saying this. The over rating
of this movie has sorely grieved me.
Was it art?
Cinematography? I've seen better. Give me Ford's 'The Searchers'
desert, that's my art.
Plot? There was a plot? You mean that whole nonsensical string of
clichés was supposed to be a plot?
But, it was an art work of money. That can not be denied. More people
saw 'Titanic' than have probably ever even heard of 'Citizen Kane'.
There are levels here.
I come from a place where people discuss the finer points of
infomercials. :-<
What is art?
That debate is very old and I don't think there will ever be a declared
winner.
Entertainment is diversion, play. Art can come from that.
There is popular and that usually lasts for about five minutes to a few
years. Let's see the raised hands for the artistry in 'Dallas'. It was
very popular, but was it art?
How about 'Jaws'?
Let's not forget that Van Gough died a failure.
Shakespeare was the soap opera of his day.
I've seen sports photos that were beautiful. Can anyone deny the
artistry of Lipenskie's gold medal free skate?
Art is one of those confusing, fuzzy, subjective things that will never
be totally pinned down.
MerryKat
Fedallah
MerryKat wrote:
>
> Opus wrote:
> >
> >
> > Do you *really* believe the movie Titanic was an artful masterpiece,
> > worthy of being taught? Nuff said.
> >
> >
> > Opus
>
> BRAVO!! Yeah. ;-> Thank you, my dear, for saying this. The over rating
> of this movie has sorely grieved me.
> Was it art?
> Cinematography? I've seen better. Give me Ford's 'The Searchers'
> desert, that's my art.
> Plot? There was a plot? You mean that whole nonsensical string of
> clichés was supposed to be a plot?
(yeah, I was dragged to it, got my revenge by dragging her
to "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" though, heh.)
There is one moment that coulda made the movie for me,
though. The near final scenes where leowhoever is hanging
on to whatever it is she's floating on. If she'd started
pushing him off, calling him a selfish a-hole for adding
weight to her one chance at survivng, I'd have gotten a kick
out of the movie at least.
Rick
doc
I would have been amused if she'd fallen off the bow when she was leaning
over it and got caught in the screws.
Or at least gotten a facefull of flying fish.
I'm a hopeless romantic.
doc
Opus
> > worthy of being taught? Nuff said.
> >
> >
> > Opus
>
>
> BRAVO!! Yeah. ;-> Thank you, my dear, for saying this.
>
I don't. Have big shoulders.
But you're still most welcome.
Opus
Opus
> to "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" though, heh.)
>
BLOW rocked too.
Opus
Opus
> over it and got caught in the screws.
>
> Or at least gotten a facefull of flying fish.
>
> I'm a hopeless romantic.
>
> doc
>
Opus, the innocent
PButler111
>saw 'Titanic' than have probably ever even heard of 'Citizen Kane'.
That's just a ridiculous statement.
Dr Zen
> "Dr Zen" <gol...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:5e7da04d.02071...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > There's a big difference, Bob, between asking for fair and honest
> > critique of your work with a view to improving it and thinking you are
> > already there and simply asking for a pat on the back.
> >
> > Zen
>
> How's the baby, Davey?
She's kewl, Mr Collier.
>She ever come to you with refrigerator magnet art
> asking for a fair and honest critique when you know what she really needed
> is a pat on the back? In any event, she ever come to you with anything she
> created in her hand only to hear you curse abusively at her because you
> concluded she only wanted your approval when what you "knew" she needed was
> "critique?"
That's a kid coming to daddy, chordboy. You might see yourself as
daddy to the posters here, but you're not actually in that
relationship.
> Okay, she's not in a ng when she's doing that and there's not the
> competition factor that pervades the writers' group setting; but the analogy
> doesn't break down completely. You're dismissing everybody who's not a
> really good writer (by your definition) as "simply asking for a pat" when
> you neither have a substantive basis to do so nor are you objective enough
> to have so concluded.
Come on, chordboy, i'm doing no such thing. I'm saying that those who
whine when they get a bad critique are doing that. I don't dismiss the
poor writers. I try to help them.
> Plus, your style of providing the fair and honest, in
> classic, competitive ng fashion, makes brutal honesty look like
> paternalistic punch-pulling.
I don't have to be nice to be helpful. Indeed, I take the Bukowski
line. I'm being more friendly by being harsh and not allowing the
writer to take the bigger fall later.
> I'm not complaining about that as it may or may
> have applied to me since I've seen a lot of (editorial if not literary)
> merit in your observations, I'm not expecting to write fiction for a living
> and it's just as much fun to provoke (and more productive of entertainment)
> you as it is to obtain usable guidance.
Then what's your fucking point?
Zen
MerryKat
lifeboat, he should have looked at her and laughed and said 'All right
silly bitch, from here on out you're on your own.' ;->
MerryKat
Ejucaided Redneck
> There is one moment that coulda made the movie for me,
> though. The near final scenes where leowhoever is hanging
> on to whatever it is she's floating on. If she'd started
> pushing him off, calling him a selfish a-hole for adding
> weight to her one chance at survivng, I'd have gotten a kick
> out of the movie at least.
> Rick
Ever seen the version with Clifton Webb and Barbara Stanwyck?
I saw it as a little kid and had nightmares afterward.
And they did _that_ one without computerized special effects.
--
Father forgive us for what we must do,
You forgive us and we'll forgive you.
We'll forgive each other till we both turn blue
Then we'll whistle and go fishin' into heaven.
-- John Prine ("Fish and Whistle")
--
New stories, new essays, new pages:
http://bobsloan.home.mindspring.com/
MerryKat
MerryKat
Anopheles
"doc" wrote:
What do you think she was hoping for, Doc? OIC, those screws...
> Or at least gotten a facefull of flying fish.
>
> I'm a hopeless romantic.
Oh, I dunno. There may be a gliimmer of hope. Those fish are gross.
Carry on.
The recently returned Anopheles
.
Allegory60
a few things to add.
I submit that there is no "right or wrong" when it comes to art. Beyond enough
clarity to be able to communicate (grammar, punctuation, etc.) it is wholly
subjective and not to be determined by voting, or mass appeal. Fashion changes
as much as Daddy's mood or Alaric's wit. ha.
The arguments about who and what are "great" are tail-chasing time wasters. It
seems in the field of literature there have been many and sundry contributions
by folks who were failures in their interpersonal relations--pretty much
undesirables in every other measurable respect. So what?
As for "defending" one's work after a critique, I try to think of it as one
subjective view--if my bullshit meter goes off, then I discount much of what is
said about my work and look for that "diamond" in the bullshit. I don't let it
warp my sense of self or my work or my direction regardless of the criticism.
I know my capabilities and know too they are slowly improving.
I would think in a real-time group where there have been problems with
harangues and enmity developing, that a "gag" rule for the writer would at
least allow others to speak out freely, but being a free-speech kinda guy I
feel that life and critiques sometimes need to be chaotic in order to reach the
goal of helping the writer to improve. There's a wee bit of "professional
asscork" in most of us, myself included. I tend to be "too right" much of the
time, because, like you, I am blinded, or partially so, by the vividness of my
perceptions.
Tolerance is the key. A gag rule might help a particular group, and might even
be seen to be polite. I like to let my writing speak for itself, understanding
that nimrods will have their say, and nothing--absolutely nothing--they say can
change my work without my consent.
Hank
Allegory60
>Really? You don't know me, you've never spoken to me, you obviously have
>never
>bothered to even so much as check out my posting history, yet you make up an
>insulting name for me and post an overlong rant against me, full of lies,
>cross-posting it to as many groups as possible. That wasn't meant as a
>personal attack? Kindly explain how it could possibly be interpreted any
>other
>way.
Welcome to AFO, bitch. You got some fucking good fiction to post?
Love,
Hank
Allegory60
>>Go away. Don't you have some research on Barry Manablow to complete?
>>
>>--Robert
>
>Since my book about Barry Manilow was published in November, and is currently
>being brought out in a second, updated edition, no, I'd say my research is
>pretty much over.
I hear there's a marvelous fold out photo 9 pages long of his nose.
Hank
Allegory60
>without retching. Now get her to leave.
>
>--Robert
You sure retch a bunch, Robert. Pepto?
Hank
Allegory60
>who argue with a critique are in the latter camp or a troll like our
>friend Westermeyer, who's looking for a horse to ride, and does so in
>varied newsgroups.
Bob's a troll? Damn! Who'da thunk it? I always thought he was a pretty
outspoken member of the cozy group here! Bob, booby, say it ain't so, man, say
it ain't so!
Hank the Trollgnome
Allegory60
>line. I'm being more friendly by being harsh and not allowing the
>writer to take the bigger fall later.
>
This is the biggest mistake a reviewer can make--thinking that by being harsh
they are actually "helping" a writer, saving him from some big let down later.
Why not just show up at his house and shoot the fucker--wouldn't that save him
from any future failure? Listen, bub, if the message is sprinkled with abuse,
it WON'T BE HEARD, much less acted upon. Clean up your act. The WAY you say
things in life is as important as WHAT you say. Fuckin' A.
Hank
Alaric
Yayyyyyyyyyyy.
Parrrrrrrrttyyyyyyyyy.
"Allegory60" <alleg...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020719142938...@mb-bh.aol.com...
PButler111
Sorry, but I get paid for my fucking good work. I'll leave the posting to you.
Alaric
They're young and they have each other. Who could ask for more?
"PButler111" <pbutl...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020719143440...@mb-fg.aol.com...
Alaric
"cmaj7dmin7" <rei...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:sbDZ8.1177$rw4.39...@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Dr Zen" <gol...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:5e7da04d.02071...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > There's a big difference, Bob, between asking for fair and honest
> > critique of your work with a view to improving it and thinking you are
> > already there and simply asking for a pat on the back.
> >
> > Zen
>
> How's the baby, Davey? She ever come to you with refrigerator magnet art
> asking for a fair and honest critique when you know what she really needed
> is a pat on the back? In any event, she ever come to you with anything she
> created in her hand only to hear you curse abusively at her because you
> concluded she only wanted your approval when what you "knew" she needed
was
> "critique?"
>
> Okay, she's not in a ng when she's doing that and there's not the
> competition factor that pervades the writers' group setting; but the
analogy
> doesn't break down completely. You're dismissing everybody who's not a
> really good writer (by your definition) as "simply asking for a pat" when
> you neither have a substantive basis to do so nor are you objective enough
> to have so concluded. Plus, your style of providing the fair and honest,
in
> classic, competitive ng fashion, makes brutal honesty look like
> paternalistic punch-pulling. I'm not complaining about that as it may or
may
> have applied to me since I've seen a lot of (editorial if not literary)
> merit in your observations, I'm not expecting to write fiction for a
living
> and it's just as much fun to provoke (and more productive of
entertainment)
> you as it is to obtain usable guidance.
>
> I/II
>
>
Allegory60
A hooker, eh? Well, now that we've established your calling, what is your price
scale?
Hank
Allegory60
>Bloody hell, Hank. We agree.
>
>Yayyyyyyyyyyy.
>
>Parrrrrrrrttyyyyyyyyy.
>
Wonders never grease.
Hank
R. Westermeyer
Five dollars, and that includes a vomit bucket.
--R
roy anderson
relieve some pressure on poor ole Joe?
> > ----If the majority aren't, too bad, guess some work isn't for the
> > majority.
> > Since when is an artist a failure based soley on the _number_ of people
> > that happen to like his or her work? -----
> >
> > Since always. Only a wide acceptance of an artist makes him or her
> > famous. Art is just a form of entertainment, like sports and games.
> >
> No, no, no, no, no. Tired argument that leads to nothing but anarchy
> and bitterness, IF you lump it into such a highly subjective category as
> you've done.
>
> Picasso would roll over in his grave at your ignorance. "Art is an act
> of war." HIS quote. He NEVER created Francis of Guernica with the
Couldn't find that quote anywhere, even with a google search. Did find
a great "Art is a lie..." quote by him though.
> explicit purpose of "going commercial." He eschewed that line of bogus
> thinking, and believed strongly that his paintings spurred nations to
> war; that his paintings were political motivators and created change for
Really dubious on this. I think he painted what he liked to paint. To
the best of my limited knowledge Guernica was the only actual
"political" painting he ever made. Further, as far as commerciality
goes, he was contracted to paint a mural for the 1937 World's Fair in
Paris. Guernica was that mural. The fact that he took advantage of a
sounding post he'd been given is kind of irrelevant, he was still paid
for a job.
> the common good. And yet, he blows your argument to hell with the
> simple historical fact that he was one of the most popular painters to
> the masses of his time. But it sure as hell wasn't his commercial
> successes that made him great: it was his quirk of having the ovaries
> to think outside the standard box, and get off his ass and use the gift
> he was given for something other than adorning walls. Someone very
> precious said to me recently that he found beauty in talent, and not the
> other way around. I think this a beautiful sentiment, and would like to
> believe that more people feel this way than are attributed.
>
> For some artists, art is a form of therapy, of self-expression. Still
> for others, it's a representation of visible reality or of private
> visions. For still others, it may simply be a job, and that's the
> barometer you seem to be fixated on.
>
> Do you REALLY think Mozart, Bach and Beethoven, who died penniless, btw,
> are *really* being taught in schools today because they were so damned
> popular at the time? HAH. Each one of those men crawled, clawed,
> begged, borrowed and in some cases stole, just to earn *some* semblance
> of respect for what they did, and even in their meagre successes, most
> of it was begrudged them. They were treated like indentured servants,
> made to leave like cattle by way of the kitchen back door.
>
> There are different reasons a person creates other than to become
> "famous" as you put it. *I* know what fame is. I've been scrutinised
> over my hair colour and mascara preferences, and people have recognised
> me buying cat litter. Trust me, it's neither all it's cracked up to be,
> nor is it a sole reason to be creative and engage within the arts. It's
> as fickle a reason as Donald Trump selling buildings simply to make a
> buck.
>
> And what of the constant division between critics and the masses? Are
> all of those book reviewers in the Washington Post constantly wrong for
> running new novelists into the ground, based solely on their track
> records for commercial appeal and success to the masses?
All that being said (and I do agree with just about everything you've
said), there *still* has to be some quantifiable way to determine a
"successful" artist/writer/scientist/politician/etc... Eschewing money
(aka, how much a work sells for, how many copies are sold, etc...),
what else can we use? I could say popularity or influence, but they
both go hand in hand and eventually pair up with money at some point.
A literary quote I once read was that "If your book's still being
published 50 years after you wrote it, it's a classic."
Hmm.
Kind of rambling here, sorry if I'm not making coherent sense. Guess
my point is that I see where Joe is coming from. There *has got* to be
a certain amount of popularity for an artist of any stripe to make
history (or even make the last page in the newspapers "community"
section). It just doesn't happen any other way. You can say artists
create music/art/stories/theorems for many reasons other than
popularity/money and that talent's in the eye of the beholder, however
my kid can fingerpaint till the cows come home and I'd love every one,
but if he's not generating wide-spread interest, no museum will ever
commission him to paint for an exhibition.
-Roy
Joe Konrath
Hi Roy--
I'd be more than happy to purchase your child's finger paintings for
several thousand dollars. Or I'll make an even swap for some of my
son's Play-Doh sculpture (everything's an ashtray, and I don't even
smoke).
On a related note, I remember on the news last year---- some snooty art
school had a competition, and several 'experts' in the field judged a
certain watercolor to be a masterpiece. It was later revealed that the
artist was a child just playing with paint. Does that take away from
the power of the work?
Anyway, for my final word on the subject of art, all of you lovely
Joe-bashers can check out the thread that the astute PP began in my name
(Ping) Joe Konrath. I replied under my DarthAss moniker.
Compelling discussion-- thanks to all who gave input.
Joe Konrath
Alaric
"R. Westermeyer" <wst...@cts.com> wrote in message
news:5gsgjuk56gei9at8c...@4ax.com...
Fedallah
Ejucaided Redneck wrote:
>
> Fedallah wrote:
>
> > There is one moment that coulda made the movie for me,
> > though. The near final scenes where leowhoever is hanging
> > on to whatever it is she's floating on. If she'd started
> > pushing him off, calling him a selfish a-hole for adding
> > weight to her one chance at survivng, I'd have gotten a kick
> > out of the movie at least.
>
> > Rick
>
> Ever seen the version with Clifton Webb and Barbara Stanwyck?
>
> I saw it as a little kid and had nightmares afterward.
>
> And they did _that_ one without computerized special effects.
Sounds interesting, I'd like a dark take on this story
without all the romantomelo-drama. But I think I know the
ending already. The boat sinks.
Rick
Alaric
Latest scores:-
Titanic 1 A Night To Remember 101
Bloody top posters.
"Fedallah" <reha...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3D38CCEC...@earthlink.net...
gretchen bourquin
responsibility to hear the reader out when he/she is making a comment or
suggestion. It is the reader's responsibility to comment as constructively
as possible, and back negative comments with good reasons. Readers always
bring their own lives into whatever they read and they writer should
consider this too when considering the feedback. What come out in the end
in ultimately up to the writer, and it is up to him/her to decide if he has
been successful in reaching the audience he she wants to reach.news:1vsbju0bbphh6q1gg...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 17 Jul 2002 17:01:22 -0500 (CDT), Dart...@webtv.net wrote:
>
>
>
> Actually Web tv playname,
>
> Your reasoning is as tarry as a geriatric stool. When Bunuel's film
> Un Chien Andalou was released, it was torn to shreds by the critics,
> and I believe the theatre was destroyed by the audience (Un Chien or
> L'age D'or, can't remember). We can think of numerous similar episodes
> in which the majority opinion was downright narrow and that time would
> be the barometer of an artwork's worth. YOu give far too much credit
> to "the reader", which, by the way, includes the rabble. Some people
> are doomed to be chronically disappointed, or "failed" as you put it.
>
> By the way, YOu might consider a new nickname. It interferes with any
> serious discussion you might have here. Sounds like some avatar on
> Runescape.
>
> Love and Kisses,
>
> Robert
>
>
> >Joe
> >Now wait one minute. So what you're saying is that ANY reader is ALWAYS
> >right. Ha. As I said earlier, it is best to consider all the feedback
> >you can get, but occasionally, you will be met with someone whose
> >critique is driven by a different motive. When I first came here, I
> >posted a parody of the last supper that involved heroin and lemons
> >instead of bread and wine. It offended some religious person, who
> >attacked the story because she was angry about the content. If some
> >beach read nimrod puts down Faulkner's Sound and the Fury and says, this
> >is terrible. I don't get it, bye your statements, Faulkner has not
> >written it correctly.
> >--Robert
> >
> >I stated in my earlier post, every piece of writing is bound to fail
> >somebody. The less people you fail, the more successful the piece.
> >
> >In the above mentioned case, Faulkner failed that particular nimrod. If
> >everyone agreed with said nimrod, Faulkner would not be famous.
> >
> >But while personal taste is subjective, the abilty to conform to a
> >narrative structure is less so. It's easy to weed out those who dislike
> >theme vs. those who feel the format could be improved.
> >
> >Still, in either case, responding to critiques is needless. If a reader
> >didn't like your work, you failed that reader. Try to learn something
> >from the experience-- and it may be nothing more than, "Man, that guy's
> >a nimrod."
> >
> >Joe
>
Bryan Kolar
valid. Rejection hurts, whether it comes from some loudmouth on a ng or in
the form of a returned manuscript with a lot of scribbling on it.
"fundoc" <fun...@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:5_LZ8.168960$GY.55...@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
>
> "Bryan Kolar" <kol...@swbell.net> wrote in message
> news:k8JZ8.138$dA2.76...@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
>
> > Gotta say I agree with Zen on this one. Even though the style of
critiquing
> > is more than a little harsh in this newsgroup, it is just a message on a
> > screen. If a would-be writer cannot handle criticism from a stranger on
the
> > other end of the faceless internet, they won't last a minute when it
comes
> > time to submit their manuscripts to a publisher.
>
> Publishers don't critique manuscripts, they reject them, and it's unlikely
that
> they do so by saying dear cunter: you suck, your book sucks and fuck you.
Now,
> show me your pussy.
>
>
Opus
> > Picasso would roll over in his grave at your ignorance. "Art is an act
> > of war." HIS quote. He NEVER created Francis of Guernica with the
>
> Couldn't find that quote anywhere, even with a google search. Did find
> a great "Art is a lie..." quote by him though.
>
I took it from a play based on the creation of his painting, Francis of
Guernica. I will definitely hunt down the source however, since I know
the playwright and he was the one who found it. I can't remember where
he said he found it, though.
Okay, found it. Picasso was not attributed with the original quote,
because he took an avant garde mantra from years before and reworded it,
thus ending up with "Painting is an instrument of war." I think that's
why it's not found in any of the quotes. Apologies on the confusion.
Here is his actual quote which I condensed:
'Art is not for decorating the walls. Painting is an instrument of war,
of war, to be waged against brutality and darkness.' "
But I did find this one, which applies nicely to what we were
discussing.
"The people who make art their business are mostly impostors."
> > explicit purpose of "going commercial." He eschewed that line of bogus
> > thinking, and believed strongly that his paintings spurred nations to
> > war; that his paintings were political motivators and created change for
>
> Really dubious on this. I think he painted what he liked to paint.
>
Well, that's your right, to be dubious. However, my quote above should
alleviate your dubiousness on that account. Of course he painted what
he wanted: the man was an egotistical, solipsistic, self-aggrandising
bastard; he could do pretty much what he wanted and still be worshipped.
But he never created art with the express intent of selling it, or doing
it because commerciality was his goal. Big difference in painting what
you want because you want to, and painting something because you know it
will sell.
> To
> the best of my limited knowledge Guernica was the only actual
> "political" painting he ever made. Further, as far as commerciality
> goes, he was contracted to paint a mural for the 1937 World's Fair in
> Paris. Guernica was that mural. The fact that he took advantage of a
> sounding post he'd been given is kind of irrelevant, he was still paid
> for a job.
>
Actually, you've almost got it. Picasso's "Guernica" came out of his
distress at, and which expresses revulsion at the bombing of the Basque
capital by Franco's German allies in 1937. It was commissioned by the
Republican government of Spain for a canvas for its Paris World's Fair
pavilion. This subject was however, near and dear to his heart FIRST,
as his native Spain.
I don't think I agree that he took advantage of the commission; I think
it was in his nature to do such a thing to begin with, for he 1) hated
commissions with a passion, and 2) didn't play upon the commercial
situation of Guernica's bombing at the time, he merely was haunted by
it, and as was true to his style and nature, decided to use his art as
his therapy.
> Kind of rambling here, sorry if I'm not making coherent sense. Guess
> my point is that I see where Joe is coming from. There *has got* to be
> a certain amount of popularity for an artist of any stripe to make
> history (or even make the last page in the newspapers "community"
> section).
>
As an actor who works in the biz, I see no reason why people strive for
"fame." And to me, becoming an artist with the express intent of
seeking popularity or making history, is just about as stupid AND
fickle. One thing that hasn't been broached within this subject yet, is
the fact that by allowing the taste of the masses to define what is
great or not, you the artist, is allowing others to define YOU, and
that's dangerous as well. You're putting the fate of how you see
yourself into the hands of people who don't give a rat's ass about you.
For anyone to sit down and write with only the intent of becoming
published, is a precarious position, to say the least. And I'm not
saying that it's bad to want to be published, for why create if you
don't intend to show it to someone? But what I'm saying, is that the
motive to create because there is a NEED to create, must reside within
you first. The rest is merely gravy.
> It just doesn't happen any other way. You can say artists
> create music/art/stories/theorems for many reasons other than
> popularity/money and that talent's in the eye of the beholder, however
> my kid can fingerpaint till the cows come home and I'd love every one,
> but if he's not generating wide-spread interest, no museum will ever
> commission him to paint for an exhibition.
>
And you've come full circle to prove my point: exhibition is not the
barometer of greatness, neither is publication, being recorded or even
television appearances. It is only a side-effect of creation, and to
seek it, means you've got your priorities fucked. For it was THIS point
that grated on me from Mr. Konrath. Somewhere along the line, either he
decided, or someone convinced him that art would never be great unless
it was widely recognised: that it would never have worth unless someone
else said it did. That's bullshit, for there are other, less public
factors that determine greatness than the fickle decisions of a buying
public -- and within this dubious economy, even THAT variable will never
be equal.
Create because you have a need in you to do so; create because to NOT
create would mean certain insanity. But for god's sake, define your OWN
annotation for greatness, and fuck the rest of the commercial world.
That's EXACTLY why there is so much bad/hack work out there: because
people are seeking to mass produce, instead of simply enjoying the
creative process.
Opus
Opus
> Joe-bashers can check out the thread that the astute PP began in my name
> (Ping) Joe Konrath. I replied under my DarthAss moniker.
>
perhaps I am glad you have ended this discussion, for your emotional
immaturity is surely beginning to show. Yes, I saw your comments in
that particular thread, and see that to prolong this agony would only
make the Gods weep further, so I will lay it to rest.
Besides; I don't ever want anyone thinking that my doling out mere ideas
that happen to conflict and reside on the opposite end of the spectrum
as me "bashing" them. Funny; it was okay when you and Fedallah swapped
personal truths, but I'll be damned: the moment others jumped into the
fray and you felt outnumbered, you pulled out. You didn't even have the
common courtesy to respond directly to my post, and in that regard, I
have no more use for you. I presented my arguments in what I felt to be
a concise, well thought out and on-topic manner, free from personal
bashing, and you immediately take the stance that you are being
attacked. I had no axe to grind with you personally, but then again, I
shouldn't have had to explain that.
Whatever. I wish you thicker skin and more fortitude than you've
demonstrated here.
Opus
Roy Anderson
Konrath) wrote:
>
>Hi Roy--
>
>I'd be more than happy to purchase your child's finger paintings for
>several thousand dollars. Or I'll make an even swap for some of my
>son's Play-Doh sculpture (everything's an ashtray, and I don't even
>smoke).
Crude philistine! I'll accept nothing less than 1 million dollars!
>On a related note, I remember on the news last year---- some snooty art
>school had a competition, and several 'experts' in the field judged a
>certain watercolor to be a masterpiece. It was later revealed that the
>artist was a child just playing with paint. Does that take away from
>the power of the work?
Haha
Yeah, I remember that too. It was a museum in NYC, can't recall which
though. Kinda shows how *SNOOTINESS* retracts back on itself like that
cheap green goo you can buy in supermarket quarter machines. Anyone
can splatter colors randomly on anything and call it art, and those
people who stare at this shit all day can develop their "artistic
mind" (aka, *SNOOTINESS*) to the point where they start seeing
masterpieces in ink blots and kids fingerpaint. In the end, it all
comes down to where the rubber meets the road.
-Roy (hoisting the anchor, unfurling the sails, and setting course
dead ahead. pretentiousness has been spotted in afo)
Joe Konrath
Hmm-- why is it when I mentioned being made fun of that everyone
automatically thinks I was referring to them?
Joe
Roy Anderson
wrote:
>Hi Roy,
>
>> > Picasso would roll over in his grave at your ignorance. "Art is an act
>> > of war." HIS quote. He NEVER created Francis of Guernica with the
>>
>> Couldn't find that quote anywhere, even with a google search. Did find
>> a great "Art is a lie..." quote by him though.
>>
>I took it from a play based on the creation of his painting, Francis of
>Guernica. I will definitely hunt down the source however, since I know
>the playwright and he was the one who found it. I can't remember where
>he said he found it, though.
>
>Okay, found it. Picasso was not attributed with the original quote,
>because he took an avant garde mantra from years before and reworded it,
>thus ending up with "Painting is an instrument of war." I think that's
>why it's not found in any of the quotes. Apologies on the confusion.
>Here is his actual quote which I condensed:
>
>'Art is not for decorating the walls. Painting is an instrument of war,
>of war, to be waged against brutality and darkness.' "
>
>But I did find this one, which applies nicely to what we were
>discussing.
>
>"The people who make art their business are mostly impostors."
Hmm. Just his opinion. Kind of a boomerang effect there as well, since
art was his business. In a similar vein, why should Picasso's opinion
matter at all? Why are you using it as a kind of argument in of
itself? Could it be because his mainstream success determines the
value of his opinion? I'll get a quote from crackhead J down the
block and see if his comments carry as much weight. His graffiti is
everywhere.
>> > explicit purpose of "going commercial." He eschewed that line of bogus
>> > thinking, and believed strongly that his paintings spurred nations to
>> > war; that his paintings were political motivators and created change for
>>
>> Really dubious on this. I think he painted what he liked to paint.
>>
>Well, that's your right, to be dubious. However, my quote above should
>alleviate your dubiousness on that account. Of course he painted what
>he wanted: the man was an egotistical, solipsistic, self-aggrandising
>bastard; he could do pretty much what he wanted and still be worshipped.
Hmm. Just like <cough>britneyspears or eminem<cough>or
georgelucas<coughcough>.
>But he never created art with the express intent of selling it, or doing
>it because commerciality was his goal. Big difference in painting what
>you want because you want to, and painting something because you know it
>will sell.
Uh huh. Talk to Katrina at the coffee shop.
Question: how does one determine the "big difference" between
something created for appreciation by the masses at large, or for
something created for appreciation by the individual?
>> To
>> the best of my limited knowledge Guernica was the only actual
>> "political" painting he ever made. Further, as far as commerciality
>> goes, he was contracted to paint a mural for the 1937 World's Fair in
>> Paris. Guernica was that mural. The fact that he took advantage of a
>> sounding post he'd been given is kind of irrelevant, he was still paid
>> for a job.
>
>Actually, you've almost got it. Picasso's "Guernica" came out of his
>distress at, and which expresses revulsion at the bombing of the Basque
>capital by Franco's German allies in 1937. It was commissioned by the
>Republican government of Spain for a canvas for its Paris World's Fair
>pavilion. This subject was however, near and dear to his heart FIRST,
>as his native Spain.
So, he took advantage of the sounding post he'd been given....
>I don't think I agree that he took advantage of the commission; I think
>it was in his nature to do such a thing to begin with, for he 1) hated
>commissions with a passion, and 2) didn't play upon the commercial
>situation of Guernica's bombing at the time, he merely was haunted by
>it, and as was true to his style and nature, decided to use his art as
>his therapy.
...and was still paid for a job.
Think you mighta misinterpreted me there, I wasn't saying it wasn't an
important topic for him, I was just stating the facts.
>> Kind of rambling here, sorry if I'm not making coherent sense. Guess
>> my point is that I see where Joe is coming from. There *has got* to be
>> a certain amount of popularity for an artist of any stripe to make
>> history (or even make the last page in the newspapers "community"
>> section).
>>
>As an actor who works in the biz, I see no reason why people strive for
>"fame."
No offense, but don't we all? Isn't that what writing, art, music is
all about? At its core, it's all about the ego. We want what we've
done to be appreciated or else we'd never show it to anybody. Younger
folks may flock to Hollywood for fame, money, etc... They're just
transparent. The older one gets the easier it is to cloak oneself in a
robe of maturity, hiding ones true ambitions.
> And to me, becoming an artist with the express intent of
>seeking popularity or making history, is just about as stupid AND
>fickle. One thing that hasn't been broached within this subject yet, is
>the fact that by allowing the taste of the masses to define what is
>great or not, you the artist, is allowing others to define YOU, and
>that's dangerous as well. You're putting the fate of how you see
>yourself into the hands of people who don't give a rat's ass about you.
Who can argue with that? Good point.
>For anyone to sit down and write with only the intent of becoming
>published, is a precarious position, to say the least. And I'm not
>saying that it's bad to want to be published, for why create if you
>don't intend to show it to someone? But what I'm saying, is that the
>motive to create because there is a NEED to create, must reside within
>you first. The rest is merely gravy.
I'm starting to discover this need myself (didn't really know it
existed in me). I feel what you're saying, but not sure how it applies
to measuring an artists success. It seems more like some excuse I'd
give for literary failure, or perhaps a way for me to soften the blow
of rejection.
Jane Doe: "Not a bad story Roy. Have you been published yet?"
Roy: "Not yet, not like I'm really writing for publication anyways, I
create stories because I need to create stories, know what I mean?"
Jane Doe: "Um. Ok."
Of course, in the spirit of open communication, I'll accept the
possiblity that I may be missing the boat here.
>> It just doesn't happen any other way. You can say artists
>> create music/art/stories/theorems for many reasons other than
>> popularity/money and that talent's in the eye of the beholder, however
>> my kid can fingerpaint till the cows come home and I'd love every one,
>> but if he's not generating wide-spread interest, no museum will ever
>> commission him to paint for an exhibition.
>>
>And you've come full circle to prove my point: exhibition is not the
>barometer of greatness, neither is publication, being recorded or even
>television appearances. It is only a side-effect of creation, and to
>seek it, means you've got your priorities fucked. For it was THIS point
>that grated on me from Mr. Konrath. Somewhere along the line, either he
>decided, or someone convinced him that art would never be great unless
>it was widely recognised: that it would never have worth unless someone
>else said it did. That's bullshit, for there are other, less public
>factors that determine greatness than the fickle decisions of a buying
>public -- and within this dubious economy, even THAT variable will never
>be equal.
>
>Create because you have a need in you to do so; create because to NOT
>create would mean certain insanity. But for god's sake, define your OWN
>annotation for greatness, and fuck the rest of the commercial world.
>
>That's EXACTLY why there is so much bad/hack work out there: because
>people are seeking to mass produce, instead of simply enjoying the
>creative process.
>
>Opus
Your last couple paragraphs were on point and should be tacked to
every aspiring artists forehead (including mine). They're almost
inspirational words and provide a sound tip for everyone to consider.
I'm eating em up (hell, I even saved them as a text file).
Now back to the discussion:
I think maybe I spot the schism between all parties involved here.
You're talking about the artistic process of actual creation. Screw
the process. The art(or whatever) has already been created, it's done.
How to judge if an artist of any stripe is "successful?" And no,
standing in a field of daisies, twirling your finger in your hair, and
expounding on how it's in the eye of the beholder didn't work for
hippies, and it ain't workin' here neither. There are only a few ways
to qualitatively determine "success."
In the present time, success is determined based on popularity.
50 years later, success is determined...based on popularity.
200 years later, success is determined...hmm. Yeah, you guessed it.
Only time will tell if an artist's true genius comes to light (and
some sadly are never discovered), but in the here and now, the only
real yardstick for success is popularity (whether mainstream or
niche). To claim otherwise is to presume too much upon ones own
opinion, reeks of pretense, snootiness, and the like. Seriously.
There is no "us" and there is no "them." You're a member of the buying
public too. Trying to claim superiority over them because they're more
interested in snatching up Britney Spears, Elton John, Eminem, Billy
Joel, George Lucas, etc... seems counterproductive to your point.
-Roy
Opus
> matter at all? Why are you using it as a kind of argument in of
> itself?
>
greatness until they are commercially successful. Picasso, by all
accounts, was not commercially successful. Yet he was still "great,"
whatever that means. I introduced it, as you will clearly see if you go
back and look, as a very solid point to Mr. Konrath's argument that art
was nothing more than entertainment. Picasso disagreed. Now do you
remember? (;>
> I'll get a quote from crackhead J down the
> block and see if his comments carry as much weight.
>
Maybe they will, if he's as widely worshipped and respected in his field
as Picasso. THAT was my point, doofus. <G>
> Question: how does one determine the "big difference" between
> something created for appreciation by the masses at large, or for
> something created for appreciation by the individual?
>
Like I've been trying to say: it must, MUST be determined by the artist
himself. This "The masses determine such and such" reasoning is
bullshit. Only YOU, can determine if you are successful in whatever you
set out to do. No one else can determine that, I don't care how many
Neilsen ratings you get, or how many times you've been on the NY Times
Best-seller list. If that wasn't your original goal when you created
that work, then did you really accomplish something to make you truly
happy? Did it truly make you successful then? My guess is, no. Of
course it will be nice, but if you really wanted to create a work
instead with the express intent of speaking to a particular group or
sect, and it didn't, then you clearly weren't successful, were you?
COMMERCIAL SUCCESS IS NOT THE ONLY BAROMETER. This entire conversation
became absurd to me when Mr. Konrath began speaking in absolutes and
generalities, which is what this is. And you get in trouble all too
often with those kinds of blanket statements.
> No offense, but don't we all?
>
Nope. Again, there is a difference in creating a work that becomes
proselytising in nature, and in saying, "I'm going to become a TV STAR,"
because they make a lot of money, vs. becoming an actor because you
would die if you could never get on-stage and act again, no matter how
much money you didn't make at it.
Roy, I think we're missing each other based on your general argument,
vs. my fine line argument. I'm trying to get you to see that I'm
breaking it down further than what Joe did, and why. Dunno, maybe you
already do, but you're still arguing his side with his blanket logic,
and I'm not. I'm arguing the smaller points, saying that money is not
the only factor that determines success.
> The older one gets the easier it is to cloak oneself in a
> robe of maturity, hiding ones true ambitions.
>
That may be true of some, but again, be careful of attributing this to
all of us who work in "Hollywood." I have plenty of friends who are
just as happy doing community theatre, dinner theatre, and working crew
instead of being in front of the camera. Are they any less successful
because they chose to stay behind the camera? NOT IF THAT'S WHAT THEY
WANTED, which is my entire point: The ARTIST is the one to determine
what their success is, and if it's been reached within their lives. Not
anyone else. And that again, was something else Picasso agreed with me
on. <g>
> Who can argue with that? Good point.
>
Why, thank you sir. I really do hit a good one every now and then.
> >For anyone to sit down and write with only the intent of becoming
> >published, is a precarious position, to say the least. And I'm not
> >saying that it's bad to want to be published, for why create if you
> >don't intend to show it to someone? But what I'm saying, is that the
> >motive to create because there is a NEED to create, must reside within
> >you first. The rest is merely gravy.
>
> I'm starting to discover this need myself (didn't really know it
> existed in me). I feel what you're saying, but not sure how it applies
> to measuring an artists success.
>
Hopefully in the above I wasn't so oblique. My point was that if one
has a goal of creating merely for themselves, and they do that, then
they are truly successful.
To work in your art towards fame, is silly. Fame is NOTHING more than
an opinion thrust upon you by a nebulous populous. It's nothing more
than an ideology, and since it isn't tangible, is a difficult thing to
work towards. Hell, it's even difficult to gauge whether you are
successful if you're famous, because I see a lot of tabloids covering
stories on celebrities who haven't worked for years, yet they are still
famous. It just doesn't pay well, is all.
> It seems more like some excuse I'd
> give for literary failure, or perhaps a way for me to soften the blow
> of rejection.
>
I'd hope you would be more mature than this. Again, the reason to
create must come from your addiction to do it, and not your need for
some spotlight or recognition.
There is a book entitled, "Smart Actors, Foolish Choices," by Katherine
Mayfield that I believe every artist should read. It gets you to
explore the real reasons for wanting to work within such a fucked up
bidness. And believe it or not, a LOT of people want to become a
writer, actor, singer or painter because they have some need to be
either the centre of attention, or to gain that love that they missed
when they were younger. Clichéd I know, but true. They end up using
their pursuit of fame as a way to justify their need for self worth, and
that's dangerous, in ANY profession.
> Of course, in the spirit of open communication, I'll accept the
> possiblity that I may be missing the boat here.
>
Like I said, I think I was a bit too oblique in my previous post; that
is my fault. Apologies.
> Your last couple paragraphs were on point and should be tacked to
> every aspiring artists forehead (including mine). They're almost
> inspirational words and provide a sound tip for everyone to consider.
> I'm eating em up (hell, I even saved them as a text file).
>
Why, thank you dear, I'm truly flattered. Glad I said something good.
> In the present time, success is determined based on popularity.
> 50 years later, success is determined...based on popularity.
> 200 years later, success is determined...hmm. Yeah, you guessed it.
>
And again, I vehemently disagree. Robert Johnson, probably THE greatest
Delta Blues guitarist, didn't sell very many records at all in his
life. Yet he is a recognised genius in his field. And I know you know
that I could list tons of people who just don't fit this paradigm, which
is why the argument will never be settled.
I guess he would be a good example, now that I think about it. While he
was living, he sold very few records. According to your argument, then
he wasn't successful. According to Mr. Konrath's, then he wasn't
great. According to mine, if he didn't want to sell records and had
other goals and reached those, then he was successful.
After he died, people began buying his records and realised what a gift
the man had. According to your argument, this would now make him
successful. According to Mr. Konrath's, this would now make him great.
According to my argument, he was great all along, famous or not.
Was he *really* NOT great all along? Bullshit. He suddenly became
great because the buying public decided this was the year to listen to
delta blues? Bullshit. See how fickle that is?
That's why I still am of the mindset, that if you, the artist,
determines what you want to be success for your life, then NO ONE, can
take that away from you.
You think popularity determines success.
I think success levels and goals must be derived by the artist, and then
only they will know if they've been successful.
Joe thinks that only the ones who commercially sell determine if they
are great, or not.
I think work can be shared in a non-commercial venue and still touch
someone to the point of sharing that greatness.
> Only time will tell if an artist's true genius comes to light (and
> some sadly are never discovered)
>
Oh, SO agreed with you there. And it is so very sad.
> but in the here and now, the only
> real yardstick for success is popularity (whether mainstream or
> niche). To claim otherwise is to presume too much upon ones own
> opinion, reeks of pretense, snootiness, and the like.
>
Hardly, but this is not going to resolve, so I won't beat the horse.
Anyway, thank you, Roy, for sharing your thoughts on this. I do so
enjoy these kinds of discussions when they remain humane and within the
spirit intended.
Opus
Allegory60
>create would mean certain insanity.
Overdone. I can create or not, as I choose. Insanity has nothing to do with
either creating or not creating. This is stereotypical thinking. Harper Lee
created a great book and never created another. I don't believe it drove her
insane. The need to create does not bring about insanity by its neglect or
denial.
Opus
>
No, Hank, *sigh* it was a figure of speech.
Opus
Dr Zen
So very true, Hank. That you sound like a twat has made your point
utterly worthless, so proving it. Strange, eh?
Zen
Dr Zen
> Interesting topic. I've waded through a great deal of this thread and have only
> a few things to add.
>
> I submit that there is no "right or wrong" when it comes to art. Beyond enough
> clarity to be able to communicate (grammar, punctuation, etc.) it is wholly
> subjective and not to be determined by voting, or mass appeal. Fashion changes
> as much as Daddy's mood or Alaric's wit. ha.
>
>
The last resort of a shithouse writer. Of course you don't want there
to be any question of value - you fear your work has none.
>The arguments about who and what are "great" are tail-chasing time
wasters. It
> seems in the field of literature there have been many and sundry contributions
> by folks who were failures in their interpersonal relations--pretty much
> undesirables in every other measurable respect. So what?
>
This is not even within cooee of the current topic. What a person is
*like* is fuck all to do with how good a writer they are. The former
is of *no consequence*. I don't have to like Elvis to love his
records.
> As for "defending" one's work after a critique, I try to think of it as one
> subjective view--if my bullshit meter goes off, then I discount much of what is
> said about my work and look for that "diamond" in the bullshit.
Right. Which is why, probably, you don't care for questions of value.
> I don't let it
> warp my sense of self or my work or my direction regardless of the criticism.
> I know my capabilities and know too they are slowly improving.
"I know my capabilities." Well, of course you do. You're the only
person you are prepared to allow be a judge of them.
> I would think in a real-time group where there have been problems with
> harangues and enmity developing, that a "gag" rule for the writer would at
> least allow others to speak out freely, but being a free-speech kinda guy I
> feel that life and critiques sometimes need to be chaotic in order to reach the
> goal of helping the writer to improve.
In discussions of a writer's work, Bob Sloan is right in that the
opinions of the writer are usually the least interesting.
> There's a wee bit of "professional
> asscork" in most of us, myself included.
You are *consummately* professional in that regard.
> I tend to be "too right" much of the
> time, because, like you, I am blinded, or partially so, by the vividness of my
> perceptions.
>
Hmm. I tend to be *too right* because I'm too fucking right, so speak
for yourself, buddy.
> Tolerance is the key.
To what, exactly?
> A gag rule might help a particular group, and might even
> be seen to be polite. I like to let my writing speak for itself, understanding
> that nimrods will have their say, and nothing--absolutely nothing--they say can
> change my work without my consent.
>
You are full of shit. It's not a surprise that your writing is too.
You don't listen, you'll never learn. That's a rule in life, and one
any writer would do well to learn.
Zen
> Hank
Dr Zen
> Well said, sir. Give that man sixpence.
Do you ever have the least thing to add to a discussion? I remember
when you came to troll AW, got your arse kicked and whined like a
smacked puppy, but what I cannot recall is any time you have had a
good thing to say about anything. You're what could most readily be
categorised as a sideline carper. You don't get your hands dirty, you
don't *offer* anything, you just fucking sit there like the audience.
No wonder you like AFO, dude. No one there will call you the fucking
waste-of-space prick that you are.
Zen
Roy Anderson
wrote:
If it's snipped assume that I agree or believe the rabbit trail's
cold.
>> In a similar vein, why should Picasso's opinion
>> matter at all? Why are you using it as a kind of argument in of
>> itself?
>>
>Gee, Roy, because it was concerted that artists have not achieved
>greatness until they are commercially successful. Picasso, by all
>accounts, was not commercially successful. Yet he was still "great,"
By all accounts? You sure?
>whatever that means. I introduced it, as you will clearly see if you go
>back and look, as a very solid point to Mr. Konrath's argument that art
>was nothing more than entertainment. Picasso disagreed. Now do you
>remember? (;>
>
>> I'll get a quote from crackhead J down the
>> block and see if his comments carry as much weight.
>>
>Maybe they will, if he's as widely worshipped and respected in his field
>as Picasso.
Oh he is! Why just the other day I heard Bob tell J how amazing it was
that he could hit the pipe and hold the crack smoke for as long as he
does! Talent like that ain't born every day you know!
>THAT was my point, doofus. <G>
And my point (insofar as Picasso goes) is that he was inherently
commercial.
<space-saving-snip>
>what their success is, and if it's been reached within their lives. Not
>anyone else. And that again, was something else Picasso agreed with me
>on. <g>
Well crackhead J says stop signs are wierd!
<space-saving-snip part 2>
>> It seems more like some excuse I'd
>> give for literary failure, or perhaps a way for me to soften the blow
>> of rejection.
>>
>I'd hope you would be more mature than this. Again, the reason to
>create must come from your addiction to do it, and not your need for
>some spotlight or recognition.
Why must it? ...I don't care if he is red with horns, someone still
has to be his advocate.
<snippity part 3: third time's the charm>
>I guess he would be a good example, now that I think about it. While he
>was living, he sold very few records. According to your argument, then
>he wasn't successful.
Very perceptive.
> According to Mr. Konrath's, then he wasn't
>great. According to mine, if he didn't want to sell records and had
>other goals and reached those, then he was successful.
True enough. But he did want to sell records.
>After he died, people began buying his records and realised what a gift
>the man had. According to your argument, this would now make him
>successful. According to Mr. Konrath's, this would now make him great.
>According to my argument, he was great all along, famous or not.
>
>Was he *really* NOT great all along? Bullshit. He suddenly became
>great because the buying public decided this was the year to listen to
>delta blues? Bullshit. See how fickle that is?
Blah. You presume too much ill-will upon the good citizenry of this
aging republic. His work just had a late peak, happens all the time.
Some albums/books/movies etc... come out and it takes years for them
to build up a base of support before they peak in popularity; for
some, it only takes a week. "Fight Club" is a good example. While the
norm in Hollywood is that a movie peaks the first week it's released
is a heavily entrenched idea, "Fight Club" defied that logic, earning
lackluster cinema sales but expanding incredibly in popularity over
time.
<snippity part 4: this time it's personal!>
Ok, since we're basically on the same wavelength I was having trouble
determining why you (and others for that matter) were having
difficulty grasping my point(and Joe's, I believe). Think I finally
spotted the true schism. Your words condensed:
>COMMERCIAL SUCCESS IS NOT THE ONLY BAROMETER.
> I'm arguing the smaller points, saying that money is not
>the only factor that determines success.
>My point was that if one has a goal of creating merely for themselves,
>and they do that, then they are truly successful.
All that is great logic, however it really doesn't apply to the
examples we've been discussing. If one is creating only for themself
then yes, they determine how successful they are. If one creates then
gives away their work, they determine how successful they are. If one
creates a work, then *sells* that work, they are commercial, and are
trying to make money. Their original intention is kind of irrelevant
now, they're placing themselves on the public pedestal and opening
themselves up to the opinion of the masses. Since all opinions are
equal, artists who tend to garner the most favorable ones are a
success. They were trying to sell and succeeded. If they did not sell,
they did not succeed.
-Roy
Roy Anderson
>"Alaric" <alar...@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:<ah9o9e$pkd$1...@paris.btinternet.com>...
>> Well said, sir. Give that man sixpence.
>
>Do you ever have the least thing to add to a discussion? I remember
>when you came to troll AW, got your arse kicked and whined like a
>smacked puppy, but what I cannot recall is any time you have had a
>good thing to say about anything. You're what could most readily be
>categorised as a sideline carper. You don't get your hands dirty, you
>don't *offer* anything, you just fucking sit there like the audience.
That last line is so ridiculous, I was actually stunned for a moment
till I figured out you're just learning disabled.
>No wonder you like AFO, dude. No one there will call you the fucking
>waste-of-space prick that you are.
>
>Zen
What are you smoking man? I mean, really?
-Roy
Allegory60
>"Alaric" <alar...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>news:<ah9o9e$pkd$1...@paris.btinternet.com>...
>> Well said, sir. Give that man sixpence.
>
>Do you ever have the least thing to add to a discussion? I remember
>when you came to troll AW, got your arse kicked and whined like a
>smacked puppy,
What is this thread REALLY about?
Hank