Buy L. Ron Hubbard [Ebay]
Nikolaus Maack
Opinions on him range from messiah to madman, con-artist to saviour. He's
inspired many people only to enrage others.
So who is he really? I don't know for sure, but I love his face. I also
love colour. Combining the two can only lead to good things, right?
Working from a photograph I found in a Scientology textbook, I have
created a colourful collage portrait of L. Ron Hubbard. Professionally
framed and mounted, the work has a teasing dignity and a respectfully
mocking nature to it, capturing that fascinatingly clouded and thoughtful
expression that L. Ron Hubbard always wore.
You can see the work and place bids on it at the following URL:
http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=465980432
If you have any questions or comments about the work, please post them
here, or feel free to send me email. I'd be very interested in hearing
what you all think of this piece.
My name is Nikolaus Maack, but call me Nik. I'm a thirty year old artist
who specializes in faces. I'm also a writer, a student of psychology, a
nanny, and a devotee to all things philosophical and artistic.
Nik
--
"I dote on myself. There is a lot of me, and all so luscious." -- Whitman
The Nik Maack Art Gallery
http://www.nikart.com
ptsc
>Working from a photograph I found in a Scientology textbook, I have
>created a colourful collage portrait of L. Ron Hubbard. Professionally
>framed and mounted, the work has a teasing dignity and a respectfully
>mocking nature to it, capturing that fascinatingly clouded and thoughtful
>expression that L. Ron Hubbard always wore.
>You can see the work and place bids on it at the following URL:
>http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=465980432
In one sense it looks like a piece of raving idiocy, the sort of thing a
schoolchild could come up with in a glue-fingered bout in the art room.
Yet, in another strange sense, I recognize the exact photo it's from and
by God, it's Ron!
Very odd.
I hope you get bids on it.
Perhaps the crime cult will outbid everyone just to destroy it, as I imagine
they will find it horrifying. Keep a few high-quality digital images.
ptsc
Nikolaus Maack
>>http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=465980432
>
> In one sense it looks like a piece of raving idiocy, the sort of thing a
> schoolchild could come up with in a glue-fingered bout in the art room.
> Yet, in another strange sense, I recognize the exact photo it's from and
> by God, it's Ron!
I'll take the above as a compliment, if that's okay with you.
I'm a big fan of impressionism. What an impressionist artist strives to
do is capture the feeling of a thing by putting down the broad strokes in
an emotional way. Many impressionists are fauvist -- that is, they use
colours that don't ordinarily go with the subject matter. For example, in
my portrait of L. Ron his nose is green and his forehead is blue. In some
Van Gogh portraits, you'll see greens and purples and bright reds in
people's faces -- colours that aren't ordinarily seen in realistic
portaits.
If an artist wants to describe the "soul" of a person or an object or a
scene, portraying it realistically might not get to its soul. A realistic
piece is, in my mind, little more than a copy. It might take great skill,
but it's difficult to get realism to say something REAL. I've always
said that a photograph doesn't steal someone's soul; to do that, you need
to make a painting.
To put it another way, charicature, distortion, odd colours -- all of
these things can be used to emphasize and underline the nature of the
thing being described. My portrait of L. Ron Hubbard -- in fact, all my
portraits -- work this way. What I strive for could be described as
complex impressionist cartoons.
> I hope you get bids on it.
Me too.
> Perhaps the crime cult will outbid everyone just to destroy it, as I
> imagine they will find it horrifying. Keep a few high-quality digital
> images.
I don't mind who gets the painting -- Scientologist or Anti-Scientologist
-- so long as they have a valid credit card and actually respect the work
on some level.
However, one of the things I have learned as an artist is that once a work
is out of my hands, it has a life of its own. If someone wants to buy
this work in order to smash it to pieces, I can't stop them. I would
prefer that they didn't smash it. I often miss my paintings after I sell
them, and hope that they are being treated well.
I will definitely miss my L. Ron Hubbard portrait when it hangs on someone
else's wall.
El Roto
I like it! If you'll forgive an unschooled opinion, I think
the "fragmented" look of the piece speaks volumes about its subject.
VWD
Steve G.
In article <8s49k1$l36$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca>,
ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Nikolaus Maack) wrote:
> There is a man that inspires contraversy. You all know him well.
> Opinions on him range from messiah to madman, con-artist to saviour.
He's
> inspired many people only to enrage others.
>
> So who is he really? I don't know for sure, but I love his face. I
also
> love colour. Combining the two can only lead to good things, right?
>
> Working from a photograph I found in a Scientology textbook, I have
> created a colourful collage portrait of L. Ron Hubbard.
Professionally
> framed and mounted, the work has a teasing dignity and a respectfully
> mocking nature to it, capturing that fascinatingly clouded and
thoughtful
> expression that L. Ron Hubbard always wore.
>
> You can see the work and place bids on it at the following URL:
>
> http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=465980432
>
> If you have any questions or comments about the work, please post them
> here, or feel free to send me email. I'd be very interested in
hearing
> what you all think of this piece.
>
> My name is Nikolaus Maack, but call me Nik. I'm a thirty year old
artist
> who specializes in faces. I'm also a writer, a student of
psychology, a
> nanny, and a devotee to all things philosophical and artistic.
>
> Nik
> --
> "I dote on myself. There is a lot of me, and all so luscious." --
Whitman
> The Nik Maack Art Gallery
> http://www.nikart.com
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Nikolaus Maack
> I like it! If you'll forgive an unschooled opinion, I think
> the "fragmented" look of the piece speaks volumes about its subject.
I welcome all opinions, especially "unschooled" ones. I myself never went
to art school. Some art classes in high school got me hooked, and I
started painting and making art and I just haven't been able to stop. Ten
years later, I'm still at it.
From what I've seen of the work of people who went to art school, that
kind of an education can really put you out of touch with reality. Just
an opinion, of course, and it clearly doesn't apply to all art school
grads.
As for the "fragmented look" -- I tend to prefer the wrinkled faces of old
men as a subject matter. I also get excited about the bland faces of
politicians and bureaucrats. Hubbard has a very "politician-like" face.
Every time I see a photograph of him, I'm a little startled.
"This is the man who started a million dollar movement? This is what a
science fiction writer looks like? But... he looks HUMAN!"
It's sort of interesting how often I am surprised at how human beings
manage to look like human beings and not gods. I'm not sure what that
says about my psyche.
Tilman Hausherr
>You can see the work and place bids on it at the following URL:
>
>http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=465980432
Hmm, it really is Elron. A real work of art. Gread job. But somehow, as
a scientology critic, I don't feel like giving you so much money for an
artwork of a really evil man :( And the cultists themselves only buy
the "official" artwork (usually of the kind "limited prints, really
really really, they will gain in value in 100 years")
Good luck :) I hope you won't get in trouble with the attorneys of the
criminal cult, maybe they consider the likeness of their criminal
founder to be a trademark :-(
Tilman
--
Tilman Hausherr [KoX, SP5.55] Entheta * Enturbulation * Entertainment
til...@berlin.snafu.de http://www.xenu.de
Resistance is futile. You will be enturbulated. Xenu always prevails.
Find broken links on your web site: http://www.snafu.de/~tilman/xenulink.html
The Xenu bookstore: http://www.snafu.de/~tilman/bookstore.html
Dave Bird
<ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> writes:
>There is a man that inspires contraversy. You all know him well.
>Opinions on him range from messiah to madman, con-artist to saviour. He's
>inspired many people only to enrage others.
>So who is he really? I don't know for sure, but I love his face. I also
>love colour. Combining the two can only lead to good things, right?
>
>Working from a photograph I found in a Scientology textbook, I have
>created a colourful collage portrait of L. Ron Hubbard. Professionally
>framed and mounted, the work has a teasing dignity and a respectfully
>mocking nature to it, capturing that fascinatingly clouded and thoughtful
>expression that L. Ron Hubbard always wore.
>
>http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=465980432
>here, or feel free to send me email. I'd be very interested in hearing
>what you all think of this piece.
>
>My name is Nikolaus Maack, but call me Nik. I'm a thirty year old artist
>who specializes in faces. I'm also a writer, a student of psychology, a
>nanny, and a devotee to all things philosophical and artistic.
Well, I *could* do with a new dart-board, if it's not too expensive.
Are you doing a portrait of the tomato ???
__ .\|/////..
||_.-' '. /\\|// ----
// ; | -----
--._// .\|/. .==== =====. --- -----------X*E*M*U-----------+
(( //(####) \d]>||<[d]>\ (~\ |
|| v '--'\\ . | \ | ''Auditting your Garden |
|| ; v . {_ \ : \/ Plants'' by L Ron Tubbard |
// .' : .'___' : ' Bridge Publications |
// ; '. ~===~ /\ $949.99 paperback |
// . .... o : /__\'''' / \ |
. \\\\~~~~|~~~~~~~|\\ / /\/,,, further details, ring |
. | .\''. |/''''/.|,,\\ //,,,,,,, 01 800 FOR TRUT |
'.|: O :|[ / ]|,,,,\/,,,,,,,,, |
----------------| '...' |[__O__]|,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, --------------------------+
|_______|_______|,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Nikolaus Maack
>>
>>http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=465980432
>
> a scientology critic, I don't feel like giving you so much money for an
> artwork of a really evil man :( And the cultists themselves only buy
> the "official" artwork (usually of the kind "limited prints, really
> really really, they will gain in value in 100 years")
The artwork, in my opinion, both mocks and marvels over L. Ron and who he
is. I've taken a stoic, serious, occasionally pompous man and made him
the colour of a firework. It's like an x-ray that reveals that the man's
insides -- where you would expect to find dust -- are stuffed full of
balloon animals.
The Scientology critics that I know collect everything they can that
features L. Ron and his writings. Ideally, they do so only when they can
be certain that none of their money goes into the coffers of Scientology.
None of the money I earn will actually go to the Church of Scientology, as
I am not affiliated with them in any way.
> Good luck :)
Thanks!
> I hope you won't get in trouble with the attorneys of the
> criminal cult, maybe they consider the likeness of their criminal
> founder to be a trademark :-(
An interesting notion, but I believe that the law allows for the use of a
public figure's likeness in this particular manner. And it is a matter of
taste whether or not the painting is a tribute or an insult. I think if
you hate the man, you can see the art as mocking him. If you like him,
you can see the art as celebrating him. I would hope that the lawyers,
instead of suing me, would attempt to buy the art to hang in their
offices. Aren't lawyers extremely wealthy? *grin*
My intention, when I made the work, was to capture L. Ron's essence.
People seem to agree that I have succeeded in doing do. Whether that
essence is heavenly or hellish, I leave up to each individual person who
views the art.
Nikolaus Maack
> Well, I *could* do with a new dart-board, if it's not too expensive.
Alas, the work is sealed in glass. Your darts would either shatter the
glass and make a mess, or fail to penetrate it.
> Are you doing a portrait of the tomato ???
I do take commissions, if you want a portrait of the tomato. I have a
standing offer where I paint postcards for $20 (US or Canadian, whichever
is more convenient). All I need is a photograph or a URL to work from.
See my postcard gallery on my webpage (www.nikart.com) for more details.
Email me if you're interested.
Phineas Fogg
Phineas Fogg
Unknown
Watch this guy get a letter from the cult's lawyers telling him they
own Lron.
On 12 Oct 2000 12:08:33 GMT, ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Nikolaus
Maack) wrote:
>There is a man that inspires contraversy. You all know him well.
>Opinions on him range from messiah to madman, con-artist to saviour. He's
>inspired many people only to enrage others.
>
>So who is he really? I don't know for sure, but I love his face. I also
>love colour. Combining the two can only lead to good things, right?
>
>Working from a photograph I found in a Scientology textbook, I have
>created a colourful collage portrait of L. Ron Hubbard. Professionally
>framed and mounted, the work has a teasing dignity and a respectfully
>mocking nature to it, capturing that fascinatingly clouded and thoughtful
>expression that L. Ron Hubbard always wore.
>
>You can see the work and place bids on it at the following URL:
>
>http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=465980432
>
>If you have any questions or comments about the work, please post them
>here, or feel free to send me email. I'd be very interested in hearing
>what you all think of this piece.
>
>My name is Nikolaus Maack, but call me Nik. I'm a thirty year old artist
>who specializes in faces. I'm also a writer, a student of psychology, a
>nanny, and a devotee to all things philosophical and artistic.
>
> Nik
Nikolaus Maack
> I couldn't find the image of Hubbard.
Check the URL again. This afternoon I was looking at the Ebay page and
the pictures weren't loading. I checked it again just now, and they're
fine. Ebay is so hyper-clogged with people, it's a wonder the place EVER
works.
Elron Portrait Auction:
http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=465980432
ptsc
>I couldn't find the image of Hubbard.
http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=465980432
Island Boy
Maack) wrote:
> There is a man that inspires contraversy. You all know him well.
> Opinions on him range from messiah to madman, con-artist to saviour. He's
> inspired many people only to enrage others.
Not to mention tortured and killed others.
> So who is he really? I don't know for sure, but I love his face. I also
> love colour. Combining the two can only lead to good things, right?
I will be vbery surprised if there is a market for portrats of insane
crime bosses. Wouldn't a dolphun have better prospects for a sale?
> Working from a photograph I found in a Scientology textbook, I have
> created a colourful collage portrait of L. Ron Hubbard. Professionally
> framed and mounted, the work has a teasing dignity and a respectfully
> mocking nature to it, capturing that fascinatingly clouded and thoughtful
> expression that L. Ron Hubbard always wore.
>
> You can see the work and place bids on it at the following URL:
>
> http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=465980432
>
> If you have any questions or comments about the work, please post them
> here, or feel free to send me email. I'd be very interested in hearing
> what you all think of this piece.
>
> My name is Nikolaus Maack, but call me Nik. I'm a thirty year old artist
> who specializes in faces. I'm also a writer, a student of psychology, a
> nanny, and a devotee to all things philosophical and artistic.
>
> Nik
> --
> "I dote on myself. There is a lot of me, and all so luscious." -- Whitman
> The Nik Maack Art Gallery
> http://www.nikart.com
---
"I want to dance." --- Lisa McPherson, 18 Nov 95 http://holysmoke.org/lm/lm.htm
David Rice, "rogue canceler."
"This [Jim Jones' People's Temple] wasn't a cult. This was a respectible, mainline
Christian group." --- J. Gordon Melton
ptsc
>On 12 Oct 2000 12:08:33 GMT, ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Nikolaus
>Maack) wrote:
>> There is a man that inspires contraversy. You all know him well.
>> Opinions on him range from messiah to madman, con-artist to saviour. He's
>> inspired many people only to enrage others.
>Not to mention tortured and killed others.
>> So who is he really? I don't know for sure, but I love his face. I also
>> love colour. Combining the two can only lead to good things, right?
>I will be vbery surprised if there is a market for portrats of insane
>crime bosses. Wouldn't a dolphun have better prospects for a sale?
Really? Ever seen Serial Killer trading cards? Quite popular. I believe
they even had an insane cult leader series.
ptsc
Frank Copeland
On Thu, 12 Oct 2000 08:45:17 -0400, ptsc <pt...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>Perhaps the crime cult will outbid everyone just to destroy it, as I imagine
>they will find it horrifying. Keep a few high-quality digital images.
Why bid for it when they can just claim (falsely) that it is a
copyright infringement and Ebay will pull the auction immediately?
That's why you can't sell an e-meter on Ebay.
Frank
- --
Home Page: <URL:http://thingy.apana.org.au/~fjc/>
Not the Scientology Home Page: <URL:http://thingy.apana.org.au/~fjc/scn/>
Keep it in Usenet. E-mail replies and 'courtesy' copies are not welcome.
If you're selling, I ain't buying.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3ia
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBOeZPxoBOXdsElwbdAQEXnwP9GHingH1x8lgLXc7xy8Q5Wa34lLV0vbo0
Ip2u5F1U5YA/OSbShmOodWewAycxLM/k2Ib3fOj78n2XXCUYcjakvHD1NfPCKmVM
CGLLyDix/cFX/zXjJXpjCITcviihPjT9aXVXPDwfFYUrrOenc1SJEAGF/kbWwgHW
RkQpPjse/GE=
=9WGF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
barb
No, Phineas is treating it like one of those 3D pictures, I think.
Cross your eyes, focus on the void, and you'll see a unicorn in a
garden.
I saw Hubbard, unfortunately. But it is a very well-done and
recogniseable Hubbard. The artist caught Ron in multicolored bits, and
captured him quite well on a number of levels. Well, okay, two. The
multicolored bits part, and the "Hubbard as a fragmented weirdo" part.
Whatever, I like it. But not, alas, $400 worth. There's a painting of a
Harpy Eagle I really like...
--barb
Chaplain, ARSCC
ptsc
>On Thu, 12 Oct 2000 08:45:17 -0400, ptsc <pt...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>Perhaps the crime cult will outbid everyone just to destroy it, as I imagine
>>they will find it horrifying. Keep a few high-quality digital images.
>Why bid for it when they can just claim (falsely) that it is a
>copyright infringement and Ebay will pull the auction immediately?
>That's why you can't sell an e-meter on Ebay.
Because that leaves the portrait still out there waiting to defile Hubbard.
This is, of course, how they'll view it. And of course as a copyright
infringement. This is of course obviously bogus. Perhaps Leibovitz v.
Paramount would be instructive to Paquette et al could they read.
>Frank
ptsc
Byll23
there's no way in _hell_ I'm spending that much for it.
Michael Voytinsky
news:20001012222127...@ng-bg1.aol.com...
> Sir, I salute you. Your artwork would look just dandy on anyone's wall.
But
> there's no way in _hell_ I'm spending that much for it.
Do you have any idea how much time good artwork takes to make?
Cheers,
Michael
--
Michael Voytinsky
Ottawa Ontario Canada
http://voytinsky.freeservers.com
"When entering a health club, make sure there are people leaving.
Otherwise it could be an alien meat processing plant in disguise."
Nikolaus Maack
> I will be vbery surprised if there is a market for portrats of insane
> crime bosses.
Be surprised.
>Wouldn't a dolphun have better prospects for a sale?
There are many, many artists who spend their time painting pictures of
nothing but flowers and "dolphuns" and garden landscapes. I wake up every
morning grateful that I am not such an artist. I have painted pictures of
flowers before. My mom asked me to do a picture of flowers for her, and I
was once comissioned to do a painting of roses someone wanted to give his
girlfriend for Valentine's day.
Not everyone wants yet another drab watercolour painting of a weeping
clown looking over a fence covered in roses at a bunch of dogs playing
cards around a picnic table. Thank God.
Nikolaus Maack
> Whatever, I like it. But not, alas, $400 worth.
The portrait is worth more than $400. The image is professionally framed
and mounted, sealed inside a tight black box frame. The glass of the
frame is a special "conservation" glass that protects the work from fading
over time. This kind of framing and mounting does not come cheap.
The time I put into making the artwork itself was extensive. It was at
least 30 hours of work. Like all well-assembled artworks, people look at
it and don't see the effort that went into the piece. The end result
seems to have "just happened".
I did several preliminary sketches. I then traced a vague outline of what
I wanted. Then I had to tear up tiny bits of paper and glue them down.
Often I had to remove pieces I'd already glued down, and apply new pieces
in a different way. Once the entire work was complete, I had to spray it
several times, waiting for the varnish to dry before applying another
coat.
Making art is hard work. It's work I enjoy, but it's still work.
> There's a painting of a
> Harpy Eagle I really like...
Wildlife paintings are a dime a dozen, and are as common (and as tasteful)
as dirt. Some artists just make print after print of their wildlife work,
sign it, and sell them for ridiculous amounts of money. Why get conned by
that? Why have a picture of wolves on your wall, for example? It's so
very typical and ordinary. When people see wolves and wildlife on your
wall, they instantly know who you are -- a person without a sense of
exploration or risk.
The person who buys my L. Ron portrait gets something unique, something
colourful, something real. Bright, complex, and artistic, it's the sort
of work that says something about who you are. For those of you once
involved in the cult, it can say, "L. Ron Hubbard once owned me -- now I
own him! He's not a flesh and blood being, but my personal colourful
cartoon!"
Frumious Bandersnatch
Maack) wrote:
>Why have a picture of wolves on your wall, for example? It's so
>very typical and ordinary. When people see wolves and wildlife on your
>wall, they instantly know who you are -- a person without a sense of
>exploration or risk.
Because it beats having the likeness of a dead fuckwit on it, perhaps?
-- Tnuctip
Nikolaus Maack
> Sir, I salute you. Your artwork would look just dandy on anyone's wall.
> But there's no way in _hell_ I'm spending that much for it.
Good art takes time and costs money. I can understand your reluctance to
purchase art of such value if you never have done so before. Most of us,
in this day and age, are satisfied to hang cheap, mass-produced posters
and prints on our walls. We feel that this is adequate. This says enough.
It doesn't. Who do you want to be -- the person with a twenty dollar
poster taped to the wall, a poster anyone can find at the mall, or someone
with a unique, professionally framed, textured piece of fine workmanship?
Owning real art, unique art, art of value, art of quality -- this says
something about who you are. Don't be satisfied with hanging some cheap
poster reproduction of a painting done by Dali four decades ago.
I won't give you the speech about art as an investment -- although I know
for a fact that the value of my art will increase as I gain a place in the
arts world. What's important here is knowing what has value and what
doesn't have value. A poster is not the same thing as the original
painting.
I'm not asking you to become an art snob and to sneer at Dali. I
genuinely like Dali's work. But a poster reproduction? It may be nice to
look at, but it's not unique. What I am selling is an original that took
a lot of time, a lot of effort and -- to get it framed -- cost me a lot of
money. It is worth something, and I am only asking what it is worth.
Nikolaus Maack
> Because it beats having the likeness of a dead fuckwit on it, perhaps?
You can hide your head in the sand, if you'd like. Pretend L. Ron Hubbard
never existed. Surround yourself with pictures of flowers and ponies and
"dolphuns". But most people have more sense than that. Keep your friends
close, and your enemies closer. What better way to remind yourself of who
your enemies are, by hanging a satirical portrait of them on your wall?
The person who gets this painting hates the Co$ more than you. That much
is clear. While they fight it, you're simply hiding from it. And that's
pathetic.
Frumious Bandersnatch
Maack) wrote:
>Frumious Bandersnatch (erasmu...@hushmail.com) writes:
>> Because it beats having the likeness of a dead fuckwit on it, perhaps?
>
>You can hide your head in the sand, if you'd like. Pretend L. Ron Hubbard
>never existed.
How is not having a picture of something on my wall pretending it
doesn't exist?
> Surround yourself with pictures of flowers and ponies and
>"dolphuns". But most people have more sense than that. Keep your friends
>close, and your enemies closer. What better way to remind yourself of who
>your enemies are, by hanging a satirical portrait of them on your wall?
L Ron Hubbard is not my enemy and he never was.
Nice try, though: appeal to my emotions to put money in your pocket.
>The person who gets this painting hates the Co$ more than you. That much
>is clear. While they fight it, you're simply hiding from it. And that's
>pathetic.
I see. I am hiding from something because I don't have a picture of it
on my wall. In which case, I must be hiding from everything except
shelves, books, a couple of silly paintings of squares and a couple of
mirrors.
Idiot.
-- Tnuctip
Nikolaus Maack
> How is not having a picture of something on my wall pretending it
> doesn't exist?
You said that having lovely pictures of wildlife on your wall is better
than having a portrait of a "criminal psychopath" on your wall. Your
preference indicates a certain kind of mind-set. You'd much rather
surround yourself with pretty illusions and comforting imagery than
something that would make you think or feel.
If you're a serious critic of the Co$, having a satirical portrait of L.
Ron Hubbard on your wall would serve as a useful reminder of your
passions. Not everyone is satisfied with cheap, comforting art. Many
like to have a sharp buzzing playful contraversy hanging around -- a touch
of contraversy in a room makes it all the more pleasant to be in.
> Nice try, though: appeal to my emotions to put money in your pocket.
That's very cynical of you. This isn't about money for me. I'm an artist
and I am passionate about good art. I produce good art and I hope to get
it out into the world and make a name for myself. When I get to where I
want to be -- and I will -- people won't be comparing me to Picasso,
they'll be comparing Picasso to me.
I also have bills to pay, and want to be paid for the hard work that I do.
I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for that.
Steve Zadarnowski
>Because that leaves the portrait still out there waiting to defile Hubbard.
>
>This is, of course, how they'll view it. And of course as a copyright
>infringement. This is of course obviously bogus. Perhaps Leibovitz v.
>Paramount would be instructive to Paquette et al could they read.
The cult wouldn't stand a chance, and ebay would tell them to
fuck off in this instance. Titling an artwork "L Ron Hubbard"
whether it was a blob of red glass or a fine art image means
nothing. The cult can't claim copyright on the name because
the work itself does not bear the name as a part of the artwork.
Nik titles it as he sees it. The portrait certainly has Elron's
lips, however!
S
---
"If it smells like ass, its Scientology!"
"Just bum data, bum data, bum data, bum data,
alter-is, alter-is, bum data." - LRH, SHSBC
Steve Zadarnowski
>Byll23 (byl...@aol.com) writes:
>> Sir, I salute you. Your artwork would look just dandy on anyone's wall.
>> But there's no way in _hell_ I'm spending that much for it.
>
>Good art takes time and costs money. I can understand your reluctance to
>purchase art of such value if you never have done so before. Most of us,
>in this day and age, are satisfied to hang cheap, mass-produced posters
>and prints on our walls. We feel that this is adequate. This says enough.
I personally think it'd make a fine picture to hang in the LMT, and
if the LMT has a window, then on display.
barb
Michael Voytinsky wrote:
>
> Byll23 <byl...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20001012222127...@ng-bg1.aol.com...
>
> > Sir, I salute you. Your artwork would look just dandy on anyone's wall.
> But
> > there's no way in _hell_ I'm spending that much for it.
>
> Do you have any idea how much time good artwork takes to make?
>
> Cheers,
> Michael
>
Unfortunately, yes. And it's a fact that you will never get out of a
piece what you put into it. Of course, that's why there are not
thousands of underpaid artists running around, they see the reality and
get <ugh> jobs.
Of course, there are exceptions. Painters who do movie backdrops.
Artists who work for magazines. Those characticurists at Disneyland who
draw you with a big head. Those illustrators for Freedumb Magazine.
Yeah, that's where the money is. More often, you find yourself being
offered projects up front. "I'll gladly pay you Tuesday when the
advertisers pay off."
Realistically, if you're gonna do art, you'd better love it, cuz it
won't make you rich. I do have a project in mind that will garner me
tons of publicity and wealth and fame.
I just have to find an org that will let me wrap it in plastic and
tinfoil.
barb
Nikolaus Maack wrote:
>
> Island Boy (Isla...@nospam.org) writes:
> > I will be vbery surprised if there is a market for portrats of insane
> > crime bosses.
>
> Be surprised.
>
> >Wouldn't a dolphun have better prospects for a sale?
>
> There are many, many artists who spend their time painting pictures of
> nothing but flowers and "dolphuns" and garden landscapes. I wake up every
> morning grateful that I am not such an artist. I have painted pictures of
> flowers before. My mom asked me to do a picture of flowers for her, and I
> was once comissioned to do a painting of roses someone wanted to give his
> girlfriend for Valentine's day.
>
> Not everyone wants yet another drab watercolour painting of a weeping
> clown looking over a fence covered in roses at a bunch of dogs playing
> cards around a picnic table. Thank God.
>
> Nik
Oooh! I want one of those to hang over my fireplace, if I had one!
barb
Nikolaus Maack wrote:
>
> barb (bwarr1_at_@home_dot_.com) writes:
> > Whatever, I like it. But not, alas, $400 worth.
>
> The portrait is worth more than $400. The image is professionally framed
> and mounted, sealed inside a tight black box frame. The glass of the
> frame is a special "conservation" glass that protects the work from fading
> over time. This kind of framing and mounting does not come cheap.
>
> The time I put into making the artwork itself was extensive. It was at
> least 30 hours of work. Like all well-assembled artworks, people look at
> it and don't see the effort that went into the piece. The end result
> seems to have "just happened".
Yes, of course. I understand completely how much time it takes, and the
end surprise is always amazing when it becomes what it will, despite the
artist.
>
> I did several preliminary sketches. I then traced a vague outline of what
> I wanted. Then I had to tear up tiny bits of paper and glue them down.
> Often I had to remove pieces I'd already glued down, and apply new pieces
> in a different way. Once the entire work was complete, I had to spray it
> several times, waiting for the varnish to dry before applying another
> coat.
>
> Making art is hard work. It's work I enjoy, but it's still work.
>
> > There's a painting of a
> > Harpy Eagle I really like...
>
> Wildlife paintings are a dime a dozen, and are as common (and as tasteful)
> as dirt. Some artists just make print after print of their wildlife work,
> sign it, and sell them for ridiculous amounts of money. Why get conned by
> that? Why have a picture of wolves on your wall, for example? It's so
> very typical and ordinary. When people see wolves and wildlife on your
> wall, they instantly know who you are -- a person without a sense of
> exploration or risk.
Ah ah ah! The harpy eagle reference is a bit of a joke with me, I had
the pleasure of enturbulating a scientologist with the image of a harpy
carrying him away. I do have a nice oil portrait of my red-tailed hawk,
however. Much better looking than one of stern great-grandparents
glaring down at you.
>
> The person who buys my L. Ron portrait gets something unique, something
> colourful, something real. Bright, complex, and artistic, it's the sort
> of work that says something about who you are. For those of you once
> involved in the cult, it can say, "L. Ron Hubbard once owned me -- now I
> own him! He's not a flesh and blood being, but my personal colourful
> cartoon!"
>
> Nik
>
Indeed. You eerily captured him in your collage, he peers out unmolested
by the flurry of confetti surrounding him. Disturbing, in a way. Kind of
like Jim Carrey in that Andy Kaufman movie. Once in a while, Kaufman
would peek out of Carrey's eyes, arrgghh.
Let us only hope you haven't somehow invoked LRH into that work. I'd
lock that thing in a titanium vault somewhere, or surround it with
candles and chicken livers to keep him in place.
barb
Chaplain, ARSCC
barb
Nikolaus Maack wrote:
>
> Frumious Bandersnatch (erasmu...@hushmail.com) writes:
> > Because it beats having the likeness of a dead fuckwit on it, perhaps?
>
> You can hide your head in the sand, if you'd like. Pretend L. Ron Hubbard
> never existed. Surround yourself with pictures of flowers and ponies and
> "dolphuns". But most people have more sense than that. Keep your friends
> close, and your enemies closer. What better way to remind yourself of who
> your enemies are, by hanging a satirical portrait of them on your wall?
>
> The person who gets this painting hates the Co$ more than you. That much
> is clear. While they fight it, you're simply hiding from it. And that's
> pathetic.
>
> Nik
You know, most of us don't hate the Co$. We hate what it does, we hate
the way it abuses people and the law, but we don't hate 'them!' Hate the
action, not the man, get it?
Now that that's out of the way, I don't quite see how buying a portrait
of LRH somehow equals fighting the church. Perhaps the Bandersnatch is
involved in his own battle against them, as are most of us, doing what
we can to inform and inoculate people so they will, at best, give the
cult a wide berth. The fact that Frumious even posts here means he isn't
hiding. OSA already has him, and you, on a list. They like lists. Kick
it up a notch, and you graduate from being on a list to having your very
own file folder, with your very own OSA guy tending it.
You have, probably in all innocence, plonked yourself right down in the
middle by creating a likeness of their revered leader. I'm guessing that
you were ignorant of the cult's true nature when you began this project.
OSA has all your posts, and, if they deem you enough of a threat, they
will pull you into the fray, willingly, or kicking and screaming; it
matters not to them.
Should they decide to play with you a bit, you will know fear. It will
come and go, but you will know it. You'll find ways to keep that fear at
bay, through knowlege, through support of others who have gone before
you here, through personal experience. They're more of a boogey man than
anything else and to date, not as scarey as they'd like you to think.
That said, when will you start the portrait of David Miscavige, the Evil
Lawn Jockey of Scientology? Preferably with big eyes, leaning against a
trash can, wearing an oversized sailor's cap...
Ian Rennie
> > doesn't exist?
>
> You said that having lovely pictures of wildlife on your wall is > better than having a portrait of a "criminal psychopath" on your wall. > Your preference indicates a certain kind of mind-set. You'd much > > rather surround yourself with pretty illusions and comforting imagery > than something that would make you think or feel.
Did any of the nazi-hunters who found war criminals have pictures of
Adolf Hitler on their walls? If they didn't, were they 'surrounding'
themselves 'with pretty illusions'
>
> If you're a serious critic of the Co$, having a satirical portrait of L.
> Ron Hubbard on your wall would serve as a useful reminder of your
> passions. Not everyone is satisfied with cheap, comforting art. Many
> like to have a sharp buzzing playful contraversy hanging around -- a touch
> of contraversy in a room makes it all the more pleasant to be in.
Personally, I can be a critic of a group without having a fetishistic
idol of the group's dead founder on my wall.
what's next, encouraging us to shout at the picture when we enter the
room?
L Ron Hubbard isn't/wasn't my enemy. I think he has deluded a lot of
people, but to be honest he is personally insignificant to me. The
damage his group does is significant, but not him personally.
>
> > Nice try, though: appeal to my emotions to put money in your pocket.
>
> That's very cynical of you. This isn't about money for me. I'm an artist
> and I am passionate about good art. I produce good art and I hope to get
> it out into the world and make a name for myself. When I get to where I
> want to be -- and I will -- people won't be comparing me to Picasso,
> they'll be comparing Picasso to me.
>
> I also have bills to pay, and want to be paid for the hard work that I do.
> I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for that.
well, just say that instead of trying to create an illusion that your
paintings will make people better critics.
Kelly Martin
Maack) wrote:
>If you're a serious critic of the Co$, having a satirical portrait of L.
>Ron Hubbard on your wall would serve as a useful reminder of your
>passions. Not everyone is satisfied with cheap, comforting art. Many
>like to have a sharp buzzing playful contraversy hanging around -- a touch
>of contraversy in a room makes it all the more pleasant to be in.
For what it's worth, I think it's a good looking piece, and if I had
$400 in my budget that wasn't earmarked for something else, I'd
consider buying it.
Kelly
Nikolaus Maack
> Let us only hope you haven't somehow invoked LRH into that work. I'd
> lock that thing in a titanium vault somewhere, or surround it with
> candles and chicken livers to keep him in place.
Perhaps I have captured him on paper the same way the evil villains were
captured in a two dimension space in the old Christopher Reeve "Superman"
movie. If it were not for me, the spirit of L. Ron Hubbard would be
roaming the universe. After all, he did not die, he merely shed his
corporeal form. Perhaps his astral body got stuck in the glue I was
working with, while making his portrait?
Nik
Nikolaus Maack
> For what it's worth, I think it's a good looking piece, and if I had
> $400 in my budget that wasn't earmarked for something else, I'd
> consider buying it.
Thanks, Kelly. I appreciate your kind words.
Nikolaus Maack
> Did any of the nazi-hunters who found war criminals have pictures of
> Adolf Hitler on their walls? If they didn't, were they 'surrounding'
> themselves 'with pretty illusions'
I am not suggesting that my portrait will give you super powers. I'm not
even suggesting you stare at it and project your hate at the ghost of L.
Ron Hubbard. What I am defending is the notion that buying this painting
and hanging it on your walls is a good, acceptable thing. You don't have
to settle for a cheap poster of "dolphuns".
I'm sorry if I got a little testy when someone asked why the hell they
should my portrait of a psychotic crimelord and hang it on their walls.
> Personally, I can be a critic of a group without having a fetishistic
> idol of the group's dead founder on my wall.
However, given that you have an interest in that particular group, it
might please and amuse you to own a satirical portrait of their leader,
and hang it on your wall. Let's put it another way -- if you're not
interested in hockey, you probably won't want to hang hockey teams'
banners on your walls. If you're not interested in music, you won't buy a
fancy stereo.
However, if you're interested in Scientology...
See what I'm driving at?
> what's next, encouraging us to shout at the picture when we enter the
> room?
I wasn't planning on it. But if that's what it takes to get you through
the night, sure.
> L Ron Hubbard isn't/wasn't my enemy. I think he has deluded a lot of
> people, but to be honest he is personally insignificant to me. The
> damage his group does is significant, but not him personally.
He himself is no longer just a man. His face has become symbolic of the
group he started. That's why his appearance is so fascinating. He set
the thing in motion.
Yes, he's just a man, made of meat, and he died, like we'll all some day
die. In that sense, he is insignificant. But he is also an icon. Albert
Einstein, Adolf Hitler, Marilyn Monroe, John F. Kenny, L. Ron Hubbard, and
many others have all come to mean more than what they, as a single human
being, actually were. They are now symbolic of something. Archetypal.
Most of my portraits are of nobodies. I like the faces of old men -- the
kind of men you see sitting in parks, feeding pigeons, looking miserable,
alone, and sad. Sometime you see them in malls -- alone or in groups --
wandering the hallways. What fascinates me about art is I can take the
face of such a man, capture it on a piece of paper, and give it
importance. I can take that ordinary person and make him into an icon.
This pleases me.
What I like is the lines and the creases and the marks of old men.
They've seen so much, and everything they've seen has been pounded into
their faces. Old men are strangely beautiful that way. They have
survived through so much.
(Why not old women? Because they spend so much time trying to hide those
lines.)
L. Ron Hubbard has a face like an accountant, or the manager of a hardware
store, or an old man wandering through a shopping mall.
> well, just say that instead of trying to create an illusion that your
> paintings will make people better critics.
I didn't mean to imply that owning my painting would make someone a better
critic. I'm suggesting that if you are "interested" in Scientology --
interested in observing what they do and who they are and how they do it
-- you might also be interested in owning the portrait as well.
http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=465980432
Speaking of which, someone placed a bid on it it today.
Dave Bird
<ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> writes:
>Frumious Bandersnatch (erasmu...@hushmail.com) writes:
>> How is not having a picture of something on my wall pretending it
>> doesn't exist?
>
>You said that having lovely pictures of wildlife on your wall is better
>than having a portrait of a "criminal psychopath" on your wall. Your
>preference indicates a certain kind of mind-set.
Yep. I like cows and camels; I don't like psychopaths.
|~/ |~/
~~|;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;||';-._.-;'^';||_.-;'^'0-|~~
P | Woof Woof, Glug Glug ||____________|| 0 | P
O | Who Drowned the Judge's Dog? | . . . . . . . '----. 0 | O
O | answers on *---|_______________ @__o0 | O
L |<a href="news:alt.religion.scientology"></a>_____________|/_______| L
www.xemu.demon.co.uk 2B0D 5195 337B A3E6 DDAC BD38 7F2F FD8E 7391 F44F
Dave Bird
<ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> writes:
>Byll23 (byl...@aol.com) writes:
>> Sir, I salute you. Your artwork would look just dandy on anyone's wall.
>> But there's no way in _hell_ I'm spending that much for it.
>
>purchase art of such value if you never have done so before. Most of us,
>in this day and age, are satisfied to hang cheap, mass-produced posters
>and prints on our walls. We feel that this is adequate. This says enough.
Sure. If I had the money, I could hire the Duke string quartet
and a couple of spare violinists to come round and perform
Verklarte Nacht in my living room.
As it is, I have to live with LPs and CDs.
Jommy Cross
wrote in msg <8s49k1$l36$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca>:
>There is a man that inspires contraversy. You all know him well.
>Opinions on him range from messiah to madman, con-artist to saviour. He's
>inspired many people only to enrage others.
>
>So who is he really? I don't know for sure, but I love his face. I also
>love colour. Combining the two can only lead to good things, right?
>
It was the orange hair that got you, wasn't it? I liked your Mao as well.
Those with a sensayuma (and a sensawunda) should check Nik's text:
http://www.themestream.com/gspd_browse/author/view_author_info.gsp?auth_id=10306
There isn't much of it, but it'd fill a cigar box.
Ever yours in fandom,
Jommy Cross
---------------------------------------------------
This message brought to you by Radio Free Albemuth:
before you hallucinate
--------------------------------------------------
Lionel Fuddpucker
ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Nikolaus Maack) wrote:
> Working from a photograph I found in a Scientology textbook, I have
> created a colourful collage portrait of L. Ron Hubbard.
> Professionally framed and mounted, the work has a teasing dignity and
> a respectfully mocking nature to it, capturing that fascinatingly
> clouded and thoughtful expression that L. Ron Hubbard always wore.
Well, there's at least one sucker in the world. YDuzItMatter has bid
$400 on the item.
Hmmmm. Maybe we could get some starving artist to do more of these,
and use the proceeds to fund ARSCC (wdne).
--
RADM L Fuddpucker, Commandant, Implant Station M-3b
<http://www.geocities.com/lionelfuddpucker>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Island Boy
wrote:
> You know, most of us don't hate the Co$. We hate what it does, we hate
> the way it abuses people and the law, but we don't hate 'them!' Hate the
> action, not the man, get it?
There is no reason to hate Scientologists, nor are there any critics
in a.r.s. who hate Scientologists. It is a propaganda figment of the
crime syndicate's imagination.
> Now that that's out of the way, I don't quite see how buying a portrait
> of LRH somehow equals fighting the church.
Not to mention the fact that the "art" in question is very poor in
terms of impressionism. Artists never get paid what their art is
worth, but this piece might be sellable for the price of the frame.
I've seen similiar "art" at the Good Will.
> Perhaps the Bandersnatch is
> involved in his own battle against them, as are most of us, doing what
> we can to inform and inoculate people so they will, at best, give the
> cult a wide berth. The fact that Frumious even posts here means he isn't
> hiding. OSA already has him, and you, on a list. They like lists. Kick
> it up a notch, and you graduate from being on a list to having your very
> own file folder, with your very own OSA guy tending it.
>
> You have, probably in all innocence, plonked yourself right down in the
> middle by creating a likeness of their revered leader. I'm guessing that
> you were ignorant of the cult's true nature when you began this project.
> OSA has all your posts, and, if they deem you enough of a threat, they
> will pull you into the fray, willingly, or kicking and screaming; it
> matters not to them.
>
> Should they decide to play with you a bit, you will know fear. It will
> come and go, but you will know it. You'll find ways to keep that fear at
> bay, through knowlege, through support of others who have gone before
> you here, through personal experience. They're more of a boogey man than
> anything else and to date, not as scarey as they'd like you to think.
>
> That said, when will you start the portrait of David Miscavige, the Evil
> Lawn Jockey of Scientology? Preferably with big eyes, leaning against a
> trash can, wearing an oversized sailor's cap...
>
> barb
> Chaplain, ARSCC
>
> > --
> > "I dote on myself. There is a lot of me, and all so luscious." -- Whitman
> > The Nik Maack Art Gallery
> > http://www.nikart.com
---
"I want to dance." --- Lisa McPherson, 18 Nov 95 http://holysmoke.org/lm/lm.htm
David Rice, "rogue canceler."
"This [Jim Jones' People's Temple] wasn't a cult. This was a respectible, mainline
Christian group." --- J. Gordon Melton
"I first found Scientology in a waste paper backet." -- Ray Kemp
Nikolaus Maack
> Yep. I like cows and camels; I don't like psychopaths.
I tend to like all three, myself. I mean, let's be honest. People loved
the movie (and the novel) "Silence of the Lambs" because of Hannibal
Lecter. If it weren't for people like Ed Gein and Jeffrey Dahmer and
Charles Manson, we wouldn't have fascinating fictional psychopathic
characters.
I'm not saying that it's good thing that Sharon Tate was murdered. I'm
suggesting that we are all fascinated by the dark. When a human being
gets up one day, and kills another human being, we all have this tendency
to want to know about it. On some perverse level, a killing can be
entertaining.
I am reminded of a Bloom County cartoon, where the gang turns on the TV in
the middle of something. It's a war scene. People are being shot up,
blasted, guns are firing. They don't know if it's news or fiction, so
they can't figure out whether they should be cheering, or shaking their
heads in disgust. Every time they cheer they say, "Uh, unless this is
real, in which case this is awful."
My portrait of L. Ron is a colourful mutilation of the actual man. The
portrait belittles him in the same way that a police officer can humiliate
a bomb -- by defusing it.
Nik
Nikolaus Maack
> Not to mention the fact that the "art" in question is very poor in
> terms of impressionism.
Most people don't think of themselves as artists. Too bad, because anyone
can be an artist. I encourage everyone to paint and write and draw.
Almost everyone thinks their criticism is valid. Too bad, because not
just anyone can be a critic. I encourage everyone to keep their mouths
shut and not half-assedly criticize the works of others.
It's depressing to realize that we live in a world where people are scared
to pick up a paint brush, because so many critics are just itching to tell
them what they're about to do wrong.
Byll23
>Byll23 <byl...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20001012222127...@ng-bg1.aol.com...
>
>> Sir, I salute you. Your artwork would look just dandy on anyone's wall.
>But
>> there's no way in _hell_ I'm spending that much for it.
>
>Do you have any idea how much time good artwork takes to make?
Yes. That's why I content myself with cheap reproductions. I mean, $400 is too
much for a picture. Such money could be spent more productively on, say, legos.
:-)
Byll23
>Michael Voytinsky wrote:
>>
>> Byll23 <byl...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:20001012222127...@ng-bg1.aol.com...
>>
>> > Sir, I salute you. Your artwork would look just dandy on anyone's wall.
>> But
>> > there's no way in _hell_ I'm spending that much for it.
>>
>> Do you have any idea how much time good artwork takes to make?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Michael
>>
>
>Unfortunately, yes. And it's a fact that you will never get out of a
>piece what you put into it. Of course, that's why there are not
>thousands of underpaid artists running around, they see the reality and
>get <ugh> jobs.
>Of course, there are exceptions. Painters who do movie backdrops.
>Artists who work for magazines. Those characticurists at Disneyland who
>draw you with a big head. Those illustrators for Freedumb Magazine.
>Yeah, that's where the money is. More often, you find yourself being
>offered projects up front. "I'll gladly pay you Tuesday when the
>advertisers pay off."
>
>Realistically, if you're gonna do art, you'd better love it, cuz it
>won't make you rich. I do have a project in mind that will garner me
>tons of publicity and wealth and fame.
>
>I just have to find an org that will let me wrap it in plastic and
>tinfoil.
Careful, Christo will sue you for Intellectual Property Theft. ;-)
barb
Hah! Tell me about it! My personal take on art is that there is no
"better" art, just different. People who don't draw or paint don't
understand that, and get all involved in "I'll never be as good as xxx,
so why bother?"
Our lovely competitive society in action.
Scientology targets artists and creative people, which is strange
because they are the very antithesis of creativity. The art I've seen
come out of Golden Era studios and their magazine empire is weak, and of
a low quality. They really do not care about quality, it's more like
"Get this done yesterday!" and no excuses. It must be a terrible
existance, unless you're a Helnwein. They do suck up to the famous, and
I've never met a creative person who didn't like ego strokes.
That's my take on art and Scientology.
--
Barb
Chaplain, ARSCC
Dave Bird
<ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> writes:
>barb (bwarr1_at_@home_dot_.com) writes:
>> Whatever, I like it. But not, alas, $400 worth.
>
>The portrait is worth more than $400. The image is professionally framed
>and mounted, sealed inside a tight black box frame. The glass of the
>frame is a special "conservation" glass that protects the work from fading
>over time. This kind of framing and mounting does not come cheap.
>
>The time I put into making the artwork itself was extensive. It was at
>least 30 hours of work. Like all well-assembled artworks, people look at
>it and don't see the effort that went into the piece. The end result
>seems to have "just happened".
Generally the theory of economics relies on supply AND DEMAND. Sure,
there is a cost in labour to make, for example, a full size Eifel Tower
out of Parmesan Cheese. There is also a limit to which anyone is
prepared to work hours of their labour (or give equivalent saved value)
to buy the aforesaid cheesy tower. If the former exceeds the latter...
Still, I appreciate the good humour which you have handled, in effect,
turning up in the middle of a tank battle and trying to sell the crews
hot-dogs.
Nikolaus Maack
> Generally the theory of economics relies on supply AND DEMAND.
Someone has placed a bid on the painting and I am sure that is only the
first bid of many yet to come. There are seven days left in the auction,
and from what I understand, people tend to leave their bids until the
last minute, in an attempt to keep the price from getting too high.
In other words, there does indeed seem to be a demand for my supply.
Dave Bird
<ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> writes:
>Dave Bird (da...@xemu.demon.co.uk) writes:
>> Generally the theory of economics relies on supply AND DEMAND.
>
>Someone has placed a bid on the painting and I am sure that is only the
>first bid of many yet to come. There are seven days left in the auction,
>and from what I understand, people tend to leave their bids until the
>last minute, in an attempt to keep the price from getting too high.
>
>In other words, there does indeed seem to be a demand for my supply.
Good. I wish you well. Generally I am not of an income level
to e.g. have favourite performers perform for me one-off in my home,
or to buy the originals of quality artwork I like.
Don't knock reproduction, of music or painting: it enables many more
people to access many more experiences of creative work.
Steve Zadarnowski
>Island Boy (Isla...@nospam.org) writes:
>> Not to mention the fact that the "art" in question is very poor in
>> terms of impressionism.
>
>Most people don't think of themselves as artists.
I do. I have huge plans for art works, but I'm too damn lazy.
I know a few artists and know it takes quite a bit of effort
to produce a quality work.
>I encourage everyone to keep their mouths
>shut and not half-assedly criticize the works of others.
Very hard to do, for most people!
>It's depressing to realize that we live in a world where people are scared
>to pick up a paint brush, because so many critics are just itching to tell
>them what they're about to do wrong.
I'm holding a paint brush and a pot of white matt acrylic in my
hand right now, part of an "artwork" I started months ago and
forgot I was even working on, which goes one step past
laziness into uncommitted indifference considering its the
*only* thing I've started in 30 years...
I've been around a few of the Australian art galleries, and
seen the obligatory white panels, blue panels, framed glass
etc, and formed the opinion that with a lot of this stuff
(art that resembles nothing specific) it is a) the balls to
do it, b) to actually do it, c) be the first to do it.
Then all the critics can exclaim "but its just a blue panel!"
and never mind the fact it was painted 30 years ago, has a
title (other than 'unnamed work #31') and has a kind of
presence and is completely unique.
Nikolaus Maack
> I do. I have huge plans for art works, but I'm too damn lazy.
> I know a few artists and know it takes quite a bit of effort
> to produce a quality work.
I have many friends who have loads of desire to make art, but none of the
willpower to do it. A friend of mine wanted to make movies, bought the
camera, bought other equipment, practised using it, but found, in the end,
that he really didn't want to do it. Presumably if he really wanted to,
he would.
I've written a novel -- unpublished -- and this impresses my friends. I
don't understand why. I wanted to write one, and I sat down, day after
day, and wrote it. I kept at it, and now it exists. To me the act seemed
almost effortless. I had to do it.
Selling it, on the other hand, is something I'm having difficulty forcing
myself to do.
If you really want to do something, do it. If you find yourself not doing
it, ask yourself why. Do you really want to do it, if you find you can't
do it?
There are many people, for example, who don't want to write; they merely
want to be known as "writers". They want what they think "being a writer"
will get them -- a certain mystique, credability, the aura of an
intellectual.
That old cliche, "A writer writes," is so painfully true. If you want to
be a writer, you write. Eventually you find you have no choice in the
matter. You'll end up writing because you have to write.
The same goes for making art. I cannot stop making art. I've been doing
it for years and years. Sometimes I take breaks for a month or so, but I
always come back to it because I am an artist.
>>I encourage everyone to keep their mouths
>>shut and not half-assedly criticize the works of others.
>
> Very hard to do, for most people!
True. We all have opinions and feelings we want to share. Learning that
sometimes our opinions and feelings don't matter is a tough lesson.
> I'm holding a paint brush and a pot of white matt acrylic in my
> hand right now, part of an "artwork" I started months ago and
> forgot I was even working on, which goes one step past
> laziness into uncommitted indifference considering its the
> *only* thing I've started in 30 years...
I've been on diets before. Normally they don't work because I forget that
I want to be on a diet. It is easier to not be on a diet than to be on
one. If I can remind myself constantly, "Watch what you eat! Pay
attention what goes into your mouth! DEFINE yourself as someone on a
diet!" then I stand a better chance.
Making art, I suspect, works the same way. "I am someone who makes art!"
has to be kept in mind long enough, until it becomes automatic. That
seems to be how identity works.
Ironically, this is how Scientologists brainwash people. You eventually
learn to identify yourself as a "Scientologist" and the threat of that
being taken away is the equivalent of being threatened with having your
skin torn off. Scientology becomes "who you are". It's your identity.
But programming yourself is almost always a better thing that being
programmed by an outside source. Especially if you, personally, get to
choose the criteria of the program. If I define myself as an artist, and
I get to define what "artist" means, that's a good thing. If I define
myself as a Scientologist, and someone outside of me gets to define what
"Scientologist" means, that's a bad thing.
My opinion, anyhow.
barb
So true! I don't particularly want to be a writer, but sometimes an idea
takes hold, and won't leave until I put it down on paper. Last year as
Christmas presents, I gave out little books with five short stories in
them, and folks were polite enough to say they had enjoyed them. As for
marketing? Pah! I have no desire to sell the stories, I just like to
write. I can't be bothered with marketing.
This is an excellent point! I hadn't quite got my finger on this
niggling, troublesome detail, and here it is! Thanks for posting it.
>
> But programming yourself is almost always a better thing that being
> programmed by an outside source. Especially if you, personally, get to
> choose the criteria of the program. If I define myself as an artist, and
> I get to define what "artist" means, that's a good thing. If I define
> myself as a Scientologist, and someone outside of me gets to define what
> "Scientologist" means, that's a bad thing.
>
> My opinion, anyhow.
>
> Nik
>
> --
> "I dote on myself. There is a lot of me, and all so luscious." -- Whitman
> The Nik Maack Art Gallery
> http://www.nikart.com
--
Barb
Chaplain, ARSCC