OT(completely): So this is art
Ken Dixon
___________________________________________________________________________
CALGARY, Alberta (Reuters) - So this is art: For seven days Mexican
performance artist Israel Mora ejaculated, in private, into seven glass
vials.
After this and presumably after Mora, 33, had rested, the vials of semen
were put in a white, refrigerated box, and strung up for exhibit between two
trees at the Banff Centre, a 2 cultural institution in the Rocky Mountain
resort of Banff.
Titled "Level 7," the exhibit has been on display for the past six days.
Thursday is the seventh, and last, day.
Banff Centre spokeswoman Connie MacDonald said the performance is part of
Mora's seven-week residency. The cost, about $2,550, is being picked up by
the center and the Mexican government. The residency, called "SloMo," has
time as its theme and a number of artists are involved.
for the rest go...
http://www.iwon.com/home/news/news_article/0,11746,192357|oddlyenough|12-06-
2001::11:28|reuters,00.html
Blake
Bear Graves
<ducking, weaving, and bobbing>
Ken Dixon wrote:
--
Bear Graves
"If I only had a dollar for each time I've heard, "My God! That man is covered
in some kind of Goo!", I'd be a rich man".
- Homer Simpson
Mingkahuna
Sorry, I couldn't resist.
Buzz
Sparky
Cheers,
Richard (Did I just type that out loud?)
"Bear Graves" <goldn...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3C10F97F...@home.com...
ktmd
north.
Funding for such artistic endeavors is available through the Canda Council.
A few years ago $14,000 was given to a Canadian "artist" to produce his
masterpiece "Pisschrist", which consisted of an old mayonnaise jar
containing a $2 plastic crucifix. The "artist" then pissed in the jar, and
replaced the lid. Voila! Instant art, Canadian style.
I could go on, but I'm getting too mad to type <G>.
Kurt
"Ken Dixon" <nsvm...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:Ag5Q7.116946$8n4.7...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com...
craig
Craig
"ktmd" <kt...@chalktv.com> wrote in message
news:Iv7Q7.68288$c4.11...@news0.telusplanet.net...
Ken Dixon
$2550 a week to what I do for free.
Do ya think I can get an endowment from the NEA for something along these
lines;-)
Ken in Miami
Vegassmokes.com
FreddyV
--
http://www.vegassmokes.com "The One Stop for all your Pipe and Tobacco
Needs"
"Ken Dixon" <nsvm...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:Ag5Q7.116946$8n4.7...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com...
Sparky
Fred:
They may even give grants for defecating too. Good idea. Wow, I'm going
to apply for two grants at once. ;o)
Cheers,
Richard
"Vegassmokes.com" <lvsm...@dontspammeearthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Rz8Q7.37606$WC1.3...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Colonel Panic
alt.smokers.pipes:
>A few years ago $14,000 was given to a Canadian "artist" to produce his
>masterpiece "Pisschrist", which consisted of an old mayonnaise jar
>containing a $2 plastic crucifix. The "artist" then pissed in the jar, and
>replaced the lid. Voila! Instant art, Canadian style.
Well that's ONE way to piss away $14,000.
Reg'ds,
Terry
--
"We cannot be more sensitive to pleasure without being more sensitive to
pain."
Alan Watts
Rev. Melissa Robitille
Okay, stop that! Stop making me laugh!
Seriously, though, at Johnson State College some sick and twisted individual
got his Master's in Fine Arts for nailing his *ahem*.... Well, nailing
his.... Well, nailing his, um, various equipment to a 2x4 and taking
pictures thereof. The pictures were considered to be 'artistic' enough to
warrant a MFA. Somehow I think that such an activity might be less, um,.....
well, less... hm. Perhaps such an activity would be less particularly of
interest to menfolk - let's just leave it at that, shall we?
*blushing*
Rev. Melissa Robitille
Ian Rastall
> I think the government even gives grants for that type of crap.
I don't think they'd pay you $2,500 for taking a crap. It's sooooo
overdone.
Ian
--
"It's not necessarily information you can use,
but you're getting it anyways." (Brian J. Geiger)
http://personal.myvine.com/~irastall/faq.html
http://personal.myvine.com/~irastall/holmes/study/study01.html
Bert Olton
not an art any of the rest of us would care to learn or even
observe...let alone fund.
Bert
Bear Graves
Ian Rastall wrote:
"Oh, I like how you use the corn in there for texture!"
- Cheech & Chong
Todd R Jerabek
You probably could. And what is worse, is that the NEA and these artistic
endeavors (sic)are being paid for by my money. It is called taxes? Aren't
you glad you pay them?
Todd
Sigmunds Fine Cigars
colone...@ladyofthewell.com opined 12/7/01 2:58 PM:
>> A few years ago $14,000 was given to a Canadian "artist" to produce his
>> masterpiece "Pisschrist", which consisted of an old mayonnaise jar
>> containing a $2 plastic crucifix. The "artist" then pissed in the jar, and
>> replaced the lid. Voila! Instant art, Canadian style.
I just heard that they awarded some prestigious art award to some bozo who
showed a light going on and off in a room. They even had Madonna announce
the winner so I guess that should have been a clue.
If the power went out would it cease to be art?
--
"For what is philosophy but an art, one more attempt to give significant
form to the chaos of experience." --unknown
Mingkahuna
Naw, they'd just get the shivers and double the guy's funding for next year.
Buzz
Mingkahuna
funding do you suppose an artist would get in the US?
Buzz
Rodney
_Rodney
"Mingkahuna" <mingk...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011212141401...@mb-fa.aol.com...
Bear Graves
Mingkahuna wrote:
--
Bear Graves
"Do what thy manhood bids thee do. From none but self expect applause:
He noblest lives and noblest dies, who makes and keeps his self-made laws."
-Captain Sir Richard Francis Burton
Sigmunds Fine Cigars
mingk...@aol.com opined 12/12/01 1:14 PM:
> BTW, if you substituted that crucifix with a figure of Hillary Clinton how
> much
> funding do you suppose an artist would get in the US?
Now you're talking Art!
jd
--
"Every state begins in compulsion; but the habits of obedience become the
content of conscience, and soon every citizen thrills with loyalty to the
flag". --Will Durant
Bear Graves
Sigmunds Fine Cigars wrote:
Does this mean we have an instance of "Art critiquing Art"?
Tony Coronado
> Does this mean we have an instance of "Art critiquing Art"?
Only if we bear the Bear. :)
Tony.
--
We take about 30 cans of Spam and shape it into a turkey, hollow it out and fill it with a Wonder Bread and Velveeta cheese stuffing. Yummy.
-John Davis of ASP on Thanksgiving Dinner
Graeme Turner
>
> I just heard that they awarded some prestigious art award to some bozo who
> showed a light going on and off in a room. They even had Madonna announce
> the winner so I guess that should have been a clue.
>
> If the power went out would it cease to be art?
This award (allegedly "the most prestigeous art prize in Britain") came with
a prize of £20,000 (yes that's $28,000 approx) and the guy who won it said
that it had no particular meaning or significance "it's just a room with the
lights going on and off", but art experts described it as "a statement
against consumerism and clutter". The other nominees were "a labyrinth of
planks" "2 short films about homosexual cowboys" and "a series of photos and
films of the artist's family notably his alcoholic father".
Recent previous winners include an unmade bed, paintings done with elephant
dung and a display of pickled animal parts.
The prize is named after JMW Turner the famous British painter and many
have suggested that were he alive today he would have no chance of winning
it !
Makes you wonder doesn't it ???????
Graeme
Joe Duffy
Mingkahuna <mingk...@aol.com> wrote:
>BTW, if you substituted that crucifix with a figure of Hillary Clinton how much
>funding do you suppose an artist would get in the US?
>
This image is priceless! Nearly haiku in its'
utter simplicity, thought-provoking quality, and
of course, in its' hilarious graphic
imagination.
Joe
Bear Graves
A Haiku in their Honor!
Hillary Clinton
Suspended in Maplethorpe
Now, add her husband...............
J. Kusters
And still people ask me why I ended my career in art...
Groetings, Janneman
homepage: http://www.geocities.com/janneman_nl/
"Graeme Turner" <g...@suffield.fsnet.co.uk> schreef in bericht
Robert DOnnelly
when I see canvas's painted white titled 'Snow' selling for $30,000,,
but the thing is there is a group of so-called 'intelligent' people
out there supporting these idiots. While true inovative talents waste
away because of lack of funding or support; 'Starving artist's is a
literal term'.
Robert
"Ken Dixon" <nsvm...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:<Ag5Q7.116946$8n4.7...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com>...
> I have to chuckle when I stumble across stuff like this.
> ___________________________________________________________________________
>
> CALGARY, Alberta (Reuters) - So this is art: For seven days Mexican
> performance artist Israel Mora ejaculated, in private, into seven glass
> vials.
>
> After this and presumably after Mora, 33, had rested, the vials of semen
> were put in a white, refrigerated box, and strung up for exhibit between two
> trees at the Banff Centre, a 2 cultural institution in the Rocky Mountain
> resort of Banff.
>
> Titled "Level 7," the exhibit has been on display for the past six days.
> Thursday is the seventh, and last, day.
>
> Banff Centre spokeswoman Connie MacDonald said the performance is part of
> Mora's seven-week residency. The cost, about $2,550, is being picked up by
> the center and the Mexican government. The residency, called "SloMo," has
> time as its theme and a number of artists are involved.
>
>
> for the rest go...
Dave
> BTW, if you substituted that crucifix with a figure of Hillary Clinton how much
> funding do you suppose an artist would get in the US?
>
> Buzz
Hey Buzz:
Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrreat idea, substituting Hillary for the Crucifix.
But remember, it will take a real, real, real big empty mayo jar to
fit a model of her!
Brian J. Geiger
Bear Graves <goldn...@home.com> wrote:
> Joe Duffy wrote:
>
> > In article <20011212141401...@mb-fa.aol.com>,
> > Mingkahuna <mingk...@aol.com> wrote:
> > >BTW, if you substituted that crucifix with a figure of Hillary Clinton how
> > >much
> > >funding do you suppose an artist would get in the US?
> > >
> >
> > This image is priceless! Nearly haiku in its'
> > utter simplicity, thought-provoking quality, and
> > of course, in its' hilarious graphic
> > imagination.
> >
> > Joe
>
> A Haiku in their Honor!
>
> >
> >
>
> Hillary Clinton
> Suspended in Maplethorpe
> Now, add her husband...............
Now, add her husband.....
Hey, has anyone seen him?
Where are my cigars?
=Brian
--
Subluminal Freelance Services - Working at just under the speed of light
Freelance Project Management, Creative Writing, and Technical Writing
http://www.subluminal.com/
Joe Duffy
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
>
>
>Joe Duffy wrote:
>
>> In article <20011212141401...@mb-fa.aol.com>,
>> Mingkahuna <mingk...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >BTW, if you substituted that crucifix with a figure of Hillary Clinton how much
>> >funding do you suppose an artist would get in the US?
>> >
>>
>> This image is priceless! Nearly haiku in its'
>> utter simplicity, thought-provoking quality, and
>> of course, in its' hilarious graphic
>> imagination.
>>
>> Joe
>
>A Haiku in their Honor!
>
>>
>>
>
>Hillary Clinton
>Suspended in Maplethorpe
>Now, add her husband...............
>
LOL!
Joe
Poe
Ian Rastall
tend to stay out of these discussions. But I wonder if anyone could do
any better than Piss Christ, or Empty Room With Light That Turns On
and Off, or whatever those were called. There's *nothing left* to
produce. All the old ways of making art are finished. Even the
established Post-Modern stuff is finished. Now artists are left to try
and make a statement. That's all they can do.
How would *you* make a statement? Think about it. If your gig is
backwoods honesty, you would stand on a stage and cut wood with a
chainsaw. Everyone would know what you were getting at, and if it
struck a chord with enough people, you'd win ten thousand dollars, and
everyone would bitch that one millionth of their tax dollars were
going to support this tripe. Suppose your gig was "make love not war"?
(Don't even want to think what some of us smelly apes would do on
stage . . .) ;) The point is is that art is at a crossroads. No one
can do anything new, because everything new has already been done. If
art is about communicating on a non-verbal level with your audience,
artists don't have a lot of choices left to them. Performance art is
basically it. If a guy wants to make a statement against Christianity,
how is he supposed to do it? This one guy decided to whip his wanger
out and piss on a crucifix. One guy wants to make a statement about
life/creation/etc., so he jacks off into seven vials and strings them
up between two trees. It's a statement, all right. I imagine it would
be a pretty powerful statement, for the people who are actually there,
leaning in and staring at some guys spunk in a jar. What the hell
would *you* do if you were asked to create art? If the audience told
you you were making something boring, would you laugh and say "I know
what art is," and continue to be a crashing boor?
Sorry. I know this is going to cause me problems, but I get so tired
of the current state of art in the world today. I don't mean Piss
Christ, I mean Brittany Spears, Mel Gibson, Stephen King, and all the
other hacks who cater to the masses. It should be blindingly clear by
now that the masses do not understand (or care for) art, only
entertainment, and that it is impossible for a society to foster good
artists when it won't pay them.
Bear Graves
Ian Rastall wrote:
> If a guy wants to make a statement against Christianity,
> how is he supposed to do it? This one guy decided to whip his wanger
> out and piss on a crucifix. One guy wants to make a statement about
> life/creation/etc., so he jacks off into seven vials and strings them
> up between two trees. It's a statement, all right. I imagine it would
> be a pretty powerful statement, for the people who are actually there,
> leaning in and staring at some guys spunk in a jar. What the hell
> would *you* do if you were asked to create art? If the audience told
> you you were making something boring, would you laugh and say "I know
> what art is," and continue to be a crashing boor?
>
> Sorry. I know this is going to cause me problems.
Well, I think that last statement is pretty safe territory.............
<g>
> --
Bear Graves
"I'm presently incarcerated, convicted of a crime I didn't even commit.
Hah! Attempted murder! Now honestly, what is that? Do they give a Nobel
Prize for attempted chemistry, do they?"
-Side Show Bob
Ian Rastall
>> Sorry. I know this is going to cause me problems.
>
>Well, I think that last statement is pretty safe territory.............
><g>
>
LOL. I'm glad something I said there can be agreed upon. :)
Rev. Melissa Robitille
Moore,
> attempting "God Bless The Child"...
> G.B.A.
> Jeff Folloder
Jeff, those little skin-peddling all-glitz-no-glory twits couldn't manage to
understand "Fever" well enough to steam up a room with it ( damn, *I* can
steam that number on the ballroom floor or the microphone and I'm a chubby
bubby and a preacher to boot! ), never mind manage something which should be
transcendent. I shuddered in utter horror at Whitney Houston's rendition of
the "Star Spangled Banner" - Eeww! "O-o-o-oh say-yay-yay ca-a-a-a-an
you-woo-woo see-ee-ee-ee... " Fah. She sounded like a cat in heat or like a
hound dog that got its nose caught in a rose bush while tackling a skunk and
sat down in another rose bush. Ick. She's no Kate Smith! She sure the heck
couldn't compare with Aretha Franklin! None of those little chippies could
manage real music. You'll never catch them even trying just the *Christmas*
songs that I used to solo when I was an adorable little Catholic girl, never
mind my own specialty - "Amazing Grace" ( surprisingly enough, a much
requested wedding song )... They'd be laughed off the stage!
The saddest thing about music today is that you *cannot* be at the tippy-top
of the profession *singing* ( rap is NOT singing, thank you, though it's at
least a more accepting mode of pseudo-musical expression in terms of
physical appearance ) unless you're beautiful by some strange definition.
Today there are so many artists who, unless they're already fully
established after a LONG career, would *never* make it, and even at that
they're not exactly going to be in the top 40. Cass Elliot would never hit
the stage. Roy Orbison? Are you kidding? So what if he could sing like an
angel, the man was short, fat, dumpy, pasty, had a bad complexion, and wore
thick glasses. Rosemary Cluny, Aretha Franklin... Ella Fitzgerald could
just forget it, even Patsy Cline as she was when she first started out
wouldn't make the stage now. I personally think that an 'Masked Music
Movement' ought to be started so that those people who can SING could
actually get on the radio. It would certainly improve music. Hm. I wonder if
it's possible? And, more problematic, how would an enterprising recording
studio find these people to just *sing*? Most children who show no promise
of being very physically attractive adults are discouraged from developing
any singing talent now, which is very sad indeed.
Rev. Melissa Robitille ( thoughts rambling on )
Rev. Melissa Robitille
> of the current state of art in the world today. I don't mean Piss
> Christ, I mean Brittany Spears, Mel Gibson, Stephen King, and all the
> other hacks who cater to the masses. It should be blindingly clear by
> now that the masses do not understand (or care for) art, only
> entertainment, and that it is impossible for a society to foster good
> artists when it won't pay them.
>
> Ian
Ian, the truly unfortunate thing about art today isn't that the producers of
such bizarre things are rewarded for doing so, it's that the old value
system which supported art is gone. There are no Medicis left, Ian. Those
people who are wealthy enough to support the efforts of a talented artist or
two have all aesthetic sense of a deep cave fish. I'm not saying that
classicism must become 'fashionable' again to rescue the art world from the
pit of festering tripe its wallowing in at the moment - Falling Water was a
masterpiece architecturally, and there's certainly nothing 'old fashioned'
about it even now, and at the time it was revolutionary. New does not have
to equal ugly, though it seems to invariably do so of late. Personally, I
draw portraits ( I don't paint any more. The materials are too expensive for
the time being ), and I feel that a great deal can be done with portrait
art, but those fashionistas just won't see any innovation there as such.
Realism is passe. Cubism is passe. Surealism is passe. Impressionism is
passe. Romanticism is passe. It seems to me that great art, which has been
aesthetically pleasing for centuries in some cases ( Cistine Chapel
Ceiling - still gorgeous. ), displeases the Nouveau Merveilleux because they
haven't the *TALENT* to produce anything on that level. Honestly, I don't
believe it's because artistic geniuses aren't born but once every 500+
years, I believe it's because those same Nouveau Merveilleux and their
slavish devotees recognize genius and make a concerted effort to squash it.
How discouraged by the piddle passed off as great art today do you think
Leonardo Da Vinci, Renoir, Matisse, Degas, or Ingres would be? How disgusted
by 'literature' would Tolstoy, Dickens, Shakespear, or the Bronte sisters
be? Would that Britney Spears or those ridiculous boy bands' *VOCAL*
talents stand up to the artists of even just a few decades ago? Not likely -
I'd like to see the little blonde wench try to top Cass Elliot's "Dream a
Little Dream of Me" ( she'd never manage it ), never mind one of those
hoppity-boppity groups of little boys trying to belt out something on par
with "Don't Worry Baby" or "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" - I don't think they
could manage "Blue Moon"!
The problem, simply stated, is that *GENIUSES* are different. They're
'weird', they don't fit in with the 'in crowd'. In today's society that's
tantamount to a grevious sin because, after all, we must all be perfectly
identical. The thing held common by the artists of the Renaissance, the
Enlightenment, and even 'Early Rock' was an encouragement of difference
*and* individualism. If 'different' now is everyone following the same tune
and being 'different' in roughly the same ways - mostly in ways that are bad
potty, sex, or death *JOKES* - then you can't rightly call that
individualism, can you? And the worst of the problem is quite simply that
individualism is penalized.
Rev. Melissa Robitille
Stephen Disrud
I hope I don't misrepresent anything you wrote.
First, that
>art is about communicating on a non-verbal level with your audience,
I think that you belie this presumption yourself in the last paragraph with
your list of artists that you're tired of--most of who communicate their art
verbally. (I know this is a cop-out, but I'm not going to even try to give
a better definition of art.) I've focused my studies on both literature
and aesthetic philosophy, and naturally think that literature (which is a
verbal* act) is art. I would, however, agree with you that art is about
communicating.
Second, the idea that there is nothing new left. Is that nothing new to
make, or nothing new to say?
If it is nothing new to make, I'd disagree with that because new things are
made all the time in art. Just because paint has been put on a canvas
before doesn't mean that one can't do it again in a new way. Or, to make
this post topical, just because a billiard-shaped pipe has been made doesn't
mean someone can't make another one in an innovative and artful way. The
billiard didn't end with Dunhill, the symphony didn't end with Beethoven,
the poem didn't end with Homer...well, you get the idea.
If you mean that there is nothing new to say, I'd disagree with that because
there are always new situations to make commentary about. Society is not
static, so why would social commentary in art be static? Have all the
thoughts been thought? Maybe they have (which I doubt), but not in our
context.
Popular art is another issue though. It usually isn't very good, but it
never really has been. What makes it popular is that it's audience is
large, and to satisfy the palates of a large and diverse audience it tends
to be homogenized through the meat grinder of capitalism. But I think it is
hard to make judgments about the general state of art by its popular
manifestations. For example, I don't think the state of literature can be
fairly judged by Stephen King's work; there are others to consider like, Don
DeLillo, John Irving, Louise Erdrich, etc. But maybe the state of society
can be examined by the art they choose to consume. But that's another topic
altogether.
I don't mean to be inflammatory in the least. I thought that you brought up
interesting points about the difficulties of being creative when so much has
already been done and said. And, again, I hope that I haven't
misrepresented anything you wrote.
-Steve D.
*If anyone wants to quibble with the definition of verbal here, let's just
say that at least spoken-word poetry is verbal art.
Stephen Disrud
$1...@ID-120342.news.dfncis.de:
> fashionistas
I like that.
A lot of excellent points Rev.
-Steve D.
Stephen Disrud
news:ushh1uspat33c65km...@4ax.com:
> and that it is impossible for a society to foster good
> artists when it won't pay them
In my previous post I forgot to mention that this final point is well-put.
-Steve D.
Jeff Folloder
> I'd like to see the little blonde wench try to top Cass Elliot's "Dream a
> Little Dream of Me" ( she'd never manage it ),
Along the same lines... How about the other soft-core porn star, Mandy Moore,
attempting "God Bless The Child"...
--
G.B.A.
Jeff Folloder
"How do you do? I see you've met my faithful
handyman. He's just a little brought down
because, when you knocked, he thought you
were the candyman!" -Frank N. Furter
Ian Rastall
>If it is nothing new to make, I'd disagree with that because new things are
>made all the time in art. Just because paint has been put on a canvas
>before doesn't mean that one can't do it again in a new way. Or, to make
>this post topical, just because a billiard-shaped pipe has been made doesn't
>mean someone can't make another one in an innovative and artful way. The
>billiard didn't end with Dunhill, the symphony didn't end with Beethoven,
>the poem didn't end with Homer...well, you get the idea.
>
I think I jumped the gun on that one. Especially my comment that
performance art was the only art left on the cutting edge.
>Popular art is another issue though. It usually isn't very good, but it
>never really has been. What makes it popular is that it's audience is
>large, and to satisfy the palates of a large and diverse audience it tends
>to be homogenized through the meat grinder of capitalism. But I think it is
>hard to make judgments about the general state of art by its popular
>manifestations.
As long as no one confuses it with art, no problem. But I'm reminded
of this book someone gave me as a gift a few years ago. A Penguin
edition of a novelette by Stephen King. The introduction made a strong
case for the man as a serious artist. In fact, that particular writer
has been worming his way into the hallowed halls of literature for
some time now. Once we get used to it, we accept it. Once we accept
it, we change our standards.
But <kicking dirt> I guess you do have a good point.
>*If anyone wants to quibble with the definition of verbal here, let's just
>say that at least spoken-word poetry is verbal art.
Ya got me. That's where I'm heading to in a couple hours. To read my
poetry in front of an audience. I would say that I was talking mainly
about visual art. You know, "art" art. I wasn't really talking about
other forms at all.
Ian Rastall
Thank you. :)
Ian Rastall
>The problem, simply stated, is that *GENIUSES* are different. They're
>'weird', they don't fit in with the 'in crowd'. In today's society that's
>tantamount to a grevious sin because, after all, we must all be perfectly
>identical. The thing held common by the artists of the Renaissance, the
>Enlightenment, and even 'Early Rock' was an encouragement of difference
>*and* individualism. If 'different' now is everyone following the same tune
>and being 'different' in roughly the same ways - mostly in ways that are bad
>potty, sex, or death *JOKES* - then you can't rightly call that
>individualism, can you? And the worst of the problem is quite simply that
>individualism is penalized.
>
Yeah, Rev, kick ass!!!
<ahem>
This reminds me of a book I read about Wassily Kandinsky. I would call
him "my boy" now, because I like his stuff so much. He created the
first truly abstract paintings, but he had a solid background in
representational art. He had the discipline to paint in the
traditional style. But how many painters today, who do abstract
painting, could really churn out a good representational painting?
Or if you look at conceptual art (which I only barely understand),
i.e. art interested in the idea, not the end product, you get artists
who don't even *have* to know how to make anything. You could just
describe something to your audience, and call it conceptual art. The
discipline is lacking. It seems the farther we go in history, the less
able people are to create masterworks. Now we're at the point where
people can't even reach the level people were at, say, fifty years
ago. Those bastards! :)
Stephen Disrud
> That's where I'm heading to in a couple hours. To read my
> poetry in front of an audience.
Good luck! And thanks for the response. You brought up some more good
points, especially about what we accept into the definition of 'art.'
-Steve D.
John de Manuel
> it's possible? And, more problematic, how would an enterprising recording
> studio find these people to just *sing*? Most children who show no promise
> of being very physically attractive adults are discouraged from developing
> any singing talent now, which is very sad indeed.
It's already happening, although it's not too common. I saw a news item
about a website that allows people to upload demos of their singing
talent... They screened people from all over the country and found a
teenager who was really good. I think she was offered a recording
contract but I haven't heard anything about it since then.
Smooth puffing,
John
--
"This is the essence of modern mature thinking.
It's called deferred gratification."
- From BBC's Dawn of Man
Tony Miller
Rev. Melissa Robitille <robi...@together.net> wrote:
>> Sorry. I know this is going to cause me problems, but I get so tired
>> of the current state of art in the world today. I don't mean Piss
>> Christ, I mean Brittany Spears, Mel Gibson, Stephen King, and all the
>> other hacks who cater to the masses. It should be blindingly clear by
>> now that the masses do not understand (or care for) art, only
>> entertainment, and that it is impossible for a society to foster good
>> artists when it won't pay them.
>>
>> Ian
>
>Ian, the truly unfortunate thing about art today isn't that the producers of
>such bizarre things are rewarded for doing so, it's that the old value
>system which supported art is gone. There are no Medicis left, Ian. Those
>people who are wealthy enough to support the efforts of a talented artist or
>two have all aesthetic sense of a deep cave fish. I'm not saying that
The problem is, as I see it, that back in the "good ol' days" when artists
had patrons, the artist did what pleased the patron or they didn't get
paid. There was none of this: "It's art because the artist calls it art",
it was "art because the *buyer* calls it art".
>classicism must become 'fashionable' again to rescue the art world from the
>pit of festering tripe its wallowing in at the moment - Falling Water was a
>masterpiece architecturally, and there's certainly nothing 'old fashioned'
>about it even now, and at the time it was revolutionary. New does not have
>to equal ugly, though it seems to invariably do so of late. Personally, I
>draw portraits ( I don't paint any more. The materials are too expensive for
>the time being ), and I feel that a great deal can be done with portrait
>art, but those fashionistas just won't see any innovation there as such.
>Realism is passe. Cubism is passe. Surealism is passe. Impressionism is
>passe. Romanticism is passe. It seems to me that great art, which has been
>aesthetically pleasing for centuries in some cases ( Cistine Chapel
>Ceiling - still gorgeous. ), displeases the Nouveau Merveilleux because they
>haven't the *TALENT* to produce anything on that level. Honestly, I don't
>believe it's because artistic geniuses aren't born but once every 500+
>years, I believe it's because those same Nouveau Merveilleux and their
>slavish devotees recognize genius and make a concerted effort to squash it.
The problem with excellence in everything is that it draws attention to
the mediocrity of everyything else. Those who are mediocre, don't like
the comparison, and if they have the power they stop the excellence.
We are seeing this in the public schools with the "self esteem" movement.
Self esteem is earned by excellence, or striving to beat your personal
best. It is not granted by dumbing down the definition of excellence.
>How discouraged by the piddle passed off as great art today do you think
>Leonardo Da Vinci, Renoir, Matisse, Degas, or Ingres would be? How disgusted
>by 'literature' would Tolstoy, Dickens, Shakespear, or the Bronte sisters
>be? Would that Britney Spears or those ridiculous boy bands' *VOCAL*
>talents stand up to the artists of even just a few decades ago? Not likely -
>I'd like to see the little blonde wench try to top Cass Elliot's "Dream a
>Little Dream of Me" ( she'd never manage it ), never mind one of those
>hoppity-boppity groups of little boys trying to belt out something on par
>with "Don't Worry Baby" or "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" - I don't think they
>could manage "Blue Moon"!
Here's where I have to disagree. Those things sell now (I don't like
them) but the patrons of these particular "arts" is the buying public (who
is having an image marketed to them by Madison Avenue). So the masses are
the patrons.
Disclaimer: I dislike most modern music, and prefer the street-corner
doo-wop, but the same thing was said by my parents: "The music of today
doesn't touch the greats like Frank Sinatra and Tommy Dorsey".
>The problem, simply stated, is that *GENIUSES* are different. They're
>'weird', they don't fit in with the 'in crowd'. In today's society that's
>tantamount to a grevious sin because, after all, we must all be perfectly
>identical. The thing held common by the artists of the Renaissance, the
>Enlightenment, and even 'Early Rock' was an encouragement of difference
>*and* individualism. If 'different' now is everyone following the same tune
>and being 'different' in roughly the same ways - mostly in ways that are bad
>potty, sex, or death *JOKES* - then you can't rightly call that
>individualism, can you? And the worst of the problem is quite simply that
>individualism is penalized.
Heh, I think you've hit the nail on the head. To be "different" you need
to be more and more outrageous.
A funny side note is that my daughters go to Parochial school. They are
10 and 12 and are complaining about the school uniforms (which are much
less "uniform" than when I went to school). They complain that they want
to express their individuality.
I showed her a bunch of public school kids hanging out, and they were all
wearing the same thing. Low cut baggy pants, etc. I showed her that they
were not showing their individuality, they were being individual in
exactly the same way. :)
I think the bar has been raised on "bizarre". To stick out, you need to
do more and more outrageous things.
>Rev. Melissa Robitille
-Tony
--
Keep your own cigar diary online. http://www.cigardiary.com
Check out the new pipe page: http://pipes.cigardiary.com/
Cigar-specific banner exchange: http://banners.cigardiary.com/
Brian J. Geiger
to...@cigardiary.com (Tony Miller) wrote:
> >Ian, the truly unfortunate thing about art today isn't that the producers of
> >such bizarre things are rewarded for doing so, it's that the old value
> >system which supported art is gone. There are no Medicis left, Ian. Those
> >people who are wealthy enough to support the efforts of a talented artist or
> >two have all aesthetic sense of a deep cave fish. I'm not saying that
>
> The problem is, as I see it, that back in the "good ol' days" when artists
> had patrons, the artist did what pleased the patron or they didn't get
> paid. There was none of this: "It's art because the artist calls it art",
> it was "art because the *buyer* calls it art".
<snip>
> Here's where I have to disagree. Those things sell now (I don't like
> them) but the patrons of these particular "arts" is the buying public (who
> is having an image marketed to them by Madison Avenue). So the masses are
> the patrons.
So, here's the thing. We know how much art students need to survive,
which is approximately $5/week for 35 packs of ramen. If you go to your
local art college and look at what the kids are doing, and find someone
you like, you could have some decent artwork for the cost of materials
plus a bit more. If you threw in an extra $100 for something you really
liked, then you could be a patron of the arts as well. The artist gets
to make art *and* receives a heap of money, you get artwork made to your
specifications, and you're reviving the old 'patron artist' movement of
the old days.
Not that this sort of thing doesn't happen now, but the custom art we
usually buy is in briar form. Uh, oh, I think I've almost brought this
thread on-topic. I'll have to stop that line of reasoning.
Oh, and glancing at my .sig, I realized that we call the artists who we
pay for custom work 'freelancers' nowadays, but it's rare that
individuals pay for them.
Fred Krafcik
like one of those carnival dunking booths, but instead of throwing a
ball, your $1 gives you the chance to add your piss to the mix.
Fred
Mingkahuna wrote:
>
> BTW, if you substituted that crucifix with a figure of Hillary Clinton how much
> funding do you suppose an artist would get in the US?
>
> Buzz
--
"New York is one of the capitals of the world and Los Angeles is a
constellation of plastic, San Francisco is a lady, Boston has become
Urban Renewal, Philadelphia and Baltimore and Washington wink like dull
diamonds in the smog of Eastern Megalopolis, and New Orleans is
unremarkable past the French Quarter. Detroit is a one-trade town,
Pittsburgh has lost its golden triangle, St. Louis has become the golden
arch of the corporation, and nights in Kansas City close early. The oil
depletion allowance makes Houston and Dallas naught but checkerboards
for this sort of game. But Chicago is a great American city. Perhaps it
is the last of the great American cities."
- - - Norman Mailer, Miami and the Siege of Chicago, 1968
Ian Rastall
>So, here's the thing. We know how much art students need to survive,
>which is approximately $5/week for 35 packs of ramen. If you go to your
>local art college and look at what the kids are doing, and find someone
>you like, you could have some decent artwork for the cost of materials
>plus a bit more. If you threw in an extra $100 for something you really
>liked, then you could be a patron of the arts as well. The artist gets
>to make art *and* receives a heap of money, you get artwork made to your
>specifications, and you're reviving the old 'patron artist' movement of
>the old days.
"Art" art is actually a bad example, IMO, because artists aren't
really pandering to the masses. They're going to make what they want
to make. Of course, if there were a shitload of money floating through
the art world, we would have a higher standard of excellence.
But as far as other forms of art go, I think the solution is for the
general public to take an interest in art in general. It's never going
to happen, but I didn't say the solution was workable. Even just an
understand of the concept of "cliche" would do wonders in flushing all
the Mel Gibsons out of the movie industry. :)
>Not that this sort of thing doesn't happen now, but the custom art we
>usually buy is in briar form. Uh, oh, I think I've almost brought this
>thread on-topic. I'll have to stop that line of reasoning.
>
You're in OT-Land, Brian. You'll want to take a left on Relevance St.
That should get you back to Pipe-Related World. :)
>Oh, and glancing at my .sig, I realized that we call the artists who we
>pay for custom work 'freelancers' nowadays, but it's rare that
>individuals pay for them.
>
It's always possible that the real explanation is that there's too
many people in the field. Back in the days of Chaucer, I don't think
there were a helluva lot of people writing poetry. Only the *very*
best even bothered to try. (That knocks me right out . . .)
Tony Miller
Fred Krafcik <sa...@columbia.edu> wrote:
>Why use a figure? Just get a big goddam jar and stick her in it! Maybe
>like one of those carnival dunking booths, but instead of throwing a
>ball, your $1 gives you the chance to add your piss to the mix.
Better be careful, at $1000 a squirt it could become the next Democrat
fundraiser :)
>Fred
-Tony
>Mingkahuna wrote:
>>
>> BTW, if you substituted that crucifix with a figure of Hillary Clinton how much
>> funding do you suppose an artist would get in the US?
>>
>> Buzz
>
>--
>"New York is one of the capitals of the world and Los Angeles is a
>constellation of plastic, San Francisco is a lady, Boston has become
>Urban Renewal, Philadelphia and Baltimore and Washington wink like dull
>diamonds in the smog of Eastern Megalopolis, and New Orleans is
>unremarkable past the French Quarter. Detroit is a one-trade town,
>Pittsburgh has lost its golden triangle, St. Louis has become the golden
>arch of the corporation, and nights in Kansas City close early. The oil
>depletion allowance makes Houston and Dallas naught but checkerboards
>for this sort of game. But Chicago is a great American city. Perhaps it
>is the last of the great American cities."
>- - - Norman Mailer, Miami and the Siege of Chicago, 1968
Joseph M. LaVigne
iras...@myvine.com says...
>
> As long as no one confuses it with art, no problem. But I'm reminded
> of this book someone gave me as a gift a few years ago. A Penguin
> edition of a novelette by Stephen King. The introduction made a strong
> case for the man as a serious artist. In fact, that particular writer
> has been worming his way into the hallowed halls of literature for
> some time now. Once we get used to it, we accept it. Once we accept
> it, we change our standards.
>
> But <kicking dirt> I guess you do have a good point.
I'd have to disagree with that...
You may not like Stephen King, but he IS an artist. I read books by
many authors, and there are few that can paint a picture in your mind
with the written word as well as he can. I remember the first time I
read Cujo. I could see the dog, the car, the withering child, the
dethly frightened mother. I could see it in color. I was disturbed.
He did his job impeccably.
I am a little disturbed by the elitism in our society that claims that
if someone becomes popular, they are a sellout, and cheapened.
If we were talking about cigars, you might say that each person should
smoke what he likes, and if you like it, it is a good cigar.
You'd say the same about pipe tobaccoes, and pipes themselves.
Is Haddo's Delight a crappy tobacco because a lot of people here love
it?
With art, just like any other item of personal preference, I would say
it is best to decide what you like, and stick with it. To each thier
own.
--
Joe LaVigne
SS00 - SALT00 - HITS2001
Start Planning Now! HITS 2002 - Buffalo, NY
President's Day Weekend
http://griffincs.tzo.com/hits/
Ian Rastall
>You may not like Stephen King, but he IS an artist. I read books by
>many authors, and there are few that can paint a picture in your mind
>with the written word as well as he can. I remember the first time I
>read Cujo. I could see the dog, the car, the withering child, the
>dethly frightened mother. I could see it in color. I was disturbed.
>He did his job impeccably.
That's entertainment, Joe. His prose is shit. He acknowledges it, too.
He once called himself the "Big Mac and fries" of writers. His aim
isn't to create art, but to entertain people. Fine. I have no problem
with that. I've enjoyed a few of his books. But when people stop
making the distinction between Stephen King, and, say, Kurt Vonnegut,
they're in trouble. King doesn't make art, he writes pulp. Everyone
loves it, but it's still entertainment. Just because someone becomes
popular, it doesn't make their voice suddenly important.
>I am a little disturbed by the elitism in our society that claims that
>if someone becomes popular, they are a sellout, and cheapened.
>
I wouldn't call Hemingway or Keruoac cheap. Or Vonnegut, or Faulkner,
or Fitzgerald. Yet they all wrote for the masses. In fact, almost all
writers write for the masses, but many of them expect the masses to
want to be challenged, and to have the intelligence to appreciate
their work. Few do, which is why those books are relegated to
classrooms. But I do call hack novelists cheap. I *would* take my kid
out of a class if the teacher decided not to teach The Great Gatsby,
but to use Cujo as the text for that semester, regardless of how vivid
his scary scenes are.
Sorry to be rude, but don't take up the banner of art if you're not
going to carry it any further than the grocery store aisle.
Brian J. Geiger
Ian Rastall <iras...@myvine.com> wrote:
> Sorry to be rude, but don't take up the banner of art if you're not
> going to carry it any further than the grocery store aisle.
At this point, I'm forced to ask, 'Without using examples, what is art?'
Ian Rastall
>At this point, I'm forced to ask, 'Without using examples, what is art?'
>
Art is truth and beauty.
Stephen Disrud
news:MPG.168407ac3...@news.cis.dfn.de:
> I am a little disturbed by the elitism in our society that claims that
> if someone becomes popular, they are a sellout, and cheapened.
I agree that it does not necessarily follow that if someone becomes popular
they are a sellout. There are plenty examples of popular art that are also
good art (most notably in literature, Shakespeare). Nor does it follow that
because a book is only in the hiddenest part of the library that it is a
good piece of work. But I do think that, too enough, popular artists let
market pressures be their muse at the expense of 'artistic integrity' (or
somesuch ideal), and the quality of their art consequently suffers.
As a side note, I know virtually nothing about Stephen King or his genre so
cannot make a personal judgment on how he fits into this.
-Steve D.
Joshua Rosenblatt
iras...@myvine.com wrote on 12/14/01 4:30 PM:
I dunno Ian. I mean, why can't art entertain? One can argue that 'Art's
greatest gift is the ability to do just that...entertain us. Make us smile,
make us laugh, make us cry, make us think.. to have any effect. Must art
constantly push the boundaries? and...more importantly, exactly WHO draws
the line between what IS art and what ISN'T?
I subscribe to Frank Zappa's school of thinking. Anything can be art so
long as it is DEFINED as such. Here's a guy who's passion was classical
composition (albeit, often unorthodox compositions) but he became well known
for his often tongue in cheek rock n roll, doo wop and even country antics.
He knew he couldn't make money hiring 100-man orchestras to perform
compositions that perhaps noone but himself wanted to listen to - so he
recorded his extensive archive of albums too financially support his true
love.
Renoir could spend an entire week painting thousands upon thousands of
individual brush strokes on a canvass... or, he can pour some paint in a
turkey baster and jsut aim.... So long as there is a CANVASS.,.. they are
both equally (IMHO) art (though, the skill, talent and effect will
undopubtedly differ greatly).
Is the album Joe's Garage any less 'art' than Civilizations vIII? No,
though it is certainly alot more entertaining.. to ME at least.
Art is, above all, very subjective. I am not a fan of most contemporary pop
music for example, but I am a big fan of some of the pop music of the 70s.
Whether it is desinged for mass consumption, whether an individual observer
or a large audience finds it good or bad... so long as it is defined as
art.. it's art.
I guess I just automatically cringe when I hear anyone start judging what is
and what isn't art. Imagine if the Nat'l Endowment for Arts was so
strict...
YMMV,
Joshua
Ian Rastall
>I dunno Ian. I mean, why can't art entertain?
I think the point of entertainment is to keep us from thinking.
Escapism. Good art stimulates thought, and that's entertaining. But
it's not entertaining to everyone.
>I subscribe to Frank Zappa's school of thinking. Anything can be art so
>long as it is DEFINED as such.
That's the whole problem. No one is dumb enough to take the hardline
position here (except me), because someone can just say, "if I think
it's art, it is". (Tough position to argue.) They can also throw out
the challenge to define it, knowing full well it's a difficult task.
But the fact remains: standards have plummeted, and with them,
ability. The less interested the populace is in serious art, the less
able they will be to create it. There's *nothing* that says we can't
create literature in this day and age, but who's trying? No one.
They're all writing bestsellers.
>Art is, above all, very subjective.
Sure it is. That's why we need to have these discussions. It's also
why one can't simply choose "art" v. "entertainment". The two are so
often intertwined, that an artist must choose between them more as
belief systems, and move *toward* one of the extremes, rather than
being entirely in one or the other. Choosing to believe that it's all
art, is choosing entertainment. That's the line that people in the
entertainment industry take. Choosing to believe the kind of stuff
I've been going on about in this thread is choosing art, and almost
everyone defects from that position eventually. Too much money to be
had the other way.
>I guess I just automatically cringe when I hear anyone start judging what is
>and what isn't art. Imagine if the Nat'l Endowment for Arts was so
>strict...
>
They are. And so are the people who criticize the NEA.
Bear Graves
Ian Rastall wrote:
> Brian J. Geiger wrote on Fri, 14 Dec 2001 16:49:10 -0500:
>
> >At this point, I'm forced to ask, 'Without using examples, what is art?'
> >
>
> Art is truth and beauty.
>
> Ian
Ipso Facto, Elephant dung, smeared on a canvas is truth and beauty?
Bear confused, Bear head hurt.......
--
Bear Graves
"I'll be back. You can't keep the democrats out of the White House
forever, and when they get in, I'm back on the streets with all my
criminal buddies!" (maniacal laughter).
-Sideshow Bob
Ian Rastall
>Ipso Facto, Elephant dung, smeared on a canvas is truth and beauty?
>
There was obviously a point the artist was trying to make. That falls
under "truth". It doesn't have to be "good" or "interesting" or even
"accurate", but if someone works towards truth or beauty, they are
fighting on the side of art. If they're working towards a big
turnover, they're working on the side of entertainment. Unless they're
working for a big *apple* turnover--then they're on the other side of
the drive-thru window.
Ian -- Mmmm. Greasy fruit . . .
Jeff Folloder
> In article <pqrk1u458mu3qrg09...@4ax.com>,
> Ian Rastall <iras...@myvine.com> wrote:
>
> > Sorry to be rude, but don't take up the banner of art if you're not
> > going to carry it any further than the grocery store aisle.
>
> At this point, I'm forced to ask, 'Without using examples, what is art?'
Art is the translation of the mundane into a thing of beauty.
Beauty does not have to or need to be universally perceived.
Now my head hurts. I'm going to consume some Scotish art...
--
G.B.A.
Jeff Folloder
"I'm your huckleberry..." -Doc Holiday
as played by Val Kilmer in Tombstone
Joshua Rosenblatt
iras...@myvine.com wrote on 12/14/01 5:22 PM:
As a recovering marketing parasite in the music industry, I can relate to
your perspective, much of it at least - yes money has become the motivator
behind much of today's "art". Clearly that sucks, but it is what it
is...and though I may not like it, I fear the tendancy to try to judge what
IS and what ISN'T "art" even more... especially because it is such a
subjective judgement call.
Having worked at a punk rock label (a genre extremely susceptable to the
'sell-out monicker'), I have heard so many clueless 13 year old kids calling
hardworking bands (who I *know* where NOT motivated by money and fame)
'sellouts' simply because someone in their biology class was wearing a
tshirt of theirs. It's a dangerous game IMO to judge someone's
motivations... even if one is convinced one knows what they are.
OK, now I am blabbing on....
Joshua
Ian Rastall
>Now my head hurts. I'm going to consume some Scotish art...
Of course, this naturally brings up the question, "Is single-malt
Scotch art or entertainment?"
<ducking, running>
Ouch!
<getting hit in the head>
Ian Rastall
>Having worked at a punk rock label (a genre extremely susceptable to the
>'sell-out monicker'), I have heard so many clueless 13 year old kids calling
>hardworking bands (who I *know* where NOT motivated by money and fame)
>'sellouts' simply because someone in their biology class was wearing a
>tshirt of theirs. It's a dangerous game IMO to judge someone's
>motivations... even if one is convinced one knows what they are.
>
I guess that's what it does come down to: motivations. It's tough to
love something so much, and see the chances of it continuing on start
to dwindle. There's more than enough money to go around, but the
projects that get picked (blockbusters over indies, for instance)
really depress my spirits.
BTW, you didn't work for Epitaph, did you?
Brian J. Geiger
Ian Rastall <iras...@myvine.com> wrote:
> Brian J. Geiger wrote on Fri, 14 Dec 2001 16:49:10 -0500:
>
> >At this point, I'm forced to ask, 'Without using examples, what is art?'
> >
>
> Art is truth and beauty.
I dunno, sounds a bit too quick of an explaination. I would think that
there should be some intent in there somewhere, personally. After all,
a beautiful woman at a bar telling me that I'm a jerk may be true, but I
don't think it qualifies as art.
Nor does your definition do anything to discourage me from thinking that
Stephen King is art. Is there anything in your definition to
differentiate between art vs. non-art-entertainment aside from degree?
Joshua Rosenblatt
iras...@myvine.com wrote on 12/14/01 5:59 PM:
> Joshua Rosenblatt wrote on Fri, 14 Dec 2001 17:48:51 -0500:
>
>> Having worked at a punk rock label (a genre extremely susceptable to the
>> 'sell-out monicker'), I have heard so many clueless 13 year old kids calling
>> hardworking bands (who I *know* where NOT motivated by money and fame)
>> 'sellouts' simply because someone in their biology class was wearing a
>> tshirt of theirs. It's a dangerous game IMO to judge someone's
>> motivations... even if one is convinced one knows what they are.
>>
>
> I guess that's what it does come down to: motivations. It's tough to
> love something so much, and see the chances of it continuing on start
> to dwindle. There's more than enough money to go around, but the
> projects that get picked (blockbusters over indies, for instance)
> really depress my spirits.
Yeah, it can be depressing... But, then again, I'd rather not have 200,000
screaming 12 year olds people in a New Bomb Turks show. :)
>
> BTW, you didn't work for Epitaph, did you?
Yep. It was great at first (before we made a ton of cash... and got a
Financial officer ands a lawyer on board...) It went downhill fast, IMO.
:)
Joshua
Ian Rastall
>I dunno, sounds a bit too quick of an explaination. I would think that
>there should be some intent in there somewhere, personally. After all,
>a beautiful woman at a bar telling me that I'm a jerk may be true, but I
>don't think it qualifies as art.
>
>Nor does your definition do anything to discourage me from thinking that
>Stephen King is art. Is there anything in your definition to
>differentiate between art vs. non-art-entertainment aside from degree?
>
Argh! Gimme a break, Brian. You can argue anything into oblivion if
you so choose. King doesn't write for truth, and he doesn't really
write for beauty either. He writes to give his readers an experience,
and a bit of escapism. He just wants to entertain them. You know what
I'm talking about; please don't argue the point over and over. And for
many writers it is a matter of degree. But if you read one of
Beckett's novels, for instance (good luck), you'll see that he's not
working by degrees at all. If you read Danielle Steel, you know that
she's not either. ;) I did see a book of her poems in the library once
(used to work there), but they were pretty vile. They made Leonard
Nimoy's poetry seem good by comparison.
But this is not a matter of picking apart arguments just for the sake
of doing so. This is about taking a stand, mediocrity v. excellence.
It's not some exercise in semantics. The point isn't how art is
defined, it's what its value is these days. And it doesn't seem to
have much value anymore.
Maybe the difference between an argument and a discussion is that in
an argument, one picks up on the weakest link in the other's logic and
goes after that, and in a discussion one picks up on the strongest
link, and goes after that one. Please, I'm coming down with a lung
infection, drinking lapacho non-stop, I don't want to get all stressed
out arguing over how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. It's
just about something that I love.
Fred Krafcik
:)
Fred
--
Ian Rastall
>Yep. It was great at first (before we made a ton of cash... and got a
>Financial officer ands a lawyer on board...) It went downhill fast, IMO.
>
No music scene is more unforgiving than punk rock. How long did it
take the Pistols to self-destruct? (Wait, I think they *started out*
self-destructing.) :)
Some great stuff came out on that label, though. I use those
Punk-O-Rama CD's to figure out what my next punk rock purchase will
be.
BTW, were you the one that got them to sign Waits? :)
Fred Krafcik
> Renoir could spend an entire week painting thousands upon thousands of
> individual brush strokes on a canvass... or, he can pour some paint in a
> turkey baster and jsut aim.... So long as there is a CANVASS.,.. they are
> both equally (IMHO) art (though, the skill, talent and effect will
> undopubtedly differ greatly).
>
> Is the album Joe's Garage any less 'art' than Civilizations vIII? No,
> though it is certainly alot more entertaining.. to ME at least.
I remember having this sort of argument with friends long ago. We came
to the conclusion that art really is whatever the artist says it is, but
to become something classic, there must be more. After all, I could
shit on a spinning wheel, then create tiny divots in it by spitting at
it as it turns. Art? Maybe. But come back in twenty years and see if
it's in the Louvre.
My $0.02
Fred
Ian Rastall
>I could
>shit on a spinning wheel, then create tiny divots in it by spitting at
>it as it turns. Art? Maybe. But come back in twenty years and see if
>it's in the Louvre.
>
In the loo, maybe . . .
Rev. Melissa Robitille
>
> =Brian
Art is that which uses the available ( or invented by the artist ) tools of
the media in question to create something of transcendent beauty which
supersedes everyday reality.
Art usually represents some portion of life - spiritual, mental, physical,
emotional, etc. - but brings that portion to sharper focus, in effect
'demonstrating' it to the 'audience' who may or may not have gone without
noticing it. Art can 'get away with' exaggerating some portion of life in
order to make that demonstration more effective.
Now, some examples whether you like them or not!
Machiavelli's "The Prince", Shakespear's "Hamlet" ( among others ),
Tolstoy's "War & Peace", "Le Morte d'Artur", Dickens' "Oliver Twist", "A
Tale of Two Cities", and even "A Christmas Carol", and there *are* modern
works, even genre works which are art - shining gems among more formulaic
works. David Edding's series "The Belgariad" dealt a great deal with *life*,
as did Stephen King's "Cujo", "The Stand", "Carrie", and "Firestarter",
Marion Zimmer Bradley's "The Mists of Avalon" was art in that it dealt with
an evocation of the living details of fictional characters, some of Anne
Stuart's romance novels ( and dare I *hope* my own ) really bring about an
enormous amount of insight into the lives of her characters. Now, modern
language may not have the facile grasp of beautiful concepts that older
useage does, but in order to be understood by a modern 'audience' writers
simply have to face the fact that modern *people* aren't as erudite as their
counterparts were a century or more ago.
I could go on... but unfortunately, I need to get off line! Teenagers...
Rev. Melissa Robitille
Brian J. Geiger
"Rev. Melissa Robitille" <robi...@together.net> wrote:
> > At this point, I'm forced to ask, 'Without using examples, what is art?'
> >
> > =Brian
>
> Art is that which uses the available ( or invented by the artist ) tools of
> the media in question to create something of transcendent beauty which
> supersedes everyday reality.
>
> Art usually represents some portion of life - spiritual, mental, physical,
> emotional, etc. - but brings that portion to sharper focus, in effect
> 'demonstrating' it to the 'audience' who may or may not have gone without
> noticing it. Art can 'get away with' exaggerating some portion of life in
> order to make that demonstration more effective.
>
> Now, some examples whether you like them or not!
>
> Machiavelli's "The Prince", Shakespear's "Hamlet" ( among others ),
> Tolstoy's "War & Peace", "Le Morte d'Artur", Dickens' "Oliver Twist", "A
> Tale of Two Cities", and even "A Christmas Carol", and there *are* modern
> works, even genre works which are art - shining gems among more formulaic
> works. David Edding's series "The Belgariad" dealt a great deal with *life*,
I was thinking of possibly arguing, but you mentioned the Belgariad as
art, which is so obviously true, so I'll let Ian argue with you instead.
;)
Ian Rastall
>Machiavelli's "The Prince", Shakespear's "Hamlet" ( among others ),
>Tolstoy's "War & Peace", "Le Morte d'Artur", Dickens' "Oliver Twist", "A
>Tale of Two Cities", and even "A Christmas Carol", and there *are* modern
>works, even genre works which are art - shining gems among more formulaic
>works. David Edding's series "The Belgariad" dealt a great deal with *life*,
>as did Stephen King's "Cujo", "The Stand", "Carrie", and "Firestarter",
>Marion Zimmer Bradley's "The Mists of Avalon" was art in that it dealt with
>an evocation of the living details of fictional characters, some of Anne
>Stuart's romance novels ( and dare I *hope* my own ) really bring about an
>enormous amount of insight into the lives of her characters. Now, modern
>language may not have the facile grasp of beautiful concepts that older
>useage does, but in order to be understood by a modern 'audience' writers
>simply have to face the fact that modern *people* aren't as erudite as their
>counterparts were a century or more ago.
>
I defer to the Rev, as in all matters. I wish modern audiences were
smarter, especially with all the resources we have in the West for
learning.
<shaking fist at heaven> Those bastards! ;)
Brian J. Geiger
Ian Rastall <iras...@myvine.com> wrote:
> Brian J. Geiger wrote on Fri, 14 Dec 2001 18:06:46 -0500:
>
> >I dunno, sounds a bit too quick of an explaination. I would think that
> >there should be some intent in there somewhere, personally. After all,
> >a beautiful woman at a bar telling me that I'm a jerk may be true, but I
> >don't think it qualifies as art.
> >
> >Nor does your definition do anything to discourage me from thinking that
> >Stephen King is art. Is there anything in your definition to
> >differentiate between art vs. non-art-entertainment aside from degree?
> >
>
> Argh! Gimme a break, Brian.
Hmmm. I might have to make that a sig at some point. Heh.
> You can argue anything into oblivion if
> you so choose. King doesn't write for truth,
Actually, King himself would disagree with you, there. Not about the
arguing - I can certainly argue anything into oblivion, but the bit
about truth. King says that all good writing is truth, even if it's
fiction.
> and he doesn't really
> write for beauty either. He writes to give his readers an experience,
> and a bit of escapism. He just wants to entertain them. You know what
> I'm talking about; please don't argue the point over and over.
As far as the beauty bit, I dunno. I haven't read his fiction. But I'd
like to say that the message you're responding to is only my third or so
on the thread. I'm only continuing it because the answer you gave my
question was offhand and quotable rather than any use at all.
I'll accept that you don't know a good definition of art. I certainly
don't know what art is. On the other hand, I'm not trying to arbitrate
what is 'art' and what is merely 'entertainment'.
> But this is not a matter of picking apart arguments just for the sake
> of doing so. This is about taking a stand, mediocrity v. excellence.
> It's not some exercise in semantics. The point isn't how art is
> defined, it's what its value is these days. And it doesn't seem to
> have much value anymore.
I dunno about that. I mean, I can understand your disgust with much of
what people make these days, but the fact is, I sincerely doubt that we
are make less good stuff than was made 400 years ago. Maybe the
signal-to-noise ratio is worse, or maybe we just don't know about all of
the sucky stuff that was made back then, and we just see all of the good
stuff through our rosey vision of the past.
Do I know what makes good visual art these days? No, not really. But I
can point to some good artists that I know, and I can say that they are
very skilled, and if I have the money I want to spend on it, then I can
support that artist by spending the money on the art.
> Maybe the difference between an argument and a discussion is that in
> an argument, one picks up on the weakest link in the other's logic and
> goes after that, and in a discussion one picks up on the strongest
> link, and goes after that one. Please, I'm coming down with a lung
> infection, drinking lapacho non-stop, I don't want to get all stressed
> out arguing over how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. It's
> just about something that I love.
Here's the reason I brought up the definition - you're talking about art
as if it's an absolute. Which it may be. But without a definition,
it's really hard to say that it is absolute. Otherwise, it's just an
opinion, and whoever is in control of the arbitration board at the time
is the one who defines.
And this, I think, is the really important bit - you don't agree with
the person in charge of the money. Some of those people cater to the
masses, some seem to pick only things that will offend the masses.
No art being created anymore? I know two forms that are in their
infancy - comics and video games. They are young, so they aren't
particularly respected, but there is plenty of experimentation in the
medium. Much of it is bad, but there are good examples, too. It's
easier to experiment with comics than video games, because video games
usually take a team of people to make, which means money, which means it
has to sell.
I dunno, I'm just against broadly general negative views, and I don't
think life is worse today than it was before electricity. But you
really shouldn't get worked up over my messages - they're really not
that interesting.
Ian Rastall
>I dunno, I'm just against broadly general negative views, and I don't
>think life is worse today than it was before electricity.
You know, they come off as negative, but it's not about something
being bad, it's about something being good--and scarce. I wish I could
convince my fellow writers to go for broke. (In more ways than one.)
But it's suicide. Artists have to take any chance they can get. The
onus rests on the audience. If they demand something of substance,
they'll get it.
Luckily, there's lots of music fans who demand excellence, and most of
the music out there is great. And the indie movie scene is
flourishing. I agree about the signal-to-noise ratio. But I don't
think the serious stuff is un-affected by the popular stuff.
So what do you think I've got in the VCR right now? :) Hehehe, not
Cujo. I'm consistent if nothing else. La Dolce Vita. Now *there's* a
movie you can sink your teeth into.
Floating on a sea of bacteria,
James D. Beard
>> art?'
>> =Brian
Art is a lie that shows the audience a vital truth not otherwise
visible.
But most of what is touted as art is just bullshit lies. Pile it high
enough and deep enough and it will get you either a degree, or acclaim
from those whose highest calling is adulation of any who crave it.
Willing to cheer for real artists,
but find very few opportunities to do so.
--
jim beard
UNIX is not user-unfriendly; it merely
expects users to be computer-friendly!
Ian Rastall
>But most of what is touted as art is just bullshit lies. Pile it high
>enough and deep enough and it will get you either a degree, or acclaim
>from those whose highest calling is adulation of any who crave it.
>
You're in good company, Jim. ;)
Joshua
"Ian Rastall" <iras...@myvine.com> wrote in message
news:0f2l1ukuspoolqou8...@4ax.com...
> Joshua Rosenblatt wrote on Fri, 14 Dec 2001 18:08:51 -0500:
>
> >Yep. It was great at first (before we made a ton of cash... and got a
> >Financial officer ands a lawyer on board...) It went downhill fast, IMO.
> >
>
> No music scene is more unforgiving than punk rock. How long did it
> take the Pistols to self-destruct? (Wait, I think they *started out*
> self-destructing.) :)
True, but it was either the "Maximum Rock n Roll Mag purists"or the "Johnny
Come Latelies" who were most vocal about whether this band or that band had
'sold out'.
Take the Offspring for instance. When Smash was released, it shipped 30,000
copies (which was a hell of a lot for a little punk band from Huntington
beach). Noone had any clue, least alone Bryan and the guys that it could
explode like it did. I n fact.. Keep Em Separated almost wasn't on teh
album cause the band thought it was a bit too corny. Of course, that song
got added to KROQ and BOOM! 9 million albums later and they were suddenly
sell outs... I always loved that the album was called SMASH. It certainly
was.
>
> Some great stuff came out on that label, though. I use those
> Punk-O-Rama CD's to figure out what my next punk rock purchase will
> be.
Had a lot of fun there for awhile... and as much as I bitch abotu the
business of music, there were few other labels I would have been prouder to
call home... especially early on.
>
> BTW, were you the one that got them to sign Waits? :)
I wouldn't say I was the 'one'. Another guy there was a HUGE Waits fan who
pushed and pushed and pushed some more. One day Waits' lawyer came to us
with a 'what if' scenario and about 3-4 of us spent two allnighters coming
up with an amazing marketing plan to show em that we could do more than punk
rock. Then the boss, Brett from Bad Religion, came up with what must have
been an attractive offer moneywise and 'artistic freedom' wise. One of his
goals was always to steal an artist from a major label, since majors had
been stealing indie acts for years.
One of the only things I regret about leaving there was that he did
eventually sign. That is one artist I'd give anything to work for... They
have since signed Merle Haggard as well.
Ahhh, mammories. :L)
Joshua
Ian Rastall
>One of the only things I regret about leaving there was that he did
>eventually sign. That is one artist I'd give anything to work for... They
>have since signed Merle Haggard as well.
>
One last thing, and then I'll stop with all the OT stuff. Did you ever
get to meet Milo Auckerman?
John Perkowski
If he'd done that to *any* animal other than Homo Sapiens, the ASPCA
and PETA would be wanting him jailed. Instead, he gets an MFA.
NOW I understand the value of that particular degree. Zero. Zilch.
Nada. NONE WHATSOEVER.
Smoke in peace, John
Joshua
> Joshua wrote on Fri, 14 Dec 2001 21:27:46 -0500:
>
> >One of the only things I regret about leaving there was that he did
> >eventually sign. That is one artist I'd give anything to work for...
They
> >have since signed Merle Haggard as well.
> >
>
> One last thing, and then I'll stop with all the OT stuff. Did you ever
> get to meet Milo Auckerman?
LOL
Yeah, but very briefly.... I never spent any time with him per se. Smart
guy though. I did spend some time with Bill, who is pretty intense in his
own right.
Joshua
Joshua
news:bgeiger-FB7E75...@news.fu-berlin.de...
> I was thinking of possibly arguing, but you mentioned the Belgariad as
> art, which is so obviously true, so I'll let Ian argue with you instead.
> ;)
>
WOW.
the Belgariad. I read that series when first came out (I was a big BIG fan
of Fantsy and science fiction when I was in grade and high school). What a
fantastic series. I may have to pick those up again.
Has Eddings written anything since?
Joshua
Joshua
news:9veae...@enews3.newsguy.com...
> >> At this point, I'm forced to ask, 'Without using examples, what is
> >> art?'
> >> =Brian
>
> Art is a lie that shows the audience a vital truth not otherwise
> visible.
>
> But most of what is touted as art is just bullshit lies. Pile it high
> enough and deep enough and it will get you either a degree, or acclaim
> from those whose highest calling is adulation of any who crave it.
>
> Willing to cheer for real artists,
> but find very few opportunities to do so.
Hmmm.... so no room for taste, personal preference or differing opinions?
Can I be on the "Real Art" Evaluation Council too? Are we elected, or is it
a first come first serve kinda deal? You know, buffet style????
No cheers for opinions being thrown about as irrefutable facts (though,
sadly, I too am guilty of it at times).
Joshua
Richard A. Magri Jr.
champagne, just something that turns on my mind. I thought Melvilles' Moby
Dick was the worse piece of crap that ever came down the pike. We're arguing
opinions here and no one wins an argument on opinions.
JMTC
Rick
"Ian Rastall" <iras...@myvine.com> wrote in message
news:pqrk1u458mu3qrg09...@4ax.com...
> Joseph M. LaVigne wrote on Fri, 14 Dec 2001 15:24:17 -0500:
>
> >You may not like Stephen King, but he IS an artist. I read books by
> >many authors, and there are few that can paint a picture in your mind
> >with the written word as well as he can. I remember the first time I
> >read Cujo. I could see the dog, the car, the withering child, the
> >dethly frightened mother. I could see it in color. I was disturbed.
> >He did his job impeccably.
>
> That's entertainment, Joe. His prose is shit. He acknowledges it, too.
> He once called himself the "Big Mac and fries" of writers. His aim
> isn't to create art, but to entertain people. Fine. I have no problem
> with that. I've enjoyed a few of his books. But when people stop
> making the distinction between Stephen King, and, say, Kurt Vonnegut,
> they're in trouble. King doesn't make art, he writes pulp. Everyone
> loves it, but it's still entertainment. Just because someone becomes
> popular, it doesn't make their voice suddenly important.
>
> >I am a little disturbed by the elitism in our society that claims that
> >if someone becomes popular, they are a sellout, and cheapened.
> >
>
> I wouldn't call Hemingway or Keruoac cheap. Or Vonnegut, or Faulkner,
> or Fitzgerald. Yet they all wrote for the masses. In fact, almost all
> writers write for the masses, but many of them expect the masses to
> want to be challenged, and to have the intelligence to appreciate
> their work. Few do, which is why those books are relegated to
> classrooms. But I do call hack novelists cheap. I *would* take my kid
> out of a class if the teacher decided not to teach The Great Gatsby,
> but to use Cujo as the text for that semester, regardless of how vivid
> his scary scenes are.
>
> Sorry to be rude, but don't take up the banner of art if you're not
> going to carry it any further than the grocery store aisle.
>
Terry
--
Terry
Cast off what has been realized. Turn back to the subject That realizes To
the root bottom And resolutely Go on.
- Bassui (1338-1500)
"Bear Graves" <goldn...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3C1A7C6A...@home.com...
>
>
> Ian Rastall wrote:
>
> > Brian J. Geiger wrote on Fri, 14 Dec 2001 16:49:10 -0500:
> >
> > >At this point, I'm forced to ask, 'Without using examples, what is
art?'
> > >
> >
> > Art is truth and beauty.
> >
> > Ian
>
> Ipso Facto, Elephant dung, smeared on a canvas is truth and beauty?
>
> Bear confused, Bear head hurt.......
> --
> Bear Graves
> "I'll be back. You can't keep the democrats out of the White House
> forever, and when they get in, I'm back on the streets with all my
> criminal buddies!" (maniacal laughter).
> -Sideshow Bob
>
>
Chip Mattox
> Brian J. Geiger wrote on Fri, 14 Dec 2001 19:50:41 -0500:
>
> >I dunno, I'm just against broadly general negative views, and I don't
> >think life is worse today than it was before electricity.
>
> You know, they come off as negative, but it's not about something
> being bad, it's about something being good--and scarce. I wish I could
> convince my fellow writers to go for broke. (In more ways than one.)
> But it's suicide. Artists have to take any chance they can get. The
> onus rests on the audience. If they demand something of substance,
> they'll get it.
>
> Luckily, there's lots of music fans who demand excellence, and most of
> the music out there is great. And the indie movie scene is
> flourishing. I agree about the signal-to-noise ratio. But I don't
> think the serious stuff is un-affected by the popular stuff.
>
> So what do you think I've got in the VCR right now? :) Hehehe, not
> Cujo. I'm consistent if nothing else. La Dolce Vita. Now *there's* a
> movie you can sink your teeth into.
That's the Ricky Martin video, right.....
man, that "guy" can dance...
Chip
Bear Graves
Chip Mattox wrote:
That's Ian! Livin' "La Vida Loca" <g>
--
Bear Graves
BOB: "Oh come, now. You wanted to be Krusty's sidekick since you were
five! What about the buffoon lessons? The four years at clown college?"
CECIL: "I'll thank you not to refer to Princeton that way."
Brother from another series; The Simpsons
Rev. Melissa Robitille
fan
> of Fantsy and science fiction when I was in grade and high school). What
a
> fantastic series. I may have to pick those up again.
>
> Has Eddings written anything since?
>
> Joshua
Yep. He wrote "The Mallorean" ( a continuation of "The Belgariad" ) and the
two Sparhawk series - "The Ellenium" and "The Tamuli" both quite good as
well as "Belgarath the Sorcerer" and "Polgara the Sorceress" and "The Rivan
Codex". And *another* real artist in the fantasy genre is Tad Williams -
his series "Memory, Sorrow, & Thorn" starting off with "The Dragonbone
Chair" is absolutely wonderful. The idea of art in literature, at least to
me, is to make the characters *breathe* - living out that portion of their
lives in the minds and hearts of the reader. Tolkien, Eddings, Williams,
Zimmer-Bradley, and only a very few others do this *very* well. Feist
*could* do this - he has the potential and showed it in the Riftwar Saga,
but it seems to have died off in him over the course of the third set of
novels.
Rev. Melissa Robitille robi...@together.net
Tony Miller
Ian Rastall <iras...@myvine.com> wrote:
<Snip>
>Sorry to be rude, but don't take up the banner of art if you're not
>going to carry it any further than the grocery store aisle.
Urine in a jar with a crucifix is "art", but Stephen King is not. I had
better go to a few more art classes, just say I'm not interested in art.
:P
>Ian
-Tony
PS: And Stephen King IS self deprecating. He says he "Goes for terror, if
he can't get that, he'll go for horror, and if he can't get that, he'll
settle for the 'gross out'".
But self deprecation doesn't negate artistic talent. He may be deemed an
artist years after his death in spite of his opinion of himself ;)
--
Keep your own cigar diary online. http://www.cigardiary.com
Check out the new pipe page: http://pipes.cigardiary.com/
Cigar-specific banner exchange: http://banners.cigardiary.com/
James D. Beard
Joshua wrote:
> "James D. Beard" <jdb...@asus.net> wrote in message
> news:9veae...@enews3.newsguy.com...
>
>>>>At this point, I'm forced to ask, 'Without using examples, what is
>>>>art?'--=Brian
"James D. Beard" <jdb...@asus.net> wrote
>>Art is a lie that shows the audience a vital truth not otherwise
>>visible.
>>
Joshua wrote:
> Hmmm.... so no room for taste, personal preference or differing opinions?
Say what? There is plenty of room for taste, preferences, and opinions.
What is a "vital" truth, as opposed to trivia however truthful it may
be? Ane what is visible to the audience (needs little or no attention)
and what is otherwise not visible?
And there is all sorts of room for yammering about how skillfully the
artist presented his "vital truth", how it fits in with the great scheme
of things in some way, etc. Was the artist a good craftsman in his
work? And yes, I value craftsmanship and hold that artists could/should
be guilty of it just like other work-for-a-living mortals.
But the _defining_ requirement for art is that it brings something to
life that otherwise would be missing.
jim b.
-------------
UNIX is not user-unfriendly; it merely
expects users to be computger-friendly!
ip...@ptd.net
> jim b.
>
> -------------
>
> UNIX is not user-unfriendly; it merely
> expects users to be computger-friendly!
>
>
I've been making and exhibiting art for 25 years and I don't know what the
hell you're talking about!
A woman of about fifty looks at a John Marin exhibition in bewilderment. She
turns to Alfred Stieglitzs: "Is there someone who can explain these pictures
to me? I don't understand them at all. I want to know why they arouse no
emotion in me." Stieglitz replies, "Can you tell me this: Why don't you give
me an erection?"
With any piece of art, what you get from it, is what you bring to it.
To me, the measure of successful art is to give the spectator the rare
feeling of being in a place where he's never been before. That would run the
gamut from reverie to shock, or anything in between.
Nizo
"Because we cannot now accept conclusions based on introspection, much of
what goes on in art theory - and esthetic criticism - is very dubious ground
indeed." - E. H. Gombrich
James D. Beard
>>>>>>At this point, I'm forced to ask, 'Without using examples, what is
>>>>>>art?'--=Brian
>>
>>
>>"James D. Beard" <jdb...@asus.net> wrote
>>>>Art is a lie that shows the audience a vital truth not otherwise
>>>>visible.
>>>>
>>>>
Nizo wrote
> To me, the measure of successful art is to give the spectator the
> rare feeling of being in a place where he's never been before.
>>That would run the
> gamut from reverie to shock, or anything in between.
Yes, my definition of art does exclude a rather large number of
things Nizo would acknowledge as art. A bucket of cow piss thrown
in one's face may well give the "spectator" a rare feeling of being
in a place he's never been before, but I do not consider it art.
Likewise for much of what is labeled as art these days.
jim b.
-----------
UNIX is not user-unfriendly, it merely
expects users to be computer-friendly!
Rev. Melissa Robitille
> feeling of being in a place where he's never been before. That would run
the
> gamut from reverie to shock, or anything in between.
>
> Nizo
But! But, but, but... "Waterlilies", "Sunflowers", "Mona Lisa", Ingres'
portraits, Renoir's portraits, Degas' dancers, Grandma Moses' work... Dear
Lord, Nizo, you're discounting every portrait, every glimpse at everyday
life... Places you 'know', people, things you've experienced - does that
make them any less art?
Rev. Melissa Robitille robi...@together.net
ip...@ptd.net
> Nizo wrote
>> To me, the measure of successful art is to give the spectator the
>> rare feeling of being in a place where he's never been before.
>>> That would run the
>> gamut from reverie to shock, or anything in between.
>
>
> Yes, my definition of art does exclude a rather large number of
> things Nizo would acknowledge as art. A bucket of cow piss thrown
> in one's face may well give the "spectator" a rare feeling of being
> in a place he's never been before, but I do not consider it art.
> Likewise for much of what is labeled as art these days.
>
> jim b.
>
You have an interesting way of peppering discussion with an erroneous
extreme. But then again, that is usually the way of a nattering armchair
analyst. The expression *one-dimensional * is used often when analyzing
pieces of art - it can also be applied to one's level of art appreciation.
As far as a bucket of cow piss thrown in one's face - well now you're
getting into a whole other area of pleasure.
Nizo (Don't bogart that bucket, my friend. . .)
"Art is why I get up in the morning but my definition ends there. You know I
don't think its fair that I'm living for something I can't even define."
- Ani Difranco
Brian J. Geiger
"Rev. Melissa Robitille" <robi...@together.net> wrote:
> > the Belgariad. I read that series when first came out (I was a big BIG
> fan
> > of Fantsy and science fiction when I was in grade and high school). What
> a
> > fantastic series. I may have to pick those up again.
> >
> > Has Eddings written anything since?
> >
> > Joshua
>
> Yep. He wrote "The Mallorean" ( a continuation of "The Belgariad" ) and the
> two Sparhawk series - "The Ellenium" and "The Tamuli" both quite good as
> well as "Belgarath the Sorcerer" and "Polgara the Sorceress" and "The Rivan
> Codex".
Don't forget The Redemption of Althalus!
(Fortunately, I have all the David Dddings fantasy books (i.e. not The
Losers or High Hunt) in hardback on the bookshelf, so it's easy to do a
quick glance and verify.)
Incidentally, the Rivan Codex is a collection of his notes on the world
of the Belgariad and the Mallorean, including shorter forms of the
stories covered in Belgarath and Polgara, as well as history, politics,
money, and the like.
ip...@ptd.net
No, no, no, Not at all! As in Stieglitz' *Clouds as Equivalents*, these
clouds, like the Waterlilies, Sun flowers . . et. al., are just as powerful
a force that can enable us to transcend our "everyday" emotions and
experiences.(see Harry Callahan). In fact when an artists provides us with
glimpses of the"ordinary" Isn't he really really saying. "Look how
extraordinary this really is!" We're on the same page here.
In art, I personally discount nothing but perhaps works that are overly
sentimental or self indulgent.
Nizo
Joshua
<ip...@ptd.net> wrote in message news:B843AE9D.10FDD%ip...@ptd.net...
> No, no, no, Not at all! As in Stieglitz' *Clouds as Equivalents*, these
> clouds, like the Waterlilies, Sun flowers . . et. al., are just as
powerful
> a force that can enable us to transcend our "everyday" emotions and
> experiences.(see Harry Callahan). In fact when an artists provides us with
> glimpses of the"ordinary" Isn't he really really saying. "Look how
> extraordinary this really is!" We're on the same page here.
>
> In art, I personally discount nothing but perhaps works that are overly
> sentimental or self indulgent.
>
> Nizo
This thread is a perfect example of why I have not put forth any but the
most inclusive of definitions for 'what is art'. It means somethign
different to each of us, yet we each expect (just admit it) that it means
the same to others.
Who am I to judge whether something is Art or not. I'll reserve my opinions
for whether I consider it GOOD art or not- something clearly subjective in
nature.
Having worked for years with 'artists' in the genre of music, has given me a
a great respect for anyone who pursues it (however skillfully and with
whatever talents available in whatever medium). I can't recall how many
times I've listened to a song, or seen a performance piece that did
absolutely nothing for me, one that I could only describe as uninspired,
unoriginal or worse yet. Be that as it may, I don't think I have the right
to label it as not being art. I've seen too many individuals pour their
heart and soul into their medium to discount it - though admittedly I may
think it is lacking in talent, skill, perspective, inspiration, beauty,
truth or any number of the defining criteria mentioned in this thread.
Some may look at my perspective as a cop out, but I can assure you it is
not. In some mediums I consider myself a capable critic, though I often
loathe being such. I think the zen concept of new mind is oft times
desireable. Ask the bands I've worked with about my honest criticisms...
I can be tough, I owe it to them to be....but to hold them to a higher
'defining criteria' of what their art should be. No way, Jose. THAT is up
to them... it's up to me to then understand it, if I so choose.
It's too damn easy to judge anothers arts de labors. I don't think there is
anyone more dangerous to the future of art (in any genre) than the critics
themselves (whether professional or armchair) who can't put aside their
(inevitably) limited view of "what art is".
jsut my $.02.
Joshua
Joshua
news:9vfsdq$f985u$1...@ID-120342.news.dfncis.de...
years sicne I read Eddings Belgariad.
I am currently re-reading (yet again) Tolkiens Ring trilogy - jsut in time
for the movie..... Can't wait.
Thanks again,
Joshua