So-called "art"
kl...@eudoramail.com
time. But now, after the unbelievable controversy stemming from New
York Mayor Giuliani's completely reasonable protest against beyond
obscene "art" residing in a publically-funded venue, now, I'm wondering
just how far we are away from the collapse of our society.
Chris Ofili's monsterpiece is not the only problem with this "art"
exhibit. What most people aren't aware of is that this exhibit also
includes the indescribably perverted "portrait" of a British
childmolestor/killer...made from CHILDREN'S HANDPRINTS!!!! (source:
Associated Press,
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/19991002/us/museum_flap_19.html)
All the loons, freaks, and fellow travellers coming out of the woodwork
to defend this, well, crap, on the grounds of "freedom of expression"
must certainly have their sanity, and/or moral innocence, questioned.
This isn't "Freedom of Expression." This is, just as Mayor Giuliani
described, a "sick demonstration of clear psychological problems."
Such manifestations of illness belong not in a museum. At worst, they
should be sent to New York or Columbia University so that professionals
can study the distortions of mind possible in today's modern "artists";
at best, they should be immediately torched.
NOT ONE OF THE BASTARDS defending this crap would feel the same way if,
say, a pervert "artist" were to make a portrait of Martin Luther King,
Jr., out of feces, or, take a photo of Jewish women and children being
shot down by the Germans, and label it, "Jewish fantasy."
Our "liberal 'defenders of freedom of expression'" would be on the
front lines condemning such, well, trash. And I don't believe it's
merely hypocrisy; it's a shared psychological issue with the so-called
artists.
Whatever happened to real art, produced by sane minds? Is our society
so sick that it's fixated on shit, piss, sexual perversion, and so on,
in artistic expression?
-- Milton John Kleim, Jr.
Sacramento County, California
--
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Luk
kleim wrote:
> NOT ONE OF THE BASTARDS defending this crap would feel the same way if,
> say, a pervert "artist" were to make a portrait of Martin Luther King,
> Jr., out of feces, or, take a photo of Jewish women and children being
> shot down by the Germans, and label it, "Jewish fantasy."
The Virgin Mary painting has a clump of elephant dung where
the breast nipple would be.
I think a very similar painting would be M. Luther King with
a clump of elephant dung placed where the genitals would be.
How many liberals would claim the Mayor had no right to
withhold funding if such a painting were part of the Sensation
exhibit?
> Is our society
> so sick that it's fixated on shit, piss, sexual perversion, and so on,
> in artistic expression?
Luk
Every9man
From: Luk <lukn...@mindspring.com>
Date: Sun, 03 October 1999 04:55 PM EDT
Message-id: <37F7C2BB...@mindspring.com>
kleim wrote:
> NOT ONE OF THE BASTARDS defending this crap would feel the same way if,
> say, a pervert "artist" were to make a portrait of Martin Luther King,
> Jr., out of feces, or, take a photo of Jewish women and children being
> shot down by the Germans, and label it, "Jewish fantasy."
/The Virgin Mary painting has a clump of elephant dung where
/the breast nipple would be.
/I think a very similar painting would be M. Luther King with
/a clump of elephant dung placed where the genitals would be.
/How many liberals would claim the Mayor had no right to
/withhold funding if such a painting were part of the Sensation
/exhibit?
You've already asked that question and I for one already answered it but you
knew that didnt you?
I wouldnt.
Barbara
Dig That Crazy Accordion
But the alternative is having certain guidelines and rules for artists - and
that's not acceptable. Crap like this exhibit represents only a small
percentage of your precious public funds. Chill out. Don't like it, don't
go see it.
kl...@eudoramail.com wrote in message <7t8d65$or4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
Luk
OLIVIA wrote:
> it's just another form of the anti-establishment, anti-authority sentiment
> that pervades society now.
There's something else, too. Think about the artists' *motives*.
At no time do these artists think about offering pleasure to
the viewer. They strive to attract attention to themselves
and they don't care how they do it.
Luk
Luk
OLIVIA wrote:
> The thing is, i am not shocked. Are you? Is anyone?
No. I'm not shocked. This stuff isn't new.
The effect is only to make me feel sad and
a little unclean for having viewed it.
Luk
kkramer
Kramer
Luk <lukn...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:37F8AA9F...@mindspring.com...
Every9man
From: Luk <lukn...@mindspring.com>
OLIVIA wrote:
Luk
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What are you , a mind reader? How the hell do you know what his motives are?
You remind me of book burners who use their own interpretations to decide what
is best for the entire community.
Barbara
Debby
Elephant dung when dried out and shellacked has a very shiny and pretty look.
From the interpretations that I have heard it is supposed to represent the fact
that Our Lady was in a manger that was full of shit from animal droppings and it
got mixed with her clothes. I found out what the penises and vaginas ment around
the paintings and they are supposed to mean that Our Lady stands firm and pure
in spite of the sinfulness of the world. He wasn't laughing at anybody, but the
English love to laugh at this painting..... As a matter of fact when he got the
Turner Award he was so surprised he tried to run from the reporters because he
is shy. By the way, the Turner Award has nothing to do with Ted Turner. It
refers to an artist. Debby S.<sarg...@injersey.com>
OLIVIA wrote:
> it's just another form of the anti-establishment, anti-authority sentiment
> that pervades society now. I think the artist has exploited this sentiment.
> He probably wanted to to gain as much shock as possible from the widest
> audience. The thing is, i am not shocked. Are you? Is anyone?
> i do not think anyone takes the artist seriously. In fact, i am questioning
> seriously if the fella's serious about his artistic career. Where does art
> stop and vulgarity start? There's a thin line and i think he overstepped it.
> For that, i feel very sorry for him.
>
> Luk wrote in message <37F7C2BB...@mindspring.com>...
> >
> >
> >kleim wrote:
> >
> >> NOT ONE OF THE BASTARDS defending this crap would feel the same way if,
> >> say, a pervert "artist" were to make a portrait of Martin Luther King,
> >> Jr., out of feces, or, take a photo of Jewish women and children being
> >> shot down by the Germans, and label it, "Jewish fantasy."
> >
> >>I think a very similar painting would be M. Luther King with
> >a clump of elephant dung placed where the genitals would be.
> >How many liberals would claim the Mayor had no right to
> >withhold funding if such a painting were part of the Sensation
> >exhibit?
Debby
come back and tell us the same thing. Of course the best thing to do is
take a trip to NYC. It's not as bad as you might think:) Debby
S.<sarg...@injersey.com>
kl...@eudoramail.com wrote:
> I've known that our world is inhabited by many, many ill minds for some
> time. But now, after the unbelievable controversy stemming from New
> York Mayor Giuliani's completely reasonable protest against beyond
> obscene "art" residing in a publically-funded venue, now, I'm wondering
> just how far we are away from the collapse of our society.
>
> Chris Ofili's monsterpiece is not the only problem with this "art"
> exhibit. What most people aren't aware of is that this exhibit also
> includes the indescribably perverted "portrait" of a British
> childmolestor/killer...made from CHILDREN'S HANDPRINTS!!!! (source:
> Associated Press,
> http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/19991002/us/museum_flap_19.html)
>
> All the loons, freaks, and fellow travellers coming out of the woodwork
> to defend this, well, crap, on the grounds of "freedom of expression"
> must certainly have their sanity, and/or moral innocence, questioned.
> This isn't "Freedom of Expression." This is, just as Mayor Giuliani
> described, a "sick demonstration of clear psychological problems."
> Such manifestations of illness belong not in a museum. At worst, they
> should be sent to New York or Columbia University so that professionals
> can study the distortions of mind possible in today's modern "artists";
> at best, they should be immediately torched.
>
> NOT ONE OF THE BASTARDS defending this crap would feel the same way if,
> say, a pervert "artist" were to make a portrait of Martin Luther King,
> Jr., out of feces, or, take a photo of Jewish women and children being
> shot down by the Germans, and label it, "Jewish fantasy."
> Our "liberal 'defenders of freedom of expression'" would be on the
> front lines condemning such, well, trash. And I don't believe it's
> merely hypocrisy; it's a shared psychological issue with the so-called
> artists.
>
> Whatever happened to real art, produced by sane minds? Is our society
> so sick that it's fixated on shit, piss, sexual perversion, and so on,
> in artistic expression?
>
Luk
Debby wrote:
> Dear Milton: Go see the exibit online at http://www.davidbowie.com/ and
> come back and tell us the same thing. Of course the best thing to do is
> take a trip to NYC. It's not as bad as you might think:)
What do you see in that Website that refutes Milton's opinion?
What piece there is worthy of being shown in an important
museum?
Luk
Luk
Lord Sir wrote:
> It is not the duty of any artist to pleasure you.
It isn't my duty to call these people artists either.
> And, one person can get
> pleasure where another gets pain.
You got pleasure from viewing the Sensation exhibit,
did you?
> Some artists actually think more deeply about their
> meaning and intention than you apparently can.
What has meaning and intention got to do with it?
Or thinking "deeply"?
The art either shows skill, talent, and style, or it
doesn't. I'm sure there's somebody out there that
has a use for I guy that knows how to seal up
cow parts inside lucite boxes, but why call it art?
How much talent and technique does it take to hop
over to the morgue and take pictures of dead bodies?
Why call it art? If that stuff is art, how exactly would
you define the word, "art"?
Luk
moe
I still say let it hang.
Mayor Giuliani is pulling a Hitler, if he thinks he speaks for the people
about this issue.
I'm 50 years old, and I know what I want to see and not see.
Amanda Amante
Part of the problem is that many people in the world have lost their moral
compos. In today's world it is not politically correct to stand up against
any expression and when this happens there is always big trouble. Remember
the "Tower of Babble"? Well, doesn't this feel a bit like history that my
be or is repeating? It's food for thought, and in the meantime, all we can
do to protest is not to visit those kinds of shows and to do the work we
think is valuable (there's power in numbers).
Always,
Amanda
<kl...@eudoramail.com> wrote in message news:7t8d65$or4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Luk
moe wrote:
> I don't agree with the artist subject matter either.
> I still say let it hang.
> Mayor Giuliani is pulling a Hitler, if he thinks he speaks for the people
> about this issue.
> I'm 50 years old, and I know what I want to see and not see.
Dear Moe,
I want you to see everything you want to see.
I'd just rather not pay for it.
Luk
Luk
Michael wrote:
> Luk, you are not only judging skill and talent by your own standards, you
> are trying to define art by you own standards. How exactly would you define
> *art*...
I've already done that. You should read *all* my posts. (~:
I believe any definition of art should include craft, skill, and talent.
You don't have that in the Sensation exhibit. You've got a collection
of people who just went out and tried real hard to shock and offend.
Luk
Luk
Lord Sir wrote:
> Truth : most all of the work in this show does not impress or interest me. I
> see it as it is: hyped up to generate a larger return on a private Capitalist
> investment in commodities.
We agree on that. Except that in this case public money has been
exploited to increase the return.
> >How much talent and technique does it take to hop
> >over to the morgue and take pictures of dead bodies?
>
> I will offer you a tidbit, gratis :
>
> *Sometimes*, it is precisely an artist's willingness to look at and record
> things that no one else will or wants to look at - or intentionally look away
> from, that is the important factor in making such a determination.
Doug, if I went and dug up something nobody else wants
to look at, would that make me an artist? Please give a serious answer.
> Artist may, at times, delve into such uncomfortable areas of experience and may
> even be understood as having an obligation to do so, precisely because everyone
> else would prefer looking away.
Do you feel artists who *don't* delve into uncomfortable areas
can't be considered artists?
> Now, tell me, where does federal tax money enter this - and exactly how much was
> spent ?
That has been mentioned here, but I don't have the figures
and don't want to look them up. There is some federal
tax money involved, but the bulk of the tax money
is from the city.
Luk
Debby
in formaldihyde and the baths, but most of them could and would hang
anywhere. Actually some of them have a permanant home in the London Museum of
Art. Like you, I don't like everything, but that is just my taste. Most of
the sculptures are very well done and if you like Rodan you should appreciate
them. With some of them the subject matter is a little morbid, but they are
done well. After all sculpture is the study of the human body. The tackiest
one is Wasted but I got a laugh out of looking at it in spite of myself.
Debby S.<sarg...@injersey.com>
Debby
of a dead body. Actually it's pretty good. A study of death. If you
can't stand that you can't stand the ng..... Debby
S.<sarg...@injersey.com>
Luk wrote:
> Lord Sir wrote:
>
> > It is not the duty of any artist to pleasure you.
>
> It isn't my duty to call these people artists either.
>
> > And, one person can get
> > pleasure where another gets pain.
>
> You got pleasure from viewing the Sensation exhibit,
> did you?
>
> > Some artists actually think more deeply about their
> > meaning and intention than you apparently can.
>
> What has meaning and intention got to do with it?
> Or thinking "deeply"?
>
> The art either shows skill, talent, and style, or it
> doesn't. I'm sure there's somebody out there that
> has a use for I guy that knows how to seal up
> cow parts inside lucite boxes, but why call it art?
>
> How much talent and technique does it take to hop
> over to the morgue and take pictures of dead bodies?
Luk
Debby wrote:
> Dear Luk: There aren't any pictures of dead bodies. There is a sculpture
> of a dead body. Actually it's pretty good. A study of death. If you
> can't stand that you can't stand the ng.....
Look again.
Jenny Saville.
Luk
OLIVIA
that pervades society now. I think the artist has exploited this sentiment.
He probably wanted to to gain as much shock as possible from the widest
audience. The thing is, i am not shocked. Are you? Is anyone?
i do not think anyone takes the artist seriously. In fact, i am questioning
seriously if the fella's serious about his artistic career. Where does art
stop and vulgarity start? There's a thin line and i think he overstepped it.
For that, i feel very sorry for him.
Luk wrote in message <37F7C2BB...@mindspring.com>...
>
>
>kleim wrote:
>
>> NOT ONE OF THE BASTARDS defending this crap would feel the same way if,
>> say, a pervert "artist" were to make a portrait of Martin Luther King,
>> Jr., out of feces, or, take a photo of Jewish women and children being
>> shot down by the Germans, and label it, "Jewish fantasy."
>
>>I think a very similar painting would be M. Luther King with
>a clump of elephant dung placed where the genitals would be.
>How many liberals would claim the Mayor had no right to
>withhold funding if such a painting were part of the Sensation
>exhibit?
>
>> Is our society
>> so sick that it's fixated on shit, piss, sexual perversion, and so on,
>> in artistic expression?
>
>Luk
>
Brett Cooper
- Albert MaCarthy
Luk
> in this case public money has been
> >exploited to increase the return.
Lord Sir wrote:
> Please, tell me exactly, to the dollar, how much public money has specifically
> been exploited.
>
> >> >How much talent and technique does it take to hop
> >> >over to the morgue and take pictures of dead bodies?
>
> I looked at the show online - I didn't see these pictures. Who were they by ?
I looked at the show online also. The images are very small.
The "artist" is Jenny Saville. It isn't clear what the medium
is, but the effect is one of photography, sometimes being
manipulated Photoshop style. The explanation gives one to
believe there has been alteration by paint, so I no longer
know how these "works" were produced. They are an
abomination, regardless.
>> Doug, if I went and dug up something nobody else wants
>> to look at, would that make me an artist?
>> Please give a serious answer.
> I am not Doug, though your flattery is noted.
Sorry. I should have recognized the grumpiness.
> To answer : possibly, depending on context - and a number of other things.
WHAT THINGS ???
> >Do you feel artists who *don't* delve into uncomfortable areas
> >can't be considered artists?
>
> No.
That eliminates the bulk of what has traditionally
been revered in the art world.
> Federal taxes have very
> little if anything to do with this.
Right. Except that the Senate did a nice job of expressing
it's unanimous disapproval of any fed funds contributing to
this art show.
If you are asking what right I have to object to NY city
funds supporting the show, these threads are largely about
whether Giuliani is out of line.
Also, the topic has been expanded into whether art
belongs in the federal budget.
Luk
Luk
Lord Sir wrote:
>
> >I looked at the show online also. The images are very small.
> >The "artist" is Jenny Saville. It isn't clear what the medium
> >is,
>
> The information says oil painting, so maybe it is.
Damnit, will somebody tell me where you're finding all that
information?
Luk
This is what my screen says:
"Embracing a set of traditional conventions, arid rapidly achieving virtuosity, Saville
transformed the ordinary through paint in works that are monumental in size and
scale. Her suggestions of cosmetic surgery updated an art-historical discussion of
the idealized nude seen from a feminist viewpoint. The conventions of painting flesh
are overlaid with a contemporary anxiety and ambiguity akin to the work of Lucian
Freud.
"In Plan, a naked woman is seen from below, her body filling the canvas through a
combination of physical bulk and extreme foreshortening. Contour lines, as would
demarcate the changes in altitude of land masses on a map, are drawn across the
surface of the woman's skin. "
Luk
Thank you for your explanation of the information on Mr. Bowie's
website. I can see I was mistaken in believing an oil painting
would be described as an oil painting. I see I have much to learn.
Luk
Luk
Lord Sir wrote:
> I think I am getting a clear idea about what constitutes your particular tastes
> in Modern Arts - let's take another look at the list you provided:
>>> I enjoy Kandinsky, John Marin, Joan Miro, Motherwell,
>>> De Kooning, Dufy, Nolde, Cezanne, Pissarro, Van Gogh,
>>> Roualt, Sculpture by Rodin.
> You say you enjoy these artists.
Yes.
> I believe you, though I am not sure you can
> say this
I can't?
> and actually have a deep familiarity with all of their works or you
> wouldn't be able to make such a blanket statement.
That's *very* disappointing.
> Almost every artist on this list has explored darker themes,
> some of which are still taboo.
If I may say it, your obsession with "themes" would seem
to limit your appreciation for art.
> For example, Miro's abstractions of genitalia come
> immediately to mind.
I don't doubt it.
> What you must perceive as merely pretty abstract forms are often - as I
> just said - renderings of genitalia and bodily fluids springing from the
> "dream-world" and the unconcious.
I seem to have missed them.
> De Kooning too, explores and depicts in abstractions the themes and energies of
> sex and death. His brushstrokes often blurring together in a flurry of movement
> such things as blood, semen, hair, flesh and even genitalia.
>
> What do you think of Pissarro's works depicting pre-pubescent girls ?
I can see that when you go to an art exhibit you know
what you're looking for. No doubt you manage to find
it every time. I'll bet shrinks love having you on the couch.
> Rodin's rape fantasies ?
I enjoy Rodin's sculpture.
I'll leave his fantasies for you and Rodin to enjoy.
> My goodness, have you always been so busy reading Republican propaganda and
> stock reports that you have never read about the art you enjoy ?
The difference between you and me is that I can enjoy art
without having to read what some pompous airhead wrote
about it.
> >>>There are lots of other artists I like. But I don't
> always like the better known pieces by the known artists. I've
> seen things by Picasso that I like much better than what he's
> known for.
>
> What do you think of Picasso's depictions of pornographically displayed females
> with their apparently recently satiated genitals set front and center, with
> their eyes upturned in ecstatic reverie while the erect penises of satyrs fill
> the frame ?
I can live without Picasso's penises.
> I enjoy Chinese and Japanese art nearly always.
> Even the really fine erotica ?
I've seen it. The body parts are not what interests me
about the paintings.
> >>>I don't like Dali
>
> No surprise there.
Right.
> >>>and have never been particularly
> interested in Chagall or Edward Hopper.
>
> Interesting.
>
> >>>I don't like art that imitates photography.
> I don't like art that attempts to gain attention simply
> by ridiculing art (example: coat thrown over coat hook
> and hung on museum wall)
>
> Again, your lack of insight shows. Duchamp is one of
> the greatest artists of this century.
I don't think it's necessary to revere everything a
good artist does. They're human. They do good things and
stupid things.
> His motives, ideas and intentions are quite beyond the level of
> the simplistic notion of ridicule you have gotten stuck at. You
> will find a universe of riches in Duchamp's work should you
> ever decide it is worth reading about.
Motives, ideas and intentions are certainly fascinating to read
about. But it's perfectly possible to enjoy a piece of art without
knowing what the artist was thinking when he created it. If
you have to know that you're very limited. If you think you
know that you're very likely mistaken. And you're in big
trouble if you have to read what someone else thinks the artist
thought before you can appreciate the art.
If you can't experience pleasure simply looking at art
you've got a gaping hole somewhere. You're busy
intellectualizing instead of being emotionally receptive.
> >>>or by consciously attempting to offend.
> Some things offend by their very nature. How do you know if it was a merely one
> dimensional intent of any artist just to offend or if perhaps there is (as is
> more often the case) a lot more going on than you care to spend the time
> thinking about ?
Even I am not stupid enough to miss the obvious. Much
of what gets put out does nothing but solicit attention by
substituting vulgarity for creativity. Art dealers who sell it
are pimps.
> I contend you don't know - you have made snap judgements based on your initial
> impressions and since you believe yourself to be the infallible center of the
> universe you are perfectly willing to abide by your simplistic readings of the
> works and intentions of the artist, rather than actually taking the necessary
> time to find out what is really there.
sticks and stones
> Your ideas about art are mainly 19th Century with allowances for Modernism in as
> much as you lack understanding of the subjects hidden in what you perceive to be
> pretty abstract lines and shapes.
So pathetic lumps like me need the guidance of you luminaries
before stumbling into galleries and museums and making
fools of ourselves by deciding what we like.
> If you really knew what was often there you would have to begin amputating names
> from your list of favorite artists.
Which artist should I amputate first?
> I'm sure your taste in photography is equally strictly limited by your awareness
> of much of the work as well as your personal ideas about appropriate subject
> matter.
I enjoyed the pictures.
What was I thinking?
> Fortunately, the range of subject matter has already been blown wide open in
> the 1920's and 30's by the great Surrealists and their associates.
Thank goodness for that!
> Talk about shocking photographs - look to
> them for the genesis of darker themes in human nature which
> are still being explored and enlarged upon even now.
You look to them. You're the one who can't enjoy art
that's missing its darker theme.
> Which brings me to another point : The Arts is a vast realm with all things
> human, inhuman, real and imagined as its sources and subjects. It includes the
> ridiculous just as it includes the sublime, the beautiful as well as the ugly,
> the blessed as well as the depths of horror which reside in humankind.
Funny. I always had the impression art was about the talent and creative
expression of the artist. Why bother with it if we just need something
ugly, horrible, inhuman or indecent to look at. We *do* after all have
cock fights and peep shows available to us. Is it because they don't let
us watch lions eat Christians or see public hangings any more? Or
because there are no more guillotines on the city square.
> To think of it otherwise is to misunderstand it,
Of course.
> to do it injustice or to be dishonest
> about what it actually is. It is a process and a dialog for humanity and
> artists; and, between artists and artists; and, between artists and humanity.
> It is so much more than making pretty things for mere pleasure.
What is it you think Jenny Saville want me to understand?
Or is the dialogue at the Brooklyn Museum just one-sided and I'm
not supposed to ask.
> >>> I often think of a
> student friend I knew who did marvelous photography.
> Nothing bizarre. Just very beautifully done.<<<
> Which is fine. It may even be art. By the same token,
> so can a self portrait of an artist with a bullwhip stuck up his ass.
Think of all I've been missing..
> You scream out for and demand knowledge, and you seem to
> have the expectation that a few words will give you the answer you want.
I can't look to you for help?
> Unfortunately that is not the case. This art stuff really takes more time and
> effort than you are willing to expend in order to build an understanding of it.
I was so hoping..
> I really do offer private classes, critiques and tutorials for highly motivated
> individuals.
Then there IS hope.
> I don't provide my guidence in these things as a form of public
> charity.
Yes. No. Of course not.
> There are certainly qualified people in your geographic area who can offer you
> opportunities to learn these things.
> You can probably learn a great deal on your own - for free if you are really
> motivated to do so.
How will I know if I'm really motivated?
> >Also, the topic has been expanded into whether art
> >belongs in the federal budget.
> >
> >Luk
>
> Now you tell me.
I wouldn't presume.
Luk
Luk
> Considering the NEA's budget is a piddling 98 mil, the funding would be
> better off coming from the individual states IMO. 98 mil would finance
> what, *maybe* 5 jets for the Military ?
Michael:
The portion of the US budget that goes for defense has been
cut to the bone and the military is depleted. Yet the average
middle class taxpayer pays out 50 percent of his income in
taxes of various types to various government agencies.
Despite all this you're asking is that the taxpayer continue to
give to the NEA regardless of the quality of the art we see
produced today. Why would the taxpayer want to do that?
Your argument is that whatever some people want should be
provided by the taxpayer simply because it "isn't much money".
How many individual items in the US budget come under the
category of "not much money"?
Luk
Luk
> I can't possibly read all the posts. Not enough time. Please then define
> craft, skill and talent and give special attention to talent. Do you know
> for a fact the Sensation exhibit artists tried real hard to shock and offend
> ? Do you know for a fact that was their intent ? Or do your own personal
> tastes in art you assume that was the artist's motive ?
You yourself have said you aren't impressed with the art at
the Brooklyn museum. Why weren't you? What wasn't there?
If the artists weren't "trying to shock" what were they trying
to do? Did they succeed? What qualifies the exhibit to take up
space in a publicly funded museum?
Should pretty much any artist who wishes be allowed to show
his/her work in a major New York publicly funded museum? If
not, what about this exhibit makes it special? We know it's
special to Saatchi because the notoriety from it increases
his art sales. Is the exhibit special to anyone else? If so,
to whom? Is it special enough to ignore the obvious insult to
Catholics who pay their city taxes along with other New Yorkers?
Luk
Debby
aren't. She made a combination of pictures to form a body. That was all.
Otherwise they were nude but so what???? Debby S.<sarg...@injersey.com>
Haven't you seen someones body cut up by surgery scars????
Debby
paint= the carcases of dead animals dead for millions of years----- How
shocking!!!! Debby S.<sarg...@injersey.com>
Luk wrote:
> Luk wrote:
>
> > in this case public money has been
> > >exploited to increase the return.
>
> Lord Sir wrote:
>
> > Please, tell me exactly, to the dollar, how much public money has specifically
> > been exploited.
> >
> > >> >How much talent and technique does it take to hop
> > >> >over to the morgue and take pictures of dead bodies?
> >
> > I looked at the show online - I didn't see these pictures. Who were they by ?
>
> I looked at the show online also. The images are very small.
> The "artist" is Jenny Saville. It isn't clear what the medium
Debby
thinks so. But it is sincere and not ment to be offensive. So people are kooky:)
We all know that:) The ideas and interpretations are in David Bowies narrative.
Another interpretation I heard on the radio. Debby S.<sarg...@injersey.com>
OLIVIA wrote:
> Debby wrote in message <37F8E455...@injersey.com>...
> >Dear Olivia: I have said this before but he didn't do it to shock anybody.
> >Elephant dung when dried out and shellacked has a very shiny and pretty
> look.
> >From the interpretations that I have heard it is supposed to represent the
> fact
> >that Our Lady was in a manger that was full of shit from animal droppings
> and it
> >got mixed with her clothes.
>
> dear debby,
> however, there is nothing in the picture that conveys this interpretation.
> You see elephant dung and a mishapened composition of some female, sure, but
> to evaluate that it has its foregrounding in the biblical nativity scene is
> abit far-fetched. There are, i am sure, more aesthetic ways of representing
> the manger scene. I have seen beautiful artistic representations that convey
> the humility of the manger without being ambiguous at all. His intention, if
> it were to convey the humility of the nativity scene, must have failed
> desperately.
>
> I found out what the penises and vaginas ment around
> >the paintings and they are supposed to mean that Our Lady stands firm and
> pure
> >in spite of the sinfulness of the world.
> But from where are your sources? The artist himself? I suppose even the chap
> must be pretty confused as to what he intends to say. But if he has such a
> noble agenda of portraying Our Lady's purity, then i salute his courage for
> he could not have chosen a more sincerely misguided way of doing so.
> I think standards of religious art and its aesthetic foundations have been
> deeply entrenched in christian history so that when you encounter works like
> these, the instinct in you warns you that something is not right. At best,
> the chap has got to be honestly mistaken or worst, blasphemous.
> Penises and vaginas are still taboo objects. When you nuance your art with
> such objects, you do not evoke a religious atmosphere, whether or not you
> think they help to convey purity. I think to conclude that there is
> something respectful in this picture requires within us, an awareness of the
> artistic sociology of religious art.
>
> >English love to laugh at this painting
> Sure, i am amused too.
Debby
Luk wrote:
> Lord Sir wrote:
>
> >
> > >I looked at the show online also. The images are very small.
> > >The "artist" is Jenny Saville. It isn't clear what the medium
> > >is,
> >
Luk
Lord Sir wrote:
> disappointment is sure to follow when one relies merely on the gloss of a
> shallow emotional response to the populary known works rather than upon a
> rigorous in depth study of the whole range of an artists' works.
Now you're being silly. You aren't allowed to enjoy something
an artist did if you haven't seen everything he's done?
> >> For example, Miro's abstractions of genitalia come
> >> immediately to mind.
> >
> >I don't doubt it.
> >
> >> What you must perceive as merely pretty abstract forms are often - as I
> >> just said - renderings of genitalia and bodily fluids springing from the
> >> "dream-world" and the unconcious.
> >
> >I seem to have missed them.
>
> I could tell.
And such pretty splotches too.
> It is your typical response when you are flustered -
> trying to wriggle free from the corner you put yourself in by trying to cast
> aspersions on those who might even offer to help you.
You said you didn't have time.
> >The difference between you and me is that I can enjoy art
> >without having to read what some pompous airhead wrote
> >about it.
>
> Wrong again. BTW, do the artists then qualify as "pompous airheads" ?
Critics do.
> You are qualified to speak for them
> and clarify their intentions better than they can ?
Better than the pompous airheads.
> By your earlier statements of standards, it would
> seem this would put all of Picasso into your list of perverts pretending to be
> artists.
No. Picasso was able to concentrate on other things than
genitalia when he made the effort.
> I take it that Von Bayros was not included in your art ed class either - that
> would explain your snip to avoid answering the question.
I haven't met Von Bayros. Would you like me to submit a list of artists
whose work I haven't seen?
> >Motives, ideas and intentions are certainly fascinating to read
> >about. But it's perfectly possible to enjoy a piece of art without
> >knowing what the artist was thinking when he created it.
>
> Yes it is. It is also quite possible to get more from an art work than mere
> personal enjoyment if you have the inclination. In fact, if and when you reach
> that level of development you will begin to see that the deeper experiences of
> meaning and learning actually compliment the merely selfish motive of deriving
> immediate personal pleasure from the experience.
But I enjoy being selfish.
> Sadly, you may be too much a "me" generation child of crass consumerism and
> designer label commercialism to ever understand the finer and more subtle things
> inherent in an artwork.
Does that mean you're an old f***?
> Your anti-intellectualism seems like a form of armor to shield the
> underdeveloped parts of your personality.
I'm not underdeveloped.
> You do realize that most artists have left a record of their own thoughts about
> what they were up to, don't you ? Do you think there is a good reason to ignore
> or discount their own words ?
>
> I think you have, unfortuntely, a distinct and ingrained bias against
> understanding the didactic nature of all works of art.
I was counting on your didacticism to fill up all the gaps.
> >If you can't experience pleasure simply looking at art
> >you've got a gaping hole somewhere.
>
> That is only one component of the experience - and especially so for an artist.
> You obviously don't understand the whole of what constitutes the work (labor) of
> being an artist, and this lacking itself impedes your overall ability to
> understand art and artists.
Them that can't, teach and pontificate.
> > Art dealers who sell it
> >are pimps.
>
> Oh, I always thought they were exemplars of free enterprise, and I now see that
> you agree.
Some exemplars are pimps.
It's the way of the world.
But you don't stamp out free enterprise,
you just ignore the pimps.
> >>If you really knew what was often there you would have to begin amputating names
> >> from your list of favorite artists.
> >
> >Which artist should I amputate first?
>
> If you are offended by sex, sexual references, bodily fluids and excreta,
> ugliness and shock then you should probably immediately remove Miro, Picasso,
> Pissarro, De Kooning, Roualt, Rodin and Nolde from your list of admired
> artists, since I am familiar with works by each of them which should - by your
> own stated standards - relegate them to the sicko artists/perverts bin.
Well since I'm obviously too limited to know what I'm seeing
it won't much matter if I keep them around.
> >> Fortunately, the range of subject matter has already been blown wide open in
> >> the 1920's and 30's by the great Surrealists and their associates.
> >
> >Thank goodness for that!
>
> Yep. It is called the evolution of ideas.
That's what that is?
> >> Talk about shocking photographs - look to
> >> them for the genesis of darker themes in human nature which
> >> are still being explored and enlarged upon even now.
> >
> >You look to them. You're the one who can't enjoy art
> >that's missing its darker theme.
>
> Another false assertion. I can enjoy or at least appreciate all forms and
> subjects - the full range from the sublime to the depraved.
I bet that comes in handy.
> I can do this
> because I don't deny the whole range of things which humans are. I can do this
> because I refuse to be dishonest about the range of experience and I refuse to
> hide from it or look away. I can do this because I have spent over forty years
> in a process of discovery of myself, art and the world.
I didn't have to discover myself, thank goodness.
> It has been a lot more fulfillling than any of the alternatives. Maybe that is
> why I remain involved with the arts, and why I can get a lot more from a work of
> art than only whether or not it gives me pleasure.
>
> You, Luk, are the one who has an appreciation which is limited in terms of
> taste, understanding and even the manner in which you can respond ( i.e., is it
> pretty, does it give me pleasure, has it hidden its subject in carefully crafted
> abstraction to the extent that I can't identify that which I would otherwise find
> distasteful or disturning ).
Sounds pretty complicated.
> >Funny. I always had the impression art was about the talent and creative
> >expression of the artist.
>
> I'm sure you did. That really is not funny. It is - as I have said - sadly
> limited - and goes a long way towards explaining your inability to go very far
> in grasping what things other than your personal pleasure are actually going on
> in art works.
No more personal pleasure.
That's it!
> What do you think the words "creative expression of the artist" mean ? What do
> you think it means to say that an artist is "expressing" something ?
>
> Do you think this is some special fancy language to describe how an artist is
> required to pleasure you ?
You already said that.
> It is about communication, dialog,
That too.
> a codification of information and ideas which
> are part and parcel of a work of art.
Ah - the codification thing - that's new.
> The stuff that takes more honest work
> than simply saying "I enjoy that, it gives me pleasure".
All in the past.
> Obviously (to me) there is a lot of information at right before you whenever you
> experience a work of art, which never has a chance to enter and percolate within
> you.
At right?
Now you're talking!
> > Why bother with it if we just need something
> >ugly, horrible, inhuman or indecent to look at.
>
> Where did I say we *just* need that ? I have tried (against all hope) to
> explain that art runs the full gamut of experience and so it includes those
> things as well as their opposites in terms of its source material and subjects.
> Why do you insist on inacccurately characterizing what I actually said ?
It wasn't intentional.
Not enough gamut I guess.
> You didn't get it. I went back over it above.
Over what?
> >> to do it injustice or to be dishonest
> >> about what it actually is. It is a process and a dialog for humanity and
> >>artists; and, between artists and artists; and, between artists and humanity.
> >> It is so much more than making pretty things for mere pleasure.
>
> >What is it you think Jenny Saville want me to understand?
>
> I don't fucking know or care.
Don't get testy.
> Even if I did I think you need to answer that
> question yourself if you truly want to know.
Now I've gone and forgotten the question.
> >>This art stuff really takes more time and
> >>effort than you are willing to expend in order to build an understanding of it.
> >
> >I was so hoping..
>
> Maybe you can find it at the mall.
I don't hang out there.
Wait.
Maybe that's the whole problem.
Luk
OLIVIA
PattyC4303
writes:
>>> What do you think of Pissarro's works depicting pre-pubescent girls ?
>>
>>I can see that when you go to an art exhibit you know
>>what you're looking for. No doubt you manage to find
>>it every time. I'll bet shrinks love having you on the couch.
>
###You avoided the question. It is your typical response when you are
flustered
trying to wriggle free from the corner you put yourself in by trying to cast
aspersions on those who might even offer to help you.
** Now that (##), Lord Sir, was a ball hit out of the park.
PattyC
Sharonpo
>Lord Slurp wrote:
>> Maybe you can find it at the mall.
>
>I don't hang out there.
>Wait.
>Maybe that's the whole problem.
>
Luk: 500
Lord Slurp: 0
Luk
Sharonpo wrote:
> Luk: 500
> Lord Slurp: 0
That's about right give or take a few.
Luk
Luk
Luk wrote:
> > Your argument is that whatever some people want should be
> > provided by the taxpayer simply because it "isn't much money".
> > How many individual items in the US budget come under the
> > category of "not much money"?
> >
> > Luk
>
> Tons, including military expenditures.
Exactly.
But as I mentioned, defense expenditures have been
cut to the bone in the Clinton administration,
and social spending is way up.
Luk
Luk
> The
> notoriety of Saatchi's exhibit was brought on by the Mayor, not Saatchi
> himself. Let's not get into the Religion vs Art debate.
My quarrel isn't with Saatchi. It's with the Brooklyn
Museum management.
AFAIAC, Saatchi can show that garbage in any private gallery
boorish enough to handle the stuff as long as local decency laws
allow it.
Luk
Nancy Rudins
|> x-no-archive: yes
|>
|> Luk <lukn...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
|> news:37FAA948...@mindspring.com...
|> > Despite all this you're asking is that the taxpayer continue to
|> > give to the NEA regardless of the quality of the art we see
|> > produced today. Why would the taxpayer want to do that?
|>
|> > provided by the taxpayer simply because it "isn't much money".
|> > How many individual items in the US budget come under the
|> > category of "not much money"?
|> >
|> > Luk
|>
|> Tons, including military expenditures.
|>
Including our internet access. Yep, every single ISP is connected
to the NSFnet backbone, funded by the National Science Foundation
who took over the military ARPAnet, built for the five federally
funded supercomputer centers in the United States, and in the early
1990s opened to commerce. Few people could afford Internet access
if all the ISP's had to build the original NSFnet backbone and
pass the costs to their customers. Another federally funded
project where there's admittedly a lot of junk out there, but
far more useful stuff; enough that the taxpayers deem it worth
continuing funding via the National Science Foundation (who still
maintain the NSFnet backbone through their Network Operations
Center).
Kind regards,
Nancy
--
Live life like making pudding. Cook, then chill.
Nancy Rudins nru...@ncsa.uiuc.edu
http://www.ncsa.uiuc.edu/People/nrudins/
Lucy A. Afar
Such a pity, Luk! So very sad, such a waste! I found it fascinating -
this dialogue of yours and Lord Sir's -two very intelligent people
talking, and one of them refusing to LISTEN, because she's too eager to
WIN!
Anyway. It looks like an outsider's position is the most profitable, -
I truly enjoyed it, and I thank you both for that. It's funny that my
own taste in art is closer to yours, it seems, yet I find Lord Sir's
arguments more convincing and his opinion on art and artists closer to
mine. So I'm not objective, afterall - most probably. But this doesn't
spoil my delight.
God bless you both!
Lucy
--
"Foolery, sir, does walk about the orb like the sun; it shines
everywhere."
Shakespeare
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Luk
Lord Sir wrote:
> I really don't want to offer you anything for free. However, your view of art
> is very limited, so I will offer you a tidbit, gratis :
>
> *Sometimes*, it is precisely an artist's willingness to look at and record
> things that no one else will or wants to look at - or intentionally look away
> from, that is the important factor in making such a determination.
>
> Artist may, at times, delve into such uncomfortable areas of experience and may
> even be understood as having an obligation to do so, precisely because everyone
> else would prefer looking away.
It may well be, Lord Sir, that each of us approaches art
the way we approach other things in life, politics included.
With both art and politics I tend to place the emphasis on
what mankind can be, not what mankind all too frequently
descends to.
It strikes me that you view the artist as one whose primary
responsibility is to turn over rocks and record what oozes
out from under them. Frankly, I can't see why we need artists
for that. We have many people who in their daily pursuits
expose and examine the underbelly. Cops do, lawyers and
judges do, healthcare professionals do, people who clean
out sewers do, and so on.
If the artist has any responsibility, it's to rise above the
tiresome aspects of life by combining human skill with talent.
Talent gives rise to style and that make the artist's work
distinctive.
What the artist says he's trying to do and what a critic
says about the artist is interesting and entertaining, even
sometimes illuminating, but none of that differentiates art
from non-art. The end product does, however. The
artists' skill and talent can distinguish it and make it
worthy of being called art. When that happens, human
potential has been realized.
Luk
Luk
"Lucy A. Afar" wrote:
>Such a pity, Luk! So very sad, such a waste! I found it fascinating -
> this dialogue of yours and Lord Sir's -two very intelligent people
> talking, and one of them refusing to LISTEN, because she's too eager to win.
Dear Lucy,
Lord Sir has interesting things to say.
It's a bit difficult from the above to tell whether you have or haven't
enjoyed our dialogue. But in ATC it's never difficult to predict who
will agree with whom.
Luk
Sharonpo
>Including our internet access. Yep, every single ISP is connected
>to the NSFnet backbone, <snip>
I don't know whether every ISP is *connected* to the NSF backbone or not, but I
do know that the government is not funding backbone expansion to accommodate
*any* non-government internet access.
> Few people could afford Internet access
>if all the ISP's had to build the original NSFnet backbone and
>pass the costs to their customers.
ISPs lease capacity on commercial backbone networks like AT&T, Sprint, and MCI
Worldcom. As far as I know, the government is not involved in any way, and no
tax money is spent supporting these non-government enterprises.
>Another federally funded
>project where there's admittedly a lot of junk out there, but
>far more useful stuff; enough that the taxpayers deem it worth
>continuing funding via the National Science Foundation (who still
>maintain the NSFnet backbone through their Network Operations
>Center).
>
The US government does not provide funds to support non-government
maintenance/use of internet backbone.
Luk
> >Lord Sir has interesting things to say.
>
>
> LS
Not so fast.
I'm not through with you yet.
But right now I have to have the underbelly of my
car looked at.
Luk
Nancy Rudins
|> >nru...@ncsa.uiuc.edu (Nancy Rudins)
|>
|> >Including our internet access. Yep, every single ISP is connected
|> >to the NSFnet backbone, <snip>
|>
|>
|> I don't know whether every ISP is *connected* to the NSF backbone or not, but I
|> do know that the government is not funding backbone expansion to accommodate
|> *any* non-government internet access.
|>
|>
|> > Few people could afford Internet access
|> >if all the ISP's had to build the original NSFnet backbone and
|> >pass the costs to their customers.
|>
|> ISPs lease capacity on commercial backbone networks like AT&T, Sprint, and MCI
|> Worldcom. As far as I know, the government is not involved in any way, and no
|> tax money is spent supporting these non-government enterprises.
|>
The big networks have locations called POPs (Points of Presence)
spread throughout the world where they store computer equipment,
switches, and IP routers while buying leased line space from local
RBOCs (Regional Bell Operating Companies). The networks use the
physical wire provided by the RBOCs and plug it into their own
equipment (switches and routers). The NSF adopted a policy of
use that prohibited commercial traffic on network segments controlled
by the NFS. By the mid 1980s commercial networks built their own
links to bypass the NSFnet resulting in a ragtag collection of
networks. AOL is a good example of one of these networks. AOL
customers couldn't access the Internet until about 1991, when the
US Government reduced (not eliminated) participation in the
NSFnet so that commercial enterprises could connect to the NSFnet
backbone. The backbone is still maintained by the NSF Network
Operations Center.
Lucy A. Afar
Luk <lukn...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
> "Lucy A. Afar" wrote:
>
> >Such a pity, Luk! So very sad, such a waste! I found it fascinating
-
>
> > this dialogue of yours and Lord Sir's -two very intelligent people
> > talking, and one of them refusing to LISTEN, because she's too
>
> Dear Lucy,
>
> Lord Sir has interesting things to say.
>
So do you. It's just a pity you don't read what others write, BEFORE
you snip.
> It's a bit difficult from the above to tell whether you have or
haven't
> enjoyed our dialogue.
Of course. Yet it was very clear, in the part of the message you chose
to delete.
> But in ATC it's never difficult to predict who
> will agree with whom.
>
Maybe. I can't speak for others, but in what concerns me, I do
sometimes change my opinions, when I find the other side's arguments
convincing. I don't see a dialogue as some sort of a war, where I have
to win at all costs. And I can enjoy and respect somebody else's
opinions, even when I don't totally agree with the other person - I'd
rather keep an open mind, than try to score imaginary points in an
imaginary battle.
Lucy
> Luk
Luk
> >Lord Sir wrote:
> >> *Sometimes*, it is precisely an artist's willingness to look at and record
> >> things that no one else will or wants to look at - or intentionally look away
> >> from, that is the important factor in making such a determination.
"The" important factor? Someone's willingness to record things
nobody wants to look at? Remember, we're talking about what
distinguishes art from non-art.
> >>Artist may, at times, delve into such uncomfortable areas of experience and may
> >>even be understood as having an obligation to do so, precisely because everyone
> >> else would prefer looking away.
The artist may delve. But he has no obligation to do so.
You feel that "everyone else looks away". That's your
subjective analysis. You want artists to "record" what
(you believe) other people don't notice. That's your personal
preference. But the artist has no such restraints. Art can
record, but that's not the essence of art. Art is quite free to
ignore reality. That's an important part of its essence.
> >I tend to place the emphasis on
> >what mankind can be, not what mankind all too frequently
> >descends to.
>
> >you view the artist as one whose primary
> >responsibility is to turn over rocks and record what oozes
> >out from under them.
>
> No, not all, or every artist. I never said that.
>
> But yes, some artists may discover that that is their responsibilty.
An individual might decide to devote his energies to the
task of exposing the uncomfortable areas of life. But
doing so does not make him an artist.
> Who are you to decide what is or should be important to any artist ?
Let's keep the dialogue on a mature level and
we dispense with the "Who are you" questions.
> >Frankly, I can't see why we need artists
> >for that. We have many people who in their daily pursuits
> >expose and examine the underbelly. Cops do, lawyers and
> >judges do, healthcare professionals do, people who clean
> >out sewers do, and so on.
>
> And why shouldn't artists be able to explore this (or any other) territory ?
Anyone can explore such a territory. But doing so doesn't
qualify him to be called an artist.
> >If the artist has any responsibility, it's to rise above the
> >tiresome aspects of life by combining human skill with talent.
>
> Artists are people - with all the shortcomings - not at all
> how you envision them above.
Remember our conversation about the coat and the coat
hook? I said then that good artists do good things and
stupid things.
> Late nineteenth century artists were criticized for not living up to (nor
> wanting to) such ideals and they moved art into the realm of the mundane. Their
> vision produced works of the commonplace - seen anew.
>
> Then art moved towards new ways of seeing with the advent twentieth century
> works.
The religious and the ideal were de-emphasized as subject
matter and new modes of expression were developed.
> >The
> >artists' skill and talent can distinguish it and make it
> >worthy of being called art. When that happens, human
> >potential has been realized.
> >
> >Luk
>
> You have a wonderful and highly idealized view.
Why not? The highest goal of mankind is to achieve excellence.
This is a time in our history when the goal of striving for
excellence has been diminished and degraded by exactly those
who should be promoting it. Why should our finest museums
devote their space to what is most sordid and offensive when
we have a choice? What purpose does it serve do go out and
collect things that are base, ugly and meaningless and then place
them in public museums? The museums of our country are
where parents hope their children will be inspired by mankind's
highest achievements!
Luk
Nora Hiatt
Sprint was gobbled up about a year ago by Earthlink, who recently
swollowed up Mindspring.com. Sprint was so reliable, Earthlink sucks
(although they did allow us to keep our email addresses).
No good will come of these mergers when Earthlink is holding all the
cards.
Nora
Nora Hiatt
distance and wireless is what was not merged??
Earthlink is someone's poor excuse for an isp. It is getting really.
They have lots of trouble with their email servers and I get bounced off
a bunch of mailing lists because of it. They have a filter on their
newserve so if they think you are posting too much they shut you down
for 24 hrs. It is supposed to stop spam, but that is
doubtful.
Sprint had wonderful tech support, Earthlink only wants you to reinstall
everything.
The only reason I stayed was because I have alot of postings on
genealogy boards and I don't want the sources to dry up.
Nora
Sharonpo
>|> ISPs lease capacity on commercial backbone networks like AT&T, Sprint, and
>MCI
>|> Worldcom. As far as I know, the government is not involved in any way, and
>no
>|> tax money is spent supporting these non-government enterprises.
>|>
>
Nancy responds:
>The big networks have locations called POPs (Points of Presence)
>spread throughout the world where they store computer equipment,
>switches, and IP routers while buying leased line space from local
>RBOCs (Regional Bell Operating Companies).
A POP is is a physical location *owned* by the IXC (Inter-exchange Carrier).
Typically, the IXC (long distance carrier) hands off the "connection" to a LEC
(local exchange carrier) via circuitry installed in the POP for local delivery
by either an RBOC or a CAP (competitive access provider).
>The networks use the
>physical wire provided by the RBOCs and plug it into their own
>equipment (switches and routers).
There are two distinct *connections* to this transaction. There is a
*long-distance* component and there is a *local* component. There are
compatible physical interfaces which facilitate the completion of the
connection.
>The NSF adopted a policy of
>use that prohibited commercial traffic on network segments controlled
>by the NFS. By the mid 1980s commercial networks built their own
>links to bypass the NSFnet resulting in a ragtag collection of
>networks.
I have absolutely no insight into the NSFnet, as it is totally irrelevant to
today's networks. That "ragtag" collection of networks includes AT&T, Sprint,
MCI/Worldcom, and a host of smaller backbone providers.
>AOL is a good example of one of these networks. AOL
>customers couldn't access the Internet until about 1991, when the
>US Government reduced (not eliminated) participation in the
>NSFnet so that commercial enterprises could connect to the NSFnet
>backbone. The backbone is still maintained by the NSF Network
>Operations Center.
>
AOL is *not* a network. AOL is an on-line service provider that conducts
business by leasing high-capacity circuits from IXCs who carry the long
distance traffic and arrange local access with RBOCs/LECs to make it toll-free.
Sharonpo
>Damned Sharon, you are getting quite an edukashioun :) Good Job.
>
>Michael
Thank you, dear. I'm trying to show my sensitive side.
Do you think I should have mentioned Sonet Rings, OC-192s, ATMs, DS-3s, T-1s,
or DDSs?
Sharonpo
>Sharonpo <shar...@aol.com.nix> wrote in message
>news:19991007211811...@ng-fx1.aol.com...
>Not when posting from AOL. Methinks you've outgrown your ISP.
>
>Michael
>
Ohhh!!! Ya think?
I forgot to mention LATA and NPA/NXX didn't I?
AOL is just fine for recreation.
Sharonpo
I wrote:
>> today's networks. That "ragtag" collection of networks includes AT&T,
>Sprint,
Nora wrote:
>Sprint was gobbled up about a year ago by Earthlink, who recently
>swollowed up Mindspring.com. Sprint was so reliable, Earthlink sucks
>(although they did allow us to keep our email addresses).
>
>
>No good will come of these mergers when Earthlink is holding all the
>cards.
>
Hah? My sources say that WorldCom just bought Sprint and my stock went up 9
points!
Who the heck is Earthlink?
Luk
Lord Sir wrote:
> Certainly any all all forms of experience can be explored and used in some
> manner in the creation of art. That is not to say everything ends up being art.
Not everything ends up being art.
But one would prefer that museum curators
be able to tell the difference.
> >The artist may delve. But he has no obligation to do so.
>
> Maybe, maybe not. That is not for you to determine.
Why not? We all make such determinations.
Besides, you yourself have agreed that artworks through
the ages have attained prominence without having
such a purpose.
> >But the artist has no such restraints. Art can
> >record, but that's not the essence of art. Art is quite free to
> >ignore reality. That's an important part of its essence
>
> Artists are not and should not
> be restrained in any way regarding their investigations and consequent
> interpretations of their unique individual experiences.
OK by me.
> Your other formulation is a bit more difficult : "Art is quite free to ignore
> reality."
There's nothing difficult about that.
> I'm not certain I understand it. Perhaps it isn't exactly what you mean to
> convey. I don't think that it will withstand the tests of reason and prove
> useful or likely.
On the contrary, I don't think you're saying what you really mean.
Art is a construct. Why should reality limit it? When has reality
ever limited art?
> > An individual might decide to devote his energies to the
> >task of exposing the uncomfortable areas of life. But
> >doing so does not make him an artist.
>
> Nor does that automatically disqualify them.
OK. But if his artwork is to be judged, the degree to which
the artist exposes the uncomfortable is not the determining factor.
That ignores the aspects of craftsmanship and technique.
> >> Who are you to decide what is or should be important to any artist ?
> >
> >Let's keep the dialogue on a mature level and
> >we dispense with the "Who are you" questions.
>
> Then stop trying to deliniate what all artists are permitted to do or be.
Any aspiring artist may explore what he likes. Whether his works
should be displayed in a publicly supported museum is another
question.
As to the "who am I" question, I am a taxpayer.
> In the case of some great twentieth century works, the artists were impacted by
> such things as the ideas of Einstein or Freud (for example). Many people
> resitant to theses new forms wondered "why should an artist examine physics or
> psychology - there are people who do that everyday".
No problem here.
> Well, it is precisely the interplay of these types of currents of thought which
> yielded new directions in the thinking of artists and eventually in the culture
> at large.
OK
> IMO, artists should be permitted to direct their investigations freely into all
> forms of experience and subject matter.
OK
> That is part of what they are obligated
> to do if they are to be true to their calling.
I disagree.
They have no such obligation.
> >This is a time in our history when the goal of striving for
> >excellence has been diminished and degraded by exactly those
> >who should be promoting it.
>
> I think so too, but I know we will disagree on who is responsible.
>
> >Why should our finest museums
> >devote their space to what is most sordid and offensive when
> >we have a choice?
>
> Is that all they do ?
They sometimes make very bad decisions.
Those who pay the salary of the people in charge
must speak up. Now *that* is an obligation.
> And still, I think there may be a purpose - for instance, the museums which
> preserve the atrocities of Nazism serve all humanity.
That's a very big subject.
I won't try to get into that.
But I will comment that you're getting away from the
subject of art.
> There may be a similar logic at work in many types of offensive works. It is
> not a simple thing.
>
> >What purpose does it serve do go out and
> >collect things that are base, ugly and meaningless and then place
> >them in public museums? The museums of our country are
> >where parents hope their children will be inspired by mankind's
> >highest achievements!
>
> That's part of the idea, despite the fact that we may not be personally pleased
> with every work in a museum.
Whether we are personally pleased with what is displayed in
a museum becomes an important factor when the public
is footing the bill.
> Another part of the idea is to preserve the
> record of humanity as a whole - the good, the bad and the ugly, because that is
> more honest and closer to truth than just presenting the best - which swerves
> towards becoming a pretty lie.
I'm all for preserving the record of humanity whether good ugly.
We certainly agree on that.
But it isn't art which is commissioned to do that. Art has more to
do with the display of technique and talent in the manipulation
of a medium.
Luk
Luk
Lord Sir wrote:
>
> >But one would prefer that museum curators
> >be able to tell the difference.
>
> I believe most of them can.
Most probably can.
There are always exceptions.
> >On the contrary, I don't think you're saying what you really mean.
> >Art is a construct. Why should reality limit it? When has reality
> >ever limited art?
>
> I'm afraid that when you begin to talk about "reality" you are opening a whole
> new can of worms.
>
> For instance, "reality" is a construct.
That so?
> >Any aspiring artist may explore what he likes. Whether his works
> >should be displayed in a publicly supported museum is another
> >question.
>
> OK.
>
> >As to the "who am I" question, I am a taxpayer.
>
> Big whoop. That doesn't give you license to determine for everyone else what
> does or does not constitute art or belong in a publically supported museum.
> (Just like it doesn't license you to redesign nuclear weapons to you liking.)
You seem to be ignoring the entire electoral and judicial process
in our country. I may not succeed in my efforts, but I do have license to
speak out and try to make a difference!
> >> >This is a time in our history when the goal of striving for
> >> >excellence has been diminished and degraded by exactly those
> >> >who should be promoting it.
> >>
> >> I think so too, but I know we will disagree on who is responsible.
OK
Re: curators of public museums:
>Those who pay the salary of the people in charge
>(of publicly supported museums) must speak up.
> Now *that* is an obligation.
> Speak up all you want. You are not qualified to make that determination for
> everyone.
Every citizen here is qualified to participate in decisions
on how tax money is spent. If not at one level, then
at another. When tax money is used unwisely, the
taxpayer is very foolish not to speak out about it.
> Still, it is no more of an obligation than that of an artist when they speak up
> through their work.
Of course it is. The artist may choose to speak out
through his work, but that's his choice, not his obligation.
> By your logic, if a majority of taxpayers were offended by a collection of
> primitive masks made by indigenious peoples which incorporated mud, sticks,
> feathers, dung and urine in their creation The Field Museum of Natural History
> would be obligated to remove their fantastic collection of New Guinea masks;
Those who were offended would have to go through accepted
procedures. But yes, they would be entitled to object to
the display and to make efforts to have it removed.
> The Art Istitute of Chicago would have to remove erotically charged African
> artifacts or artifacts which portray religions or cultures that do not conform
> to the views of the taxpaying majority.
Yes. If the efforts to have the display removed was successful
However, that doesn't mean such artifacts couldn't be displayed
in a privately funded setting, if no ordinances were broken.
> I will never support such an idiotic approach to museum funding by putting
> curatorial duties in the control of an uncultured mob of taxpayers.
~~~~~
You see, your whole argument is based on the assumption that
the curator is cultured and the mob is not. Suppose the curator
used the publicly funded museum in a way that was highly
unacceptable to you. Suppose an ultra-right-wing politician
backed got a curator put in place who catered to his political tastes.
Suppose the curator then went out of his way to select artwork
that specifically backed up that politician's point of view. Suppose
the exhibits were highly insulting to your own beliefs. Would
you still feel it just wasn't any of your business?
Or suppose the curator's selections showed consistently that he
had no background or knowledge of art? Would you still
consider him untouchable?
Why is someone beyond criticism once he's been given
the title of museum administrator or curator?
~~~~~~~~~
> The museums are charged with making these types of decisions and so far, despite
> any apparent lapses which disturb me personally, I trust their taste and
> decisions over those which the taxpayers might make given the chance.
You (personally) trust their taste. Suppose you had reason to
believe your confidence had been misplaced. What recourse
would you have?
> >I'm all for preserving the record of humanity whether good ugly.
> >We certainly agree on that.
> >
> >But it isn't art which is commissioned to do that.
>
> It is the charge of professionals in the fields of art and culture and museums
> to do that.
If a highly valued piece of art didn't "record" humanity
and didn't "record" anything else, is it out of place in an
art museum?
Luk
Luk
>>>The museums are charged with making these types of decisions and so far, despite
>>> any apparent lapses which disturb me personally, I trust their taste and
>>> decisions over those which the taxpayers might make given the chance.
Luk wrote:
>>You (personally) trust their taste. Suppose you had reason to
>>believe your confidence had been misplaced. What recourse
>>would you have?
Lord Sir wrote:
>Not much, if any.
If we were ruled by a dictator, there would be no
recourse when public money pays for art that's
only trash someone wants to promote. But
we aren't. With enough attention to the use
made of our tax money, we can make a difference.
If we make the effort.
Luk
eve
Luk wrote:
>When tax money is used unwisely, the
>taxpayer is very foolish not to speak out about it.
Since the theme of wasted tax money keeps coming up, let's discuss the
financial foodchain that occurs when the government spends money on the
arts.
The following quotes are from an article on the Atlanta Chamber of Commerce
website, describing the findings in a survey conducted by Price Waterhouse,
which had been requested by the Arts & Business Council of Atlanta:
"The first of these studies stunned the business community with results
indicating that the non-profit arts and cultural organisations in metro
Atlanta had a total economic impact of more than 625 million. Over the past
six years, that impact has climbed to 700 million......When combined, the
arts
become Atlanta's seventh largest non-government employer.....the arts and
cultural community provided at least 6,365 paying jobs totaling more than 45
million in salaries and benefits each year and 3.5 million in employer
payroll taxes in 1997. And there are an estimated 24,000 jobs created or
supported as a result of the direct or indirect economic impact of the
arts."
This, in Atlanta, which last time I looked, had nowhere near the art world
player status accorded the East Coast cultural giants.
Non profit arts orgs. nation wide employ 1.3 million, a huge workforce (and
very fat tax base for the State and Federal Government) and unlike several
other industries, we know the jobs created will stay in the US.
The Met and The Cleveland Symphony (unlike Ford, for example) aren't going
to use government funding (whimsically referred to as a tax break) to pull
up their tents and move south of the border, displacing American workers for
Mexican pre-teen girls (who ironically make about the same amount of money
an hour--36 cents--that the NEA spends on your behalf every year on the
arts.)
Multiply Atlanta's numbers by ten and we're standing on the steps of the
BMA, bitching and moaning about dung Madonnas while the economy hums along,
busily building on all those "wasted" tax payer funds.
Cities full of people who work in the arts community, cities full of
"cultural tourists" (who make more money, spend more money and stay longer;
roughly half the tourists in the US last year--92.4 million people--planned
vacations around visits to historic districts, art museums, art galleries or
live theatre) all of them helping to "grow the economy" (as politicians so
tediously refer to it.) In light of the honestly wasted tax payer dollars
floating through Congress and the State legislatures, the NEA and local
funding sound like modest investments with a huge return, to me.
If the bone in your throat is (as you keep mentioning) wasted tax dollars,
why would you even consider creating the potential for instability in such a
thriving sector of the economy? If your argument is purely philosophical,
that's fine; but economically, it makes complete sense for the government to
invest in the arts community.
And since I'm too lazy to scroll through the posts :) I'm tagging on a reply
to your response to my last post here; whatever his "patience" level,
Giuliani nevertheless lied about the Whitney Musuem's financial status; and
if, by some miracle of God he wasn't lying, I expect another lawsuit from
the mayor suing the Whitney Museum for fabricating tales of public funding
on their *own website*. As to the Newsweek article--sorry, Russert asked if
Giuliani had *paid* to have the kids bused to the exhibit, not if Giuliani
had supported the Museum's plans to do so. "Newsweek" never claimed public
funds were used, but only pointed out the hypocrisy in Rudy's claim that he
had "privately opposed" the exhibit when in fact he had "enthusiastically
supported" children seeing it.
And finally, my compliments to everyone in this discussion; it's been an
interesting (and often thoughtful)conversation to read.
eve (and here's the website for the Atlanta article in case anyone is
interested; www.dekalbchamber.com/living/economic.html#top
Luk
>
> >When tax money is used unwisely, the
> >taxpayer is very foolish not to speak out about it.
Eve wrote:
> The following quotes are from an article on the Atlanta Chamber of Commerce
> website, describing the findings in a survey conducted by Price Waterhouse,
> which had been requested by the Arts & Business Council of Atlanta:
>
> "The first of these studies stunned the business community with results
> indicating that the non-profit arts and cultural organisations in metro
> Atlanta had a total economic impact of more than 625 million. Over the past
> six years, that impact has climbed to 700 million......When combined, the
> arts
> become Atlanta's seventh largest non-government employer.....the arts and
> cultural community provided at least 6,365 paying jobs totaling more than 45
> million in salaries and benefits each year and 3.5 million in employer
> payroll taxes in 1997. And there are an estimated 24,000 jobs created or
> supported as a result of the direct or indirect economic impact of the
> arts."
>
> This, in Atlanta, which last time I looked, had nowhere near the art world
> player status accorded the East Coast cultural giants.
>
> Non profit arts orgs. nation wide employ 1.3 million, a huge workforce (and
> very fat tax base for the State and Federal Government) and unlike several
> other industries, we know the jobs created will stay in the US.
Dear Eve,
The reference you provided is a useful one, since it does a nice job of
demonstrating the pervasiveness (as well as the capability) of the art
community in our country. It also points out that there are formidable
numbers of active non-profit arts organizations in our country. What it
does *not* substantiate is that the art community is indebted to the
government for its existence, its importance or its success.
> Cities full of people who work in the arts community, cities full of
> "cultural tourists" (who make more money, spend more money and stay longer;
> roughly half the tourists in the US last year--92.4 million people--planned
> vacations around visits to historic districts, art museums, art galleries or
> live theatre) all of them helping to "grow the economy" (as politicians so
> tediously refer to it.) In light of the honestly wasted tax payer dollars
> floating through Congress and the State legislatures, the NEA and local
> funding sound like modest investments with a huge return, to me.
Those who promote the NEA and other institutions that receive public
funds are going to have to face some hard facts. Obviously they feel
artists must be able to freely express themselves. But it would seem
that doesn't satisfy them. They also expect the general public to finance
dissemination of their products regardless of content, regardless of
vulgarity, regardless of obscenity and regardless of blasphemous content.
There is only one way for artists to remain free to produce and exhibit
anything they choose. That's to keep government out of their lives
and allow their products to be evaluated on the open market. They
have also the option of support from persons who freely volunteer to
do so.
The Constitution allows us to freely express ourselves (not any way
we want or anywhere we want, but we do have the right to express
our views. You feel the Mayor and others who represent the
public have no business objecting to what artists produce on the
basis of vulgarity, obscenity, blasphemy or any other yardstick. But
you go on to require public financial support for what is produced
regardless of content.
I would respectfully suggest that those who want to have their cake
(make that - the cake of others) and eat it too do some serious thinking
about what gives them the right to expect taxpayers to accommodate
them.
> If your argument is purely philosophical, that's fine; but
> economically, it makes complete sense for the government to
> invest in the arts community.
Does it? Lets give some thought to the purpose of government.
{{Are we now at the point where we're ready to give government
the responsibility for extracting taxes from the people to simply to
underwrite profits?}}
> And finally, my compliments to everyone in this discussion; it's been an
> interesting (and often thoughtful)conversation to read.
> www.dekalbchamber.com/living/economic.html#top
Luk
Vivienne R. Goust
And in the pockets of the beholden.
Vivienne
Lord Sir <Lord_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:7te59k$g...@edrn.newsguy.com...
> In article <37FA8206...@mindspring.com>, Luk says...
> >
> >
> >
> >Lord Sir wrote:
> >
> >>I think I am getting a clear idea about what constitutes your particular
tastes
> >> in Modern Arts - let's take another look at the list you provided:
> >
> >>>> I enjoy Kandinsky, John Marin, Joan Miro, Motherwell,
> >>>> De Kooning, Dufy, Nolde, Cezanne, Pissarro, Van Gogh,
> >>>> Roualt, Sculpture by Rodin.
> >
> >> You say you enjoy these artists.
> >
> >Yes.
> >
> >> I believe you, though I am not sure you can
> >> say this
> >
> >I can't?
> >
> >> and actually have a deep familiarity with all of their works or you
> >> wouldn't be able to make such a blanket statement.
> >
> >That's *very* disappointing.
>
> Well, disappointment is sure to follow when one relies merely on the gloss
of a
> shallow emotional response to the populary known works rather than upon a
> rigorous in depth study of the whole range of an artists' works.
>
> >
> >> Almost every artist on this list has explored darker themes,
> >> some of which are still taboo.
> >
> >If I may say it, your obsession with "themes" would seem
> >to limit your appreciation for art.
>
> You may say. You would - of course - be in error.
>
> >
> >> For example, Miro's abstractions of genitalia come
> >> immediately to mind.
> >
> >I don't doubt it.
> >
> >> What you must perceive as merely pretty abstract forms are often - as I
> >> just said - renderings of genitalia and bodily fluids springing from
the
> >> "dream-world" and the unconcious.
> >
> >I seem to have missed them.
>
> I could tell.
>
> >
> >>De Kooning too, explores and depicts in abstractions the themes and
energies of
> >>sex and death. His brushstrokes often blurring together in a flurry of
movement
> >> such things as blood, semen, hair, flesh and even genitalia.
> >>
> >> What do you think of Pissarro's works depicting pre-pubescent girls ?
> >
> >I can see that when you go to an art exhibit you know
> >what you're looking for. No doubt you manage to find
> >it every time. I'll bet shrinks love having you on the couch.
>
> You avoided the question. It is your typical response when you are
flustered -
> trying to wriggle free from the corner you put yourself in by trying to
cast
> aspersions on those who might even offer to help you.
>
> >
> >> Rodin's rape fantasies ?
> >
> >I enjoy Rodin's sculpture.
> >I'll leave his fantasies for you and Rodin to enjoy.
>
> Uh-huh. You realize that you might have already enjoyed them too since
several
> of his well known and acclaimed sculptures deal with rape.
>
> >
> >> My goodness, have you always been so busy reading Republican propaganda
and
> >> stock reports that you have never read about the art you enjoy ?
> >
> >The difference between you and me is that I can enjoy art
> >without having to read what some pompous airhead wrote
> >about it.
>
> Wrong again. BTW, do the artists then qualify as "pompous airheads" ?
And you
> as the voice of clarity, reason and truth. You are qualified to speak for
them
> and clarify their intentions better than they can ?
>
> >
> >> >>>There are lots of other artists I like. But I don't
> >> always like the better known pieces by the known artists. I've
> >> seen things by Picasso that I like much better than what he's
> >> known for.
> >>
> >>What do you think of Picasso's depictions of pornographically displayed
females
> >> with their apparently recently satiated genitals set front and center,
with
> >>their eyes upturned in ecstatic reverie while the erect penises of
satyrs fill
> >> the frame ?
> >
> >I can live without Picasso's penises.
>
> But not without the dripping mooshies ?
>
> Still, he made such work. By your earlier statements of standards, it
would
> seem this would put all of Picasso into your list of perverts pretending
to be
> artists.
>
> >
> >> I enjoy Chinese and Japanese art nearly always.
> >> Even the really fine erotica ?
> >
> >I've seen it. The body parts are not what interests me
> >about the paintings.
>
> No doubt.
>
> >
> >> >>>I don't like Dali
> >>
> >> No surprise there.
> >
> >Right.
>
> I take it that Von Bayros was not included in your art ed class either -
that
> would explain your snip to avoid answering the question.
>
> >
> >> >>>and have never been particularly
> >> interested in Chagall or Edward Hopper.
> >>
> >> Interesting.
> >>
> >> >>>I don't like art that imitates photography.
> >> I don't like art that attempts to gain attention simply
> >> by ridiculing art (example: coat thrown over coat hook
> >> and hung on museum wall)
> >>
> >> Again, your lack of insight shows. Duchamp is one of
> >> the greatest artists of this century.
> >
> >I don't think it's necessary to revere everything a
> >good artist does. They're human. They do good things and
> >stupid things.
>
> Sure, but what does that have to do with your stupid assessment of Duchamp
?
>
> >
> >> His motives, ideas and intentions are quite beyond the level of
> >> the simplistic notion of ridicule you have gotten stuck at. You
> >> will find a universe of riches in Duchamp's work should you
> >> ever decide it is worth reading about.
> >
> >Motives, ideas and intentions are certainly fascinating to read
> >about. But it's perfectly possible to enjoy a piece of art without
> >knowing what the artist was thinking when he created it.
>
> Yes it is. It is also quite possible to get more from an art work than
mere
> personal enjoyment if you have the inclination. In fact, if and when you
reach
> that level of development you will begin to see that the deeper
experiences of
> meaning and learning actually compliment the merely selfish motive of
deriving
> immediate personal pleasure from the experience.
>
> Sadly, you may be too much a "me" generation child of crass consumerism
and
> designer label commercialism to ever understand the finer and more subtle
things
> inherent in an artwork.
>
> Your anti-intellectualism seems like a form of armor to shield the
> underdeveloped parts of your personality.
>
> >If
> >you have to know that you're very limited. If you think you
> >know that you're very likely mistaken. And you're in big
> >trouble if you have to read what someone else thinks the artist
> >thought before you can appreciate the art.
>
> You do realize that most artists have left a record of their own thoughts
about
> what they were up to, don't you ? Do you think there is a good reason to
ignore
> or discount their own words ?
>
> I think you have, unfortuntely, a distinct and ingrained bias against
> understanding the didactic nature of all works of art.
>
> >
> >If you can't experience pleasure simply looking at art
> >you've got a gaping hole somewhere.
>
> That is only one component of the experience - and especially so for an
artist.
> You obviously don't understand the whole of what constitutes the work
(labor) of
> being an artist, and this lacking itself impedes your overall ability to
> understand art and artists.
>
> >You're busy
> >intellectualizing instead of being emotionally receptive.
>
> Not at all. I do both - and more, realizing it is lazy and perhaps even,
> reprehensible, to rely merely on emotional receptivity alone.
>
> >
> >> >>>or by consciously attempting to offend.
> >
> >>Some things offend by their very nature. How do you know if it was a
merely one
> >> dimensional intent of any artist just to offend or if perhaps there is
(as is
> >> more often the case) a lot more going on than you care to spend the
time
> >> thinking about ?
> >
> >Even I am not stupid enough to miss the obvious.
>
> Really ? In all cases ?
>
> >Much
> >of what gets put out does nothing but solicit attention by
> >substituting vulgarity for creativity.
>
> Much ? Or - some ?
>
> > Art dealers who sell it
> >are pimps.
>
> Oh, I always thought they were exemplars of free enterprise, and I now
see that
> you agree.
>
> >
> >>I contend you don't know - you have made snap judgements based on your
initial
> >> impressions and since you believe yourself to be the infallible center
of the
> >>universe you are perfectly willing to abide by your simplistic readings
of the
> >> works and intentions of the artist, rather than actually taking the
necessary
> >> time to find out what is really there.
> >
> >sticks and stones
>
> No, dear, just the facts.
>
> >
> >>Your ideas about art are mainly 19th Century with allowances for
Modernism in as
> >>much as you lack understanding of the subjects hidden in what you
perceive to be
> >> pretty abstract lines and shapes.
> >
> >So pathetic lumps like me
>
> You are far too self-centered to be considered pathetic.
>
> >need the guidance of you luminaries
> >before stumbling into galleries and museums and making
> >fools of ourselves by deciding what we like.
>
> No, I never said that. I am saying that you decide what you like based on
very
> little actual preperation or knowledge. You don't "need" it, but it
wouldn't
> hurt to have some either.
>
> >
> >>If you really knew what was often there you would have to begin
amputating names
> >> from your list of favorite artists.
> >
> >Which artist should I amputate first?
>
> If you are offended by sex, sexual references, bodily fluids and excreta,
> ugliness and shock then you should probably immediately remove Miro,
Picasso,
> Pissarro, De Kooning, Roualt, Rodin and Nolde from your list of admired
> artists, since I am familiar with works by each of them which should - by
your
> own stated standards - relegate them to the sicko artists/perverts bin.
>
> >
> >>I'm sure your taste in photography is equally strictly limited by your
awareness
> >> of much of the work as well as your personal ideas about appropriate
subject
> >> matter.
> >
> >I enjoyed the pictures.
> >What was I thinking?
>
> Only of what you have seen, known and liked, certainly not the full range
of
> fine art photography.
>
> >
> >> Fortunately, the range of subject matter has already been blown wide
open in
> >> the 1920's and 30's by the great Surrealists and their associates.
> >
> >Thank goodness for that!
>
> Yep. It is called the evolution of ideas.
>
> >
> >> Talk about shocking photographs - look to
> >> them for the genesis of darker themes in human nature which
> >> are still being explored and enlarged upon even now.
> >
> >You look to them. You're the one who can't enjoy art
> >that's missing its darker theme.
>
> Another false assertion. I can enjoy or at least appreciate all forms and
> subjects - the full range from the sublime to the depraved. I can do
this
> because I don't deny the whole range of things which humans are. I can do
this
> because I refuse to be dishonest about the range of experience and I
refuse to
> hide from it or look away. I can do this because I have spent over forty
years
> in a process of discovery of myself, art and the world.
>
> It has been a lot more fulfillling than any of the alternatives. Maybe
that is
> why I remain involved with the arts, and why I can get a lot more from a
work of
> art than only whether or not it gives me pleasure.
>
> You, Luk, are the one who has an appreciation which is limited in terms
of
> taste, understanding and even the manner in which you can respond ( i.e.,
is it
> pretty, does it give me pleasure, has it hidden its subject in carefully
crafted
> abstraction to the extent that I can't identify that which I ould
otherwise find
> distasteful or disturning ).
>
> No wonder you must look so damned hard - and no wonder that in the end you
don't
> find anything.
>
> >
> >> Which brings me to another point : The Arts is a vast realm with all
things
> >>human, inhuman, real and imagined as its sources and subjects. It
includes the
> >>ridiculous just as it includes the sublime, the beautiful as well as the
ugly,
> >> the blessed as well as the depths of horror which reside in humankind.
> >
> >Funny. I always had the impression art was about the talent and creative
> >expression of the artist.
>
> I'm sure you did. That really is not funny. It is - as I have said -
sadly
> limited - and goes a long way towards explaining your inability to go very
far
> in grasping what things other than your personal pleasure are actually
going on
> in art works.
>
> What do you think the words "creative expression of the artist" mean ?
What do
> you think it means to say that an artist is "expressing" something ?
>
> Do you think this is some special fancy language to describe how an artist
is
> required to pleasure you ?
>
> It is about communication, dialog, a codification of information and ideas
which
> are part and parcel of a work of art. The stuff that takes more honest
work
> than simply saying "I enjoy that, it gives me pleasure".
>
> Obviously (to me) there is a lot of information at right before you
whenever you
> experience a work of art, which never has a chance to enter and percolate
within
> you.
>
>
> > Why bother with it if we just need something
> >ugly, horrible, inhuman or indecent to look at.
>
> Where did I say we *just* need that ? I have tried (against all hope) to
> explain that art runs the full gamut of experience and so it includes
those
> things as well as their opposites in terms of its source material and
subjects.
> Why do you insist on inacccurately characterizing what I actually said ?
>
> >We *do* after all have
> >cock fights and peep shows available to us. Is it because they don't
let
> >us watch lions eat Christians or see public hangings any more? Or
> >because there are no more guillotines on the city square.
>
> God question.
>
> >
> >> To think of it otherwise is to misunderstand it,
> >
> >Of course.
>
> You didn't get it. I went back over it above.
>
> >
> >> to do it injustice or to be dishonest
> >> about what it actually is. It is a process and a dialog for humanity
and
> >>artists; and, between artists and artists; and, between artists and
humanity.
> >> It is so much more than making pretty things for mere pleasure.
>
> >
> >What is it you think Jenny Saville want me to understand?
>
> I don't fucking know or care. Even if I did I think you need to answer
that
> question yourself if you truly want to know. That's how its done - no one
just
> gives you the answers.
>
> >Or is the dialogue at the Brooklyn Museum just one-sided and I'm
> >not supposed to ask.
>
> Ask whatever you must - then do your own homework.
>
> >
> >> >>> I often think of a
> >> student friend I knew who did marvelous photography.
> >> Nothing bizarre. Just very beautifully done.<<<
> >
> >> Which is fine. It may even be art. By the same token,
> >> so can a self portrait of an artist with a bullwhip stuck up his ass.
> >
> >Think of all I've been missing..
>
> I don't need to think, I know, it's obvious to me.
>
> >
> >> You scream out for and demand knowledge, and you seem to
> >> have the expectation that a few words will give you the answer you
want.
> >
> >I can't look to you for help?
>
> No.
>
> >
> >>Unfortunately that is not the case. This art stuff really takes more
time and
> >>effort than you are willing to expend in order to build an understanding
of it.
> >
> >I was so hoping..
>
> Maybe you can find it at the mall.
>
> >
> >>I really do offer private classes, critiques and tutorials for highly
motivated
> >> individuals.
> >
> >Then there IS hope.
>
> Doubtful.
>
> >
> >> I don't provide my guidence in these things as a form of public
> >> charity.
> >
> >Yes. No. Of course not.
> >
> >>There are certainly qualified people in your geographic area who can
offer you
> >> opportunities to learn these things.
> >
> >> You can probably learn a great deal on your own - for free if you are
really
> >> motivated to do so.
> >
> >How will I know if I'm really motivated?
>
> You'll actually do something about it.
>
> >
> >> >Also, the topic has been expanded into whether art
> >> >belongs in the federal budget.
> >> >
> >> >Luk
> >>
> >> Now you tell me.
> >
> >I wouldn't presume.
> >
> >Luk
> >
>
> LS
>
Luk
> And in the pockets of the beholden.
>
> Vivienne
So it seems.
Luk