Wish me luck on my Modern Art exam.
Jesse Staniforth
It's on Surrealism (which I quite like), and Piet Mondrian and Marcel
Duchamps, to artists whose work I hate and who I have no respect for.
Also, I'm taking the course pass/fail and I've got nothing but A minusses
behind me (meaning whether or not I take the exam, I think I've still
passed it already).
With that in mind, I need to brush up on my Dali facts before I go (it's
1:12. the exam's at 2:00), and then I'll be on the 5:30 train back to
Ottawa. Yes. Finially. I hate writing the last possible exams. Yikes.
thank god it's almost over.
--
"This cop says to me, 'You see this gold bullet? I'm saving it for you, kid.'
I told him, 'I'm not scared. I got a silver bullet. I'm the Lone Ranger.'"
-- Abbie Hoffman, Chicago 1968
*BE REALISTIC. DEMAND THE IMPOSSIBLE* REMEMBER CHICAGO & PARIS (1968 - 1998)
crux
Oh, what do you all think of Impressionism?
I was at the Phillips this weekend and they has Impressionism in
Winter. It was ok. Monet, Renoir and the boys came out in full
blast -> but all I could think of was that the painting looked like
a photo that was taken out of focus and three feet in front of where they
should have taken the shot.
But, then again, I like absurdism,post-modernism and Flemmish painters.
This leads me to believe that I have no taste.
Input?
Mike "Peter Paul Reuben" D.
Jesse Staniforth (av...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) wrote:
: It's on Surrealism (which I quite like), and Piet Mondrian and Marcel
LareNgitis
crux wrote:
> Good luck, dude.
>
> Oh, what do you all think of Impressionism?
> I was at the Phillips this weekend and they has Impressionism in
> Winter. It was ok. Monet, Renoir and the boys came out in full
> blast -> but all I could think of was that the painting looked like
> a photo that was taken out of focus and three feet in front of where they
> should have taken the shot.
>
> But, then again, I like absurdism,post-modernism and Flemmish painters.
> This leads me to believe that I have no taste.
>
> Input?
>
> Mike "Peter Paul Reuben" D.
>
Impressionism? Nah, not for me. An occasional piece really stands out, but most
of it bores me. Most modern art sucks in my opinion. Flemmish painters? You
talking Van Eycke and co.? I love those guys. (yes, it is a true love).
BTW, salt to add taste. A nice serrano does the trick too.
Lare
wednesday catastrophe
>
>
>
> It's on Surrealism (which I quite like), and Piet Mondrian and Marcel
> Duchamps, to artists whose work I hate and who I have no respect for.
how can you hate Duchamp and mondrian????? please explain in essay
format, no longer than a page. you have fifteen minutes.
.stacey.
www.students.uiuc.edu/~snjones
"plastic, dollar signs, and missles,
stars and stripes can't be wrong." totalitar.
Grat
wednesday catastrophe wrote in message ...
>On 21 Dec 1998, Jesse Staniforth wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> It's on Surrealism (which I quite like), and Piet Mondrian and Marcel
>> Duchamps, to artists whose work I hate and who I have no respect for.
>
>
> how can you hate Duchamp and mondrian????? please explain in essay
>format, no longer than a page. you have fifteen minutes.
>
>
I hate just about everything... therefore it's really easy for me to hate
Duchamp and Mondrian.....
sorry I'm over the 15 minute limit.. (not by much though)...
--
Grat
ICQ - 432242
Joanie
LareNgitis <lare...@earthlink.net> writes:
> > But, then again, I like absurdism,post-modernism and Flemmish painters.
> > This leads me to believe that I have no taste.
> >
> > Input?
> >
> > Mike "Peter Paul Reuben" D.
> >
>
> Impressionism? Nah, not for me. An occasional piece really stands out, but most
> of it bores me. Most modern art sucks in my opinion. Flemmish painters? You
> talking Van Eycke and co.? I love those guys. (yes, it is a true love).
>
> BTW, salt to add taste. A nice serrano does the trick too.
>
> Lare
Is he part of that Dutch movement where everyone's named Jan
who do scenes of people drinking and shoemakers working and
all that kind of stuff? Obviously, my knowledge of art is pretty
limited but I love those Dutch guys from around 1620.
Joanie
lo...@my.sig
: Impressionism? Nah, not for me. An occasional piece really stands out, but most
: of it bores me. Most modern art sucks in my opinion. Flemmish painters? You
: talking Van Eycke and co.? I love those guys. (yes, it is a true love).
What about Turner?
He was an impressionist, and I love his stuff.
--
______________________________________________________________________________
|u5...@teach.cs.keele.ac.uk| |
| Andrew Halliwell | "ARSE! GERLS!! DRINK! DRINK! DRINK!!!" |
| Finalist in:- | "THAT WOULD BE AN ECUMENICAL MATTER!...FECK!!!! |
| Computer Science | - Father Jack in "Father Ted" |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|GCv3.12 GCS>$ d-(dpu) s+/- a C++ US++ P L/L+ E-- W+ N++ o+ K PS+ w-- M+/++ |
|PS+++ PE- Y t+ 5++ X+/X++ R+ tv+ b+ DI+ D+ G e>e++ h/h+ !r!| Space for hire |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B.O'Brien
Staniforth) wrote:>
>It's on Surrealism (which I quite like), and Piet Mondrian and Marcel
>Duchamps, to artists whose work I hate and who I have no respect for.
Mondrian's kinda dry but Duchamps' "L.H.O.O.Q." , what a punk !
slainte' ,
B.O'Brien
saturday disaster
duchamp rocks. pure and simple.
want me to explain why?
ill do it later. some idiot was just making me do research for him.
> slainte' ,
> B.O'Brien
LareNgitis
Joanie wrote:
> In article <367EBA63...@earthlink.net>
> LareNgitis <lare...@earthlink.net> writes:
>
> > > But, then again, I like absurdism,post-modernism and Flemmish painters.
> > > This leads me to believe that I have no taste.
> > >
> > > Input?
> > >
> > > Mike "Peter Paul Reuben" D.
> > >
> >
> > Impressionism? Nah, not for me. An occasional piece really stands out, but most
> > of it bores me. Most modern art sucks in my opinion. Flemmish painters? You
> > talking Van Eycke and co.? I love those guys. (yes, it is a true love).
> >
> > BTW, salt to add taste. A nice serrano does the trick too.
> >
> > Lare
>
> Is he part of that Dutch movement where everyone's named Jan
> who do scenes of people drinking and shoemakers working and
> all that kind of stuff? Obviously, my knowledge of art is pretty
> limited but I love those Dutch guys from around 1620.
>
> Joanie
Yep, I'm talking about those guys. I love them too. Extreme detail. You know..."one
hair brush" type paintings. Those guys kick picasso's butt anyday.
Lare
saturday disaster
>
>
>
>
> I hate just about everything... therefore it's really easy for me to hate
> Duchamp and Mondrian.....
D-.
wheres your THESIS?
you are not backing up your points with factual evidence, young man.
>
>
>
> sorry I'm over the 15 minute limit.. (not by much though)...
>
>
>
>
> --
> Grat
> ICQ - 432242
>
>
>
>
>
.stacey.
saturday disaster
> Winter. It was ok. Monet, Renoir and the boys came out in full
> blast -> but all I could think of was that the painting looked like
> a photo that was taken out of focus and three feet in front of where they
> should have taken the shot.
impressionists were heavily influenced by the advent of
photography, which is why a lot of their work looks like photographs.
the photo changed a LOT of things for art, especially on how people looked
at the world. suddently things became more "realistic".
i dunno, you might like the american social realists, theyre post
impressionism, but definetely influenced by artists such as monet and
renoir......paul henri, john sloan, the "ashcan painters" group, even mary
cassatt...and for great early american photo secessionism...check out
stieglitz..who is pretty responsible for america having any sort of
dada/futurism/cubist presence.
>
> But, then again, I like absurdism,post-modernism and Flemmish painters.
flemmish painters are great. they saw way ahead of their time, in
terms of styles and subject matters.
which post mods are you into?
> This leads me to believe that I have no taste.
of course you have taste.
.stacey "cheeseball..we'll talk" j.
Jesse Staniforth
crux (cr...@wam.umd.edu) writes:
> Good luck, dude.
>
> Oh, what do you all think of Impressionism?
> I was at the Phillips this weekend and they has Impressionism in
> blast -> but all I could think of was that the painting looked like
> a photo that was taken out of focus and three feet in front of where they
> should have taken the shot.
>
>
I'm not one of those huge impressionism types, but I like it ok. I really
quite like expressionism, though, because the artists did seem to be
enjoying themselves. Or, well, if they were tortured, it was at least
interesting torture.
I'm a big fan of the Vienna Seccession and Jackson Pollock.
Jesse Staniforth
wednesday catastrophe (snj...@students.uiuc.edu) writes:
> On 21 Dec 1998, Jesse Staniforth wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> It's on Surrealism (which I quite like), and Piet Mondrian and Marcel
>> Duchamps, to artists whose work I hate and who I have no respect for.
>
>
> format, no longer than a page. you have fifteen minutes.
>
Oh, fine. I didn't end up having to write on Mondrian (the exam was on
surrealism and duchamps), but I'll be brief here and make my argument.
Now, both were more concerned with theory than with the creation of art
itself. Which is not, in itself, bad. But it's very difficult to
appreciate the art in question if its only purpose is to advance theory.
Now, Mondrian was all about a universally accessible neutral art using
figures which people would have no previous conception of (ie- geometric
shapes and lines), which is fine, but it means that it contains none of
the emotion that people bring into their viewing of art. It's just a bunch
of stuff with no meaning. You get like 20 years of "composition No. 12 in
red and black), and it all looks the fucking same. And it's a bland
samness, that you can't even derive any empathetic emotional enjoyment out of.
(I'm at my parents' place in ottawa on the laptop, so pls excuse my sticky
keys and typos)
Duchamps... well, the problem with duchamps was that he was so concerned
with the idea of art that he backed himself into a corner of artistic
evolution (readymades), which he couldn't conceivably turn back to
painting from. Yes, the readymades made an interesting point about art,
but it was a one time thing that made its statement and was done. Because
art made by art can only go so far incestuously before it finally breeds
offspring with no arms or legs. Whereas art in general takes from a much
larger sphere of inspiration...
wait, I wrote my exam yesterday. Im done now. I'm not talking about this
any more.
Jesse Staniforth
B.O'Brien (tof...@MISdirect.ca) writes:
> On 21 Dec 1998 18:13:03 GMT, av...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Jesse
>>It's on Surrealism (which I quite like), and Piet Mondrian and Marcel
>>Duchamps, to artists whose work I hate and who I have no respect for.
>
Actually, I don't mind duchamps that much, but he tends towards being a
total pretentious asshole a lot, and that gits my knickers in a twist.
Frank Discussion
saturday disaster wrote:
> duchamp rocks. pure and simple.
>want me to explain why?
>
There was even a rumour that Duchamps made several forgeries of the Moana
Lisa and sent them to various parts of the world. They were supposedly so
good, no one could tell which was which until more modern forms of dating
were found...
Also, if you get a chance to see Marcel's installation at the Philadelphia
Art Museum (while you're at running up the steps while singing the "Rocky"
theme), do it. It's a brilliant piece that reduces (raises?) all who visit
to the level of a voyeur. After visiting it, watch the room for a while for
the initial reactions of the other visitors *and* their return trips to the
'piece'.
Grat
ugh......
gunsel
Staniforth) wrote:
>I'm a big fan of the Vienna Seccession and Jackson Pollock.
I just saw a big Pollock show at the Metropolitan (I really just went
to see the nativity tree) and I gotta say that I just don't get it. I
mean I don't really know much about art theory but I can see why a
Monet, Degas, Renault etc are great. But I don't understand the fuss
behind Pollock. Can you explain, give me some angle into it, without
wearing out your keyboard?
-dave-
Steve Yaver
FiendDy wrote in message <19981222192253...@ng110.aol.com>...
>>Renault etc are great. But I don't understand the fuss
>>behind Pollock. Can you explain, give me some angle into it, without
>>wearing out your keyboard?
>>
>>
>
>
> Buckets surrounded him and his arm was his wing and his paint brush was
his
>soul. Not to be gay about it. But i'm a geek at heart.
> He kept his canvas on the lfoor, working from above the painting due to
the
>fact, as he used to state, it made him feel one with the painting.
>
> They called his, style "Action Art." He did not just express his feelings
on
>art - he expressed his feelings with becoming/making the gestures on the
>canvas.\
> He could control it.
>
> He was it. And his art was what he felt.
>
> Sister Sarah Nonsense
>
>"You should have known you couldn't trust me - as far as you can throw me.
You
>can't throw me too far.. " - Big Black, "Bad Penny", Songs About Fucking
>
>AIM: FiendDy
>ICQ - 23423602
>
Pollock is one of my faves...I read a great biography on him last year that
detailed how he got involved in painting, the influence Thomas Hart Benton
had on his early work, stuff about his family (he had brothers that also
were painters), and his relationship with Lee Krassner...
My landlord is a relatively famous photographer, Richard Misrach, who has
done a series of photographs called the "Desert Cantos"...really great
stuff...he's shown in NYC, and just had a major retrospective in San Jose.
Steve
---== http://www.newsfeeds.com - Largest Usenet Server In The World! ==---
---== http://www.newsfeeds.com - Largest Usenet Server In The World! ==---
FiendDy
>Oh, what do you all think of Impressionism?
>I was at the Phillips this weekend and they has Impressionism in
>Winter. It was ok. Monet, Renoir and the boys came out in full
>blast -> b
Impressionism makes me hurl.
Then again, I'm a total art fag who almost went to art school even.
We all have our eras we like and we dislike. I'm a dada/collageist/modern fan
myself. And ancient art.
I skip quickly the impressionism area of the Indy art museum. I really just
don't like it. I have no reasons, no amazing artistic ideals related to my
disliking of the movement.
To boring. To jerky. To unexciting. Then again, that's just me..
>
>But, then again, I like absurdism,post-modernism and Flemmish painters.
>This leads me to believe that I have no taste.
Na. you have taste. Just maybe not the kind of taste everyone has.
My tastes aren't to popular, with my friends, etc. People don't seem to get
to into the collage/bizarre political phase. I also like photography - some,
i.e. Cindy Sherman, Robert Doisneau, etc..
I'll stop.
FiendDy
>talking Van Eycke and co.? I love those guys. (yes, i
oh! Yes.
Jan Van! We have a gorgeus fucking painting - my favorite by Eycke, at th eart
museum here. Self portrait of Jan. Gorgeus.
I'll stop being a fag.
FiendDy
>y
>quite like expressionism, though, because the artists did seem to be
>enjoying themselves. Or, well, if they were tortured, it was at least
>interesting tortur
Definatly. I agree. They seemed to have fun. It's more amazing to look at. I
guess. It was a heavy expression. When I painted a lot, I used to do some
pretty wacky stuff. Though it might have been simple, looked like crap to many,
or just plain "paint on paper" I enjoyed doing what I did.
My emotions aren't always easy expressed, not all of them, and art always
helps.
You can't always hang emotions on the wall. :)
>Jackson Pollock.
Yah..I really dig Pollock. Shame he died. His wife, Kraser, does some alright
pieces - but I'll alwys be more of Pollock fan myself. The New York School -
is my favorite collection of artists in the States..
Aside from some other non-catagorized people.
FiendDy
>behind Pollock. Can you explain, give me some angle into it, without
>wearing out your keyboard?
>
>
Pollock used to like to paint with his canvas on the floor.
Buckets surrounded him and his arm was his wing and his paint brush was his
soul. Not to be gay about it. But i'm a geek at heart.
He kept his canvas on the lfoor, working from above the painting due to the
fact, as he used to state, it made him feel one with the painting.
They called his, style "Action Art." He did not just express his feelings on
art - he expressed his feelings with becoming/making the gestures on the
canvas.\
He could control it.
He was it. And his art was what he felt.
Sister Sarah Nonsense
FiendDy
> how can you hate Duchamp
OVERRATED!
I'm not too into him . The entire, chosen piece, theory is very unappealing
to me. The it's not whether he made it, its the fact he chose this specific
idea/object to make, idea.
I'm one for meaniing, I dig meaning, or anti-meaning all the same. His ideals
just do not appeal to me. the "R Mutt Urinal" piece, etc.
"Why did he chose to make the urinal?'
Personally I don't care.
SIster Sarah Nonsense
NYisNOTBAD
empire.
Similarly, I would suggest that modern art is neither modern nor art.
B.O'Brien
>> On 21 Dec 1998 18:13:03 GMT, av...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Jesse
>> Staniforth) wrote:>
>>>It's on Surrealism (which I quite like), and Piet Mondrian and Marcel
>>>Duchamps, to artists whose work I hate and who I have no respect for.
>>
>> Mondrian's kinda dry but Duchamps' "L.H.O.O.Q." , what a punk !
>
>
>Actually, I don't mind duchamps that much, but he tends towards being a
>total pretentious asshole a lot, and that gits my knickers in a twist.
>
people approached art at the time and , yeah , he thumbed his nose at
you . I was pissed off at him for a while too , when I took art
seriously . He likes your contempt for him .
slainte' ,
B.O'Brien
B.O'Brien
<snj...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
> duchamp rocks. pure and simple.
>want me to explain why?
>
>ill do it later. some idiot was just making me do research for him.
Please do ....
Elaborate on what St.Duchamp has allowed us .
Everybody should know about him .
slainte' ,
B.O'Brien
Jesse Staniforth
gunsel (gun...@concentric.net) writes:
> On 22 Dec 1998 18:07:10 GMT, av...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Jesse
> Staniforth) wrote:
>
>>I'm a big fan of the Vienna Seccession and Jackson Pollock.
>
> I just saw a big Pollock show at the Metropolitan (I really just went
> to see the nativity tree) and I gotta say that I just don't get it. I
> mean I don't really know much about art theory but I can see why a
> behind Pollock. Can you explain, give me some angle into it, without
> wearing out your keyboard?
It's primal. It's personal. I mean, if you take Andre Breton's ideas about
surrealist writing (writing without conscious control), and apply it to
painting, and to a person as fucked up as Jackson Pollock with all his
training in painting, his work is sort of the logical conclusion. It's
violent and panicked. I like that.
(the keyboard's fine... it just sticks an awful lot.)
Jesse Staniforth
B.O'Brien (tof...@MISdirect.ca) writes:
>>B.O'Brien (tof...@MISdirect.ca) writes:
>>> Staniforth) wrote:>
>>>>It's on Surrealism (which I quite like), and Piet Mondrian and Marcel
>>>>Duchamps, to artists whose work I hate and who I have no respect for.
>>>
>>> Mondrian's kinda dry but Duchamps' "L.H.O.O.Q." , what a punk !
>>
>>
>>Actually, I don't mind duchamps that much, but he tends towards being a
>>total pretentious asshole a lot, and that gits my knickers in a twist.
>>
> Careful you don't fall into his trap . He was well aware of how
> people approached art at the time and , yeah , he thumbed his nose at
> you . I was pissed off at him for a while too , when I took art
> seriously . He likes your contempt for him .
He's dead. I win.
Corey Barr
>Oh, fine. I didn't end up having to write on Mondrian (the exam was on
>surrealism and duchamps), but I'll be brief here and make my argument.
One of my exam questions for Income Taxation was basically a summary of the
Paula Jones settlement, with the question "What are the tax consequences to all
parties involved?", including the attorneys and Clinton. It then changed the
hypothetical a few times and asked the same question.
This was one of three questions. The exam was 3.5 hours long.
--
Corey Barr
alt.punk Special Prosecutor
Antonio Bolognio
>It's primal. It's personal. I mean, if you take Andre Breton's ideas about
>surrealist writing (writing without conscious control), and apply it to
>painting, and to a person as fucked up as Jackson Pollock with all his
>training in painting, his work is sort of the logical conclusion. It's
>violent and panicked. I like that.
>
>(the keyboard's fine... it just sticks an awful lot.)
did you hear about that guy who was giving himself paint enemas and then
spurting them on a canvas? I read about it in the paper. His whole point
was that he could paint something as good as a pollock with his ass. I like
pollock, I just thought that was funny.
##########################################################################
Doh! A beer! I want a beer....
Ray, the guy who buys me beer
me, the guy who Ray buys beer
far, the way to go for beer
so, I think I'll have a beer
la, la la la la la la
tea? No thanks I'll have a beer
and that brings us back to Doh! doh! doh!.....
Mo...@mail.utexas.edu
Antonio Gonzalez
N-Wing Combat Pilot First Class
mo0...@american.edu
fie...@aol.comistoo (FiendDy) wrote:
>
> >y
> >quite like expressionism, though, because the artists did seem to be
> >enjoying themselves. Or, well, if they were tortured, it was at least
> >interesting tortur
>
> Definatly. I agree. They seemed to have fun. It's more amazing to look at.
I
> guess. It was a heavy expression. When I painted a lot, I used to do some
> pretty wacky stuff. Though it might have been simple, looked like crap to
many,
> or just plain "paint on paper" I enjoyed doing what I did.
> My emotions aren't always easy expressed, not all of them, and art always
> helps.
>
> You can't always hang emotions on the wall. :)
>
> >Jackson Pollock.
>
> Yah..I really dig Pollock. Shame he died. His wife, Kraser, does some alright
> pieces -
because she could after she no longer had to support his lazy intoxicated ass.
Matt
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Jesse Staniforth
Was this easy? I don't know law, but this seens pretty simple for someone
who does.
I was done my modern art exam (3 hrs) in an hour and ten minutes.
PettyWage
>Corey Barr (cmb...@is7.nyu.edu) writes:
>> On 22 Dec 1998 18:18:45 GMT, av...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Jesse Staniforth)
>wrote:
>>
>>>Oh, fine. I didn't end up having to write on Mondrian (the exam was on
>>>surrealism and duchamps), but I'll be brief here and make my argument.
>>
>> One of my exam questions for Income Taxation was basically a summary of the
>> Paula Jones settlement, with the question "What are the tax consequences to
>all
>> parties involved?", including the attorneys and Clinton. It then changed
>the
>> hypothetical a few times and asked the same question.
>>
>> This was one of three questions. The exam was 3.5 hours long.
>>
>
>Was this easy? I don't know law, but this seens pretty simple for someone
>who does.
>
>I was done my modern art exam (3 hrs) in an hour and ten minutes.
>
My exams:
Politics & Government 175: 1 hr.
French 315: 30 mins. (I had to act)
English 110: 2 hrs.
Spanish 111: 1 hr.
--------------------------------------------------------Maggles
"I would frequent this restaurant often. I would take all of my favorite wharf
whores here." -- C. Barr
"SOY?! oh my. edible breasts. vegan, no less." -- petey s.
Corey Barr
>Corey Barr (cmb...@is7.nyu.edu) writes:
>> On 22 Dec 1998 18:18:45 GMT, av...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Jesse Staniforth) wrote:
>>
>>>Oh, fine. I didn't end up having to write on Mondrian (the exam was on
>>>surrealism and duchamps), but I'll be brief here and make my argument.
>>
>> One of my exam questions for Income Taxation was basically a summary of the
>> Paula Jones settlement, with the question "What are the tax consequences to all
>> parties involved?", including the attorneys and Clinton. It then changed the
>> hypothetical a few times and asked the same question.
>>
>> This was one of three questions. The exam was 3.5 hours long.
>
>Was this easy? I don't know law, but this seens pretty simple for someone
>who does.
This part was somewhat easy. The next part was what happens if a person
unconnected with Clinton pays Jones to settle the case. That's a bit harder
because there's a question as to whether or not Clinton realizes any income from
that transactions.
And although it was easy for an exam question, there are a number of parties
involved, and the difficult part of the question was really that Jones' lawyers
had billed Jones for $x but then settled for less money. I decided that this
was not a reduction of indebtedness. A reduction of indebtedness equals income.
Anyway, it wasn't so much that the exam was difficult than there was a lot of
stuff to write quickly, so you had to know your stuff pretty well. The
difficult part was really about exchanges of like-kind goods. If you bought a
car for $500, it increases in value to $1000, then you trade it for a $1000
dairy cow, it's as if both parties sold the goods to each other for $1000, and
so $500 in income is realized. If you trade a car for another car, though, you
put off the income realization. The complications come when you trade your
$1000 car for a $700 cow and $300 in cash, then sell the cow later for $500.
By the way, a flat tax fixes none of these problems. These questions aren't
about how much tax is levied, but instead about how much income is recognized
when.
David W Klein
> This part was somewhat easy. The next part was what happens if a person
> unconnected with Clinton pays Jones to settle the case. That's a bit harder
> because there's a question as to whether or not Clinton realizes any income from
> that transactions.
>
> And although it was easy for an exam question, there are a number of parties
> involved, and the difficult part of the question was really that Jones' lawyers
> had billed Jones for $x but then settled for less money. I decided that this
> was not a reduction of indebtedness. A reduction of indebtedness equals income.
>
> Anyway, it wasn't so much that the exam was difficult than there was a lot of
> stuff to write quickly, so you had to know your stuff pretty well. The
> difficult part was really about exchanges of like-kind goods. If you bought a
> car for $500, it increases in value to $1000, then you trade it for a $1000
> dairy cow, it's as if both parties sold the goods to each other for $1000, and
> so $500 in income is realized. If you trade a car for another car, though, you
> put off the income realization. The complications come when you trade your
> $1000 car for a $700 cow and $300 in cash, then sell the cow later for $500.
>
> By the way, a flat tax fixes none of these problems. These questions aren't
> about how much tax is levied, but instead about how much income is recognized
> when.
>
> --
> Corey Barr
> alt.punk Special Prosecutor
>
You just made BUS 114 (Financial Accounting) seem real easy.
D
mo0...@american.edu
cmb...@is7.nyu.edu (Corey Barr) wrote:
> On 25 Dec 1998 05:39:44 GMT, av...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Jesse Staniforth)
wrote:
>
> >Corey Barr (cmb...@is7.nyu.edu) writes:
> >> On 22 Dec 1998 18:18:45 GMT, av...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Jesse Staniforth)
wrote:
> >>
> >>>Oh, fine. I didn't end up having to write on Mondrian (the exam was on
> >>>surrealism and duchamps), but I'll be brief here and make my argument.
> >>
> >> One of my exam questions for Income Taxation was basically a summary of the
> >> Paula Jones settlement, with the question "What are the tax consequences to
all
> >> parties involved?", including the attorneys and Clinton. It then changed
the
> >> hypothetical a few times and asked the same question.
> >>
> >> This was one of three questions. The exam was 3.5 hours long.
> >
> >Was this easy? I don't know law, but this seens pretty simple for someone
> >who does.
>
And a value added tax would make us French. Eewwwwwww!!!
Corey Barr
>You just made BUS 114 (Financial Accounting) seem real easy.
>
>D
I had a hell of a time with Accounting. I honestly expect any grade from that
class, I did so poorly on the exam. It's like a crapshoot now.
D-Kline
> On Tue, 29 Dec 1998 00:35:42 -0500, David W Klein <dwk...@ic.sunysb.edu> wrote:
>
> >You just made BUS 114 (Financial Accounting) seem real easy.
> >
> >D
>
> I had a hell of a time with Accounting. I honestly expect any grade from that
> class, I did so poorly on the exam. It's like a crapshoot now.
>
Wait, you aced some hard-ass legal mummble jummble class and had
trouble with accounting? Maybe I outta go to law school?
D
Corey Barr
Well, the grades haven't come back yet, although I feel good about Income Tax.
But yeah, I took Accounting For Lawyers, and felt really bad about the exam.
Like I was getting it with balance sheets and things like that, but then we got
to treatment of mortgages and capital leases with the expected interest method,
I was screwed. And that was like halfway through. Business combinations just
totally killed me.