Chewing my leg off to get out of the bear trap...
OpalPeacok
I'm sick of paying full price for my art materials so I'm doing research into
getting a business license and tax # so I can get it wholesale. Cripes! Now I'm
trying to decide if my art biz is going to be a sole proprietorship, a
partnership, or a Limited Liability blah blah blah. Anyone who's done one of
these homespun supplemental whatever-I-can-do-to-make-my-slack-pay-off
businesses I could use your advice. I do a little freelance, I sell a coupla
paintings, he frames things, I sell little beaded thingies..etc.
Headmistress
Branch Salacians
Fence sitting between the sacred and profane ever since "Bob" sold me this
electrified razor wire fence
Mykal D'Archangel
proprietorship is the way to go. Partnership, well.. you need a partner...
Limited Liability I'm not so familiar with.
Have you been in touch with the Small Business Administration? Almost every
major city has an office. It's a governmental agency.. wait wait- it's a
*good* governmental agency. They actually help you! Give 'em a call and
they can send you free information. But the real deal is if you go in to
talk to them- they'll give you tons and tons of free information. Pamphlets
on fund raising, taxes, special services they offer- tons o' stuff! It's
well worth it to go in and talk to them- they will answer every question
you could ever have and not make you feel stupid because you didn't know
the answers. It's what they're there for.
And if anything- you may find that you'll want to be in business for
yourself for more than just the discount on art supplies, but I can see
that being a serious perk! Good luck.
Mykal D'Archangel
OpalPeacok <opalp...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19980925223113...@ng29.aol.com>...
OpalPeacok
>:I'm sick of paying full price for my art materials so I'm doing research
>:into getting a business license and tax # so I can get it wholesale.
>
>
>--
>_________________
>rev...@radix.net
Even raw pigment can be gotten wholesale. I don't have time to dig for ochres,
scrape off oxides, or squeeze purple out of rare sea creatures.
Actually, I would make time to squeeze sea creatures.
König Preuße, GmbH
OpalPeacok wrote:
> >:I'm sick of paying full price for my art materials so I'm doing research
> >:into getting a business license and tax # so I can get it wholesale.
> >
> >How hard would it be to make it yourself? Just curious.
> >
> >--
> >_________________
> >rev...@radix.net
>
> Even raw pigment can be gotten wholesale. I don't have time to dig for ochres,
> scrape off oxides, or squeeze purple out of rare sea creatures.
>
> Actually, I would make time to squeeze sea creatures.
>
I happen to have a very urgent sea cucumber
that squirts Royal Purple Paisley at passing sea anomalies.
Grantland
wrote:
shagger-seaweed good for green. It's yours for the cucumber, and a
pinch of European aramine
Grantland
OpalPeacok
>> scrape off oxides, or squeeze purple out of rare sea creatures.
>>
>> Actually, I would make time to squeeze sea creatures.
>>
>
> I happen to have a very urgent sea cucumber
>that squirts Royal Purple Paisley at passing sea anomalies.
He DOES! I've seen the pictures! Very arousing I must testify. Opalescent
Hard-On, yesssss
OpalPeacok
> And I disdain to possess a particularly pellucid sheaf of slimy
>shagger-seaweed good for green. It's yours for the cucumber, and a
>pinch of European aramine
>
>Grantland
I don't what this is but it would make great pictures. OOoooooooOOOOooooooooo!
(looking up aramine right this second in that baby name web site)
OpalPeacok
>
>(looking up aramine right this second in that baby name web site)
no listing. requested that they add it.
Mumthra
: I'm sick of paying full price for my art materials so I'm doing research into
: getting a business license and tax # so I can get it wholesale.
Becoming a corporation is more expensive, so since you are unlikely to
get sued for someone being injured by ART, a sole proprietorship
oughta be just fine. (I am assuming that your art does not include
sculpture of staircases made out of chainsaws or something that would
entice little children to amputate, of course).
All ya gotta do is apply for the tax ID (EIN) and forms will flood to
you. At that point you should hit up an accountant friend to check
over your shoulder, or find one that'll trade advice for STUFF.
I'm trying to do the VERY SAME THING with my neighbor at the moment,
but he got all over-enthusiastic because he thought I was trying to
start a brothel.
I guess he really likes broth.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Emancipate a comma! Evict mental ergonomics!
König Preuße, GmbH
Mumthra wrote:
> opalp...@aol.com (OpalPeacok) wrote:
>
> : I'm sick of paying full price for my art materials so I'm doing research into
> : getting a business license and tax # so I can get it wholesale.
>
> Becoming a corporation is more expensive, so since you are unlikely to
> get sued for someone being injured by ART, ----<whack>
Wait a minuto!
If your art isn't hurting anybody,
call me at Area Code 301
Baltimore Harbormaster
Pier #33
Longshoreman's Home for Wayward Girls
We know how to make Art hurt!
König Preuße, GmbH
OpalPeacok wrote:
> > And I disdain to possess a particularly pellucid sheaf of slimy
> >shagger-seaweed good for green. It's yours for the cucumber, and a
> >pinch of European aramine
> >
> >Grantland
>
> I don't what this is but it would make great pictures. OOoooooooOOOOooooooooo!
>
> (looking up aramine right this second in that baby name web site)
> Headmistress
> Branch Salacians
>
> Fence sitting between the sacred and profane ever since "Bob" sold me this
> electrified razor wire fence
There are some few great things that are unique to Africa.
Gabon oil, for instance.
There is no scent like it.
Rev. Random the Other
>
> Jahweh Lynch explains it all:
> :Thus spake Hoosier Daddy:
>
> :>OpalPeacok explains it all:
> :>
> :>:I'm sick of paying full price for my art materials so I'm doing research
> :>:into getting a business license and tax # so I can get it wholesale.
> :>How hard would it be to make it yourself? Just curious.
>
> :Make what? Art materials? You mean, like, paint?
>
> No, Dachshund sweaters, you ding-a-ling.
<snip>
Don't listen to HIM, HE doesn't know WHAT HE MEANS.
What he REALLY meant was "does this piece of art, or whatever,
integrate you with or dissociate you from your own experience?"
Can one make art one's SELF? G.G. Allin proved it possible.
This is deep. Or Deepak. Jack Deepakman, Unintentional Murder Junkie.
Or a post from a while back:
Art Is Lies
From: ana...@cse.ucsc.edu
This article was supposed to have another subject, but I wrote it offline
and the post I'm replying to has passed away into the ether, so I don't
know what it really ought to be Re:. You'll have to fit it into your
threads manually. Actually the argument as a whole seems to have passed
away, but I'm going to stick this in anyway. I was BUSY, all right?
Jeez. Anyway, I think it was Townsend vs. Nickie on TV shows with slack,
with Lynch shoving his oar in over something or another. No big deal,
really; this is kind of a tangent.
David Lynch (erase...@iglou.iglou.com) wrote:
>Yeah, all TV does is insidiously program your mind. Also, stop reading
>books. Think of what staring at that print for hours at a time must do
>to your mind. Anyhow, everyone knows most books are just mouthpieces for
>con dupes to subliminally influence your thought processes and make you
>like all the rest. In fact, don't listen to anybody else at all; if it
>doesn't come directly from your own brain, it's got to be a tool of the
>Con, and it's not valid.
Curious that this should come up just now. I recently had a
revelation, of sorts, that I was intending to write up and probably
post here (the only newsgroup fit for such powerful insights),
concerning just this sort of thing. I was in the shower, just
getting started, engaged in a little personal ritual that I always
indulge in when bathing. If you commonly use a bath or shower that
relies on waterproof curtains to keep your warm water in the bath and
not on the floor, you have probably discovered that most curtains,
whether due to innate design flaws or because of poor installation,
do not do a particularly good job in their assigned role. Most of my
bathing in the last few years has been in shower/tubs that are built
against walls on three sides, with a single curtain along one of the
long sides shielding the exposure on the rest of the bathroom. These
curtains, when kept inside the tub, do a reasonably good job of
keeping water from spilling out over the sides, but fall down at the
corners, especially the corner aside the shower head itself; I find
that a lot of water tends to escape there. Long ago, however, I
noted that shower curtains, no doubt due to some property inherent in
waterproof "fabrics," adhere strongly to smooth surfaces when wet. If
you start a shower with acurtain hanging loosely to one side, when
you finish you will find that the curtain has managed to stick itself
to the wall or to the bath in a number of places, held by a thin film
of water (surface tension, I suspect, is the explanation). Having
seen this, and particularly noted how the adhesion develops along the
edge of the curtain next to the shower head, where the most moisture
escapes, I realized that a bit of work at the start of a shower would
do a great deal towards improving the water-retention capabilities of
the shower enclosure. To be specific, I developed the habit of
taking a minute or so at the start of each bath to run some water, to
coat the walls by the edges of the curtain with same, and to manually
ensure that the edge of the curtain is well-stuck to the wall at that
point. The habit has served me well; I'm very confident that it has
significantly reduced the amount of spillage.
So I started to take a shower two weeks ago and began with this
little task. It usually involves a bit of awkward crouching (I run
the water first through the bath spigot, if possible, to avoid
spillage during the process) and splashing, while naked, of course,
and, I assume, presents a pretty ridiculous spectacle (me naked alone
probably presents a pretty ridiculous spectacle). It struck me,
during an extra-fumbling moment while the curtain was expressing
particular recalcitrance, that my actions were something I had never
*heard about* in any way. I'd never been told of it, read about it,
seen it in a picture, seen it in another person--it was a wholly
idiosyncratic, in the purest sense, experience. I began to consider
other similar aspects of my life, and, further, the less personal,
more public elements that still share this characteristic of being
things I know *only* through direct experience, never through
representation. When you start thinking about this, you realize
almost immediately how absolutely your personal experience surpasses
in breadth and depth the secondhand "world" of communicated
experience--experience communicated via *any* medium. Look around.
How much do you see that you've never seen on TV? How much *could*
you never see on TV? I don't necessarily mean things that would
never be on TV because they're shocking or dangerous, but simply all
the details, the little things, the *mundane* things that don't get
shown because they don't serve the purpose at hand or just because
they're trivial, not worth the effort.
There's nothing really new in this, but the idea came to me with
particular force and clarity. Later that day, walking down the
street, I was fascinated by how unlike anything from film, books, or
TV the plain old *sidewalk* is. The cracks, the marks, the stains,
the spills, the weeds, the curbs--wholly unique. Getting back to my
shower, though, the *next* feeling was a sudden alienation. The
realization that, as far as I know, no one else in the world does, or
has ever done, or has even thought about doing this little thing that
I do produced a strong sense of difference, a distinct separation from
the rest of the world. It didn't bother me--I've already got plenty
of alienating traits, and I'm used to them--but it brought another
not really new, but newly clear and powerful, lesson: representations
are isolating. Your experience, if only because of its richness, can
never be fully reflected in any representation. You will always have
your secret habits, your idiosyncrasies, your unique circumstances
that are known to you alone. Any representation, then, that purports
to tell you something about other people, or even about just another
person, inevitably carries the message: you are different; this is
not you; this is not your life. And this goes not just for bad movies
and cheesy TV, but for documentaries, propaganda, the evening news,
the morning paper, thoughtful essays, incisive criticism, biting
humor, blistering satire, sculptures, paintings, comics, classics.
Remember: all art is LIES.
There's nothing wrong with this; it's just the way it is. But it
seems obvious to me that here we have at least one of the roots of
Media Victimization. The issue is, does this piece of art, or
whatever, integrate you with or dissociate you from your own
experience? If you can identify the elements of a representation that
do and do not accurately reflect your own *real* life, you are
relatively safe from this dissociation (though if you pay attention,
you may find yourself *overwhelmed* by the difference you discover).
But do people do this? Can they? It doesn't seem so. For most in
this information-age society (the first, probably, about which this
can be said), "the rest of the world" is a vast cloud of humanity
invisible to the naked eye, observed only through the instruments of
secondhand experience. Yet they attribute to this vague population a
degree of reality equal to or even greater than that granted the
people they actually *see* and deal with in person. This has two
effects: first, it reinforces rather than dilutes the pervasive
signals of separation; second, it encourages people to integrate
themselves with the secondhand world rather than the immediate one
(under the mistaken impression that the latter is merely a tiny facet
of the former). The necessary inaccuracy of any attempt to represent
to someone that person's own experience dooms this effort to
integrate; the only result is dissociation from one's actual world,
and the product is a Media Victim. The Media Victim attempts through
emulation and self-caricature to place himself in what he perceives
as the real world, unaware that his goal is unattainable. A media
culture is inherently and unavoidably a *mediated* culture;
representation forms an inviolable barrier between what is
represented and whom it is represented to. The Media Victim's
failure to abolish this barrier exacerbates the sense of difference
and exclusion that the barrier produces, which may lead in turn to
feelings of inadequacy, inferiority, shame, or guilt. These tend, of
course, to further stimulate the urge to fit oneself to perceived
normality, creating a vicious circle whose ultimate product is either
a paranoid isolate or a mind-controlled, media-manipulated zombie.
So after all this I was wondering, why is it that people are
susceptible to this? What is it that encourages the critical mistake
of choosing the represented world over the experienced one? Plain
human nature seems to be the explanation. Though the Media Victim
described above is a contemporary phenomenon, the basic problem is
not a new one. You have probably heard of the traditional Moslem
law, laid down in the Koran some twelve or thirteen centuries ago,
against representing reality in art. This is usually explained as an
injuction against idolatry, a preventive measure discouraging the
identification of divinity in the material world rather than in an
ineffable God. The same principle has been advanced in other
religious contexts, as part of the Reformation and other iconoclastic
movements, for example, and of course in the story of the golden
calf. What does this point to but an innate human tendency to invest
with exaggerated significance the abstractions, stylizations,
representations that humans create? (And what is God but the highest
abstraction of humanity itself?) "Idolatrous" religious practice
itself suggests this, of course: the fetishes, totems, idols, icons,
and other trappings that have adorned religion for millenia have all
been foci of worship. Perhaps this tendency is at root a testament
of respect for the creative force, the uniquely human power to
perform these acts of representation. Whatever its origin, the same
habit accounts equally well for Media Victimization as for popery--we
may properly say that the Media Victim actually worships the images
on the TV screen and the words in the magazines. Is it any wonder
that the Information Age has seen the rapid disintegration of
traditional religious practice as it spreads its ever-rising tide of
sights and sounds over more and more of the world?
Well, that was a long ramble. Some shower, hm? I could go on--I was
intending to bring this back to the original topic by explaining why
books are better than TV, but I don't quite remember the connection.
This has already taken too damn long anyway. I hope it was
worthwhile for someone. Looking back over it, it seems a bit more
dull than it did initially. I wish I could write better; I'm not
sure I really got it out correctly. If anyone cares, I'll keep
thinking and add some more if I come up with anything good. The real
point, I guess, was the question: does this representation integrate
you with or dissociate you from your own experience? Try to keep it
in mind, and live in the real world.
Beats that kibology crap, anyway.
ana...@cse.ucsc.edu +-+-+ Just because it's a JOKE doesn't mean it's not
TRUE
D I S C L A I M E R : E V E R Y T H I N G I W R I T E I S F A L S E
OpalPeacok
>
>Partnerships. Do you have a partner? Well, there you go, then.
We'll do a partnership. Do we have to name one person the president? Can I be
president anyway if we don't. Can I call myself Headmistress Salacia the
Overseer, President CEO legally without any expense?
In the future I might be dealing in items which might make me liable for
getting sued. Selling things to bored silly rich ladies is a wild card. They
love to change their mind and sue for emotional distress and damages
Thanx to you Jahweh David Lynch
OpalPeacok
>What he REALLY meant was "does this piece of art, or whatever,
>integrate you with or dissociate you from your own experience?"
>Can one make art one's SELF? G.G. Allin proved it possible.
>
G.G. Allin took Freud's idea about artists as anal expressives..way to
seriously and literally.
One can make art of one's self. I see it everyday. Some artists are like
pomegranate trees. They don't intend to make art they just do it. Their ideas
grow naturally from the blossoms, then they start to work on the piece it
starts to take shape, eventually the piece is nearly done, it ripens, the
artist adds some finishing touches..then it falls off the tree, a perfect fruit
of the artists own self and energy and time of life. For these artists art is
not an activity it is a natural compulsion. They are usually pretty darn
touched in the head, too.
TarlaStar
>Jahweh Lynch explains it all:
>:Thus spake Hoosier Daddy:
>:>OpalPeacok explains it all:
>:>
>:>:I'm sick of paying full price for my art materials so I'm doing research
>:>:into getting a business license and tax # so I can get it wholesale.
>:>
>:>How hard would it be to make it yourself? Just curious.
>:Make what? Art materials? You mean, like, paint?
>No, Dachshund sweaters, you ding-a-ling. Yes, art supplies, like paint and
>stuff. I was just curious. Whenever I want something and am thwarted by
>price, I get all self-righteous and think "I'll make it myself, dammit!"
>This doesn't always work out for complex things like television sets, but
>sometimes I can pull it off and wind up with a product that is not only
>cheaper but in fact BETTER than what's offered in stores. In these cases I
>always give myself a pat on the back and smugly assert to anyone who will
>listen, "I beat the CON". HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH. Did I mention that I
>don't have any friends?
There ARE some things that you can make for yourself that are much
cheaper than buying them from art suppliers. I've made a little side
job of finding all the suppliers for all the shit I need. For example;
I never buy pre-stretched canvas or even artist's canvas. I go to the
fabric store and buy heavy cotton canvas at 2.59 a yard and buy about
a dozen yards at a time. Then I make my own gesso with the leftovers
from my plaster rinse bucket. I made a deal with a local carpenter who
makes me large stretcher frames for cheap and I can get a 4'x5' ready
to paint canvas for about $35.
Other materials like paints can be scoured from various sources. In
some cases it's really not important to use "artist's quality" sources
and in other cases it's essential. I don't scrimp on pigments. That
shows. However, using interior housepaint primer as a gesso ingredient
won't show up later and WILL save you many dollars.
Another way to save money on art supplies is to form a co-op. There
are many mail order companies that will give discounts on orders over
a certain amount. (I think Jerry's Artarama gives a 10% discount on
orders over $300)
As far as Opal's question goes, I think it varies from state to state.
When I was in the gallery, I used their number when I was buying
supplies because all my work was sold with taxes added by the gallery.
TarlaStar
>snip>... Getting back to my
>shower, though, the *next* feeling was a sudden alienation. The
>realization that, as far as I know, no one else in the world does, or
>has ever done, or has even thought about doing this little thing that
>I do produced a strong sense of difference, a distinct separation from
>the rest of the world.
Consider yourself re-connected, Rev. I do this same thing every time I
shower.
> It didn't bother me--I've already got plenty
>of alienating traits, and I'm used to them--but it brought another
>not really new, but newly clear and powerful, lesson: representations
>are isolating. Your experience, if only because of its richness, can
>never be fully reflected in any representation. You will always have
>your secret habits, your idiosyncrasies, your unique circumstances
>that are known to you alone. Any representation, then, that purports
>to tell you something about other people, or even about just another
>person, inevitably carries the message: you are different; this is
>not you; this is not your life. And this goes not just for bad movies
>and cheesy TV, but for documentaries, propaganda, the evening news,
>the morning paper, thoughtful essays, incisive criticism, biting
>humor, blistering satire, sculptures, paintings, comics, classics.
>Remember: all art is LIES.
>There's nothing wrong with this; it's just the way it is. But it
>seems obvious to me that here we have at least one of the roots of
>Media Victimization. The issue is, does this piece of art, or
>whatever, integrate you with or dissociate you from your own
>human nature seems to be the explanation. Though the Media Victim
>described above is a contemporary phenomenon, the basic problem is
>not a new one. You have probably heard of the traditional Moslem
>law, laid down in the Koran some twelve or thirteen centuries ago,
>against representing reality in art. This is usually explained as an
>injuction against idolatry, a preventive measure discouraging the
>identification of divinity in the material world rather than in an
>ineffable God. The same principle has been advanced in other
>religious contexts, as part of the Reformation and other iconoclastic
>movements, for example, and of course in the story of the golden
>calf. What does this point to but an innate human tendency to invest
>with exaggerated significance the abstractions, stylizations,
>representations that humans create?
How about the possibility that humans invest other things with
"humanity," anthropomorphizing all things in order to explain them
through self-reference? I know that I tend to "fall in love" with my
work (especially the figurative stuff) and tell myself stories about
the work while I'm working on it. Why does this character have this
expression, what brought him/her to this point? and so on. It's not a
very distant step from that to imbuing a statue with abilities based
upon a tendency to combine superstition and co-incidence. By that I
mean, a guy creates a statue dedicated to Diana and the very night
that it's dedicated, a deer runs into the square. Next morning,
everyone believes that Diana actually is connected in some way with
the statue.
> (And what is God but the highest
>abstraction of humanity itself?)
exactly.
kevbob
>listen, "I beat the CON". HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH. Did I mention that I
>don't have any friends?
does the mumbling wino laying on the courthouse steps mention he has a
drinking problem?
König Preuße, GmbH
kevbob wrote:
That's the mayor.
Does the Pope shit in the woods?
OpalPeacok
Jahweh said:
> Art is the ability to channel the
>transcendent within the medium. It is, I think, a religious skill, and also,
>I think, does not originate wholly from within the self. The self becomes an
>instrument for the expression of art, but it is not a creation of the self-
>art is essentially a bastardization of something not comprehensible in normal
>terms into work that, hopefully, conveys something of the transcendent, while
>still being fundamentally inadequate.
This is very close to my own intuitions/opinions.
Then he said:
>I think the act of creation should strike a balance between these two
>approaches; should be passionate, but should be cognizant of the technical
>skills involved, should know various methods of communication.
>
I respectfully disagree here. Many of the outsider artists and outsider
visionaries have made me shake in my boots in a way that ranks them higher in
my esteem than most art in the Louvre or MOMA and their thousands of
accumulated years of ecole de beaux artes training. They usually don't have any
technical or craft education at all but are able to communicate with a raw
intensity that kisses my ass into oblivion. And they usually do it with
materials from their everyday life.
They make princes with milkmaids, if you will.
OpalPeacok
Tarla gives good advice,
> Then I make my own gesso with the leftovers
>from my plaster rinse bucket.
>However, using interior housepaint primer as a gesso ingredient
>won't show up later and WILL save you many dollars.
Do you use the plaster when it is still a slip or have you figured out a way to
mush it up after hardening. I love this gesso recipe. Then you pour the plaster
into the primer?
saint andreux
> >What he REALLY meant was "does this piece of art, or whatever,
> >integrate you with or dissociate you from your own experience?"
> >Can one make art one's SELF? G.G. Allin proved it possible.
>
> G.G. Allin took Freud's idea about artists as anal expressives..way to
> seriously and literally.
Hey, G.G. used to live right by us... (Some Illinois suburb, anyway.)
I always wanted to go trick-or-treating at his house. It'd be amusing.
> One can make art of one's self.
Pope Phred's got this weird necklace forming for years from peeled off
callouses from his feet. Does that count?
--
saint andreux: generally regarded as a visionary drunkard/prophet
www.prairienet.org/~saint|BANNED BY SCIENTOLOGY|www.xenu.net
i'm not fascist. my hate is directed at specific people like you.
Popess Lilith von Fraumench
<360DD647...@americasm01.nt.com>, cmc...@americasm01.nt.com bellowed
forth across the wasteland:
>
>Can one make art one's SELF? G.G. Allin proved it possible.
I *am* a work of art. Tarla said so.
P.Lil
--
|Reverend Doktor Saint Popess| Fools' Press |
| Lilith von Fraumench, Esq. | 1122 E Pike St, #769 |
| Hangnail Of the Stark Fist | Seattle, WA 98122-3934 |
| Sadomasticist At Large | http://bounce.to/p-lil |
Popess Lilith von Fraumench
<360e5cc...@news.newsguy.com>, gay...@catholic.org bellowed forth across
the wasteland:
>
>Man. Alt.slack really DID used to be better. I wonder whatever happened to
>that guy?
I killed him because he was a worthless git who confused mental masturbation
with rebellion and thought Usenet was worth more than the electrons that humbly
if dejectedly carry each devolved article across expanses that shriek with
insult that such puerile crap could pass as thoughtful discussion.
YOU'RE NEXT.
(That's the general "you", Dave, so don't worry. Or maybe you SHOULD.)
Popess Lilith von Fraumench
<19980926093426...@ng16.aol.com>, opalp...@aol.com bellowed forth
across the wasteland:
>
>Even raw pigment can be gotten wholesale. I don't have time to dig for ochres,
>
>Actually, I would make time to squeeze sea creatures.
I was about to say...!
Popess Lilith von Fraumench
<360D0978...@erols.com>, bbom...@erols.com bellowed forth across the
wasteland:
>
> I happen to have a very urgent sea cucumber
>that squirts Royal Purple Paisley at passing sea anomalies.
Not at MY sea anomaly it don't!
Oh, wait, it's back to agave again. Never mind.
Popess Lilith von Fraumench
<360D5B63...@erols.com>, bbom...@erols.com bellowed forth across the
wasteland:
>
>
>>> : I'm sick of paying full price for my art materials so I'm doing research
>> : getting a business license and tax # so I can get it wholesale.
>>
>> get sued for someone being injured by ART, ----<whack>
>
>Wait a minuto!
>If your art isn't hurting anybody,
>call me at Area Code 301
>Baltimore Harbormaster
>Pier #33
>Longshoreman's Home for Wayward Girls
>
>We know how to make Art hurt!
Thank you very much, Koenig, for raising this salient point. Art *should* hurt.
I have this well-worn artsy black t-shirt that has a painting of crudely
executed agape faces, four each, identical, arranged in a garish grid. The
words "Art can't hurt you" was painted, one word at a time, on each forehead.
I really wanted to put a Survival Research Laboratories logo on the back of the
shirt.
TarlaStar
>Thus spake OpalPeacok:
>>I respectfully disagree here. Many of the outsider artists and outsider
>>visionaries have made me shake in my boots in a way that ranks them higher in
>>my esteem than most art in the Louvre or MOMA and their thousands of
>>accumulated years of ecole de beaux artes training. They usually don't have any
>>technical or craft education at all but are able to communicate with a raw
>>intensity that kisses my ass into oblivion. And they usually do it with
>>materials from their everyday life.
>>They make princes with milkmaids, if you will.
>Right, but do you think technical knowledge would dilute their ability to
>express those truths? I don't think so; I think it would just gives them new
>avenues in which to express it. While perhaps there's the temptation of
>imitation of commonplace forms, someone who knows their stuff can communicate
>even more effectively than someone who "just what does naturally", which
>really is producing art in the forms they're familiar with (forms that SEEM
>unfamiliar because they're alien to other people). Or at least I think that's
>what I think. I'm not very sure; I'm really quite tired.
At the risk of being a "me too" I'll chime in on this one and agree
with Dave. Having technical skills cannot hurt. The thing that
frustrates me the most is seeing something in my mind and not knowing
how to get to that point. The more technique I learn, the easier it is
to achieve the goal. Certain skills become second nature, you don't
even think about them anymore. Having technical ability in art frees
you even more. I'm a better painter than I was five or even two years
ago because I keep studying. It doesn't change who I am inside or what
I want to express, it simply allows me more options for expression.
*****
"Dammit, Jeb, I'm as Amish as the next fellow, but if we don't
take out that sub, there'll be no Pennsylvania to go home TO!"
--my son, Eric
*****
Popess Lilith von Fraumench
<361451ea...@news.newsguy.com>, gay...@catholic.org bellowed forth across
the wasteland:
>
>Thus spake OpalPeacok:
>
>>I respectfully disagree here. Many of the outsider artists and outsider
>>visionaries have made me shake in my boots in a way that ranks them higher in
>>my esteem than most art in the Louvre or MOMA and their thousands of
>>accumulated years of ecole de beaux artes training. They usually don't have
any
>>technical or craft education at all but are able to communicate with a raw
>>intensity that kisses my ass into oblivion. And they usually do it with
>>materials from their everyday life.
>>They make princes with milkmaids, if you will.
>
>Right, but do you think technical knowledge would dilute their ability to
>express those truths? I don't think so; I think it would just gives them new
>avenues in which to express it. While perhaps there's the temptation of
>imitation of commonplace forms, someone who knows their stuff can communicate
>even more effectively than someone who "just what does naturally", which
>really is producing art in the forms they're familiar with (forms that SEEM
>unfamiliar because they're alien to other people). Or at least I think that's
>what I think. I'm not very sure; I'm really quite tired.
The thing is that McLuann was partially correct: The media is not the message
itself, but it certainly restricts the extent of the message. By "media" I
mean, literally, the materials used to construct the art. McLuann was
wrong in that he didn't include technique, which also puts limits on what can
be expressed. A good artist understands and appreciates this fact and is not
afraid to switch media in order to better suit an idea they are expressing. The
advantage of technical knowledge is in understanding this basic premise by
practicing the refinement of techniques--by more sharply expressing an idea
through the restriction of the artistic message.
It was this notion--that the media and technique used defines what can be
expressed by a given work of art--that led to the creation of the many art
schools of the past 150 years. Every school, from Impressionism to Pop-Art, has
premises which form the basis of a philosophy expressed through their
techniques. One might conclude that, while classical training in technique
might help clarify one's premises, that it is not strictly necessary if one's
premises are kept in the fore while creating a particular work. These premises
do not necessarily need to be consciously known, but they must be consistent
for each work in question.
Or something like that.
Reverend Imposter Eliot
>"Rev. Random the Other" <cmc...@americasm01.nt.com> wrote:
>
>>snip>... Getting back to my
>>shower, though, the *next* feeling was a sudden alienation. The
>>realization that, as far as I know, no one else in the world does, or
>>has ever done, or has even thought about doing this little thing that
>>I do produced a strong sense of difference, a distinct separation from
>>the rest of the world.
>
>Consider yourself re-connected, Rev. I do this same thing every time I
>shower.
Me as well. Strange thing about that, something akin to the pairing
of an particle and its anti produced in particle accelerator; although
they have no connection to each other, their spins are exactly in
sync, because they came from the same source.
temujin9
definitely deeper than I need to be thinking right now
ICEKNIFE
OpalPeacok wrote in message <19980925223113...@ng29.aol.com>...
>
>I'm sick of paying full price for my art materials so I'm doing research
into
I'm
>trying to decide if my art biz is going to be a sole proprietorship, a
>partnership, or a Limited Liability blah blah blah. Anyone who's done one
of
>these homespun supplemental whatever-I-can-do-to-make-my-slack-pay-off
>businesses I could use your advice. I do a little freelance, I sell a
coupla
>paintings, he frames things, I sell little beaded thingies..etc.
>
>
>Headmistress
>Branch Salacians
Nolo Press has a nifty website with a downloadable copy of their
small business guide on it. It's shareware, and has all the basics.
when are you gonna change that goddamn stoopid handle?
we can have a contest to find a new one for you, if you like
(and even if you don't)
EVER FEEL LIKE IT'S *YOUR* TURN FOR A WHITEHOUSE BLOWJOB? OK!:
SEND SASE & 2$ TO: P.O. BOX 140306 DALLAS TX 75214
OpalPeacok
>when are you gonna change that goddamn stoopid handle?
>
>we can have a contest to find a new one for you, if you like
>(and even if you don't)
The handle stays.
Popess Lilith von Fraumench
<361fbeea...@news.newsguy.com>, gay...@catholic.org bellowed forth across
the wasteland:
>
>Thus spake Popess Lilith von Fraumench:
>
>>It was this notion--that the media and technique used defines what can be
>>expressed by a given work of art--that led to the creation of the many art
>>schools of the past 150 years. Every school, from Impressionism to Pop-Art,
has
>>premises which form the basis of a philosophy expressed through their
>>techniques. One might conclude that, while classical training in technique
>>might help clarify one's premises, that it is not strictly necessary if one's
>>premises are kept in the fore while creating a particular work. These
premises
>>do not necessarily need to be consciously known, but they must be consistent
>>for each work in question.
>>
>>Or something like that.
>
>negatively impacts your ability to communicate Art or whatever, you haven't
>mastered it; it's mastered you. Greater technical knowledge really just gives
>you more choices to work with in the realm of expression. As long as you
>choose wisely it's not a problem... and if you don't, it's no use blaming it
>on having too many technical skills.
Wow, this answer must've been put into one of those weird space-time continuum
paradox magnetic klein bottle thingys.
At the risk of sounding like *gasp* an ASSHOLE, I'd dare say that anyone who'd
be mastered by a technique, rather than learning how to use a technique to
express yourself, isn't an artist anyhow, and won't get better results by
abandoning technique.
Guess that rules a lot of you sorry bastards right out.
TarlaStar
I can give a fine example of this...my boy Leroy. Yep, Leroy Neiman is
a perfect example of how technique is dominant over talent. He hasn't
changed or grown as an artist in thirty or more years, and I'd be
willing to bet that he CAN'T paint in any other style than the one he
works in. There are plenty of "artists" who use style over the actual
ability to render what they see and then take it beyond. It's Bob
Ross, who used gimicks to create fake landscapes because it's a bitch
to actually render a landscape in the correct values and colors in the
short time that the light you need is present. That kind of ability
takes time and effort to learn. Most people are lazy.
*****
"The prestige of government has undoubtedly been lowered
considerably by the Prohibition law. For nothing is more
destructive of respect for the government and the law of
the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced. It
is an open secret that the dangerous increase of crime in
this country is closely connected with this."
--Albert Einstein--
*****
ICEKNIFE
TarlaStar wrote in message <7005c6$m...@enews3.newsguy.com>...
>p-...@ZubJenius.com (Popess Lilith von Fraumench) wrote:
>
>>On the eve of Sat, 10 Oct 1998 02:00:32 GMT, in the Temple of
>><361fbeea...@news.newsguy.com>, gay...@catholic.org bellowed forth
across
>>the wasteland:
>>>
>>>Thus spake Popess Lilith von Fraumench:
<smarty arty thingy deleted before the tweed and cappuchino crowd show up>
>
>>Guess that rules a lot of you sorry bastards right out.
unless, of course, like *ME* glorious *ME* one IS a damn art.
HEY! PUT ME DOWN! STOP THAT!!! YOU! YOU! CUBIST!
>I can give a fine example of this...my boy Leroy. Yep, Leroy Neiman is
>a perfect example of how technique is dominant over talent. He hasn't
>changed or grown as an artist in thirty or more years, and I'd be
>willing to bet that he CAN'T paint in any other style than the one he
>works in. There are plenty of "artists" who use style over the actual
>ability to render what they see and then take it beyond. It's Bob
>Ross, who used gimicks to create fake landscapes because it's a bitch
>to actually render a landscape in the correct values and colors in the
>short time that the light you need is present. That kind of ability
>takes time and effort to learn. Most people are lazy.
Know what you mean. Call me a pervert (please? It's good, yes, yesss,
havesome) but I feel much that way about Picasso's later years and works,
whereas Goya, and, excuse me for saying so to all you art-snobs, Vargas, or
Kelly Freas, or Jack Kirby all just kept getting better and better within
their styles. Goes a lot to the person, I suppose, and what they have to say
to themselves and the world. McLuhann was a goddamn idiot. The medium is
only the message when you have nothing left to say except GIMME UH DOLLA,
and anyone in that mode really should go into the film or popular music
industries. "Bob" teaches us to say something stupid (on the off chance that
it might be entertaining or interesting) BEFORE we say GIMME UH DOLLA if
only because it increases our chances of actually GETTING uh goddamn dolla.
oh, and Tarla?
COOTER!
CHARLES MANSON - INSANE CULT LEADER, OR NECRO-IMPRESSIONIST?
medium bear
<icek...@lanminds.com> wrote:
<snipped a buncha unrelated stuff>
McLuhann was a goddamn idiot. The medium is
> only the message when you have nothing left to say except GIMME UH DOLLA,
> and anyone in that mode really should go into the film or popular music
> industries. "Bob" teaches us to say something stupid (on the off chance that
> it might be entertaining or interesting) BEFORE we say GIMME UH DOLLA if
> only because it increases our chances of actually GETTING uh goddamn dolla.
>
I wonder if the disdain for McLuhan found within our church hasn't more to
do with the antics of Bob Dean than anything Mcluhan actually said?
The nature of any medium determines the information carried by that medium.
In a half-hour newscast a limited number of topics can be examined. Much is
left out while that which remains is decided by agendas and priorities
hidden from the average viewer. The medium (technology + ideology) limits
the scope of information the audience receives, analagous to the Cave. In
this respect it functions as Message.
Extending the analogy, one can say that language ITSELF sets the boundary
of thought until such time as the user is confronted by the artist's
deliberate abuse of words, which if effective drives hidden assumptions to
the surface in the form of new meaning and new objects of inquiry.
It is not enough to merely inform. The artist must deliberately create
conflict in the mind of the audience such that they are forced to examine
their own understanding. In effect the artist ask questions that he cannot
himself answer.
I would argue that McLuhan, Wolfe, Sontag, et al. were following a program
of intentional controversy in order to bring new issues into critical
focus. In other words they were behaving as artists, not logicians.
(Perhaps they felt artists had abandoned their calling?)
McLuhan's particular sub-genius lay in his ability to make deadpan
statements that at first glance appeared outrageous and patently absurd.
This provocation of reaction; a questioning of foundations leading to
fierce debate, made a valuable contribution to epistemology quite separate
from the issue of whether or not he was right on specific points.
It is typical in the scientific field for questions raised by one worker to
be answered by another. Artists by definition have free range to ask
questions without the expectation of a reply. Curiously, we demand that
academians not only pose questions but provide immediate full solutions and
when they inevitably fail to deliver, we tear them to pieces.
Why is this, I wonder?
PS: I expect a minimum of two serious and three crusty replies, plus at
least one flame for my efforts please. Since my singing career is
finished, I now plan to become a popular net author and respected flame
champ, and what better place to start than by defending Mcluhan on
alt.slack? Who knows, perhaps with help I may eventually rise to the
stature of Dejanews "celebrity", or even proprietor of my very own
newsgroup!
alt.bear.solar
High Holy Hekkador
it actually made a weird kind of sense, until I started
wondering what "311" was.
in amazement, I beheld p-...@ZubJenius.com (Popess Lilith von Fraumench)
write in alt.slack:
"On Tue, 6 Oct 1998 21:24:32 -0500, "Kristen" <kri...@netdoor.com>
"wrote:
"
">i saw 311 in concert and they were fucking awsome
">oh yeah !
"
"I bet you enjoyed the crossburning afterwards too.
"
"> days of our lives sucks ass tim
"
"I agree.
--
Oh, I was waiting for God! He's on the parallel bars.
His Most Feathered Eminence, the Ur-Beatle
well-known inventor of loungenoize
Popess Lilith von Fraumench
Holy Hekkador) wrote:
> I had to doublecheck the headers on this one, P-lil.
> it actually made a weird kind of sense, until I started
> wondering what "311" was.
>
> in amazement, I beheld p-...@ZubJenius.com (Popess Lilith von Fraumench)
> write in alt.slack:
>
> "On Tue, 6 Oct 1998 21:24:32 -0500, "Kristen" <kri...@netdoor.com>
> "wrote:
> "
> ">i saw 311 in concert and they were fucking awsome
> ">oh yeah !
> "
> "I bet you enjoyed the crossburning afterwards too.
> "
> "> days of our lives sucks ass tim
> "
> "I agree.
Like I'd listen to 311!
Well, probably because I don't listen to the radio.
P.Lil
--
Reverend Doktor Saint Popess ( <jimmyswaggert mood="weepy">
Lilith von Fraumench, Esquire ) Thank you, G'Broagfran...
change ZubJ to SubG in reply ( ...for your sweet blessings!
http://bounce.to/p-lil ) </jimmyswaggert>