To Andrea: More on drugs - OT
NanLeeCro
>kathleen flick <kfl...@mail.msy.bellsouth.net>
>Date: Wed, May 20, 1998 22:22 EDT
>Message-id: <356349...@mail.msy.bellsouth.net>
>
>Martha Sprowles wrote:
>> (snipped) ...like your unfortunate (lack of) taste in
>> art ...
>>
>Psst! Tell me - are we talking paint-by-number, big-eyed kids on black
>velvet here?
Daer Kath,
Oh, I have to clue you in on this. Martha LOVES the controversial and
(Federally funded artist) artwork entitled "PISS CHRIST".
The "work" is world- widely criticized if not reviled as purient and without
any redeeming or intrinsic art value. Of course, I think since this "work" is
NOT representational of the best American artwork and is not worthy of
patronizaton by Amer. taxpayers.
Needless to say, I goad her about her taste in art whenever the opportunity
seems pertinent. Her retort was a humourous one.
Of course, Martha's taste is sort of retro-avante garde (decadent) prescribed.
Martha taste in fine art is so defined by this painting of Christ in Urine -
really, Kath, it is purile. But beauty, as such, lies in the eyes of the
beholder. For Martha, she beholds beauty in
"PISS CHRIST". She is representative of the enlightened far-left Liberal elite
to which she claims allegiance. Kath, you can look up "PISS CHRIST" on the
NET. Make up your own mind about it.
Depending on your taste and values. Regards from Nan
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I have seen gross intolerance shown in support of tolerance...Coleridge
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NanLeeCro
>Subject: Re: To Andrea: More on drugs - OT
>From: Martha Sprowles <spro...@erols.com>
>Date: Wed, May 20, 1998 18:53 EDT
>Nan think art should be Pretty. Nuff said?
>
>Martha
Dear Martha,
It is NOT I who needs to "defend" my taste in Fine Arts.
I am overstuffed with Art History & Criticism, and academic drawing and
painting art classes, and hanging art in my home (no velvet) of those artists
worthy of the title of Master.
Your "taste" in quite questionable in its perversity, and it ain't pretty at
all. I will duel with you anytime in valued Fine Arts.
You see, I even have Beardsley's SALOME and ERTE prints at home. Want to call
that as a starting point? luv from Nan
Martha Sprowles
Dear Nan,
The only thing you know about my taste in art is that I think Piss
Christ is beautiful. All I know about yours is that you not only don't
think Piss Christ is beautiful, you think it is morally corrupt. You
would be surprised by what kind of art I have at home.
Martha
NanLeeCro
>> >Nan think art should be Pretty. Nuff said?
>> >
>> >Martha
>>
>> Dear Martha,
>> It is NOT I who needs to "defend" my taste in Fine Arts.
>> I am overstuffed with Art History & Criticism, and academic >>drawing and
painting art classes, and hanging art in my home >>(no velvet) of those artists
worthy of the title of Master.
>> Your "taste" in quite questionable in its perversity, and it ain't >>pretty
at all. I will duel with you anytime in valued Fine Arts.
>> You see, I even have Beardsley's SALOME and ERTE prints >>at home. Want to
call that as a starting point? luv from Nan
>Dear Nan,
>
>The only thing you know about my taste in art is that I think Piss
>Christ is beautiful. All I know about yours is that you not only >don't think
Piss Christ is beautiful, you think it is morally corrupt. >You would be
surprised by what kind of art I have at home.
>
>Martha
Martha,
First of all: it is impossible for the painting PISS CHRIST to be "morally
corrupt". I never said it was. Purient "art", yes. PISS CHRIST cannot even
be "morally" corrupting. What is CORRUPT is that the (artist) painting was
funded by American tax dollars. The painting has been subjected to world-wide
unfavorable and severe criticism, and rightfully so. The painting is an insult
to the American people because it is not intrinsicly representational of the
best in contemporary American art. What is VILE is that the American people had
to pay for it. The artist and the paintng are unworthy of public patronage.
I don't care what Art you have at home. I am addressing your
carelessly perverse, supercilious justification of PISS CHRIST.
Before, I was just making covert jabs and now you have forced me to express my
opinion so that Kath won't think I dig VELVET art.
The fact that you think the "work" is beautiful speaks as much for your
contrary value system as it does for your taste in Fine Arts.
from Nan whose palette doesn't do "urine"
Martha Sprowles
Um, Nan? Piss Christ isn't a painting.
I didn't bring up what kind of art you have at home. You did, bragging
that it was all work of "masters."
Martha
Tap4U2
In article <199805220425...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, nanl...@aol.com
(NanLeeCro) writes:
>Martha,
>First of all: it is impossible for the painting PISS CHRIST to be
>"morally corrupt". I never said it was. Purient "art", yes. PISS CHRIST
>cannot even be "morally" corrupting. What is CORRUPT is that the (artist)
>painting was funded by American tax dollars. The painting has been subjected
>to world-wide unfavorable and severe criticism, and rightfully so. The
>painting is an insult to the American people because it is not intrinsicly
>representational of the best in contemporary American art. What is VILE is
>that the American people had to pay for it. The artist and the paintng are
>unworthy of public patronage.
Andres Serrano's "Piss Christ" is not a painting, it is a photograph.
The photograph has NOT been subject to overall worldwide criticism, only
American.
Europeans loved it.
Serrano himself has said himself that he is obsessed with a need to comprehend
the nature of contemporary spirituality. He wanted others to examine their
thoughts
on religious dogma. He certainly has succeeded, since this dust up started in
1989.
Serrano has also said it was not his intention to offend.
Serrano's words:
"It dawned on me that piss would give a nice yellow," he said.. Urine
symbolizes waste, but also a necessary bodily function. Perhaps the urine
humanized Christ, rather than turn him into an unobtainable deity."
Serrano certainly likes to shock, no doubt about that, but isn't that one of
the
functions of the artist?
BTW, to bring this closer to some of the true-crime topics discussed on the
newsgroup.....Serrano has also done photographic pieces on victims of crime.
"Hacked to Death" was taken in a morgue. It is a photograph of a man who
had been stabbed by his wife.
Ruth
Don Sobwick
Dear Martha: I think its rather disgusting in an artsy kind of way<G> Debby
S.<sarg...@injersey.com>
Martha Sprowles wrote:
> NanLeeCro wrote:
> >
> > >Subject: Re: To Andrea: More on drugs - OT
> > >From: Martha Sprowles <spro...@erols.com>
> > >Date: Wed, May 20, 1998 18:53 EDT
> >
> > >Nan think art should be Pretty. Nuff said?
> > >
> > >Martha
> >
> > Dear Martha,
> > It is NOT I who needs to "defend" my taste in Fine Arts.
> > I am overstuffed with Art History & Criticism, and academic drawing and
> > painting art classes, and hanging art in my home (no velvet) of those artists
> > worthy of the title of Master.
> > Your "taste" in quite questionable in its perversity, and it ain't pretty at
> > all. I will duel with you anytime in valued Fine Arts.
> > You see, I even have Beardsley's SALOME and ERTE prints at home. Want to call
> > that as a starting point? luv from Nan
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > I have seen gross intolerance shown in support of tolerance...Coleridge
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
NanLeeCro
>Subject: Re: To Andrea: More on drugs - OT - Art
>From: tap...@aol.com (Tap4U2)
>Date: Fri, May 22, 1998 07:03 EDT
>Message-id: <199805221103...@ladder03.news.aol.com>
>
>In article <199805220425...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
>nanl...@aol.com
>(NanLeeCro) writes:
>
>>Martha,
>>First of all: it is impossible for the painting PISS CHRIST to be
>>"morally corrupt". I never said it was. Purient "art", yes. PISS CHRIST
>>cannot even be "morally" corrupting. What is CORRUPT is that the (artist)
>>painting was funded by American tax dollars. The painting has been
>subjected
>>to world-wide unfavorable and severe criticism, and rightfully so. The
>>painting is an insult to the American people because it is not intrinsicly
>>representational of the best in contemporary American art. What is VILE is
>>that the American people had to pay for it. The artist and the paintng are
>>unworthy of public patronage.
Dear Ruth,
Yes, you are correct. I know its a photograph. Serrano's painterly photograph
*Piss Discus* is like a painting - I love it. Serrano's photography is
brilliant. A consensus of negative criticism, for whatever reasons in reaction
by Americans is justified - it is THEIR right to disapprove - they are the
Patrons - involuntary patrons at that. If Americans DON'T like PISS CHRIST,
they should not have to fund the Artist/Photographer. Let the Europeans
sponsor/fund the artist, Serrano. Actually, the adverse publicity worked for
him better than any positive criticism from Americans. The argument that
talented Serrano should be patronized is really for the citizenry to decide -
it is their dollars.
My point is: funded Art should be for the public's benefit and within the
scope of the public's general understanding and appreciation. If the public
rejects it, then it should not be funded. from Nan
>Andres Serrano's "Piss Christ" is not a painting, it is a photograph.
>
>The photograph has NOT been subject to overall worldwide criticism, only
>American.
>Europeans loved it.
>
>Serrano himself has said himself that he is obsessed with a need to
>comprehend
>the nature of contemporary spirituality. He wanted others to examine their
>thoughts
>on religious dogma. He certainly has succeeded, since this dust up started
>in
>1989.
>
>Serrano has also said it was not his intention to offend.
>
>Serrano's words:
>
>"It dawned on me that piss would give a nice yellow," he said.. Urine
>symbolizes waste, but also a necessary bodily function. Perhaps the urine
>humanized Christ, rather than turn him into an unobtainable deity."
>
>Serrano certainly likes to shock, no doubt about that, but isn't that one of
>the
>functions of the artist?
>
>BTW, to bring this closer to some of the true-crime topics discussed on the
>newsgroup.....Serrano has also done photographic pieces on victims of crime.
>"Hacked to Death" was taken in a morgue. It is a photograph of a man who
>had been stabbed by his wife.
>
>Ruth
>
>
>
Douglas M. Case
In article <199805240235...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
nanl...@aol.com (NanLeeCro) wrote:
>My point is: funded Art should be for the public's benefit and within the
>scope of the public's general understanding and appreciation. If the public
>rejects it, then it should not be funded.
Interesting concept. 'Course I don't know how one quantifies reactions
to Art, or certifies the validity of those reactions, given the contempory
response to Courbet, say, or Van Gogh, or Le Sacre du Printemps. And what
do we do about the non-plastic arts? Say the Cleveland Symphony drags the
second movement of the Jupiter, or the horn color is off-do we get a
refund? If one of the principals at the Salt Lake City Ballet slips,
should she be docked? How 'bout the guy sitting behind you at Aida who
coughs his fool head off? Heavy fine?
And why stop at the arts? Suppose the public decides that OTH weapons
render the aircraft carrier obsolete. Should we mothball 'em all? Or
take a vote on the National Institutes of Health's recommendation that a
particular drug regimen shows promise? Maybe a plebiscite on a new trail
in Olympia National Park, or a new wing of the Smithsonian dedicated to
Madonna memorabilia?
Consider, for a moment, the greatest monument of our times, The Wall. It
will stand with the Jefferson Memorial and the National Cemetery at
Gettysburg as our greatest national shrines. Now go back and read what
the self-appointed spokesmen for veterans were saying about it before it
was built. Better yet, go there and examine the god-awful "realistic"
G.I. Joe characters which stand just beyond its terminus, a paean to
aesthetic compromise and art by popular vote.
dmc
------------------
There never was an art-loving country.
-James A. McNeil Whistler
Luk
Martha Sprowles wrote:
> Dear Nan,
> The only thing you know about my taste in art is that I think Piss
> Christ is beautiful. All I know about yours is that you not only don't
> think Piss Christ is beautiful, you think it is morally corrupt. You
> would be surprised by what kind of art I have at home.
Martha....Martha,
What did they do to you at that school??
Serrano is a disgusting piece of filth. When you took all those art appreciation
courses, somebody forgot to tell you what art is. Art should lift the soul and fill
the heart with wonder. Here's a hundred year old black and white illustration that
I would call art:
http://rodent.lib.rochester.edu/camelot/images/rheadtrn.htm
You prefer Serrano?
I'm sending you some of his "work" to enjoy via email. Tell me you like it better.
Luk
Luk
> Ruth wrote:
>
> Serrano certainly likes to shock, no doubt about that, but isn't that one of
> the functions of the artist?
Why so? An artist takes pains to develop skills which he uses to please and
stimulate the senses. He makes a contribution.
Andres Serrano takes a machine and uses it to produce disgusting photographs. Why
call him an artist?
Luknhard
Martha Sprowles
You sent an url which opened to a photograph of a dead man's penis, Luk,
and my children were quite surprised. Why would you think I would want
that sent to my email?
You are truly irresponsible and contemptible.
Because I admire an artist's work doesn't mean I do not want it seen in
appropriate settings, asshole.
Please do not ever email me again.
Martha A. Sprowles
Martha Sprowles
Luk wrote:
>
> > Ruth wrote:
> >
> > Serrano certainly likes to shock, no doubt about that, but isn't that one of
> > the functions of the artist?
>
> Why so? An artist takes pains to develop skills which he uses to please and
> stimulate the senses. He makes a contribution.
The function of art is to entertain and to enlighten. Pretty pictures
don't even entertain. Pictures that make the viewer think--or even
change the viewer's mind--in a way that delights the senses are high
art.
Martha
Luk
Martha Sprowles wrote:
>You are truly irresponsible and contemptible.
(roflmao)
Luk
Eric Saeger
Luk wrote:
>
> > Ruth wrote:
> > Serrano certainly likes to shock, no doubt about that, but isn't that one of
> > the functions of the artist?
>
> Why so? An artist takes pains to develop skills which he uses to please and
> stimulate the senses. He makes a contribution.
> photographs. Why call him an artist?
Only because he is using "art" to purge his soul and, simultaneously,
conveying his feelings to people who don't share his inner workings but
who are willing to allow themselves to be stimulated by the artist.
Providing pleasure isn't in an artist's job description, though. The
artist's responsibility is to him or herself first, his/her audience
second. Meanwhile, it's up to the public to choose to ignore their own
feelings of peer pressure if they truly want to escape the ugly rantings
of artists like Serrano, David Lynch or Marilyn Manson (not that Manson
isn't an utterly contrived and phony circus act, but I couldn't think of
another example). I can say they're crap, and my old stand-by response
to people who use the tired argument of "but they're so popular" is to
respond with "well, twelve billion shit-eating flies can't be wrong, can
they?" Try it, you'll like it.
It's true that the most soulful, heartwarming, uplifting art comes from
those who, in their minds, are performing their art for whomever they
perceive to be their God. The human audience members are just there to
enjoy the dialog. It's also true that a lot of disaffected, hopeless,
inwardly hideous people require communion as well, and a little Serrano
makes them feel whole, if only for a moment.
Was that poetic enough to get you to model those white pumps, or should
I say it in Rockin' McLanguage?
The McDarlin of the McLurking Gods,
Eric
--
Remove NOSPAM* to reply
QA Analysis done from my home! http://members.aol.com/ManORuin/QA.html
Bot Bait: ab...@whitehouse.gov tmil...@iname.com panas...@aol.com
net-...@nocs.insp.irs.gov pyr...@ftc.gov resell...@hotmail.com
rhu...@fcc.gov d...@daltek.net lksi...@sockets.net ma...@daltek.net
bizi...@aol.com d...@sparrow.aoci.com 9809...@ix.netcom.com
newco...@memail.com ax...@metrocity.net
Martha Sprowles
Luk wrote:
>
> Martha wrote:
>
> > Please do not ever email me again.
>
>
> I was only trying to delight your senses.
>
> Luknh
You don't get it, do you? I can only assume that you don't have
children.
Again: I have said that I think Piss Christ is beautiful. Why this
statement would lead you to believe that I want a photograph of a dead
man's penis--no warning, no nothing--sent to my home email address is
beyond me. My children use this computer, too.
You are loathesome.
Martha
Luk
Martha wrote:
> Again: I have said that I think Piss Christ is beautiful. Why this
> statement would lead you to believe that I want a photograph of a dead
> man's penis--no warning, no nothing--sent to my home email address is
> beyond me. My children use this computer, too.
>
> You are loathesome.
Martha:
I'm sorry. I'm sorry.
I'll never do it again. Just don't post any more. My sides hurt and
tears are streaming down my face.
Whatever you do, don't killfile me. Please don't killfile me.
Luknh
Martha Sprowles
Y'know, the idea that art isn't simply for entertainment isn't my idea;
it's an old one, Plato, I think. The Republic. And I think it's a good
working definition.
People who are not taught to look at shape, color, form, texture *in
addition* to subject matter ("story" in the worst paintings) are unable
to see the beauty of, say, a mass of chemical factory pipes or the thick
rich liquidity of urine or the transcendance of early morning light,
even if the sun is rising over a city dump. It's important, I think, to
be able to see beyond the subject matter, and the best artists help us
do that. Some very fine artists eschew subject matter entirely--the
surface of the canvas is subject enough, and it is beautiful.
I am embarrassed by how annoyed I am with Nan. She makes all kinds of
erroneous assumptions about me, which shouldn't matter to me, but such
is my self-love that they do. The fact is that I know a great deal
about art, specifically about medieval iconography, and that I spend a
lot of time in art museums alone and with my family.
I have many friends who are artists, and I have studied drawing at the
Tyler Art Institute of Temple University, as part of my work editing and
illustrating biomedical research.
I'm in the midst of an article in the New York Review of Books about
Caravaggio and Titian, and how each perceived light vs. form in
paintings. I am exceptionally knowledgable about art, and I really
resent myself for feeling I have to claim this expertise here, in this
newsgroup. It really shouldn't matter to me. But it does.
Martha
Luk
> >Andres Serrano takes a machine and uses it to produce disgusting
> > photographs. Why call him an artist?
Eric responded:
> Only because he is using "art" to purge his soul and, simultaneously,
> conveying his feelings to people who don't share his inner workings but
> who are willing to allow themselves to be stimulated by the artist.
My my my my my my my...
> Providing pleasure isn't in an artist's job description, though. The
> artist's responsibility is to him or herself first, his/her audience
> second.
Ah, but which among us who seek to purge our souls should be labeled artists.
> Meanwhile, it's up to the public to choose to ignore their own
> feelings of peer pressure if they truly want to escape the ugly rantings
> of artists like Serrano, David Lynch or Marilyn Manson (not that Manson
> isn't an utterly contrived and phony circus act, but I couldn't think of
> another example). I can say they're crap, and my old stand-by response
> to people who use the tired argument of "but they're so popular" is to
> respond with "well, twelve billion shit-eating flies can't be wrong, can
> they?" Try it, you'll like it.
If shit-eating flies multiply like (well) flies, does Serrano's talent increase
proportionally?
> It's true that the most soulful, heartwarming, uplifting art comes from
> those who, in their minds, are performing their art for whomever they
> perceive to be their God.
Or for whomever they perceive as offering inspiration to rise above the banal.
> The human audience members are just there to
> enjoy the dialog. It's also true that a lot of disaffected, hopeless,
> inwardly hideous people require communion as well, and a little Serrano
> makes them feel whole, if only for a moment.
Thus the pathway to greater art is to increase the number of disaffected, hopeless,
hideous people.
> Was that poetic enough to get you to model those white pumps, or should
> I say it in Rockin' McLanguage?
Verily is Lancelot the bravest knight of all that speak of life and truth.
Luk
NanLeeCro
>Subject: Re: To Andrea: More on drugs - OT - Art
>Date: Wed, May 27, 1998 15:08
Martha wrote: I am embarrassed by how annoyed I am with Nan. She makes all
kinds of erroneous assumptions about me, which shouldn't matter to me, but such
is my self-love that they do. The fact is that I know a great deal about art,
specifically about medieval iconography, and that I spend a lot of time in art
museums alone and with my family.
Nan writes: After sustaining vacuous comments about art, you should be
rightfully embarrassed. Now, you are into SPIN.
Martha, the outre attitudes you expressed and the naive statements you made re:
Art clearly revealed that you had not checked out any art appreciation texts
before you made them. I doubt you have anything original to say about
Caravaggio and Titian re: light vs. form. I don't mean to "stalk" you, but I
just wonder if anyone buys your fiction?
Martha: I have many friends who are artists, and I have studied drawing at the
Tyler Art Institute of Temple University, as part of my work editing and
illustrating biomedical research.
Martha,
Tell me about some techniques and principles of illustrating plates.
What courses did you take to qualify illustrating biomedical research, I am
very curious. Very curious.
Martha wrote:
I'm in the midst of an article in the New York Review of Books about Caravaggio
and Titian, and how each perceived light vs. form in paintings. I am
exceptionally knowledgable about art, and I really resent myself for feeling I
have to claim this expertise here, in this newsgroup. It really shouldn't
matter to me. But it does. Martha
Martha,
"Self-love" that manipulates every topic and issue into "Martha".
Nothing you have "uttered" about Art, traditional visual/graphic arts supports
your claim of "expertise". Be sure to let us know about the NY Review of Books
article. I really would like to know what you have to say about Caravaggio and
Titian, light vs. form, etc. as an Art critic and expert, of course.
from Nan,...... just too much........
GMSpider
In article <356C6FB3...@mindspring.com>, Luk <lukn...@mindspring.com>
writes:
>Verily is Lancelot the bravest knight of all that speak of life and truth.
>
>Luk
>
Oh yeah, and he was screwing the King's wife. Is that brave or plain
stupid?
Grandmother Spider
Visit the Girl Gang Web Pages at
http://members.aol.com/gmspider/index.html
Wolf Str8
Nan, you are stupid and ridiculous. Martha killfiled you; leave her the hell
alone.
E. Tracy Tucciarone
Curator, Museum of Psychiatric Anomalies
== Wolf...@aol.com ==
Website: http://members.aol.com/WolfStr8/set.html
'This is the strangest life I've ever known'
Martha Sprowles
lordsir@hmc wrote:
>
> Dear Martha,
>
> You are cool with me. The issues in this discussion of "art" and "arts funding
> have gone all over the place.
>
> For what its worth MHO:
>
> 1. People fear "drugs" and sex (which they equate with obscenity) and pleasure
> and they are generally quite hypocritical, allowing themselves what please them
> while denying others the ability to choose different pleasures. Evidence
> supporting my contention is kindly provided by Nan, Luk, Imp and a few others.
>
> They use words like "filth" and "obscenity" to describe things they fear and
> cannot handle in more mature ways.
>
> Some people are simply not capable of understanding, let alone discussing
> certain subjects. You can always tell when they have to use lables and "hot"
> words to frame their opinions.
>
> 2. Luk was absolutely wrong to send the unsolicited url. Imp is wrong for
> jumping into this at all, unless to prove that Imp is hypocritical as well as a
> bully.
>
> 3. My views on "drugs" have been posted. As regards arts funding :
>
> The system is too elitist. The Netherlands had a more egalatarian approach and I
> think something along those lines could work out much better than the approach
> taken in the U.S.
>
> I also propose that citizens should be able to have the ability to "check-off"
> and make direct decisions concerning different ways their taxes should be spent.
> That way, by a direct and democratic means, we could express our support or lack
> of support for all federally funded programs, from the drug waar to the defense
> budget and funding for the arts.
>
> I also propose strict tests adressing the moral and ethical knowledge of people
> running for public office and a revamping of campaign spending so that all
> candidates have an equal shot economically.
>
> Anyway Martha, I wanted you to know that I am not questioning your sincerity as
> regards your postion on the art debate.
>
> For the record, I very much enjoy Mapplethorpe, and Serrano, and have an
> appreciation for the "underground" arts and artists. However, I don't support
> the NEA granting process as currently instituted.
Thanks for your kind comments. This question--should there be NEA
support for *any* art?--is a legitimate one, and one I suggested to Nan
some while back might be a better question to discuss. There were
several misunderstandings in this yelling match (and I'm sure some were
mine), but I want to make clear that I don't think federal funds should
support *only* outrageous, avant-garde art. As Halle pointed out, funds
are granted to community dance groups and orchestras--funds used to
bring the arts to underserved populations--and the art presented thusly
is generally *not* of a controversial nature. As far as *need* goes,
though, I do believe that art which is self-supporting has no business
getting NEA support. Jamie Wyeth, for instance, would I'm sure turn his
wealthy nose up at an NEA grant! The question of truly successful (in a
financial sense) artists' applying for these grants is, I assume, moot.
When the NEA grants money for a local orchestra to perform Beethoven, it
is not the art of Beethoven that is being supported (not directly, at
least) but the art of the orchestra. The local orchestra could have
applied for funds to perform Carl Orff, or John Cage.
And of course art appreciation is a matter of taste. But there are
clearly standards of artistic taste as well--from the most local of
*juried* art exhibits to the actions of the accessions committee of the
ubiquitous Metropolitan Museum of Art to the decisions of the NEA about
which artists to fund. And sometimes artistic standards as expressed by
those trained in art collide with popular tastes--as Doug Case so
artfully demonstrated with the example of the Vietnam Memorial Wall.
You may call this attitude snobby if you like, but that label is pretty
meaningless, imho. Facts is facts, as my grandmother used to say.
Martha
>
> So many talented artists, so little money. Most never get the funding they need
> to produce. Why a handful who happen to be part of a "network" of art marketeers
> ?
>
> Regards,
>
> Lord Sir
> (Artist/Anarchist/Intentional Iconclast)
>
> PS: Good one Eric.
>
> In article <356C64...@erols.com>, Martha says...
> >
> >Eric Saeger wrote:
> >>
> >> Luk wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Ruth wrote:
> >>> > Serrano certainly likes to shock, no doubt about that, but isn't that one of
> >> > > the functions of the artist?
> >> >
> >>> Why so? An artist takes pains to develop skills which he uses to please and
> >> > stimulate the senses. He makes a contribution.
> >> > Andres Serrano takes a machine and uses it to produce disgusting
> >> > photographs. Why call him an artist?
> >>
> >> Only because he is using "art" to purge his soul and, simultaneously,
> >> conveying his feelings to people who don't share his inner workings but
> >> who are willing to allow themselves to be stimulated by the artist.
> >> Providing pleasure isn't in an artist's job description, though. The
> >> artist's responsibility is to him or herself first, his/her audience
> >> second. Meanwhile, it's up to the public to choose to ignore their own
> >> feelings of peer pressure if they truly want to escape the ugly rantings
> >> of artists like Serrano, David Lynch or Marilyn Manson (not that Manson
> >> isn't an utterly contrived and phony circus act, but I couldn't think of
> >> another example). I can say they're crap, and my old stand-by response
> >> to people who use the tired argument of "but they're so popular" is to
> >> respond with "well, twelve billion shit-eating flies can't be wrong, can
> >> they?" Try it, you'll like it.
> >> It's true that the most soulful, heartwarming, uplifting art comes from
> >> those who, in their minds, are performing their art for whomever they
> >> perceive to be their God. The human audience members are just there to
> >> enjoy the dialog. It's also true that a lot of disaffected, hopeless,
> >> inwardly hideous people require communion as well, and a little Serrano
> >> makes them feel whole, if only for a moment.
> >> Was that poetic enough to get you to model those white pumps, or should
> >> I say it in Rockin' McLanguage?
> >>
> >> The McDarlin of the McLurking Gods,
> >>
> >> Eric
> >>
> >> --
> >> Remove NOSPAM* to reply
> >> QA Analysis done from my home! http://members.aol.com/ManORuin/QA.html
> >> Bot Bait: ab...@whitehouse.gov tmil...@iname.com panas...@aol.com
> >> net-...@nocs.insp.irs.gov pyr...@ftc.gov resell...@hotmail.com
> >> rhu...@fcc.gov d...@daltek.net lksi...@sockets.net ma...@daltek.net
> >> bizi...@aol.com d...@sparrow.aoci.com 9809...@ix.netcom.com
> >> newco...@memail.com ax...@metrocity.net
> >
> >Y'know, the idea that art isn't simply for entertainment isn't my idea;
> >it's an old one, Plato, I think. The Republic. And I think it's a good
> >working definition.
> >
> >People who are not taught to look at shape, color, form, texture *in
> >addition* to subject matter ("story" in the worst paintings) are unable
> >to see the beauty of, say, a mass of chemical factory pipes or the thick
> >rich liquidity of urine or the transcendance of early morning light,
> >even if the sun is rising over a city dump. It's important, I think, to
> >be able to see beyond the subject matter, and the best artists help us
> >do that. Some very fine artists eschew subject matter entirely--the
> >surface of the canvas is subject enough, and it is beautiful.
> >
> >I am embarrassed by how annoyed I am with Nan. She makes all kinds of
> >erroneous assumptions about me, which shouldn't matter to me, but such
> >is my self-love that they do. The fact is that I know a great deal
> >about art, specifically about medieval iconography, and that I spend a
> >lot of time in art museums alone and with my family.
> >
> >I have many friends who are artists, and I have studied drawing at the
> >Tyler Art Institute of Temple University, as part of my work editing and
> >illustrating biomedical research.
> >
> >I'm in the midst of an article in the New York Review of Books about
> >Caravaggio and Titian, and how each perceived light vs. form in
> >paintings. I am exceptionally knowledgable about art, and I really
> >resent myself for feeling I have to claim this expertise here, in this
> >newsgroup. It really shouldn't matter to me. But it does.
> >
> >Martha
>
> ------------------
> Spam free Usenet news http://extra.newsguy.com
Martha Sprowles
Like they say, Grandma--character doesn't count, I guess.
Martha
NanLeeCro
>Subject: Re: To Andrea: More on drugs - OT - Art
>Date: Wed, May 27, 1998 18:12
Nan, you are stupid and ridiculous. Martha killfiled you; leave her the hell
alone.
E. Tracy Tucciarone
Killfile = retreat? You are mandating censure on free speech?
Such a slippery scale... from Nan
NanLeeCro
>Subject: Re: To Andrea: More on drugs - OT
>Date: Wed, May 27, 1998 14:01
Dear Luk,
I don't get it. Martha is outraged? Martha has praised Serrano and his work.
I went to the Url and saw the same work of art you sent
to Martha. Nudity is not loathesome at all. I have friends in Calif. who are
nudists - some are dead too. So what? If Serrano' work has been awarded
grants and praise, why shouldn't her children see his work? This is not funny,
Luk. Martha is losing her grip on Fine Arts. Please, what is the significance
of "kill-file"? from Nan
NanLeeCro
>Subject: Re: To Andrea: More on drugs - OT - Art
>From: Luk <lukn...@mindspring.com>
>> Ruth wrote:
>>
>> Serrano certainly likes to shock, no doubt about that, but isn't >>that one
of the functions of the artist?
>Why so? An artist takes pains to develop skills which he uses to >please and
stimulate the senses. He makes a contribution.
Serrano is a photographer - an graphic essayist I would call him., He is not an
artist. In all my years, my operating cliche, taking various art (applied
technique) courses and workshops, I have yet to hear any artist or instructor
say that one of the"functions" of visual arts or the artist is to shock (or to
be "pretty"). Some finished works are shocking, however. Some artists are
shocking.
Martha's outre-rage is rather shocking. from Nan
Wolf Str8
Nan, you are stupid and ridiculous. Martha killfiled you; leave her the hell
alone.
E. Tracy Tucciarone
Killfile = retreat? You are mandating censure on free speech? Such a slippery
scale... from Nan
I don't consider Martha as having 'retreated' at all. I think she got tired of
arguing with a pile of bricks. As to 'censure' sure, why not? You're good at
it. If you mean 'censor', do I Martha look like the govt. to you?
NanLeeCro
Message-id: <356B7086...@mindspring.com>
Martha wrote:
The function of art is to entertain and to enlighten. Pretty pictures don't
even entertain. Pictures that make the viewer think--or even
change the viewer's mind--in a way that delights the senses are high art.
Nan writes: The function of visual art is NOT limited to entertainment and
enlightenment. Pretty pictures do entertain and please, and even console some
people. Aesthetic response to art is subjective. "High art" is an odd and
imprecise term. Pictures may cause the viewer to reflect deeply. Changing the
viewer's mind by delighting the senses is high art? What was held in the mind
before it was changed? Aren't you confusing the effect of drugs with the
effect of art? I like the term Sprowle Movement.
Your lecture is laughable, not laudable. You are putting art appreciation
into the blight of the ages. Presumptuous crap!
Luk wrote: Andres Serrano takes a machine and uses it to produce disgusting
photographs. Why call him an artist?
Luknhard
Nan writes: I agree with you, Luk. Serrano is a skilled photographer. His
photographs reflect and essay his state of mind. Only Martha thinks Serrano
is "high art" - because we have change our minds from appreciation rather
quickly once viewing Serrano's work. Too much, from Nan
NanLeeCro
>Subject: Re: To Andrea: More on drugs - OT - Art
>Date: Thu, May 28, 1998 00:35 EDT
Nan, you are stupid and ridiculous. Martha killfiled you; leave her the hell
alone.
E. Tracy Tucciarone
Killfile = retreat? You are mandating censure on free speech? Such a slippery
scale... from Nan
I don't consider Martha as having 'retreated' at all. I think she got tired of
arguing with a pile of bricks. As to 'censure' sure, why not? You're good at
it. If you mean 'censor', do I Martha look like the govt. to you?
E. Tracy
Dear Wolf/Tracy,
I thought she was overweighted with Bovine Manure - the haute kind. Nope, I
meant "censure" - read the line again. You ask me if you and Martha look like
the govt? No, just because you think alike, I see no governing authority in
either of you. Martha never could take the flak. If you give flak, you gotta
take flak.
You are noble to come to her rescue. Take care, from Nan
NanLeeCro
>Subject: Re: To Andrea: More on drugs - OT
>Date: Wed, May 27, 1998 10:04
>> Martha wrote:
>> > Please do not ever email me again.
>>
>> Dear Martha,
>>
>> I was only trying to delight your senses.
>>
>> Luknh
>
>You don't get it, do you? I can only assume that you don't have
>children. Again: I have said that I think Piss Christ is beautiful. Why this
statement would lead you to believe that I want a photograph of a dead man's
penis--no warning, no nothing--sent to my home email address is beyond me. My
children use this computer, too.
>
>You are loathesome.
>Martha
Dear Martha,
Luk may have not intend it to be so, but this is an object lesson.
Your reaction is a normal reaction. What you have denied is the validity of
normal reaction from those who find Serrano's work repulsive. You defended
Serrano's work as worthly to be representive of the best of American
contemporary art, worthy of public funding. Do you see why that cannot be
possible? Do you foresee Serrano's photograph sent to you in exhibit at the
Met before the public tours including children?
I am sure Luk didn't think you would react with moral indignation.
It is also rather difficult to believe your children would have access to your
Email box. There is a lot of porno circulating. Considering the time you
spend on the NET, your children must spend very little time sharing the PC with
you. .
Yep, a tough, but nevertheless, an object lesson. from Nan
glas
NanLeeCro wrote ...
|
|Dear Martha,
|Luk may have not intend it to be so, but this is an object lesson.
|Your reaction is a normal reaction. What you have denied is the
validity of
|normal reaction from those who find Serrano's work repulsive. You
defended
|Serrano's work as worthly to be representive of the best of American
|contemporary art, worthy of public funding. Do you see why that
cannot be
|possible? Do you foresee Serrano's photograph sent to you in
exhibit at the
|Met before the public tours including children?
Oh for the love of God! Just because she happens to think that Piss
Christ is a beautiful piece of art that doesn't mean that she worships
the ground Serrano walks on or that she finds all of his works to be
acceptable for children. Talk about making a mountain out of a
molehill. I happen to think that Piss Christ is a pretty photo too.
The fact that it is urine in the photo has nothing to do with whether
or not it is pleasing to the eye.
|
|I am sure Luk didn't think you would react with moral indignation.
|It is also rather difficult to believe your children would have
access to your
|Email box. There is a lot of porno circulating. Considering the
time you
|spend on the NET, your children must spend very little time sharing
the PC with
|you. .
Why is it difficult to believe that her children would see her e-mail?
I use Outlook Express for my e-mail and newsreader. Upon opening the
program it first displays my inbox and I have it set up with a preview
pane so that the mail is shown in a big window. My daughter's e-mail
account is set up in my profiles and if she wants to check her e-mail
it comes in to the same little window, ergo, she would see any e-mail
that I have too.
As for how much time Martha spends on the Net, how the hell would you
know? And what difference does it make anyway? Perhaps her daughter
talks with her while she is on-line, mine often does. Or is that just
another excuse to run Martha through the wringer because she has an
opinion that differs from yours?
|
|Yep, a tough, but nevertheless, an object lesson. from Nan
I don't believe anyone in this group is in a position to be doling out
object lessons to anyone else, although Luk seems to think he/she is
morally superior enough to be doing so and evidently so do you.
glas
Douglas M. Case
In article <6kidok$r...@edrn.newsguy.com>, lordsir@hmc wrote:
>In article <356CAF...@erols.com>, Martha says...
>>
>>And sometimes artistic standards as expressed by
>>those trained in art collide with popular tastes--as Doug Case so
>>artfully demonstrated with the example of the Vietnam Memorial Wall.
>
>LS: Yes, Doug's example was wonderful. I remember very well the
controversy over
>the funding of that project. Where are the critics now ? IMO that is one of the
>best public works of the second half of this century. Very effective and
>appropriate to its purpose.
>
Well, thank you, guys, I was wondering if anyone had noticed.
And as such I'm still waiting for our rightist friends to tell me how it
is that on this issue we suddenly become a democracy (as opposed to a
republic, I mean). I can't withhold tax monies if I object morally to
space travel, to the reservation system, to affirmative action, sugar
price supports, or minimum wage laws. Even as a Conscientious Objector I
cannot avoid military service, or paying for bombs and bullets and
bayonets.
Art is by definition discourse, and there can be no Conscientious
Objector status to free speech. My tax dollars help pay the upkeep on the
Statehouse steps where the Klan gathers to denounce the Enemies of the
White Race. Together with my fellow citizens I own the public airwaves
and pay for their administration, in part so they can be used by licensed
beggars urging the elderly to send in their social security checks in the
name of a religion I don't subscribe to. I help pay the salaries of
military chaplains and chaplains for both houses of Congress.
Christians do not have a right to have their sacred symbols respected by
all, any more than Mormons have a right to permit bigamy, or Moslems have
a right to execute polytheists who refuse to convert. Your reward is in
Heaven. Hold your water until then.
dmc
------------------
the charismatic panoply of modern professional power
胡onathan Miller
Luk
glas wrote:
> Oh for the love of God! Just because she happens to think that Piss
> Christ is a beautiful piece of art that doesn't mean that she worships
> the ground Serrano walks on or that she finds all of his works to be
> acceptable for children. Talk about making a mountain out of a
> molehill. I happen to think that Piss Christ is a pretty photo too.
> The fact that it is urine in the photo has nothing to do with whether
> or not it is pleasing to the eye.
Martha seems to have been captivated by the golden substance.
As Nan points out, however, the contradiction here is blatant. Either art
is art, or it isn't. Are products which are so disgusting they must be
hidden from the young worthy of being called art? Do we actually have a
"beautiful piece" that can't be sent to email?
Serrano bought a camera, stuck film in it, and arranged sick set-ups to
take pictures of. Cibachrome film technology produces nice bright
pictures. Who gets the credit for that? Serrano?
Artists like Serrano get rich from duping an unschooled and culturally
deficient public which confuses defecation with art.
Luknhard
Martha Sprowles
>
> >>
> >> For the record, I very much enjoy Mapplethorpe, and Serrano, and have an
> >> appreciation for the "underground" arts and artists. However, I don't support
> >> the NEA granting process as currently instituted.
> >
> >Thanks for your kind comments. This question--should there be NEA
> >support for *any* art?--is a legitimate one, and one I suggested to Nan
> >some while back might be a better question to discuss. There were
> >several misunderstandings in this yelling match (and I'm sure some were
> >mine), but I want to make clear that I don't think federal funds should
> >support *only* outrageous, avant-garde art. As Halle pointed out, funds
> >are granted to community dance groups and orchestras--funds used to
> >bring the arts to underserved populations--and the art presented thusly
> >is generally *not* of a controversial nature. As far as *need* goes,
> >though, I do believe that art which is self-supporting has no business
> >getting NEA support. Jamie Wyeth, for instance, would I'm sure turn his
> >wealthy nose up at an NEA grant! The question of truly successful (in a
> >financial sense) artists' applying for these grants is, I assume, moot.
>
> achieved a relatively high level of financial success well before the time the
> Corcoran received the grant to mount his exhibition.
But the grant went to the Corcoran, right? Art museums *always* need
cash. The Corcoran was apparently convincing in its application to the
NEA that the Mapplethorpe exhibit would benefit the public at large.
And I think in the case of Mapplethorpe, the art work was indeed selling
well but only to an elite crowd. Most of the US were unaware of it,
imho. I do not believe the NEA would grant funds to an artist who was
earning well from sales of his/her work.
He had - firstly, the
> financial backing of his lover and photography/art conniosseur Sam Wagstaff
(don't forget silver collector! Did you *see* what his silver
collection contained? And what it brought at auction after his death?!)
to
> keep him happy, he had already garnered much success in the sale of is works
> through the gallery mafia, and he was receiving huge amounts of money for
> commercial advertising assignments. In other words, he could easily have come up
> with the $30000 to mount the exhibition out of his own pocket, easily out of
> about a day of a commercial shoot for which he was receiving upwards of $15000
> PER DAY.
Of course. But I do not believe any real artist pays a museum to
exhibit his/her own works--sort of like using a vanity press and
proclaiming yourself a "published author," isn't it?
>
> It is this type of "in-crowd" elitism and inequity which leads me to call for
> the end of current funding policies as regards artists.
>
> >
> >When the NEA grants money for a local orchestra to perform Beethoven, it
> >is not the art of Beethoven that is being supported (not directly, at
> >least) but the art of the orchestra. The local orchestra could have
> >applied for funds to perform Carl Orff, or John Cage.
> >
> >And of course art appreciation is a matter of taste. But there are
> >clearly standards of artistic taste as well--from the most local of
> >*juried* art exhibits to the actions of the accessions committee of the
> >ubiquitous Metropolitan Museum of Art to the decisions of the NEA about
> >which artists to fund. And sometimes artistic standards as expressed by
> >those trained in art collide with popular tastes--as Doug Case so
> >artfully demonstrated with the example of the Vietnam Memorial Wall.
>
> LS: Yes, Doug's example was wonderful. I remember very well the controversy over
> the funding of that project. Where are the critics now ? IMO that is one of the
> best public works of the second half of this century. Very effective and
> appropriate to its purpose.
I agree. And remember how pissed-off some of the critics were because,
of all things, Maya Lin is of Asian extraction? It reminded me of the
fight the AMA put up against Medicare ("socialized medicine!!!") until
it dawned on them that it would be good for them, too. Some people have
to be dragged, kicking and screaming, to accept what they really want
but don't know it.
>
> I want to note however, that there truly is a type of elitism which is operative
> in the "art world", at the Met, the NEA, and within the gallery scene. It is a
> type of "old boy" network which serves best those with an "in", not necessarily
> those with the most originality or talent.
I'm sure you're right. I am not an artist and can comment only from an
art-lover's viewpoint. At the same time, though, you must concede the
necessity for standards? And someone has to determine what works meet
the standards?
This is not a new question at all--the best-known artists' reaction is,
I'd guess, the "Refusés" exhibit in, what? 1898? 1900? And I mentioned
"les Fauves" to Nan, but it apparently didn't take. Art history is rife
with gifted artists who are not recognized by the authorities of their
times--which gets me back to my support of the NEA grant to Andres
Serrano!
I know artists who believe there should be no NEA funding, and I know
artists who do. The people in the arts I know who are most vocal
against the NEA are painters and photographers who are able to earn a
living doing their art, which might account in part for their opinion on
this.
>
> As an example of that I put forth the Starn Twins. Though again, I enjoy some of
> the work, I had and have since seen much better work go without any support. Yet
> they were touted right out of graduate school and had their work in a Whitney
> Biennial fresh out of college. Why ? Because they had connections, through their
> parents wealth and influence, not because their work was so outstanding.
I don't know the work of the Starn twins (but I do know Clarissa
Whitney!). It is certainly unusual to get that kind of exposure so
early--and am I the only person who's never heard of them?
>
> It is this type of manipulation of taste which I find bothersome because it
> means that really good work often goes unnoticed. The U.S. is a funny place to
> BE an artist, mainly because most Americans really have no artistic taste and
> even those with the money to support art are too unsure of their own tastes and
> they rely heavily upon the pronouncements of the art marketeer's propaganda.
I can understand this. I am a small-time collector of some of my
friends' work and that of some people whose work they've shown me, but
I do not have the cash to pay more than a couple of hundred dollars per
piece, and I can't buy many pieces per year. I live in a hotbed of
artistic endeavor, and the opportunities around here to buy good art at
what I am sure is a bargain price really drive me nuts! I wish I had
millions to spend on pictures and sculpture. But part of the reason I
like living here is that so many people *do* buy local art and we get to
see it every day, whether it's in somebody's living room or (best of
all) out on the front lawn.
I was having dinner with an elderly friend the other week, and he said
to me that his nephew was going to be surprised when the will was read
because he wasn't leaving him the Toulouse-Lautrec. Choking on my
ratatouille, I said, "George! You have a Lautrec?!" and he took me to a
back room, and by god, there it was! He had already arranged to sell
it, which is why his nephew is going to be disappointed.
But George also has paintings by many of the same people whose work I
have. A person who appreciates art, who understands what he is looking
at, is not bound by "rules" or guided by someone else's opinion, and
these are the people who will save the collective ass of the artists in
the US, imho.
>
> So, even from Los Angeles (and all places in between), they will travel to NYC
> to buy that which has been pronounced "good" art by the "tastemakers", ignoring
> excellent works which surround them and supporting many who have already
> obtained adequate levels of support.
This must be very frustrating. It's a sad fact that many of the people
who have the scratch don't know shit about artwork and don't even have a
clue as to hiring someone willing to take a few risks.
>
> It is enough to keep most artists thoroughly disenchanted with the "scene".
I'm sure that's true. My ideal NEA would, I guess, deal with this sort
of problem--maybe there should be a separate entity for Unknown Artists?
Martha
>
> <edit>
>
> Regards,
>
> Lord Sir
> (Artist/Anarchist/Intentional Iconoclast)
Luk
Douglas M. Case wrote:
> Art is by definition discourse,
Discourse without skill and technique should never be confused with art.
Luk
Martha Sprowles
You think that's a picture of defecation?
Martha Sprowels
Maggie8097
dmc wrote:
Well, thank you, guys, I was wondering if anyone had noticed.
And as such I'm still waiting for our rightist friends to tell me how it
is that on this issue we suddenly become a democracy (as opposed to a
republic, I mean). I can't withhold tax monies if I object morally to
space travel, to the reservation system, to affirmative action, sugar
price supports, or minimum wage laws. Even as a Conscientious Objector I
cannot avoid military service, or paying for bombs and bullets and
bayonets.
Art is by definition discourse, and there can be no Conscientious
Objector status to free speech. My tax dollars help pay the upkeep on the
Statehouse steps where the Klan gathers to denounce the Enemies of the
White Race. Together with my fellow citizens I own the public airwaves
and pay for their administration, in part so they can be used by licensed
beggars urging the elderly to send in their social security checks in the
name of a religion I don't subscribe to. I help pay the salaries of
military chaplains and chaplains for both houses of Congress.
Christians do not have a right to have their sacred symbols respected by
all, any more than Mormons have a right to permit bigamy, or Moslems have
a right to execute polytheists who refuse to convert. Your reward is in
Heaven. Hold your water until then.
***I'm standing and applauding--what a great post!
Maggie
"Can you imagine a world without men? No crime and lots of happy fat
women."--Nicole Hollander
NanLeeCro
>Subject: Re: To Andrea: More on drugs - OT
>Date: Thu, May 28, 1998 07:46 EDT
glas wrote:
Oh for the love of God! Just because she happens to think that Piss Christ is
a beautiful piece of art that doesn't mean that she worships the ground Serrano
walks on or that she finds all of his works to be acceptable for children.
Glas, the debate in discussion by me was not about Martha and her
liking Piss Christ. Her many singular "art" attitudes expressed are under
siege. It not a matter of moral superiority. It is a matter of Martha's
perverse, very perverse (perverse does not mean perverted) singular opinions.
Everyone challenges everyones else's opinions. It is still fair game, is it
not? Consider your great indignance re: SL.
Glas you wrote: "I don't believe anyone in this group is in a position to be
doling out object lessons to anyone else..."
I do not know if that was Luk's intent, but I suggested it could be an object
lesson for Martha, not a Medieval Morality Play..
Martha's views on art, the NEA, and so on, are open to criticism.
I denounced them as ridiculous and misleading - that is my firm conviction
about what she wrote. The issue in not about Martha, but she always
insinulates the "me, myself and I" into every topic and that just opens it up
for direct critical reaction against her. For Martha, every issue has only one
principle, her outre feelings. Martha does not address the principles of the
issue, just airs her impressionistic fatuosity. The issue about NEA is about
not Martha, yet she has manipulated it so. I called her on her
pretentiousness.
By her own words re: Art, Martha is expressedly pretentious.
As a dilettanting artist and having travelled in "arty circles", I say she is
off the wall and ridiculous. She insults art and artists by it. More
importantly, she has expressed contempt for the "igornant" people. People are
my art's subjects. I find her attitudes very reprehensible. I have the right
to express myself. So does Luk.
If you defend Martha the Person, I am with you. If you defend what she
expresses, I will argue with you.
Having raised one child by myself, a single parent, I think I am rather
accurate about counting quality time for the family.
This is a deeper personal criticism, I know. It probably is not suitable to
make it. I would agree. But, Martha weaves a fictional lifestyle for us
that just doesn't lineup with the obvious reality of time and space.
NanLeeCro
>Subject: Re: To Andrea: More on drugs - OT - Art
>Date: Thu, May 28, 1998 05:35 EDT
Martha wrote:
this is not a new question at all--the best-known artists' reaction is,
I'd guess, the "Refusés" exhibit in, what? 1898? 1900? And I mentioned "les
Fauves" to Nan, but it apparently didn't take. Art history is rife with gifted
artists who are not recognized by the authorities of their times--which gets me
back to my support of the NEA grant to Andres Serrano!
Martha, you always name drop! You get further and further away from the topic
at hand by dropping more and more names. "Les Fauves" and "fauvism" in old
Paree is not relevant to our exchange in the discussion. It does not relate to
nor does it support any of the attitudes you expressed re: Amer art, the NEA,
and public funding. Digressive name dropping is so "beastly hip". DMC and you
always attribute a "rightist" ad homenim to any opposing view. BTW, just what
original Toulouse-Lautrec did elderly friend George have the great fortune of
owning? What was the title and subject and date? Was it authentic, did you
see a certificate of authenticity, and is your story authentic? As I once to
old Jackson, "Dahling, you SIMPLY must put more air in that bicycle tire,
RAHLY. Your colours are too flat." That is, flaht. from Nan
Luk
Luk wrote:
> >Martha seems to have been captivated by the golden substance.
Lordsir wrote:
> LS: Maybe, if so, so what ? In many mystical traditions, urine is considered to
> be a spiritual substance, with many special qualities.
It's used to make paint too. I always thought it came from the kidneys, myself.
> In Alchemy for instance, urine has a powerful spiritual and psychological
> significance and is associated with the "Mercurius". For further study I refer
> you to ALCHEMICAL STUDIES by C.G. Jung.
I'll jump right on it.
> >As Nan points out, however, the contradiction here is blatant. Either art
> >is art, or it isn't.
>
> LS: That is simply an arguement which derives from your own blindness and
> reprehensible behavior, Luk.
I am overcome by the artistic conformation of your characterization.
> 1. You crossed a boundry when you sent the unsolicited email to Martha,
> regardless of whether or not her children can access her email. Did anyone force
> you to attend a Mapplethorpe or Serrano exhibit, or trick you into attending ?
I pleaded for forgiveness. Doesn't that count for anything around here?
> 2. "Art" and appreciation of "art" is a highly subjective activity, and one's
> ability to appreciate things is broadened by the depth and quality of one's
> personal life experiences.
Hopefully.
> 3. No one is required to appreciate or agree upon what is art.
Neither is one required to call making money by duping an ignorant public "art".
> >Are products which are so disgusting they must be
> >hidden from the young worthy of being called art?
>
> LS: "Disgusting" ? That is only your opinion, Luk.
Wrong. If Martha wasn't disgusted by the "work" I sent her, she did a good job of
pretending.
> LS: Beauty takes many forms, Luk. There is a certain grotesque beauty in
> medieval crucifixions and in the illustrations of the torments of the saints.
There is indeed. But that beauty comes from the skill, technique and flair of those
artists. Qualities lacking in anything I've so far seen Serrano attach his name to.
> There is incredible savagery in the "Grail" materials, along with sublime
> spirituality.
Spirituality is not a word I connect with art.
> Try to broaden your capacity to hold dear ALL that is human.
God forbid.
> >Serrano bought a camera, stuck film in it, and arranged sick set-ups to
> >take pictures of.
>
> LS: Really ? Is that all there is to it ?
There wasn't much more involved in the Serrano photographs I've been "fortunate"
enough to view.
> Just what do you know of Serrano and the whole of his works that you can pass
> such judgements upon him ?
The examples of Serrano's work I've seen have hardly inspired me to see the whole.
> >Artists like Serrano get rich from duping an unschooled and culturally
> >deficient public which confuses defecation with art.
>
> LS: Or, art with defecation.
I'll leave that in as a favor.
Luk
NanLeeCro
>Subject: Art
>From: Luk <lukn...@mindspring.com>
>Date: Thu, May 28, 1998 09:29 EDT
>Douglas M. Case wrote:
>> Art is by definition discourse,
>
>Discourse without skill and technique should never be confused with art.
>Luk
Dear Luk,
Art is not always a "discourse" by DMC's definition. I don't work on a subject
thinking I am in discourse with anyone but myself, or that discourse is my
objective or the end product. It is quite an intuitive endeavor for the most
part. Serrano had the technical skill as a photographer. There are
technically unskilled "naive" artists who produce amazingly wonderful works
without any pretension to being artistic and may have no or little background
in art history or art appreciation. More often or not, the art spectator
oftens does not even see what the artist intended - aesthetic response is
highly subjective. Title do give hints. The amusing aspect of responses from
viewers is their need to attribute lofty insights into an art work - one hears
it all the time at Galleries and exhibits. I know I have achieved success in a
work if my son grabs it and takes it home to frame and hang up. If an artist
colleague squints at a work of mine too long, I begin to wonder. It is nice to
have a built-in patron/gallery that by genetic-bond is always dependable for
positive criticism. The advantage of not depending on the output of one's
artwork for a living is that the process is truly free for the artist. (except
for the high cost of supplies.) from Nan
NanLeeCro
>Subject: Re: To Andrea: More on drugs - OT - Art
>Date: Wed, May 27, 1998 16:25 EDT
Martha wrote, before she checked out "classical thinking" and art appreciation
references on the Net pages to quote or duplicate revisionisicly her thought:
"I am embarrassed by how annoyed I am with Nan. She makes all kinds of
erroneous assumptions about me, which shouldn't matter to me, but such is my
self-love that they do. The fact is that I know a great deal about art...
..."Popular art is popular because it is easy to look at and enjoy.
It is Pretty." so sayeth Martha, self-styled.
My assumptions are overwhelmingly proven. "Popular Art" is a genre. The
multiple & complex reasons for art popularity is not addressed by Martha in
the above simplistic and misleading statement.
Martha wrote: I really resent myself for feeling I have to claim this
expertise here, in this newsgroup.
Martha's spontaneous utterances bespeak the better truth of her state of mind.
Not her contrived digressions by imitation and broad-scoped sycophantismal
name dropping. As Xenophon once said, ...aesthetics of warfare...
>****I'm sympathetic, Martha. I got into some of the same sorts of >arguments
with Nan about things I know a lot about and she knew >enough about (barely)...
Maggie
Maggie, your chronic dismissiveness is not proof of "knowledge." from Nan
NanLeeCro
>Subject: Re: To Andrea: More on drugs - OT - Art
>From: maggi...@aol.com (Maggie8097)
>Date: Wed, May 27, 1998 16:25
>Martha wrote:
>Y'know, the idea that art isn't simply for entertainment isn't my >idea; it's
an old one, Plato, I think. The Republic. And I think it's >a good working
definition.
Martha's original thinking was not based on Plato's definition.
It is amusing to see her machinations and manipulations to obscure the
expressions of her "true belief" in prior lengthy commentary.
Martha citing Plato doesn't coverup what she said in spontaneous earnestness.
*The Art of Being Phoney,* vol iv, page 435.
Eric Saeger
GMSpider wrote:
> Oh yeah, and he was screwing the King's wife. Is that brave or plain
> stupid?
rotflmao
--
Remove the obvious to reply
NanLeeCro
Dear Luk,
Martha said something to the effect that "high art" can change one's mind. I
thought immediately of poster art and propaganda art.
I don't think that is what Martha meant as "high art" though. It might answer
for you DMC's definition of art as "discourse", a visual discourse that is.
The following interesting article:
_____________________
Propaganda on Show
In March 1995, an exhibition of Chinese propaganda posters was on show at the
premises of the publishing company Gruner + Jahr in Hamburg, Germany. Some
sixty propaganda posters from the collection of the Dutch sinologist Stefan
Landsberger, dating from the early 1970s until 1993, chronicle the developments
in style and content of this medium, and afford glimpses of the changes in
Chinese society.
From the foundation of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in the 1920s, visual
propaganda played a very important role in its communication strategy. Once
the People's Republic of China (PRC) was established in
1949, propaganda art was increasingly seen as the most useful means to
disseminate policies, ideas of behaviour and ways of thought to a population
who included a large number of illiterates.
Chinese propaganda art made use of Socialist Realism to show 'life as it ought
to be.' Through complete control of both artists and the
publishing sector, the CCP was able to force its interpretation of
reality and aesthetics on the population. Propaganda art was widely
available and thus penetrated to the lowest form of social organization: it
adorned walls in many a dwelling and dormitory. By entering the realm of the
family, it contributed to the socialization processes already taking place
there.
Abstract images
When the CCP embarked on its modernization and reform programme in the 1980s,
this had enormous consequences for propaganda art. The domination of politics
over everyday life receded. Socialist Realism lost its position as the dominant
mode of expression in art and the time was now ripe for experimentation with
alternative modes of creation. The consequence is that propaganda has become
less heroic and militant, and
more impressionistic. Design and representational techniques borrowed from
Western advertising have been frequently employed. Abstract images have
replaced the realistic art forms.
These developments have led to the disappearance of visual propaganda from the
streets and State bookstores, to be replaced by commercial advertising.
Although propaganda art has attempted to cater more than ever to popular
tastes, it has lost contact with the population. By consciously avoiding
political or moralizing content in their works, artists, who were no longer
employed by the State, have provided the people with visual materials that they
considered more meaningful.
(some snip of SciFi reference) Net page reference:
Ausstellungsbüro Fahrenberg
Herr Fahrenberg, Ritterplan 3
D - 37073 Göttingen, Germany
Maggie8097
Please note none of my words are quoted in this post, which apparently includes
words from both Nan and Martha. I don't know why my name is on it:
Subject: Re: To Andrea: More on drugs - OT - Art
From: nanl...@aol.com (NanLeeCro)
Date: Thu, May 28, 1998 1:41 PM
Message-id: <199805281841...@ladder03.news.aol.com>
>Subject: Re: To Andrea: More on drugs - OT - Art
>From: maggi...@aol.com (Maggie8097)
>Date: Wed, May 27, 1998 16:25
>Martha wrote:
>Y'know, the idea that art isn't simply for entertainment isn't my >idea; it's
an old one, Plato, I think. The Republic. And I think it's >a good working
definition.
Martha's original thinking was not based on Plato's definition.
It is amusing to see her machinations and manipulations to obscure the
expressions of her "true belief" in prior lengthy commentary.
Martha citing Plato doesn't coverup what she said in spontaneous earnestness.
*The Art of Being Phoney,* vol iv, page 435.
from Nan
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I have seen gross intolerance shown in support of tolerance...Coleridge
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Maggie
NanLeeCro
>Please note none of my words are quoted in this post, which apparently
>includes
>words from both Nan and Martha. I don't know why my name is on it:
>
>
Sorry - second time I have done this within a week. I guess this is an overly
intense subject - for my untamed mouse here. Sorry, if it was again. from
Luk
> GMSpider wrote:
> > Oh yeah, and he was screwing the King's wife.
Eric wrote:
> rotflmao
And a wood nymph or two.
A LEGEND OF TINTAGEL CASTLE
by Letitia Landon
Alone in the forest, Sir Lancelot rode,
O'er the neck of his courser the reins lightly flowed,
And beside hung his helmet, for bare was his brow
To meet the soft breeze that was fanning him now.
(snip)
There was stillness, not silence, for dancing along,
A brook went its way like a child with a song:
Now hidden, where rushes and water-flags grow;
Now clear, while white pebbles were glistening below.
Lo, bright as a vision, and fair as a dream,
The face of a maiden is seen in the stream;
With her hair like a mantle of gold to her knee,
Stands a lady as lovely as lady can be.
(snip)
She led him away to an odorous cave,
Where the emerald spars shone like stars in the wave,
And the green moss and violets crowded beneath,
And the ash at the entrance hung down like a wreath.
They might have been happy, if love could but learn
A lesson from some flowers, and like their leaves turn
Round their own inward world, their own lone fragrant nest,
Content with its sweetness, content with its rest.
But the sound of the trumpet was heard from afar,
And Sir Lancelot rode forth again to the war;
And the wood-nymph was left as aye woman will be,
Who trusts her whole being, oh, false love, to thee.
Quoted by Luk
Douglas M. Case
In article <199805281616...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
nanl...@aol.com (NanLeeCro) wrote:
>Martha, you always name drop! You get further and further away from the topic
>at hand by dropping more and more names. "Les Fauves" and "fauvism" in old
>Paree is not relevant to our exchange in the discussion. It does not relate to
>nor does it support any of the attitudes you expressed re: Amer art, the NEA,
>and public funding. Digressive name dropping is so "beastly hip".
Nan, I don't know where you picked up this habit, but you ought to get
your money back. Isn't this roughly identical to your dismissal of
Proust? Reverse snobbery, which attributes all sympathies one does not
share to affectation, is as grave a sin as snobbery itself.
Martha's references are hardly esoteric. Modernism is now almost two
hundred years old, and the reactions to Modernism, the outrage over
Courbet's rejection of Classicism, the shock caused by the Impressionists,
the riots which greeted Stravinsky or John Cage, are a part of the
intellectual history of the West. You are free to reject it, but not to
dismiss it.
Few artists are recognized in their own times, and fewer still meet with
an acclaim which persists beyond their lifetimes. That fact is certainly
germane where you have suggested that the populace at large ought to be
able to opt out of supporting any art it doesn't care for. We know
aestheticists are not infallible. Neither are physicists, doctors,
foresters or airline pilots. That fact doesn't render their expertise
moot, nor does it argue that we might as well turn their fields over to
everyone with an opinion. Knowledge is not democratic. Rather we should
strive to insure that access to knowledge is and remains so.
We are today bombarded by the idea that the marketplace can and should
solve every problem. This is so because the market has great access to
mass communication and a vested interest in promulgating the idea. But no
student of the market can really believe this. It is rather where we
defend the rights of posterity, of the poor and the unneeded, and, yes,
the visionaries and dreamers, that we show ourselves to be civilized. The
idea that we can live in something other than a pluralistic society is no
longer tenable. We paid a much greater price for enforcing one than we
will ever pay out in NEA grants.
dmc
DMC and you
>always attribute a "rightist" ad homenim to any opposing view. BTW, just what
>original Toulouse-Lautrec did elderly friend George have the great fortune of
>owning? What was the title and subject and date? Was it authentic, did you
>see a certificate of authenticity, and is your story authentic? As I once to
>old Jackson, "Dahling, you SIMPLY must put more air in that bicycle tire,
>RAHLY. Your colours are too flat." That is, flaht. from Nan
NanLeeCro
>Subject: Re: To Andrea: More on drugs - OT - Art
>Date: Thu, May 28, 1998 05:35 EDT
DOCNO: RP-533
TITLE: Associations Between Drug Use and Deviant Behavior in Teenagers.
AUTH: R.D. Hays, P.L. Ellickson
PAGES: 12, DATE: 1996 COST: no charge
KEYS: Youth--Drug use; Youth--Alcohol use; Drug abuse--Social aspects;
Narcotics and crime; Deviant behavior; Juvenile delinquency
NOTE: Originally published in: Addictive Behaviors, v. 21, no. 3, 1996.
ABST: Confirmatory factor analyses of self-reports of drug use and deviant
activity from 701 female and 662 male students in grade 10 revealed three
correlated higher-order dimensions of behavior: alcohol use and sociability,
rebelliousness, and deviant behavior, including drug use other than alcohol.
The intercorrelations between these dimensions were 0.548 or higher for both
male and female students, indicating an underlying unidimensionality of these
activities. These results suggest that drug prevention programs that curb
initial and
regular use of the gateway drugs may have a broader, spillover impact on other
deviant behavior. They also suggest that programs aimed at both deviance and
drug use are worth pursuing and that schools are an important venue for
identifying deviant youth. The strong links between alcohol use and sociability
underline the need to counteract the social acceptability of drinking and focus
on the social contexts in which it occurs.
NanLeeCro
>Subject: Re: To Andrea: More on drugs - OT - Art
>Date: Wed, May 27, 1998 18:12
DOCNO: RP-459
TITLE: A Game on Urban Drug Policy.
AUTH: J.P. Kahan, C.P. Rydell
PAGES: 16, DATE: 1996 COST: no charge
KEYS: Narcotic laws--Computer simulation; Narcotics, Control of
NOTE: Originally published in: Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology,
v. 1, no. 3, 1995.
ABST: In this article, the authors describe a three-team seminar game of
community governmental policy toward the sale and use of illicit drugs. The
game takes 3 days to play and simulated roughly 5 years. The players are city
and county officials and others active in community drug policy. A key feature
of the game is a computer model that tracks the costs and benefits of
enforcement, treatment, and prevention programs; the numbers of heavy and light
drug users; and the amount of drugs
consumed. The authors report the lessons learned from 4 runs of the game. These
runs suggest that one can successfully conduct seminar games of a diffuse and
long-term social issue such as local drug policy and that playing the game
induces pollicymakers to pay attention not only to the immediate problems of
drug abuse, but also to the surrounding community context. The design of the
game is founded on the belief that psychological principles useful in the
analysis of peace and conflict can be fruitfully applied to the "war on drugs."
The lessons learned from the game highlight 3 principles used in conflict
resolution: (a) increasing actors' awareness that the environment is
mixed-motive rather
than zero-sum; (b) avoiding the escalatory effects of oversimplified
thinking; and (c) making explicit the underlying needs and values of the
different actors.
______________________
Eric Saeger
Yess! Can I do one? Thought so!
The Fresh Prince of T.C. (Rapped to the tune of
"Fresh Prince of Bel Air")
I split for a while cuz the flames made me snore
Just couldn't think of insults for Dextral no more
So I took off for toys.cars in a flash
And brought along with me a whole pile of cash.
I looked high and low and no Go Kart was found
Nothin but a couple Scorchin Scooters around
After a while I began to miss Luk
And that pedo guy Cordian who makes me puke.
Killin the urge I went to soc.sexuality
Same old thing, gender wars their reality
I made a couple passes at girls who had fleas
Then finally said to Netscape, "Yo, home to T.C.!"
I lurked for a while checkin out all the lizards
The Colonel, Martha, Hoover and the Wizard
Now I'm back in my kingdom as you can plainly see
As I sit on my throne as the Prince of T.C.
GMSpider
In article <356EB7...@fmrNoSpam.com>, Eric Saeger
<Eric....@fmrNoSpam.com> writes:
snipped
>I lurked for a while checkin out all the lizards
>The Colonel, Martha, Hoover and the Wizard
>Now I'm back in my kingdom as you can plainly see
>As I sit on my throne as the Prince of T.C.
Great poem, Eric, BUT you left me out AGAIN. You know how I
hate that.
Grandmother Spider
Visit the Girl Gang Web Pages at
http://members.aol.com/gmspider/index.html
tribe
Eric Saeger wrote:
>
> Yess! Can I do one? Thought so!
>
> The Fresh Prince of T.C. (Rapped to the tune of
> "Fresh Prince of Bel Air")
>
> I split for a while cuz the flames made me snore
> Just couldn't think of insults for Dextral no more
> So I took off for toys.cars in a flash
> And brought along with me a whole pile of cash.
>
> I looked high and low and no Go Kart was found
> Nothin but a couple Scorchin Scooters around
> After a while I began to miss Luk
> And that pedo guy Cordian who makes me puke.
>
> Killin the urge I went to soc.sexuality
> Same old thing, gender wars their reality
> I made a couple passes at girls who had fleas
> Then finally said to Netscape, "Yo, home to T.C.!"
>
> The Colonel, Martha, Hoover and the Wizard
> Now I'm back in my kingdom as you can plainly see
> As I sit on my throne as the Prince of T.C.
>
> Remove the obvious to reply
> QA Analysis done from my home! http://members.aol.com/ManORuin/QA.html
> Bot Bait: ab...@whitehouse.gov tmil...@iname.com panas...@aol.com
> net-...@nocs.insp.irs.gov pyr...@ftc.gov resell...@hotmail.com
> rhu...@fcc.gov d...@daltek.net lksi...@sockets.net ma...@daltek.net
> bizi...@aol.com d...@sparrow.aoci.com 9809...@ix.netcom.com
> newco...@memail.com ax...@metrocity.net
Luk
> From Eric;
> I split for a while cuz the flames made me snore
> Just couldn't think of insults for Dextral no more
> So I took off for toys.cars in a flash
> And brought along with me a whole pile of cash.
>
> I looked high and low and no Go Kart was found
> Nothin but a couple Scorchin Scooters around
> After a while I began to miss Luk
> And that pedo guy Cordian who makes me puke.
>
> Killin the urge I went to soc.sexuality
> Same old thing, gender wars their reality
> I made a couple passes at girls who had fleas
> Then finally said to Netscape, "Yo, home to T.C.!"
>
> I lurked for a while checkin out all the lizards
> The Colonel, Martha, Hoover and the Wizard
> Now I'm back in my kingdom as you can plainly see
> As I sit on my throne as the Prince of T.C.
Now you've done it Sir PPSQ, my heart is aflutter,
For who could resist such a passionate call?
I can already picture a scene in the forest
With green moss and emeralds and violets and all.
I do melt to the passionate words of a bard,
There is only one thing (I don't mean to rebuke).
To compose is not easy. It really is hard,
And just how many words really do rhyme with Luk?
Now if one wanted to use a quite different approach
And say it like "look", I would not be averse
On the other hand someone could say it like "duck"
But the problem with that is that things would get worse.
Luk
Luk
lordsir wrote:
> >> 1. You crossed a boundry when you sent the unsolicited email to Martha,
> >>regardless of whether or not her children can access her email. Did anyone force
> >>you to attend a Mapplethorpe or Serrano exhibit, or trick you into attending ?
> >
> >I pleaded for forgiveness. Doesn't that count for anything around here?
>
> LS: While continuing to jab, which IMO doesn't count at all.
No no, the jabs were before the apology. They were just small pokes. Besides, I
laughed until my head hurt. That does me so much good. Martha is the best. Would
you have denied me that?
> >> 3. No one is required to appreciate or agree upon what is art.
>
> >Neither is one required to call making money by duping an ignorant public "art".
>
> LS: No - but its not a bad gig if you can get it. Happens all the time, and not
> limited to "art" either.
My preference is to remain one of the unduped.
> >If Martha wasn't disgusted by the "work" I sent her, she did a good job
> >of pretending.
>
> LS: I think you confuse the issue. She seemed IMO, to be disgusted by your lack
> of social skills.
I wouldn't have dreamed of disgusting Martha had I known she'd recently hired Lordsir
as a bodyguard.
But, Lordsir, I think you should consider taking certain steps. You see, your loyalty
to Marth comes from the commonality of your mutual adoration of the drug scene. If
you're going to be a really good bodyguard, you need to understand Martha as I do.
You see, our connaissance intime is of long standing. Not that one would expect a
"bodyguard type" to be capable of analyzing the psychological makeup of his employer.
Perhaps a conference consisting of simple words and short sentences would appreciably
increase your job performance.
Well. Just a thought.
> So, when are you going to model the white pumps ?
Negotiations are ongoing.
Luk
GMSpider
In article <356ED3DA...@mindspring.com>, Luk <lukn...@mindspring.com>
writes:
snipped
>And just how many words really do rhyme with Luk?
How about kook?
Douglas M. Case
In article <199805281652...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
nanl...@aol.com (NanLeeCro) wrote:
>>Douglas M. Case wrote:
>>> Art is by definition discourse,
>>
>>Discourse without skill and technique should never be confused with art.
>>Luk
>
>Dear Luk,
>Art is not always a "discourse" by DMC's definition.
One of the real joys of USENET is the immediate and continual
reinforcement of the idea that you can't take communication for granted;
off-hand remarks become the basis for 80-post threads, what you think is
self-evident becomes the topic of heated discussion, and your good points
get ignored. Like the walnut tree, the ego is improved by beating.
So, Nan, I thought it would be evident that the above wasn't taking sides
in the Singer or the Song Debate, or, as Michael O'Donoghue put it, "If
Helen Keller were alone in a forest and fell down, would she make a
sound?"
The Inuit, carvers of exceptional skill, simply abandoned their works
when finished-it was the *process* which was important to them. In
'Extract from Captain Stormfield's Visit to Heaven', Mark Twain has as the
acknowledged head of the writers a man who never published a word. A few
scribbles from an autistic child might hold a beauty beyond what Velázquez
or Belini ever imagined. Who knows? This might be fertile ground for our
musings, but it has nothing whatever to do with the topic of NEA grants.
They are not going to fund your painting your toenails, not matter how
aesthetically pleasing, especially if you don't intend to show 'em to
anyone else.
There is no Art without the critical process, and criticism is itself an
art, not a parasitism. That's what separates Borges from a roomful of
typing monkeys, or Kandinsky from an elephant with a paintbrush.
dmc
Wolfenhnd
>>And just how many words really do rhyme with Luk?
>
>How about kook?
Puke?
(Nothing personal BTW, I just wanted to play.)
***-.._.--**-.._..-.........Wolfenhnd.......-.._..-**--._..---***
Luk
> There is no Art without the critical process, and criticism is itself an
> art, not a parasitism. That's what separates Borges from a roomful of
> typing monkeys, or Kandinsky from an elephant with a paintbrush.
Doug:
What else makes what someone produces "art"?
Luk
Eric Saeger
Wolfenhnd wrote:
> Puke?
> (Nothing personal BTW, I just wanted to play.)
That's IT!! PIGPILE ON WOLFENHND!!!!!!!!
Terence P Higgins
From article <356EF7...@fmrNoSpam.com>, by Eric Saeger <Eric....@fmrNoSpam.com>:
> That's IT!! PIGPILE ON WOLFENHND!!!!!!!!
No way, it'll turn out like that episode of Banachek (Banecheck?
You know, the George Peppard thingy). He'll (She'll? sorry, i haven't been
scoring at home) chage clothes at the bottom of the pile and come out as
Grandma Spider or something.
--
no more thinking now
I think it suits me not
it's down to la la la
and dot dot dot
Eric Saeger
Terence P Higgins wrote:
>
> From article <356EF7...@fmrNoSpam.com>, by Eric Saeger <Eric....@fmrNoSpam.com>:
> > That's IT!! PIGPILE ON WOLFENHND!!!!!!!!
>
> No way, it'll turn out like that episode of Banachek (Banecheck?
> You know, the George Peppard thingy). He'll (She'll? sorry, i haven't been
> scoring at home) chage clothes at the bottom of the pile and come out as
> Grandma Spider or something.
Fine, make brownie points by mentioning *her*.
Terence P Higgins
From article <356F08...@fmrNoSpam.com>, by Eric Saeger <Eric....@fmrNoSpam.com>:
> Fine, make brownie points by mentioning *her*.
Hey, I've been out of the loop for a bit. Gotta make up for lost
time. You think that's shameful, I'm having a bottle of blackberry brandy
sent around with my regards.
GMSpider
In article <6kmvo9$aat$1...@uwm.edu>, th...@alpha2.csd.uwm.edu (Terence P Higgins)
writes:
> No way, it'll turn out like that episode of Banachek (Banecheck?
>You know, the George Peppard thingy). He'll (She'll? sorry, i haven't been
>scoring at home) chage clothes at the bottom of the pile and come out as
>Grandma Spider or something.
>--
Yeah, yeah. Boo, it's me!
Spidey
Eric Saeger
Terence P Higgins wrote:
> You think that's shameful, I'm having a bottle of blackberry brandy
> sent around with my regards.
Well when you're done bogarting, that bong looks not-too-bad either,
guy.
GMSpider
In article <6kn201$ao8$1...@uwm.edu>, th...@alpha2.csd.uwm.edu (Terence P Higgins)
writes:
> Hey, I've been out of the loop for a bit. Gotta make up for lost
>time. You think that's shameful, I'm having a bottle of blackberry brandy
>sent around with my regards.
Love blackberry brandy. I am patiently waiting for it.
Grandmother Spider
PRNancy
Luk wrote:
I think that's the point of this discussion: there IS no bonafide, iron-clad
definition. It's as hard to define "literature." Everybody has different
tastes, whether they are highly educated or into velvet paintings. ;)
Any form of self-expression can be interpreted, and may be art. In the eye of
the beholder, etc...
N
Terence P Higgins
From article <199805292029...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, by gmsp...@aol.com (GMSpider):
> Love blackberry brandy. I am patiently waiting for it.
I sent it with Yosemite Sam, so watch out. If he thinks you've got
any money he'll be trying to marry you before you know it...
Terence P Higgins
From article <356F17...@fmrNoSpam.com>, by Eric Saeger <Eric....@fmrNoSpam.com>:
> Well when you're done bogarting, that bong looks not-too-bad either,
guy.
Just making sure it passes the rigorous quality control process...
BC
Time for a subgect line change?
BC
NanLeeCro
>Subject: Re: Art
>From: four...@earthlink.net (Douglas M. Case)
>Date: Fri, May 29, 1998 12:10 EDT
>>>Douglas M. Case wrote:
>>>> Art is by definition discourse,
>>>
>>>Discourse without skill and technique should never be confused with art.
>>>Luk
>>
>>Dear Luk,
>>Art is not always a "discourse" by DMC's definition.
>
to offer alternative viewpoints or counter misleading "haute axioms". As an
artist offering my point of view it is probably incidental. In analyzing
composition, this discourse the artist has with her/himself might enlighten
you:
"....look at it with central, or focused (foveal) vision, then peripheral
(side) vision, then both...at the same time. Notice how each affects you. Do
you experience additional depth, with detail, when looking at this with both
kinds of vision? Finally, choose one spot in the picture to perceive as being a
Still Center...while being aware that the picture has definite boundaries or
space. While adding awareness of Center & Circumference...how are you
affected..."
The above exercise is a good rule to apply to reading the comments of others.
DMC: There is no Art without the critical process, and criticism is itself an
art, not a parasitism. That's what separates Borges from a roomful of typing
monkeys, or Kandinsky from an elephant with a paintbrush. dmc
Nan insists: Art does exist as well as Art will persist without any
public/social or academic critical process. Artistic impetus is the vital
process and criticism is *mere* reflection, informed or not; biased or not.
You name an artist and photo-artist who have been critically identified and
classified. Their respective artwork was begotten regardless of any viewer or
critic's response (even if commissioned). Artistic expression and its product,
no matter how naive or untutored, is first and all pervading. Not to dismiss
the necessity for traditional academic and commercial criticism to enlighten or
exercise critical authority. Actually, I have been disclaiming Martha's
presumptuous and derisive slur-crap that "Nan thinks art should be "pretty".
Martha's synesthesia overpowers her judgement. That makes me sick to stomach.
Cordially from Nan
Luk
> >Doug:
>
> >What else makes what someone produces "art"?
>
> >Luk
>
>
> Nancy wrote:
> I think that's the point of this discussion: there IS no bonafide, iron-clad
> definition. It's as hard to define "literature." Everybody has different
> tastes, whether they are highly educated or into velvet paintings. ;)
>
> Any form of self-expression can be interpreted, and may be art. In the eye of
> the beholder, etc...
Naw. That's "beauty".
Luk
Luk
BC wrote:
> Time for a subgect line change?
I wouldn't dream of it.
Luk
Martha Sprowles
Terence P Higgins wrote:
>
> From article <356EF7...@fmrNoSpam.com>, by Eric Saeger <Eric....@fmrNoSpam.com>:
> > That's IT!! PIGPILE ON WOLFENHND!!!!!!!!
>
> You know, the George Peppard thingy). He'll (She'll? sorry, i haven't been
> scoring at home) chage clothes at the bottom of the pile and come out as
> Grandma Spider or something.
> no more thinking now
> I think it suits me not
> it's down to la la la
> and dot dot dot
Halle. Everyone is Halle.
Luk
Luk wrote:
>>Besides, I laughed till my head hurt. That does me so much good.
>>Martha is the best. Would you have denied me that?
> LS: OK. You are forgiven.
That's a relief.
>>I wouldn't have dreamed of disgusting Martha had I known she'd
>>recently hired Lordsir as a bodyguard.
>don't think she could afford it.Are you like Grandma? Easy, but not cheap?
>>If you're going to be a really good bodyguard, you need to
>>understand Martha as I do. You see, our connaissance intime
>>is of longstanding. Not that one would expect a "bodyguard
>>type to be capable of analyzing the psychological makeup of
>>his employer.
>>LS:
>>1. What's a "bodyguard type"?Well, it's kind of like a bar bouncer. Along the Craig
Livingstone line.Someone who carries out orders, but isn't expected to think.
Most anybody in the Clinton administration would qualify, come to
think of it.>>>So, when are you going to model the white pumps ?
>>Negotiations are ongoing.
>I prefer the black heels.
Eric has priority.
Luk
Luk
Lordsir:
The message I just addressed to you got screwed up between the time I hit the send button
and the time it got to the ng. I don't know how, but it has something to do with my
inexperience in both PC and Netscape Communicator. Then again, maybe somebody in the left
wing did it. (Maybe Doug.)
If you will examine it carefully maybe you can figure out what you said and what I said.
If not, I don't think it matters much anyway.
Luk
GMSpider
In article <356F75...@texas.net>, Cowboy #54 <d...@YOUDONTNEEDTHIStexas.net>
writes:
>Yes, Grandma, but Eric is slow in sending those residual checks :)
>
>Col Klink
>
>
yup, you certainly are correct, Colonel.
Douglas M. Case
In article <199805292207...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
nanl...@aol.com (NanLeeCro) wrote:
>>
>Doug, I respect you, even when we differ. Until it is illegal, I will continue
>to offer alternative viewpoints or counter misleading "haute axioms".
[I loved Haute Axiom, especially Steppenwolf's cover of "The Pusher".
But I was a lot younger then.]
> As an
>artist offering my point of view it is probably incidental. In analyzing
>composition, this discourse the artist has with her/himself might enlighten
>you:
>
> "....look at it with central, or focused (foveal) vision, then peripheral
>(side) vision, then both...at the same time. Notice how each affects you. Do
>you experience additional depth, with detail, when looking at this with both
>kinds of vision? Finally, choose one spot in the picture to perceive as being a
>Still Center...while being aware that the picture has definite boundaries or
>space. While adding awareness of Center & Circumference...how are you
>affected..."
>The above exercise is a good rule to apply to reading the comments of others.
Perhaps if you explained some reason for the quiddity...but it would
still be a quiddity. A discussion of the creative process is not the same
thing as a discussion of Art, any more than the discussion of the
mechanics of a golf swing is the same thing as shooting par. The sine qua
non of Art is creation, not creativity. In fact in certain traditions
creativity is of minor importance.
The NEA funds works, performances and exhibitions, not the creative
process. That is what we were discussing, and that is what my comment
pertained to. If there is something in this metaphysical detour which
either defends your point or obliterates mine, by all means let me know
what it is.
>
>Nan insists: Art does exist as well as Art will persist without any
>public/social or academic critical process. Artistic impetus is the vital
>process ...
We don't fund the artistic impetus, and I don't believe you were
critiquing Serrano's creative process.
dmc
---------------------
And I catch myself thinking today that our long journey had only defiled with a sinuous trail of slime the lovely, trustful, dreamy, enormous country that by then, in retrospect, was no more to us than a collection of dog-eared maps, ruined tour books, old tires, and her sobs in the night-every night, every night-the moment I feigned sleep.
-Humbert Humbert
Martha Sprowles
PRNancy wrote:
>
> Luk wrote:
>
> >> There is no Art without the critical process, and criticism is itself an
> >> art, not a parasitism. That's what separates Borges from a roomful of
> >> typing monkeys, or Kandinsky from an elephant with a paintbrush.
> >
> >
> >What else makes what someone produces "art"?
> >
> >Luk
> >
> >
>
> definition. It's as hard to define "literature." Everybody has different
> tastes, whether they are highly educated or into velvet paintings. ;)
>
> Any form of self-expression can be interpreted, and may be art. In the eye of
> the beholder, etc...
>
> N
Art is what artists make.
Martha
Martha Sprowles
lordsir wrote:
>
> In article <356EDE7D...@mindspring.com>, Luk says...
> >
> >
> >
> >lordsir wrote:
> >
> >> >> 1. You crossed a boundry when you sent the unsolicited email to Martha,
> >>>>regardless of whether or not her children can access her email. Did anyone
> >>force
> >>>>you to attend a Mapplethorpe or Serrano exhibit, or trick you into attending ?
> >> >
> >> >I pleaded for forgiveness. Doesn't that count for anything around here?
> >>
> >> LS: While continuing to jab, which IMO doesn't count at all.
> >
> >No no, the jabs were before the apology. They were just small pokes. Besides,
> >I
> >Would
> >you have denied me that?
>
> LS: OK. You are forgiven.
>
> >
> >>
> >>>Neither is one required to call making money by duping an ignorant public
> >>"art".
> >>
> >>LS: No - but its not a bad gig if you can get it. Happens all the time, and not
> >> limited to "art" either.
> >
> >My preference is to remain one of the unduped.
>
>
> >
> >> >If Martha wasn't disgusted by the "work" I sent her, she did a good job
> >> >of pretending.
> >>
> >>LS: I think you confuse the issue. She seemed IMO, to be disgusted by your lack
> >> of social skills.
> >
> >Lordsir
> >as a bodyguard.
>
> may disagree on something ?
>
> >
> >But, Lordsir, I think you should consider taking certain steps. You see, your
> >loyalty
> >to Marth comes from the commonality of your mutual adoration of the drug scene.
>
> decriminalization of all "controlled" substances.
>
> > If
> >you're going to be a really good bodyguard, you need to understand Martha as I
> >do.
> >a
> >"bodyguard type" to be capable of analyzing the psychological makeup of his
> >employer.
>
> LS:
>
>
> 2. If that "type" is truly incapable of "analyzing the psychological makeup" of
> anyone, then I am most certainly not that "type".
>
> >Perhaps a conference consisting of simple words and short sentences would
> >appreciably
> >increase your job performance.
>
> myself, your advice seems rather unnecessary, but thanks anyway.
>
> >
> >Well. Just a thought.
>
> LS: So, you believe yourself capable of "thought"; and, this is representative
> of such a process ?
>
> Are you sure you're not on "drugs" ?
>
> >
> >> So, when are you going to model the white pumps ?
> >
> >Negotiations are ongoing.
> >
> >
> >
>
> LS: Please keep me informed, though I prefer the black heels.
>
> Regards,
>
> Lord Sir
>
> ------------------
> Spam free Usenet news http://extra.newsguy.com
A recurring frustration: Daring to express support for another's
opinion automatically qualifies one for the label of "minion," or, as in
this case, "bodyguard," from feeble minds which cannot otherwise impugn
one's post.
Martha, who never asks anyone for support and who is embarrassed when
people "commend" others who happen to agree on a particular issue,
instead of arguing the point.
GMSpider
In article <356F7A79...@mindspring.com>, Luk <lukn...@mindspring.com>
writes:
NO, no, no, Luke. You are now supposed to scream, "I've been hacked,
somebody is hacking my posts, my emails, everything. It's not my
falut, I am innocent." Halle did it, the military/industrial complex/ or
my enemies that exist in this evil newsgroup. Or maybe the evil spirits
and entities.
Grandmother Spider
George Byrd
In <alt.true-crime>, Sat, 30 May 1998 07:41:05 +0000,
on "Re: To Andrea: More on drugs - OT"
Martha Sprowles <spro...@REMOVETHISerols.com> cast this ASCII:
>lordsir wrote:
>>
>> In article <356EDE7D...@mindspring.com>, Luk says...
[ snip, and Luk's offerings reformatted for readability ]
>> >But, Lordsir, I think you should consider taking certain steps.
>> > You see, your loyalty to Marth comes from the commonality of
>> > your mutual adoration of the drug scene.
>>
>> LS: I have no "adoration of the drug scene". I do support absolute
>> decriminalization of all "controlled" substances.
A well intentioned, but unnecessary denial, Lord Sir.
Cabal (tm) (TINC) Field Commander Socrates long ago took the fall for
corrupting youth.
>> > If you're going to be a really good bodyguard, you need to understand
>> > Martha as I do. You see, our connaissance intime is of long standing.
>> > Not that one would expect a "bodyguard type" to be capable of analyzing
>> > the psychological makeup of his employer.
[ snip ]
>> >Perhaps a conference consisting of simple words and short sentences would
>> >appreciably increase your job performance.
>>
>> LS: Since I am performing no "job" for anyone, and perform only to please
>> myself, your advice seems rather unnecessary, but thanks anyway.
Excellent exercise of plausible deniability, Comrade Lord Sir. The
Cabal (tm) (TINC) will be pleased that you are declining their
paycheck. You will no doubt be rewarded sumptuously for your efforts
in the Fine Old Conflict (tm) when the Whirled Gnu Order (tm) is
finally established.
>A recurring frustration: Daring to express support for another's
>opinion automatically qualifies one for the label of "minion," or, as in
>this case, "bodyguard," from feeble minds which cannot otherwise impugn
>one's post.
Comrades Martha and Lord Sir: Continue in our Glorious Struggle (tm)
for the etiolation of ersatz sanctimony, and for the elimination of
newsreader linewraps set greater than 70. You will soon receive your
well deserved promotions from Mignon to Buffetier, or perhaps to Devil
Incarnate, with commensurate pay raises.
The Cabal (tm) (TINC) has just sent us a communique urging total
solidarity in these final days. I'll forward it to you here as soon
as it's all decoded. The enemy will fall before our mighty mignons
like, uh, ascii into the bitbucket.
>Martha, who never asks anyone for support and who is embarrassed when
>people "commend" others who happen to agree on a particular issue,
>instead of arguing the point.
You are far too modest, Comrade Martha. The Cabal (tm) (TINC) long
ago sent standing orders that such modesty is not required of us mere
mindless mignons. Only Devils Incarnate are expected to refrain from
undue self aggrandizement, and then only on certain holidays.
G "arise, ye sick of Carrie Nation; arise, ye retching of the Earth" B
--
Opinions above are NOT those of APAN, Inc.and are NOT legal advice.
"When we look down the road, I would say 10, 15, 20 years from now,
in a gradual fashion, smoking will probably be outlawed in the United States."
<< Thomas Constantine, Director, DEA, 4/26/98, on ABC's "20/20" >
NanLeeCro
>(NanLeeCro) wrote:
>>Doug, I respect you, even when we differ. Until it is illegal, I >>will
continue to offer alternative viewpoints or counter >>misleading "haute
axioms".
>
> [I loved Haute Axiom, especially Steppenwolf's cover of "The >Pusher". But I
was a lot younger then.]
Dear Doug,
I suspect Steppenwolf is a rockband, and not a tc poster. I am "Rock" naive,
and happily so.
>> As an artist offering my point of view it is probably incidental. >>In
analyzing composition, this discourse the artist has with >>her/himself might
enlighten you:
>> "....look at it with central, or focused (foveal) vision, then >>peripheral
(side) vision, then both...at the same time. Notice how >>each affects you. Do
you experience additional depth, with >>detail, when looking at this with both
kinds of vision? Finally, >>choose one spot in the picture to perceive as being
a
>>Still Center...while being aware that the picture has definite >>boundaries
or space. While adding awareness of Center & >>Circumference...how are you
affected..."
>>The above exercise is a good rule to apply to reading the >>comments of
others.
Doug wrote:> Perhaps if you explained some reason for the quiddity...but it
would still be a quiddity.
My proposed "quiddity" is contrasted to Martha's opinion that, rather than
paraphrase, its deserving of a parody to its essence:
"The public's untutored view leads them to prefer "pretty" art.
The public likes "pretty" art. Therefore, whatever the public likes is not
"high" art because it is "pretty" art. Furthermore, the public's preference in
Art is unworthy of consideration. Serrano's art is not "pretty" and the public
thinks it is obscene. Therefore, the public proves its ignorance and its
unworthiness, yadda, ad infinitum."
Doug wrote: A discussion of the creative process is not the same thing as a
discussion of Art,
Nan: Agreed, art appreciation/formal criticism is not equal to the creative
process. The spectator, knowledgeable or not, is a passive receptor.
Doug continues: ,,,any more than the discussion of the mechanics of a golf
swing is the same thing as shooting par. The sine qua non of Art is creation,
not creativity. In fact in certain traditions creativity is of minor
importance.
Nan wrote: Certain traditions? Creativity is of minor importance?
I don't doubt it, but I wish you might be more specific or illustrate your
point.
Nan: the artist has an insiders' viewpoint while outsiders define the
graphically essayed exhaust from the engine. I am still fighting Martha's
self-proclaimed art appreciation "axiom" about "pretty art" which was truly
asinine no matter what side of the easel you stand.
> The NEA funds works, performances and exhibitions, not the >creative process.
Daer Doug,
I am dedicated to obliterating Martha's pretentious, pseudo-art critic, haute
elitist proclamations about Art standards and Art appreciation. Because Martha
said she received her art instruction at Tyler Institute for Christian
Economics, a Calvinistic dungeon, I am rather worried. She may be burned out
on rendering too many representations of Madonna & Child, etc.
Doug writes: That is what we were discussing, and that is what my comment
pertained to. If there is something in this metaphysical detour which either
defends your point or obliterates mine, by all means let me know what it is.
A metaphysical detour is better than being lead down the wrong road by
horrificly misleading self-proclaiming "authorative" attitudes about Art
generated from an abiding snotty desdain for the "people". That is just too
illiberal for my neo-Marxian appetite. I revere Diego Rivera. He is my HERO!
>>Nan insists: Art does exist as well as Art will persist without any
>>public/social or academic critical process. Artistic impetus is the >>vital
process ...
Doug writes:
We don't fund the artistic impetus, and I don't believe you were
critiquing Serrano's creative process.
Dear Doug,
Maybe you know more about the NEA functions than I do. According to my
understanding, certain artistic projects are underwritten or awarded grants by
the NEA to enable the creative process.
Take good care, and I dig Borges too. I just never listen to the Stepping
Wolves rock group. Best to you from Nan
(What do Proust and Nabokov have do with this NEA/ART issue anyhow, both of
whom have more enduring literary merit, although not to my taste, than Serrano
or M'Thorpe's "art" works have intrinsic AMER cultural art value. )
Martha Sprowles
I want to be a filet minion.
NanLeeCro
An aside from Stage Left: I dig this:
... Siqueiros [another Mexican Artist] and Rivera brandishing pistols, attack
each other with inflammatory rhetoric...
My kind of passionate artists! from Nan
(I believe some passionate artist assassinated Leon Trotsky in Mexico too.
:-)) Too much!
George Byrd
In <alt.true-crime>, Sat, 30 May 1998 13:33:42 +0000,
on "Re: To Andrea: More on drugs - OT"
Martha Sprowles <spro...@REMOVETHISerols.com> cast this ASCII:
>I want to be a filet minion.
A laudable goal in a world singing "I wish I were an Oscar Mayer
weiner".
G "excelsior!" B
--
Opinions above are NOT those of APAN, Inc. and are NOT legal advice.
"I never believed in reincarnation in any of my other lives,
so I don't see why I should believe in it in this one."
<< Strange de Jim, Herb Caen contributor >>
NanLeeCro
>Subject: Re: Art
>From: Martha Sprowles <spro...@REMOVETHISerols.com>
>Date: Sat, May 30, 1998 03:08 EDT
>> >What else makes what someone produces "art"?
>> >
>> >Luk
>> >
>> >
>>
>> I think that's the point of this discussion: there IS no bonafide,
>iron-clad
>> definition. It's as hard to define "literature." Everybody has different
>> tastes, whether they are highly educated or into velvet paintings. ;)
>>
>> Any form of self-expression can be interpreted, and may be art. In the eye
of the beholder, etc...
>>
>> N
>
>Art is what artists make.
>
>Martha
Reduced to Platitudes, platitudes - even "pretty" art?
Did dmc use the term: "quiddity" ref: my couplet? He is so biased.
... Siqueiros (another Mexican artist) and Rivera brandishing pistols, attack
each other with inflammatory rhetoric...
Douglas M. Case
In article <199805301640...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
nanl...@aol.com (NanLeeCro) wrote:
>My proposed "quiddity" is contrasted to Martha's opinion that, rather than
>paraphrase, its deserving of a parody to its essence:
>
>"The public's untutored view leads them to prefer "pretty" art.
>The public likes "pretty" art. Therefore, whatever the public likes is not
>"high" art because it is "pretty" art. Furthermore, the public's preference in
>Art is unworthy of consideration. Serrano's art is not "pretty" and the public
>thinks it is obscene. Therefore, the public proves its ignorance and its
>unworthiness, yadda, ad infinitum."
I did not follow all of that discussion. I'd say that Martha's premise
is a simple truism: Kenny G. sells more records than Thelonious Monk;
more people read Jackie Collins than James Joyce. I don't know whether
that was Martha's actual conclusion or your parody of it. A position is
certainly not negated because some people hold it erroneously or
facilely. However, it is undeniable that most of the noise about Serrano,
or Mapplethorpe, or The Last Temptation of Christ, comes from rabble,
suitably roused. A lot of the moral objection came from people who had no
real knowledge of the works, pretty or no.
>Doug wrote: A discussion of the creative process is not the same thing as a
>discussion of Art,
>
>Nan: Agreed, art appreciation/formal criticism is not equal to the creative
>process. The spectator, knowledgeable or not, is a passive receptor.
Genuine art criticism is itself a creative art. Sir Herbert Read was not
a "passive receptor", nor Samuel Johnson, Pope, Susan Sontag, nor the
delightful Sister Wendy, for that matter. Read Michel Foucault's
discourse on Las Menias, which opens The Order of Things.
The idea of the critic as a passive recorder of hedonistic impressions is
simply the reverse side of the idea of Kandinsky or Pollock as mere
splashers of paint.
>Doug continues: ,,,any more than the discussion of the mechanics of a golf
>swing is the same thing as shooting par. The sine qua non of Art is creation,
>not creativity. In fact in certain traditions creativity is of minor
>importance.
>
>Nan wrote: Certain traditions? Creativity is of minor importance?
>I don't doubt it, but I wish you might be more specific or illustrate your
>point.
I wasn't aware there was much need. "Creativity" is a relatively recent
requirement in art, dating to the 14th Century at most, and achieving
primacy in the avant-gardism of last two centuries. From cave paintings
to Greek pottery, Zuni silversmithing to Yoruba fertility masks, Gregorian
chants to rural blues, most artists have worked within clearly defined
traditions. We are transfixed by the Parthenon, or a Persian rug, not by
the inventiveness of the artist, or his originality, but his command of
the medium.
>Nan: the artist has an insiders' viewpoint while outsiders define the
>graphically essayed exhaust from the engine. I am still fighting Martha's
>self-proclaimed art appreciation "axiom" about "pretty art" which was truly
>asinine no matter what side of the easel you stand.
You may take that up with her. From my perspective what you say is
wholly at odds with how the discussion began in the first place, the idea
that certain types of "exhaust"-moral objection or religious
outrage-should dictate our public view of art.