sleep dep ( rant)
Spring Joy
Sleep Deprivation
Date:
Fri, 31 Jul 1998 16:41:38 -0400
From:
Marcus Pan <p...@idt.net>
Reply-To:
p...@idt.net
Organization:
http://www.zenweb.com/pan
Newsgroups:
alt.gothic
Did you ever face slap happiness? I mean that time when you've passed
the threshold of 24 hours straight awake and suddenly start blathering
all over the place about this or that and everything comes out in a
fluidic motion and suddenly you filled up an entire page of junk that
will probably make absolutely no sense after you end the bitter
deprivation period especially considering the fact that punctuation
suddenly becomes a complete non-essential and before you know it you
have to walk from Toledo to NYC to proofread only one of your gawd-awful
sentences to make sure people understand it even though you know they
won't unless they're slap happy and deprived of sleep as well.
Well have you?
---
um, yeah. but when i do it, i'm not on anything. last winter i couldn't
sleep for 3 weeks straight. i was in college, and every time i went to
class would be the only time i would fall asleep. so i stopped going. i
ended up hospitalized. when i got out, i was on all these meds: lithium,
welbutrin, risperidol, zoloft, what else... olanzipine. for a year and a
half. it fucked up my life. long story. i slept 12 hours a nite and
was groggy all day. the only interesting thing that ever happened to me
was my dreams, and i couldn't even remember them. i couldn't even do
anything that i thoroughly enjoyed before, such as dancing, writing,
drawing, painting, reading, etc. i did really bad in skool. no
motivation. i got fat, too. lost my wit and fashion sense. not to
mention my libido.
they said i was manic depressive and schizoeffective. but they couldn't
figure it out. most ppl stay in the hospital for 3-5 days, but i was in
for 10. xpensive. and the meds never worked for me. they said i was
"high". they thought i heard voices. i wasn't sure if i was, but ppl
would pop into my head for no reason, and i thought i was psychic.
sometimes i can just tell what people are thinking. i really can. and
in the hospital i smelled blood everywhere but there was none, and no one
else could smell it. i think taht someone was just too embarassed to
admit that they were on the rag. i can always smell taht. they thought
i was delusional because i thought i was the shiznit, and everyone was in
love with me. but, what if everyone was? now that i quit taking it,
i've felt the same way for months, and a bipolar high does not last that
long.
i was not depressed before i was hospitalized. but after i got on my
medication i was. i saw no future. after i quit taking it, there are so
many possibilites.
so i quit taking it. my life is so much better. i have my self esteem
back, and i'm everything i want to be again. i lost a lot of weight.
probably too much. i weigh less than kate moss, and i'm an inch taller
than her. i force myself to eat, but i can't. i don't even eat an
entire meal a day, collectively. before i was hospitalized, i made a
conscious decision not to eat. i don't know why, i was already thin. i
just wanted people to think i had aids or something and get grossed out.
thats cos i'm hardcore. but before i was hospitalized, i decided to eat
on my own. i wasn't in the eating disorder classes at the hospital. i
wasn't suicidal or a junkie like everyone else there was. and i don't
sleep anymore. all summer i may have gotten one good nights sleep. i'm
lucky if i get 4 hours a nite. everyone says i need counseling, but it
never did any good before. i'm not going back on those medications
again. what do you think? i have more friends now than ever before, but
i've also made some enemies cos i've got an "attitude". but mostly
friends. i'm always on the go. i've got more energy than anyone i know.
i don't know where it came from, i've been hibernating or something.
making up for lost time.
in the hospital they axed me what drugs help me feel better, and i said
"pot". it worked once. but thats illegal they said. so? its like, i'm
so fucked up that in order to be normal i HAVE to do dope and drink, just
so i can come down and sleep. but i'm just scared what i'll be like when
i'm under the influence. i always make such a fool of myself and almost
get myself killed whenever i drink just a little bit. i have a low
tolerance. i've never even had a hangover.
i think they just say i'm crazy cos i'm different. i'm an artist, and
artists are supposed to be this way. i wouldn't be inspired if i was
like them.
sjw
elsworth
Spring Joy <"swed...@ix.netcom.com"@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message <6q5ts9
<Oh...snip, snip>
>i think they just say i'm crazy cos i'm different. i'm an artist, and
>artists are supposed to be this way. i wouldn't be inspired if i was
>like them.
>
Uh.... I'm a professional artist, honey, and I can tell you... That isn't
artistic inspiration you're experiencing.
People like you give artists a bad name. Stay off drugs and die, or try to do
something about your delusional state, but don't get it confused with talent.
Even if you have talent, I can guarantee that the stuff you're putting out now
(art-wise) is not as good as you think it is.
Sorry if this post sounds cruel, but I feel the need to be blunt.
elsworth
Spring Joy
>
> Spring Joy <"swed...@ix.netcom.com"@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message <6q5ts9
>
> <Oh...snip, snip>
> >
> artistic inspiration you're experiencing.
oh, you're "professional"? i'm so impressed.
>
> People like you give artists a bad name. Stay off drugs and die, or try to do
> something about your delusional state, but don't get it confused with talent.
um, how do you know? have you seen anything i've done? i haven't seen
anything you've done.
>
> Even if you have talent, I can guarantee that the stuff you're putting out now
> (art-wise) is not as good as you think it is.
i never said it was good. is yours? right now i'm not as much putting
out drawings or paintings as i am writing and dancing. i mean i do
ballet and stuff. but i haven't taken dance classes seriously for a
couple years. i haven't had many years of dance training, but i'm not
that bad. you haven't seen me, so don't talk smack.
oh, and uh, in hi-skool, i was in the "advanced placement honors art
class" not that i care. i didnt' exactly get along with the teacher, is
an understatement, but she gave me every award possible. its no big
whoop to me.
sjw
Spring Joy
>
> Spring Joy <"swed...@ix.netcom.com"@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> Big woop! you got an award...
> duh. thats waht i said.
> <pet peeve>
>
> art teachers don't know jack all about anything...
>
> and they refuse to _teach_ art... or how to do it
>
> They just say "this" is good and "that" isn't.
>
> So getting given awards by art teachers means nothing
> i never said it did. but thats waht people say when no one thinks their
shit is good. i don't care. i don't go around bragging taht i'm
"professional". i do it for myself. people who drop out of hi-skool
think they're so smart. not that they're dumb, but its not that hard.
but i do know a lot of idiots who got great grades and high sat scores
and go to reed, or have graduated or have their phd. it doesn't mean
shit to me. people who have low SAT scores say it doesn't mean anything.
or low iqs. thats because they have low scores.
> </pet peeve>
you seem to say taht alot.
>
> Ooops sorry I've been Ranting : /
>
> > sjw
>
> --
> -Cymbies loyal page : )
> "Keep asking questions/there's bound to be answers/
> if anyone's left here/to answer at all"
> -(ObGoth guess who sung this...)
> (I've changed my .sig surely it's been 30 days by now...)
Daniel Hayato Thomas
> oh, and uh, in hi-skool, i was in the "advanced placement honors art
> class" not that i care. i didnt' exactly get along with the teacher, is
> an understatement, but she gave me every award possible. its no big
> whoop to me.
Big woop! you got an award...
<pet peeve>
art teachers don't know jack all about anything...
and they refuse to _teach_ art... or how to do it
They just say "this" is good and "that" isn't.
So getting given awards by art teachers means nothing
</pet peeve>
elsworth
Spring Joy <"swed...@ix.netcom.com"@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
<6q63lf$n...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>...
>Daniel Hayato Thomas wrote:
>>
>> Spring Joy <"swed...@ix.netcom.com"@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> >
>> Big woop! you got an award...
>> i never said it did. but thats waht people say when no one thinks their
>shit is good. i don't care. i don't go around bragging taht i'm
>"professional".
It's not bragging. I get paid for what I do. grow up.
>i do it for myself.
So do I. Because I get paid, I'm not a 'true' artist? You have a lot to learn,
grasshopper.
>people who drop out of hi-skool
>think they're so smart.
Who said anything about dropping out of High School? You're talking to college
graduates here, sunshine.
>not that they're dumb, but its not that hard.
>but i do know a lot of idiots who got great grades and high sat scores
>and go to reed, or have graduated or have their phd. it doesn't mean
>shit to me. people who have low SAT scores say it doesn't mean anything.
> or low iqs. thats because they have low scores.
Ramble... ramble... was there a point to that last paragraph?
elsworth
elsworth
>oh, you're "professional"? i'm so impressed.
I am. It's hard to get work in a field you love.
>>Stay off drugs and die, or try to do
>> something about your delusional state, but don't get it confused with talent.
>
>um, how do you know? have you seen anything i've done? i haven't seen
>anything you've done.
Nope, just working from experience with teenagers like you. You may be
talented... you may be very talented, but if your general mental state is how
you have described it, you lack the objectivity and discipline to pound that
talent into greatness. Stability is needed for talent to be nurtured.
>>
>> Even if you have talent, I can guarantee that the stuff you're putting out
now
>> (art-wise) is not as good as you think it is.
>
>i never said it was good. is yours?
I think so, and I hope to continually get better.
>right now i'm not as much putting
>out drawings or paintings as i am writing and dancing. i mean i do
>ballet and stuff. but i haven't taken dance classes seriously for a
>couple years. i haven't had many years of dance training, but i'm not
>that bad. you haven't seen me, so don't talk smack.
You're a bit young to be deciding on a career, but to be a good artist, you will
eventually need to settle down to one or two disciplines, rather than flitting
about like a butterfly between things that interest you. Dancers start when
they are young - most of them have had ten years of training by the time they're
your age.
Or, are you saying you do all this stuff because it's fun, and you don't intend
to make it your life's work? Then I'm sorry, but you can't hide under the
"Artists are supposed to be like this", because you haven't earned the
seriousness points to claim that.
>
>oh, and uh, in hi-skool, i was in the "advanced placement honors art
>class" not that i care. i didnt' exactly get along with the teacher, is
>an understatement, but she gave me every award possible. its no big
>whoop to me.
My last year in High School (and that was a while ago), I was in two advanced
placement art classes, another art class just for fun, and had scholarships to
three different schools. Duh.
High school doesn't matter after your first year in college. What matters is
the work you do, and you don't sound like you're in a fit state to do anything.
It takes WORK.
elsworth (sheesh. Teenagers.)
Spring Joy
> >> >
> <snip>
you're just so busy busy busy busy clippers oh hairdresser ON FIRE!
> >people who drop out of hi-skool
> >think they're so smart.
>
> Who said anything about dropping out of High School? You're talking to college
> graduates here, sunshine.
i wasn't talking about people here. i was talking about other people i
know. but that's off the subject.
>
> >not that they're dumb, but its not that hard.
> >but i do know a lot of idiots who got great grades and high sat scores
> >and go to reed, or have graduated or have their phd. it doesn't mean
> >shit to me. people who have low SAT scores say it doesn't mean anything.
> > or low iqs. thats because they have low scores.
>
> Ramble... ramble... was there a point to that last paragraph?
my point is "big whoop! you got an award! art teachers don't know
anything".
sjw
Spring Joy
>
> I am. It's hard to get work in a field you love.
>
> >>Stay off drugs and die, or try to do
> >> something about your delusional state, but don't get it confused with talent.
> >
> >um, how do you know? have you seen anything i've done? i haven't seen
> >anything you've done.
>
> Nope, just working from experience with teenagers like you. You may be
> talented... you may be very talented, but if your general mental state is how
> you have described it, you lack the objectivity and discipline to pound that
> talent into greatness. Stability is needed for talent to be nurtured.
vincent van gogh. oscar wilde. edgar allan poe. mary shelley. i'm sure
i'm forgetting a ton of people.
>
> >>
> >> Even if you have talent, I can guarantee that the stuff you're putting out
> now
> >> (art-wise) is not as good as you think it is.
> >
> >i never said it was good. is yours?
>
> I think so, and I hope to continually get better.
>
> >right now i'm not as much putting
> >out drawings or paintings as i am writing and dancing. i mean i do
> >ballet and stuff. but i haven't taken dance classes seriously for a
> >couple years. i haven't had many years of dance training, but i'm not
> >that bad. you haven't seen me, so don't talk smack.
>
> You're a bit young to be deciding on a career,
do you know how old i am?
but to be a good artist, you will
> eventually need to settle down to one or two disciplines, rather than flitting
> about like a butterfly between things that interest you.
like madonna, and prince? and cher?
Dancers start when
> they are young - most of them have had ten years of training by the time they're
> your age.
well, i've had maybe 4, but it looks like i've had a lot more. i know
they start when they're young, but i didn't have very supportive parents.
anyway, i've had a lot of people tell me i could be professional. i've
danced at cornish.
>
> Or, are you saying you do all this stuff because it's fun, and you don't intend
> to make it your life's work? Then I'm sorry, but you can't hide under the
> "Artists are supposed to be like this", because you haven't earned the
> seriousness points to claim that.
> >
> >oh, and uh, in hi-skool, i was in the "advanced placement honors art
> >class" not that i care. i didnt' exactly get along with the teacher, is
> >an understatement, but she gave me every award possible. its no big
> >whoop to me.
>
> My last year in High School (and that was a while ago), I was in two advanced
> placement art classes, another art class just for fun, and had scholarships to
> three different schools. Duh.
well, when i was in high school, i didn't have my priorities set
straight. i don't know waht i was thinking, taking 4 years of advanced
science and 5 years of advanced math. that's not even my forte! i
didn't apply to any scholarships cos my life was too messed up. i almost
dropped out but still managed to graduate with honors.
> High school doesn't matter after your first year in college. What matters is
> the work you do, and you don't sound like you're in a fit state to do anything.
> It takes WORK.
hmmm... maybe it's work for you, but i think it's fun, its just what i
have to do.
>
> elsworth (sheesh. Teenagers.)
i won't be one for long.
sjw
Marcus Pan
>
> Subject:
> Sleep Deprivation
> Date:
> Fri, 31 Jul 1998 16:41:38 -0400
> From:
> Marcus Pan <p...@idt.net>
> Reply-To:
> p...@idt.net
> Organization:
> http://www.zenweb.com/pan
> Newsgroups:
> alt.gothic
Uh? You forwarded me? I'm confused.
--
===>Papa-PAN<===A.G.S-F USE===<http://www.zenweb.com/pan>
My BabyGoths...I *heart* Cymbeline & Hillary & Siobhan & Fuchsia
& Niles & Narnia & Necroangel & Ghoulie & Ischtar & Ivy &
Zoe & Rogue & Annette & Grimm & Issobella & Shahrazad & Rain!
Marcus Pan
> and they refuse to _teach_ art... or how to do it
Yeah, well that's subject I think. How, exactly, do you "teach art?"
You can teach some formats, or styles. But "teach art?" I don't know
if that's possible. I was asked to teach someone to "write" once, but,
I begged off. I can't do it. I still haven't taught myself to
"write." I "just write." Does that make sense?
Art and/or writing and/or music...ah, we can list things forever here
but you get my point...I don't think is something you can teach. Did
Giger have someone who taught him "art?" Maybe someone who taught him a
coloring style or something...but they didn't teach him his "art." Did
Shakespeare have someone who taught him "writing" beyond the mere
coagulation of letters and sentence structure that, being a playright,
he typically went structureless anyway?
I wouldn't mind hearing Elsworth comment on this. Is it possible to
"teach art?" I'm being serious here.
elsworth
Marcus Pan wrote in message <35C78B...@idt.net>...
>Daniel Hayato Thomas wrote:
>> and they refuse to _teach_ art... or how to do it
>
>Yeah, well that's subject I think. How, exactly, do you "teach art?"
>You can teach some formats, or styles. But "teach art?" I don't know
>if that's possible. I was asked to teach someone to "write" once, but,
>I begged off. I can't do it. I still haven't taught myself to
>"write." I "just write." Does that make sense?
>
>Art and/or writing and/or music...ah, we can list things forever here
>but you get my point...I don't think is something you can teach. Did
>Giger have someone who taught him "art?" Maybe someone who taught him a
>coloring style or something...but they didn't teach him his "art." Did
>Shakespeare have someone who taught him "writing" beyond the mere
>coagulation of letters and sentence structure that, being a playright,
>he typically went structureless anyway?
>
>I wouldn't mind hearing Elsworth comment on this. Is it possible to
>"teach art?" I'm being serious here.
>
may have a hard time getting me to shut up, however.
I think what we're discussing here is learning 'art' vs. learning the process of
creation. I have to approach this from a visual arts p.o.v., as that's what I
know. Also, I can give my opinion better in the form of personal experience,
so please bear with the self-centered tone of this reply.
The best art teacher I ever had (Mr. Bartman, Walt Whitman H.S., Bethesda,
Maryland) tried to make us learn as much as we could about the forms of art that
preceded us. His take on the subject was that to learn to create, you should
know what was created before you came into the scene.
We all start with different levels of talent. That talent pool is always full,
but limited in scope. Does that make sense? What I'm trying to put across is
that we have the same amount of talent all our lives. It doesn't grow. What
grows, and makes us become better artists, is experience. Part of that
experience is learning the physical skills of our trade. A child, however
talented at drawing things, will not know what to do with oil paints until she
learns the rudiments of oil painting.
I learned the mechanics of as many different styles of visual art as I could
cram in, first in high school, then in college, and now, as an independent. I
had teachers who told me about all the different kinds of art out there. I've
tried my hand at sculpture, egg-tempera painting, collage, I've even made my own
pigments.
All the way through, I have had teachers guiding me. Some were in classes, some
were other artists, some were books, and some were people who have been dead
five hundred or a thousand years. Some were good. Some were exceptional. Some
were very bad.
And I think it was the approach to teaching art that made the difference. The
best gave me the information I needed, suggested inspiration, wound me up, and
let me go. The results were critiqued, sometimes to the point of making me cry,
scream epithets, or break things. This was good. It taught me to deal with
difference of opinion better than if I had been coddled all the way through.
The bad teachers sneered at my efforts, or told me that the artists I loved
weren't real artists because they didn't paint in the accepted way. They taught
in a sterile environment that allowed no deviance from the 'one true way'. Who
could be original and creative in a situation like that?
The best teacher set me loose on the world and told me to work my butt off.
I guess my opinion would be that the knowledge of art can be taught, the
mechanics can be taught, The discipline of consistent work can be taught, but
the creative process must be found alone, after the learning is done. So, the
foundation of art can be taught, but after that, you're on your own. Except,
you're never really alone. The voices of a hundred thousand thousand artists
whisper to you from down through the ages, encouraging the spark within you.
However: The learning process is a vital part of becoming a working artist.
Without the knowledge of other painters under my belt, I would be reinventing
the wheel every time I tried to paint. Instead, I am free to build on that
base, so when I create something, I can have that knowledge backing me up,
providing a solid foundation.
THAT's what teaching art is all about.
How was that, PapaPan?
elsworth
elsworth
>
>vincent van gogh. oscar wilde. edgar allan poe. mary shelley. i'm sure
>i'm forgetting a ton of people.
Van Gogh always had altered perception, a bad love affair drove him over the
edge into suicide when he was in a depressive cycle. Oscar Wilde was persecuted
for being gay - and didn't write when he was in prison, but after, when his life
stabilized again. Edgar Allen Poe died of tuberculosis. His life was bad, but
he became an alcoholic to deal with the pain of his illness. He was not
mentally unbalanced. Mary Shelley wrote one book - a good one for the time,
mind you, and she was also not insane.
These people had bad lives, sure. They also had talent. Being mentally ill was
not the source of their talent - in many cases, they were not mentally ill.
>
>do you know how old i am?
19. You said so in another post. If you were lying, you go into my killfile.
I don't care for liars.
>>but to be a good artist, you will
>> eventually need to settle down to one or two disciplines, rather than
flitting
>> about like a butterfly between things that interest you.
>
>like madonna, and prince? and cher?
Madonna is a singer. Prince is a singer. Cher is a singer/actress, and always
has been.
>
>> Dancers start when
>> they are young - most of them have had ten years of training by the time
they're
>> your age.
>
>well, i've had maybe 4, but it looks like i've had a lot more. i know
>they start when they're young, but i didn't have very supportive parents.
> anyway, i've had a lot of people tell me i could be professional. i've
>danced at cornish.
Good for you. Is that what you want to do? Then go for it. It takes a lot of
work. I have a voice good enough to be a professional singer, but I don't want
to sing, I want to paint. My work goes into painting.
>well, when i was in high school, i didn't have my priorities set
>straight. i don't know waht i was thinking, taking 4 years of advanced
>science and 5 years of advanced math. that's not even my forte! i
>didn't apply to any scholarships cos my life was too messed up. i almost
>dropped out but still managed to graduate with honors.
Many (if not most) people on this ng are similarly intelligent. So?
>hmmm... maybe it's work for you, but i think it's fun, its just what i
>have to do.
I have to do it, too. It's practically all I think about. I just happen to
love what I do *and* get paid for it. Ask the Evil Chemist about that. Just
because it's work doesn't mean it's not fulfilling. I find it better this way.
I also push myself harder and further because learning as much as I can about my
craft makes me better at it.
elsworth
Daniel Hayato Thomas
> Daniel Hayato Thomas wrote:
>> and they refuse to _teach_ art... or how to do it
> Yeah, well that's subject I think. How, exactly, do you "teach art?"
> You can teach some formats, or styles. But "teach art?" I don't know
> if that's possible. I was asked to teach someone to "write" once, but,
> I begged off. I can't do it. I still haven't taught myself to
> "write." I "just write." Does that make sense?
Ooops I didn't explain... My objection is to it being taught at
all if it can't be taught.....
My art teachers were basicaly babysitting us during the classes
and nothing else... They wouldn't _teach_ us how to draw realistic
pictures because that would crimp our individual styles...
but they still only encouraged the people who would draw
realisticaly.... I never figured out how to draw properly
until I borrowed a book on the subject which just explained
how to understand what your seeing and put it on paper...
And after drawing things like that I could finaly get enough controll
over the pen to draw what I wanted too...
> Art and/or writing and/or music...ah, we can list things forever here
> but you get my point...I don't think is something you can teach. Did
> Giger have someone who taught him "art?" Maybe someone who taught him a
> coloring style or something...but they didn't teach him his "art." Did
> Shakespeare have someone who taught him "writing" beyond the mere
> coagulation of letters and sentence structure that, being a playright,
> he typically went structureless anyway?
Well it's possible to teach the craft which assists the art...
> I wouldn't mind hearing Elsworth comment on this. Is it possible to
> "teach art?" I'm being serious here.
I don't think so realy...
> ===>Papa-PAN<===A.G.S-F USE===<http://www.zenweb.com/pan>
kraant (daniel)
Canticle
> Yeah, well that's subject I think. How, exactly, do you "teach art?"
> You can teach some formats, or styles. But "teach art?" I don't know
> if that's possible. I was asked to teach someone to "write" once, but,
> I begged off. I can't do it. I still haven't taught myself to
> "write." I "just write." Does that make sense?
Personally, I don't think you can 'teach' someone to be artistic. You
can teach them about how to use form, line, about different techniques
and styles, but you can no more teach someone to be 'artistic' than you
can teach someone to be a subliterate invertebrate. They are either born
that way, or they are not.
My opionion, of course.
Jeff-boy
Marcus Pan
> Well it's possible to teach the craft which assists the art...
Ah, that's a better way of putting what I was trying to say about
teaching a style. Thank you.
--
===>Papa-PAN<===A.G.S-F USE===<http://www.zenweb.com/pan>
Black Daisies
> Personally, I don't think you can 'teach' someone to be artistic. You
> can teach them about how to use form, line, about different techniques
> and styles, but you can no more teach someone to be 'artistic' than you
> can teach someone to be a subliterate invertebrate. They are either born
> that way, or they are not.
>
>
I don't know if you can be "born" with a talent. Well, I guess it happens,
but for some people, it's the desire to learn that brings the "talent" about.
If you want it so much, you can go from drawing stick figures to composing
massive works of art.
Here's an extra $.02 about art training:
Being in an art college, I saw lots of people "struggling" with their
projects around me, no matter what department they were. Some people
decided to forgo classical art training (that is, figure drawing, colour
theory, perspective, composition etc) and head straight into "stylism", and
I thought that wasn't the right way to handle it. Where stylism is OK I
thought if one trained themselves in the very basics of art and perfected
all that first, your art could take off amazingly, and I've seen that in
some people too... best (though icky) example of this is Picasso... he was
doing lots of realistic stuff at a fairly young age, his figure drawings
were classic and perfect. It was only later that he got into cubism, but
the important part of his art really was the fact that he could draw properly.
I see it like a house that has to be built (applied to writing, too). If you
don't understand the structure and foundation of it, no matter how pretty
the house looks on the outside, it's weak and it'll fall with the first big
blast of wind.
Pamela
Black Daisies --->http://webhome.idirect.com/~daisies
Stefanie S
fun.
And I couldn't even go 24 hours with out sleep I don't see how the
hell you can. I tryed it one time and I acted like I was drunk and I
hated it I would run into things and stuff like that. I hope you get
help.
Stefanie S
want to make yourself look better than someone else.
But elsworth does make a bit more logic.
Marcus Pan
> Wow. I'm very, very flattered. And of course I will give my opinion... you
> may have a hard time getting me to shut up, however.
Good. A discussion. :) We're horribly short on these sometimes...so I
don't see a problem with this.
> We all start with different levels of talent. That talent pool is always full,
> but limited in scope. Does that make sense? What I'm trying to put across is
> that we have the same amount of talent all our lives. It doesn't grow.
I don't think that all of us have the same talents in all things though,
although I doubt this is what you meant. I know people that could draw
absolutely anything, out of their head, with a pen (no mistakes) and
you'll swear you're looking at a photograph even though whatever they
drew exists only in their mind. I can't draw a shape that resembles an
apple. Meanwhile, some of these people can't write an understandable
sentence or hold a plot if you gave them a net for it...do you know what
I mean? Each of us, I think (ok, MOST of us) have talents in certain
things but are absolutely horrid in others. There's no way around that.
What
> grows, and makes us become better artists, is experience. Part of that
> experience is learning the physical skills of our trade. A child, however
> talented at drawing things, will not know what to do with oil paints until she
> learns the rudiments of oil painting.
Yes, so it's possible to teach how to use the tools or skills required
to further hone their talents. Tools/skills = teachable. But
creation/talent is inside. The most a teacher can do is try and get the
person in question to tap into it.
> tried my hand at sculpture, egg-tempera painting, collage, I've even made my own
> pigments.
What's egg-tempera, by the way?
> let me go. The results were critiqued, sometimes to the point of making me cry,
> scream epithets, or break things. This was good. It taught me to deal with
> difference of opinion better than if I had been coddled all the way through.
Do you think it might have been better if the results were critiqued on
a level that wouldn't have hurt as much? Or did that make you try ever
harder the next time and tap even deeper into the talent pool you had
available?
> The bad teachers sneered at my efforts, or told me that the artists I loved
> weren't real artists because they didn't paint in the accepted way. They taught
> in a sterile environment that allowed no deviance from the 'one true way'. Who
> could be original and creative in a situation like that?
Agreed. It's stifling when there are set rules to something that's
supposed to be as creative a process as possible.
> The best teacher set me loose on the world and told me to work my butt off.
So would you call teaching art, beyond the previously discussed "skills"
level of it, more of a guiding aspect rather than a show-how one?
> However: The learning process is a vital part of becoming a working artist.
> Without the knowledge of other painters under my belt, I would be reinventing
> the wheel every time I tried to paint. Instead, I am free to build on that
> base, so when I create something, I can have that knowledge backing me up,
> providing a solid foundation.
Ah, I never thought of that point. Taking influence and building on
previous artists' work that you may enjoy or emmulate (and no matter how
hard we try, there will always be some sort of influence from some
source outside ourselves regardless of what we do) allows it to move
ahead.
> How was that, PapaPan?
Excellent!
Marcus Pan
I have no idea who or what you are replying to. Please quote relevant
bits of the last message so we have a clue.
Marcus Pan
Again...who's that to? Me about my sleep deprivation? Or
whats-his-face about his drug addiction problem? I have no clue.
Ron Cecchini
Canticle <cant...@escape.ca> wrote:
> Personally, I don't think you can 'teach' someone to be artistic.
Well, maybe it's not a "someone" in the human sense, but my old
Philosophy/AI prof, and my creative writing prof, have teamed together
on a project to get a machine to generate fiction.
Right now, it's *very* short, formulaic fiction, and only in the
"betrayal/revenge" genre (hence, the name "Brutus I") but it's an
interesting start.
If interested, there's a link off of his home page at www.rpi.edu/~brings
][
Neal Stanifer
>
> Daniel Hayato Thomas wrote:
> > and they refuse to _teach_ art... or how to do it
>
You teach technique. You give people the tools to do the job, and you
provide them with the *means*, both material and intellectual, to
create. And you show them what others have done, and teach them to
distinguish types of media, types of method and technique. What you do
not do it tell them that their art is *wrong.*
What you *can* do is to help them to realize what they want to create.
For instance, if a student is using pastel as he would a pencil, I would
tell him to try using the medium to bring out its full effect. If he
still wanted to use his chalk like a crayon, then so be it. At least
now he knows another (and IMO better) way.
This is simple pedagogy, and art is nothing special when it comes to
teaching. The same thing applies, IMO, to all subject which can be
taught. Teach the student to seek and recognize value and truth. Do
not teach what truth *is*.
> I was asked to teach someone to "write" once, but,
> I begged off. I can't do it. I still haven't taught myself to
> "write." I "just write." Does that make sense?
Makes perfect sense, but I wonder if you are also forgetting all the
lessons you learned, self-taught or otherwise, which made you a better
writer. Can those lessons not be taught to others? I think so. I can
make someone a better writer by pointing out the mistakes and failings
in their writing, and by praising their successes. If I didn't believe
that, I wouldn't be pursuing a career in university.
> Art and/or writing and/or music...ah, we can list things forever here
> but you get my point...I don't think is something you can teach. Did
> Giger have someone who taught him "art?" Maybe someone who taught him a
> coloring style or something...but they didn't teach him his "art."
I think you may be quibbling here. After all, what you said about Giger
and then Shakespeare, et al, could easily be said of a mathematician who
revolutionized some dark and dry corner of the realm of numbers. And
that could lead us to ask, "Can you really *teach* math? I mean, you
can teach theorems and quantities and techniques, but can *math* be
taught?"
And we would all say, "Of course it can, silly."
But because art is artificially placed in a realm apart from any other
human endeavor, we tend to pamper it, and I honestly think that the very
pedestal we place it on prevents so many people from daring to approach
it. How often have you heard someone say, "Oh, I'm not a writer, I just
write in my spare time." Or "I paint a little, but I wouldn't call
myself an artist." Or how about "I could never write poetry."
We are all artists from the moment we try to bring what is inside to the
outside. From the first words we speak, we are poets, and from the
first facial expressions we mimic as babies, we are learning the
techniques of art.
And since no one wishes to reinvent the wheel, we learn from those who
have already learned, and so on. It's called a tradition. With art,
that tradition includes not only the study of great works of the past
and (one would hope) contemporary art of note, but also a deep and
intensive training in technique, so that when the student is released
from the classes, he or she is ready to begin pushing the limits of what
is known and what is done even further than he or she found them.
> Did
> Shakespeare have someone who taught him "writing" beyond the mere
> coagulation of letters and sentence structure that, being a playright,
> he typically went structureless anyway?
Yes, he did. Besides men like Kit Marlowe and his other contemporaries,
Shakespeare read extensively in the Italian and Spanish tragedies, in
Plautus and other ancient sources, all of whom were teaching him to
write. And when he and his mates got together down at the pub, you can
bet that they were flapping their gums about work, which means talking
about writing.
And there is nothing structureless about Shakespeare... :) (and while
we're at it, get away from my sacred cow with that knife)
Neal
"What we need, we do not know.
What we know, we do not need."
Goethe, "Faust"
Spring Joy
>
> Spring Joy <"swed...@ix.netcom.com"@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> <6q7qa7$1...@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com>...
you're not that bad.
> >
> >vincent van gogh. oscar wilde. edgar allan poe. mary shelley. i'm sure
> >i'm forgetting a ton of people.
>
> Van Gogh always had altered perception, a bad love affair drove him over the
> edge into suicide when he was in a depressive cycle.
i also heard that he was schizophrenic. why did he cut off his ear?
Oscar Wilde was persecuted
> for being gay - and didn't write when he was in prison, but after, when his life
> stabilized again. Edgar Allen Poe died of tuberculosis. His life was bad, but
> he became an alcoholic to deal with the pain of his illness. He was not
> mentally unbalanced. Mary Shelley wrote one book - a good one for the time,
> mind you, and she was also not insane.
well, all these people were fucked up. and i'm sure there are others
that i didn't think of.
>
> These people had bad lives, sure. They also had talent. Being mentally ill was
> not the source of their talent - in many cases, they were not mentally ill.
> i don't think it hurts. having a bad life gives you something to
write or do whatever about. if your life has been peachy, do you
even have anything to say?
> >
> >do you know how old i am?
>
> 19. You said so in another post. If you were lying, you go into my killfile.
> I don't care for liars.
you said that i'm too young to think about a career. i think by now
my career should already be established. i thought you thought i was
14 or something. i wish.
>
> >
> >like madonna, and prince? and cher?
>
> Madonna is a singer.
she used to be a professional dancer. she's appeared in numerous
movies, with starring roles.
Prince is a singer.
he also has his own line of clothing and has been in some movies.
Cher is a singer/actress, and always
> has been.
see, a singer AND an actress.
> >
> >> Dancers start when
> >> they are young - most of them have had ten years of training by the time
> they're
> >> your age.
> >
> >well, i've had maybe 4, but it looks like i've had a lot more. i know
> >they start when they're young, but i didn't have very supportive parents.
> > anyway, i've had a lot of people tell me i could be professional. i've
> >danced at cornish.
>
> Good for you. Is that what you want to do? Then go for it. It takes a lot of
> work.
i'm not sure. perhaps. i haven't taken dance classes seriously for
about 2 years.
I have a voice good enough to be a professional singer, but I don't
want
> to sing, I want to paint. My work goes into painting.
>
> Many (if not most) people on this ng are similarly intelligent. So?
> i wasn't trying to impress. i'm aware of that. i've lurked before.
everybody just thinks i'm dumb cos of the way i started writing.
i'd rather surprise people then come off all stuffy and have people
discover somethign stupid about me.
> I have to do it, too. It's practically all I think about. I just happen to
> love what I do *and* get paid for it. Ask the Evil Chemist about that. Just
> because it's work doesn't mean it's not fulfilling. I find it better this way.
> I also push myself harder and further because learning as much as I can about my
> craft makes me better at it.
good.
sjw
Neal Stanifer
> Personally, I don't think you can 'teach' someone to be artistic.
<snip>
> They are either born
> that way, or they are not.
>
> My opionion, of course.
>
> Jeff-boy
I don't think you're right. I think there may be differences in levels
of talent depending on largely unverifiable variables... upbringing,
right-to-left-brain correspondence, level of motor accuity, blah blah
blah... I'm sure some government (probably the US) will spend billions
of dollors to gather fourteen or so facts which the British journal
Lancet will turn right around and refute.
Anyway, I think that viewing artistic creativity as an all-or-nothing
affair is a mistake, and often a damaging one. We too often hurt
ourselves by thinking in binaries. IS/IS NOT ARTISTIC. It's the human
proclivity to the false dilemma; it excuses us from thought.
I fully believe that artistic expression can be taught, and that nearly
everyone has some reservoir of artistic talent, although I would admit
that these reservoirs vary in depth.
To look at art as an all-or-nothing quality just chills me. Had I let
such a concept stop me, I would have stopped writing in third grade.
Neal
(whose third-grade teacher, may she burn eternally, was a taskmistress
who hated kids, and especially the ones who wouldn't shut up and sit
still -- Mrs. Buckle, if you're out there -- I win; You lose.)
Spring Joy
i'd like to see elsworth's art sometime.
>
> >Yeah, well that's subject I think. How, exactly, do you "teach art?"
> >You can teach some formats, or styles. But "teach art?" I don't know
> >if that's possible. I was asked to teach someone to "write" once, but,
> >I begged off. I can't do it. I still haven't taught myself to
> >"write." I "just write." Does that make sense?
what you can teach, is technique. no one can become a professional
ballerina without taking a dance class. there are rules. but you
can't teach creativity.
> >
> >Art and/or writing and/or music...ah, we can list things forever here
> >but you get my point...I don't think is something you can teach. Did
> >Giger have someone who taught him "art?" Maybe someone who taught him a
> >coloring style or something...but they didn't teach him his "art." Did
> >Shakespeare have someone who taught him "writing" beyond the mere
> >coagulation of letters and sentence structure that, being a playright,
> >he typically went structureless anyway?
> >no. art and writing are things you can learn on your own. you don't
need to take classes. if you need to learn sentence structures or
some junk, look at other pieces of writing for example. for art, if
you want practice, just look at something and copy it. i just don't
understand why people can't do that. it takes no creativity.
>
> The best art teacher I ever had (Mr. Bartman, Walt Whitman H.S., Bethesda,
his name is mr. bartman? for real? yay.
> Maryland) tried to make us learn as much as we could about the forms of art that
> preceded us. His take on the subject was that to learn to create, you should
> know what was created before you came into the scene.
i think that's a good idea. everybody seems to think that they can
be an artist, cos anything can pass as art these days. same thing
with this scene. the little kiddies should know why they are
dressing this way. it gets on my nerves when kids think they're
gothic cos they have a cape but their favorite band is smashing
pumpkins and i make them a tape of club classics and they say, "it's
not something i'd normally listen to". but i guess you don't have
to look like your music. you can dress normal and like this.
>
> We all start with different levels of talent. That talent pool is always full,
> but limited in scope. Does that make sense? What I'm trying to put across is
> that we have the same amount of talent all our lives. It doesn't grow. What
> grows, and makes us become better artists, is experience. Part of that
> experience is learning the physical skills of our trade.
not always. um, citizen kane? whats his name again? orson wells?
he peaked at 25, after 30 was considered a has-been. a lot of people
do that. and sure, most people are talented in different areas, but
some people aren't talented at all. they're just worthless bags of
useless puss. and there are some people that can do anything,
michelangelo, leonardo da vinci.
A child, however
> talented at drawing things, will not know what to do with oil paints until she
> learns the rudiments of oil painting.
not necessarily. she could experiment and find out for herself.
> I've
> tried my hand at sculpture, egg-tempera painting, collage, I've even made my own
> pigments.
i want to learn to make my own pigments. i haven't even learned to
stretch my own canvas yet. i've only taken one painting class. i
also want to get into sculpture. i used to be really bad at it, and
i thought i should stick to 2dimensions, but i need to broaden my
horizons.
> >
> The bad teachers sneered at my efforts, or told me that the artists I loved
> weren't real artists because they didn't paint in the accepted way.
whatever.
>
> I guess my opinion would be that the knowledge of art can be taught, the
> mechanics can be taught, The discipline of consistent work can be taught, but
> the creative process must be found alone, after the learning is done. So, the
> foundation of art can be taught, but after that, you're on your own. Except,
> you're never really alone. The voices of a hundred thousand thousand artists
> whisper to you from down through the ages, encouraging the spark within you.
>
> However: The learning process is a vital part of becoming a working artist.
> Without the knowledge of other painters under my belt, I would be reinventing
> the wheel every time I tried to paint. Instead, I am free to build on that
> base, so when I create something, I can have that knowledge backing me up,
> providing a solid foundation.
>
> THAT's what teaching art is all about.
>
> How was that, PapaPan?
> pretty good.
another thing that gets on my nerves is when people who are pretty
good artists brag that they've never had an art class, trying to
prove that they're more talented than me cos i've had one. i didn't
learn art from art classes. i take them because they interest me. i
started drawing since i could hold a pen. that's what i did when all
the other kids were outside playing. and my mom doesn't want to buy
me a $130 dollar easel, the practically cheapest one cos she thinks
i'll never use it. but i got it, it's over and done with.
sjw
Spring Joy
is inspiration. i could be doing my math homework, and i just start
drawing an eye. turns into a face. covers my entire paper. that's my
math homework. i get to art class and i can't think of a thing to do,
and all i do is talk. isn't that the way life goes.
sjw
elsworth
>
>I don't think that all of us have the same talents in all things though,
>although I doubt this is what you meant.
You're right; that's not what I meant. The talent pool in each person leans
towards different things. It take as much talent to be a good chemist as it
does to be a good visual artist.
> Each of us, I think (ok, MOST of us) have talents in certain
>things but are absolutely horrid in others. There's no way around that.
All of us have talents in different things. The emphasis on (and corresponding
backlash against) 'art' being somehow special and outside the realm of
'ordinary' life results mostly from the mid-twentieth century obsession with pop
art, and the resulting outrageous prices. To justify paying a fortune for
something, you have to artificially inflate its value.
>Yes, so it's possible to teach how to use the tools or skills required
>to further hone their talents. Tools/skills = teachable. But
>creation/talent is inside. The most a teacher can do is try and get the
>person in question to tap into it.
Absolutely. But you can hone your ability to tap into the creative process by
learning good work habits. I don't just sit down and *bam* produce a
masterpiece. 90 percent of what I do is practice, rough drawings, and so on.
>What's egg-tempera, by the way?
It's a very old medium, first used over a thousand years ago. The medium is the
binding agent that makes the pigment stick to the surface. Egg-tempera style is
very meticulous, and uses tiny crosshatched brushstrokes to create a deep
texture. The egg yolk is the binder - a fabulous lecture from my teacher on how
to prepare the egg yolk, which ended with him picking up the yolk by its skin
and holding it over his face. He says it's only broken once in ten years of
lecturing.
>Do you think it might have been better if the results were critiqued on
>a level that wouldn't have hurt as much? Or did that make you try ever
>harder the next time and tap even deeper into the talent pool you had
>available?
No. This was the good critique - not cruel or belittling, but brutally honest
about the shortcomings in the piece under scrutiny. Everyone needs to learn how
to deal with this kind of criticism, because it teaches one how to be objective
about one's own work. Without objectivity, I'd be turning out sofa art. As it
goes now, I'm really pleased when my husband tells me it's too weird to hang
above the sofa.
>
>So would you call teaching art, beyond the previously discussed "skills"
>level of it, more of a guiding aspect rather than a show-how one?
It's both. they never really seperate from each other. I firmly believe that
you can teach someone how to access their talent.
>Ah, I never thought of that point. Taking influence and building on
>previous artists' work that you may enjoy or emmulate (and no matter how
>hard we try, there will always be some sort of influence from some
>source outside ourselves regardless of what we do) allows it to move
>ahead.
...and allows us not to be so derivative. :P
elsworth
elsworth
Neal Stanifer wrote in message <35C8A6C6...@netxn.com>...
>
>You teach technique. You give people the tools to do the job, and you
>provide them with the *means*, both material and intellectual, to
>create. And you show them what others have done, and teach them to
>distinguish types of media, types of method and technique. What you do
>not do it tell them that their art is *wrong.*
Sometimes it is necessary to tell them that their current work is bad, however.
How else will they learn to improve?
And yes, you can make judgement calls like that, as long as you have the
knowledge to back it up.
>
>What you *can* do is to help them to realize what they want to create.
>For instance, if a student is using pastel as he would a pencil, I would
>tell him to try using the medium to bring out its full effect. If he
>still wanted to use his chalk like a crayon, then so be it. At least
>now he knows another (and IMO better) way.
Pencil? I smoosh them up with my fingers, and them use them like finger paints.
:Ş But you're right, I do know all the ways to use them.
>
>This is simple pedagogy, and art is nothing special when it comes to
>teaching. The same thing applies, IMO, to all subject which can be
>taught. Teach the student to seek and recognize value and truth. Do
>not teach what truth *is*.
I agree. Art is nothing special, and should confer no special privileges. On
the other hand, it should be more a part of everyday life (and I'm not talking
about advertising).
>But because art is artificially placed in a realm apart from any other
>human endeavor, we tend to pamper it, and I honestly think that the very
>pedestal we place it on prevents so many people from daring to approach
>it. How often have you heard someone say, "Oh, I'm not a writer, I just
>write in my spare time." Or "I paint a little, but I wouldn't call
>myself an artist." Or how about "I could never write poetry."
Well, most people are only good enough to amuse themselves. Such amusement is a
wonderful way to explore one's personality, but that doesn't mean it should be
inflicted on others. I am fond of saying "everyone can sing" to my voice
students, but that doesn't neccessarily mean they should perform for others.
>
>We are all artists from the moment we try to bring what is inside to the
>outside. From the first words we speak, we are poets, and from the
>first facial expressions we mimic as babies, we are learning the
>techniques of art.
...and them we are told to put away childinsh things and grow up, since everyone
knows you can't make money as an artist. (sorry, couldn't resist.)
>
>And since no one wishes to reinvent the wheel, we learn from those who
>have already learned, and so on. It's called a tradition. With art,
>that tradition includes not only the study of great works of the past
>and (one would hope) contemporary art of note, but also a deep and
>intensive training in technique, so that when the student is released
>from the classes, he or she is ready to begin pushing the limits of what
>is known and what is done even further than he or she found them.
That describes any discipline. Sounds like what my brother did, and he's a
neurophysician.
elsworth
Neal Stanifer
> I don't know if you can be "born" with a talent. Well, I guess it happens,
> but for some people, it's the desire to learn that brings the "talent" about.
Yes, I agree. I think everyone has ability and that varies from person
to person, but nearly everyone is capable of honing that ability and
improving it.
<<snip>> art school story
I'm glad you brought up Picasso. I'm getting this quote wrong, I know,
but he probably originally said it in Spanish anyway, so who cares?
"I have always painted like Rembrandt. It took me 30 years to learn to
paint like a child."
--Picasso
The point being that you must ground yourself in basic technique before
you can innovate.
Neal
ren
From sorrow and lust come great works of wonder.
~signed, I am the curse of the stained blue dress.
Marcus Pan
> You're right; that's not what I meant. The talent pool in each person leans
> towards different things. It take as much talent to be a good chemist as it
> does to be a good visual artist.
Never thought of that. I mean, the talent-idea & pool yes, but not in
relation to something like chemistry. I guess I just regulate that kind
of talent to a more learned and/or skilled ideal rather than a talented
one. I can however see what you mean.
> Absolutely. But you can hone your ability to tap into the creative process by
> learning good work habits. I don't just sit down and *bam* produce a
> masterpiece. 90 percent of what I do is practice, rough drawings, and so on.
How much time would you say go into, for example, a painting? The most
I do in an artistic vein (besides writing...and I don't know if I'd
consider myself an artist in that respect) are 3D painting, i.e.
ceramics & pewter. It doesn't take me too long to do that...but that's
because I'm finishing up a sculpture someone else has already done (kind
of half-assed, eh? ;>). But to paint something from inside your head,
how many rough drafts does it usually take you & about how long?
Assuming there is any form of answer...does it vary greatly?
> to prepare the egg yolk, which ended with him picking up the yolk by its skin
> and holding it over his face. He says it's only broken once in ten years of
> lecturing.
I've never seen an egg yolk picked up by its skin.
> It's both. they never really seperate from each other. I firmly believe that
> you can teach someone how to access their talent.
Is there any method you use to access yours in order to come up with an
initial idea for a piece/work? Or does it just pop in one day, like my
writing ideas do sometimes, and you just have to spend a while honing
that idea into a new product? Some people I knes would meditate or just
sit alone for HOURS before getting any form of idea to work on.
Marcus Pan
> You teach technique. You give people the tools to do the job, and you
> provide them with the *means*, both material and intellectual, to
> create. And you show them what others have done, and teach them to
> distinguish types of media, types of method and technique. What you do
> not do it tell them that their art is *wrong.*
See, that's a good point Elsworth and I haven't hit on yet...at least
not as concretely. The idea that any form of art can be "wrong."
Considering the subjective nature of it, that can't be true.
I shall illustrate with a story. :)
There was an art show in my area many years ago. I forget all the
details, but one of the main "pieces" on display was the artist sleeping
in a bed. Just...sleeping in bed. I mean, there were things around and
in the bed that were set up a certain away so he could call it some form
of sculpture, but that's basically what he did. And you'd go to the
gallery to see him just LYING there. That was his version of art.
Now, >I< don't think this is art...at all. But I can't say this form of
art is "wrong." Who the hell am I? It's just not artistic to ME.
Doesn't mean it isn't to the guy standing next to me.
That in turn, I would expect, makes it harder to teach, or at least
teach well. With qualitative subjects, like math or science, there is a
"wrong." (At least for the purpose of this discussion about art...let's
not get into chaos theory or physics-law limitations right now, k?)
2+2=6 is "wrong." A guy in a bed saying he's a sculpture can't be said
as wrong. So I would expect, being that there are so many "rights" and
no "wrongs" it's a bitch to teach.
> This is simple pedagogy, and art is nothing special when it comes to
> teaching. The same thing applies, IMO, to all subject which can be
> taught. Teach the student to seek and recognize value and truth. Do
> not teach what truth *is*.
In qualitative subjects, as in above math example, they do.
> Makes perfect sense, but I wonder if you are also forgetting all the
> lessons you learned, self-taught or otherwise, which made you a better
> writer. Can those lessons not be taught to others? I think so. I can
> make someone a better writer by pointing out the mistakes and failings
> in their writing, and by praising their successes. If I didn't believe
> that, I wouldn't be pursuing a career in university.
Most definitely I am not. "I just write" is a good example of where a
product or idea comes from. It is, however, drafted, rewritten and
proofed beyond that. Reading some of my older writings and then some of
the ones I have done recently shows a HUGE difference and, in fact, an
almost totally different style that I think is more enveloping than my
old one. Those lessons are there. :) Every time I write something
there's more to build on.
> I think you may be quibbling here. After all, what you said about Giger
> and then Shakespeare, et al, could easily be said of a mathematician who
> revolutionized some dark and dry corner of the realm of numbers. And
> that could lead us to ask, "Can you really *teach* math? I mean, you
> can teach theorems and quantities and techniques, but can *math* be
> taught?"
See above math example and talk of qualitative subjects. I think it is
possible to "teach math." There's a point at which no more can be
taught and the person is left to revel in imagianary or complex numbers
beyond that...but whether that's a creative process or a scientific
process is hard to determine...maybe a little of both. But I feel it's
more scientific.
> We are all artists from the moment we try to bring what is inside to the
> outside. From the first words we speak, we are poets, and from the
> first facial expressions we mimic as babies, we are learning the
> techniques of art.
Again, I don't consider a guy lying in a bed art, so I would neither
consider facial expressions art. My 16 month old, for example, uses
facial expressions to communicate and learn...I don't think she grasps
the idea of art beyond something "pretty" or "nice" at all at this
point. Of course, I can't ask her yet...but I'd bet my wad on it. :)
So I disagree...if every person in the world claimed they were poets it
would be a very boring and repetitive place.
elsworth
Marcus Pan wrote in message <35C9B3...@idt.net>...
>
>Never thought of that. I mean, the talent-idea & pool yes, but not in
>relation to something like chemistry. I guess I just regulate that kind
>of talent to a more learned and/or skilled ideal rather than a talented
>one. I can however see what you mean.
Oh, no, to do *anything* well takes talent. Really. Just somehow, people
assume that chemistry can be taught, and that 'art' come from some mystical
place within. Whereas I consider the everyday mechanics of art to be quite
mundane in their execution, and find chemistry a wonderous and mystical thing
that I have no grasp of. Actually, I find a lot of things that way. My vet
friend saving a cat that had ingested antifreeze - she smelled the cat's breath,
and made a correct diagnosis - damn! The chaos theory - is there anything more
beautiful than that idea? It goes on. Art is only a small corner of the world.
>
>How much time would you say go into, for example, a painting? The most
>I do in an artistic vein (besides writing...and I don't know if I'd
>consider myself an artist in that respect) are 3D painting, i.e.
>ceramics & pewter. It doesn't take me too long to do that...but that's
>because I'm finishing up a sculpture someone else has already done (kind
>of half-assed, eh? ;>). But to paint something from inside your head,
>how many rough drafts does it usually take you & about how long?
>Assuming there is any form of answer...does it vary greatly?
It does vary. Sometimes a painting will lurk for months, not ready to be put
onto canvas... sometimes it comes out in a great rush, and I'm done in a couple
of days. Since I paint thoughts and abstractions of things, or alter reality to
echo the feeling behind it (a sort of "Dorian Greyinization", if you will), it
can sometimes take time to realize the painting. I have one I've been working
on fo a year and a half, now, that has been scrapped several times, because I
can't get it to work for me.
>I've never seen an egg yolk picked up by its skin.
It's highly entertaining. I'll show you at C5 next year if you're still
interested. Makes a good party trick.
>> I firmly believe that
>> you can teach someone how to access their talent.
>
>Is there any method you use to access yours in order to come up with an
>initial idea for a piece/work? Or does it just pop in one day, like my
>writing ideas do sometimes, and you just have to spend a while honing
>that idea into a new product? Some people I knes would meditate or just
>sit alone for HOURS before getting any form of idea to work on.
I keep my eyes open for ideas and thoughts and images that strike me. Then I
put them down in my sketchbook. Then, when ideas just popping into my head
become thin on the ground, I flip through my sketchbooks, and browse past ideas.
I also keep a file of pictures that stir something in me. Some ideas do just
pop into my head (I almost typed 'poop' - that would probably be more
accurate:), but they're not always the best ones.
elsworth
Jennie Kermode
>Yeah, well that's subject I think. How, exactly, do you "teach art?"
>You can teach some formats, or styles. But "teach art?" I don't know
>if that's possible. I was asked to teach someone to "write" once, but,
>I begged off. I can't do it. I still haven't taught myself to
>"write." I "just write." Does that make sense?
One can teach technique, which any individual, no matter how
talented, will need to know in order to make the most of that talent. I
'just write', myself, but the reason I am able to is that structure and
other aspects of technique are now so ingrained in me that they happen
automatically. And when one is trying to create something different, one
needs to know where the boundaries are before one can break away.
Jennie
--
Jennie Kermode http://www.skinner.demon.co.uk/jennie jen...@innocent.com
Gothcode 3.0A: GoAu7$CS3 TGlTgFeNr9 PMoRSg B40/90Bk"4 cBk9 V6s
M3p1GooFanPuoCl C6p a25-(15) n6 b54 H163 g7!??76A m0@26 w7A v5S r3E
p75765Rd D77* h7AdFeGl sF5PSrWy k7BdSMmDspFNRWT N0893NEH HfsSp10 LukGla9
Jennie Kermode
Stefanie S <Stefa...@webtv.net> wrote:
>There is something really wrong with you if you think all that shit was
>fun.
People are recountiong their different experiences here for the
sake of discussion - no-one's showing off. What do you have to prove? Some
people are talking about fun occasions and others aren't. 'Fun' is an
objective thing. No-one is trying to dictate what is wise.
> And I couldn't even go 24 hours with out sleep I don't see how the
>hell you can.
Different people vary a lot like that. It's to do with how fit a
person is and the speed of hir metabolism. I have friends who have to
sleep every twenty hours or so, no matter where they are, and I see that
as being somewhat unfortunate for them, because having the ability to stay
awake longer can be extremely practical on some occasions (in emergencies,
if nothing else). I have other friends who can stay awake for several days
and behave just as coherently as they normally would.
> I tryed it one time and I acted like I was drunk and I hated it I would
>run into things and stuff like that. I hope you get help.
Well that's a shame for you, but don't assume that your
experiences are the same as everyone else's. Not everyone reacts to sleep
deprivation like that (as reading this thread should illustrate). As for
the 'getting help' bit of your statement, I hope you realise you're not
going to make people take notice of you by patronising them.
Kelly H Watts
!Marcus Pan <p...@idt.net> wrote:
!> Daniel Hayato Thomas wrote:
!>> and they refuse to _teach_ art... or how to do it
!
!> Yeah, well that's subject I think. How, exactly, do you "teach art?"
!> You can teach some formats, or styles. But "teach art?" I don't know
!> if that's possible. I was asked to teach someone to "write" once, but,
!> I begged off. I can't do it. I still haven't taught myself to
!> "write." I "just write." Does that make sense?
At my school it is, or at least they think it is. I was actually told by
a teacher that I was "painting wrong". When I asked how I should be
painting, she demonstrated. I then asked if I should focus on painting
more like her, to which she responded "exactly!" Harumph.
In high school I was taught tecniques. How to mix colors, the uses of
different materials, some of the more common styles (impressionist, pre
raphialite, etc). However, when it came down to it, our work was our work
and we had the final say. Teachers would offer advide, when asked, and
grades were determined by the class as a whole based on effort.
Apparenty this method was pretty successful. My school had the highest
scores in the state on the studio art advanced placement exam (college
credit for HS kids) for a public school.
!My art teachers were basicaly babysitting us during the classes
!and nothing else... They wouldn't _teach_ us how to draw realistic
!pictures because that would crimp our individual styles...
!but they still only encouraged the people who would draw
!realisticaly.... I never figured out how to draw properly
!until I borrowed a book on the subject which just explained
!how to understand what your seeing and put it on paper...
That's why I never really agreed with general art classes. If you have
someone who's working on a six- foot sculpure next to someone who is
drawing a still life, where will all the attention go?
I think that some people will always get lost in the shuffle, but that's
more a reflection on modern schools than art education. There's only one
teacher and sometimes upwards of 30 kids. That's about a minuite per kid.
Kelly
*****
RealAudio goth radio * alt.gothic.cars * WNY Goth *ICQ 6206391 AIM Kali199
http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Arena/8894
Marcus Pan
> Oh, no, to do *anything* well takes talent. Really. Just somehow, people
> assume that chemistry can be taught, and that 'art' come from some mystical
> place within. Whereas I consider the everyday mechanics of art to be quite
> mundane in their execution, and find chemistry a wonderous and mystical thing
> that I have no grasp of. Actually, I find a lot of things that way. My vet
> friend saving a cat that had ingested antifreeze - she smelled the cat's breath,
> and made a correct diagnosis - damn!
Really? That's amazing. Give your friend a big round of huzzahs for
me...my sense of smell is absolutely moronic. Unless you rubbed my nose
in it, I smell nothing. (This is NOT an invitation to y'all.)
> The chaos theory - is there anything more
> beautiful than that idea? It goes on.
Well, if we continue down that path this conversation will reach
megalithic proportions. ;)
> Art is only a small corner of the world.
But just as important.
> It's highly entertaining. I'll show you at C5 next year if you're still
> interested. Makes a good party trick.
Sounds great! Doubt I'm going to make C5 though. :(
> I keep my eyes open for ideas and thoughts and images that strike me. Then I
> put them down in my sketchbook. Then, when ideas just popping into my head
> become thin on the ground, I flip through my sketchbooks, and browse past ideas.
> I also keep a file of pictures that stir something in me. Some ideas do just
> pop into my head (I almost typed 'poop' - that would probably be more
> accurate:), but they're not always the best ones.
I have to do that more. I have so many story ideas sometimes but I
never remember to jot them down so I can develop them. I lose more than
I care to know that way.
Jennie Kermode
Elsworth wrote:
>> Madonna is a singer.
>
>she used to be a professional dancer. she's appeared in numerous
>movies, with starring roles.
>
> Prince is a singer.
>
>he also has his own line of clothing and has been in some movies.
There is a difference between _appearing_ in movies and
_acting_. A big difference.
The above are just illustrations that anyone can do the former.
Jennie Kermode
>not as concretely. The idea that any form of art can be "wrong."
>Considering the subjective nature of it, that can't be true.
I see your point, Pan, but at the same time, I have come across
art that I felt was 'wrong' in a very real sense.
I was at an art exhibition a few years ago, a graduation show -
I was persuaded to attend by my ex, whose new gf was displaying some work
there. Now, some of the stuff there was creative and original and
genuinely had something to say, and I was duly impressed by that. But
other stuff was deeply derivative and pretentious in the worst way, and so
utterly shallow (the more so when one talked to its creators) as to be
offensive and disturbing. It seemed to be the antithesis of what art is
about, suffocating ideas as it was, stifling creativity. It was getting by
on lovie-ness and pretence.
Later, in one of the central rooms, I found an exhibit which
consisted of a stuffed wallaby with a live goldfish in an uncomfortably
tiny plastic tank strapped to its back. It was positioned such that people
kept bumping into it, and I would be surprised to find it didn't fall over
by the end of the night. The only reason I didn't take the tank out of
there was that the place was crawling with security and I didn't think I'd
succeed, and I didn't want to traumatise the fish any more. The poor thing
was terrified. I've bred fish and I know their behaviour well. It was
under a lot of stress and kept looking in vain for somewhere to hide. In
its panic, it had begun to bump off the sides of the tank and hurt itself.
No kind of art can justify that sort of suffering.
The only appropriate answer, the only way to show people what
'art' does when taken to that extreme, was, to my mind, to take a few of
the people there and slice their guts open and hang them from the rafters.
Yes, killing can be art, but should we make that part of our society? I
just had a horrible feeling that if I did that I wouldn't be stopped, at
least not until after people had stared for a while and taken photographs
and discussed how it would look in the office. I had a horrible feeling
that I couldn't really teach those people anything - I'd just be giving
them more avant-garde fodder for dinner party conversation.
When I mentioned that exhibit later, my flatmate told me about a
show in London which consisted of a clear plastic tube full of live fish,
rigged up in such a way that the fish couldn't swim and just struggled and
died while on public view, as their oxygen ran out. Personally, that's the
kind of thing that makes me want to take up serial killing as a full time
occupation.
Elocutus DeBorgia
abyss would not shout back:
>There is something really wrong with you if you think all that shit was
>fun.
>hated it I would run into things and stuff like that. I hope you get
>help.
At college we had the 200 Club: people who had been up for 200 hours
straight at any point. I topped out around hour 85 (three hours into
visual hallucinations,) which was too much for me.
Of course, the idea of not being able to go 24 hours without sleep
blows my mind, too.
(posted only)
--Elocutus
===
"Liberty trains for liberty. Responsibility is
the first step to responsibility."
--W. E. B. DuBois
Neal Stanifer
<<snip>>
> Without objectivity, I'd be turning out sofa art. As it
> goes now, I'm really pleased when my husband tells me it's too weird to hang
> above the sofa.
Nothing is too weird to hang above the sofa. You just have to get a
weirder sofa. ;)
Actually, I have Dali's "Temptation of St. Anthony" hanging above mine,
but what I'd really like to find is a print of Bacon's "Figure With
Meat." I adore that painting and have never found a print of it, which
flat sucks.
But on the subject of sofa art, is that perhaps the most disturbing
symptom of consumerism you can name? I think it ranks right up there.
"Do you have that Monet in more neutral shades? I'm not a pasel
person."
"I don't know much about art, but I need something in a lilac."
My favorite are the commercials (in the US; I'm not sure if you overseas
and up-north types get them) for those art instruction schools. "Enter
the exciting world of art." And all the while, they're playing elevator
music and showing pictures of seascapes and sports scenes.
Time to re-popularize the word Philistine.
Neal
(who *really* wants a print of Bacon's "Figure with Meat"... *sigh*)
Neal Stanifer
<<snip>> story about guy in bed as sculpture.
Heh heh... I can top that. One of my best friends in HS, Jess, was in
a sculpture class in college and his teacher assigned the class to do
something about the color "white". Jess thought about it for a week,
but could think of nothing (and Jess is a damn talented, imaginative,
and workmanlike scupltor to this day). So when project time came, the
teacher came into the room to find a lot of white sculptures, fairly
predictable stuff... and Jess, stark naked, painted white from head to
toe, standing on a white pedestal.
She told him to get off the pedestal and go get dressed, and not to come
back.
But I thought it was clever, and in that case, it made a statement.
> I think it is
> possible to "teach math." There's a point at which no more can be
> taught and the person is left to revel in imagianary or complex numbers
> beyond that...but whether that's a creative process or a scientific
> process is hard to determine...maybe a little of both. But I feel it's
> more scientific.
Ouch, no fair... You don't want us to get into stuff like chaos theory,
so I can't really refute your point here as elegantly as I'd like to.
Math and science *are* an imaginative and creative process, just as art
and the humanities are, with only a different emphasis on quality versus
quantity. Scientific and mathematical endeavors have a methodology,
just as scuplture and painting do, and scientists, like poets, have a
goal in mind when they set themselves to a task. Where the hugest
difference lies is that, to be valid, scientific work must be
reproducable, whereas art is praised for the reverse -- its uniqueness.
But let's examine this for just a moment. The sculptor has been
influenced by masters who have gone before, and he has learned his
techniques and skills thoroughly. What he produces can be seen as a
further development of a "proof" of the technique of sculpting. Seen in
this way, we might say that the uniqueness of an elegant sculpture is
equivalent to the uniqueness of an elegant theorem.
> So I disagree...if every person in the world claimed they were poets it
> would be a very boring and repetitive place.
Perhaps, but only if they were published. Just because every human
being is an artist, does not mean every human being can make a living by
expressing himself. It is easy to lose sight of the fact that someone
who writes and is published as a poet is not by virtue of that fact any
*more* a poet than someone who writes privately or is never successful
commercially.
We are back to elsworth's remark about sofa art. In our consumer
societies, perhaps we tend to equate "artist" with "commercially
successful artist." This is folly. There are artists everywhere; not
all of them make a living at it.
Neal
Black Daisies
>
> But on the subject of sofa art, is that perhaps the most disturbing
> symptom of consumerism you can name? I think it ranks right up there.
>
> "Do you have that Monet in more neutral shades? I'm not a pasel
> person."
>
> "I don't know much about art, but I need something in a lilac."
>
I'm dying with laughter here. I work in a place that sells framed prints
and shit like that, and that's all I get. I can't believe that people
would try to dictate how fine art is supposed to look in their fucking
bathroom.
"Yes, this Van Gogh goes exactly with my wooden furniture" and crap like
that.
The best is people who come up to me, look at a print of Monet and ask
me if it's an original. Yeah right, like we'd have a fucking original
Monet in a shit store like mine.
Pamela
Black Daisies ---> http://webhome.idirect.com/~daisies
Sheila Marie
> Sounds great! Doubt I'm going to make C5 though. :(
>
'scuse you?? *pouts* I thought there was a rule that you had to go to
EVERY Convergence?
--
Sheila Marie - http://www.lowlife.com/sheila_marie
C5 New Orleans "The Rougaroux's Ball"- http://slashpalace.org/NOLA/
Tampa Mailing list - http://www.lowlife.com/gothgardens
Industrial info site - http://www.lowlife.com
elsworth
Neal Stanifer wrote in message <35CABFA5...@netxn.com>...
>Nothing is too weird to hang above the sofa. You just have to get a
>weirder sofa. ;)
Actually, believe it or not, my apartment is very tasteful... antique
sideboards, and such. The artworks I have hanging are an exquisite floral
still-life in the style of the Dutch Masters (picked up in a Marlo Furniture
store, believe it on not), a reproduction of a 16th Century map of London, and
some sketches I did while in Oxford (one of which, appropriately wnough, is of a
graveyard). I haven't painted anything large enough to go over the sofa yet.
>
>Actually, I have Dali's "Temptation of St. Anthony" hanging above mine,
>but what I'd really like to find is a print of Bacon's "Figure With
>Meat." I adore that painting and have never found a print of it, which
>flat sucks.
MMmmmmm... I like those. My favourite Dali would be his crucifixion painting.
>
>But on the subject of sofa art, is that perhaps the most disturbing
>symptom of consumerism you can name? I think it ranks right up there.
>
>"Do you have that Monet in more neutral shades? I'm not a pasel
>person."
>
>"I don't know much about art, but I need something in a lilac."
"Today and tomorrow only! At the Marriot/Hilton/Ramada! REAL art by REAL
artists! $49 and up! Genuine oil paintings!"
Yes, I know what you mean.
>
>My favorite are the commercials (in the US; I'm not sure if you overseas
>and up-north types get them) for those art instruction schools. "Enter
>the exciting world of art." And all the while, they're playing elevator
>music and showing pictures of seascapes and sports scenes.
"If you can hols a pencil, you may be on your way to fame and fortune as one of
todays top artists! Say goodbye to the nin-to-five grind: Artists get to sleep
late and go to lots of parties. Take this simple test. If you pass, you will
recieve a complimentary dinnertime phone call from one of our friendly
admissions officers." (stolen from 'The Daria Diaries'.)
elsworth
Marcus Pan
>
> Marcus Pan wrote:
>
> > Sounds great! Doubt I'm going to make C5 though. :(
> >
> 'scuse you?? *pouts* I thought there was a rule that you had to go to
> EVERY Convergence?
I do? I wasn't aware of that rule. Can you reprint the FAQ section
where it says that? Or quote the rule for me? :)
Marcus Pan
<SNIP>
> When I mentioned that exhibit later, my flatmate told me about a
> show in London which consisted of a clear plastic tube full of live fish,
> rigged up in such a way that the fish couldn't swim and just struggled and
> died while on public view, as their oxygen ran out. Personally, that's the
> kind of thing that makes me want to take up serial killing as a full time
> occupation.
Ok, you got me. There can be art that is simply "wrong." To you and I
and a lot of people. The problem is this stuff continues to be produced
because there are people who LIKE it! You're right...they'd probably
make nice art too if given the chance to party with their entrails.
As far as the fish go, I have a virtual obsession with my tropical tank
which I just, by the way, revamped the other night. :) I'm sorry I had
to bug the fish a bit by putting them in a bucket while I broke the tank
down, but they seemed quite pleased by the end result. Woo! :)
(The EvilGoffikImmortalAngelFish live on...)
Kelly H Watts
!Ok, you got me. There can be art that is simply "wrong." To you and I
!and a lot of people. The problem is this stuff continues to be produced
!because there are people who LIKE it! You're right...they'd probably
!make nice art too if given the chance to party with their entrails.
Yeah, but keep in mind that there are people who will profess to like
_anything_ so long as they're told it's "hip" and "cutting-edge."
David Gerard
wrote:
: When I mentioned that exhibit later, my flatmate told me about a
:show in London which consisted of a clear plastic tube full of live fish,
:rigged up in such a way that the fish couldn't swim and just struggled and
:died while on public view, as their oxygen ran out. Personally, that's the
:kind of thing that makes me want to take up serial killing as a full time
:occupation.
Just do it artistically. Give the profilers something to *really* chew on.
(Jennie The Homicidal Maniac?)
--
http://thingy.apana.org.au/~fun/ AGSF Unit 0|4 http://suburbia.net/~fun/
Stop JUNK EMAIL Boycott AMAZON.COM http://mickc.home.mindspring.com/index1.htm
"Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and
evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the
lack of evidence." (Richard Dawkins)
elsworth
Jennie Kermode wrote in message ...
<snip fish story>
Yerk! I hate that! hate-it-hate-it-hate-it......
Shock art - the descendant of pop art. The need to stretch boundaries to get
attention without ever having something to say.
It's like spoiled children acting out so they can be the center of the party.
The people that gush about how 'avant-garde' it is are the same people who will
not control their children, and smile benevolently when the little fuckers rip
the house apart.
...when you go on your killing spree, can I come too? I'm pretty good at
setting up lighting.
elsworth
Richard
com> wrote:
>At college we had the 200 Club: people who had been up for 200 hours
>straight at any point. I topped out around hour 85 (three hours into
>visual hallucinations,) which was too much for me.
60 or so hours for me. Although a one point I used to regularly stay up
52+ hours. (Regularly means once every week(end).)
It did however almost turn me into a raving lunatic after 6 months or so.
>Of course, the idea of not being able to go 24 hours without sleep
>blows my mind, too.
Now it does, although I do 36+ hour (no drugs) days sometimes because I
can't sleep, othertimes because I spend too much time reading newsgroups.
--
Ax...@drk1.demon.co.uk ICQ:2526788 http://www.drk1.demon.co.uk
-----------------------Interested in fighting spam?---------------------------
AGSF mirror http://www.drk1.demon.co.uk/ags-f/ also see http://www.sputum.com
Jennie Kermode
>...when you go on your killing spree, can I come too? I'm pretty good at
>setting up lighting.
Sounds useful. I guess I'll need a painter or photographer. ;)
elsworth
Jennie Kermode wrote in message ...
>>...when you go on your killing spree, can I come too? I'm pretty good at
>>setting up lighting.
>
> Sounds useful. I guess I'll need a painter or photographer. ;)
>
> Jennie
>
Go with the photographer - then afterwards, you can digitally enhance the
images, and make chemically altered prints, which a painter friend <ahem> can
then render into perfect abstraction.
You then put the whole process up as a single-theme show, and watch the pundits
drool.
elsworth (damn, I know way too much about how these things are done...)
Neal Stanifer
> Go with the photographer - then afterwards, you can digitally enhance the
> images, and make chemically altered prints, which a painter friend <ahem> can
> then render into perfect abstraction.
>
> You then put the whole process up as a single-theme show, and watch the pundits
> drool.
>
> elsworth (damn, I know way too much about how these things are done...)
Bowie's "Outside" cd springs into my head.
"What a fantastic death abyss... Tell the others."
Neal
Jennie Kermode
>You then put the whole process up as a single-theme show, and watch the pundits
>drool.
>
>elsworth (damn, I know way too much about how these things are done...)
You should be a consultant to serial killers. ;)
SirChasm
>(who *really* wants a print of Bacon's "Figure with Meat"... *sigh*)
You know, I couldn't find *any* reference to that work on the search
engines. (And I'm really wondering what 'wxw.upskirtsandpantyhose.com' has
to do with 'Figure With Meat' ...)
I suggest you try and find out where the work is now. If it's in a gallery,
they often have prints available, you know.
--
SirChasm
"I wear my silence like a mask
And murmur like a ghost
Trick or Treat -- Trick or Treat
The bitter and the sweet..." - SatB
Spring Joy
has changed...
my friend just did the best piece of dada pop art i have ever seen. he made stonehenge
out of cigarette butts! he could sell that for millions! who was it who picked up a
toilet off the street and signed his name, and sold it for a lot?
i saw the most perfect shirt for my friend in the brass plum at nordstroms. i love
nordstroms. i'm getting a charge card there when i can afford it. savvy all the way.
anway, its a tshirt with silkscreened pics of barbie, like the one of marilyn monroe
that andy warhol did. yay!
i also saw a mesh tshirt at savvy with the mona lisa on it, on CLEARANCE, 50% off, for
$44. that means $88 regular, for those of you who can't do math. they also have these
dresses in the brass plum with a scene from the sistene chapel, i think "the creation of
man" and another one which name i can't remember. i don't remember how much they were,
but they weren't incredibly expensive.
I LOVE NORDYS!!!! i used to shop there all the time in my prep phase. they have good
shoes. the rack is even better. i've grown out of the brass plum. i believe in the
savvy of lloyd center, you can smoke in the dressing rooms and they have phones. i also
heard that they serve some people caviar and champagne. when i'm rich and famous, i'm
taking my poor goth friends in and we'll smoke and make long-distance phone calls, burn
holes in the clothes and spill caviar and champagne on the clothes. and they're really
nice to you there, they wouldn't make you pay for it. especially when you're rich and
famous. and if they did, who cares? you can afford it.
they had a really nice black lace spaghetti strap betsey johnson dress in my size on
clearance for $79. regularly $185. thats such a good deal. my parents are loaded, but
they wouldn't buy it for me. they think it makes me look too thin. they also have white
tshirts with the virgin mary surrounded by rhinestones for $24. i'd pay for it if i had
the money. but someday, when i'm a supermodel, i'll get paid to wear that shit.
my friend and i went into nordys the other day looking like street trash, carrying our
lunchboxes. i fixed my hello kitty barrette in one of the mirrors in the cosmetics
department, and i said, "THAT looks good." and the cosmetics lady and her customer look
over at me, and i said "i was talking about ME. i wasn't intending to be insulting"
and she laughed and said "i'm sooo sure". was she talking smack? i wouldn't have
kicked her ass in nordys, that would have been a faux-pas.
i buy a lot of my make-up in dept. stores like nordys and meier and frank. i really
recommend the clinique powder/foundation in one, in the palest color. i forgot the
name. it looks dark in the compact, but it goes a long way. its $20, and only lasts a
couple months, but worth it. you don't have to guess at your shade like at a drug
store. i've also bought christian dior whiteface. i also recommend the clinique
blemish concealor. when i can afford it, i'm buying the xpensive lipstick you can try
on that will not come off. all the good colors in the drug store are cheap, don't stay
on. clinique is the cheapest of the top-of-the-line. their 3-step system is really
nice.
my friend was embarassed to be there, cos she's poor, but i'm not. how do they know
we're not just dressing this way for fun and we really have our mommy's charge card?
we saw these really nice boas for like either $59 or $69, or maybe it was $169. anyway,
i think TEN is too much to pay for a boah. my friend has seen them for $2. of course,
the ones at nordys were of way better quality.
we went upstairs into savvy and this other department, one thats even more expensive for
old people. the stuff in the downtown savvy is more expensive than at lloyd center, and
you can't smoke there. while we were in the dorothy zbornak department, we were making
fun of shit. everything there says its 2 sizes smaller than it really is. what about
the people who REALLY wear a size 2? they shop at the rave, and vintage stores. or
they are supermodels who get their clothes custom-made. the old lady who worked there
asked us if we needed any help. i said , 'no, we're doing a fashion report for our
underground newspaper". and she said, "oh, i see. a fashion report." ha.
has anyone seen the goth article in vogue? hello? we need to start a new thread on
this if it hasn't been covered already. um, who wrote it? they have no idea. their
models are fat. is anyone reading this who was in the article? you look like you're
copying the crow. they didn't even mention anything about music. if memory serves me
correctly. my friend was reading this to me, and she said the reporter asked a goth
girl what her looks said about her, and they regretted it. i was sure she was going to
say "it says FUCK OFF!" hello, thats the correct answer. but they said, she was
painfully shy, and her friend said "she's open to deviancy." no, the correct answer is
"it says FUCK OFF!" duh. they also said black goths are a faux-pas. i beg to differ.
i've seen a black skin-head. that article was fucking dumb. it said all goths are the
same and love each other because they have clothes in common. um, no. but hey, they're
from wichita kansas. the name is quite gothic however.
but back to nordys. we went to the lingerie department. xpensive. $59 for a bra? i
usually spend $3 to get jcrew or veronikas kloset bras from ross. but i have gotten a
$40 bra as a gift. it kix ath. hello, where are all the 28 aaas? well, there isn't
much of a difference between aaa and a. the bras in the childrens department are too
big for me, and i'm 5'8".
on to the childrens dept. its the best part of the store! all the toys, the
accessories! the tiaras, magik wands, boas, wedding dresses, tutus, purses, yay! i can
wear a medium in little girls. in short sleeve or sleeveless tops or short skirts
anyway.
that is so dumb that people say my skirt is too short. so what that i'm 5'8" and a 3?
you're just short and fat. when i look in the mirror at home i look kind of fat, and me
and my thin friends look just normal to me, but when i'm in a dance class with everyone
else i'm the thinnest. skinny people look normal to me. toned skinny people look like
they play football. so do i. i quit taking ballet classes cos i got too much
muscle tone. i still do ballet, though. normal people look fat, and fat people,
well... they blind me with science. um, lycra/spandex is a privilege, not a right.
vertical stripes. i THOUGHT black was a slimming color. that's why i wear it. but i
shouldn't talk shit, they might sit on me and fart or queef.
i also like the hosiery dept. they have cool hosiery at nordys.
oh, and 4 years ago, the nordys cafe rocked. back when they had coffee for 25 cents and
free refills. me and my street-trash gay prostitute goth friends used to go there all
the time. now the coffee's a buck. they have good food too, for those of you who eat.
i really want some ck overalls, so i can paint in them. i want a ck shirt so i can
advertise for anorexia. i'm not anorexic anymore, i eat whatever i want, i just don't
get hungry alot. i also want obsession. i just like the name and the ads, who cares
what it smells like. i have lots of ck underwear that i got at ross. like a
wifebeater! wifebeaters are so fucking sexy!
i sound really stuck up. but duh, this is alt.gothic. i'm not though. i'm nice to
everyone, unless they're mean to me first with no reason, or they're just fucking
stupid. and then i'm mean. but sometimes people don't even realize that they're being
stupid. you gotta feel sorry for them.
sjw
play that funky music, vanilla rice!
only those who live in portland would get that reference
Sleepycat
<"swed...@ix.netcom.com"@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
[snip ... all 4 _screens_ of it]
There is a seperate newsgroup called alt.gothic.fashion.
The vast majority of your post is more likely to "fit" there.
If, that is, it "fits" anywhere.
--
+ Kevin J. Bonham (Sleepycat) + CaffinGothCode98:AUiKba5baWaaaaaaHbaa87NwA
WYLPj_fobyhjsi11deaGa2e7fab5aaeaNtnemgqDaaGcbjAbb4GObrNbSbYLzFaaaaablauTAS
"And the moral of this story is never lean on the weird. Or they will chop
your head off. And perverts will eat your brains." - Hunter S. Thompson +
fx.
> but sometimes people don't even realize that they're being stupid.
oh yes, i think we all know some like that.
tragic, isn't it?
fx., furrfu.
--
"At times one remains faithful to a cause only because
one's opponents do not cease to be insipid." - Nietzsche
--------------------------------------------------------
Anyone sending UCE to my address will be charged a $500
penalty. Failure to comply will result in legal action.
cheating judas
On Mon, 10 Aug 1998, Spring Joy wrote:
> that is so dumb that people say my skirt is too short. so what that i'm 5'8" and a 3?
> you're just short and fat. when i look in the mirror at home i look kind of fat, and me
> and my thin friends look just normal to me, but when i'm in a dance class with everyone
> else i'm the thinnest. skinny people look normal to me. toned skinny people look like
> they play football. so do i. i quit taking ballet classes cos i got too much
> muscle tone. i still do ballet, though. normal people look fat, and fat people,
> well... they blind me with science. um, lycra/spandex is a privilege, not a right.
> vertical stripes. i THOUGHT black was a slimming color. that's why i wear it. but i
> shouldn't talk shit, they might sit on me and fart or queef.
now people with your mentality are those who drive people to anorexia..
....
> i sound really stuck up. but duh, this is alt.gothic. i'm not though. i'm nice to
> everyone, unless they're mean to me first with no reason, or they're just fucking
> stupid. and then i'm mean. but sometimes people don't even realize that they're being
> stupid. you gotta feel sorry for them.
not stuck up. you just need a bit of some guidance of what you're
babbling about. yes, SOME people really just don't see it when they're
being stupid..nope, not at all..
s..
Pig Boy
hope_ they weren't being serious...
^V^ ¥ Abracadaver ¥ ^V^
Click here and join my little mailing list of gothling shenanigans!
http://www.onelist.com/subscribe.cgi/napalm_tree
Or don't. See if I care.
ren
ren
The industries want to glamorize our path of self
destruction because it is profitable.
stma...@my-dejanews.com
Spring Joy <"swed...@ix.netcom.com"@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
YES, but all the VOGUE "models" were from New York. No pictures were taken in
Wichita.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
David Gerard
:>On Sat, 8 Aug 1998 19:42:33 -0700, elsworth <elsw...@erols.com> wrote:
:>>...when you go on your killing spree, can I come too? I'm pretty good at
:>>setting up lighting.
:> Sounds useful. I guess I'll need a painter or photographer. ;)
:Go with the photographer - then afterwards, you can digitally enhance the
:images, and make chemically altered prints, which a painter friend <ahem> can
:then render into perfect abstraction.
:You then put the whole process up as a single-theme show, and watch the pundits
:drool.
:elsworth (damn, I know way too much about how these things are done...)
Nah. Get Jhonen Vasquez to document it for you. It'll save him time writing
comics. Of course, everything will have clouds in the background, but
that's the price of fast work.
--
http://thingy.apana.org.au/~fun/ AGSF Unit 0|4 http://suburbia.net/~fun/
Stop JUNK EMAIL Boycott AMAZON.COM http://mickc.home.mindspring.com/index1.htm
"Everything you needed to know you'd have learned in kindergarten, but they
hadn't invented thinking-brain dogs for the cortically impaired yet."
(Doktor DynaSoar Iridium)