Didn't Catch Wombn's Words on Art
Filpriros
But wish I had since Wombn is one of the most artful women I know here or in
real life -- truly artful.
Rosena
greg
wombn...@mindspring.com wrote:
> Well essentially, I was complaining about the NEA and things (that, in
> my opinion, are crap) that I have to pay for that I think are icky.
[...]
> *I* don't think true art (not including art education) SHOULD be
> subsidized. It should be produced by people who are driven to, who
> are inspired to, and who are mature enough to realize that they have
> to either find/create a market for it so they can do it full time or
> do it part-time and support themselves another way if people aren't
> banging down the doors trying to acquire their art.
Hmmmmm.... You realize of course the much of the western canon in art,
particularly from the renaissance, was *subsidized* art? Michelangelo for
example worked for the Medici, which was the ruling family of Florence for
hundreds of years. He wasn't forced to hustle his wares on the street, the
*government* supported him.
And at the time, I'm sure a whole lot of people didn't like paying their taxes
to the Medici --taxes that were used to create art that makes Florence the
majestic city that it is today.
I'd bet some of the people at that time didn't personally care for Michelangelo
work. "Too realistic, too naked. I'd rather have the money for a new pair of
sandles."
We know that many, *many* artists that have dramatically changed the
conciousness of the world have been completely unrecognized in their own
lifetimes.
I bet you like Van Gough. Starry Night? Beautiful. You know of course that he
never sold a painting in his lifetime. People thought he was wierd. The art of
a mad man. He was *subsidized* by his brother Theo.
So if Van Gough hadn't been subsidized by *someone*, we wouldn't have his works
today. His work changed history. It changed art. It changed the consciousness
of western man. It enriches so many people in so many ways. But Van gough
wasn't at all commercial at the time. Not *one* painting of his was sold in his
lifetime.
If "commercial" is what determines the value of art, then we drop to the lowest
common denominator. Suddenly "I'm with Stupid" T-shirts are "art" and "Married
with Children" is *great art*
Art is about *vision*. Not everyone is expected to understand all vision
immediately. If everyone "get's it" it's not very visionary --by definition.
I'm sure that a theoretical physicist could present you with a problem that you
wouldn't immediately grasp --but does that mean you would call for an end to the
government subsidizing research into physics? I bet not --despite the fact
that no matter how much theoretical physicists learn, it's not going to make any
fundamental difference in how we build, say, a wooden chair. That will remain
pretty much as it has been for hundreds of years.
The research into understanding the cosmos isn't going to make much of a
practical or esthetic difference in *your* life or mine --but that doesn't mean
we --as a collective society-- shouldn't support that effort. To me it's the
same with NEA. It's about cultural investment in the future. It's about the
Medici supporting Michealangelo. It's about supporting Van Gough *before* he's
a big commercial success, so generations in the future can enjoy his genius
--Despite the fact that Van Gough's contemporaries *despised his work*.
And some of what is produced in doing this will be actually crap. Some of it
will be good work, but offensive to someones contemporary mores and
understanding. That's not the point. The point is how do we, as a society,
create and encourage the conditions where genius and vision can flourish
*independent* of contemporary societies understanding of genius.
--
greg ::
Salamander
Filpriros <filp...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000819165624...@ng-fp1.aol.com...
You can find this on ASD around 7-13 or so under the thread "this world"
If wombn represents art in this world then I really have no reason to live.
Shit my mood just took a nosedive.
Salamander
greg <hey_...@usa.com> wrote in message
news:hey_greg-559550...@nntp2.tsoft.net...
You are my hero-I was never able to articulate this to her. You put it well.
greg
AND... I noticed you grabbed the Van Gough / Brother theo example while
completely ignoring the Michealangelo / Medici example. Was it because the
Medici where the rulers of Florence (ie the government) and also patrons of
Michealangelo --and this fact makes him a government subsidized artist? Like I
said, I'm sure there were plenty of shopkeeps in Florence were unhappy that
their tax lira was going to fund public art.
In article <vf9upssett26b9gvq...@4ax.com>,
wombn...@mindspring.com wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Aug 2000 16:25:49 -0700, greg <hey_...@usa.com> wrote:
> >
> >I bet you like Van Gough.
>
> mmmm...... not especially.
>
> >Starry Night? Beautiful. You know of course that he
> >never sold a painting in his lifetime. People thought he was wierd. The
> >art of
> >a mad man. He was *subsidized* by his brother Theo.
>
> by his *brother*, who presumably CHOSE to.
>
> >If "commercial" is what determines the value of art, then we drop to the
> >lowest
> >common denominator. Suddenly "I'm with Stupid" T-shirts are "art" and
> >"Married
> >with Children" is *great art*
>
> I'm not saying that "commercial" should determine it. But it should
> be determined by individuals. I shouldn't have to be forced to pay
> for "art" that depicts feces on a sacred symbol.
>
> >Art is about *vision*. Not everyone is expected to understand all vision
> >immediately. If everyone "get's it" it's not very visionary --by
> >definition.
>
> Oh yeah. Cristo is a visionary. <rolls eyes> FAR more than my
> grandmother who carved whimsical '49er miners (from her own visions)
> out of carefully chosen pieces of one of the oldest hooker oaks in
> California (that died a natural death).
>
> >same with NEA. It's about cultural investment in the future. It's about
> >the
>
> I'm sorry but there are far too many who don't contribute value. I
> presume that the greatest artists of old who had patrons (not counting
> Van Gogh whose *brother* supported him) had to prove themselves and
> had to keep on proving themselves.
>
> Thing is, those great artists would have done it anyway. They would
> have found a way, one way or another. But to bemoan the fact that
> someone CHOSE to be an account executive and chose NOT to do art in
> offhours because *I* won't cough up more money..... that's wrong.
>
> >And some of what is produced in doing this will be actually crap. Some of
> >it
> >will be good work, but offensive to someones contemporary mores and
> >understanding. That's not the point. The point is how do we, as a
> >society,
> >create and encourage the conditions where genius and vision can flourish
> >*independent* of contemporary societies understanding of genius.
>
> certainly not by whining that MY tastes aren't valid and that I should
> be supporting "YOU" when "YOU" don't support ME (unless I happen to
> give you something *you* value).
>
> I don't have a problem with people voluntarily contributing. I DO
> have a problem with being forced to.
>
> And personally, I don't see how art really *changes* much of anything.
>
> I like looking at Rodin sculptures, but I can't say that it has
> changed anything in my life.
>
> I'm thinking of a piece of artwork done as a gift to me by a young
> girl who visited me for a week or so a couple years back. Depictions
> of her memories of her life. They weren't "realistic" as in the exact
> replication of an event, they were impressionist. I wasn't expected
> to pay her for it. She drew them for me, out of affection for me and
> a need to reveal herself to me. THAT art changed me. It would not
> likely have changed someone who didn't know her or her experiences.
>
> THAT is true art.
>
> Except for a photo of the Cliff House from the 1800's, the ONLY art in
> my house is from my grandmothers, my aunt-in-law, and myself.
>
> And I consider that to be the HIGHEST culture. The best on earth. The
> best there ever was and ever will be.
>
> But I won't *demand* that you give me money for it.
>
>
--
greg :: Bodhisattva with a real bad attitude
---------------------------------------------------
Salamander
wombn <wombn...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> I'm not saying that "commercial" should determine it. But it should
> be determined by individuals. I shouldn't have to be forced to pay
> for "art" that depicts feces on a sacred symbol.
What are you saying? FECES IS A SACRED SYMBOL!
> I like looking at Rodin sculptures, but I can't say that it has
> changed anything in my life.
>
> I'm thinking of a piece of artwork done as a gift to me by a young
> girl who visited me for a week or so a couple years back. Depictions
> of her memories of her life. They weren't "realistic" as in the exact
> replication of an event, they were impressionist. I wasn't expected
> to pay her for it. She drew them for me, out of affection for me and
> a need to reveal herself to me. THAT art changed me. It would not
> likely have changed someone who didn't know her or her experiences.
>
> THAT is true art.
>
> Except for a photo of the Cliff House from the 1800's, the ONLY art in
> my house is from my grandmothers, my aunt-in-law, and myself.
>
> And I consider that to be the HIGHEST culture. The best on earth. The
> best there ever was and ever will be.
>
> But I won't *demand* that you give me money for it.
>
>
I'm not aware that all that much money subsidizes art. I think much more of
our tax dollars subsidizes developing weapons, building weapons, storing
weapons, transporting weapons, and disposing of old weapons that go unused
and become a safety hazard.
Salamander
>
> And ON the subject of Cristo......... he spends millions of dollars
> on his "art".
>
> Do you know how many underprivileged kids could go to college on that
> money?
>
> Do you really think that wrapping an island in pink plastic is going
> to change their live sone iota??
>
> Talk about a MASSIVE WASTE OF MONEY.
>
> If any of MY money went to pay for it, then I'm pissed as hell. If
> others want to squander theirs, fine. I have no problems with it.
>
> Just don't EVEN tell me that that idiocy helps the average ghetto kid.
>
>
Speaking as the average ghetto kid, art is the one thing that inspired me to
get out, go to college, not waste my life, and when I was most suicidal I
changed my mind in mid-overdose because I thought maybe it would be worth it
to live if I could make something meaningful with my art. I remember seeing
Christo's work on television as a child, and the scope and absurdity of it
gave me this wonderful sense that *anything* is possible. It did, in fact,
help me.
My complaint with 'the world' is that people generally don't buy original
art by someone who sells it cheap like me, they buy a poster from the mall.
Perhaps my beef is with mass production. I completely respect and admire
anyone who's house contains only original art, as your house indeed does.
Too bad you have me killfiled and won't realize we have something we agree
about!
greg
wombn...@mindspring.com wrote:
> But what insults me the most though is the assumption that I despise
> "art and culture" simply because I don't like the SAME "art and
> culture" or calling MY form of culture an oxymoron.
I understand.
> I don't particularly enjoy having to scrub extra toilets so that
> someone can shit on an image of the Madonna.
For me, that was about what people think is "good / bad". Many people took it
as an insult to their belief system. But.... God created *everything, including
creatures that defecate. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with feces, it's a
natural aspect of our "god given" existence. If God made us so that we shit,
what's wrong with shit?
To me, I think the point was to say that *everything* is God's creation,
including feces. That, just as your body is made up of elements that have
always been here, and will remain and be reused long after you are gone,
consumption, elimination and reuse is part of the natural world that God
created. It's *good*.
The elimination of waste is what feeds the plants you eat, it's what feeds the
chickens and cows. It's a natural and intrinsic part of the constant and
eternal regeneration of Mother Earth and the manifestation of life on this
planet.
The piece also explores the duality of Christanity that says the body is "bad"
--despite the fact that we are "made in the image an likeness of God"
But it's a provacative stance, and IMO, a lot of people just kneejerk react to
that --not bothering to look into the reason for their reaction or what else the
artist may be trying to point out.
--
greg ::
Filpriros
Dear Wombn,
Boy oh boy did your reply interest me.
>Well essentially, I was complaining about the NEA and things (that, in
>my opinion, are crap) that I have to pay for that I think are icky.
I agree. NEA has gotten very political and also in todays world we are afraid
to say X is art and Y isn't. NEA tends to fund what is politically aaccepted in
some realms rather than the work of the artist who 1) needs support and 2)
creates beauty in the *process* of the art (i.e. proportion, harmony, contrast
etc.).
My ex-husband, who is an artist gets real upset with NEA doe funding well known
and well paid artists who do politically correct work, or who are judged by
their "cause" rather than by the artfulness of what they do.
>My grandma's Xmas ornaments copied from arts & crafts magazine
>patterns, the tatting (which she also taught me), making clothes. She
>gave them as gifts (she was very very poor and put her heart & soul &
>love into her crafts).
Yes. I think I know what you mean. My mama did beautiful crafts similar to
your grandmother. I love them too.
>My other grandma's woodcarvings and oil paintings (she got first
>places on her woodcarvings at the state fair in the expert category
>and didn't even know her stuff had been entered, thanks to dad!). I
>have several of them around my living room now and just adore them.
I have my mama's stuff too.
>She had such a whimsical nature. Her love of nature is reflected in
>every single piece.
Yes. But then this is an argument for a project like NEA (though not the way
it is run). The impressionists for example, who loved nature, had a hard time
getting accepted because their method was novel.
There is a great primitive artsist here in Alabama who finally gets funding --
crafts.
Now he needs it for he is Alabama dirt poor if you know what I mean.
>To me, that's priceless art.
Yes -- I thinkI do know.
>As far as "culture" goes, I read Harlequin novels and watch COPS, Star
>Trek, Discovery Channel, and Animal Planet on TV.
I do similar things sometimes too. No problem with this. Others should be
quiet.
I yawn through>Masterpiece Theatre,
Ohhhh Wombn, gotta say -- some of it is so so great. But a very different world
-- quite "English" and . . . much ornament.
I get irritated at the incomprehensible way of>speaking in Shakespeare's
plays.
I felt this way at first until I really sat down and learned the language,
rules of verse, the puns etc. It is hard to teach because of the denseness.
Hemingway was so hard to understand
>that I was never drawn to it.
me too -- but this is all about taste -- not culture v. noculture.
I generally dislike "modern art".
I am not surprised given that I bet you like representational art. You sound a
bit like crafts school of the 1920s -- you know in California beautiful homes,
but each pice was simple and had a function -- Craftsman style?
>Although I do particularly like Rodin scupltures. Then again, his
>sculptures are actually recognizable. Whereas some of the subsidized
>"sculptures" I've seen in front of government buildings represents
>exactly nothing to me.
Some of it is crap. My ex though taught me alot about the abstract school and
so I have learned to appreciate some. Rodin though -- yes!
>And I get annoyed when *MY* culture is slammed.
YES -- that is the thing -- respecting another's culture.
>I'm happy to subsidize art *education*. I want kids to be able to see
>it all (except some of the crap that Mapplethorpe produces).
Mapplethorpe is a funny story. Artists are very angry at the NEA for funding
him but for different reasons than the general public. He is a well known and
wealthy artist!!!! He didn't need the funding -- ot was a political move. ICK.
But I'm>not willing to subsidize some of the crap (which is a subjective term,
>of course)
Hmmm, no I think there is true art, and crap. And as long as we have a patron
system, we have to accept that some judgment should be made. So make it.
I've seen from people _old enough to support themselves_.
This is harder. I watch my ex struggle and I know he is -- a painter, the way
bach was a composer -- you know in the blood. I wish he had more support, but
then too this means he must accept judgments about what he can and cannot
paint.
>*I* don't think true art (not including art education) SHOULD be
>subsidized.
friendly disagreement here.
It should be produced by people who are driven to, who>are inspired to,
Yes. Nod.
and who are mature enough to realize that they have>to either find/create a
market for it so they can do it full time or
>do it part-time and support themselves another way
Yes, this is a big issue for me and L. Still, my heart goes out to him when I
see the hours and hours it takes to do a fine painting. And so too, when the
market often is Maplethorpe and he does not do that work -- his work is more
traditional.
>The subject came up because someone was unhappy about how our society
>doesn't seem to support the kind of art THEY like (and create).
Again -- this is the thing. Asking the community to support the arts is one
thing, but then you cannot deny it a voice in defining art (as in Maplethorpe
problem). I suspect you dislike people who bite the hand that feeds them? Even
Raphael had to paint what his patron asked of him.
>No one subsidizes anything *I* do (except my education and safety and
>such--but *everyone* gets to be subsidized for that if they choose to
>be), so why should I have to subsidize someone else for doing
>something that's *obviously* not in great demand?? If it was in
>demand, it wouldn't NEED to be subsidized.
Hmmmmm -- but is a big problem for art you know -- such as music, painting,
etc. for it is all so useless seemingly that it tends to go first. And it does
seem art, like your grandmother's paintings, is what keeps life -- I do not
know -- tended to like your vegtable garden. Nurtured.
>We put our money into things we find valuable. Such as food, rent,
>clothing, THEN entertainment.
Yep.
We DO art to express ourselves. We BUY>art after all those other essential
needs are met, and only if we
>value them, and I resent being forced to value them.
Sound though like you do value "art." Seems what *is* art is the big problem.
>AND I resent the snobbish implication that my grandmas' crafts aren't
>true art or culture.
Exactly!!! I know what you mean.
>Therefore, I obviously despise culture and art. ("culture" and "art"
>being according to the *writer's* definition, which completely>devalues MY
definition.
Yes, I see.
(gentle editing a bit)
>I want someone to hand me a few million dollars so that I don't have
>to struggle to survive. Ain't gonna happen unless I give something
>back that THEY value.
Again -- seems like it is the old, "if you want a patron, need to do what the
patron wants problem." It seems hard for some to understand that when they ask
for money, they do have a debt to produce what is valued as you put it. Maybe
not commercially valued (that would create a market), but at least by the long
sight of those who support. Thus -- in short -- Jesse Helm has a right to
speak as much as anyone else who votes funds.
For me, I am glad there is support. But I wish people would stop yapping about
their rights, and understand the funds create a duty too. To listen to you, to
anyone about what is true art and what isn't.
Sorry this person bit at you --
Bests as you know,
Rosena
Filpriros
>But what insults me the most though is the assumption that I despise
>"art and culture
Nod. Hugging you.
>I don't particularly enjoy having to scrub extra toilets so that
>someone can shit on an image of the Madonna.
>
Yep -- I am not sure how this is suppose to reflect beauty "art" . . . I am
with you here.
Rosena who feels bad this has got you sitrred up.
12angrybadgers
>Wellll..... Obviously we disagree on this issue. =8^)
>
>AND... I noticed you grabbed the Van Gough / Brother theo example while
>completely ignoring the Michealangelo / Medici example. Was it because the
aaack! STOP right there.
Speaking of desecration, MUST you continuously desecrate these poor
dead artist's names? It's Van Gogh and Michaelangelo, ok?
It may seem like a small thing to get ppl's name's wrong and their
pronunciation wrong, and their spelling wrong - but it really is
disrespectful to do it ALL the time.
12angrybadgers
greg
<twelverab...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Aug 2000 18:25:03 -0700, greg <hey_...@usa.com> wrote:
>
> >Wellll..... Obviously we disagree on this issue. =8^)
> >
> >AND... I noticed you grabbed the Van Gough / Brother theo example while
> >completely ignoring the Michealangelo / Medici example. Was it because
> >the
>
> aaack! STOP right there.
OK
> Speaking of desecration, MUST you continuously desecrate these poor
> dead artist's names? It's Van Gogh and Michaelangelo, ok?
Oooops, me and my lousy spelling --plus I'm often too lazy to use a spell
checker.
> It may seem like a small thing to get ppl's name's wrong and their
> pronunciation wrong, and their spelling wrong - but it really is
> disrespectful to do it ALL the time.
I don't think I do it *all*n the time.
> 12angrybadgers
I hope you're OK, Kim. If your calling me on my spelling I imagine that you
are. That's good.
--
greg ::
Mira
>
> But what insults me the most though is the assumption that I despise
> culture" or calling MY form of culture an oxymoron.
>
> happens to be where I'd put my money first, Cristo would be last).
>
> I don't particularly enjoy having to scrub extra toilets so that
> someone can shit on an image of the Madonna.
whoa.. hold on a second. This a cultural difference, and Mayor Jerkiani
grabbing headlines before he dropped out of Senate race.
There were several portraits at that exhibition that used elephant dung.
And why did this artist do that? Because in the culture he is from, it
was traditional to *honor* the subject of the portrait using the dung of
elephants and other animals of the region.
janithor
I read that there were also pictures of breasts and vaginas cut out of porno
mags on that piece of art.
Burr
janithor <jani...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:39A06941...@pacbell.net...
> I read that there were also pictures of breasts and vaginas cut out of
porno
> mags on that piece of art.
And what, specifically is "wrong" or "unholy" about breasts and vaginas?
Do you think that the Mary didn't have them? Do you think they are nasty?
Is there something unGodlike about vaginas --we are theoretically made in
the image and likeness you know. I assume that goes for the female portion
of humanity as well as the male.
It's about fertility, earth, divinity. It wasn't about annoying Christians
who lack the ability to think about anything outside of their own
assumptions.
greg
janithor
Why don't you ask Katherine McKinnon or Patricia Ireland?
janithor
> you had to stand two inches from painting to see that. and yes, i did
> see it. and didn't know that was what i was "seeing" until I read about
> it in the newspaper.
Did he show the titles of the mags he got them from? I'm wondering if they came
from "Hustler", "Juggs", "Lips", "Screw", or maybe "Barely Legal"? Just curious.
janithor
> It's art, beautiful art.
>
> But it's not thought-provoking, and that is what the best art does.
> Makes you think, sometimes even makes you mad. Most artists who work
> in the vein of Mapplethorpe are thrilled when you hate what they do,
> not because they're doing it to thumb their nose at society,
I don't buy this for one second. You're telling me they have nothing
against Christians and the average Americans living in fly-over country
and not on the coasts? Puhleeze.
Tell you what. I've thought a great concept for a new piece of art. It's
going to be a sculpture titled "The Wages of Sin". I'm going to have
shrivelled up men in the act of anal sex. Instead of having a penis,
though, it will be a gun going in the other guy's butt. Symbolizing how
gay sex is deadly due to the increased risk of contracting aids. Think I
can get some funding for this? Do you think the NY or SF elite would
approve of this art, would it get good reviews?
> but because they've provoked a reaction, and hopefully you'll think
> about
> that reaction and what it means to you.
Gee, I'm so glad I could clean some more shit out of a few more toilets
for this wonderous insight they've given me. Please, tax me some more,
take it all! I'll just clean 24-7, I don't need the money, honest. I
hope they get paid a lot of money too, they sure deserve it, not me!
janithor
> But as long as people are happier sticking with the old comfortable
> ways of thinking, we'll continue to spend more money on weapons than
> art.
>
> And that is truly unfortunate.
Ya know, you're right. Weapons are bad. In fact, I think we should disarm the
police. They don't need those nasty guns. In fact, why don't we get rid of the
police and spend that money on art? The blanket of civilization would cover and
bind us together in love, openness, and understanding.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Melissa
>
> Rule for happiness:
>
> Something to do,
> Someone to love
> Something to hope for.
>
> --Immanuel Kant
janithor
> janithor <jani...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:39A06941...@pacbell.net...
>
> > I read that there were also pictures of breasts and vaginas cut out of
> porno
> > mags on that piece of art.
>
> And what, specifically is "wrong" or "unholy" about breasts and vaginas?
> Do you think that the Mary didn't have them? Do you think they are nasty?
> Is there something unGodlike about vaginas
Actually, I like breasts and vaginas. I'm pretty much addicted to women. It's
just that if I want porn, I'll either download it or buy it. I don't expect
other people to pay for it, though.
12angrybadgers
>I don't think I do it *all*n the time.
*all*n? :-)
>I hope you're OK, Kim. If your calling me on my spelling I imagine that you
>are. That's good.
I'm fine. Even though i had to delete a couple of insulting emails
from this one predatory juvenile jerkoff pig last week - i'm doing
just fine. :)
12angrybadgers
Mira
>
> Mira wrote:
>
> > wombn wrote:
> > >
> > > But what insults me the most though is the assumption that I despise
> > > "art and culture" simply because I don't like the SAME "art and
> > > culture" or calling MY form of culture an oxymoron.
> > >
> > > (and I don't consider COPS as art. That's just entertainment, but it
> > > happens to be where I'd put my money first, Cristo would be last).
> > >
> > > I don't particularly enjoy having to scrub extra toilets so that
> > > someone can shit on an image of the Madonna.
> >
> > whoa.. hold on a second. This a cultural difference, and Mayor Jerkiani
> > grabbing headlines before he dropped out of Senate race.
> >
> > There were several portraits at that exhibition that used elephant dung.
> > And why did this artist do that? Because in the culture he is from, it
> > was traditional to *honor* the subject of the portrait using the dung of
> > elephants and other animals of the region.
>
> mags on that piece of art.
you had to stand two inches from painting to see that. and yes, i did
melhope
wrote:
>melhope wrote:
>
>> But as long as people are happier sticking with the old comfortable
>> ways of thinking, we'll continue to spend more money on weapons than
>> art.
>>
>> And that is truly unfortunate.
>
>Ya know, you're right. Weapons are bad. In fact, I think we should disarm the
>police. They don't need those nasty guns. In fact, why don't we get rid of the
>police and spend that money on art? The blanket of civilization would cover and
>bind us together in love, openness, and understanding.
This is not even *remotely* what I meant, and you know it.
What I object to is the excessive overspending on national defense.
Though if there was more art in the world, maybe we wouldn't need the
police quite so much.
I'm very very sorry you and wombn are so closeminded. You haven't
rationally considered my arguments, you've made a knee-jerk reaction
based on emotion.
I have to go to work making art now. I hope that doesn't offend you
too much.
melhope
wrote:
>melhope wrote:
>
>> It's art, beautiful art.
>>
>> But it's not thought-provoking, and that is what the best art does.
>> Makes you think, sometimes even makes you mad. Most artists who work
>> in the vein of Mapplethorpe are thrilled when you hate what they do,
>> not because they're doing it to thumb their nose at society,
>
>I don't buy this for one second. You're telling me they have nothing
>against Christians and the average Americans living in fly-over country
>and not on the coasts? Puhleeze.
>
>Tell you what. I've thought a great concept for a new piece of art. It's
>going to be a sculpture titled "The Wages of Sin". I'm going to have
>shrivelled up men in the act of anal sex. Instead of having a penis,
>though, it will be a gun going in the other guy's butt. Symbolizing how
>gay sex is deadly due to the increased risk of contracting aids. Think I
>can get some funding for this? Do you think the NY or SF elite would
>approve of this art, would it get good reviews?
It probably would. It's a great concept. And I'm not being
sarcastic. Your example perfectly embodies what I've said art should
be. You'll provoke a reaction that will make people think.
>
>> but because they've provoked a reaction, and hopefully you'll think
>> about
>> that reaction and what it means to you.
>
>Gee, I'm so glad I could clean some more shit out of a few more toilets
>for this wonderous insight they've given me.
The idea isn't to *give* you insight. It's to trigger your own
thought process.
Too bad you couldn't invoke it here.
>Please, tax me some more,
>take it all! I'll just clean 24-7, I don't need the money, honest. I
>hope they get paid a lot of money too, they sure deserve it, not me!
Mira
>
> Mira wrote:
>
> > you had to stand two inches from painting to see that. and yes, i did
> > see it. and didn't know that was what i was "seeing" until I read about
> > it in the newspaper.
>
> from "Hustler", "Juggs", "Lips", "Screw", or maybe "Barely Legal"? Just curious.
nope. The painting really wasn't much to look at really, in my opinion.
wasn't to my taste. however, that does not invalidate the opinons of
the people that saw worth in the picture as a whole, rather than it's
parts.
and since this had drifted to a discussion of where the pieces used to
create this picture, where else but skin magazines would the creator get
those pictures from? individual snapshots?
What is indecent to one person, is not to another. Look at this link,
browse around, take your time.
http://www.mindworkshop.com/alchemy/indcnt.html
Below is a picture considered scandalous for it's time, and damaged the
career of it's painter -
http://www.artchive.com/artchive/R/rembrandt/night_watch.jpg.html
A good book for anyone to read is "Free Speech for Me, but not for Thee"
by Nat Hentoff.
fwiw, the term "art" is subjective, as is "literature"
the genre that Harlequin romances belong to have a longer history than
Shakespeare. I read W.S.'s tragedies for fun, can't abide the
"comedies" and the Sonnets give me the creeps. I've also read True
confession magazines.
Grandmother's carvings are Art as much as Rodin's The Thinker
"Crafts" is considered an art form. The American Craft Museum is across
the street from The Museum of Modern Art in Manhattan. There's good
stuff and not so good stuff in both of them.
Some artists and writers do create works to simply to evoke reactions,
be it outrage, joy, anger, or happiness. Some create to pay the bills,
Dickens comes to mind. Dickens wrote on and on and on and on because he
was paid by the word.
you may enjoy this link http://artchive.com/ftp_site.htm
look for Rodin :)
And I think it's disgusting that people are attempting to "convert"
wombn's tastes.
Salamander
> Burr wrote:
>
> > janithor <jani...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> > news:39A06941...@pacbell.net...
> >
> > porno
> > > mags on that piece of art.
> >
vaginas?
> > Do you think that the Mary didn't have them? Do you think they are
nasty?
> > Is there something unGodlike about vaginas
>
> Actually, I like breasts and vaginas. I'm pretty much addicted to women.
It's
> just that if I want porn, I'll either download it or buy it. I don't
expect
> other people to pay for it, though.
>
Why is nudity porn? Do you feel the same way about Bougereau's nudes? What
about sculptures with nice big cocks? (David's the man!)
Salamander
> melhope wrote:
>
> > It's art, beautiful art.
> >
> > But it's not thought-provoking, and that is what the best art does.
> > Makes you think, sometimes even makes you mad. Most artists who work
> > in the vein of Mapplethorpe are thrilled when you hate what they do,
> > not because they're doing it to thumb their nose at society,
>
> I don't buy this for one second. You're telling me they have nothing
> against Christians and the average Americans living in fly-over country
> and not on the coasts? Puhleeze.
>
> Tell you what. I've thought a great concept for a new piece of art. It's
> going to be a sculpture titled "The Wages of Sin". I'm going to have
> shrivelled up men in the act of anal sex. Instead of having a penis,
> though, it will be a gun going in the other guy's butt. Symbolizing how
> gay sex is deadly due to the increased risk of contracting aids. Think I
> can get some funding for this? Do you think the NY or SF elite would
> approve of this art, would it get good reviews?
>
> > about
> > that reaction and what it means to you.
>
> Gee, I'm so glad I could clean some more shit out of a few more toilets
> take it all! I'll just clean 24-7, I don't need the money, honest. I
> hope they get paid a lot of money too, they sure deserve it, not me!
>
I'm getting the sense that wombn & janithor are basically just very angry
about their chosen professions, because they keep complaining about how art
makes them have to clean toilets. You all sound like my mother (Xtian maid)
saying "I don't clean toilets so you can waste food around here!" and doing
the ole' table torture where you have to clean your plate. Thanks, mom, for
the eating disorder. There's lots more to tell, but suffice it to say, I
cannot have a reasonable discussion with either of you! And I don't respect
wombn's taste in art! You can't make me! I hate hearing people make bitter
remarks about the work they do...do something else! How many times have I
said that to my mother? Millions! I'm glad my idea of art is something you
hate! I'm glad you are angry! Ha ha ha! You and mom can rant about it
together in heaven, surrounded by Anne Geddes prints, Thomas Kincaide
limited editions, and oh-so-many hand crochetted antebellum dress toilet
paper cozies! I'll be hell with all the good art!
Oh crap I'm so regressed. At least I made myself laugh.
Salamander
melhope <mel...@flash.net> wrote in message
news:1pb2qsgp47s4n5s50...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 20 Aug 2000 23:15:32 -0700, janithor <jani...@pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>
> >melhope wrote:
> >
> >> But as long as people are happier sticking with the old comfortable
> >> ways of thinking, we'll continue to spend more money on weapons than
> >> art.
> >>
> >> And that is truly unfortunate.
> >
> >Ya know, you're right. Weapons are bad. In fact, I think we should
disarm the
> >police. They don't need those nasty guns. In fact, why don't we get rid
of the
> >police and spend that money on art? The blanket of civilization would
cover and
> >bind us together in love, openness, and understanding.
>
> This is not even *remotely* what I meant, and you know it.
>
> What I object to is the excessive overspending on national defense.
>
> Though if there was more art in the world, maybe we wouldn't need the
> police quite so much.
>
> I'm very very sorry you and wombn are so closeminded. You haven't
> rationally considered my arguments, you've made a knee-jerk reaction
> based on emotion.
>
> I have to go to work making art now. I hope that doesn't offend you
> too much.
>
>
> Melissa
>
> Rule for happiness:
>
> Something to do,
> Someone to love
> Something to hope for.
>
> --Immanuel Kant
Thank you for discussing the subject with them reasonably when I'm incapable
of it-I'm awfully angry; you've expressed perfectly what good art does, that
it makes you think.
chapt...@my-deja.com
this reminds me of my days in the wine business, when people who drank
white zinfandel and other so-called 'pop' wines got a bit too much
ridicule among those allegedly in the know about such weighty matters of
taste. for some the white zin drinking was the beginning of their wine
adventure. for others it stopped there. if one wants to shell out their
cash for the anne geddes prints and calendars so be it.
isn't a part of art that which makes you whole?
it's when value is placed on it - that's when the ugly mess happens. i
never treat wine as if it should be hung on the wall. you drink the
stuff.
ed
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Salamander
Salamander <thepro...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:sq2ulnc...@corp.supernews.com...
Uh, now that you know what an ass I am, I'll just skulk away from this
discussion. I think Mark has the right idea.
But you know what? I've all but quit drawing when my life fell apart 5
months ago, and this thread got me so steamed I actually attempted to work
on a picture last night! So I guess I should thank you nice folks for
gittin' me awl riled up.
janithor
> On Mon, 21 Aug 2000 11:53:44 -0700, "Salamander"
> <thepro...@hotmail.com> seems to have written:
>
> >
> >Oh crap I'm so regressed. At least I made myself laugh.
>
> that counts big tho, you made yourself laugh, lol, well you made me
> laugh to and i agree with most of what you say. take care..
Whoa, wait a minute. I thought you were to supposed to be a puppet of
me and wombn? ;-)
janithor
> I'm getting the sense that wombn & janithor are basically just very angry
> about their chosen professions, because they keep complaining about how art
> makes them have to clean toilets. You all sound like my mother (Xtian maid)
> saying "I don't clean toilets so you can waste food around here!" and doing
> the ole' table torture where you have to clean your plate. Thanks, mom, for
> the eating disorder. There's lots more to tell, but suffice it to say, I
> cannot have a reasonable discussion with either of you! And I don't respect
> wombn's taste in art! You can't make me! I hate hearing people make bitter
> remarks about the work they do...do something else! How many times have I
> said that to my mother? Millions! I'm glad my idea of art is something you
> hate! I'm glad you are angry! Ha ha ha! You and mom can rant about it
> together in heaven, surrounded by Anne Geddes prints, Thomas Kincaide
> limited editions, and oh-so-many hand crochetted antebellum dress toilet
> paper cozies! I'll be hell with all the good art!
> Oh crap I'm so regressed. At least I made myself laugh.
I'm not angry. I probably sound more angry in print than I am. Something about
Usenet draws out a primitive flaming instinct or something when someone says
something you disagree with. I'm thinking about which poopy toilets I'm going
to have clean tonight.
janithor
> It probably would. It's a great concept. And I'm not being
> sarcastic. Your example perfectly embodies what I've said art should
> be. You'll provoke a reaction that will make people think.
Do you honestly, honestly believe that the elites in Manhattan, LA, San
Francisco, Boston, do you honestly believe that if I made a flagrantly
Fundamentalist Christian/anti-gay sculpture, that this sculpture would be
well-received? You can't be serious.
> >> but because they've provoked a reaction, and hopefully you'll think
> >> about
> >> that reaction and what it means to you.
> >
> >Gee, I'm so glad I could clean some more shit out of a few more toilets
> >for this wonderous insight they've given me.
>
> The idea isn't to *give* you insight. It's to trigger your own
> thought process.
>
> Too bad you couldn't invoke it here.
Because I do not want to have money taken from me and spent on art that I have
no interest in, therefore I am close-minded. Is that your argument?
Seriously, spell it out logically, strip the emotion. I'll try to do the same,
and respond in kind. I sincerely am not sure I understand your argument, we're
both too busy taking pot-shots.
janithor
> Why is nudity porn? Do you feel the same way about Bougereau's nudes? What
> about sculptures with nice big cocks? (David's the man!)
I never said nudity is porn. I said there were cut-outs from porn mags on the
piece in question, and mira or melhope confirmed that. I don't consider porn
art, I consider it porn. Fine for it's own purpose, but not art.
I think everyone is missing my point. I have no problem with art. Make
whatever the hell you want. My point is: if I'm going to be forced to pay for
certain pieces of art through increasingly high marginal tax rates, then I get a
say in what gets funded. It's partially my money. And I'm being called
close-minded for not wanted to fund stuff I either don't like or really have no
interest in.
So, I'm univerally, globally a close-minded person because I do not want my
taxes to fund any single piece of art, or even any art? This one fact
universally makes me close-minded? That's a pretty strong test.
RGB, you're a logician. Am I missing something, or what?
janithor
> And I'm thinking about having my poopy toilets cleaned by somebody else,
> tomorrow! Yippee!
Can you give us a review when they're done? Sounds like you're getting one
of the franchise maid services. I think they're prices are usually pretty
high, not sure what kind of work they do. I stay away from homes, way too
competitive & too much work.
Bunny
A gay Julia Roberts fan.
janithor
> Sure! I've actually very excited about this!
Cool. One tip: be very precise about your expectations. I don't know what
you're like. Some people are EXTREMELY picky when it comes to cleaning.
They are totally unrealistic about what they are paying for, or else they
think the cleaners can read their mind. If you have assumptions and
something doesn't get done, they're not necessarily trying to screw you.
Give them a chance or 2, if they still screw up, then you can start moving
things along.
(Other people get triggered by art, I get triggered by complaints about the
cleaning crew.)
> It feels very weird, though. I can't shake this feeling that I'm somehow
> degrading someone by having them clean my house. Of course, that's the
> way they make their living; I set up VPN's, they clean houses. I do my
> job and they do theirs. But still, it's weird. My mother never had the
> money to pay for any such help when I was growing up, so I never had the
> experience of having a maid around as part of normal life.
You go out to eat, don't you? There are people cooking for you, serving
you, AND washing your dishes for you. There are people cleaning up after
you in your office. You don't need to feel guilty at all. The people doing
the cleaning don't have a problem with it, trust me. If they had a complex,
they wouldn't do the work. The few that do have a complex don't stay long.
It's a valuable service. Somebody has to do it. The best thing you can do
is compliment them if you honestly like the work they are doing. This more
than anything will go along way. I feel 10 ft. tall when I get great
compliments from customers, and it makes me want to work even harder for
them. We mostly hear compliants and get screamed at all day. If things go
right, nobody says anything. Compliments also let them know if they are
performing the job to your expectations, so it's valuable information. They
need to know the boundries between acceptable and unacceptable. You're not
being a slave driver. You're purchasing a service, and service they want to
sell to you! They just need to know precisely WHAT you want to buy. Clean
is such a vague concept, it needs to be defined for each customer, and a lot
of people don't understand this.
> What do you call a male maid, though?
No clue. I don't think I've ever seen a male housecleaner (except for me,
I've done a couple houses) though I'm sure they exist.
Bunny
>
I don't see wombn and thor as closeminded at all on this topic.
From what I've read, it seems to me that they have both done
some thinking about it, considered various points of view and
ideas, and through a personal process that included rational
and reasoned thinking, come to conclusions that make sense
for them. That's not being close-minded, that's just being
differently-minded than some people. I don't see anything
wrong with that.
I love what wombn wrote about her grandmother's art. That
struck such a chord with me. I have a Christmas tree angel
that my grandmother made from corn husks many, many years
ago. It is so precious to me, I just can't say.
I personally am glad to pay taxes for some art. I'm not so glad
to be paying taxes for some other things, not at all. I think a
whole bunch of us are probably not thrilled at all the places
our tax money goes, and can articulate a case against using
tax money for this and that. I don't think that makes us close-
minded, I think it just means we have some different
opinions, so big deal! If wombn and thor are closeminded,
then so am I for hating to pay for some parts of the military
industrial complex!
Bunny
!!!
greg
wrote:
> melhope wrote:
>
> > It probably would. It's a great concept. And I'm not being
> > sarcastic. Your example perfectly embodies what I've said art should
> > be. You'll provoke a reaction that will make people think.
>
> Do you honestly, honestly believe that the elites in Manhattan, LA, San
> Francisco, Boston, do you honestly believe that if I made a flagrantly
> Fundamentalist Christian/anti-gay sculpture, that this sculpture would be
> well-received? You can't be serious.
"think" and "well received" are two very different things.
I think that one of the problems here is that working artists that are pushing
the envelope of what "art" is tend to be more liberal than conservative
politically and socially. That doesn't mean that "Norman Rockwell" shouldn't
apply for funding from the NEA. Or that Thor's radical, anti-anal intercourse
piece of art shouldn't be funded.
It's like free speech. We let neo nazi's march through town, not because we
believe what they say, but because we believe in free speech. We even pay for
police protection for them, even if we disagree with what they represent. The
culture is richer because of the application of the principle of free speech. In
the same way, we should support art that we may not appreciate or understand.
I also agree that what defines "art" today is the opinion of a certain set of
people that are deeply involved in art as a continuum of ideas over time that
reference and expand on each other. "Pretty pictures" doesn't fall into that
category anymore. That doesn't make "pretty pictures" bad, or the people that
like them wrong or ignorant. It just means that, while probably enjoyable to
look at over the couch, "pretty pictures" generally don't move the academic
conversation of "what is art" forward in any kind of meaningful way.
I just ate a McDonalds 1/4 lb'er with cheese. I liked it. It satisfied my
hunger. That doesn't make it "fine cuisine". What is "Art" and ones personal
opinion of any particular image have diverged somewhat. "art" really is tied to
history, and to movement through cultural ideas. Doesn't mean that the "images
I like" aren't appealing to me, or that they aren't valid as images in their own
right --it just means that they may fall outside of this specific contextual
frame.
But that doesn't mean we shouldn't have the contextual frame, or that the
artistic opinion of "the elite" (your words, not mine) is innaccurate, any more
than it means we shouldn't have four star resturants because some people prefer
McDonalds burgers and fries.
--
greg :: Bodhisattva with a real bad attitude
---------------------------------------------------
Mira
No more close minded than people who do not consider carvings by
someone's grandmother, even if they are "merely" copies, art. There's
more than one version of "The Three Graces" and although I've never
seen the comments about Ruebens version of it when it was unveiled, I
doubt he was told it wasn't art because he copied the subject, not only
copied it, but portrayed his wife as one of the Graces.
references: http://www.eleganza.com/detailed/3graces.html
http://gallery.euroweb.hu/art/r/raphael/z_other/3graces.jpg
http://ocaiw.com/galenug19.htm
Yes, you do get a say in funding of the arts, and to voice your opinion
to any and all legislative types. However, even public funding is
contingent upon "I don't like it or am not interested in it," a lot will
be lost.
The use of tax dollars being used to fund the arts in America began
during the Great Depression. Playwrights, photographers, actors,
musicians, and other artists were paid to preform and create, and to
record and document American culture (see http://chnm.gmu.edu/fsa/).
Walker Evans and Dorothea Lange were among the photographers, and
although these pictures were taken 60-70 years ago, they still speak
today (see
http://www.masters-of-photography.com/L/lange/lange_migrant_mother.html).
I'm starting to fade here and have forgotten the agency that was "in
charge" of the writers, but I do know that part their work was to record
the memories, songs, and stories of descendants of slaves. That would
have been lost, or not brought in the public eye, without the funding of
the government.
Mira
>
> On Mon, 21 Aug 2000 19:11:18 -0400, Mira <naf...@mailcity.com> wrote:
>
> >No more close minded than people who do not consider carvings by
> >someone's grandmother, even if they are "merely" copies, art. There's
>
> paintings. The Xmas ornaments *were* copies though.
>
> The tatting probably came from patterns. I imagine the original
> designer (most of those patterns are from 100+ years ago) considered
> her design to be artful.
sorry, I misremembered what I had read.
if even one person thinks the intricate pattern of the lace is
beaurtiful, it can be considered art.
there are displays of lace in museums, so...
does that then make it art, cause it's in a museum?
not necessarily, and i'm rambling off and making less and less sense
here, so i should shut up now
%
zoe...@mindspring.com wrote in article
<5g93qss36t008vj5q...@4ax.com>...
> On Mon, 21 Aug 2000 13:32:32 GMT, melhope <mel...@flash.net> seems to
> have written:
>
> >
> >I'm very very sorry you and wombn are so closeminded.
>
> I wish you hadn't said that one line.
>
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
janithor
Mira
>
> > >I'm very very sorry you and wombn are so closeminded.
> >
> > I wish you hadn't said that one line.
>
yeah, what she said.
Mira
(who's idea of a wonderous time is to spend hours staring at Vermeers
and Rembrandts she's seen a hundred times already)
greg
wrote:
> Hey dude, did you get my email?
>
Yeah, just haven't answered you yet. =8^)
I'll do it in a while. I've been in and out all day. Basically... Good idea!
--
greg ::
Mira
>
> On Mon, 21 Aug 2000 16:30:31 -0700, wombn <wombn...@mindspring.com>
> seems to have written:
>
> >
> >Thank you both.
>
> it's ok, i didn't do anything, but i think i can see both your points
> as being valid and worthwhile and it's sad that anyone has to get
> upset over it all. really, everyone has opinions and i'm glad they're
> not all the same, anyway...
> i was wondering how you people do all this intellectual banter
> anyway. i'll never have the mental energy to write such long thought
> out, term paper like posts, god, i can barely get a shower
> accomplished, some of you amaze me with the mere content and length of
> post,.. i get all tired looking at them , can't even read half of
> them,,..phew..i wrote two whole paragraphs, i need a break. i'm so
> glad i'm done with school forever.
I'm avoiding what I should be doing and rationalizing it by saying I am
attempting to get my brain to function before I do what I should be
doing.
kerfoker
> I'm thinking about which poopy toilets I'm going
> to have clean tonight.
You mean you don't clean *all* of them?!
-Fred
*always* cleaned all of them! The urinals too!
Mira
>
> On Mon, 21 Aug 2000 20:35:32 -0400, Mira <naf...@mailcity.com> seems
> to have written:
>
> >
> >I'm avoiding what I should be doing and rationalizing it by saying I am
> >attempting to get my brain to function before I do what I should be
> >doing.
>
and I can keep the foreplay going for days.....
janithor
> On Mon, 21 Aug 2000 13:52:07 -0700, janithor <jani...@pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>
> >melhope wrote:
> >
> >> It probably would. It's a great concept. And I'm not being
> >> sarcastic. Your example perfectly embodies what I've said art should
> >> be. You'll provoke a reaction that will make people think.
> >
> >Do you honestly, honestly believe that the elites in Manhattan, LA, San
> >Francisco, Boston, do you honestly believe that if I made a flagrantly
> >Fundamentalist Christian/anti-gay sculpture, that this sculpture would be
> >well-received? You can't be serious.
>
> Did I say that? Read that paragraph again, please.
>
> I'm not quite sure what you mean by "elites", but I think the piece
> would be seriously and honestly reviewed by art critics.
>
> And somehow I don't think that Rudy Giuliani would lead protest
> marches against it and try to shut down museums that would show it.
ActUP, Rosie O'Donnell, et.al. would be screaming bloody murder, and all the
networks would be doing stories about the new climate of hate in America. Some
lawyer would try to sue me and link my "art" to some murder of a gay, saying my
piece of art incited this anti-gay violence.
> If you feel that you should have a say in which artists are given NEA
> money, then what you basically are asking for is the right of
> censorship. This is a direct violation of the First Amendment.
Read RGB's response. Is he a right-wing Christian?
> Anyone who has expressed this opinion in the past is invariably right
> wing, invariably Christian.
So this is an example of open-mindedness? Kind of like the woman on asd who wrote
wombn and told her she could no longer be friends with her because she was marrying
a conservative?
> The list of reasons *not* to fund a given
> artist would grow longer and longer, and eventually the Statue of
> Liberty would be replaced by a giant Precious Moments figurine.
>
> But seriously, art should not be funded based on who may or may not
> like it.
With who's money? It's my money! I think I have a right to say where my money
goes. Give me a convincing argument otherwise. You protest excess spending on the
military. I think that belief is misguided. but I'm not begrudging you of trying
to put your hard-earned money where you want. See, taxes come from the philistines
who are out there who are actually making the buses and cars run, building roads and
houses, staffing malls and stores, serving food and providing day-care. All the
boring stuff that needs to be done. That's why it's called work. I don't have a
problem with my career, my career saved my life. I was quite suicidal before I got
in the cleaning business. It's just that it is just that: work. And if you are
going to force me to work 6 months to pay off the gov't before I get to see any of
it, you bet I'm going to criticize where that money is going.
> *All* art has a place in society
Why? Where is this written in stone? Then we should have an infinite amount of
art, everyone should be involved in the creation and consumption of art. Where do
you draw the line, and say, ok, we have enough, we don't need anymore? At that
point, by your own definition, you will be in violation of the 1st Amendment.
> , and for every Robert
> Mapplethorpe, there are a hundred other people creating "acceptable"
> forms of art. All art is about exploration, expansion and evolution
> of ideas, and the minute you want to start controlling that, the
> minute your mind begins to shut down.
You don't know a damn thing about me. How dare you call me close-minded. Wombn
told me you are in a theater group that gets funded. You know what? I might not
even have a problem with this. Believe it or not. It's your sense of absolute
entitlement that I have a problem with, you proclamation that because I think we can
say "stop" at some point, a point you don't agree with, then therefore I am
absolutely and at all times and in all instances a close-minded, money-hungry
philistine boob who's too stupid to know what's good for him.
I took plenty of humanities classes, I did an independent study on the sculpture of
ancient Greece and Rome back in high school, I even bought a print of the Creation
of Adam on the Sistine Chapel because I thought it was so pretty and so powerful,
and it even shows his penis! I was a band fag, and throughout high school, I
listened almost exclusively to classical and jazz. I like art, I have no problem
even supporting art. I just don't think not wanting to be compelled to fund
everything you find important makes me close-minded. If that's your definition, I'm
guilty as charged.
janithor
> melhope wrote:
And here I violated my own rule and went emotional. Sorry.
melhope
>I'm getting the sense that wombn & janithor are basically just very angry
>about their chosen professions, because they keep complaining about how art
>makes them have to clean toilets. You all sound like my mother (Xtian maid)
>saying "I don't clean toilets so you can waste food around here!" and doing
>the ole' table torture where you have to clean your plate. Thanks, mom, for
>the eating disorder. There's lots more to tell, but suffice it to say, I
>cannot have a reasonable discussion with either of you! And I don't respect
>wombn's taste in art! You can't make me! I hate hearing people make bitter
>remarks about the work they do...do something else! How many times have I
>said that to my mother? Millions! I'm glad my idea of art is something you
>hate! I'm glad you are angry! Ha ha ha! You and mom can rant about it
>together in heaven, surrounded by Anne Geddes prints, Thomas Kincaide
>limited editions, and oh-so-many hand crochetted antebellum dress toilet
>paper cozies! I'll be hell with all the good art!
>Oh crap I'm so regressed. At least I made myself laugh.
>
Salamander, I think I love you. No, I know I love you.
Will you marry me?
melhope
>> >I'm very very sorry you and wombn are so closeminded.
>>
>> I wish you hadn't said that one line.
>
>I don't see wombn and thor as closeminded at all on this topic.
>From what I've read, it seems to me that they have both done
>some thinking about it, considered various points of view and
>ideas, and through a personal process that included rational
>and reasoned thinking, come to conclusions that make sense
>for them. That's not being close-minded, that's just being
>differently-minded than some people. I don't see anything
>wrong with that.
IMO, picking and choosing what artists to give NEA money to based on
whether or not the taxpayers will like what they do is one step away
from censorship. That would be a violation of the First Amendment.
I don't get any say in what the defense department spends my tax
dollars on. It's the same way with the NEA.
melhope
>janithor wrote:
>>
>> Salamander wrote:
>>
>> > Why is nudity porn? Do you feel the same way about Bougereau's nudes? What
>> > about sculptures with nice big cocks? (David's the man!)
>>
>> I never said nudity is porn. I said there were cut-outs from porn mags on the
>> piece in question, and mira or melhope confirmed that. I don't consider porn
>> art, I consider it porn. Fine for it's own purpose, but not art.
>>
>> I think everyone is missing my point. I have no problem with art. Make
>> whatever the hell you want. My point is: if I'm going to be forced to pay for
>> certain pieces of art through increasingly high marginal tax rates, then I get a
>> say in what gets funded. It's partially my money. And I'm being called
>> close-minded for not wanted to fund stuff I either don't like or really have no
>> interest in.
>>
>> So, I'm univerally, globally a close-minded person because I do not want my
>> taxes to fund any single piece of art, or even any art? This one fact
>> universally makes me close-minded? That's a pretty strong test.
>
>No more close minded than people who do not consider carvings by
>someone's grandmother, even if they are "merely" copies, art. There's
>more than one version of "The Three Graces" and although I've never
>seen the comments about Ruebens version of it when it was unveiled, I
>doubt he was told it wasn't art because he copied the subject, not only
>copied it, but portrayed his wife as one of the Graces.
>
>references: http://www.eleganza.com/detailed/3graces.html
>http://gallery.euroweb.hu/art/r/raphael/z_other/3graces.jpg
>http://ocaiw.com/galenug19.htm
>
>Yes, you do get a say in funding of the arts, and to voice your opinion
>to any and all legislative types. However, even public funding is
>contingent upon "I don't like it or am not interested in it," a lot will
>be lost.
>
>The use of tax dollars being used to fund the arts in America began
>during the Great Depression. Playwrights, photographers, actors,
>musicians, and other artists were paid to preform and create, and to
>record and document American culture (see http://chnm.gmu.edu/fsa/).
>Walker Evans and Dorothea Lange were among the photographers, and
>although these pictures were taken 60-70 years ago, they still speak
>today (see
>http://www.masters-of-photography.com/L/lange/lange_migrant_mother.html).
>
>I'm starting to fade here and have forgotten the agency that was "in
>charge" of the writers, but I do know that part their work was to record
>the memories, songs, and stories of descendants of slaves. That would
>have been lost, or not brought in the public eye, without the funding of
>the government.
I believe it was the Works Progress Administration.
melhope
wrote:
>melhope wrote:
>
>> It probably would. It's a great concept. And I'm not being
>> sarcastic. Your example perfectly embodies what I've said art should
>> be. You'll provoke a reaction that will make people think.
>
>Do you honestly, honestly believe that the elites in Manhattan, LA, San
>Francisco, Boston, do you honestly believe that if I made a flagrantly
>Fundamentalist Christian/anti-gay sculpture, that this sculpture would be
>well-received? You can't be serious.
Did I say that? Read that paragraph again, please.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by "elites", but I think the piece
would be seriously and honestly reviewed by art critics.
And somehow I don't think that Rudy Giuliani would lead protest
marches against it and try to shut down museums that would show it.
>
>Because I do not want to have money taken from me and spent on art that I have
>no interest in, therefore I am close-minded. Is that your argument?
>Seriously, spell it out logically, strip the emotion. I'll try to do the same,
>and respond in kind. I sincerely am not sure I understand your argument, we're
>both too busy taking pot-shots.
>
If you feel that you should have a say in which artists are given NEA
money, then what you basically are asking for is the right of
censorship. This is a direct violation of the First Amendment.
Anyone who has expressed this opinion in the past is invariably right
wing, invariably Christian. The list of reasons *not* to fund a given
artist would grow longer and longer, and eventually the Statue of
Liberty would be replaced by a giant Precious Moments figurine.
But seriously, art should not be funded based on who may or may not
like it. *All* art has a place in society, and for every Robert
Mapplethorpe, there are a hundred other people creating "acceptable"
forms of art. All art is about exploration, expansion and evolution
of ideas, and the minute you want to start controlling that, the
minute your mind begins to shut down.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
jaz
"RGB" <r...@nym.alias.net> wrote in message
news:Vxgo5.46731$2k1.1...@news-west.usenetserver.com...
> And I'm thinking about having my poopy toilets cleaned by somebody
else,
> tomorrow! Yippee!
>
have you considered simply flushing?
kerfoker
> hard time actually *seeing* the poopy stains.
Oh yeah, I forgot about your employees! I thought
he was going to be skinning tonight!
> Thor has to inspect most of his accounts almost nightly (lotta
> travelling), we only keep a few for us to do (and *all* the money
> for).
Yikes!
kerfoker
> kerfoker <kerf...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >-Fred
> >*always* cleaned all of them! The urinals too!
>
> p.s. I admire that last one there. I usually try to avoid that one.
> ewwwwww
I didn't mind urinals except when one
would get stuck running and then I'd have to
flush all the other fixtures in the bathroom
before it would finally stop. Oh yeah, and also
when it was time to change the urinal screens.
But the new ones smelled so nice...I always got
cinnamon.
:-)
-Fred
Salamander
> What do you call a male maid, though?
>
I don't know, but I know a male nanny who calls himself a "manny"
Salamander
melhope <mel...@flash.net> wrote in message
news:98p3qsko3ib51pcak...@4ax.com...
Didn't you know Halfskin already asked me to marry him and have green
children?
(singing) "I'm too sexy for asdf, asdf..."
kerfoker
>kerfoker <kerf...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >I didn't mind urinals except when one
> >would get stuck running and then I'd have to
> >flush all the other fixtures in the bathroom
> >before it would finally stop. Oh yeah, and also
> >when it was time to change the urinal screens.
> >But the new ones smelled so nice...I always got
> >cinnamon.
> I'm going out on a limb here I know but,
> um - what are urinal screens?
They're about 6 inches on a side
triangular flat pieces of rubber with
holes in them that go over the urinal
drain and we pee on them.
You can also get plastic things that hold
a little round white cake of deodorant to
put in the urinal drains, but they never seemed
to last as long and they don't smell like
cinnamon.
-Fred
:-)
kerfoker
> >> um - what are urinal screens?
> >
> >They're about 6 inches on a side
> >triangular flat pieces of rubber with
> >holes in them that go over the urinal
> >drain and we pee on them.
>
> They're to keep larger objects from being flushed, right?
Yeah, I think so, that drain hole isn't very
wide. But urinals also definitely need deodorant:
p u
> >You can also get plastic things that hold
> >a little round white cake of deodorant to
> >put in the urinal drains, but they never seemed
> >to last as long and they don't smell like
> >cinnamon.
> >-Fred
> >:-)
>
> So far, I've managed to avoid it enough that I've never seen the
> deodorant. i dunno. Something about men's pee just makes me go
> "ick".
Here are pictures I found:
http://www.workstuff.com/ksuwa25a.htm
The screen pictured here smells like bubble gum!
The deodorizing block one smells like cherry!
Also available in green apple!
melhope
wrote:
>melhope wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 21 Aug 2000 13:52:07 -0700, janithor <jani...@pacbell.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >melhope wrote:
>> >
>> >> It probably would. It's a great concept. And I'm not being
>> >> sarcastic. Your example perfectly embodies what I've said art should
>> >> be. You'll provoke a reaction that will make people think.
>> >
>> >Do you honestly, honestly believe that the elites in Manhattan, LA, San
>> >Francisco, Boston, do you honestly believe that if I made a flagrantly
>> >Fundamentalist Christian/anti-gay sculpture, that this sculpture would be
>> >well-received? You can't be serious.
>>
>> Did I say that? Read that paragraph again, please.
>>
>> I'm not quite sure what you mean by "elites", but I think the piece
>> would be seriously and honestly reviewed by art critics.
>>
>> And somehow I don't think that Rudy Giuliani would lead protest
>> marches against it and try to shut down museums that would show it.
>
>ActUP, Rosie O'Donnell, et.al. would be screaming bloody murder, and all the
>networks would be doing stories about the new climate of hate in America. Some
>lawyer would try to sue me and link my "art" to some murder of a gay, saying my
>piece of art incited this anti-gay violence.
I doubt that very seriously.
>
>> If you feel that you should have a say in which artists are given NEA
>> money, then what you basically are asking for is the right of
>> censorship. This is a direct violation of the First Amendment.
>
>Read RGB's response. Is he a right-wing Christian?
I did. You both misread me.
>
>> Anyone who has expressed this opinion in the past is invariably right
>> wing, invariably Christian.
>
>So this is an example of open-mindedness? Kind of like the woman on asd who wrote
>wombn and told her she could no longer be friends with her because she was marrying
>a conservative?
Granted.
>
>> The list of reasons *not* to fund a given
>> artist would grow longer and longer, and eventually the Statue of
>> Liberty would be replaced by a giant Precious Moments figurine.
>>
>> But seriously, art should not be funded based on who may or may not
>> like it.
>
>With who's money? It's my money! I think I have a right to say where my money
>goes. Give me a convincing argument otherwise. You protest excess spending on the
>military. I think that belief is misguided. but I'm not begrudging you of trying
>to put your hard-earned money where you want. See, taxes come from the philistines
>who are out there who are actually making the buses and cars run, building roads and
>houses, staffing malls and stores, serving food and providing day-care. All the
>boring stuff that needs to be done. That's why it's called work. I don't have a
>problem with my career, my career saved my life. I was quite suicidal before I got
>in the cleaning business. It's just that it is just that: work. And if you are
>going to force me to work 6 months to pay off the gov't before I get to see any of
>it, you bet I'm going to criticize where that money is going.
So this exhaustion I feel at the end of the day is my imagination?
I'm not really working when I'm at the theater?
>
>> *All* art has a place in society
>
>Why? Where is this written in stone? Then we should have an infinite amount of
>art, everyone should be involved in the creation and consumption of art. Where do
>you draw the line, and say, ok, we have enough, we don't need anymore? At that
>point, by your own definition, you will be in violation of the 1st Amendment.
Huh? I didn't say anything about mandating that everyone create art.
>
>> , and for every Robert
>> Mapplethorpe, there are a hundred other people creating "acceptable"
>> forms of art. All art is about exploration, expansion and evolution
>> of ideas, and the minute you want to start controlling that, the
>> minute your mind begins to shut down.
>
>You don't know a damn thing about me.
Back at ya, pal.
>How dare you call me close-minded. Wombn
>told me you are in a theater group that gets funded. You know what? I might not
>even have a problem with this. Believe it or not. It's your sense of absolute
>entitlement that I have a problem with
Entitlement? When did I say that? I work for my money, pal. Nobody's
living large on NEA money, that's for damn sure.
>, you proclamation that because I think we can
>say "stop" at some point, a point you don't agree with, then therefore I am
>absolutely and at all times and in all instances a close-minded, money-hungry
>philistine boob who's too stupid to know what's good for him.
Not what I said.
>
>I took plenty of humanities classes, I did an independent study on the sculpture of
>ancient Greece and Rome back in high school, I even bought a print of the Creation
>of Adam on the Sistine Chapel because I thought it was so pretty and so powerful,
>and it even shows his penis! I was a band fag, and throughout high school, I
>listened almost exclusively to classical and jazz. I like art, I have no problem
>even supporting art. I just don't think not wanting to be compelled to fund
>everything you find important makes me close-minded. If that's your definition, I'm
>guilty as charged.
>
Ok fine. You're not listening. I give up.
janithor
> I didn't mind urinals except when one
> would get stuck running and then I'd have to
> flush all the other fixtures in the bathroom
> before it would finally stop. Oh yeah, and also
> when it was time to change the urinal screens.
> But the new ones smelled so nice...I always got
> cinnamon.
> :-)
> -Fred
ACK! Yes, this is can be a bad situation. I learned how to stop it
though. When I was getting started (working for someone else, not on my
own), I flushed a urinal. Damn thing would not stop. Started to flood the
whole bathroom. Called my boss, being the mechanical genius (not) at I
am. He told me how to turn off the water on a urinal. But sometimes, yes,
you can stop it by turning on the faucets and flushing the other toilets.
I like this! alt.support.depression.flame.how-to-clean-toilets
I'm hooked!