OT Bklyn museum-Catholic bashing -for Maggie
Every9man
I found one reference in the paper about the exhibit being anti Catholic.
In wednesday's NY Post, the Mayor is quoted as saying that the exhibit is
Catholic-bashing because the painting ( of the Virgin Mary ) is spotted with
dung and includes pictures cut from porno magazines.
Anyone have any idea why it is Catholic bashing? ( as opposed to allegedly
Christian bashing)
Barbara
Barbara
LFoote1056
Just a guess here, but I imagine it is seen as Catholic bashing because
Catholics verenate the Virgin Mary to a greater extent than too other Christian
denominations. Not that I'm agreeing with that assertion....but I think that's
where people are coming from.
NeCub
Maggie
>I found one reference in the paper about the exhibit being anti Catholic.
>
>In wednesday's NY Post, the Mayor is quoted as saying that the exhibit is
>Catholic-bashing because the painting ( of the Virgin Mary ) is spotted
>with
>dung and includes pictures cut from porno magazines.
>
>Anyone have any idea why it is Catholic bashing? ( as opposed to allegedly
>
>Christian bashing)
***It's impossible for me to respond without seeing the quote.
Maggie
"I don't pay them for sex. I pay them to leave."--Clark Gable on why he used
prostitutes
Every9man
From: maggi...@aol.comSPAMBLOC (Maggie)
Date: Fri, 01 October 1999 12:25 PM EDT
Message-id: <19991001122555...@ng-da1.aol.com>
>Hi
>I found one reference in the paper about the exhibit being anti Catholic.
>
>In wednesday's NY Post, the Mayor is quoted as saying that the exhibit is
>Catholic-bashing because the painting ( of the Virgin Mary ) is spotted
>with
>dung and includes pictures cut from porno magazines.
>
>Anyone have any idea why it is Catholic bashing? ( as opposed to allegedly
>
>Christian bashing)
***It's impossible for me to respond without seeing the quote.
Maggie
They did not use a direct quote but most of the stories including the
Washington Post, THe New York Times, THe ny daily news, describe him as saying
the same thing. And he is not calling for any retractions.
this story was in Wednesday Post 9/29 page 2. I'll copy it and post it when I
get back from work if you dont want to go to the web site (www.nypost.com)
BTW, Debby was right and I was wrong. Apparently in terms of voting strength,
this ~is~ a Catholic town. They control over 40% of the votes. I would have
sworn there were more voting Jews than CAtholics but I erred.
This demographic might shine a tiny light on what Giuliani's real motives are
in this battle. and it might even shed light on why he is calling it anti
catholic.
Barbara
Cliff or Linda Griffith
>
> Hi
> I found one reference in the paper about the exhibit being anti Catholic.
> In wednesday's NY Post, the Mayor is quoted as saying that the exhibit is
> Catholic-bashing because the painting ( of the Virgin Mary ) is spotted with
> dung and includes pictures cut from porno magazines.
>
> Anyone have any idea why it is Catholic bashing? ( as opposed to allegedly
> Christian bashing)
Because Catholics revere the Blessed Virgin more than non-Catholics do.
We honor [not worship] her. We also ask her to intercede on our behalf,
and most non-
Catholics don't, AFAIK.
To me, though, it would be more like "Mary-bashing" or "an affront to
Catholics", instead of Catholic-bashing. IMO, "bashing" has a bit
different connotation.
Linda
>
> Barbara
>
> Barbara
Every9man
From: Cliff or Linda Griffith <grif...@home.com>
Linda
Thank you . I think I get it. I think it is Rudy who is using the bashing word
but your point is taken.
Barbara
Maggie
>>Hi
>>I found one reference in the paper about the exhibit being anti Catholic.
>>
>>In wednesday's NY Post, the Mayor is quoted as saying that the exhibit
>is
>>Catholic-bashing because the painting ( of the Virgin Mary ) is spotted
>>with
>>dung and includes pictures cut from porno magazines.
>>
>>Anyone have any idea why it is Catholic bashing? ( as opposed to allegedly
>>
>>Christian bashing)
>
>
>Maggie
>
>They did not use a direct quote but most of the stories including the
>Washington Post, THe New York Times, THe ny daily news, describe him as
>saying
>the same thing. And he is not calling for any retractions.
>this story was in Wednesday Post 9/29 page 2. I'll copy it and post it when
>I
>get back from work if you dont want to go to the web site (www.nypost.com)
***Does anyone else find it amusing that when the NY Post is bashing Clinton
it's a tabloid with a horrible reputation for accuracy, but when it's even
mentioning Giuliani it's downright quotable? (For the record, I think
"Christian bashing" would be more apt term, as well. But it doesn't seem to
have the political resonance.)
Josey
>this ~is~ a Catholic town. They control over 40% of the votes. I would have
>sworn there were more voting Jews than CAtholics but I erred.
>This demographic might shine a tiny light on what Giuliani's real motives are
>in this battle. and it might even shed light on why he is calling it anti
>catholic.
>
>Barbara
Mary is highly honored as the Greatest of Saints in Catholicism. In
Protestantism, she may be admired, but to Catholics she is seen as The Mother
of God, the Heavenly Queen, Our Lady, the Mystical Rose, the Immaculate
Conception (HER conception was immaculate, BTW, not the conception of Jesus in
her womb, ie, she, alone aside from Christ, was born without the stain of
original sin). She has a million names -- from "Queen of Heaven" to "Our Lady
of Sorrows" -- and is seen as our greatest intercessor. She is NOT
'worshipped', but is afforded the greatest respect and honor. To the Catholic
way of thinking, Saints are 'just there', on the other side of the veil, as it
were, and able to help us as any earthly friend can help us. Mary is asked to
pray for us (like we'd ask a friend to pray for us) in the 'Hail Mary'.
Catholic dogma and culture is very Marian. We have statues of her in our
homes, we create Mary Gardens, most churches have a statue of her on one side
of the altar, we pray the Rosary ... the Feast of her Immaculate Conception,
the Feast of Mary, Mother of God, and the Feast of the Assumption are Holy Days
of Obligation (3 of only 6 Holy Days of Obligation in the whole liturgical
year).
Protestants tend to be very anti-statue/icon in their churches. The statue of
Mary in that New York museum is 'Catholic' as much as the Star of David is
Jewish and the desecration of the former is just as much an insult to the
Catholic faith as the desecration of the latter would be to Jews.
I don't know Rudy's motivations (I tend to be cynical when it comes to what
motivates our statesmen, er, politicians, esp in the case of the Robo-Mayor),
but his calling that portion of the exhibit 'anti-Catholic' is certainly no
stretch.
To be CLEAR: I am totally for the right of the artist to create what he wants
and to sell it and exhibit it (I also believe in boycott and protest, mind
you), but I am against tax money funding it and I DO find it insulting to my
faith.
Just another victim of the in-house drive-by,
Josey
"Democracy means simply the bludgeoning
of the people, by the people, for the people." --Oscar Wilde
Cliff or Linda Griffith
my response, there were no other responses on my server; but later, when
I went back to the thread, there were five posts ahead of mine. If I
had seen yours earlier, I'd have certainly just let it ride!
Linda
PattyC4303
(Every9man) writes:
>This demographic might shine a tiny light on what Giuliani's real motives are
>in this battle. and it might even shed light on why he is calling it anti
>catholic.
>
>Barbara
And THERE is where it all began anyway. Another politician trying to get
attention in one way or another. Did anyone think he really CARED about this
issue?
PattyC
Luk
> Josey wrote:
> I don't know Rudy's motivations (I tend to be cynical when it comes to what
> motivates our statesmen, er, politicians, esp in the case of the Robo-Mayor),
> but his calling that portion of the exhibit 'anti-Catholic' is certainly no
> stretch.
> To be CLEAR: I am totally for the right of the artist to create what he wants
> and to sell it and exhibit it (I also believe in boycott and protest, mind
> you), but I am against tax money funding it and I DO find it insulting to my
> faith.
I find it hard to get worked up about what Giuliani's "motivations" are
or were. Can't see that it makes any difference. What matters is
whether what he did needed to be done.
Luk
Every9man
From: maggi...@aol.comSPAMBLOC (Maggie)
Message-id: <19991001141446...@ng-xb1.aol.com>
barbara said:
>>Hi
>>I found one reference in the paper about the exhibit being anti Catholic.
>>
>>In wednesday's NY Post, the Mayor is quoted as saying that the exhibit
>is
>>Catholic-bashing because the painting ( of the Virgin Mary ) is spotted
>>with
>>dung and includes pictures cut from porno magazines.
>>
>>Anyone have any idea why it is Catholic bashing? ( as opposed to allegedly
>>
>>Christian bashing)
>
>***It's impossible for me to respond without seeing the quote.
>
>Maggie
>
barbara said:
>They did not use a direct quote but most of the stories including the
>Washington Post, THe New York Times, THe ny daily news, describe him as
>saying
>the same thing. And he is not calling for any retractions.
>this story was in Wednesday Post 9/29 page 2. I'll copy it and post it when
>I
>get back from work if you dont want to go to the web site (www.nypost.com)
/***Does anyone else find it amusing that when the NY Post is bashing Clinton
/it's a tabloid with a horrible reputation for accuracy, but when it's even
mentioning Giuliani it's downright quotable? (For the record, I think
/"Christian bashing" would be more apt term, as well. But it doesn't seem to
//have the political resonance.)
Maggie
How did I know when I quoted from the Post that you would be so predictable
Maggie?:)
As I said, a few papers reported the same statement. The Post was the only one
I had handy. I use it to tear up for the kitty litter pan:)
I think Linda offerred a reasonable explanation for calling it Catholic bashing
btw.
Barbara
Every9man
From: patty...@aol.com (PattyC4303)
PattyC
To tell you the truth Patty C, I do believe he was really personally offended.
But he never loses sight of his goal which is to be 1) President 2) Governor 3)
a US Senator.
If we're all lucky he'll go back to being just a lousy lawyer:)
Barbara-wondering what other politician could possibly have built up a record
of losing the most free speech battles in history.
Every9man
what Linda said.
As for your position, I understand. We just disagree, that's all:)
Barbara
From: witha...@aol.comTakeThis (Josey)
>BTW, Debby was right and I was wrong. Apparently in terms of voting strength,
>this ~is~ a Catholic town. They control over 40% of the votes. I would have
>sworn there were more voting Jews than CAtholics but I erred.
>This demographic might shine a tiny light on what Giuliani's real motives are
>in this battle. and it might even shed light on why he is calling it anti
>catholic.
>
>Barbara
Mary is highly honored as the Greatest of Saints in Catholicism. In
Protestantism, she may be admired, but to Catholics she is seen as The Mother
of God, the Heavenly Queen, Our Lady, the Mystical Rose, the Immaculate
Conception (HER conception was immaculate, BTW, not the conception of Jesus in
her womb, ie, she, alone aside from Christ, was born without the stain of
original sin). She has a million names -- from "Queen of Heaven" to "Our Lady
of Sorrows" -- and is seen as our greatest intercessor. She is NOT
'worshipped', but is afforded the greatest respect and honor. To the Catholic
way of thinking, Saints are 'just there', on the other side of the veil, as it
were, and able to help us as any earthly friend can help us. Mary is asked to
pray for us (like we'd ask a friend to pray for us) in the 'Hail Mary'.
Catholic dogma and culture is very Marian. We have statues of her in our
homes, we create Mary Gardens, most churches have a statue of her on one side
of the altar, we pray the Rosary ... the Feast of her Immaculate Conception,
the Feast of Mary, Mother of God, and the Feast of the Assumption are Holy Days
of Obligation (3 of only 6 Holy Days of Obligation in the whole liturgical
year).
Protestants tend to be very anti-statue/icon in their churches. The statue of
Mary in that New York museum is 'Catholic' as much as the Star of David is
Jewish and the desecration of the former is just as much an insult to the
Catholic faith as the desecration of the latter would be to Jews.
I don't know Rudy's motivations (I tend to be cynical when it comes to what
motivates our statesmen, er, politicians, esp in the case of the Robo-Mayor),
but his calling that portion of the exhibit 'anti-Catholic' is certainly no
stretch.
To be CLEAR: I am totally for the right of the artist to create what he wants
and to sell it and exhibit it (I also believe in boycott and protest, mind
you), but I am against tax money funding it and I DO find it insulting to my
faith.
Just another victim of the in-house drive-by,
PattyC4303
(Every9man) writes:
>To tell you the truth Patty C, I do believe he was really personally
>offended.
To tell you the truth, Barbara, I don't!
OR, I believe he's offended by lots of things, but only made this one an issue.
I, of course, have not seen the exhibit. But have heard there are a ton of
"offensive" things there. As happens with many art exhibits.
PattyC
Every9man
Date: Sat, 02 October 1999 05:05 AM EDT
Message-id: <19991002050559...@ngol08.aol.com>
In article <19991002015358...@ng-bk1.aol.com>, ever...@aol.com
(Every9man) writes:
>To tell you the truth Patty C, I do believe he was really personally
>offended.
/To tell you the truth, Barbara, I don't!
/OR, I believe he's offended by lots of things, but only made this one an
issue.
/I, of course, have not seen the exhibit. But have heard there are a ton of
/"offensive" things there. As happens with many art exhibits.
/PattyC
Pssssst Patty, he hasnt seen it either;-) Nor do I think, have most of the
people here calling it sick, non art etc.
Barbara
Maggie
>issue?
>
>PattyC
>
>To tell you the truth Patty C, I do believe he was really personally offended.
>3)
>a US Senator.
>
>If we're all lucky he'll go back to being just a lousy lawyer:)
***I thought his record as a prosecutor was pretty good. Isn't that what
originally got him elected mayor?
>
>Barbara-wondering what other politician could possibly have built up a
>record
>of losing the most free speech battles in history.
***...while winning the most elections (percentage-wise)?
Maggie
>Pssssst Patty, he hasnt seen it either;-) Nor do I think, have most of the
>people here calling it sick, non art etc.
***Are you saying that you believe the numerous still pictures and videos of
some of the exhibits don't do them justice and that you believe many would
change their minds if they could actually see these works of art?
Martha
>
> barbara said:
> >Pssssst Patty, he hasnt seen it either;-) Nor do I think, have most of the
> >people here calling it sick, non art etc.
>
> ***Are you saying that you believe the numerous still pictures and videos of
> some of the exhibits don't do them justice and that you believe many would
> change their minds if they could actually see these works of art?
>
Do you believe that owning a photograph of a painting equals owning the
painting?
Martha
Maggie
>> >Pssssst Patty, he hasnt seen it either;-) Nor do I think, have most of
>the
>> >people here calling it sick, non art etc.
>>
>> ***Are you saying that you believe the numerous still pictures and videos
>of
>> some of the exhibits don't do them justice and that you believe many would
>> change their minds if they could actually see these works of art?
>>
>Do you believe that owning a photograph of a painting equals owning the
>painting?
***Of course not. Just as listening to an albu is not the same as attending a
concert. But I can get a pretty darn good idea about the artist and his work
by listening to that recording, or viewing those photographs.
Martha
>
> >> barbara said:
> >> >Pssssst Patty, he hasnt seen it either;-) Nor do I think, have most of
> >the
> >> >people here calling it sick, non art etc.
> >>
> maggie said:
> >> ***Are you saying that you believe the numerous still pictures and videos
> >of
> >> some of the exhibits don't do them justice and that you believe many would
> >> change their minds if they could actually see these works of art?
> >>
> Martha said:
> >Do you believe that owning a photograph of a painting equals owning the
> >painting?
>
> ***Of course not. Just as listening to an albu is not the same as attending a
> concert. But I can get a pretty darn good idea about the artist and his work
> by listening to that recording, or viewing those photographs.
>
You have never had the experience of changing your mind after seeing
something in the flesh, as it were, after having seen only
reproductions?
Martha
Maggie
>> >Do you believe that owning a photograph of a painting equals owning the
>> >painting?
>>
>> ***Of course not. Just as listening to an albu is not the same as attending
>a
>> concert. But I can get a pretty darn good idea about the artist and his
>work
>> by listening to that recording, or viewing those photographs.
>>
>You have never had the experience of changing your mind after seeing
>something in the flesh, as it were, after having seen only
>reproductions?
***I have often thought that pictures in art books don't do justice to many
works or art and have been pleasantly surprised by the vibrance of color and
feelings of movement and energy in the actual painting, sculpture, etc. I
can't remember ever seeing a photograph of a work or art, being offended or
repulsed by it, then seeing that work in person, as it were, and deciding that
it is not offensive or repulsive. But perhaps I just haven't gotten out
enough.
(And do you honestly think that museum curators view each work of art they
select *in the flesh*? I know for a fact that most works in an exhibit are
initially evaluated on the basis of photographs and some--perhaps most--are
eventually selected, having never been actually seen by the people making the
final decisions.)
Maggie
>> >> >Do you believe that owning a photograph of a painting equals owning
>the
>> >> >painting?
>> >>
>> maggie said:
>> >> ***Of course not. Just as listening to an albu is not the same as
>attending
>> >a
>> >> concert. But I can get a pretty darn good idea about the artist and
>his
>> >work
>> >> by listening to that recording, or viewing those photographs.
>> >>
>> martha said:
>> >You have never had the experience of changing your mind after seeing
>> >something in the flesh, as it were, after having seen only
>> >reproductions?
>>
>> ***I have often thought that pictures in art books don't do justice to
>many
>> works or art and have been pleasantly surprised by the vibrance of color
>and
>> feelings of movement and energy in the actual painting, sculpture, etc.
> I
>> can't remember ever seeing a photograph of a work or art, being offended
>or
>> repulsed by it, then seeing that work in person, as it were, and deciding
>that
>> it is not offensive or repulsive. But perhaps I just haven't gotten out
>> enough.
>>
>> (And do you honestly think that museum curators view each work of art
>they
>> select *in the flesh*? I know for a fact that most works in an exhibit
>are
>> initially evaluated on the basis of photographs and some--perhaps most--are
>> eventually selected, having never been actually seen by the people making
>the
>> final decisions.)
>
>I did not realize we were discussing how museum directors choose works
>of art to exhibit. I thought we were discussing your contention that a
>person can get a pretty good idea of whether a work of art is filth or
>not from viewing photos. Perhaps I'm wrong.
***Could you quote to me the part of my post where I mentioned "filth"? I
don't seem to recall saying anything like that.
And you and Barbara seem to be implying that one must actually view a work of
art in order to come to any conclusions about its appropriateness for an
exhibit. Surely, pointing out that museum curators often make this
determination *without* viewing the work--only the photographs--pretty much
destroys this argument. But I think you've realized that.
Martha
>
> >> Martha said:
> >> >Do you believe that owning a photograph of a painting equals owning the
> >> >painting?
> >>
> maggie said:
> >> ***Of course not. Just as listening to an albu is not the same as attending
> >a
> >> concert. But I can get a pretty darn good idea about the artist and his
> >work
> >> by listening to that recording, or viewing those photographs.
> >>
> martha said:
> >You have never had the experience of changing your mind after seeing
> >something in the flesh, as it were, after having seen only
> >reproductions?
>
> works or art and have been pleasantly surprised by the vibrance of color and
> feelings of movement and energy in the actual painting, sculpture, etc. I
> can't remember ever seeing a photograph of a work or art, being offended or
> repulsed by it, then seeing that work in person, as it were, and deciding that
> it is not offensive or repulsive. But perhaps I just haven't gotten out
> enough.
>
> (And do you honestly think that museum curators view each work of art they
> select *in the flesh*? I know for a fact that most works in an exhibit are
> initially evaluated on the basis of photographs and some--perhaps most--are
> eventually selected, having never been actually seen by the people making the
> final decisions.)
I did not realize we were discussing how museum directors choose works
of art to exhibit. I thought we were discussing your contention that a
person can get a pretty good idea of whether a work of art is filth or
not from viewing photos. Perhaps I'm wrong.
Martha
Luk
Maggie wrote:
>And do you honestly think that museum curators view
>each work of art they select *in the flesh*?
Absolutely not!!!!!!!!
Luk
Luk
Martha wrote:
> I thought we were discussing your contention that a
> person can get a pretty good idea of whether a work of art is filth or
> not from viewing photos. Perhaps I'm wrong.
How about binaries, Marthy?
BTW, one of the photographic works of art in the Sensation
show is highly reminiscent of the Serrano "Mort" series. I
have an example here. Shall I email it to you?
(Proceeding with caution.)
Luk
Every9man
From: maggi...@aol.comSPAMBLOC (Maggie)
>Did anyone think he really CARED about this
>issue?
>
>PattyC
>
barbara said:
>To tell you the truth Patty C, I do believe he was really personally offended.
>But he never loses sight of his goal which is to be 1) President 2) Governor
>3)
>a US Senator.
>
>If we're all lucky he'll go back to being just a lousy lawyer:)
/***I thought his record as a prosecutor was pretty good. Isn't that what
/originally got him elected mayor?
It was. Maggie but in the expectation of a guffaw from you ,I remind you that I
despise prosecutors almost as some despise defense lawyers:)
Seriously, yes, it was a time of high crime and many of the measures that
Dinkins had put into place hadnt had the time to produce tangible results. So
on the platform of law and order he got elected. Of course it didnt help that
Dinkins was a disgrace and even some of the large unions which had helped put
him into office sat on their hands.
>
>Barbara-wondering what other politician could possibly have built up a
>record
>of losing the most free speech battles in history.
/***...while winning the most elections (percentage-wise)?
Look who he was running against:) I know, it's our own fault for not having
credible candidates to run against him. Perhaps this next election wont be so
easy.
Barbara
Barbara
Every9man
From: maggi...@aol.comSPAMBLOC (Maggie)
barbara said:
>Pssssst Patty, he hasnt seen it either;-) Nor do I think, have most of the
>people here calling it sick, non art etc.
***Are you saying that you believe the numerous still pictures and videos of
some of the exhibits don't do them justice and that you believe many would
change their minds if they could actually see these works of art?
Maggie
No, what I think I am saying ( major guffaw tolerated here) is that people have
made up their minds based on what they have heard combined with a knee jerk
reaction to the subject matter, calling the whole thing non art.
I dont think you can make a valid judgment of a work of art from a
reproduction. Much of the "art" for me, comes in the form of how something
makes me feel and it is impossible to get the feeling without the live piece in
front of you.
Barbara
Every9man
From: maggi...@aol.comSPAMBLOC (Maggie)
>> Martha said:
>> >Do you believe that owning a photograph of a painting equals owning the
>> >painting?
>>
maggie said:
>> ***Of course not. Just as listening to an albu is not the same as attending
>a
>> concert. But I can get a pretty darn good idea about the artist and his
>work
>> by listening to that recording, or viewing those photographs.
>>
martha said:
>You have never had the experience of changing your mind after seeing
>something in the flesh, as it were, after having seen only
>reproductions?
/***I have often thought that pictures in art books don't do justice to many
/works or art and have been pleasantly surprised by the vibrance of color and
/feelings of movement and energy in the actual painting, sculpture, etc. I
can't remember ever seeing a photograph of a work or art, being offended or
/repulsed by it, then seeing that work in person, as it were, and deciding that
it is not offensive or repulsive. But perhaps I just haven't gotten out
/enough.
/(And do you honestly think that museum curators view each work of art they
/select *in the flesh*? I know for a fact that most works in an exhibit /are
initially evaluated on the basis of photographs and some--perhaps most--are
/eventually selected, having never been actually seen by the people making the
/final decisions.)
/Maggie
the key word may be "initially" and re: never seeing the work in it's flesh ,
Lord Sir I am sure knows better than I what the selection process is but I can
tell you that in this case Arnold Lehman who is the President of the Brooklyn
Museum attended the show at the Royal Academy in , I think the end of l997 .
I jsut read an article which described one of the paintings that didnt cause
the Mayor to head for the throw up bag or make any objections at all; a
representation of Jesus as a bare breasted woman.
Hmmmmmmmmm..
Barbara
Every9man
From: maggi...@aol.comSPAMBLOC (Maggie)
>> >> Martha said:
>> >> >Do you believe that owning a photograph of a painting equals owning
>the
>> >> >painting?
>> >>
>> maggie said:
>> >> ***Of course not. Just as listening to an albu is not the same as
>attending
>> >a
>> >> concert. But I can get a pretty darn good idea about the artist and
>his
>> >work
>> >> by listening to that recording, or viewing those photographs.
>> >>
>> martha said:
>> >You have never had the experience of changing your mind after seeing
>> >something in the flesh, as it were, after having seen only
>> >reproductions?
>>
maggie said:
>> ***I have often thought that pictures in art books don't do justice to
>many
>> works or art and have been pleasantly surprised by the vibrance of color
>and
>> feelings of movement and energy in the actual painting, sculpture, etc.
> I
>> can't remember ever seeing a photograph of a work or art, being offended
>or
>> repulsed by it, then seeing that work in person, as it were, and deciding
>that
>> it is not offensive or repulsive. But perhaps I just haven't gotten out
>> enough.
>>
>> (And do you honestly think that museum curators view each work of art
>they
>> select *in the flesh*? I know for a fact that most works in an exhibit
>are
>> initially evaluated on the basis of photographs and some--perhaps most--are
>> eventually selected, having never been actually seen by the people making
>the
>> final decisions.)
>
martha said:
>I did not realize we were discussing how museum directors choose works
>of art to exhibit. I thought we were discussing your contention that a
>person can get a pretty good idea of whether a work of art is filth or
>not from viewing photos. Perhaps I'm wrong.
***Could you quote to me the part of my post where I mentioned "filth"? I
don't seem to recall saying anything like that.
And you and Barbara seem to be implying that one must actually view a work of
art in order to come to any conclusions about its appropriateness for an
exhibit. Surely, pointing out that museum curators often make this
determination *without* viewing the work--only the photographs--pretty much
destroys this argument. But I think you've realized that.
Maggie
However at least in the instant case, you are wrong.
For a more general discussion we need to hear from someone actually in touch
with the process.
Barbara
Every9man
From: Luk <lukn...@mindspring.com>
Maggie wrote:
>And do you honestly think that museum curators view
>each work of art they select *in the flesh*?
Absolutely not!!!!!!!!
Luk
``~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
OK smarty pants. Which curators do and which dont?
Barbara
Maggie
>barbara said:
>>Pssssst Patty, he hasnt seen it either;-) Nor do I think, have most of
>the
>>people here calling it sick, non art etc.
>
>***Are you saying that you believe the numerous still pictures and videos
>of
>some of the exhibits don't do them justice and that you believe many would
>change their minds if they could actually see these works of art?
barbara said:
>No, what I think I am saying ( major guffaw tolerated here) is that people
>have
>made up their minds based on what they have heard combined with a knee jerk
>reaction to the subject matter, calling the whole thing non art.
***Seems to me that "art" is pretty much in the eye of the beholder and that
most people can easily rule out certain things as art based on some basic
information about them--photos help, of course. If I say to you that I have
printed this page out on a plain white sheet of 8 x 11 inch paper, do you
really have to see it to make the determination that it isn't art?
>
>I dont think you can make a valid judgment of a work of art from a
>reproduction. Much of the "art" for me, comes in the form of how something
>makes me feel and it is impossible to get the feeling without the live piece
>in
>front of you.
***I wonder, then, how curators and boards make these determinations every day
based on photographs of the works?
Every9man
From: maggi...@aol.comSPAMBLOC (Maggie)
>barbara said:
>>Pssssst Patty, he hasnt seen it either;-) Nor do I think, have most of
>the
>>people here calling it sick, non art etc.
>
maggie said:
>***Are you saying that you believe the numerous still pictures and videos
>of
>some of the exhibits don't do them justice and that you believe many would
>change their minds if they could actually see these works of art?
barbara said:
>No, what I think I am saying ( major guffaw tolerated here) is that people
>have
>made up their minds based on what they have heard combined with a knee jerk
>reaction to the subject matter, calling the whole thing non art.
/***Seems to me that "art" is pretty much in the eye of the beholder and that
/most people can easily rule out certain things as art based on some basic
/information about them--photos help, of course. If I say to you that I have
/printed this page out on a plain white sheet of 8 x 11 inch paper, do you
/really have to see it to make the determination that it isn't art?
I've already said I dont feel capable of defining art and would rather leave it
to those who know a hell of a lot more about it than me.
I wouldnt pick the current resident of Gracie Mansion to do it for me.
I Once entered an exhibit. It was for Impossible Art. I did exactly that. I
printed out to the best of my ability, what I considered to be Impossible Art.
They loved it:)
I think I still have it around but I doubt you'd like it.
>
>I.6 dont think you can make a valid judgment of a work of art from a
Every9man
From: maggi...@aol.comSPAMBLOC (Maggie)
>barbara said:
>>Pssssst Patty, he hasnt seen it either;-) Nor do I think, have most of
>the
>>people here calling it sick, non art etc.
>
maggie said:
>***Are you saying that you believe the numerous still pictures and videos
>of
>some of the exhibits don't do them justice and that you believe many would
>change their minds if they could actually see these works of art?
barbara said:
>No, what I think I am saying ( major guffaw tolerated here) is that people
>have
>made up their minds based on what they have heard combined with a knee jerk
>reaction to the subject matter, calling the whole thing non art.
Maggie responds:
***Seems to me that "art" is pretty much in the eye of the beholder and that
most people can easily rule out certain things as art based on some basic
information about them--photos help, of course. If I say to you that I have
printed this page out on a plain white sheet of 8 x 11 inch paper, do you
really have to see it to make the determination that it isn't art?
Barbara posts:
continuation:
And I am differentiating between what art is for me and what art is considered
to be by the people we put in charge of making those decisions.
Again, I didnt vote for the Mayor to define art for me. I support the Brooklyn
Museum among others, to perform that task.
Barbara continues:
>I dont think you can make a valid judgment of a work of art from a
>reproduction. Much of the "art" for me, comes in the form of how something
>makes me feel and it is impossible to get the feeling without the live piece
>in
>front of you.
Maggie responds:
/***I wonder, then, how curators and boards make these determinations every day
/based on photographs of the works?
I dont know that they do Maggie and I am not suggesting that what art does for
me has anything to do with their selection process.
Barbara
Laura Burchard
Josey <witha...@aol.comTakeThis> wrote:
> To be CLEAR: I am totally for the right of the artist to create what he wants
>and to sell it and exhibit it (I also believe in boycott and protest, mind
>you), but I am against tax money funding it and I DO find it insulting to my
>faith.
You do realize that your faith is also the artist's faith, don't you?
Ofili is Roman Catholic. If you listened to just the news, you'd think
they were talking about some conventional icon of Mary smeared with shit
as a 'statement'. Enlightenment: Ofili uses elephant dung in *all* his
paintings -- according to him, it's his tribute to his African heritage.
In the Virgin Mary painting, he made it a brooch; in a portrait
inspired by Stephen Lawrence's mother it's a pendant; if you check out
the report on his Turner Prize at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/entertainment/newsid_226000/226000.stm,
you'll see a portrait of a young black woman with a lump as the jewel in
her headress. He also props his paintings up on two rests made of dried
elephant dung.
Now, one may suspect that Ofili wasn't unaware of the usefulness of such a
distinctive signature in making himself stand out in the oh so competitive
British art world ("Who's Chris Ofili?" "You know, the elephant dung guy."
"Oh, him.") but I somehow doubt he means to diss Stephen Lawrence's mother
(Lawrence was a young black man beaten to death by white yobbos, the case
botched, perhaps deliberately, by British cops; he's viewed as something
close to a martyr.)
The truly amusing thing is that there are some artworks in the show that
are closer to the sort of shock-for-shock's sake aesthetic that Guiliani
is ranting on about -- but instead he picked on an artwork that appears to
be a sincere (if offbeat to some sensibilities) celebration of the
artist's own faith.
I didn't know that Guiliani was the Pope, to decide what's proper for a
Roman Catholic and what isn't. Such a relevation...
Mind you, I like shock for shock's sake on occasion, too, it's just been
so tediously and unimaginatively overdone recently. Ofili looks a lot
closer to Mapplethorpe (one of the great photographers and artists of the
20th century) than Serrano (prince of cheese and kitsch if you ask me.
Ever seen his portrait series? All the depth of a Kraft ad.)
Laura
Laura Burchard -- l...@radix.net -- http://www.radix.net/~lhb
X-Review: http://traveller.simplenet.com/xfiles/episode.htm
"Good design is clear thinking made visible." -- Edward Tufte
Every9man
Date: Sun, 03 October 1999 11:11 AM EDT
Message-id: <7t7rnj$lcl$1...@saltmine.radix.net>
Laura
Hi Laura, thanks for informative post.
The pictures I've seen of the painting somehow evoke the images of an American
painter, a black, who I cant seem to recall the name of.
At first I thought Romare Beardon, but now that you bring up the name of
Lawrence, I think it's Jacob Lawrence that Im thinking of.
I agree about Mapplethorpe btw.
Barbara
Debby
S.<sarg...@injersey.com>
Every9man wrote:
> Subject: Re: OT Bklyn museum-Catholic bashing -for Maggie
> From: maggi...@aol.comSPAMBLOC (Maggie)
> Date: Fri, 01 October 1999 12:25 PM EDT
> Message-id: <19991001122555...@ng-da1.aol.com>
>
> >Hi
> >I found one reference in the paper about the exhibit being anti Catholic.
> >
> >In wednesday's NY Post, the Mayor is quoted as saying that the exhibit is
> >Catholic-bashing because the painting ( of the Virgin Mary ) is spotted
> >with
> >dung and includes pictures cut from porno magazines.
> >
> >Anyone have any idea why it is Catholic bashing? ( as opposed to allegedly
> >
> >Christian bashing)
>
> ***It's impossible for me to respond without seeing the quote.
>
> Maggie
>
> They did not use a direct quote but most of the stories including the
> Washington Post, THe New York Times, THe ny daily news, describe him as saying
> the same thing. And he is not calling for any retractions.
> this story was in Wednesday Post 9/29 page 2. I'll copy it and post it when I
> get back from work if you dont want to go to the web site (www.nypost.com)
>
Debby
Maggie wrote:
> barbara said:
> >Pssssst Patty, he hasnt seen it either;-) Nor do I think, have most of the
> >people here calling it sick, non art etc.
>
> ***Are you saying that you believe the numerous still pictures and videos of
> some of the exhibits don't do them justice and that you believe many would
> change their minds if they could actually see these works of art?
>
Debby
until you examine it up close and see how much work the artist put into the picture.
A photo cannot do it justice. For instance you can see all the pictures you want of
the Athena statue in Georgia, but it is so huge unless you see it in person you can
never appreciate it. There is noting like seeing artwork in person:) Debby
S.<sarg...@injersey.com>
Martha wrote:
> Maggie wrote:
> >
> > >> Martha said:
> > >> >Do you believe that owning a photograph of a painting equals owning the
> > >> >painting?
> > >>
> > maggie said:
> > >> ***Of course not. Just as listening to an albu is not the same as attending
> > >a
> > >> concert. But I can get a pretty darn good idea about the artist and his
> > >work
> > >> by listening to that recording, or viewing those photographs.
> > >>
> > martha said:
> > >You have never had the experience of changing your mind after seeing
> > >something in the flesh, as it were, after having seen only
> > >reproductions?
> >
> > ***I have often thought that pictures in art books don't do justice to many
> > works or art and have been pleasantly surprised by the vibrance of color and
> > feelings of movement and energy in the actual painting, sculpture, etc. I
> > can't remember ever seeing a photograph of a work or art, being offended or
> > repulsed by it, then seeing that work in person, as it were, and deciding that
> > it is not offensive or repulsive. But perhaps I just haven't gotten out
> > enough.
> >
> > (And do you honestly think that museum curators view each work of art they
> > select *in the flesh*? I know for a fact that most works in an exhibit are
> > initially evaluated on the basis of photographs and some--perhaps most--are
> > eventually selected, having never been actually seen by the people making the
> > final decisions.)
>
> I did not realize we were discussing how museum directors choose works
> of art to exhibit. I thought we were discussing your contention that a
> person can get a pretty good idea of whether a work of art is filth or
> not from viewing photos. Perhaps I'm wrong.
>
> Martha
Debby
Debby S.<sarg...@injersey.com>
Luk wrote:
> Martha wrote:
>
> > I thought we were discussing your contention that a
> > person can get a pretty good idea of whether a work of art is filth or
> > not from viewing photos. Perhaps I'm wrong.
>
Debby
good humor about Chris Offilli's work and thanks for letting us have an insight into
the personality of the artist. Thanks for the London zoo for providing the
dung:) Debby S.<sarg...@injersey.com>
Laura Burchard wrote:
Josey
>You do realize that your faith is also the artist's faith, don't you?
>Ofili is Roman Catholic.
Yeah, I'm hip.
If you listened to just the news, you'd think
>they were talking about some conventional icon of Mary smeared with shit
>as a 'statement'. Enlightenment: Ofili uses elephant dung in *all* his
>paintings -- according to him, it's his tribute to his African heritage.
>In the Virgin Mary painting, he made it a brooch; in a portrait
> inspired by Stephen Lawrence's mother it's a pendant; if you check out
>the report on his Turner Prize at
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/entertainment/newsid_226000/226000.stm,
>you'll see a portrait of a young black woman with a lump as the jewel in
>her headress. He also props his paintings up on two rests made of dried
>elephant dung.
Actually, I am not as 'offended' by this piece as I am by federal funding of it
(or any piece of art that hasn't been unanimously declared desired by the
population that pays for it)
>Now, one may suspect that Ofili wasn't unaware of the usefulness of such a
>distinctive signature in making himself stand out in the oh so competitive
>British art world ("Who's Chris Ofili?" "You know, the elephant dung guy."
>"Oh, him.") but I somehow doubt he means to diss Stephen Lawrence's mother
>(Lawrence was a young black man beaten to death by white yobbos, the case
>botched, perhaps deliberately, by British cops; he's viewed as something
>close to a martyr.)
>
>The truly amusing thing is that there are some artworks in the show that
>are closer to the sort of shock-for-shock's sake aesthetic that Guiliani
>is ranting on about -- but instead he picked on an artwork that appears to
>be a sincere (if offbeat to some sensibilities) celebration of the
>artist's own faith.
It may be that.. I really don't know. Federal funding aside, there's no one
element I can think of in the painting that I find inherently offensive. But I
do have problems with artists who like to shock for the SAKE of 'shocking'
those they consider inferior. I dislike snobs and find that pretty snobbish
behavior. It's a question of fact whether this particular artist falls into
that category; I simply don't know. Haven't met him, haven't seen his work in
great detail...
>I didn't know that Guiliani was the Pope, to decide what's proper for a
>Roman Catholic and what isn't. Such a relevation...
I've said in another post that I don't know what is actually motivating
Giuliani here. I only agree that art shouldn't be funded with federal funds. If
Rudy, a Catholic, were to tell me, a Catholic, what I could and couldn't do,
I'd tell him to f*** off. I'd do it if he were Protestant, too, actually LOL
>Mind you, I like shock for shock's sake on occasion, too, it's just been
>so tediously and unimaginatively overdone recently.
I don't like 'shock' for shock's sake, though I do like different if it's
GENUINE (in fact, I relish it). I agree that the whole routine's become tedious
as hell...
Ofili looks a lot
>closer to Mapplethorpe (one of the great photographers and artists of the
>20th century) than Serrano (prince of cheese and kitsch if you ask me.
>Ever seen his portrait series? All the depth of a Kraft ad.)
'Depth of a Kraft ad'... heheh.. Nope, I haven't seen his portrait series, but
I'll do a search online 'cause you have me intrigued.
>Laura
>
>Laura Burchard -- l...@radix.net -- http://www.radix.net/~lhb
>X-Review: http://traveller.simplenet.com/xfiles/episode.htm
>
>"Good design is clear thinking made visible." -- Edward Tufte
Just another victim of the in-house drive-by,
Josey
"Democracy means simply the bludgeoning
of the people, by the people, for the people." --Oscar Wilde
Luk
Josey wrote:
> I don't like 'shock' for shock's sake,
Neither do I. Why is the public so willing to be duped into calling
something "art" when its only characteristic is that it's shocking?
A public which nods its head when the parts of a cow are
displayed as art has no judgment or pride.
No wonder the last two presidential elections went
so badly!
Luk
Josey
I grant that a body could get touched artistically by pretty much anything, but
what bugs the hell outta me is the snobby, elitist attitudes of the people who
claim to be experts who look down on people who just don't 'get' the artistic
merit of pickled cow parts. And I have a feeling that a lot (not all) of the
stuff that's called art is more of an inside joke or something. I saw a piece
that consisted of a plain white canvas upon which was written the word 'CRAYON'
in crayon. Period. That was it. It was in a museum. Maybe someone, somewhere
really, truly looks at this and thinks 'WOWEE' or something, but man, I freely
admit I think it's shit.
FWIW, I see a difference between the great 'CRAYON' masterpiece and
Mapplethorpe's work, say, where skill in the making is obvious and some of
which is composed to be actually beautiful to the eye (subject aside). But no
matter what I think of 'CRAYON' or Mapplethorpe, freedom makes my judgement
important only to me, God, and people who give a shit about me. If some freak
wants to put out big bucks for 'CRAYON', let 'em. But I'd resent the hell out
of it if he expected me to help pay so he could gaze at it in his superior
wonder.
Luk
> >A public which nods its head when the parts of a cow are
> >displayed as art has no judgment or pride.
Josey wrote:
> I have a feeling that a lot (not all) of the
> stuff that's called art is more of an inside joke or something. I saw a piece
> that consisted of a plain white canvas upon which was written the word 'CRAYON'
> in crayon. Period. That was it. It was in a museum.
We've all seen that kind of thing. A canvas painted all black.
A mound of cow dung piled on the floor - and on and on.
But I think the article ("The Collector") about Saatchi, throws
a lot of light on the art market. As the Colonel said, this
is all about promotion. Saatchi is an ad-man. People with
nothing better to do like to walk around museums and chortle
over things that poke fun at art. The more shocking the
better. It's one step away from going to a porn store
just to see what's there. It's a con game, it's legal and with
enough promotion it's lucrative.
Luk
Luk
> Luk wrote:
> > A public which nods its head when the parts of a cow are
> > displayed as art has no judgment or pride.
> >
> > No wonder the last two presidential elections went
> > so badly!
Michael wrote:
> So you're now judging the *public* on their taste in art ?
Sure, why not?
> Not all people
> will agree with you regarding this issue Luk.
Obviously not.
> It's called a democracy.
Everyone is free to like what they like and equally free
to comment on the taste of the general public.
Luk
Laura Burchard
Josey <witha...@aol.comTakeThis> wrote:
>Laura Burchard wrote:
> If you listened to just the news, you'd think
>>they were talking about some conventional icon of Mary smeared with shit
>>as a 'statement'. Enlightenment: Ofili uses elephant dung in *all* his
>>paintings -- according to him, it's his tribute to his African heritage.
>>In the Virgin Mary painting, he made it a brooch; in a portrait
>> inspired by Stephen Lawrence's mother it's a pendant; if you check out
>>the report on his Turner Prize at
>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/entertainment/newsid_226000/226000.stm,
>>you'll see a portrait of a young black woman with a lump as the jewel in
>>her headress. He also props his paintings up on two rests made of dried
>>elephant dung.
>
>Actually, I am not as 'offended' by this piece as I am by federal funding of it
>(or any piece of art that hasn't been unanimously declared desired by the
>population that pays for it)
'unanimously declared desired'? Would you like to nominate any piece in
any museum, any public sculpture, or public building that would fit that
description? Goodbye to all public monuments then (you may be to young to
recall the tussle over the Vietnam memorial, but I'm not.) If you are
going to take this tack, then be consistent. Be as enraged over the new
WWII monument in the planning as the Ofili piece.
You do realize that taxpayers are not paying for this exhibit, don't you?
It's sponsored by Christie's and paid-for admissions. The money Guiliani
is trying to yank is money that goes to maintaining the building (not to
mention he's trying to kick them out of the building itself.)
Maggie
>You do realize that taxpayers are not paying for this exhibit, don't you?
>It's sponsored by Christie's and paid-for admissions. The money Guiliani
>is trying to yank is money that goes to maintaining the building (not to
>mention he's trying to kick them out of the building itself.)
***Something tells me you don't know much about running a business.
Josey
>>Actually, I am not as 'offended' by this piece as I am by federal funding of
>it
>>(or any piece of art that hasn't been unanimously declared desired by the
>>population that pays for it)
>
>'unanimously declared desired'? Would you like to nominate any piece in
>any museum, any public sculpture, or public building that would fit that
>description?
The real issue is sovereignty. If a group of people on a certain piece of land
-- county sized, state sized, country sized, whatever -- all agree,
unanimously, to live in THAT state, under laws X through Z, that is fine. They
can all agree to live like Commies, fine by me. Me, I have no problem agreeing
(that being the operative word) to live under the US Constitution and in an
individual State/smaller area whose Constitution recognized equality before the
law of all people no matter their race, gender, sexuality, gender ID, etc.,
that provided for the poor and the building of roads and monuments and
fountains and parks, libraries, etc.., that elected people to make decisions
like 'what do we hang in the museum?'... But I resent not being asked. I
resent FORCE and I resent the presumption that they are the ultimate sovereigns
when, in America, WE, the people, are supposed to have been that. I hate that
the federal govt. oversteps its Constitutional bounds in endless powergrabs and
when local govts.don't respect inividual sovereignty (and give up their own
soverignty to the feds) and don't operate as entities who derive any power they
have from the people. The whole thing is bass-ackwards: the feds act like kings
of America; the whole pyramid should be inverted. It's WAY too top-heavy.The
rule of law based on Constitutional principles is dead.
Goodbye to all public monuments then (you may be to young to
>recall the tussle over the Vietnam memorial, but I'm not.) If you are
>going to take this tack, then be consistent. Be as enraged over the new
>WWII monument in the planning as the Ofili piece.
Same principles apply with regard to federal funding...
>You do realize that taxpayers are not paying for this exhibit, don't you?
>It's sponsored by Christie's and paid-for admissions. The money Guiliani
>is trying to yank is money that goes to maintaining the building (not to
>mention he's trying to kick them out of the building itself.)
>
>Laura
Same principles apply with regard to federal funding...
Cliff or Linda Griffith
> You do realize that your faith is also the artist's faith, don't you?
> Ofili is Roman Catholic.
No, I don't. I realize he says he's Catholic, but there's often a
difference between saying one is Catholic and being Catholic. There are
quite a few "Catholic Buts" these days: "I'm Catholic, but..." usually
followed by some disavowal of an essential precept. I never have
understood why someone would want to claim affiliation with a group
whose beliefs he doesn't share.
Linda
Every9man
From: maggi...@aol.comSPAMBLOC (Maggie)
Message-id: <19991003203614...@ng-cd1.aol.com>
Laura said:
>You do realize that taxpayers are not paying for this exhibit, don't you?
>It's sponsored by Christie's and paid-for admissions. The money Guiliani
>is trying to yank is money that goes to maintaining the building (not to
>mention he's trying to kick them out of the building itself.)
/***Something tells me you don't know much about running a business.
/Maggie
What are you talking about Maggie? ????????
Barbara
Every9man
From: Lord Sir <Lord_...@newsguy.com>
>Josey <witha...@aol.comTakeThis> wrote:
>>Laura Burchard wrote:
>> If you listened to just the news, you'd think
>>>they were talking about some conventional icon of Mary smeared with shit
>>>as a 'statement'. Enlightenment: Ofili uses elephant dung in *all* his
>>>paintings -- according to him, it's his tribute to his African heritage.
>>>In the Virgin Mary painting, he made it a brooch; in a portrait
>>> inspired by Stephen Lawrence's mother it's a pendant; if you check out
>>>the report on his Turner Prize at
>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/entertainment/newsid_226000/226000.stm,
>>>you'll see a portrait of a young black woman with a lump as the jewel in
>>>her headress. He also props his paintings up on two rests made of dried
>>>elephant dung.
>>
>>Actually, I am not as 'offended' by this piece as I am by federal funding of
it
>>(or any piece of art that hasn't been unanimously declared desired by the
>>population that pays for it)
>
>'unanimously declared desired'? Would you like to nominate any piece in
>any museum, any public sculpture, or public building that would fit that
>description? Goodbye to all public monuments then (you may be to young to
>recall the tussle over the Vietnam memorial, but I'm not.) If you are
>going to take this tack, then be consistent. Be as enraged over the new
>WWII monument in the planning as the Ofili piece.
>
>You do realize that taxpayers are not paying for this exhibit, don't you?
No, I didn't know that. Where can I find this information. According to the
debate and info related here, by our kind posters in at-c, this is just
another
example of sins and sinful wasting precious taxes which should be immediately
returned to the taxpayers.
Now, from what George posted, I found out that the total NEA budget comes to
$50 million a year ( in that case it has been cut, what, 60-75% compared to
the
level of spending in the early 1990's - about $193 million in 1990 - under
George Bush, Luk - which means that most likely - an equal amount must have
become privatized during the Demonocrat Buffoon's term in office ). The NEA
funds many types of art programming with this $50 million (theatre, music and
visual arts related).
Here I was trying to tell everyone they could get a Mocha Latte at Starbucks
when they got their extra art taxes back. Sheesh, I think they are going to
have to settle for less than the house blend instead.
I can see how certain uh, frugal types might not want this money spent on any
funding for the arts. Myself, I am opposed to direct goverment subsidy of
artists, but tend to think it is OK to use some tax revenues to support
institutions which make the arts publically available in all types of locales
and venues - especially when compared to the vast costs and waste in most other
federal programs.
Surely we can waste an extra $50 million per year on art. If not, then what's
the point of being the most powerful nation on earth. Unless Americans just
don't care about appearing to be tastless to the rest of the world (which, come
to think of it ...) .
(snip)
**************************
The Daily News just published a list of city funding for the New York museums.
The Whitney Museum of American Art apparently got $6,000 in l998.
Isnt the Whitney the place where Serrano's "Piss Christ" is hanging?
I guess that blows the argument that the only reason Giuliani didnt protest
that show was because there was no city money funding it.
Barbara
Maggie
>>You do realize that taxpayers are not paying for this exhibit, don't you?
>>is trying to yank is money that goes to maintaining the building (not to
>>mention he's trying to kick them out of the building itself.)
>
>/***Something tells me you don't know much about running a business.
barbara said:
>What are you talking about Maggie? ????????
***If you are truly this clueless about how costs are allocated by businesses,
you have no business in this discussion.
Here's a clue:
"Hello, PS-52? I'd like to exhibit my collection of KKK memorabilia in your
lobby. My vast network of friends and family will be coming over to take a
peek, use your restrooms and trample your landscaping. Make sure that air
conditioning is cranked down--we're a warm-natured lot. Of course you'll have
to remove everything on the walls and in the halls now, hire extra security and
maintenance personnel and do a lot of explaining to the parents. But don't
worry--it won't cost you a cent--I'm even gonna charge admission."
Maggie
>The Daily News just published a list of city funding for the New York museums.
>
>
>The Whitney Museum of American Art apparently got $6,000 in l998.
>Isnt the Whitney the place where Serrano's "Piss Christ" is hanging?
>I guess that blows the argument that the only reason Giuliani didnt protest
>that show was because there was no city money funding it.
***I do hope you're not serious.
Please tell us about the contract the city has with the Whitney that authorizes
the mayor to withold the incredible sum of $6,000 if the museum doesn't meet
certain pre-set guidelines.
(You do know that the city supports the Brooklyn Museum to the tune of
$12,000.000 each year, don't you?)
Every9man
From: maggi...@aol.comSPAMBLOC (Maggie)
Message-id: <19991004005144...@ng-da1.aol.com>
barbara said:
>The Daily News just published a list of city funding for the New York museums.
>
>
>The Whitney Museum of American Art apparently got $6,000 in l998.
>Isnt the Whitney the place where Serrano's "Piss Christ" is hanging?
>I guess that blows the argument that the only reason Giuliani didnt protest
>that show was because there was no city money funding it.
***I do hope you're not serious.
/Please tell us about the contract the city has with the Whitney that
authorizes
/the mayor to withold the incredible sum of $6,000 if the museum doesn't /meet
/certain pre-set guidelines.
/(You do know that the city supports the Brooklyn Museum to the tune of
/$12,000.000 each year, don't you?)
/Maggie
That's not the point Maggie. The point was that when he was asked why he didnt
object to the Serrano painting, he said it was because there was no city
funding. It doesnt matter how much it is if there's a principle involved.
And where in the world do you get the $12 million from? The city budget for the
Brooklyn museum is $7 mil.
Barbara
Maggie
>>The Daily News just published a list of city funding for the New York
museums.
>>
>>
>>The Whitney Museum of American Art apparently got $6,000 in l998.
>>Isnt the Whitney the place where Serrano's "Piss Christ" is hanging?
>>I guess that blows the argument that the only reason Giuliani didnt protest
>>that show was because there was no city money funding it.
>
>***I do hope you're not serious.
>
>/Please tell us about the contract the city has with the Whitney that
>authorizes
>/the mayor to withold the incredible sum of $6,000 if the museum doesn't
>/meet
>/certain pre-set guidelines.
>
>/(You do know that the city supports the Brooklyn Museum to the tune of
>/$12,000.000 each year, don't you?)
barbara said:
>That's not the point Maggie. The point was that when he was asked why he
>didnt
>object to the Serrano painting, he said it was because there was no city
>funding. It doesnt matter how much it is if there's a principle involved.
***Don't be so stupid. $6,000 is nothing to the Whitney (and that figure is
from last year, BTW--the museum might not be getting anything this year) and
the city has no hold over them in return for that $6,000, as I'm sure you know.
>
>
>And where in the world do you get the $12 million from? The city budget
>for the
>Brooklyn museum is $7 mil.
****I got it from your favorite mayor. Where'd you get your $7 million number?
From This Week:
GIULIANI: Yes, and the fact is that if you want to do this privately, you have
every right to do it. This is not a matter of suppression. There are plenty of
museums in this city, fortunately or unfortunately, that would be glad to take
this exhibit. But here you’re taking hard-earned taxpayer dollars — I think
about $12 million of it — and using it to subsidize this project. And then
you’re also closing down the museum to public access. And the mayor has — I
would actually have to approve this, which, in conscience, I can’t do.
Douglas M. Case
maggi...@aol.comSPAMBLOC (Maggie) wrote:
>Laura said:
>>You do realize that taxpayers are not paying for this exhibit, don't you?
>>It's sponsored by Christie's and paid-for admissions. The money Guiliani
>>is trying to yank is money that goes to maintaining the building (not to
>>mention he's trying to kick them out of the building itself.)
>
>***Something tells me you don't know much about running a business.
That's interesting. Now we've gone from "taxpayers shouldn't have to
fund something they don't agree with," to "government funding ought to be
used as a cudgel whenever a politician decides someone is being offended,
whether it's public money or not." So should we eliminate the SBA because
some loan holders sell Cleveland Indians baseball caps?
dmc
------------------
Thank God that's settled.
-Richard Brinsley Sheridan, handing an IOU to a creditor
Every9man
From: maggi...@aol.comSPAMBLOC (Maggie)
Message-id: <19991004014301...@ng-da1.aol.com>
/GIULIANI: Yes, and the fact is that if you want to do this privately, you have
/every right to do it. This is not a matter of suppression. There are plenty of
/museums in this city, fortunately or unfortunately, that would be glad to take
/this exhibit. But here you’re taking hard-earned taxpayer dollars — I think
/about $12 million of it — and using it to subsidize this project. And then
you’re also closing down the museum to public access. And the mayor has — I
/would actually have to approve this, which, in conscience, I can’t do.
/Maggie
Cant imagine where that came from. On Meet the Press he said $7 mil, the papers
have consistently said $7 mil.
Was he lying then, or is he lying now, or is he not an INVETERATE LIAR. (homage
to Charles Laughton:).
Barbara
Josey
>and Capitalism in action ( two of Luk's on-going, favorite Darwinian
>interests)
>and was also trying to use the opportunity to generate a ruse and report
>instead
>that it was another leftist/freako plot to use her taxes for art instead of
>guns
>?
>
>Luk ! Naughty !
Hmmmm.... Am totally unclear as to what you mean by 'anarchism' (or whether
you, like me, have 'anarchism' as a basic premise and move on from there) and
how you envision the economy would operate in your ideal system...
>>The money Guiliani
>>is trying to yank is money that goes to maintaining the building (not to
>>mention he's trying to kick them out of the building itself.)
>
>I smell a real estate deal.
>
>>
>>Laura
>
>So, do you want to go on a roadtrip with Michael, Josey and me ?
>
>My name here is Lord Sir, but you can call me Lord or you can call me Mama or
>even suggest a new name. I am a non-gender specific poster to at-c. I'm
>basically an anarchist and not at all well liked.
>
>Josey, Michael, may Laura come along too ?
Fine by me... Maybe we need to rent a bus. We could paint it psychedelic and
then paint our minds to match.
>Where are we going ?
St. Louis to get Michael. Then probably straight to Hell. Let's take the long,
scenic route. One with a few Stuckeys so we can get some kitschy shot glasses.
>LS
Josey
>difference between saying one is Catholic and being Catholic. There are
>quite a few "Catholic Buts" these days: "I'm Catholic, but..." usually
>followed by some disavowal of an essential precept. I never have
>understood why someone would want to claim affiliation with a group
>whose beliefs he doesn't share.
>
>Linda
The same way a person can be an "American, but..." not like this or that about
the govt. (that and the doctrine of the primacy of conscience)(and cause if
you're baptized Catholic, you're always Catholic acc. to the Church unless they
excommunicate you)..
Catholicism is a verrry emotional religion in that it forms much more than
just the 'religiosity' of a person but also his imagination. Ever notice how so
many artists are/were Catholic? This Offili guy whose work we've been talking
about, Mapplethorpe, Serrano... Catholics see life, nature as sacramental, and
that's a very powerful thing. The mystery of the Mass, the Communion of Saints,
the art, architecture (esp. pre-Vatican II), the heavy mysticism -- these
things are just as emotionally compelling as family life can be. Catholics who
disagree with this issue or that still have that "Catholic imagination" as
Andrew Greeley called it, and it's a beautiful thing that most don't want to
give up. They can disagree with the Pope on something but still 'get something'
from either going to Mass or maybe just going into an empty church and sitting.
They still 'feel Catholic' and have as much right to be there in church as the
Catholics who believe it to the last drop.
Also, most of the priests I've met in the past few years are really very open
and receptive. They understand doubts and most I've met have their own. Whether
this is good or bad would let this 'devolve' into a religious discussion per
se, but it's my guess that most "cafeteria-Catholics" who go to church are just
focusing on God (or focusing on what they personally 'get' out of going to
church) and on their parish, not the Vatican's Pope and Cardinals and papal
assertions and dogma (which I am not calling necessarily bad at all). They see
the church as 'theirs', and it is. If they're not hurting the Church, and if
they're getting some peace, fuhgetaboutit... s'all good.
Maggie
>>And where in the world do you get the $12 million from? The city budget
>>for the
>>Brooklyn museum is $7 mil.
>
>****I got it from your favorite mayor. Where'd you get your $7 million
>number?
> From This Week:
>
>/GIULIANI: Yes, and the fact is that if you want to do this privately, you
>have
>/every right to do it. This is not a matter of suppression. There are plenty
>of
>/museums in this city, fortunately or unfortunately, that would be glad
>to take
>/this exhibit. But here you’re taking hard-earned taxpayer dollars — I think
>/about $12 million of it — and using it to subsidize this project. And then
>you’re also closing down the museum to public access. And the mayor has
>— I
>/would actually have to approve this, which, in conscience, I can’t do.
babs said:
>Cant imagine where that came from. On Meet the Press he said $7 mil, the
>papers
>have consistently said $7 mil.
>Was he lying then, or is he lying now, or is he not an INVETERATE LIAR.
>(homage
>to Charles Laughton:).
***Speaking of liars....
On Meet the Press, he said "$7 million, $8 million, $9 million."
Maggie
>>>You do realize that taxpayers are not paying for this exhibit, don't you?
>>>is trying to yank is money that goes to maintaining the building (not
>to
>>>mention he's trying to kick them out of the building itself.)
>>
>>***Something tells me you don't know much about running a business.
>
> That's interesting. Now we've gone from "taxpayers shouldn't have to
>fund something they don't agree with,"
***What I've said is that taxpayers have no business funding "the arts." It's
not a matter of whether they "agree with" the exhibit or not. I just believe
private enterprise is better suited to the task.
dmc said:
to "government funding ought to be
>used as a cudgel whenever a politician decides someone is being offended,
>whether it's public money or not." So should we eliminate the SBA because
>some loan holders sell Cleveland Indians baseball caps?
***Ok by me--as far as I'm concerned, the SBA falls into pretty much the same
category as the NEA.
Every9man
From: maggi...@aol.comSPAMBLOC (Maggie)
Message-id: <19991004085204...@ng-da1.aol.com>
/***Speaking of liars....
/On Meet the Press, he said "$7 million, $8 million, $9 million."
/Maggie
Was I rude to you? I didnt call you a liar.
He has said at various times, 6,7,8,9 million. Never 12.
Can you imagine how effective a Mayor he is if he cant even get one number
straight?
Barbara
Every9man
From: maggi...@aol.comSPAMBLOC (Maggie)
Message-id: <19991004004810...@ng-da1.aol.com>
>Laura said:
>>You do realize that taxpayers are not paying for this exhibit, don't you?
>>It's sponsored by Christie's and paid-for admissions. The money Guiliani
>>is trying to yank is money that goes to maintaining the building (not to
>>mention he's trying to kick them out of the building itself.)
>
>/***Something tells me you don't know much about running a business.
barbara said:
>What are you talking about Maggie? ????????
***If you are truly this clueless about how costs are allocated by businesses,
you have no business in this discussion.
Here's a clue:
/"Hello, PS-52? I'd like to exhibit my collection of KKK memorabilia in your
/lobby. My vast network of friends and family will be coming over to take a
/peek, use your restrooms and trample your landscaping. Make sure that air
/conditioning is cranked down--we're a warm-natured lot. Of course you'll have
to remove everything on the walls and in the halls now, hire extra /security
and
maintenance personnel and do a lot of explaining to the parents. But don't
/worry--it won't cost you a cent--I'm even gonna charge admission."
/Maggie
If you think that's an apropos analogy, I think this tangent is over the top. .
The exhibit is partly supported by Christies, and partially supported by the
admissions price.
Our preciuos tax money maintains the rest of the building now and for all of
the rest of the year.
Barbara
Debby
Debby S.<sarg...@injersey.com>
Josey wrote:
> >
> >Josey wrote:
> >
> >> I don't like 'shock' for shock's sake,
> >
> >Neither do I. Why is the public so willing to be duped into calling
> >something "art" when its only characteristic is that it's shocking?
> >
> >A public which nods its head when the parts of a cow are
> >displayed as art has no judgment or pride.
> >
> >No wonder the last two presidential elections went
> >so badly!
> >
> >Luk
>
> I grant that a body could get touched artistically by pretty much anything, but
> what bugs the hell outta me is the snobby, elitist attitudes of the people who
> claim to be experts who look down on people who just don't 'get' the artistic
> merit of pickled cow parts. And I have a feeling that a lot (not all) of the
> stuff that's called art is more of an inside joke or something. I saw a piece
> that consisted of a plain white canvas upon which was written the word 'CRAYON'
> in crayon. Period. That was it. It was in a museum. Maybe someone, somewhere
> really, truly looks at this and thinks 'WOWEE' or something, but man, I freely
> admit I think it's shit.
> FWIW, I see a difference between the great 'CRAYON' masterpiece and
> Mapplethorpe's work, say, where skill in the making is obvious and some of
> which is composed to be actually beautiful to the eye (subject aside). But no
> matter what I think of 'CRAYON' or Mapplethorpe, freedom makes my judgement
> important only to me, God, and people who give a shit about me. If some freak
> wants to put out big bucks for 'CRAYON', let 'em. But I'd resent the hell out
> of it if he expected me to help pay so he could gaze at it in his superior
> wonder.
>
Debby
Debby S.<sarg...@injersey.com>
Luk wrote:
> Luk wrote:
>
> > >A public which nods its head when the parts of a cow are
> > >displayed as art has no judgment or pride.
>
> Josey wrote:
>
> > I have a feeling that a lot (not all) of the
> > stuff that's called art is more of an inside joke or something. I saw a piece
> > that consisted of a plain white canvas upon which was written the word 'CRAYON'
> > in crayon. Period. That was it. It was in a museum.
>
Debby
Viet-Nam war memorial was disrespectful..... Debby S.<sarg...@injersey.com>
Laura Burchard wrote:
> In article <19991003154811...@ng-bk1.aol.com>,
> Josey <witha...@aol.comTakeThis> wrote:
> >Laura Burchard wrote:
> > If you listened to just the news, you'd think
> >>they were talking about some conventional icon of Mary smeared with shit
> >>as a 'statement'. Enlightenment: Ofili uses elephant dung in *all* his
> >>paintings -- according to him, it's his tribute to his African heritage.
> >>In the Virgin Mary painting, he made it a brooch; in a portrait
> >> inspired by Stephen Lawrence's mother it's a pendant; if you check out
> >>the report on his Turner Prize at
> >>http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/entertainment/newsid_226000/226000.stm,
> >>you'll see a portrait of a young black woman with a lump as the jewel in
> >>her headress. He also props his paintings up on two rests made of dried
> >>elephant dung.
> >
> >Actually, I am not as 'offended' by this piece as I am by federal funding of it
> >(or any piece of art that hasn't been unanimously declared desired by the
> >population that pays for it)
>
> 'unanimously declared desired'? Would you like to nominate any piece in
> any museum, any public sculpture, or public building that would fit that
> description? Goodbye to all public monuments then (you may be to young to
> recall the tussle over the Vietnam memorial, but I'm not.) If you are
> going to take this tack, then be consistent. Be as enraged over the new
> WWII monument in the planning as the Ofili piece.
>
> You do realize that taxpayers are not paying for this exhibit, don't you?
> It's sponsored by Christie's and paid-for admissions. The money Guiliani
> is trying to yank is money that goes to maintaining the building (not to
> mention he's trying to kick them out of the building itself.)
>
Luk
Debby wrote:
> Dear Luk: Then how do you explain "Angel" and "Random acts of Kindness"????
I don't remember titles.
Luk
Luk
Debby wrote:
> Dear Josey: Can I see a link to the crayon picture??? I would love to see it.:)
I don't know anything about the crayon picture. But
that makes me think back. Once when I was a kid and
had some (very mediocre and labored over) work in an
art show, I noticed a pen and ink drawing by someone.
It was of two apples and it consisted of a couple of
curved lines and two more lines for the stems. The drawing
made enough of an impression that I can still visualize it.
Luk
Debby
angel in the stool and the small pictures in a group of different people. The
angel in the stool is a very good study on body movement and the collection of
portaits a study in the acts of kindness:) Debby S.<sarg...@injersey.com>
Even "Wasted" is a good satire on the Last Supper in the spirit of Saturday Night
Live....:)
Douglas M. Case
maggi...@aol.comSPAMBLOC (Maggie) wrote:
>dmc said:
> to "government funding ought to be
>>used as a cudgel whenever a politician decides someone is being offended,
>>whether it's public money or not." So should we eliminate the SBA because
>>some loan holders sell Cleveland Indians baseball caps?
>
>***Ok by me--as far as I'm concerned, the SBA falls into pretty much the same
>category as the NEA.
Then the "issue" is just window dressing? You'd have the same response
if it was a Vermeer show?
PattyC4303
<grif...@home.com> writes:
>Laura Burchard wrote:
>> You do realize that your faith is also the artist's faith, don't you?
>> Ofili is Roman Catholic.
>
>No, I don't. I realize he says he's Catholic, but there's often a
>difference between saying one is Catholic and being Catholic. There are
>quite a few "Catholic Buts" these days: "I'm Catholic, but..." usually
>followed by some disavowal of an essential precept. I never have
>understood why someone would want to claim affiliation with a group
>whose beliefs he doesn't share.
>
>Linda
Hi Linda,
I gotta reply to your last sentence. I read an editorial a million years ago
titled, "Once a Catholic, always a Catholic." It had a funny tone to it that
basically said, no matter how many "buts," very many raised Catholic can't say,
"I am an ex-Catholic." Something about all the indoctrination, and "one true
church" and all. Anyway, I could relate. I don't buy into much of the
Catholic Church's teachings (most especially, as related to birth control!!),
but.... can't seem to NOT fill in that line on whatever form, "Catholic," when
it asks religion.
I don't claim it makes sense!
PattyC
PattyC4303
witha...@aol.comTakeThis (Josey) writes:
>Catholics who
>disagree with this issue or that still have that "Catholic imagination" as
>Andrew Greeley called it, and it's a beautiful thing that most don't want to
>give up. They can disagree with the Pope on something but still 'get
>something'
>from either going to Mass or maybe just going into an empty church and
>sitting.
>They still 'feel Catholic' and have as much right to be there in church as
>the
>Catholics who believe it to the last drop.
And I *get* the above totally.
PattyC<---"feeling" Catholic, despite the fact I don't practice.
PS. Did I mention, I LOVE your posts, Josie?!
Josey
>it.:)
Welllllll, Debby, I don't know where it'd be online, but if you give me 3
minutes, a box of crayolas and a piece of white paper, I could fake it really
well for you ;)
Just another victim of the in-house drive-by,
Josey (hmm, "I could fake it very well for you".. that's what I told him
lastnight)
Josey
>>Catholics who
>>disagree with this issue or that still have that "Catholic imagination" as
>>Andrew Greeley called it, and it's a beautiful thing that most don't want to
>>give up. They can disagree with the Pope on something but still 'get
>>something'
>>from either going to Mass or maybe just going into an empty church and
>>sitting.
>>They still 'feel Catholic' and have as much right to be there in church as
>>the
>>Catholics who believe it to the last drop.
>
>And I *get* the above totally.
>
>PattyC<---"feeling" Catholic, despite the fact I don't practice.
>
>PS. Did I mention, I LOVE your posts, Josie?!
Thank you, PattyC! It's so rare for people to be nice to each other on Usenet.
I appreciate it. (I betcha a hundred bucks* that you'll disagree with my
politics -- maybe not, though!--, but I hope we can still be cool with each
other and talk)
*in Monopoly money
Just another victim of the in-house drive-by,
Josey
"Democracy means simply the bludgeoning
Patty
> babs said:
> >>And where in the world do you get the $12 million from? The city
budget for the Brooklyn museum is $7 mil.
> >
> maggie said:
> >****I got it from your favorite mayor. Where'd you get your $7
million number?
> > From This Week:
> >
> >/GIULIANI: Yes, and the fact is that if you want to do this
privately, you have every right to do it. This is not a matter of
suppression. There are plenty of museums in this city, fortunately or
unfortunately, that would be glad to take
> >/this exhibit. But here you’re taking hard-earned taxpayer dollars —
I think about $12 million of it — and using it to subsidize this
project. And then you’re also closing down the museum to public access.
And the mayor has — I would actually have to approve this, which, in
conscience, I can’t do.
>
> babs said:
> >Cant imagine where that came from. On Meet the Press he said $7 mil,
the papers have consistently said $7 mil.
> >Was he lying then, or is he lying now, or is he not an INVETERATE
LIAR. >(homage
> >to Charles Laughton:).
>
> /***Speaking of liars....
>
> /On Meet the Press, he said "$7 million, $8 million, $9 million."
>
Barbara:
> Was I rude to you? I didnt call you a liar.
> He has said at various times, 6,7,8,9 million. Never 12.
> Can you imagine how effective a Mayor he is if he cant even get one
number straight?
All the articles that I have read have said $7 or $7.2 million. The
total budget for the museum is $23 million. There is also a lease at
issue and $20 million of future capital improvements. Perhaps city
funding, NEA, NEH, state and other government funds, and the value of
the city lease make it $12 million of taxpayers' money.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Maggie
>> to "government funding ought to be
>>>used as a cudgel whenever a politician decides someone is being offended,
>>>whether it's public money or not." So should we eliminate the SBA because
>>>some loan holders sell Cleveland Indians baseball caps?
>>
>>***Ok by me--as far as I'm concerned, the SBA falls into pretty much the
>same
>>category as the NEA.
>
> Then the "issue" is just window dressing? You'd have the same response
>if it was a Vermeer show?
***Absolutely. My objection is to the public funding of the arts. This
particular exhibit at the Brooklyn Museum just makes my position a little
easier for most others to understand.
(And how did you know to pick my favorite painter of all time for your
example?)
Maggie
>> >>And where in the world do you get the $12 million from? The city
>budget for the Brooklyn museum is $7 mil.
>> >
>> maggie said:
>> >****I got it from your favorite mayor. Where'd you get your $7
>million number?
>
>> > From This Week:
>> >
>> >/GIULIANI: Yes, and the fact is that if you want to do this
>privately, you have every right to do it. This is not a matter of
>suppression. There are plenty of museums in this city, fortunately or
>unfortunately, that would be glad to take
>> >/this exhibit. But here you’re taking hard-earned taxpayer dollars —
>I think about $12 million of it — and using it to subsidize this
>project. And then you’re also closing down the museum to public access.
>And the mayor has — I would actually have to approve this, which, in
>conscience, I can’t do.
>>
>> babs said:
>> >Cant imagine where that came from. On Meet the Press he said $7 mil,
>the papers have consistently said $7 mil.
>> >Was he lying then, or is he lying now, or is he not an INVETERATE
>LIAR. >(homage
>> >to Charles Laughton:).
>>
>> /***Speaking of liars....
>>
>> /On Meet the Press, he said "$7 million, $8 million, $9 million."
>>
>
>> Was I rude to you? I didnt call you a liar.
>> He has said at various times, 6,7,8,9 million. Never 12.
***Uh, Babs, I just quoted you the This Week text where he said "12."
PattyC4303
witha...@aol.comTakeThis (Josey) writes:
>>PattyC<---"feeling" Catholic, despite the fact I don't practice.
>>
>>PS. Did I mention, I LOVE your posts, Josie?!
>
>Thank you, PattyC! It's so rare for people to be nice to each other on
>Usenet.
>I appreciate it. (I betcha a hundred bucks* that you'll disagree with my
>politics -- maybe not, though!--, but I hope we can still be cool with each
>other and talk)
>
>*in Monopoly money
>
>
>Just another victim of the in-house drive-by,
> Josey
You know what?
I have no real need for my politics to be the same as those I like. Some of my
best friends are Republican, for example. And I MEAN that.
It is my belief that people should be judged first by how they treat others in
the day to day.
:)PattyC
Debby
my computer room:) Debby S.<sarg...@injersey.com>
Josey wrote:
> >Dear Josey: Can I see a link to the crayon picture??? I would love to see
> >it.:)
> >Debby S.<sarg...@injersey.com>
>
> Welllllll, Debby, I don't know where it'd be online, but if you give me 3
> minutes, a box of crayolas and a piece of white paper, I could fake it really
> well for you ;)
>
> Just another victim of the in-house drive-by,
Josey
>
>I have no real need for my politics to be the same as those I like. Some of
>my
>best friends are Republican, for example. And I MEAN that.
>
>It is my belief that people should be judged first by how they treat others
>in
>the day to day.
>
>:)PattyC
While I think politics is extreeemely important (just ask the families of 6
million Jews, gypsies and homosexuals who were killed in Germany only 50-some
years ago!), I totally agree with you, Ms. C. What freaks me out about Usenet
is how people talk to each other in ways they'd NEVER talk to that same person
in 'real life', with no feelings for another person's potential sensitivity.
I'm definitely -- and maybe unfortunately-- not beyond calling an outright,
definite, no-doubt-about-it asshole an asshole (I think snobs piss me off more
than anything), but -- whew! Un-Real how totally petty things can get around
here sometimes.
Just another victim of the in-house drive-by,
Josey
What has always made the state a hell on earth has
been precisely that man has tried to make it his heaven.
--- Friedrick Holderlin ---
Josey
>many issues. We've yet to wage a flame war. Now, where's the booze ?
>
>Michael
<GASP!> I think it's in the glovebox with Tiny Elvis!!! Think we're too late?
Josey
>him
>> lastnight)
>
>
>Michael <- likes nasty
Heheh.. you know what they say about us Catholics, Michael. (BTW, we're
namesakes, in a way: 'Michael' is one of my confirmation names. I'm a girl,
though. Just like that angel).
Josey
>it in
>my computer room:) Debby S.<sarg...@injersey.com>
You Got Mail! (TM)