basquiat
p.s. new york is burning
rented "basquiat" tonight, since larry was badmouthing it and whatnot.
i guess we viewed the movies from two entirely different angles. but thats
not surprising.
first of all, the director, julian schnabel. fucking genius.it was his
first film, and it was one of the best of 96. he also was/is an
artist....pretty shocking stuff back in the 80s....took china and glass
and broke them and glued them on canvas and painted over that. very
physical. anyways. they show some of his painting in one of the galleries
actually....
bowie did a terrific job playing warhol. i thought it might be laughable,
but in the end i was impressed. jeffrey wright's basquiat is great as
well.
as far as your argument that basquiat was being used by warhol, and that
basquiat was being abused by the whole glam-glitter rock corwd or
whatever, i think if you rewatch the film you would find you are
incorrect. the film makes it explicitly clear that warhol and basquiat
formed a friendship that was very important. warhol didnt need to USE
basquiat. he was already fucking famous. true he wasnt as popular as he
had been, but he needed no help getting notoriety or anything. the film
makes it pretty clear that they had a good relationship, and communication
breakdown (ala articles critics were writing for artforum calling basquiat
warhol's "mascot"), and basquiat was afraid andy really felt that way. but
he didnt, and those werent his words........thats one of the main points
of the film.
anyways i thought it was terrific.
stacey
___________________________________________________________________________
"...and hope's just another rope to hang myself with, to tie me down till
something real comes around..."
rites of spring.
"In the meantime, I'll be hacking away at the effigies I have of each of
you. With my spork. It's a spork of doom. You will be sporked."
-Billy Vermillion
http://www.prairienet.org/~snjones
EasterWmn
i totally agree with you, Stacy,
Gary Oldman is my favorite actor, anyway, so it was exciting to see him play
a "Good" Character, an artist. (Schnabal painted along w/Gary the art that
Gary's character made.)
Everyone played a wonderful part, the imagery was awesome, and filming. I
wish more studio artists would transform to the film genre--I'm trying too.
Many rumors did go around about Basiquiat and Warhol. Maybe a little bit
started in th ebeginning, but as you said, Warhol was already the most famous
and prominent American Artist alive (And possibly most famous artist in the
world). When they had their duo show together (the boxing match..har har),
that was the turning point of their relationshpi, I think, to show the owrld
"thisisn't a joke, we really are friends.."
It was a shame that Jean-Michel died so fucking young, I haet that bulshit.
He was a genius, a major influence in my own art, and many, many young artists
today.
ta-ta
Sarah Nonsense.
The Art Fag.
"...Easter woman came today and took away my wife, took her too a open doorway,
to..the after
life..."
ThE ReSiDeNtS
LLivermore
<<i guess we viewed the movies from two entirely different angles. but thats
not surprising.>>
No kidding!
<<first of all, the director, julian schnabel. fucking genius.it was his
first film, and it was one of the best of 96. he also was/is an
artist.>>
The only "art" Schnabel is a genius at is the art of the scam. He has made
himself a fortune selling pretentious schlock to gullible museums and
galleries. This film was more of the same.
<<pretty shocking stuff back in the 80s....took china and glass
and broke them and glued them on canvas and painted over that. very
physical>>
You're not being sarcastic? It's "shocking" to glue broken crockery to a
canvas? Self-proclaimed "artists" have been been pulling stunts like this
throughout the 20th century, and the only thing shocking about it is that they
are allowed to get away with, even rewarded for, being too lazy or
unimaginative to actually do the hard work of creating something of true beauty
and worth. Do you really think that a hundred years from now people are going
to queue up outside the Louvre to look at Schabel's stuntwork? It's more
likely to end up in the alley with the rest of the rubbish that it's virtually
indistinguishable from.
<<bowie did a terrific job playing warhol. i thought it might be laughable,>>
It was good. More impersonation than acting, but it genuinely resembled
Warhol.
<<but in the end i was impressed. jeffrey wright's basquiat is great as
well.>>
Never having met Basquiat, I can't judge Wright's acting. If Basquiat was as
much of a useless prat as he comes off as in the film, then Wright must be a
good actor, assuming he's not a useless prat himself.
<<as far as your argument that basquiat was being used by warhol, and that
basquiat was being abused by the whole glam-glitter rock corwd or
whatever, i think if you rewatch the film you would find you are
incorrect.>>
This was basically Warhol's relationship with most of his discoveries. It's
particuarly pronounced in Basquiat's case because of his being a minority and a
rather dysfunctional person.
<<the film makes it explicitly clear that warhol and basquiat
formed a friendship that was very important.>>
Judging either from the film or what I know of Warhol, I don't think Warhol
formed friendships, just associations. The one thing that Basquiat and Warhol
clearly had in common was their all-consuming self-centeredness and
self-indulgent. And a predilection for hopelessly bad and irrelevant art.
<<articles critics were writing for artforum calling basquiat
warhol's "mascot">>
So at least I wasn't the only one to notice that.
<<anyways i thought it was terrific.>>
My capsule review: "A crap film about a crap painter."
Levab Bavel
On 19 May 1998 11:48:50 GMT, east...@aol.com (EasterWmn) (someone
named sarah, i think) wrote:
> i totally agree with you, Stacy,
>
> Gary Oldman is my favorite actor, anyway, so it was exciting to see him play
>a "Good" Character, an artist. (Schnabal painted along w/Gary the art that
>Gary's character made.)
> Everyone played a wonderful part, the imagery was awesome, and filming. I
>wish more studio artists would transform to the film genre--I'm trying too.
>
> Many rumors did go around about Basiquiat and Warhol. Maybe a little bit
>started in th ebeginning, but as you said, Warhol was already the most famous
>and prominent American Artist alive (And possibly most famous artist in the
>world). When they had their duo show together (the boxing match..har har),
>that was the turning point of their relationshpi, I think, to show the owrld
>"thisisn't a joke, we really are friends.."
>
> It was a shame that Jean-Michel died so fucking young, I haet that bulshit.
>He was a genius, a major influence in my own art, and many, many young artists
>today.
>
learn to proof read.
levab
Brian C. Baird Baird Baird
In article <Pine.SOL.3.96.98051...@ux9.cso.uiuc.edu>,
snj...@students.uiuc.edu chortled...
> rented "basquiat" tonight, since larry was badmouthing it and whatnot.
>
> not surprising.
>
> first film, and it was one of the best of 96. he also was/is an
> and broke them and glued them on canvas and painted over that. very
> actually....
> well.
>
> basquiat was being abused by the whole glam-glitter rock corwd or
> whatever, i think if you rewatch the film you would find you are
> formed a friendship that was very important. warhol didnt need to USE
> basquiat. he was already fucking famous. true he wasnt as popular as he
> had been, but he needed no help getting notoriety or anything. the film
> makes it pretty clear that they had a good relationship, and communication
> breakdown (ala articles critics were writing for artforum calling basquiat
> warhol's "mascot"), and basquiat was afraid andy really felt that way. but
> he didnt, and those werent his words........thats one of the main points
> of the film.
>
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________________________
>
> "...and hope's just another rope to hang myself with, to tie me down till
> something real comes around..."
> rites of spring.
>
> "In the meantime, I'll be hacking away at the effigies I have of each of
> you. With my spork. It's a spork of doom. You will be sporked."
> -Billy Vermillion
>
> http://www.prairienet.org/~snjones
>
>
Thank you.
-b
--
"Cinemax is good for two things, soft porn and... dammit I forget."
http://home1.gte.net/bcbaird
--
PEACExVEGAN!
alt.punk comic:
http://home1.gte.net/bcbaird/altpunk.htm
YOU SUCK!:
http://home1.gte.net/bcbaird/
Brian C. Baird Baird Baird
In article <3561f4cf.12952619@news>, cjj11...@psu.edu chortled...
> learn to proof read.
>
> levab
Folks, its harsh when even LEVAB rips on your spelling.
BILLY
MY FAV SOUNDTRACK
WHY?
BECAUSE NOBODYS EVER SEEN THE FILM
AND WHEN I PLAY IT AT PARTYS N SHIT
THER ALL AMAZED
HA HAHHA HAH H AH A
BILLY
p.s. new york is burning
On 19 May 1998, LLivermore wrote:
> <<i guess we viewed the movies from two entirely different angles. but thats
> not surprising.>>
>
> No kidding!
me being human, and you being either android or vulcan.
>
> <<first of all, the director, julian schnabel. fucking genius.it was his
> first film, and it was one of the best of 96. he also was/is an
> artist.>>
>
> The only "art" Schnabel is a genius at is the art of the scam. He has made
> himself a fortune selling pretentious schlock to gullible museums and
> galleries. This film was more of the same.
>
please larry, enlighten me as to your concept of "art". what is
art to you? what artists do you appreciate?
making art is a form of thinking that we access through empathy. the
thinking in a work of art is not necessarily verbal, though that might
enter too, but visual thinking, which can be equally vigorous. even in
abstact workwork, which may seem to concern only issues of color, form and
the like, the structure the artist conceives for those pictprial elements
provides a model for organizing experience. the model constitutes the
artists "style" and resembles a personality in the sense that its traits
are clearly consistent.
like willem de kooning put it, "youve developed a little culture for
yourself. like yoghurt, as long as you keep something of the original
microbes, the original thing in it will grow out. so i had-like most
artists-this original little sensation, so i dont have to worry about
getting stuck"
the implicit underlying subject matter of modern art is always he
personality of the artist in its encounter with the worls-the often
painful intersection of psychological forces, intellect, society, and
events. brushwork,line, composistion, even representational matter
constitutes metaphors for the artists experience of events (internal and
external), and in giving form to these subjective experiences the artist
arrives at what AN whitehead (the oxford philosopher) called "symbolic
truth". the definitively individual nature of this activity makes the
common oversimplification of modern art into "movements" implausible. at
most one can say that all artists necessarily embark from common elements
of the visual language and experience of their time, which is also their
p;ersonal experience. this connects them to other artists in ways that
often lead to the commonalities of style or subject that in turn, have
given rise to the idea of movements.
in western art from ancient times well into the nineteenth century even
the most innovative artists depended upon patrons and a public that
measured quality in relation to well known standards of subject matter,
technique, and style. in the twentieth century we have come increasingly
to value an artists work most of all for its success in changing those
standards by the force of its originality.but the more original an
artist's vision the more his or her frame of reference will vary from what
the rest of us think and see.
thus the individuality that we prize so highly in an artist's work makes
understanding the work a much more complex interpretive task; the meaning
of art today is fdar less accesible to us thatn new art was to the
audiences of earlier eras.
that said........
i understand why you feel this way i suppose. the most important
contemporary art has perhaps always been difficult to recognize and
understand. it baffles people, makes them uncomfortable and angry, it
seems perpertually defeated by the overwhelming ills of every historical
epoch, and it isnt even "politically correct". but it DOES offer a unique
kind of truth, embodying an individual's struggle to come to terms with
his or her inner thoughts and identity in relation to the constantly
changing facts of existence in the world.
art is ABOUT dissent.
> <<pretty shocking stuff back in the 80s....took china and glass
> and broke them and glued them on canvas and painted over that. very
> physical>>
>
> You're not being sarcastic? It's "shocking" to glue broken crockery to a
> canvas? Self-proclaimed "artists" have been been pulling stunts like this
> throughout the 20th century, and the only thing shocking about it is that they
> are allowed to get away with, even rewarded for, being too lazy or
> unimaginative to actually do the hard work of creating something of true beauty
> and worth. Do you really think that a hundred years from now people are going
> to queue up outside the Louvre to look at Schabel's stuntwork? It's more
> likely to end up in the alley with the rest of the rubbish that it's virtually
> indistinguishable from.
>
see above. a permanent tension exists between the individual and society
and the alienation that this tension engenders perpetuates an avant-garde
as the expression of an enduring human need. art contributes to the ideals
and models of thinking about important issues in a culture. we need to
look beyond market influences and beyond intellectual fashions to see this
spiritual dimension because artists enter their ideas into the world, not
just into books and art history classes.
> <<bowie did a terrific job playing warhol. i thought it might be laughable,>>
>
> It was good. More impersonation than acting, but it genuinely resembled
> Warhol.
glaad you found some glimmer of hope in this oh so dreadful film.
>
> <<but in the end i was impressed. jeffrey wright's basquiat is great as
> well.>>
>
> Never having met Basquiat, I can't judge Wright's acting. If Basquiat was as
> much of a useless prat as he comes off as in the film, then Wright must be a
> good actor, assuming he's not a useless prat himself.
never having met you, i cant judge your character aside from your posts.
if you are as much of a crotchety pedophile as you come off in your posts,
well then, thats just uh scary.
>
> <<as far as your argument that basquiat was being used by warhol, and that
> basquiat was being abused by the whole glam-glitter rock corwd or
> whatever, i think if you rewatch the film you would find you are
> incorrect.>>
>
> This was basically Warhol's relationship with most of his discoveries. It's
> particuarly pronounced in Basquiat's case because of his being a minority and a
> rather dysfunctional person.
>
warhol didnt need to use anyone. he was the most well known artist of the
20th century. he may seem pretentious to you, and he was, of course. thats
what he was aiming for. to be plastic. however, what you are taking for
"using" or associations, i think you are making rash and harsh judgements.
true, he seemed to need people.....ala the factory kids. henry geldzahler
said "andy cant be alone. sometimes he would say that he was scared of
dying if he went to sleep"
we all need people. for you to judge if his associations were friendships
or for business purposes is absurd, and wrong. besides, oh forget it.
> <<the film makes it explicitly clear that warhol and basquiat
> formed a friendship that was very important.>>
>
> Judging either from the film or what I know of Warhol, I don't think Warhol
> formed friendships, just associations. The one thing that Basquiat and Warhol
> clearly had in common was their all-consuming self-centeredness and
> self-indulgent. And a predilection for hopelessly bad and irrelevant art.
>
see above.
all people are slightly self centered. including yourself.
> <<articles critics were writing for artforum calling basquiat
> warhol's "mascot">>
>
> So at least I wasn't the only one to notice that.
it was critics who said it, not warhol. do you not have a heart? have you
ever cried in your life? you sound like a purely sour and sadistic man
sometimes.
>
> <<anyways i thought it was terrific.>>
>
> My capsule review: "A crap film about a crap painter."
>
come off the buttplug already.
you had nothing to say about the film itself...just your under examined
ideals about art in society. this letter is a waste of time really,
because nothing i say will make you examine art in an objective fashion.
you almost sound jealous.
Levab Bavel
>In article <3561f4cf.12952619@news>, cjj11...@psu.edu chortled...
>
>> learn to proof read.
>>
>> levab
>
>Folks, its harsh when even LEVAB rips on your spelling.
>-b
so true, sooooo true.
levab
LLivermore
"p.s. new york is burning" argues:
<<me being human, and you being either android or vulcan.>>
Charming! Great way to start an intelligent discussion. Well, then, you're a
big fat poopypants, nyaah nyaah nyaah!
<<please larry, enlighten me as to your concept of "art". what is
art to you? what artists do you appreciate?>>
Van Gogh is one of my favorites. I'm partial to Michelangelo as well.
As for my "concept of art," it involves a marriage of technique and vision
cemented by hard and perspicacious work. Which of course leaves out about 90%
of so called modern artists.
<<making art is a form of thinking that we access through empathy>>
So is going to the movies, then. Didn't you just cry and cry and think how sad
it was when Leo slipped beneath the waves in "Titanic?"
<<thinking in a work of art is not necessarily verbal>>
Yeah, especially if it's a painting.
<<but visual thinking, which can be equally vigorous. even in
abstact workwork, which may seem to concern only issues of color, form and
the like>>
Or could just concern some waker like Basquiat or Pollock randomly splashing
paint across a canvas the same way an expressive kindergartener does with her
fingerpaints.
<<the structure the artist conceives for those pictprial elements
provides a model for organizing experience. the model constitutes the
artists "style" and resembles a personality in the sense that its traits
are clearly consistent.>>
I'm sorry, this sounds too much like a textbook or a puff piece for a gallery
opening. In other words, it doesn't mean much of anything.
<<the implicit underlying subject matter of modern art is always he
personality of the artist>>
Then judging from most of my visits to modern art museums, there is a
considerable need for psychotherapy involved here.
<<in its encounter with the worls-the often
painful intersection of psychological forces, intellect, society, and
events. brushwork,line, composistion, even representational matter
constitutes metaphors for the artists experience of events (internal and
external), and in giving form to these subjective experiences the artist
arrives at what AN whitehead (the oxford philosopher) called "symbolic
truth".>>
Whitehead also more famously said, "All of western philosophy is but a footnote
to Plato." Perhaps he should have left it at that.
<<in western art from ancient times well into the nineteenth century even
the most innovative artists depended upon patrons>>
And they still do, only now they're called corporations and the NEA.
<<and a public that
measured quality in relation to well known standards of subject matter,
technique, and style>>
Yeah, that darned public. Not wanting to spend their hard-earned money on
things that look ugly and stupid to them. What a bunch of philistines!
<<in the twentieth century we have come increasingly
to value an artists work
most of all for its success in changing those
standards by the force of its originality.but the more original an
artist's vision the more his or her frame of reference will vary from what
the rest of us think and see.
thus the individuality that we prize so highly in an artist's work makes
understanding the work a much more complex interpretive task; the meaning
of art today is fdar less accesible to us thatn new art was to the
audiences of earlier eras.>>
In other words, people nowadays are too stupid to understand what good art is
so people from art school have to tell them what is good for them.
<<i understand why you feel this way i suppose. the most important
contemporary art has perhaps always been difficult to recognize and
understand. it baffles people, makes them uncomfortable and angry>>
The only way it angers me is to see millions of dollars and much of our museum
space being taken up with a preponderance of self-indulgent junk.
<<but it DOES offer a unique
kind of truth, embodying an individual's struggle to come to terms with
his or her inner thoughts and identity in relation to the constantly
changing facts of existence in the world.>>
There is truth in everything, including a dead dog rotting on the side of the
road. But most modern abstract art is essentially a celebration of laziness
and ugliness and contempt on the part of self-styled "artists" for the public
at large. I know that good art, even great art is being created in our time.
Some of it is in the commercial arena, much more of it has been driven
underground by the modern art establishment, which is appalled by beauty and
taste and excellence.
<<art is ABOUT dissent.>>
Um, as presently practiced, it's more about trying to sucker some foundation or
government agency to give you a grant for some ludicrous piece of bollocks.
<<a permanent tension exists between the individual and society
and the alienation that this tension engenders perpetuates an avant-garde
as the expression of an enduring human need. art contributes to the ideals
and models of thinking about important issues in a culture. we need to
look beyond market influences and beyond intellectual fashions to see this
spiritual dimension because artists enter their ideas into the world, not
just into books and art history classes.>>
And this has exactly what to do with somebody gluing broken crockery to a
canvas and calling it art?
<<never having met you, i cant judge your character aside from your posts.
if you are as much of a crotchety pedophile as you come off in your posts,
well then, thats just uh scary.>>
Crotchety, I'll cop to, though my age gives me some excuse for that. I'm
constantly amazed how people half my age can be even more crotchety, though to
be fair, I don't find you crotchety at all. But "pedophile?" Because I don't
agree with you artistic views or your critique of the fashion industry? Um,
maybe I'm missing something, but that's a pretty vile thing to toss in. You
seem to have plenty of ideas that are worth arguing about, even if I don't
agree with them. Why would you feel a need to resort to ignorant name-calling,
which only tends to discredit everything else you've worked so hard to say?
<<warhol didnt need to use anyone. he was the most well known artist of the
20th century.>>
Um, have you ever heard of this fellow called Picasso?
And of course I'm sure you're aware that Warhol didn't even paint many of its
works; he had students do it for him and his "art" only involved coming round
to sign them. Eventually, I believe, he even had assistants who were capable
of forging his signature for him.
<< he may seem pretentious to you, and he was, of course. thats
what he was aiming for. to be plastic.>>
He didn't *seem* pretentious, he was, and I'm sure he'd be the first to admit
it.
<<however, what you are taking for
"using" or associations, i think you are making rash and harsh judgements.
true, he seemed to need people.....ala the factory kids. henry geldzahler
said "andy cant be alone. sometimes he would say that he was scared of
dying if he went to sleep"
we all need people. for you to judge if his associations were friendships
or for business purposes is absurd, and wrong. besides, oh forget it.>>
He was an interesting person. A fascinating one. He brought together quite a
few creative people, including the Velvet Underground and Nico. But an artist?
Only marginally so. Most of his stuff was pretty disposable, and I'm willing
to bet much of it will ultimately be disposed of. But only time will tell on
this. Check back with me 50 years from now if I'm still around and we'll see
who was right.
<<all people are slightly self centered. including yourself.>>
Most people are slightly self-centered. Some are excessively so. Let me point
to what I thought was the most telling scene in Basquiat: he goes into a diner
and starts pouring ketchup and mustard, etc. all over the table and swirling it
around to make some kind of "art." Some people may have thought "radical." I
thought "asshole." If you'd ever worked in a restaurant, you should know why.
Some people are jerks who think they have a God-given right to go through life
making messes for other people to clean up. That's how Basquiat came across.
Not much different from some selfish slob who throws his rubbish on the street
because he knows some poor sucker of a street sweeper is going to have to pick
it up.
<<> <<articles critics were writing for artforum calling basquiat
> warhol's "mascot">>
>
<> So at least I wasn't the only one to notice that.
<<it was critics who said it, not warhol. do you not have a heart? have you
ever cried in your life? you sound like a purely sour and sadistic man
sometimes.>>
Of course Warhol wouldn't say that. I'm sure Warhol believed he was doing a
good thing. However it came across loud and clear to me in the film that
Basquiat's main function in Warhol's life was as his pet Negro. "Look folks,
he walks and talks and even paints after a fashion."
Do I have a heart? Read some of my writing (not the alt.punk arguments)
sometime. You may think it is sentimental or poorly done, but it is clearly
heartfelt. And, believe it or not, it is art as well. I've probably cried a
lot more than you have, considering that I've lived quite a bit longer. It is
impossible for you to understand how another human being can disagree with your
viewpoint and still be human?
<<you had nothing to say about the film itself...just your under examined
ideals about art in society. >>
And if I examine them more thoroughly, I will surely understand that you are
right and I am full of shit? You may go to art school (I'm guessing), but I've
been examining art and its values all my life. It doesn't mean I'm
necesssarily right, but it's just plain childish of you to pout that anyone who
doesn't see it your way clearly doesn't understand the issue.
<<this letter is a waste of time really,
because nothing i say will make you examine art in an objective fashion.>>
Art will never be examined in an objective fashion. If it could be, it
wouldn't be art.
petey
In article <Pine.SOL.3.96.980521...@ux9.cso.uiuc.edu>,
"p.s. new york is burning" <snj...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
> On Wed, 20 May 1998, petey wrote:
>
> > In article <Pine.SOL.3.96.98051...@ux9.cso.uiuc.edu>,
> > "p.s. new york is burning" <snj...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > rented "basquiat" tonight, since larry was badmouthing it and whatnot.
> >
> >
> > no you know what? that movie sucks.
>
>
> whatever.
> your one line critique shows just how much your opinion matters.
>
> stacey
>
stacey,
that movie deserves no more than a line.
go rent something by sayles.
thanks...
-pete
--
hop on the pushovers heartbreak express:
http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~petey/pushovers
PJ
Very cool movie. David Bowie was very impressive in his part as
Warhol(sp).
- PJ
_______________________________________
This Boy's Life - http://www.nerc.com/~ace
"People can be put in my good favor, though, by giving me lots and
lots
of very cool gifts. I like gifts even more than I like free stuff." -
giancarla
_______________________________________
p.s. new york is burning
On Wed, 20 May 1998, petey wrote:
> In article <Pine.SOL.3.96.98051...@ux9.cso.uiuc.edu>,
> "p.s. new york is burning" <snj...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
> > rented "basquiat" tonight, since larry was badmouthing it and whatnot.
>
>
> no you know what? that movie sucks.
whatever.
your one line critique shows just how much your opinion matters.
stacey
>
> thanks...
> -pete
>
> --
>
> hop on the pushovers heartbreak express:
> http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~petey/pushovers
>
>
___________________________________________________________________________
e. tomorrow.
> whatever.
> your one line critique shows just how much your opinion matters.
>
ya know what? pete says a whole lot more that matters in one line, than
most say in four posts.
eric
EasterWmn
..Most of the opinions soon to be stated is from a self-proclaimed artist,
performance and visual artist, ME har har!!
< it involves a marriage of technique and vision cemented by hard and
perspicacious work. Which of course leaves out about 90%
of so called modern artists. >
I agree somewhat, I believe that people many artists nowadays do things so
easily, I dislike just big blobs of paint on a canvas, then again, I dislike a
lot of the great masters as well. Art consists of putting yourself into the
painting, sculpture, whatever medium if you will, and letting yourself become
the painting. THat sounds stupid as hell, cheezy, perhaps, but is it true.
WHen I am working, I become a zombie, a slave to the medium I am working under.
Jackson Pollock is qouted for saying that he works with his canvas' on the
floor, because he wants to become part of the painting. He is closer to the
painting on the floor, then he ever would be on a easel, he is one with th
epainting, that is true art.
<making art is a form of thinking that we access through empathy>
Or feelings in general, whether be it anger, love, passion, irritation, etc.
When I'm pissed, I might want to work, when I'm depressed, happy,
whatnot...any feelings.
<Or could just concern some waker like Basquiat or Pollock randomly splashing
paint across a canvas the same way an expressive kindergartener does with her
fingerpaints.>>
Ok, now I have to represent for my boy Jean-Michel. You may have not seen a
lot of his other works then, becuase the majority of them in the last 1-2 of
his life featured photographs, drawings, and a lot of words, expressing his
history, life and love an feelings. He expressed it with smudges, drawings,
and words, this speaks to me, atleast. Jackson Pollock is ok, it's just
"neato" it's wacky, I have no clue about his influiences, etc, but, he did get
very passionate about his work, though it may not be the most emotional,
intriging or "meaningful" art (and most of Picasso's paintings had "no meaning"
to Picasso at all, they were just paintings..), it ment a lot to Pollock - and
tha tis all that matters...
<Then judging from most of my visits to modern art museums, there is a
considerable need for psychotherapy involved here.>
Well the same goes for writers, scienctists and others. As stated about the
personality of the artist, all work EVERYONE (Artist, McDonald's employeee...)
reflects out personality. Even the Masters needed help, look at Bosch, even
Van Gogh - he painted a picture of himself with his cut off ear...and why did
he cut off that ear?
Leonardo Da Vinci wrote all of his notes backwards, in Latin, why? Beacuse he
was paranoid of people who were spying on him, though there are no noted cases
of people ever spying on him beforeh is notes were written backwards...then
again, when he was 85 he was dating a 14 year old boy.
You tell me. We all need psychotheraphy...(And it doesn't help..)
<in its encounter with the worls-the often painful intersection of
psychological forces, intellect, society, and events. rushwork,line,
composistion, even representational matter constitutes metaphors for the
artists experience of events (internal and external), and in giving form to
these subjective experiences the artist arrives at what AN whitehead (the
oxford philosopher) called "symbolic
truth".>
This is annoying, and i am not going to read it all. I believe a lot of
these statements come from a book, possibly the Art of the Western WOrld book,
go figure.
<And they still do, only now they're called corporations and the NEA.>
Yeah, right. THere are many corpoerations and such, and the NEA, etc. that
are "Supporting" the arts. HELL YEAH! I'd love to sell one of my pieces to
some millionare company, so I could get money. It's any artists dream! Well,
most. Most of the artists that I know personally - are middle class, some
upper, woh sell thier art to private investors, and collectors, - not major
groups and corps, that's a fact. Most corperations collect art in galleries
(Indianapolis, has the National Museum of Sports Art, which is displayed in the
Banc One Bank skyscraper downtown Indy) , by donation of the artists, or have
art sent to them by donation..to be displayed. I have had my pieces displayed
in companies around town, with others, just ot have our works shown, not sold,
and hell, if they asked, I'd sell ;)
<In other words, people nowadays are too stupid to understand what good art is
so people from art school have to tell them what is good for them .>
Who knows. I'm a art school kid, my first year is coming up. A lot of
average people, who do not attend a damn art school, and do not study "the
arts" on a regular basis, do not know a lot, aside from that picasso or
michealngelo that they saw in high school. We bark at society ,btu who is
informing them? No one, that is why we all must take it in our own hands to
show children, etc, what art is. (That's why I'm a member of a group for
teenagers to show little kids about art, bring them on trips, etc..it opens
their eyes, the way their parents eyes were never..)
<The only way it angers me is to see millions of dollars and much of our museum
space being taken up with a preponderance of self-indulgent junk>
then again, that represents ou culture today.."junky art." The masters are
dead, peopel dont' care..unfortunatly. But most art museums, that aren't
specifically modern art, have larger master/older art, sections than anything
else.
<And this has exactly what to do with somebody gluing broken crockery to a
canvas and calling it art?>
Depends, did he do it with style like whatzhisname did - schnabel? Hel,
look at Jeff Koons, an artist I LOVE ! He makes giant fucking Odie's and
Monkeys and diplays, and shit like that, just big fucking porcelian sculptures
of characters we regonize. Not all art has meaning, my sister is a artist,
and she makes wild shit that makes you laugh, that is what they do. Art can
be fun , and not meaningful, sometime. Or fun and have meaning :D
<He didn't *seem* pretentious, he was, and I'm sure he'd be the first to admit
it>
And if you've read his books, he did. That is why I love him. He was
arrogant and gentle. I have a Andy Warhol poster in my bedroom, he was a mad,
rich, and interesting man. His shit was mainly silk screening anyway, and most
artists now and even then didn't do their art o their own. They came up with
the idea.
Most of Warhol's art didn't have "Amazing meaning" so it relaly doesn't
matter i don't think. When he did gas station designs, there was no meaning,
it was just to do a gas station design.
That is what pop art is/was about. Fun, blowing up society, and silly art
that makes you laugh. and how much you can make off it, of course that's
"pop." Not the meaning.
Then again, Warhol started to have his assistances do some of his artwork
near the end of his career more than oany other time.
this si coming from the man that made hte movie "blow job"
Right now I"m too lazy, and I gotta take a shower and meet a friend of mine
for a movie date, maybe I"ll reply later, to that burning in new york
person..you didn't cite your resouces, i.e. major books written by smart people
who most liekly aren't artists.
I really dont' think a lot of those words you stated were yr own. That's
just me..
And to the other gentleman, I believe, who replyed also too "burns" message.
What a delight, I don't even have intellectual conversations like this on the
alt.art channels..
ta-ta
Sarah Nonsense
"..The only really perfect love...is one that gets away..."-The Residents
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Coffeehouse/6625/index.html
p.s. new york is burning
On 20 May 1998, LLivermore wrote:
> "p.s. new york is burning" argues:
>
> <<me being human, and you being either android or vulcan.>>
>
> Charming! Great way to start an intelligent discussion. Well, then, you're a
> big fat poopypants, nyaah nyaah nyaah!
>
i was trying to bring some sense of jest to the letter. nothing
more. nyah.
nerd!
> <<please larry, enlighten me as to your concept of "art". what is
> art to you? what artists do you appreciate?>>
>
> Van Gogh is one of my favorites. I'm partial to Michelangelo as well.
> As for my "concept of art," it involves a marriage of technique and vision
> cemented by hard and perspicacious work. Which of course leaves out about 90%
> of so called modern artists.
>
i also like van gogh as well. i have several prints here actually.
well 2.
modern art is also a marriage of technique and vision cemented by hard
work. how can you sit there and say that modern art does not come out of
the same process ? i think thats rather narrow of you. did you miss the
avant garde boat, or do you just not appreciate originality?
> <<making art is a form of thinking that we access through empathy>>
>
> So is going to the movies, then. Didn't you just cry and cry and think how sad
> it was when Leo slipped beneath the waves in "Titanic?"
>
course it is. film is also an art.
art is universal, speaks to us in different planes of existence.
didnt see titanic.
warhol did a film of nothing but robert indiana eating a mushroom.
"the terror of tiny town" was a 1930s western that only starred
midgets.
> <<but visual thinking, which can be equally vigorous. even in
> abstact work, which may seem to concern only issues of color, form and
> the like>>
>
> Or could just concern some waker like Basquiat or Pollock randomly splashing
> paint across a canvas the same way an expressive kindergartener does with her
> fingerpaints.
>
exactly. pollock chooses to do this, and the expressive kindergartener
does as well...it is a mode of expression. pollock could draw a human
figure , or paint in his earlier abstract ways, but he chose to work in a
different manner. the kindergartener doesnt have the aptitude to record
their experiences introspectively.
you feel that randomness is not a part of art and expression. some of the
best work has been produced in a random , introspective fasion. pollocks
work allowed him to merge with the painting. the gestures were mythic
metaphors. his automatism was radically new at the time obviously. his
experience in painting was that his central subject matter derived from a
direct introspective exploration instead of from the external world.
basquiat shows signs of this, but was more concerned, and interacted more
with the external world, and himself in reetion to it......
but if you dont like their work nothing i say will make any difference....
> <<the structure the artist conceives for those pictprial elements
> provides a model for organizing experience. the model constitutes the
> artists "style" and resembles a personality in the sense that its traits
> are clearly consistent.>>
>
> I'm sorry, this sounds too much like a textbook or a puff piece for a gallery
> opening. In other words, it doesn't mean much of anything.
o? all i was saying is that a work of art is shown experience, whether it
be mental or physical. and that you can learn to recognize art by the
personality that lies inside it.
you can look at a van gogh and say "hmm looks like van gogh" can you not?
or cezanne?
>
> <<the implicit underlying subject matter of modern art is always he
> personality of the artist>>
>
> Then judging from most of my visits to modern art museums, there is a
> considerable need for psychotherapy involved here.
>
thats unfair. youre placing yourself on a superior level from them
and their experience, and thats very egotistical.
> <<in its encounter with the worls-the often
> painful intersection of psychological forces, intellect, society, and
> events. brushwork,line, composistion, even representational matter
> constitutes metaphors for the artists experience of events (internal and
> external), and in giving form to these subjective experiences the artist
> arrives at what AN whitehead (the oxford philosopher) called "symbolic
> truth".>>
>
> Whitehead also more famously said, "All of western philosophy is but a footnote
> to Plato." Perhaps he should have left it at that.
"It is the business of the future to be dangerous."
- A. N. Whitehead
is modern art at its best and worst, at least dangerous?
surely. it threatens you, and you're ideals as to what art is.
perhaps. but who cares?
>
> <<in western art from ancient times well into the nineteenth century even
> the most innovative artists depended upon patrons>>
>
> And they still do, only now they're called corporations and the NEA.
>
not all do. its unfair to say they do. that wasnt the point.
take Christo for example, who raised his money for his giant land
projects (ala Running Fence or the ponte neuf wrapped, or umbrellas, or
surrounded islands) by selling draft drawings and smaller works, raising
millions of dollars without the help of any corporate influence. he then
spent those millions on projects he conceived, etc.
> <<and a public that
> measured quality in relation to well known standards of subject matter,
> technique, and style>>
>
> Yeah, that darned public. Not wanting to spend their hard-earned money on
> things that look ugly and stupid to them. What a bunch of philistines!
>
the public is notorious for not always being the most welcome and
opening viewers. or readers. you should know that, mr author.
very little of taxpayers money funds the arts. so your uppity attitude is
not necessary. im sure more of my tax money funds stuff i dont support. it
all balances out in the end for those of us who believe in funding such
worthwhile causes.
> <<in the twentieth century we have come increasingly
> to value an artists work
> most of all for its success in changing those
> standards by the force of its originality.but the more original an
> artist's vision the more his or her frame of reference will vary from what
> the rest of us think and see.
> thus the individuality that we prize so highly in an artist's work makes
> understanding the work a much more complex interpretive task; the meaning
> of art today is fdar less accesible to us thatn new art was to the
> audiences of earlier eras.>>
>
> In other words, people nowadays are too stupid to understand what good art is
> so people from art school have to tell them what is good for them.
no. its what i said above. in other words, you are a grouch.
art produces unique experiences for everyone. not just me or you. its up
to each person to decide what they like. i agree that art is subjective.
it would be pointless if it wasnt. "art school" has no place in
determining what is good or not. thats up to you. i was simply making a
case for modern art and where the appeal lies.
>
> <<i understand why you feel this way i suppose. the most important
> contemporary art has perhaps always been difficult to recognize and
> understand. it baffles people, makes them uncomfortable and angry>>
>
> The only way it angers me is to see millions of dollars and much of our museum
> space being taken up with a preponderance of self-indulgent junk.
>
i sense uncomfortableness and anger, and bafflement.
typical reaction.
would you prefer to live in a black and white society where
unoriginality is the law? perhaps a world like orwells 1984 would suit you
better.
> <<but it DOES offer a unique
> kind of truth, embodying an individual's struggle to come to terms with
> his or her inner thoughts and identity in relation to the constantly
> changing facts of existence in the world.>>
>
> There is truth in everything, including a dead dog rotting on the side of the
> road. But most modern abstract art is essentially a celebration of laziness
> and ugliness and contempt on the part of self-styled "artists" for the public
> at large. I know that good art, even great art is being created in our time.
> Some of it is in the commercial arena, much more of it has been driven
> underground by the modern art establishment, which is appalled by beauty and
> taste and excellence.
not true at all. beauty and taste and excellence rain supreme in
art as always. but your standards of these may differ from others. todays
artists work just as hard as artists did years ago. pigeonholing "art" as
a corrupt force and whole is wrong. its mean/ mean mean!!! youre a bad bad
man. my mother told me never to talk to strangers. especially emanciated
perverts! :P
>
> <<art is ABOUT dissent.>>
>
> Um, as presently practiced, it's more about trying to sucker some foundation or
> government agency to give you a grant for some ludicrous piece of bollocks.
hardly.
>
> <<a permanent tension exists between the individual and society
> and the alienation that this tension engenders perpetuates an avant-garde
> as the expression of an enduring human need. art contributes to the ideals
> and models of thinking about important issues in a culture. we need to
> look beyond market influences and beyond intellectual fashions to see this
> spiritual dimension because artists enter their ideas into the world, not
> just into books and art history classes.>>
>
> And this has exactly what to do with somebody gluing broken crockery to a
> canvas and calling it art?
you are crockery! heeeeee!
it has everything to do with what i said above. reevaluate!
>
> <<never having met you, i cant judge your character aside from your posts.
> if you are as much of a crotchety pedophile as you come off in your posts,
> well then, thats just uh scary.>>
>
> Crotchety, I'll cop to, though my age gives me some excuse for that. I'm
> constantly amazed how people half my age can be even more crotchety, though to
> be fair, I don't find you crotchety at all. But "pedophile?" Because I don't
> agree with you artistic views or your critique of the fashion industry? Um,
> maybe I'm missing something, but that's a pretty vile thing to toss in. You
> seem to have plenty of ideas that are worth arguing about, even if I don't
> agree with them. Why would you feel a need to resort to ignorant name-calling,
> which only tends to discredit everything else you've worked so hard to say?
>
you readily admit to dating a now 18 yr old, and you said you
started dating her when she was 16. you are what, 50? that is pedophilia.
not vile. not name calling. pointing out universal truths.
im always a raving nutbar. like yves klein. i love blue!
> <<warhol didnt need to use anyone. he was the most well known artist of the
> 20th century.>>
>
> Um, have you ever heard of this fellow called Picasso?
> And of course I'm sure you're aware that Warhol didn't even paint many of its
> works; he had students do it for him and his "art" only involved coming round
> to sign them. Eventually, I believe, he even had assistants who were capable
> of forging his signature for him.
>
okay, warhol was most well known american artist. that came out
wrong.
i know all about what warhol did, thats part of his appeal, his
dissonance. im not saying i like what he did, but i do love early warhol
work. the stuff he did.
> << he may seem pretentious to you, and he was, of course. thats
> what he was aiming for. to be plastic.>>
>
> He didn't *seem* pretentious, he was, and I'm sure he'd be the first to admit
> it.
of course! thats just what i said. duuurrrhh!
>
> <<however, what you are taking for
> "using" or associations, i think you are making rash and harsh judgements.
> true, he seemed to need people.....ala the factory kids. henry geldzahler
> said "andy cant be alone. sometimes he would say that he was scared of
> dying if he went to sleep"
> we all need people. for you to judge if his associations were friendships
> or for business purposes is absurd, and wrong. besides, oh forget it.>>
>
> He was an interesting person. A fascinating one. He brought together quite a
> few creative people, including the Velvet Underground and Nico. But an artist?
> Only marginally so. Most of his stuff was pretty disposable, and I'm willing
> to bet much of it will ultimately be disposed of. But only time will tell on
> this. Check back with me 50 years from now if I'm still around and we'll see
> who was right.
not disposable. what do you think of rosenquist, lichtenstein,
indiana, oldenburg ? what about them.? is this your feeble attack on
american "pop" art?
>
> <<all people are slightly self centered. including yourself.>>
>
> Most people are slightly self-centered. Some are excessively so. Let me point
> to what I thought was the most telling scene in Basquiat: he goes into a diner
> and starts pouring ketchup and mustard, etc. all over the table and swirling it
> around to make some kind of "art." Some people may have thought "radical." I
> thought "asshole." If you'd ever worked in a restaurant, you should know why.
>
bad example. he pours syrup on the table and draws a picture of
the waitress , who he has a cruch on. and she is also an artist. she
doesnt care. she is flattered. even if she was pissed, it doesnt matter.
we've all done marginally unconsiderate things in our life. to say thats
all that he was about is wrong. i am thirsty.
> Some people are jerks who think they have a God-given right to go through life
> making messes for other people to clean up. That's how Basquiat came across.
> Not much different from some selfish slob who throws his rubbish on the street
> because he knows some poor sucker of a street sweeper is going to have to pick
> it up.
now are you saying people cant help the lots they are given in
life? sounds like you are blaming the homeless for their problems, the
poor for their problems, the sick for their problems, the creative for
being creative.
>
> <<> <<articles critics were writing for artforum calling basquiat
> > warhol's "mascot">>
> >
> <> So at least I wasn't the only one to notice that.
>
>
he wasnt. the show posters convey the joke of the "boxing match".
there is no mascotting going on. there wasnt. i am hungry.
> <<it was critics who said it, not warhol. do you not have a heart? have you
> ever cried in your life? you sound like a purely sour and sadistic man
> sometimes.>>
>
> Of course Warhol wouldn't say that. I'm sure Warhol believed he was doing a
> good thing. However it came across loud and clear to me in the film that
> Basquiat's main function in Warhol's life was as his pet Negro. "Look folks,
> he walks and talks and even paints after a fashion."
maybe you like to think that. go right ahead. thats your opinion!
im well read on the subjects and i diagree. lets leave it at that.
>
> Do I have a heart? Read some of my writing (not the alt.punk arguments)
> sometime. You may think it is sentimental or poorly done, but it is clearly
> heartfelt. And, believe it or not, it is art as well. I've probably cried a
> lot more than you have, considering that I've lived quite a bit longer. It is
> impossible for you to understand how another human being can disagree with your
> viewpoint and still be human?
no ive probably cried a lot more because i am a female and have an
"inherently weak character". i havent had the best life, and i get sad
easy. so ive probably cried more. i might go cry right now. boo hoo.
ive no doubt your work is sentimental or heartfelt. it wouldnt be
good if it wasnt. im not criticizing your writing abilities. you just seem
perpetually angry sometimes.
its fine to disagree. but you get downright mean, mean meeeeean.
>
> <<you had nothing to say about the film itself...just your under examined
> ideals about art in society. >>
>
> And if I examine them more thoroughly, I will surely understand that you are
> right and I am full of shit? You may go to art school (I'm guessing), but I've
> been examining art and its values all my life. It doesn't mean I'm
> necesssarily right, but it's just plain childish of you to pout that anyone who
> doesn't see it your way clearly doesn't understand the issue.
>
i dont go to art school. im not an art major. so theree. nyah.
i just feel you have only examined this work from one point of view, thats
all i was trying to say. sorry.
> <<this letter is a waste of time really,
> because nothing i say will make you examine art in an objective fashion.>>
>
> Art will never be examined in an objective fashion. If it could be, it
> wouldn't be art.
>
exactly. and thank god.
i just wanted to make you give some backbone to what you said sabout
basquiat. its fine to say you dont like him and whatnot. but its good to
have salient reasons why. thanks.
p.s. new york is burning
you know what? i disagree. if just saying "something sucks" or not
is a good post then well, thats just wrong. it would be nice to have some
level of intellect here.
stacey
>
> eric
p.s. new york is burning
On Wed, 20 May 1998, petey wrote:
> In article <Pine.SOL.3.96.980521...@ux9.cso.uiuc.edu>,
> "p.s. new york is burning" <snj...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 20 May 1998, petey wrote:
> >
> > > In article <Pine.SOL.3.96.98051...@ux9.cso.uiuc.edu>,
> > > "p.s. new york is burning" <snj...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > > > rented "basquiat" tonight, since larry was badmouthing it and whatnot.
> > >
> > >
> > > no you know what? that movie sucks.
> >
> >
> > whatever.
> > your one line critique shows just how much your opinion matters.
> >
> > stacey
> >
>
> stacey,
>
> that movie deserves no more than a line.
>
> go rent something by sayles.
pete,
no. you go rent something by truffaut. or bergman.
stacey
>
> thanks...
> -pete
>
> --
>
> hop on the pushovers heartbreak express:
> http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~petey/pushovers
>
>
___________________________________________________________________________
petey
In article <Pine.SOL.3.96.98052...@ux9.cso.uiuc.edu>,
"p.s. new york is burning" <snj...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
> On Wed, 20 May 1998, petey wrote:
>
> > In article <Pine.SOL.3.96.980521...@ux9.cso.uiuc.edu>,
> > "p.s. new york is burning" <snj...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, 20 May 1998, petey wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article <Pine.SOL.3.96.98051...@ux9.cso.uiuc.edu>,
> > > > "p.s. new york is burning" <snj...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > rented "basquiat" tonight, since larry was badmouthing it and whatnot.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > no you know what? that movie sucks.
> > >
> > >
> > > whatever.
> > > your one line critique shows just how much your opinion matters.
> > >
> > > stacey
> > >
> >
> > stacey,
> >
> > that movie deserves no more than a line.
> >
> > go rent something by sayles.
>
>
> pete,
>
> no. you go rent something by truffaut. or bergman.
>
too late, too late.
don't EVEN try to compare anything by EITHER of those two with basquiat.
the demuth american dream
pete,
i wasnt going t. i was just telling you what i think you should rent. im
being snotty. im sorry. no comparison being made.
i dont think it was THAT GOOD :P sheesh.......i know where to draw the
line........
stacey
> thanks...
> -pete
>
> --
>
> hop on the pushovers heartbreak express:
> http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~petey/pushovers
>
>
___________________________________________________________________________
LLivermore
"p.s. new york is burning" <snj...@students.uiuc.edu returns:
<<i also like van gogh as well. i have several prints here actually.
well 2.
modern art is also a marriage of technique and vision cemented by hard
work. how can you sit there and say that modern art does not come out of
the same process ? i think thats rather narrow of you. did you miss the
avant garde boat, or do you just not appreciate originality?>>
It doesn't take an art scholar to see the difference between a carefully and
painstakingly constructed picture like a Van Gogh, and an abstract painting
which involves merely splashing paint around randomly. Only one person in a
million or perhaps a billion can create the former; almost anyone can create
the latter.
I greatly appreciate originality. Having walked through numerous galleries and
museums of modern art and seen canvas after canvas consisting of repetetive
colored squares or repetetive chaotic swirls that are virtually
indistinguishable from one another, I think I'll look elsewhere for
originality.
<<warhol did a film of nothing but robert indiana eating a mushroom.>>
How fascinating. I bet they were lined up around the block for that one. How
come I never see it on TV, though?
<< > Or could just concern some waker like Basquiat or Pollock randomly
splashing
> paint across a canvas the same way an expressive kindergartener does with her
> fingerpaints.>>
<<exactly. pollock chooses to do this, and the expressive kindergartener
does as well...it is a mode of expression>>
Then why is Pollock an artist and a kindergartener not? Answer: Pollock had
better connections and was better as schmoozing.
<<pollock could draw a human
figure , or paint in his earlier abstract ways, but he chose to work in a
different manner>>
Yeah, and I could carve a statue just as well as Michelangelo if I felt like
it. But I think I'll, um, choose to post on alt.punk instead. But it's just
as valid!!
<<you feel that randomness is not a part of art and expression.>>
Of course it is. But it's not enough by itself.
<< pollocks
work allowed him to merge with the painting. the gestures were mythic
metaphors. his automatism was radically new at the time obviously. his
experience in painting was that his central subject matter derived from a
direct introspective exploration instead of from the external world.
basquiat shows signs of this, but was more concerned, and interacted more
with the external world, and himself in reetion to it......>>
Um, yeah, whatever.
<<is modern art at its best and worst, at least dangerous?
surely. it threatens you, and you're ideals as to what art is.>>
Dangerous? Not really.
Threaten me? No, not at all, unless being annoyed is threatening.
Mostly it's irrelevant. Today's truly great artists are working quietly,
mostly unheard of, according to the same classical principles that have guided
art for many centuries. Ultimately they will rise above all the dross
currently being thrown at us.
<<take Christo for example>>
No, you take him. Please.
<<you readily admit to dating a now 18 yr old, and you said you
started dating her when she was 16. you are what, 50? that is pedophilia.
not vile. not name calling. pointing out universal truths>>
"Pedophilia" means sex with children. Insofar as I know, 18 year olds are not
children. In fact I would guess you to be 18 or not much more. Are you a
child incapable of thinking for herself? If so, why are we even having this
discussion.
And "universal" truths??? Hoo boy! What is considered appropriate sexual
behavior differs from one state to the next, let alone from one country or
cultur to another.
My girlfriend is 18. I did not start "dating her" when she was 16. I don't
recall "saying" or "admitting" anything about it, and in any event, there is
nothing to admit, because admission implies one is doing something wrong. She
is an adult, I am an adult, and our relationship is none of your business, or
anyone else's. If you are offended by the large difference in our ages, I
suggest you re-examine your bourgeois, middle-class values. And considering
the personal lives of many of the artists you champion, I am a perfect saint.
<<not disposable. what do you think of rosenquist, lichtenstein,
indiana, oldenburg ? what about them.? is this your feeble attack on
american "pop" art?>>
As I said about Warhol and Pollock, wait 50 years and see what survives. That
is one of the truest tests of art.
<<he pours syrup on the table and draws a picture of
the waitress , who he has a cruch on. and she is also an artist. she
doesnt care. she is flattered. even if she was pissed, it doesnt matter.
we've all done marginally unconsiderate things in our life.>>
I would guess you've never worked in a restaurant then. And if she is
"flattered," it's only because it was a movie. If that was a "picture" of her,
I saw a pile of dog turds in the street yesterday that looks just like Madonna.
> Some people are jerks who think they have a God-given right to go through
life
> making messes for other people to clean up. That's how Basquiat came across.
<<> Not much different from some selfish slob who throws his rubbish on the
street
> because he knows some poor sucker of a street sweeper is going to have to
pick
> it up.>>
<<now are you saying people cant help the lots they are given in
life? sounds like you are blaming the homeless for their problems, the
poor for their problems, the sick for their problems, the creative for
being creative.>>
People damn well can help the "lots they are given in life," if indeed you see
life as a lottery. And you're damn right I blame selfish and inconsiderate
people for inflicting their problems on others. Sometimes people can't help
being poor or homeless or uneducated; but that doesn't mean they have to behave
in an uncivilized or inhuman fashion. Hell, even animals can be trained and
housebroken.
When I was a teenage hoodlum, we used to do the same thing as Basquiat did in
the film, go into restaurants and pour ketchup etc. on the tables for the
waitresses. We weren't artists, we were assholes. And in that scene, so was
Basquiat.
<<ive probably cried a lot more because i am a female and have an
"inherently weak character". i havent had the best life, and i get sad
easy. so ive probably cried more. i might go cry right now. boo hoo.>>
Don't bet on it. I am homosexual and we have even weaker characters. We're
also supposed to be more artistic, so maybe you should quit while you're (not)
ahead.
<<ive no doubt your work is sentimental or heartfelt. it wouldnt be
good if it wasnt. im not criticizing your writing abilities. you just seem
perpetually angry sometimes.
its fine to disagree. but you get downright mean, mean meeeeean.>>
I didn't start calling you names (android, vulcan, heartless, egotistical,
pedophile etc.). I did jokingly call you a big fat poopypants, but that was
just to make a point about your name calling. I tried to stick to criticizing
your ideas, not you.
the demuth american dream
On 22 May 1998, LLivermore wrote:
> It doesn't take an art scholar to see the difference between a carefully and
> painstakingly constructed picture like a Van Gogh, and an abstract painting
> which involves merely splashing paint around randomly. Only one person in a
> million or perhaps a billion can create the former; almost anyone can create
> the latter.
yes. i know this. i agree. abstract art isnt the antithesis of art
either. i wasnt saying what you were saying was incorrect. you dont like
modern art, and you give valid reasons, and i am done arguing with you. i
am sorry if i offended you, made you angry or anything. it wasnt intended.
i was trying to vent my frustrations with men on you, and thats a wrong
thing to do of course. :]
> I greatly appreciate originality. Having walked through numerous galleries and
> museums of modern art and seen canvas after canvas consisting of repetetive
> colored squares or repetetive chaotic swirls that are virtually
> indistinguishable from one another, I think I'll look elsewhere for
> originality.
>
i dont care for the modernists either. but i greatly admire pop
art.
david park and the bay area figurists were great painters.....probably
more on a caliber of what you might consider to be valid as art......
many many touching and beautiful works of art are considered "abstract".
sure there is bad abstract art, but i was simply making a case that not
all of it is bad...i was just trying to explain how it effects me, and
some others.
> <<warhol did a film of nothing but robert indiana eating a mushroom.>>
>
> How fascinating. I bet they were lined up around the block for that one. How
> come I never see it on TV, though?
>
because its very long. like warhol's "empire" which is 6 hours
long, of a single shot from the empire state bldg.
> <<exactly. pollock chooses to do this, and the expressive kindergartener
> does as well...it is a mode of expression>>
>
> Then why is Pollock an artist and a kindergartener not? Answer: Pollock had
> better connections and was better as schmoozing.
we are all artists. the world is our canvas. :)
thats what i believe.
(its not always prettty mind you, but it is real)
>
>
> Yeah, and I could carve a statue just as well as Michelangelo if I felt like
> it. But I think I'll, um, choose to post on alt.punk instead. But it's just
> as valid!!
id like to see you try. ill be bringing over a block of marble
when i visit london at some point. you better sharpen your chisel. :P
>
> <<you feel that randomness is not a part of art and expression.>>
>
> Of course it is. But it's not enough by itself.
sure it is. randomness figures in non-abstract art as well as
abstract art.
> <<is modern art at its best and worst, at least dangerous?
> surely. it threatens you, and you're ideals as to what art is.>>
>
> Dangerous? Not really.
> Threaten me? No, not at all, unless being annoyed is threatening.
annoyance is the first step to being threatened. or something like
that.
its dangerous in a michael jackson kinda way. ya know. it questions what
you think and makes you go "whatever! i dont agree. thats a pile of crap"
but it does make you think. its not the status quo. its
daaaaaangeerrroouuus. like grabbing your crotch by a flaming car in a
music video.
> Mostly it's irrelevant. Today's truly great artists are working quietly,
> mostly unheard of, according to the same classical principles that have guided
> art for many centuries. Ultimately they will rise above all the dross
> currently being thrown at us.
>
we'll see. id like to see the products of these classical
principles you speak of.
> <<take Christo for example>>
>
> No, you take him. Please.
>
thanks. i think hes great, so thats not an insult.
> <<you readily admit to dating a now 18 yr old, and you said you
> started dating her when she was 16. you are what, 50? that is pedophilia.
> not vile. not name calling. pointing out universal truths>>
>
> "Pedophilia" means sex with children. Insofar as I know, 18 year olds are not
> children. In fact I would guess you to be 18 or not much more. Are you a
> child incapable of thinking for herself? If so, why are we even having this
> discussion.
perhaps i will retract that accusation.
the definition of "pedophilia" differes from place to place, from
psycholgical manual to manual. most say with under the age of 14, some
under the age of 18. whichever it is, youre living quite dangerously, is
the point. i am not 18. i am 21. so i guess you would call me stones throw
from 18.
i was criticizing you for dating an 18 year old. thats your business of
course. you are the one who brought it up, and yes, you mentioned the fat
you were seeeing her when she was 16.
it just seems creepy to me, but everyone gets their kicks somehow.
> And "universal" truths??? Hoo boy! What is considered appropriate sexual
> behavior differs from one state to the next, let alone from one country or
> cultur to another.
hoo boy! im soooo middle class. i only have sex in the missionary
posistion too i suppose? and i probably think cunnilingus is bad! and
*gasp* fellacio. we'll have none of that.
im more kinky than that really. my warning flags go up though when i see
such grand age difference. ive seen this "kind of thing" all the time
though, so its not like ive lived in a convent my entire life and i find
your lifestyle morally unfit.
> My girlfriend is 18. I did not start "dating her" when she was 16. I don't
> recall "saying" or "admitting" anything about it, and in any event, there is
> nothing to admit, because admission implies one is doing something wrong. She
> is an adult, I am an adult, and our relationship is none of your business, or
> anyone else's. If you are offended by the large difference in our ages, I
> suggest you re-examine your bourgeois, middle-class values. And considering
> the personal lives of many of the artists you champion, I am a perfect saint.
>
ill find the mail where you mentioned her at age 16. maybe you
said something about her while she was 16. it doesnt matter. i wasnt
trying to harm you emotionally.
as for calling me bourgeois, i am quite offended, and quite shocked! o'
woe betide me. the only way i am such is the fact that i am receiving a
college education, however, this is being paid for by myself, and by
scholarships. if i recall you are a harvard man. so you are more bourgeois
than i. nyaaaaah!
i wasnt criticizing your lifestyle. i was tired and drunk when i wrote
that letter. i felt like being ornery. so i called you a name. i bow in
front of you in apology. i am sorry. i will go sleep in the gutter now.
> <<not disposable. what do you think of rosenquist, lichtenstein,
> indiana, oldenburg ? what about them.? is this your feeble attack on
> american "pop" art?>>
>
> As I said about Warhol and Pollock, wait 50 years and see what survives. That
> is one of the truest tests of art.
we shall see! that wont stop me or other people from enjoying
their timeless work.
>
>
> <<now are you saying people cant help the lots they are given in
> life? sounds like you are blaming the homeless for their problems, the
> poor for their problems, the sick for their problems, the creative for
> being creative.>>
>
> People damn well can help the "lots they are given in life," if indeed you see
> life as a lottery. And you're damn right I blame selfish and inconsiderate
> people for inflicting their problems on others. Sometimes people can't help
> being poor or homeless or uneducated; but that doesn't mean they have to behave
> in an uncivilized or inhuman fashion. Hell, even animals can be trained and
> housebroken.
you are championing the horatio alger story here. not all people
can get ahead no matter how hard they try. some people have shitty ass
parents, shitty ass teachers, have no role models. i dont know how to
reeeeaaaaddd! some people have it better than others. some people behave
in accordance with society and its ideals of good behavior. some dont,
and they are shunned, of course. is this good, is this bad? i dont know,
for i am the kind of person who thinks there is a cause for everything. i
guess i do believe in the inrehent goodness of mankind, and see society as
the corruptive agent, and that shapes behavior.
> When I was a teenage hoodlum, we used to do the same thing as Basquiat did in
> the film, go into restaurants and pour ketchup etc. on the tables for the
> waitresses. We weren't artists, we were assholes. And in that scene, so was
> Basquiat.
>
you hood! you rebel! you little dickens.
i dont agree with what he did either. i find faults in his
character. i have never done such a thing though. i am not a hood like you
:) heh.
> <<ive probably cried a lot more because i am a female and have an
> "inherently weak character". i havent had the best life, and i get sad
> easy. so ive probably cried more. i might go cry right now. boo hoo.>>
>
> Don't bet on it. I am homosexual and we have even weaker characters. We're
> also supposed to be more artistic, so maybe you should quit while you're (not)
> ahead.
>
you are bi if you are dating a female of course.
i dont believe in the weak homosexual male character. you probably
bust in irrational rages as peter lorre's lavender purfume wearing
character joel cairo does in the maltese falcon as well.
dont sell yourself short.
as far as more artistic, ive never met a homosexual arteeest. david
wojnarowicz was a supurb queer artist of the 80s. i love his work.
he died of aids in the early 90s though.
females are the fatest growing area in art...and are some of the best new
artists. alongside homosexual men......
> <<ive no doubt your work is sentimental or heartfelt. it wouldnt be
> good if it wasnt. im not criticizing your writing abilities. you just seem
> perpetually angry sometimes.
> its fine to disagree. but you get downright mean, mean meeeeean.>>
>
> I didn't start calling you names (android, vulcan, heartless, egotistical,
> pedophile etc.). I did jokingly call you a big fat poopypants, but that was
> just to make a point about your name calling. I tried to stick to criticizing
> your ideas, not you.
>
yeah i aplogize for that. im generally a nice person.
i just feel strongly about some things. as i am sure you do as
well.
when i call people names its generally a joke. not to be taken literally.
(ala dork! nerd!) i dont think android is too threatening anyways. ;]
my name calling isnt about you. its about me being a big ornery mischief
maker. im a bad person. i am sorry.
i like to get a response. and i got one. thanks for the discussion.
LLivermore
<<> Yeah, and I could carve a statue just as well as Michelangelo if I felt
like
> it. But I think I'll, um, choose to post on alt.punk instead. But it's just
> as valid!!>>
<<id like to see you try. ill be bringing over a block of marble
when i visit london at some point. you better sharpen your chisel. :P>>
I was being sarcastic, of course.
<<the definition of "pedophilia" differes from place to place, from
psycholgical manual to manual. most say with under the age of 14, some
under the age of 18.>>
You're confusing two different things. People are not deemed legally able to
consent to sex until the age of 12-18, depending on what country you're in, but
that doesn't make them children in the sense that pedophilia implies. I think
a more accurate definition of pedophilia would be the desire to have sex with
pre-pubescent children.
the demuth american dream
On 22 May 1998, LLivermore wrote:
> <<id like to see you try. ill be bringing over a block of marble
> when i visit london at some point. you better sharpen your chisel. :P>>
>
id still like to see you try. it would be fun.
>
> <<the definition of "pedophilia" differes from place to place, from
> psycholgical manual to manual. most say with under the age of 14, some
> under the age of 18.>>
>
> You're confusing two different things. People are not deemed legally able to
> consent to sex until the age of 12-18, depending on what country you're in, but
> that doesn't make them children in the sense that pedophilia implies. I think
> a more accurate definition of pedophilia would be the desire to have sex with
> pre-pubescent children.
yeah, i know, sugar daddy ;)
just kidding.
there is a difference between pedophilia and molesting teenagers
yes. there are bounderies by law with sex and teens as well. its not the
same persay, but there are "boundaries" or whatever. morally, i suppose
that is up to each person.
take that case in court with that 37-8 yr old teacher who had a
kid with her 12 or 13 yr old student. its a pretty wacky case, ive been
reading about it. they say she suffers from bi polar disorder.
i think shes pregnant again actually.
LLivermore
<<there is a difference between pedophilia and molesting teenagers>>
Yeah, exactly.
You can not "molest" most teenagers unless the teenager in question is somewhat
retarded.
Seriously. How many teenagers have you known how are so far out of it that
they are incapable of deciding for themselves whether or not they want to have
sex?
And think: you'd trust a 16 year old with a 2000 pound car capable of killing
multiple people, but wouldn't trust him or her with their own sexual organs?
Duh.
jeff...@my-dejanews.com
Yeah, Bowie was really good in it. The one thing that stuck with me through
the whole movie was how incredibly childish Jean-Michelle was. I don't mean
that in a negative way necessarily, but everything he did was in his own
interest and no one else's. He lacked courage. Regardless, I thought the
movie was well done even though it was a bit arty.
Jeffie (straying from the Lookout! CC)
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
LLivermore
<<> You can not "molest" most teenagers unless the teenager in question is
somewhat
> retarded.>>
<<tell that to all the intelligent and capable women i know who were
raped or had sex forced on them while they were in high school
or college.>>
Rape is a criminal assault in which sex is physically forced on someone who
doesn't want it. It has nothing to do with the age of the person who is being
raped.
"Molestation," as it's commonly used today, refers to an adult taking sexual
advantage of a child who is not mature enough to understand what it is
happening or to give informed consent to sex.
By definition, "intelligent and capable women" can not be molested or be
victims of pedophilia, because they are not children, and they have the
capacity to decide for themselves whether or not they want to have sex.
Rape is a hideous crime, and far too common in our society. But I fear the word
is being misused when its definition is broadened to include a college woman
who gets drunk at a party and has sex which she later regrets. I think we all,
men included, have done that at one time or another.
Corey Barr
On 23 May 1998 09:34:07 GMT, llive...@aol.com (LLivermore) wrote:
>Rape is a hideous crime, and far too common in our society. But I fear the word
>is being misused when its definition is broadened to include a college woman
>who gets drunk at a party and has sex which she later regrets. I think we all,
>men included, have done that at one time or another.
ADVANTAGE: STRAIGHTEDGE!
When I get involved with people I later regret, I can't hide behind
drunkenness.
Maybe that's not an advantage.
--
Corey Barr
"Corey your a mindless fag." -The Infamous
Corey Barr
On Wed, 20 May 1998 18:23:38 GMT, cjj11...@psu.edu (Levab Bavel)
wrote:
You have both misspelled BAVEL.