American Art...
Mark Thrice
Mattison wrote:
>
> : Well its getting closer to 10 years since the American art market crashed...
>
> : and here we are is Silicon Valley with a - 39 Philanthropy rating (from
> : the most prestegious Philanthropic Journal in the country) in the shdae
> : of a tank on the Guadalupe Parkway they build a jail for your children.
>
> : Cleveland Ohio has a + 44 rating. That means the point spread is over
> : 70. I'd say we are losing the game wouldn't you ?
>
> : My latest big patron in the studio is from no less than
> : Cleveland...giggles
> : - of course -
> : and you wonder why the Bay Areas collection of Rock and Roll art went to
> : no less than Cleveland...
>
> : Really don't complain when there is no culture here in Silly
> : Icon Valley...while your all driving around in 70 thousand dollar status
> : symbol european cars up on the 280...ehhhhmmmmm...
>
> : I guess you buy a new one every five years - right ?
>
> : They only depreciate in value - just think - have you really considered the
> : investment? Buying a Nathan Oliver painting in the 60's might have cost
> : you 1K now you can't touch them for under 100K or a Pollack.
> : Oh - yes
> : those same european cars you bought in the 60's - what did you spend?
> : and what are they worth now ?
> : Now - which investment is the better and the status symbol
> : kids? What do you think would happen if you bought emerging art over the
> : next 30 years?
>
> : Michael Moses Art author..."How many stocks have bveen around since
> : 1600,1700 or 1800? Many paintings that were important in those periods
> : are still considered treasures today. You can't say that about too many
> : stocks."
>
> : Moses has completed several indepth studies substantiating his theory
> : that, over time some classes of art offer better returns than Standard
> : & Poor's 500 and long and short term Treasury bills for for five and
> : ten year periods ending in 1994.
>
> : giggles
>
> : Real business sense there driving around up on the 280...is that why this
> : place is so brilliant ? brilliant economics here right ? We have had
> : recessions here every 3 - 5 years...since before the inception of Silly
> : Icon Valley....
>
> : Well your starting to figure it...Art is in and Bombs are you... ? Eh ?
>
> : Well the next rage ? Philistines are out and Philantrropsts are in...
>
> : Just think...art is in and bombs are out ? Philistines are out
> : Philanthropists are in...Maybe if you support the art, your community,
> : craft, design markets which tend to be a wee bit more cyclic than stock
> : piling bombs in bunkers and european cars...you might just create more
> : stable jobs and thus markets for the
> : products your supposed to be creating - those computers for artists who
> : can't afford them...eg. you might even have better job security...just
> : think if artists were able to affod your products...
>
> : The average salary of an Eningeer is Silly Icon ? Maybe 70 - 100K and
> : the artists and deisgners? 12 - 30K and 40 if your lucky -
>
> : Oh yes - and you all want the art world to respect computer art...ask a
> : computer supposed artist if they want the wage...hahahahahah
> : a marketing director from Adobe was in my little studio under the 280 asking
> : why your computer art isn't selling...all I could think was I have to send this
> : cartoon to the New Yorker...Adobe asking me why their artists aren't
> : selling here in Silly Icon Valley...to funny.
>
> : Every dollar spent on the art turns into 20.00 back to the community...
>
> : Oh - a wee bit of truth from one of the top ten American Painters who in
> : his 70's speaks of another top ten Painter in his 70's...
> : yes they are local to Northern California...
>
> : I have left the names out to protect the art market...and their careers.
>
> : 9.13.97
>
> : "Dear Matti,
>
> : Thanks for all the information. You are way ahead of so many of the
> : other artists. I like the article on you, getting something like
> : that done is difficult!! Times are difficult for all artists even
> : myself and ---- (name deleted to protect the artist) etc. The studio
> : is the place that brings reward, the rest is a grab bag.
> :
> : Good Seeing you!
> :
> : ----------"
> : (name deleted to protect the artist)
>
> : I find it amazingly sad these painters have been ivy league educated,
> : recieved acclaim for the works, filled the community for decade after
> : decade with soul and beauty and art and in America still face a
> : depression due to lack of support from their country.
>
> : Any solutions ?
>
> : Mattison FitzGerald
> : Artist www.rhinodev.com/M
Try working for a living and creating your art for the love
of creating your art.
reds...@datasync.com
Couldn't agree with you more.
I'm an artist and BIG collector (in fact I'm sure the IRS will one day
claim I bought art with money I owe them) and it is reassuring to feel
that the art I buy which is from brilliant emerging and not-so emerging
artists, truly IS an investment and not just pleasure and joy and
beauty.
ESPECIALLY because my husband is a CAR FREAK and lusts after Porsches.
Fortunately, He ALSO loves art. ceci
Mattison
William De Raymond
H.Selvitella wrote:
>
> On Sat, 4 Oct 1997 18:49:42 GMT, mat...@netcom.com (Mattison) wrote:
>
> >: Any solutions ?
> >
> >: Mattison FitzGerald
> >: Artist www.rhinodev.com/M
>
> Get a job.
You sir are an asshole.
--
William DeRaymond/Artist
'The abstract nature of reality is the source of beauty.'
William De Raymond
Mark Thrice wrote:
>
> > : Mattison FitzGerald
> > : Artist www.rhinodev.com/M
>
> Try working for a living and creating your art for the love
> of creating your art.
Mattison
reds...@datasync.com wrote:
: Couldn't agree with you more.
Well...it only takes one buffalo, one butterfly, one lemming to monve the
heard....
"thats right the women are samrter" Jerry Garcia
Mattison
giggles
www.rhinodev.com/M
Roger Keyser
I am not sure where this discussion began, but I am an artist who works
full time in business. I used to do my art full time and would like some
day to return to that life but not until my paintings bring a price that
can support that kind of dedication. I will not compromise my art to
achieve the necessary production speed necessary to make a decent living as
a painter. That puts me in a difficult "catch 22" position. I can spend
as much as 3 years on a single painting now which when working full time
as an artist would have taken a month to produce. Galleries expect an
artist to produce faster than this. They also expect awards from recent
exhibitions which only accept recently completed works. I am hoping to use
the net to bring attention to my work but I realistically do not expect
sales directly from the net. I have seen other acrylic realism artists
turn to abstract or watercolor in order to make a living. I have instead
turned to another career but cannot stop painting. It gives meaning to my
life and hope for the future. Has anyone found a way out of this bind?
Ciccio
th...@look.up.att.net (H.Selvitella) writes:
>On Sat, 4 Oct 1997 18:49:42 GMT, mat...@netcom.com (Mattison) wrote:
>>: Any solutions ?
>>
>>: Mattison FitzGerald
>>: Artist www.rhinodev.com/M
>Get a job.
Now, now, at least Matti personalizes her spam to scam people outta
money.
Ciccio
Steve Mueller
William De Raymond wrote:
> You sir are an asshole.
As literate as you are, sir, you should be an author.
Danny Low
Roger Keyser says...
>I am not sure where this discussion began, but I am an artist who works
>full time in business. I used to do my art full time and would like some
>day to return to that life but not until my paintings bring a price that
bind?
I know a full time artist. She does commercial art until she has enough money
to take a sabbitical and then she does the art she wants to do for as long as
the money lasts. In effect, she is her own patron of the arts.
Artistic success and commercial success are different and you can have one
without the other, That is why patrons of the arts exist, to support the
artistically successful but commercially unsuccessful artists. In today's
world, sometimes the best patron is yourself.
--
Danny Low
HP NSD
Dann...@hp.com
"The only good vampire is a dead vampire"
Danny Low
Michael Riehle says...
>Mattison (mat...@netcom.com) wrote:
>: Well its getting closer to 10 years since the American art market crashed...
>: Michael Moses Art author..."How many stocks have bveen around since
>: are still considered treasures today. You can't say that about too many
>: stocks."
>: Moses has completed several indepth studies substantiating his theory
>: that, over time some classes of art offer better returns than Standard
>: & Poor's 500 and long and short term Treasury bills for for five and
>: ten year periods ending in 1994.
>outperform S&P over the next 10 years? Art can have a high return on
>investment, but it's high risk.
Would you trust a guy for investment information who tells you that art is both
a good investment and the market crashed 10 years ago?
>: The average salary of an Eningeer is Silly Icon ? Maybe 70 - 100K and
>: the artists and deisgners? 12 - 30K and 40 if your lucky -
>Supply and demand. I know dozens of out-of-work artists. I know even
>more out-of-work musicians.
There are also companies who are begging for artists who can create art using a
computer. Salaries can be in excess of $60K. Supply and demand at work.
Michael Riehle
In article <mattartE...@netcom.com> on Tue, 7 Oct 1997 00:23:44 GMT Mattison (mat...@netcom.com) wrote:
: Michael Riehle (mr13hl3...@netcom.com) wrote:
: : In article <mattartE...@netcom.com> on Sat, 4 Oct 1997 18:26:47 GMT Mattison (mat...@netcom.com) wrote:
: : What game would that be? And why do you believe that art and
: : Philanthropy are necessarily connected? Some of the most notorious
: : misanthropes in history have been artists.
: Lets not waste my time -
: Do your research and come back to debate -
Research what? Philanthropy or misanthropic artists. I don't give rat's
tail about philanthropy ratings and misanthropic, or at least asocial,
artists are legendary. Artists are not typically a well-adjusted lot.
: : outperform S&P over the next 10 years? Art can have a high return on
: : investment, but it's high risk.
: Erica Jong..."The trouble is if you don't risk anything you risk more."
Yes, but managing risk is important too. It's always about balancing
risk and potential gain. Without risk, there is no gain. But it's easy
to go to far and risk too much. IMO, art for the sake of speculation is
too high a risk.
:
: Americans polled on their death bed asked if they would do it all again
: what would they be ? 98% answered Artist.
Many people perceive art as an easy occupation. Low stress, no
deadlines. I guess if you're independently wealthy and have no
deadlines for your art, it can be.
: : is a commodoty like any other commidity. If people are buying it, the
: : price goes up. Much as the artists would like to believe it has
: You got it...set the trend they follow...Meow...
: Your right my pieces have increased exponentially...
More power to you. What are you worried about then? Your stuff is in
demand. You're making a living. Enjoy it.
: : Once again you try to connect art and philanthropy. If you want to be a
: and...once again you missed the major message in my post...
: : philanthropist, volunteer to work in a soup kitchen at Thanksgiving
: I do... and what about you ?
Nope. Not a philanthropist. I spend time with my family. Stopped
stuffing myself years ago. I spend the holiday being thankful that I'm
a well-paid engineer who can also be a part-time musician.
: : Supply and demand. I know dozens of out-of-work artists. I know even
: : more out-of-work musicians. All of them do it for "the love of the
: : art". I know almost no out-of-work engineers who are even reasonably
: : good at their jobs. I know this is hard for you to accept, Mattison,
: : but engineering is a very creative field. Most of the stuff you create
: : is something nobody's ever done before (though it's usually similar to
: : something done before).
: Waiting for another recession in Silly Icon Valley ?
: Over the years I have know even more out of work
: engineers...again your missing the complete content in my post...
No. I don't think I did miss the point in your post. Your complaint
seems to be that Silicon Valley does not value the arts sufficiently. I
contend that there is no need for it. Further I contend that it simply
isn't true; art which is valued in Silicon Valley is not "traditional"
art, but it is art nonetheless. As it happens, it tends to have
commercial value (e.g., ILM's contributions to Sci-Fi flicks).
Beyond that, I contend that it is no accident that such "technical" arts
thrive here. Engineers are fundamentally creative people. They will
create.
: : People *need* transportation. People *need* a place to live. People
: : *need* to be able dress themselves. Art is, at best, a reflection of
: : emotions and a way to make our lives more pleasant. It is *never*
: : necessary. Demand for things people *need* will always be higher than
: : demand for things people *like* but don't *need*.
: This is very debatable Americans are followers eg. look at Barney and the
: hundereds of other fads produced by the nature of culture of which we
: have here...meow
Fads are fads and are short lived. Long after the pet rock faded,
people still needed to get from point A to point B, eat and dress
themselves. Style is equally ephemeral. As is taste in art and music.
This may come as a shock to you, but many people regard art as
superficial (as it happens, I don't, though I regard many people who
call themselves artists as superficial), unecessary, waste of time and
material.
: : : Every dollar spent on the art turns into 20.00 back to the community...
: : Can you support this with facts? Research?
: Where have you been? Contact the American Association of Museums in
: Washington D.C. There were independent marketing and business
: organizations retained who arrived at thees numbers. Again - lets not
: waste my time...do your research and get back.
Right, okay, if you're going to cite them as "The Authority", please
post some numbers or at least a URL. And BTW, the organization you cite
does have a vested interest in these numbers. But such a fine,
unselfish, dare I say, "philanthropic", organization would *never*
fudge...
...actually, I don't expect they would, but I wonder if there are
contrasting numbers from other organizations.
: : Marketing. Selling. *You* have to sell your product. Nobody will do
: : it for you.
: Good but obvious advice...
: I do sales often.
: Don't wait for philanthropists. If you believe in your
: Thats right...most of the philanthropists I have are comming to me. It
: is very interesting their missions and reasons. They collect art I
: collect them.
Great. Sounds like you should teach a class.
: I posted this on Philanthropy not in realation to my own work (u r missing
: the point again). I posted this so you can realte it to the big
: picture...community.
Okay, yes, but what has it to do with art? Or music (since I'm reading
this from ba.music).
: Again you missed the point - Bringing Philanthropy style here in
: Silly Icon...will only benift the community as a whole...if we don't take care
: of the community who will. What have you donated sir?
I donate to the leukemia society and I am a member of organizations
whose work goes to helping endangered species throughout the world and
educating people on the realities of exotic species introduction. I
feel like there are enough people championing human causes whose cure
would come in more careful husbandry of our natural resources. (Having
said this, I have to go on record as being a staunch opponent of PETA.
A more misguided group of would-be do-gooders I've never encountered.)
: Most of the funds raised in America come from single mothers with 2 kids
: with incomes under 30K. You men ought to be ashamed...
: : product (art) don't hesitate to sell it. Any quality product will sell
: : if it's marketed correctly. An artist who won't sell his or her art
: : can't complain when noboby buys it and a living can't be made from it.
: Write them a great marketing plan and post it please...your such an expert.
You know, if I manage to come up with a brilliant marketing plan, it will
be for *my* product, nobody else's. I am no marketing expert. What I
*know* is that good marketing people can sell anything and fundamental
marketing can sell a good product (advertise, network, follow up).
: : If you do believe in your art (or music), you should be the best
: : salesperson for it. You believe it has value, convince someone else
: It is turning out that way for me..I posted this to obtain creative
: solutions..of which from you I'm still waiting.
I'm still not sure what the problem you want a solution for is. You
seem to be doing well enough with your art.
: There are no dire warnings ...I come from a place of proaction not
: reaction..a lesson might be helpful for you.
Hmmm...interesting. An interesting leap on a weak premise.
: Not really your rather narrow minded throughout your discussion...but we
: can't let it pass. This runs rampant in Silly Icon Valley. Some lead and
: the rest will follow...Whiners unite...giggles
Whiners unite? Whining is reactive. Fixing the problem for yourself is
proactive.
: : Complaining that the community doesn't support the arts makes you a
: : whiner. Not an artist, a whiner. Making art makes you an artist. If
: If leading people with the rough makes me a Whiner --- I gladly and
: proudly accept the title of lead Whiner and when the game gets to Zero I might give all
: you boys a break.
: Sir...I gladly extend to you an invitation to my studio...where in the
: neighborhood we can take a tour of the third world in Silly Icon
: Valley... Where whole families live in one 10 x 15 rooms with 4 - 6 Kids
: and Grandparents...and then you can tell me all about your views on
: Philanthropy and volunteerism and fill me in on all the giving you have
: been doing.
Never did I advocate philanthropy. I gave a definition. You do as your
conscience requires. In any case, if you want to talk about art and
music, please, let's. If you want to talk about philanthropic pursuits,
send me an e-mail so I can ignore it.
: You have completely missed the most important content in my post.
Then I guess you weren't clear.
Followups set to alt.whocares.
--
--------------------------------------------------------
Due to excessive spam and lack of response from the ISP
no e-mail will be accepted from the following domains:
att.net earthlink.net cyberpromo.com savetrees.com
webpromo.net bigfoot.com mail-prom.com sexpromo.com
Tired of spam? Check out => http://www.cauce.org
--------------------------------------------------------
Michael Riehle Note that my userid is 'mriehle' and
San Jose, CA my ISP is netcom.com.
#include <std.disclaimer>
--------------------------------------------------------
Mattison
Danny Low (dl...@ppg01.sc.hp.com) wrote:
: Michael Riehle says...
: >Mattison (mat...@netcom.com) wrote:
: >: Well its getting closer to 10 years since the American art market crashed...
: >: Michael Moses Art author..."How many stocks have bveen around since
: >: 1600,1700 or 1800? Many paintings that were important in those periods
: >: are still considered treasures today. You can't say that about too many
: >: stocks."
: >: Moses has completed several indepth studies substantiating his theory
: >: that, over time some classes of art offer better returns than Standard
: >: & Poor's 500 and long and short term Treasury bills for for five and
: >: ten year periods ending in 1994.
: >Right. Okay. How about telling us which classes are going to
: >investment, but it's high risk.
: Would you trust a guy for investment information who tells you that art is both
: a good investment and the market crashed 10 years ago?
: >: The average salary of an Eningeer is Silly Icon ? Maybe 70 - 100K and
: >: the artists and deisgners? 12 - 30K and 40 if your lucky -
: >Supply and demand. I know dozens of out-of-work artists. I know even
: >more out-of-work musicians.
: There are also companies who are begging for artists who can create art using a
: computer. Salaries can be in excess of $60K. Supply and demand at work.
:
Mattison
Michael Riehle (mr13hl3...@netcom.com) wrote:
: In article <mattartE...@netcom.com> on Sat, 4 Oct 1997 18:26:47 GMT Mattison (mat...@netcom.com) wrote:
: : Well its getting closer to 10 years since the American art market crashed...
: Um, I sure didn't notice there ever was an American art market.
I can agree with you there -
Very funny -
: : and here we are is Silicon Valley with a - 39 Philanthropy rating (from
: : the most prestegious Philanthropic Journal in the country) in the shdae
: : of a tank on the Guadalupe Parkway they build a jail for your children.
: : Cleveland Ohio has a + 44 rating. That means the point spread is over
: : 70. I'd say we are losing the game wouldn't you ?
: What game would that be? And why do you believe that art and
: Philanthropy are necessarily connected? Some of the most notorious
: misanthropes in history have been artists.
Lets not waste my time -
Do your research and come back to debate -
: outperform S&P over the next 10 years? Art can have a high return on
: investment, but it's high risk.
Erica Jong..."The trouble is if you don't risk anything you risk more."
Americans polled on their death bed asked if they would do it all again
what would they be ? 98% answered Artist.
: Right, yes, of course it follows. I'm not sure from what, but it must
: 'cause you said so. Sorry, but cute little aphorisms don't cut it. Art
Really? ... Meow...
Look how much that fad started...
giggles
: is a commodoty like any other commidity. If people are buying it, the
: price goes up. Much as the artists would like to believe it has
You got it...set the trend they follow...Meow...
Your right my pieces have increased exponentially...
: Once again you try to connect art and philanthropy. If you want to be a
and...once again you missed the major message in my post...
: philanthropist, volunteer to work in a soup kitchen at Thanksgiving
I do... and what about you ?
: Supply and demand. I know dozens of out-of-work artists. I know even
: more out-of-work musicians. All of them do it for "the love of the
: art". I know almost no out-of-work engineers who are even reasonably
: good at their jobs. I know this is hard for you to accept, Mattison,
: but engineering is a very creative field. Most of the stuff you create
: is something nobody's ever done before (though it's usually similar to
: something done before).
Waiting for another recession in Silly Icon Valley ?
Over the years I have know even more out of work
engineers...again your missing the complete content in my post...
: People *need* transportation. People *need* a place to live. People
: *need* to be able dress themselves. Art is, at best, a reflection of
: emotions and a way to make our lives more pleasant. It is *never*
: necessary. Demand for things people *need* will always be higher than
: demand for things people *like* but don't *need*.
This is very debatable Americans are followers eg. look at Barney and the
hundereds of other fads produced by the nature of culture of which we
have here...meow
: [...snip...]
: : Every dollar spent on the art turns into 20.00 back to the community...
: Can you support this with facts? Research?
Where have you been? Contact the American Association of Museums in
Washington D.C. There were independent marketing and business
organizations retained who arrived at thees numbers. Again - lets not
waste my time...do your research and get back.
: : Oh - a wee bit of truth from one of the top ten American Painters who in
: : his 70's speaks of another top ten Painter in his 70's...
: : yes they are local to Northern California...
: [...snip...]
: : Any solutions ?
: Marketing. Selling. *You* have to sell your product. Nobody will do
: it for you.
Good but obvious advice...
I do sales often.
Don't wait for philanthropists. If you believe in your
Thats right...most of the philanthropists I have are comming to me. It
is very interesting their missions and reasons. They collect art I
collect them.
I posted this on Philanthropy not in realation to my own work (u r missing
the point again). I posted this so you can realte it to the big
picture...community.
I'm sorry but your busy picking up peanuts while the elephants stomp your
head.
Again you missed the point - Bringing Philanthropy style here in
Silly Icon...will only benift the community as a whole...if we don't take care
of the community who will. What have you donated sir?
Most of the funds raised in America come from single mothers with 2 kids
with incomes under 30K. You men ought to be ashamed...
: product (art) don't hesitate to sell it. Any quality product will sell
: if it's marketed correctly. An artist who won't sell his or her art
: can't complain when noboby buys it and a living can't be made from it.
Write them a great marketing plan and post it please...your such an expert.
: If you do believe in your art (or music), you should be the best
: salesperson for it. You believe it has value, convince someone else
It is turning out that way for me..I posted this to obtain creative
solutions..of which from you I'm still waiting.
: that it does and *sell it*. Don't wait for philanthropists. Don't hand
: out dire warnings about the death of art (art won't die, it will change,
: but it won't die, someone will always be doing it -- there's that supply
: thing again).
There are no dire warnings ...I come from a place of proaction not
reaction..a lesson might be helpful for you.
.
: Art and music have value to the artist when it satisfies their need to
: express themselves. This is sufficient in many cases, and should be.
: Those who do it for this reason are not concerned with monetary
: remuneration and are free to do as they please.
Obvious...
: Art and music have commercial value to the extent that the audience is
: moved by it in some way. This is a connection between artist and
: audience that is very imporant and very powerful. This is what people
: will pay for. It won't happen without the audience being aware of the
Yes - I have been a shocked and lucky Artist as this happens with my work...
: existance of the art -- the artist's responsibility. If income is your
: primary reason for art, then you will need to cater to the audience --
: but this is a losing game because you can only do this successfully by
: being able to see the art from the point of view of the audience.
Not really your rather narrow minded throughout your discussion...but we
can't let it pass. This runs rampant in Silly Icon Valley. Some lead and
the rest will follow...Whiners unite...giggles
: Complaining that the community doesn't support the arts makes you a
: whiner. Not an artist, a whiner. Making art makes you an artist. If
If leading people with the rough makes me a Whiner --- I gladly and
proudly accept the title of lead Whiner and when the game gets to Zero I might give all
you boys a break.
Sir...I gladly extend to you an invitation to my studio...where in the
neighborhood we can take a tour of the third world in Silly Icon
Valley... Where whole families live in one 10 x 15 rooms with 4 - 6 Kids
and Grandparents...and then you can tell me all about your views on
Philanthropy and volunteerism and fill me in on all the giving you have
been doing.
: you make art which is commercially viable, then you are a commercial
: artist. If your art is not commercially viable but you enjoy doing it,
: quit whining and just do it. We all have to make compromises. Most of
You have completely missed the most important content in my post.
: us have something we'd rather be doing than working for a living, even
: those of us who actually enjoy the work we do.
I feel sorry for you...maybe thats why the jail for the kids is being built.
care
matters
Mattison FitzGerald
Artist
www.rhinodev.com/M
Allan M. Ayres
In article <mr13hl3_NOSP...@netcom.com>,
m.riehl...@NOSPAM.netcom.com wrote:
> People *need* transportation. People *need* a place to live. People
> *need* to be able dress themselves. Art is, at best, a reflection of
> emotions and a way to make our lives more pleasant. It is *never*
> necessary.
This is just flat-out wrong. At the very least, it's an overbroad and
fallacious generalization. For many of us, art *is* necessary.
> Art
> is a commodoty like any other commidity. If people are buying it, the
> price goes up. Much as the artists would like to believe it has
> intrinsic value, it doesn't. The value of art and music is entirely in
> the interpretation of the audience. The value to the artist is
> irrelevant when speaking commercially.
This is the heart of the issue right here. It's something of a false
dilemma to require that art's worthwhileness be evaluated based on the
criteria of free-market capitalism. People seem not to recognize that
capitalism was a choice; it's not divinely ordained, or biologically
built-in, or rationally supreme; and it's not uniquely capable of judging
absolute good and absolute worth (contrary to what some people seem to
believe). Capitalism does happen to be a worthwhile and constructive
system in some contexts, but it's not the only system by which we ought to
organize our priorities and our values, and it's wrong to extrapolate
notions of economic competitiveness into areas in which they're more or
less meaningless.
This is demonstrably true in some contexts: for example, few people would
judge one spiritual practice against another based on issues of profit;
few people would be inclined to choose one church over another based on a
business plan; protecting endangered species and biodiversity is an
economic good only in the most hand-wavey sense. We'd be way back in the
era of vacuum tubes (or, more likely, cave drawings) if the funding of
scientific research had been an exclusively market-driven enterprise. The
Internet certainly wouldn't exist if economic viability had been the
criterion by which it was judged. The point is that people routinely make
judgements in any number of areas based on criteria other than those of
free-market economics.
This is arguably necessary in other areas: in particular, art. If you try
to inhabit an artistic point of view, even as an outsider, it quickly
becomes odd, perplexing, and increasingly absurd to conceive of judging
art on purely capitalistic terms. (And it shouldn't be necessary to point
out that much, if not most, if not all, of the art we now consider
masterpieces was in its time considered impossibly outlandish and
uncommercial, and/or was made possible by patronage or philanthropy.)
This is what I find unnerving about Silicon Valley: the sense that a
certain muscular capitalism is and ought to be the be-all and end-all of
life. I think this is what the original poster was commenting on.
--Allan Ayres
Phil Ronzone
In article <01bcd18f$d891e5e0$c919...@rkeyser.iu.net> "Roger Keyser" <rke...@iu.net> writes:
>I am not sure where this discussion began, but I am an artist
>who works full time in business. I used to do my art full
>time and would like some day to return to that life but not
>until my paintings bring a price that can support that kind
>necessary production speed necessary to make a decent living
>as a painter. That puts me in a difficult "catch 22"
>position. I can spend as much as 3 years on a single painting
>now which when working full time as an artist would have
>taken a month to produce. Galleries expect an artist to
>produce faster than this. They also expect awards from recent
>exhibitions which only accept recently completed works. I am
>hoping to use the net to bring attention to my work but I
>realistically do not expect sales directly from the net. I
>have seen other acrylic realism artists turn to abstract or
>watercolor in order to make a living. I have instead turned
>to another career but cannot stop painting. It gives meaning
>out of this bind?
Well, two suggestions:
1. Change your sexual orientation to something normal (see Newsgroups above).
2. Restrict your postings to alt.whiner.
--
"I didn't do it, nobody saw me, and you can't prove it!" - B. Simpson
These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Phil Ronzone
In article <ayres-08109...@matsci2-fp-dynamic-170.stanford.edu> ay...@leland.stanford.edu (Allan M. Ayres) writes:
>This is the heart of the issue right here. It's something of
>a false dilemma to require that art's worthwhileness be
>evaluated based on the criteria of free-market capitalism.
>People seem not to recognize that capitalism was a choice;
>it's not divinely ordained, or biologically built-in, or
>rationally supreme; and it's not uniquely capable of judging
>absolute good and absolute worth (contrary to what some
>people seem to believe). Capitalism does happen to be a
>worthwhile and constructive system in some contexts, but it's
>not the only system by which we ought to organize our
>priorities and our values, and it's wrong to extrapolate
>notions of economic competitiveness into areas in which
>they're more or less meaningless.
You are quite incorrect. Capitalism is an absolute, based on the premise
that no man has the right to enslave others, that there are absolute
rights.
Since capitalism is the ultimate democrary, what you are asking is for
FORCE to take money from people and give it to you and your kind.
That makes you a thief and a thug.
Plus, obviously, a lousy artist.
>This is demonstrably true in some contexts: for example, few
>people would judge one spiritual practice against another
>based on issues of profit; few people would be inclined to
>choose one church over another based on a business plan;
>protecting endangered species and biodiversity is an economic
>good only in the most hand-wavey sense. We'd be way back in
>the era of vacuum tubes (or, more likely, cave drawings) if
>the funding of scientific research had been an exclusively
>market-driven enterprise. The Internet certainly wouldn't
>exist if economic viability had been the criterion by which
>it was judged. The point is that people routinely make
>judgements in any number of areas based on criteria other
>than those of free-market economics.
>the funding of scientific research had been an exclusively
----------------------------------------------------------
>market-driven enterprise. The Internet certainly wouldn't
-----------------------------------------------------------
Baloney. Or, you are very ignorant. Until WWII, finance of generic
R&D was NOT done by the State. The State may have funded some R&D
for specific military hardware systems, but that was it.
So, you know, airplanes, cars, TV, medicine, new materials, better
foods, all came from the private sector.
>This is arguably necessary in other areas: in particular,
>art. If you try to inhabit an artistic point of view, even as
>an outsider, it quickly becomes odd, perplexing, and
>increasingly absurd to conceive of judging art on purely
>capitalistic terms. (And it shouldn't be necessary to point
>out that much, if not most, if not all, of the art we now
>consider masterpieces was in its time considered impossibly
>outlandish and uncommercial, and/or was made possible by
>patronage or philanthropy.)
Uh, duh, you be so stupid. Most of the "famous" art was very
commercial -- as in "the Duke of Baloney commisioned so-and-so
to do his portrait while sitting on a horse ...".
>This is what I find unnerving about Silicon Valley: the sense
>that a certain muscular capitalism is and ought to be the
>be-all and end-all of life. I think this is what the original
>poster was commenting on.
You should be unnerved. Silicon Valley exposes you and your work to
scrutiny of millions -- millions that work for a living. Since it
sounds like your work sucks, and hence no one buys it, you either
be honest and blame only yourself, or, you can whine "artistically"
that us crass, money-grubbing petit bourgeoise "just do NOT know
anything anout the value of fine art".
Wanna bet?
Snicker.
See "The Anti-Capitalist Mentality" by Ludwig Von Mises.
Erik Johnson
On Sat, 4 Oct 1997 18:26:47 GMT, mat...@netcom.com (Mattison) wrote:
>They only depreciate in value - just think - have you really considered the
>investment? Buying a Nathan Oliver painting in the 60's might have cost
>you 1K now you can't touch them for under 100K or a Pollack.
>Oh - yes
>those same european cars you bought in the 60's - what did you spend?
>and what are they worth now ?
>Now - which investment is the better and the status symbol
>kids? What do you think would happen if you bought emerging art over the
>next 30 years?
Okay, I'm way late here... but your car example is not a very good
one. Buy a Ferrari 512 bbi in 1980 for $26,000 by 1992 it would have
been worth over a million. There are other similar examples. When it
comes down to it, just about anything can wildy appreciate in value,
or not... if I knew what would and wouldn't beforehand, I'd be rich.
Now if only my art would appreciate soo much!
-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
Erik Johnson erik@ phidias.colorado.edu
http://phidias.colorado.edu/ejvgallery
http://phidias.colorado.edu/phidias
Steve Mueller
Allan M. Ayres wrote:
> This is just flat-out wrong. At the very least, it's an overbroad and
> fallacious generalization. For many of us, art *is* necessary.
Actually, I don't think it is wrong. Here are *necessary* things:
* Air
* Water
* Food
* Shelter
Show me how many people die without art. If *anyone* dies without
art, I'll concede it's necessary for some people.
Of course, the world wouldn't be as nice a place without art (and I'm
including music, literature, movies, etc. as art).
Steve
Stuart A. Bronstein
William De Raymond <cez...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>H.Selvitella wrote:
>> mat...@netcom.com (Mattison) wrote:
[snip]
>> Get a job.
>You sir are an asshole.
Amazing - and he's not even a lawyer (AFAICT).
--
Stu
"He's turned his life around. He used to be depressed and miserable. Now
he's miserable and depressed."
--David Frost
Stuart A. Bronstein
Steve Mueller <s...@unforgettable.com> wrote:
>Allan M. Ayres wrote:
>
>> This is just flat-out wrong. At the very least, it's an overbroad and
>> fallacious generalization. For many of us, art *is* necessary.
>
>art, I'll concede it's necessary for some people.
The soul dies without art. And for some the balance of life wouldn't be
worth living without it, either.
--
Stu
There is no good arguing with the inevitible. The only argument available
with an east wind is to put on your overcoat.
-James Russell Lowell
Bob Cantor
Steve Mueller wrote:
>
> Allan M. Ayres wrote:
>
> > This is just flat-out wrong. At the very least, it's an overbroad and
> > fallacious generalization. For many of us, art *is* necessary.
>
>
> * Air
> * Water
> * Food
> * Shelter
>
What you're saying is that, fundamentally, human needs are no different
from
that of any other animals. Or, now that I think of it, no different from
the needs of my car. I think it's possible to make an argument for the
spiritual and emotional needs of humans which transcends the mere
ability to exist as a living entity.
- Bob
Geoff Surrette
In article <343CA2...@unforgettable.com>, s...@unforgettable.com wrote:
> Show me how many people die without art. If *anyone* dies without
> art, I'll concede it's necessary for some people.
In the context of physical death I'd have to agree, but as far for the death
of spirtit (Argh! I hope that didn't sound as new age as I thought it did.)...
Cheers,
-- gs --
Home Page XX --> http://www.texoma.com/~geoff
Amper-Zen Studios --> http://www.texoma.com/~geoff/azd
Eclectic Artists' Society --> http://www.texoma.com/~geoff/eas
--------------------------------------------------------------
Q DNRC: Minister of Crop Circles & Other Interstellar Graffiti
Michael Riehle
In article <343CDB...@erols.com> on Thu, 09 Oct 1997 09:26:53 -0400 Bob Cantor (bob...@erols.com) wrote:
Spiritual needs get into religion and are losing argument.
Emotional needs are another matter. The value of art and music is that
it fills an emotional need for distraction. This is fine. But the need
is the distraction, the mechanism is the art. If there were no art,
there would be another kind of distraction.
William De Raymond
Steve Mueller wrote:
>
> William De Raymond wrote:
>
> > You sir are an asshole.
>
I realize after I made the post it wasn't the most constructive post
possible. And I also know I in my own way can be an asshole. This has
nothing to do with literacy. We are in the middle of cultural wars, and
at the center of that is the self maturing.
I studied with a great artistic genius who died in virtual
obscurity at the age of 102. I know his value. I also experienced his
suffering at the lack of recognition that existed for various reasons.
Some political and some aesthetic, and some marketing. I also know that
to appreciate art is a great skill in itself and that one evolves in
that skill from understanding to understanding. I also know that the
education I received in my master's studio was rare, and at best, you
get a watered down version in the academies of the day.
Anyway, to collect art is a great and noble endeavor and will
enrich the collector in many ways regardless of where one starts from
by way of 'taste'. There is great ecstasy to be had in viewing an
artform. If you are not getting this value from the art you look at,
some self examination might be in order.
My sincere apologies to H. Selvitella and all for the overreacting
and the name calling, compassion and caring are always in order.
cAt
Michael Riehle wrote:
>
> In article <343CDB...@erols.com> on Thu, 09 Oct 1997 09:26:53 -0400 Bob Cantor (bob...@erols.com) wrote:
> : Steve Mueller wrote:
> : >
> : > Allan M. Ayres wrote:
> : >
> : > > This is just flat-out wrong. At the very least, it's an overbroad and
> : > > fallacious generalization. For many of us, art *is* necessary.
> : >
> : > Actually, I don't think it is wrong. Here are *necessary* things:
> : >
> : > * Air
> : > * Water
> : > * Food
> : > * Shelter
> : >
>
>
> Emotional needs are another matter. The value of art and music is that
> it fills an emotional need for distraction. This is fine. But the need
> is the distraction, the mechanism is the art. If there were no art,
> there would be another kind of distraction.
>
Value of art and music is not merely distraction, not even for you. It
is a basic human need. Even spirituality, for which you have to get into
religion and you dont want to, because it does not conform to your way
of life, is a basic human need, in one form or the other. Air, water,
food, are bodily needs. Human beings have been given an organ known as
brain, and a brain is a very complex structure, and emotions are a
component of that organ. Diseases are of different kinds. There are
those caused by not getting proper air, water, food, and there are those
called mental diseases, which involve emotional distress etc.
You remind me of that ad on tv, where this old man is shouting: MAN IS
AN ANIMAL, and the background voice says, people who think that should
live in a zoo. So, maybe you should live in a zo, and I will make sure
you get all your basic human needs, by feeding you, which would be my
basic need (feeding animals out of compassion).
(Of course I did not say that buying expensive art is the only way to
fulfill that need, but it is one way.)
AGAIN, value of music and art is NOT a distraction, it is, however, the
degree of their qualities that are a distraction.
jan c. schindler
Michael Riehle wrote:
>
> In article <61ikm2$f...@crl.crl.com> on 9 Oct 1997 06:02:58 -0700 Stuart A. Bronstein (ad...@crl.crl.com) wrote:
> : Steve Mueller <s...@unforgettable.com> wrote:
> : >Allan M. Ayres wrote:
> : >
> : >> This is just flat-out wrong. At the very least, it's an overbroad and
> : >> fallacious generalization. For many of us, art *is* necessary.
> : >
> : >art, I'll concede it's necessary for some people.
>
> : worth living without it, either.
>
> that the soul will take care of itself. The point of art and music and
> literature is to make life more pleasant, to distract us from our
> day-to-day lives. To the extent that this makes you feel better, this
> is a Good Thing. In fact, this distraction may be a necessary thing for
> good mental health. But if all the paintings in the world were
> destroyed tommorrow, people would find another way to distract
> themselves (probably by making more paintings).
>
> I think that art has value in that it provides a convenient way to do
> this. But it doesn't feed anybody. Really, it doesn't.
>
Michael,
Please have a look at Otto Dix or Kate Kollwitz. They both produced work
at the beginning of this century. Then tell me that their work is for
pleasure or a distraction from life.( Good reference is Arnason's book
History of Modern Art)
As far as literature goes, I never read the Grapes of Wrath for pleasure.
Art is about ideas and the communication of them. I somehow get the
feeling from your posts that you are closed to this but I hope one day
you will come to think otherwise.
Take care,
Jan
Phil Ronzone
In article <61jca1$35g$1...@broadway.interport.net> zi...@interport.net writes:
>Emotional well being is just as necessary as food air and
>water. It is true that a madman could go on living with those
>and without art. But a sane man could not.
No, it is not. Generations have been raised, one after another,
in lands long ago that were continually being devastated by an
occupying country. They got along. Real unhappy, but they lived.
>In order for people to go sane they need to have art. In
>order to remain sane, artists need to produce art.
Bullshit. People don't need Art (or Joe or Tom ...). As for "artists",
you mean to say I take away your paint cans (ala Pollack) and you
go crazy?
>Art is necessary to life, just as society is necessary to
>life. You are comparing to different logical categories and
>that is YOUR problem.
Nope.
>The things which are necessary because life stops without
>them are in one category.
Nope.
>The things which are necessary because thinking, feeling
>social life stops without them are in another category. Art
>is on of these. I won't burden you with any of my theories
>aboutthenecessity of art for people to understand their
>culture and their relationships and the world around
>them.There are many different conflicting theories which deal
>with this. There must be something there, ynderneath them
>all.
Wishful namby pamby whining.
>Sure, IF I were in the middle of the Sahara I would need
>first water, than food and then shelter from the sun.
>
>But I am not in the middle of the Sahara. I have water, food
>and shelter. Then I need art. And without it my culture
>disintegrates and I and my family and friends die. That is
>putting it in overly simple terms. Give me an example of a
>circumstance where people have not acted as if it were true!
Well, good. Die. Your thinking sucks, and you actually believe you
can force other people (at gunpoint) to give you money for art.
Let's face it -- if you were any good, people would be giving you $$$
and you wouldn't be posting the above.
Instead - you seem to be a lousy no-talent whiner, who seems to think
that the world owes him a living.
Definitely a second ship kind of guy.
Timothy A. Sandstrom
Phil, O Thou Font Of Wisdom Grace Us With The Golden Dribblets From Thy Mouth:
Phil> You are quite incorrect. Capitalism is an absolute, based on the premise
Phil> that no man has the right to enslave others, that there are absolute
Phil> rights.
Now, this is a pearl. Last time I checked Capitalism is either an
economic system or a poltical system based upon said system. I believe
the Founding Fathers were Capitalists, yet, slavery flourished in the
US as well as other places for many centuries. I hereby rebuke your
sweeping generalizations. Capitalism is more towards the
'might-is-right' sort of thinking. Surely... no it couldn't be. You
could not have forgotten... No, maybe he's just playing ignorant.
Last time I checked, the books are filled with the exploits of the
'non-enslaving' Western coutries when they finally figured out a way
to sail around the world to 'free' all the 'heathen savages' from
their bondage. Church and State, hand in hand, there just in time
to SAVE THEM FROM THEIR MISERABLE LITTLE LIVES! O how grateful they
should be that we came along to show them THE TRUE WAY!!!!
The idea that Capitalism in and of itself stakes that claim that their
are absolute rights is specious and reeks of a sort of
muddle-headedness like unto the great Fyodorovich Karamozov. I stand
in awe of your ability to leap over reason with a single bound, to
float as it were, amidst the heavens, free of all responsibility of
logic.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil> Since capitalism is the ultimate democrary, what you are asking is for
Phil> FORCE to take money from people and give it to you and your kind.
I read no such thing in the previous post, I believe you are reading into
it what you wish to see.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil> That makes you a thief and a thug.
Phil> Plus, obviously, a lousy artist.
Ah, this self-belief of yours is strong. Thus, the 'net again brings to
light those trollish thoughts which infest the darker areas of our
consciousness. You seem to be casting about the VERY thoughts I was
thinking to describe you. How curious. You are self-referential.
Thou Art Irony Embodied.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Allan>>> The Internet certainly wouldn't exist if economic viability had been
Allan>>> the criterion by which it was judged.
Phil> Baloney. Or, you are very ignorant. Until WWII, finance of generic
Phil> R&D was NOT done by the State. The State may have funded some R&D
Phil> for specific military hardware systems, but that was it.
Straw man, your point is not a refutation as you so hoped, it is an
affirmation snice the internet was developed AFTER WWII, by DARPA
as a method of insuring against a communications failure in the advent
of nuclear war, hence the redundancy of paths, the ability of net traffic
to go any number of multiple routes in case some intermediate sites are
down. It is you, at the VERY instant of your claim against someone else,
that you stand exactly in the error you claim for the other. Again, thou
art self-referential.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Allan>> And it shouldn't be necessary to point
Allan>> out that much, if not most, if not all, of the art we now
Allan>> consider masterpieces was in its time considered impossibly
Allan>> outlandish and uncommercial, and/or was made possible by
Allan>> patronage or philanthropy.
Phil> Uh, duh, you be so stupid. Most of the "famous" art was very
Phil> commercial -- as in "the Duke of Baloney commisioned so-and-so
Phil> to do his portrait while sitting on a horse ...".
Oh, the eloquence, the sublime silver tongued, articulation of your
deeply profound and well thought out criticism. You really told
him, huh Phil? <wink> <wink>
This was funny when I first started this, but you seem to be so
sure of yourself that you must be a joy to be around. I can just
imagine what wonderful, colorful thoughts that must inhabit the
firmament of your consciousness. Strapped to the Wheel, you shall
return many times to this place, O wanderer.
He did not say, "famous" art, did he? But then it does suit your
needs to misquote him, doesn't it?
In short, Phil, I believe you embody the type of personality
that generates the Anti-Capitalist mentality. Keep it up, post
away. Maybe you'll convert a few Reds, eh?
das Blute.
Mattison
Bob Cantor (bob...@erols.com) wrote:
: spiritual and emotional needs of humans which transcends the mere :
ability to exist as a living entity.
...and they tried to out law rock and roll....
This is one of the larger industries in California I believe.
Mattison
Mattison
Geoff Surrette (po...@brown.edu) wrote:
: In article <343CA2...@unforgettable.com>, s...@unforgettable.com wrote:
: > Show me how many people die without art. If *anyone* dies without
: > art, I'll concede it's necessary for some people.
: In the context of physical death I'd have to agree, but as far for the death
: of spirtit (Argh! I hope that didn't sound as new age as I thought it did.)...
: Cheers,
Ringo Bingo this is a New Age and if you would all follow your creative
hearts with out fear ...you all just might create one better than you had...
: -- gs --
: Home Page XX --> http://www.texoma.com/~geoff : Amper-Zen
Studios --> http://www.texoma.com/~geoff/azd : Eclectic Artists' Society
--> http://www.texoma.com/~geoff/eas :
-------------------------------------------------------------- : Q DNRC:
Minister of Crop Circles & Other Interstellar Graffiti care matters
Mattison
Mattison
Michael Riehle (mr13hl3...@netcom.com) wrote:
:No public money spent on art.
Sir...How do you think B.B.King got that National Arts Award this year ?
How do you think this award affect the cost of your recordings ? That
Poet who told them to forget the Award shoud have been on the cover of
time...She was looking out for lyour best interest and freedom of Life.
liberty and the persuit of happiness... Mattison FitzGerald
www.rhinodev.com/M
Michael Riehle
In article <343D3B...@hotmail.com> on Thu, 09 Oct 1997 13:14:51 -0700 cAt (namel...@hotmail.com) wrote:
: Value of art and music is not merely distraction, not even for you. It
: is a basic human need. Even spirituality, for which you have to get into
: religion and you dont want to, because it does not conform to your way
You made a huge leap here. I don't like to get into discussions of
religion for the simple reason that one man's religion is another man's
belly laugh. Such discussions are never productive and usually descend
into name-calling with nobody's mind being changed. Pointless.
: of life, is a basic human need, in one form or the other. Air, water,
: food, are bodily needs. Human beings have been given an organ known as
: brain, and a brain is a very complex structure, and emotions are a
: component of that organ. Diseases are of different kinds. There are
: those caused by not getting proper air, water, food, and there are those
: called mental diseases, which involve emotional distress etc.
: You remind me of that ad on tv, where this old man is shouting: MAN IS
: AN ANIMAL, and the background voice says, people who think that should
: live in a zoo. So, maybe you should live in a zo, and I will make sure
: you get all your basic human needs, by feeding you, which would be my
: basic need (feeding animals out of compassion).
: (Of course I did not say that buying expensive art is the only way to
: fulfill that need, but it is one way.)
: AGAIN, value of music and art is NOT a distraction, it is, however, the
: degree of their qualities that are a distraction.
Hmm...maybe I should have said entertainment. The word is less loaded
somehow. The point I was trying to make is that humans have an
emotional need to keep their minds occupied and must spend some of that
occupation on things which do not have to do with filling basic physical
needs. That is what causes the creative drive. It's also what causes
us to appreciate art, music, literature, television, cars that are more
than basic transportation, etc.
What causes the mental illnesses you worry about is not being able to
exercise that need. But art is only *one* way to do so. Engineering is
an equally valid way. Some believe it's more valid because it helps to
solve real human problems rather than simply entertaining. The engineer
is entertained by the effort and solves some real problems for industry
(and often humanity) at the same time.
Please don't misunderstand -- I do *not* believe that entertainment is
valueless. In fact, I believe it is of critical importance. I wouldn't
play music if I didn't think so. But to complain that artists don't
achieve that kind of income that engineers do is simply ridiculous. The
supply of art completely overwhelms the demand. Especially with all the
other means of entertainment available.
Mattison
Allan M. Ayres (ay...@leland.stanford.edu) wrote:
: For many of us, art *is* necessary.
: This is the heart of the issue right here. It's something of a false
: dilemma to require that art's worthwhileness be evaluated based on the
: criteria of free-market capitalism. People seem not to recognize that
: capitalism was a choice; it's not divinely ordained, or biologically
: built-in, or rationally supreme; and it's not uniquely capable of judging
: absolute good and absolute worth (contrary to what some people seem to
: believe). Capitalism does happen to be a worthwhile and constructive
: system in some contexts, but it's not the only system by which we ought to
: organize our priorities and our values, and it's wrong to extrapolate
: notions of economic competitiveness into areas in which they're more or
: less meaningless.
Elephants stirring the buffalo - it is about time someone had a wee bit
of vision around here -
Welcome to my definition of dimension there are more than these boys
could ever calculate...
Someone who sees more than the peanuts...Welcome elephants to the Big
Picture -
giggles
You define your reality and lets get the community closer to the meaning
of my post. It would be nice to see the community vision defined to a much higher context than
the newcomers to Silly Icon have been able to do = - 39 Is losing the
game boys.
Ask the locals to be the base on your Quality of Life meters...if you
can find us ...most won't even talk to all you newcomers ...cause you
have messed it up so bad...
: scientific research had been an exclusively market-driven enterprise. The
: Internet certainly wouldn't exist if economic viability had been the
: criterion by which it was judged. The point is that people routinely make
: judgements in any number of areas based on criteria other than those of
: free-market economics.
Exactly...corporate welfare ? or just a well funded fad ? California was
a craft based economy in Art and Craft before the war. Everyone wonders why
eurpoe is so cool?
They They value Art and Craft...most people in this valley do not even know
what it is....
: This is arguably necessary in other areas: in particular, art. If you try
: to inhabit an artistic point of view, even as an outsider, it quickly
: becomes odd, perplexing, and increasingly absurd to conceive of judging
: art on purely capitalistic terms. (And it shouldn't be necessary to point
: out that much, if not most, if not all, of the art we now consider
: masterpieces was in its time considered impossibly outlandish and
: uncommercial, and/or was made possible by patronage or philanthropy.)
: This is what I find unnerving about Silicon Valley: the sense that a
: certain muscular capitalism is and ought to be the be-all and end-all of
: life. I think this is what the original poster was commenting on.
Getting warm boys...
Mattison FitzGerald
Artist
www.rhinodev.com/M
Mattison
Bob Cantor (bob...@erols.com) wrote:
: Phil Ronzone wrote:
: >
: > You are quite incorrect. Capitalism is an absolute, based on the premise
: > that no man has the right to enslave others, that there are absolute
: > rights.
: >
: > Since capitalism is the ultimate democrary, what you are asking is for
: > FORCE to take money from people and give it to you and your kind.
: >
:
: What in the world are you talking about?
: Capitalism is an economic system characterized by the ability to
: accumulate capital (as opposed to material wealth), a marketplace for
: the exchange of goods and capital, and a high degree of separation
: between political and economic powers (the US system of capitalism is
: further characterized by the commodification of labor and land, but
: these are not necessary elements for capitalism in general).
: You should re-read the original posting on the relationship of :
capitalism and art, and keep re-reading it until you actually have some :
glimmer of understanding of what it is saying. Then you may be able to :
criticize it so that you aren't hiding your valid points (there were a :
few) in a jumble of total nonsense. and keep reading it ...until the
picturre changes to questions of why are there so many bored alcoholic
house wives in LAH and the like ? and Why has the Juveey Hall check in
rate in Silly Icon increased - if this place is so brilliant ? Mattison
They build a jail for your children in the shade of a tank
Mattison
zi...@interport.net wrote:
: Art is considered to be a treasure for all
: people and each nation.
Did you even question - now - in America where Freedom is "supposed" to be
valued - the artists are taking such hard hits? Did you ever question why
Hitler went after the artists first ? Did you ever question when
countries are conquered - they always go after the art first ?
One red curb at a time...
: Not only that in various ways both public and private foundations try
: to help young artists develop and have time to make art and put their
: careers together. None of these then benefit directly financially from
: the success of these young artists.
Yes these are on a higher the higher "Elephant" level..."Every dollar spent
on the arts turns into 20.00 back to the community - I doubt they even
understand these are not peanuts.
Mattison
Mattison
Stuart A. Bronstein (ad...@crl.crl.com) wrote:
: >> This is just flat-out wrong. At the very least, it's an overbroad and
: >> fallacious generalization. For many of us, art *is* necessary.
: >
: > Show me how many people die without art. If *anyone* dies without
: >art, I'll concede it's necessary for some people.
: The soul dies without art. And for some the balance of life wouldn't be
: worth living without it, either.
Pass the Soilent Green Please...
Mattison
All I got is a red paint brush three tubes and the truth...
Mattison
Michael Riehle (mr13hl3...@netcom.com) wrote:
: interesting thing about this is that no-disposable-income =
: no-commercial-value-for-art.
: : This is what I find unnerving about Silicon Valley: the sense that a :
: certain muscular capitalism is and ought to be the be-all and end-all of
: : life. I think this is what the original poster was commenting on.
IA more plausible equation is
: Probably. And to the extent that it allows people like Bill Gates to be
: ascendant I agree. Nevertheless, I want no, zero, zilch, not any public
: money spent on art. I do not regard supporting the arts as being :
particularly philanthropic. And I do not think that art will die out :
because corporations and governments don't support the arts.
No art education in American = Fear in Purchasing = Depressed Art Market
Mattison
Noreen Mastascusa
Speaking of art...
Phil Ronzone (ph...@netcom.com) wrote:
: "I didn't do it, nobody saw me, and you can't prove it!" - B. Simpson
:
B. Simpson and H. Simpson have won a Peabody and an Emmy. Discuss.
--
Noreen Mastascusa, aka namast...@ucdavis.edu
"In this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!"
-H. Simpson
Bob Cantor
Michael Riehle wrote:
>
> In article <343D3B...@hotmail.com> on Thu, 09 Oct 1997 13:14:51 -0700 cAt (namel...@hotmail.com) wrote:
> : Value of art and music is not merely distraction, not even for you. It
> : is a basic human need. Even spirituality, for which you have to get into
> : religion and you dont want to, because it does not conform to your way
>
> You made a huge leap here. I don't like to get into discussions of
> religion for the simple reason that one man's religion is another man's
> belly laugh. Such discussions are never productive and usually descend
> into name-calling with nobody's mind being changed. Pointless.
>
Spirituality is not synonymous with religion. Taken literally, it simply
distinguishes the intellectual from the corporeal. In my original
reference, I was using it to signify the concepts of consciousness, free
will, self-awareness, and raison d'etre. Although many people do turn to
religion to try to understand them, these concepts and how they relate
to human needs are questions of philosophy and psychology.
> Please don't misunderstand -- I do *not* believe that entertainment is
> valueless. In fact, I believe it is of critical importance. I wouldn't
> play music if I didn't think so. But to complain that artists don't
> achieve that kind of income that engineers do is simply ridiculous. The
> supply of art completely overwhelms the demand. Especially with all the
> other means of entertainment available.
I'm an engineer myself, so I'm not complaining. There is a lot of truth
to what you are saying. But I think that it is also true that our
demands are to a large degree determined by the society and societal
systems which we have created for ourselves. I often wonder if there
aren't ways we cannot as an entire society change our priorites so as to
put less emphasis on the accumulation of capital and all of the side
effects which that emphasis brings about.
- Bob C.
Gary Brainin
In article <61km0n$570$1...@mark.ucdavis.edu> szno...@catbert.ucdavis.edu (Noreen Mastascusa) writes:
> Speaking of art...
> Phil Ronzone (ph...@netcom.com) wrote:
> : "I didn't do it, nobody saw me, and you can't prove it!" - B. Simpson
> B. Simpson and H. Simpson have won a Peabody and an Emmy. Discuss.
Why discuss? Just have Mr. Peabody fire up the wayback machine,
and we can ask about it ourselves.
-Gary
--
|Gary Brainin | "...the right to be let alone--the most
|gar...@spies.com Ramblings and | comprehensive of rights and the right most
|anti-spam instructions at: | valued by civilized men." Olmstead v. U.S.
|http://www.spies.com/garygm/ | (Brandeis, J., dissenting)
Mattison
cAt (namel...@hotmail.com) wrote:
: is a basic human need. Even spirituality, for which you have to get into
: religion and you dont want to, because it does not conform to your way
Creativity is religion - religion is for those who are afarid to tap
their own.
Now I simply posted this originally to get you all open up...I know
change is hard...especially when they have taught you all to stay with in
the lines - you can though reinvent the lines and begin relishing your
creativity to respect all levels in everyone else and to try and open up
the society to greater heights of imagination and product- product-tivity
and amrkets.
: component of that organ. Diseases are of different kinds. There are
: those caused by not getting proper air, water, food, and there are those
: called mental diseases, which involve emotional distress etc.
Many of which can be helped our cured by the arts which eludes to the
fact that spirit - creativity is a valuable product.
: You remind me of that ad on tv, where this old man is shouting: MAN IS
: AN ANIMAL, and the background voice says, people who think that should
: live in a zoo. So, maybe you should live in a zo, and I will make sure
: you get all your basic human needs, by feeding you, which would be my
: basic need (feeding animals out of compassion).
I think that means they will still be picking up peanuts. I was
hoping for them to be more like that guy in the olympics who did the flop
and moved the standard a foot rather than inches.
Mattison
real vision is boundless
Mattison
Phil Ronzone (ph...@netcom.com) wrote:
: you mean to say I take away your paint cans (ala Pollack) and you
: go crazy?
This country is rather under educated in the arts and you are prime
example. Pollack died from a car crash. He was an alcoholic. More than
likely his strees from being an American great who was starving and
couldn't feed his wife helped cause his alcoholism.
I am imbarassed for America to say, I in emerging my works in the last 3
short years have made probably twice or three times the amount one of the
top American Artists in the modern movement Pollack made in his lifetime.
On a positive note maybe this means the undeucated cultureless lemmings have
hope ?
Mattison
Allan M. Ayres
sand...@nas.nasa.gov wrote:
> Allan>>> The Internet certainly wouldn't exist if economic viability had been
> Allan>>> the criterion by which it was judged.
>
> Phil> Baloney. Or, you are very ignorant. Until WWII, finance of generic
> Phil> R&D was NOT done by the State. The State may have funded some R&D
> Phil> for specific military hardware systems, but that was it.
>
> [internet stuff...]
Plus, the whole notion that scientific research was not financed by the
state before WWII is revisionism of epic proportions. I'd like someone to
remind me exactly which private corporations employed Newton, Leibniz,
Gauss, Lord Kelvin, Boyle, Joule, Heisenberg, Fermi, Schroedinger, Curie,
Pasteur, von Braun, Salk, Rutherford, Roentgen, Brahe, Kepler, Darwin....
the list goes on.
Sure, Ford, the Wright brothers, and Edison were entrepreneurs -- and very
important figures; but they were hardly engaged in scientific research.
--Allan Ayres
Danny Low
Stuart A. Bronstein says...
>The soul dies without art. And for some the balance of life wouldn't be
>worth living without it, either.
Art is only a secondary survival need. You can survive for a very long time
without art but with air. You cannot survive for long with art but no air.
Furthermore, art is something that every one can create for themselves. Artists
justfiy their existence by their ability to produce better art than most
people. So while art may be a survival need, artists are not a necessity.
--
Danny Low
HP NSD
Dann...@hp.com
"The only good vampire is a dead vampire"
Phil Ronzone
In article <mattartE...@netcom.com> mat...@netcom.com (Mattison) writes:
>zi...@interport.net wrote:
>Did you even question - now - in America where Freedom is
>"supposed" to be valued - the artists are taking such hard
>hits? Did you ever question why Hitler went after the artists
>first ? Did you ever question when countries are conquered -
>they always go after the art first ?
Sniffle. Boo hoo. How sad. How terrible. AND HOW FUCKIN' UNTRUE.
Look, Bozo me boy, most of "art" sucks. You are most obviously a failure
in life.
Rather than admit this, you whine that you are an "artiste", unappreciated
in your time, that simple MUST be ferderally subsidize by the State.
Ugh.
Have you ever SEEN the FDR Depression era WPA funding of "Art"?
Egads - it makes the school USSR Socialist Realism look downright
delicate.
And why did you add "ba.singles,ba.motss"?
Can't find a date? Alternate your lifestyle? Attemot
--
"I didn't do it, nobody saw me, and you can't prove it!" - B. Simpson
These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
maleckar
zi...@interport.net wrote:
>
> mat...@netcom.com (Mattison) wrote:
>
> >zi...@interport.net wrote:
>
> >: Art is considered to be a treasure for all
> >: people and each nation.
>
> >valued - the artists are taking such hard hits? Did you ever question why
> >Hitler went after the artists first ? Did you ever question when
> >countries are conquered - they always go after the art first ?
>
> trying to present a view of the world which is at variance withthe
> view which is held by the people our own society has seen fit to elect
> to Congress. The religious right hates art which is not intune with
> their religious thought. Some of them also come from iconoclastic
> traditions. Did you know that Grunewald, the painter of the Isenheim
> altarpiece had to end his days as a brewer because the Protestantswhoi
> conquered his town were iconoclasts?
>
> The other reason is that ther is a group of artists who are mcuh more
> interested in pursuing the money men than the rest of the world. The
> money men [and women] in art, both the foundations and the buyers want
> pseudo avant garde art. Art which is somehow so objectionable that it
> proclaims itself the avant garde of the future. Since there is no way
> to do that any more, with ease, through the forms used, sensationalism
> as in specifically defiling religious objects held dear by the
> majority, or burning the US flag, or pushing a gender position which
> upsets the right wing - all of these are calculated artistic devices
> to make trouble and make a name for the artist who does it. They are
> career moves. The vilification by the right wing produces the success
> aimed at! The hits art is taking are hits that the artists want to
> get in order to fulfill their careers. Most of it is calculated. The
> fact that it hurts all the other artists who aren;t interested in
> doing that and are not going for a pseudo avant garde career is not
> important to them.
>
> Mattison, why don;lt you figure this stuff out for yourself? It
> doesn't really take much to do it. All the dumb critics of whatever
> persuasion, the guy at Newsweek and the other one at Time magazine
> know this? They just don;t know what is worthwhile. But all of us
> should be able to see through such phony manipulations and call a
> space a spade and a manipulative charlatan what he or she is. And
> don't get paranoid, I am not pointing at you. I don't know enough
> about you to point. The lady with the chjocolate deserves it, though.
> Sincerely,
> Gabriel
>
> >: Not only that in various ways both public and private foundations try
> >: to help young artists develop and have time to make art and put their
> >: careers together. None of these then benefit directly financially from
> >: the success of these young artists.
>
> >Yes these are on a higher the higher "Elephant" level..."Every dollar spent
> >on the arts turns into 20.00 back to the community - I doubt they even
> >understand these are not peanuts.
>
> huge quantities of hay or leaves to survive. Some of the grants around
> or that used to be around could pay enough for survivla for a year or
> two. At certain paints in an artist's life, being able to paint full
> time is very crucial. But my gripe is that the grants go to the people
> who are closest to the mold od pseudo avant-garde, not the
> independents.
>
> Did you ever stop to think how many of the real avant gardistes in the
> 19th century were very rich-like Corot, Courbet and Cezanne?
> GL
>
> >Mattison
the currency value or "real value" of a work of art is determined by the
largest amount of money one person is willing to pay for it the
intrinsic value of a work of art is determined by how many people are
touched by the artists statement
i saw sixty minutes do a tour of a gallery somewhere loaded with CRAP!
at one point the guide shows morley safer a rather large white canvas
blank! with a price like $10k! she says without even a smile
this is by so and so obviously hes a minimalist i almost fell
outta my chair! funny thing is some asshole has probably bought it
by now thinking what a fine piece of work fact is 99.9999 percent
of the worlds population will tell you that artistically its a piece of
crap
but how many people arent impressed by the paintings in the caves of
southern france? or van goghs sunflowers?
yet they never made any money for the artists
art is a thing very much interpreted by each individual and no one is
going to please everyone art is primarily a thing of beauty
even if its external sensory effect may be ugly the beauty lies in
the way it affects the human mind or stimulates the senses
a crucifix in a jar of urine makes a statement alright but there just
arent very many people who are positively stimulated by such cheap grabs
for notoriety the emotional sense i get from the artist is geez what
a fucking whiney asshole get over it! (thats just MY opinion and im
not art educated so i dont count :) ) now the real value of this trash
is what someone will pay for it apparently the us government was
willing to buy it though i have no idea what they paid for it ( thank
god i dont know what they paid for it i understand they paid 800 bucks
and more for toilet seats! and they arent even art! at least i dont
think so then again someone has probably had a succesful show of
toilet seats.... anyone help me on that one??) now i dont think
the government should be subsidizing most of the things they do
including education but the government feels that subsidizing is their
business and since the large majority of americans vote for the same
assholes over and over again i have to figure they kinda like
subsidizing everything too well if yer going to fund education i
dont see why you would leave out art art is very educational you can
learn history sociololgy psychology any number of things from good
fine art part of the problem today tho is the kinds of people who
have been set up as "judges of fine art" many of these people are
people with degrees in art studied art for years wrote papers on
obscure topics but have one problem there isnt an artistic bone in
their body they are incapable of producing a work of fine art they do
real well at WRITING about art tho so large corporations and
government committees tend to think of these people as art experts and
when these groups choose to subsidize art they rely on these so called
experts to tell them what is fine art now if you want to know if a
man is singing in tune send someone with perfect pitch to find out
dont get some guy with a tin ear and a degree in music! personally i
dont think some of these avant garde artists have much talent themselves
i mean if yer going to paint PAINT dammit!! dont theow up a blank
white canvas and call it minimalist hell i do that one every time i
start a painting! the message i get get from a minimalist artist
is I CANT FUCKING PAINT!!!!
lol
you certainly gain more adherents by making your work beautiful or
meaningful or at least comprehensible by the majority of people
and for gods sake make it something original!
if you want you can email me ill send you some jpgs of my paintings
(such as they are since no one seems willing to pay shit-all for them)
--
MrMalo :) have a nice day
Mattison
Phil Ronzone (ph...@netcom.com) wrote:
: In article <mattartE...@netcom.com> mat...@netcom.com (Mattison) writes:
: >zi...@interport.net wrote:
: >"supposed" to be valued - the artists are taking such hard
: >hits? Did you ever question why Hitler went after the artists
: >first ? Did you ever question when countries are conquered -
: >they always go after the art first ?
NOTE: Gentlemen or lack of there are women present. If in my posts you can
not keep the language civil - I would appreciate you take your anger
somewhere else.
:
Sniffle. Boo hoo. How sad. How terrible. AND HOW FUCKIN' UNTRUE.
: Look, Bozo me boy, most of "art" sucks. You are most obviously a failure
: in life.
I suggest you do your research on my life...giggles
: Rather than admit this, you whine that you are an "artiste", unappreciated
: in your time, that simple MUST be ferderally subsidize by the State.
See above
On the contrary... I am very lucky - you must have missed the prior
posts. I have been shocked and suprisingly lucky for the attention my
works, and life have and are recieving in my short time emerging wors in
America and beyond.
It is because of this powerfuly flashing success I speak up for th other
under repesented and under appreciated Artists in the community and the
community as a whole.
You may still be evolving to this level...if your use of language
iilludes to your intellectual abiltiy...there is need for concern on your
part.
: Ugh.
: Have you ever SEEN the FDR Depression era WPA funding of "Art"?
That was then this is now.
: And why did you add "ba.singles,ba.motss"?
See above - the intent is on a level you cannot seem to comprehend...the
community is made of all kinds of people who if well informed make things
happen and care in matters.
Mattison
www.rhinodev.com/M
Michael Riehle
In article <mattartE...@netcom.com> on Fri, 10 Oct 1997 04:13:53 GMT Mattison (mat...@netcom.com) wrote:
: Michael Riehle (mr13hl3...@netcom.com) wrote:
: :No public money spent on art.
: Sir...How do you think B.B.King got that National Arts Award this year ?
: How do you think this award affect the cost of your recordings ? That
: Poet who told them to forget the Award shoud have been on the cover of
: time...She was looking out for lyour best interest and freedom of Life.
: liberty and the persuit of happiness... Mattison FitzGerald
: www.rhinodev.com/M
You know what? Much as I respect and admire B.B. King, I still don't
think *any* public money should go to awards or grants for art. Maybe
for art education, in the context of a school which teaches a broad
variety of subjects. In such a context I think that art and music are
important in the respect that they encourage students to learn to think
creatively. But one an artist is a professional or at least is no
longer a student, they're on their own.
zi...@interport.net
mat...@netcom.com (Mattison) wrote:
>zi...@interport.net wrote:
>: Art is considered to be a treasure for all
>: people and each nation.
>Did you even question - now - in America where Freedom is "supposed" to be
>valued - the artists are taking such hard hits? Did you ever question why
>Hitler went after the artists first ? Did you ever question when
>countries are conquered - they always go after the art first ?
There is a good reason why art is taking such hits. We artists are
Phil Ronzone
>of : capitalism and art, and keep re-reading it until you
>actually have some : glimmer of understanding of what it is
>saying. Then you may be able to : criticize it so that you
>aren't hiding your valid points (there were a : few) in a
>jumble of total nonsense. and keep reading it ...until the
>picturre changes to questions of why are there so many bored
>alcoholic house wives in LAH and the like ? and Why has the
>Juveey Hall check in rate in Silly Icon increased - if this
>place is so brilliant ? Mattison They build a jail for your
>children in the shade of a tank
Geez-us! What a maroon.
Unlike your primitive thug-oriented selfish world, in the rational
world something that makes no sense does NOT improve with multiple
readings.
You are confusing your propagand (repeat the big lie long enough and
people will think its the big truth).
Maybe instead of posting, you should be out writing a poem to "express"
yourself, or maybe a painting (with numbers yet!).
Anything to keep you off the streets ...
Phil Ronzone
In article <61m3dg$rb2$1...@broadway.interport.net> zi...@interport.net writes:
>>Did you even question - now - in America where Freedom is
>>"supposed" to be valued - the artists are taking such hard
>>hits? Did you ever question why Hitler went after the artists
>>first ? Did you ever question when countries are conquered -
>>they always go after the art first ?
>>
>There is a good reason why art is taking such hits. We
>artists are trying to present a view of the world which is at
>variance withthe view which is held by the people our own
Don't flatter youself.
The real reason is of course, that anyone who thinks of themselves as
"an artist" produces shit that consumers laugh at, and that chimpanzees
can and actually have done better at.
- Those that can, do.
- Those that can't, teach.
- Those that are too fucked up to even teach, call themselves "artist".
Mattison
Danny Low (dl...@ppg01.sc.hp.com) wrote:
: Stuart A. Bronstein says...
: >The soul dies without art. And for some the balance of life wouldn't be
: >worth living without it, either.
: Art is only a secondary survival need. You can survive for a very long time
: without art but with air. You cannot survive for long with art but no air.
: Furthermore, art is something that every one can create for themselves. Artists
: justfiy their existence by their ability to produce better art than most
: people. So while art may be a survival need, artists are not a necessity.
Sprinkle in the uneducated American Fear Factor...I'm sorry Danny but the
biggest admission I get in this valley and selfapologetic attitudes
mostly from engineers is "I can't do art."
We Artist are here to show you how to question where Oz is....
care
matters
Mattison
inspiration is a resource 2 b mined
Phil Ronzone
In article <343D14...@pacbell.net> cez...@pacbell.net writes:
>I studied with a great artistic genius who died in virtual
>obscurity at the age of 102. I know his value. I also
>experienced his suffering at the lack of recognition that ...
Look, you're trolling, right? Such sentimental adolescent-level emotional
whining simply doesn't exist in real life. It's a caricture, right?
>existed for various reasons. Some political and some
>aesthetic, and some marketing. I also know that to appreciate
>art is a great skill in itself and that one evolves in that
>skill from understanding to understanding. I also know that
>the education I received in my master's studio was rare, and
>at best, you get a watered down version in the academies of
>the day. Anyway, to collect art is a great and noble endeavor
>and will enrich the collector in many ways regardless of
A "great and noble endeavor"? Have you ever SEEN the crap that some
people (noveua rich for example) collect?
Phil Ronzone
>a wee bit of vision around here -
>
>Welcome to my definition of dimension there are more than
>these boys could ever calculate...
>
>Someone who sees more than the peanuts...Welcome elephants to
>the Big Picture - giggles
>Exactly...corporate welfare ? or just a well funded fad ?
>California was a craft based economy in Art and Craft before
>the war. Everyone wonders why eurpoe is so cool?
Bull shit. It was based on agriculture and manufacturing and entertainment.
>They They value Art and Craft...most people in this valley do
>not even know what it is....
How sensitive!
How delicate!
The noble and sensitive soul of an artist speaks ...
and I want to throw up.
Definitely a "second ship" person.
(In Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, a race threatened by their sun
going nova built 3 very large ships to carry the entire population
to safety. The first ship had the leaders and scientists etc. The third
ship had the workers - farmers, construction people, and so.
The second ship has the useless -- insurance salesmen, telephone cleaners,
artistes, and so on.
Somehow, the second ship never made to the new planet.
It was said that that race of people proceeded to growth in all positive
aspects of civilization like never before ...)
.
Phil Ronzone
In article <61km0n$570$1...@mark.ucdavis.edu> szno...@catbert.ucdavis.edu (Noreen Mastascusa) writes:
>Speaking of art...
>
>nobody saw me, and you can't prove it!" - B. Simpson : B.
>Simpson and H. Simpson have won a Peabody and an Emmy.
>Discuss.
Discuss what? The Simpsons are entertainment. Federal subsidies to
the owners of the Simpsons? Zero $$$. Taxes paid by same? I don't know.
Certainly about a million a year.
Phil Ronzone
>Art Market
Hi there! You may not recognize me, but I'm Bob Mapplethorpe, (in)famous
artist. I'd like to thank you for your tax dollars, because, when I'm not
photographs of flowers, I like to satisfy my homosexual urges by watching
other men BEING FORCED eat my feces. It costs a LOT of money to get my
fellow faggots to do this, which is why I'm asking YOU to lobby Congress
to increase its support for the NEA.
Steve Mueller
Mattison wrote:
> Elephants stirring the buffalo - it is about time someone had a wee bit
> of vision around here -
Perhaps, but expressing the vision so normal people can understand
would help. If you'd stop posting gobbledy-gook, you might have some
good points. Elephants stirring the buffalo?
> You define your reality and lets get the community closer to the meaning
> of my post. It would be nice to see the community vision defined to a much higher context than
> the newcomers to Silly Icon have been able to do = - 39 Is losing the
> game boys.
Another thing you seem to do is make this into an us vs. them issue.
Artists are worthwhile; these "newcomers" (engineers?) are idiots.
That's a good way to convince engineers to give you money.
> Ask the locals to be the base on your Quality of Life meters...if you
> can find us ...most won't even talk to all you newcomers ...cause you
> have messed it up so bad...
What is a "local"? I've lived in the area for over 14 years now. Am
I a local? And if I'm a "newcomer", what exactly have *I* messed up?
It sounds like more us vs. them garbage, made worse by your claim that
"locals" won't talk to "newcomers". If they won't talk, how can they be
helped?
> Exactly...corporate welfare ? or just a well funded fad ? California was
> a craft based economy in Art and Craft before the war. Everyone wonders why
> eurpoe is so cool?
Odd, I've never thought Europe was cool. I think America is cool.
> They They value Art and Craft...most people in this valley do not even know
> what it is....
Sure, lots of people go to Tapestry in Talent (or is that Tapestry
and Talent).
> Getting warm boys...
Too bad your arguments are getting cold....
Steve
Steve Mueller
jan c. schindler wrote:
> Art is about ideas and the communication of them. I somehow get the
> feeling from your posts that you are closed to this but I hope one day
> you will come to think otherwise.
OK, I can accept it's for communication and/or pleasure. But you can
get both without art. Speaking or writing can communicate fairly well.
Sports and sex can give pleasure. So art isn't necessary for either.
Maybe *some* people need art to be sane, but that doesn't mean that's
universal.
Steve
P.S. Is Vogon poetry art?
Steve Mueller
zi...@interport.net wrote:
> In order for people to go sane they need to have art. In order to
> remain sane, artists need to produce art.
People need art to "go sane"? Are you saying people are by nature
insane?
What did early humans do without art? How did they survive? They
had brains.
> Art is necessary to life, just as society is necessary to life. You
> are comparing to different logical categories and that is YOUR
> problem.
Thank you for telling me my problem. I didn't claim anybody had a
problem, did I?
Art is *not* necessary to life. That's a ridiculous statement. Even
you, farther down, say it is not necessary to life.
> The things which are necessary because life stops without them are in
> one category.
>
> The things which are necessary because thinking, feeling social life
> stops without them are in another category.
Do you really believe social life would stop without art? Why would
people stop socializing if art disappeared? They would still want human
companionship and love. In fact, without art, I suspect human
companionship would be *more* important.
Also, things like sports and politics can fill people's need for
social interaction.
> Sure, IF I were in the middle of the Sahara I would need first water,
> than food and then shelter from the sun.
That's my point. First are the *true* necessities, then come the
desirables. Art is secondary (as are many other things). People who
are starving will give up many things we cherish for food. That was one
of the big selling points of Communism -- freedom can't feed you.
Neither can art.
> But I am not in the middle of the Sahara. I have water, food and
> shelter. Then I need art. And without it my culture disintegrates and
> I and my family and friends die. That is putting it in overly simple
> terms. Give me an example of a circumstance where people have not
> acted as if it were true!
Wow, I guess we don't need to bomb any countries to destroy them,
just get rid of their art. Right.
Remember, this didn't start because people are against art. Hell, I
love music and reading, and have nothing against art. I'm just trying
to deflate some overblown claims.
Steve
Phil Ronzone
In article <wahk9fm...@prometheus.nas.nasa.gov> sand...@nas.nasa.gov writes:
>Phil, O Thou Font Of Wisdom Grace Us With The Golden
>Dribblets From Thy Mouth:
>
>Phil> You are quite incorrect. Capitalism is an absolute,
>based on the premise Phil> that no man has the right to
>enslave others, that there are absolute Phil> rights.
>
>Now, this is a pearl. Last time I checked Capitalism is
>either an economic system or a poltical system based upon
>said system. I believe the Founding Fathers were Capitalists,
>yet, slavery flourished in the US as well as other places for
>many centuries. I hereby rebuke your sweeping
>generalizations. Capitalism is more towards the
>'might-is-right' sort of thinking. Surely... no it couldn't ...
Might is right? Oh, so sorry, you be thinking of socialism, communism,
fascism, Euro-ism.
Capitalism is about the free and non-coerced exchange or property.
As such, pure capitalism has not yet been introduced on large scale systems
in any kind of pure form.
>be. You could not have forgotten... No, maybe he's just
>playing ignorant. Last time I checked, the books are filled
>with the exploits of the 'non-enslaving' Western coutries
>when they finally figured out a way to sail around the world
>to 'free' all the 'heathen savages' from their bondage.
>Church and State, hand in hand, there just in time to SAVE
>THEM FROM THEIR MISERABLE LITTLE LIVES! O how grateful they
>should be that we came along to show them THE TRUE WAY!!!!
The number of victims murdered each year by Aztecs for their "religion"
has been estimated from 50,000 to 200,000.
The Spaniards stopped this practice, while engaging in the murder
of perhaps 5,000 a year at the most.
I agree they the Spaniards save a lot of Aztecs.
Unless of course, YOU want to DEFEND a culture that practiced the
literal and actual case of ripping the hearts out of children.
>The idea that Capitalism in and of itself stakes that claim
>that their are absolute rights is specious and reeks of a
>sort of muddle-headedness like unto the great Fyodorovich
>Karamozov. I stand in awe of your ability to leap over reason
>with a single bound, to float as it were, amidst the heavens,
>free of all responsibility of logic.
Uh, didn't you want to say something?
>Phil> Since capitalism is the ultimate democrary, what you
>are asking is for Phil> FORCE to take money from people and
>give it to you and your kind.
>
>I read no such thing in the previous post, I believe you are
>reading into it what you wish to see.
Huh? If you reject a system that, as it's very foundation, renouces
the initiation of coercion, it leaves you pretty fairly identified.
>Phil> That makes you a thief and a thug. Phil> Plus,
>obviously, a lousy artist.
>
>Ah, this self-belief of yours is strong. Thus, the 'net again
>brings to light those trollish thoughts which infest the
>darker areas of our consciousness. You seem to be casting
>about the VERY thoughts I was thinking to describe you. How
>curious. You are self-referential. Thou Art Irony Embodied.
Hmm, how do you live? Trust fund? Welfare? Student loan rip-off?
a
>Phil> Baloney. Or, you are very ignorant. Until WWII, finance
>of generic Phil> R&D was NOT done by the State. The State may
>have funded some R&D Phil> for specific military hardware
>systems, but that was it.
>
>Straw man, your point is not a refutation as you so hoped, it
>is an affirmation snice the internet was developed AFTER
>WWII, by DARPA as a method of insuring against a
>communications failure in the advent of nuclear war, hence ...
Totally and absolutely wrong. ARPA was developed to connect key
military/industrial contractors together under the guise
of "advanced research".
No thought of using it in any kind of active warfare.
Rightly so, because it's stupid to use phone lines then! Duh ...
Hey, you're wrong on just about everything you've posted! Way 2 go!
Steve Mueller
William De Raymond wrote:
> I realize after I made the post it wasn't the most constructive post
> possible. And I also know I in my own way can be an asshole.
As can I. Thanks for the reconsideration and a better post.
> I studied with a great artistic genius who died in virtual
> obscurity at the age of 102. I know his value. I also experienced his
> suffering at the lack of recognition that existed for various reasons.
I don't think nobody claimed artists have no value. They do. The
discussion is whether they are *necessary*.
As for lack of recognition, was recognition his goal? I probably
won't get much recognition for my computer programming, but I'm not
after recognition. I do it (sometimes) because it's fun and (most
times) because it pays the bills.
> Anyway, to collect art is a great and noble endeavor and will
> enrich the collector in many ways regardless of where one starts from
> by way of 'taste'. There is great ecstasy to be had in viewing an
> artform. If you are not getting this value from the art you look at,
> some self examination might be in order.
I won't dispute that collecting art is noble. Being a patron of the
arts is noble, too. After all, supporting starving people is usually
considered philanthropic. :-)
However, did you see the report on 60 Minutes about modern art last
week? Some "artist" calls two light bulbs and two bricks art (and it
looked like they could be arranged in several ways). If people *do* get
value from that "art", they should do the self-examination. :-)
Steve
Hey, look how my computer desk is arranged. It's art! :-)
Phil Ronzone
>: you mean to say I take away your paint cans (ala Pollack)
>and you : go crazy?
>
>This country is rather under educated in the arts and you are
>prime example. Pollack died from a car crash. He was an
>alcoholic. More than likely his strees from being an American
>great who was starving and couldn't feed his wife helped
>cause his alcoholism.
>
>I am imbarassed for America to say, I in emerging my works in
>the last 3 short years have made probably twice or three
>times the amount one of the top American Artists in the
>modern movement Pollack made in his lifetime.
Pollard was a fraud. He coudn't draw or paint worth a fuck.
For those who don't know, Pollard was an artist that literally
dribbled paint (or threw it sometimes) onto canvas and called it art.
We've trained chimpanzees to do the same.
He probably drank because his "fraud" was driving him guilty ...
Phil Ronzone
In article <ayres-10109...@matsci2-fp-dynamic-170.stanford.edu> ay...@leland.stanford.edu (Allan M. Ayres) writes:
>Plus, the whole notion that scientific research was not
>financed by the state before WWII is revisionism of epic
>proportions. I'd like someone to remind me exactly which
>private corporations employed Newton, Leibniz, Gauss, Lord
>Kelvin, Boyle, Joule, Heisenberg, Fermi, Schroedinger, Curie,
>Pasteur, von Braun, Salk, Rutherford, Roentgen, Brahe,
>Kepler, Darwin.... the list goes on.
Well, Newton was (Director? Head of) the British Mint to pay for his keep.
Gauss was pretty poor all his life.
Kelvin had family wealth.
Heisenberg work at a University.
Same for fermi and Schroedinger.
Curie was financed as a charity.
Pasteur was paid for his WORK in DOING vaccinations by France.
Von Braun live on contributions and earning from his consultation to
some early German SF films.
Kepler was, IIRM, the house Astrolger (!) to a few kings.
Darwin had family money.
I think Roentgen work full time in a University.
That's all I can think of without my books around.
You know, people with your position above are full of shit.
NOBODY, but NOBODY, has posted anything like "In 1786, the State of
France granted a research and development contract to later famous
scientist Blah-Blah".
About the closet we get is that some scientists were kept as toys and
novelties (Catherine The Great esp.) or as the House Astrologer or equivlent.
Allan M. Ayres
ph...@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) wrote:
> In article <ayres-10109...@matsci2-fp-dynamic-170.stanford.edu>
ay...@leland.stanford.edu (Allan M. Ayres) writes:
> >Plus, the whole notion that scientific research was not
> >financed by the state before WWII is revisionism of epic
> >proportions. I'd like someone to remind me exactly which
> >private corporations employed Newton, Leibniz, Gauss, Lord
> >Kelvin, Boyle, Joule, Heisenberg, Fermi, Schroedinger, Curie,
> >Pasteur, von Braun, Salk, Rutherford, Roentgen, Brahe,
> >Kepler, Darwin.... the list goes on.
>
> Well, Newton was (Director? Head of) the British Mint to pay for his keep.
>
> [etc.]
Funny, I don't see anybody from your list who engaged in scientific
research as a market-driven enterprise.
You have three people who worked for governments (which, by definition,
means they were paid by governements, just in case the logic goes over
your head); four people who worked for European universities, which are
certainly not market-driven entities; two people with family money; Curie
as a 'charity', whatever that means; and von Braun, who actually worked
for the German government.
> You know, people with your position above are full of shit.
No, people with my position are supported by the evidence.
Gee, imagine having evidence to support one's position! Real true facts!
What an amazing concept!
> NOBODY, but NOBODY, has posted anything like "In 1786, the State of
> France granted a research and development contract to later famous
> scientist Blah-Blah".
You're absolutely right, nobody has posted that. How exceedingly odd of
you to do so now.
Non sequiturs are swell and all, but they don't support your argument, and
they don't make you look smart.
Mattison
zi...@interport.net wrote:
: to make trouble and make a name for the artist who does it. They are
: career moves. The vilification by the right wing produces the success
: aimed at! The hits art is taking are hits that the artists want to
: get in order to fulfill their careers. Most of it is calculated. The
: fact that it hurts all the other artists who aren;t interested in
: doing that and are not going for a pseudo avant garde career is not
: important to them.
: Mattison, why don;lt you figure this stuff out for yourself? It
Honey - Thanks for the post - I have this figured ...giggles but most
people never question. I question them too question...Even though San
Jose Stae thinks the Art Department is great...the only real remarkable
thing I've see out of SJSU in the last 20 years...The Bumper
Sticker..."Question Authority...but most of you forget...like I said one
red curgb at a time.
giggles
BEsides...your zita...picking up peanuts here too. I do not think you
have really thought out the problem of the critics enough yet or
even tried to contact them and do you research before posting here. There
was a great article you could read on the Time Critic in Vanity Fair
a few months ago. If you read it your mind will open up consideralby on
your narrow view of the critic situation.
Zita...you are far to removed and harsh on these critics. I was at
the Big openning for Georgia O'keefes Museum in Santa Fe. I had the
pleasure of meeting and talking with Mark Stevens from the New Yorker.
He is a great guy and very in touch with America, American Art and the
real people. He is also just as passionate about good art and scholarship
and the community as we are. You would really like him.
I also hope that just the fact that I (little Mattison) *was* able to meet
him and plan to take him up on the invitation to visit him in Manhattan,
upon my return from my Italian openning in the next
several months --- will give faith to the artists who think their dreams
or these critics are unattainable...poppypeacockoblue 2 you...giggles
You can do anything you set your mind too.
A wee bit of insite on my inspirations - It is usually not what you expect.
Being a Fitzgerald and from the clans of Kennedy, Daly and
growing up int the 60's with in ear shot of Berkeley. Being an artist
painting on healing at the turn of the Millennium is really the only step
someone with the gift of affinity for reflective and proactive vision can do.
I am painting on a higher level and it is working.
I appreciate your caution and yes dear, I have thought long and seen far
what I may not appear to know.
Mattison Fitzgerald
www.rhinodev.com/M
Steve Mueller
Phil Ronzone wrote:
> The real reason is of course, that anyone who thinks of themselves as
> "an artist" produces shit that consumers laugh at, and that chimpanzees
> can and actually have done better at.
>
> - Those that can, do.
> - Those that can't, teach.
> - Those that are too fucked up to even teach, call themselves "artist".
Did you stop to consider that such comments make you look like a
basher?
You seem to have some knowledge of things, and if you would express
them better, without ad hominem attacks mixed in, people might listen to
you. If you continue in this vein, I suspect they'll just think you're
a flaming moron, which would be too bad.
Just my opinion, hoping for a more *rationale* discussion.
Steve
Steve Mueller
Michael Riehle wrote:
> You know what? Much as I respect and admire B.B. King, I still don't
> think *any* public money should go to awards or grants for art. Maybe
> for art education, in the context of a school which teaches a broad
> variety of subjects. In such a context I think that art and music are
> important in the respect that they encourage students to learn to think
> creatively. But one an artist is a professional or at least is no
> longer a student, they're on their own.
Your argument makes sense, but I don't agree. The government
subsidizes many fields -- research, farming (paying farmers *not* to
grow crops!), law enforcement, and so forth. Given that, I don't have a
problem with the government giving grants in the arts, either, as long
as the amount is kept reasonable (in proportion to the benefits we
derive from the subsidies).
Before any pro-arts people start to argue that other fields get more
subsidies than the benefits we derive, remember that that's not the
issue here. The issue is whether art should be subsidized or not, and
I've already said I don't have a problem with that.
Steve
Stuart A. Bronstein
Steve Mueller <s...@unforgettable.com> wrote:
>
> I don't think nobody claimed artists have no value. They do. The
>discussion is whether they are *necessary*.
As I recall, the discussion was as to whether *art* is necessary, not
whether artists are. For my money, art is much more useful than artists.
Artists do help us see the world in new, creative ways. But I think
their most useful function is to bring out the artist in the rest of us.
My joy in art is how I relate to it, how I create something of it (even
if it's someone else's piece).
The wonders of nature, created by accident or design, is a marvelous work
of art, as well. Artists help us to remember that.
But the skill of the artist in creating something? To me it's strictly a
secondary consideration.
--
Stu
Historically, profane or bawdy language was common in both the upper and
the lower classes, who lived together in rural areas amid the untidy facts
of nature. Notions of propriety and decorum come to the fore in urbanized
periods ruled by an expanding middle class, which is obsessed with
cleanliness, respectability, and conformism."
--Camille Paglia,
Allan M. Ayres
m.riehl...@NOSPAM.netcom.com wrote:
> You know what? Much as I respect and admire B.B. King, I still don't
> think *any* public money should go to awards or grants for art.
Michael,
Given your premise, that art零 value is merely one of entertainment, I
would have to come to the same conclusion about public funding of the
arts.
But I disagree with the premise. Art is not merely entertainment. Some
entertainment is artistic; some art has entertainment value; but the two
are not equivalent categories.
I鉅 like to ask you, with all sincerity, to wedge open some intellectual
space to permit the existence of the idea that art does carry meaning for
some people. Even if this is not a part of your own experience, it *is* a
part of the experience of other people.
That is one of art零 roles, actually: to get people to have respect for,
or at least to acknowledge the existence of, things that they can靖 see or
touch, things that aren靖 part of their personal experience. (This is
also one of the roles of science, incidentally. I have no personal
experience with electrons; I靶e never seen one or tasted one. Electricity
is a great mystery at the level of understanding of the human senses. But
by studying the work of others -- people whose work, as I keep saying,
took place largely in a non-commercial realm -- and allowing intellectual
space for their nonintuitve ideas to exist, I can learn to take advantage
of the results of what they靶e done. Ultimately their work becomes at
least somewhat comprehensible to me, and I can use it myself to, say,
design a cathode-ray tube to show me what I雋 typing right now. (To say
nothing of the computer itself.))
I find it troubling that people are so ready to be dismissive of parts of
the human experience that are not part of their own particular
experience. People dismiss racism and sexism, but it exists in some
people零 lives, and it零 important; people dismiss jazz and blues, even
though the Top 40 commercial hits aren靖 all there is to music; people
dismiss environmentalism, because it零 not clear on a day-to-day 1990s
American basis that natural resources aren靖 infinite.
But other people *do* experience and pay attention to these parts of human
existence, and we are wise at least to listen to them. Some people *do*
find art meaningful; some people *do* preserve their sanity -- and their
lives -- either by finding a human connection in art or by creating art
themselves. In some people零 experience, art is indeed different from
entertainment. I don靖 think it零 right to dismiss these people simply
because we don靖 see what they see.
--Allan Ayres
Mattison
Phil Ronzone (ph...@netcom.com) wrote:
: In article <mattartE...@netcom.com> mat...@netcom.com (Mattison) writes:
: >No art education in American = Fear in Purchasing = Depressed
: >Art Market
: Hi there! You may not recognize me, but I'm Bob Mapplethorpe, (in)famous
: artist. I'd like to thank you for your tax dollars, because, when I'm not
: photographs of flowers, I like to satisfy my homosexual urges by watching
: other men BEING FORCED eat my feces. It costs a LOT of money to get my
: fellow faggots to do this, which is why I'm asking YOU to lobby Congress
: to increase its support for the NEA.
A wee bit of anger here I see ?
giggles - You are very funny...
..."The sad part, is also that the NEA has made 112,000 grants since
1965, and the radical right has foun in all, a half-dozen"controversial"
grants, branded them "blasphemous"and "pornographic" (hot button labels)
and then, on this basis worked over time t eliminate the entire program.
Let's for the sake of argument, grant the rad right its porno labels
(never mind that such broad -brush libel has been deployed to censor
Ulysses, the Venus de Milo, J.D. Salingers's "The Catcher in the
Rye"-pick your classic). If this throw the baby out with the bath water"
philosophy prevails, it ought to prevail in other government agencies as
well:
The U.S. Army tragically downed two of its own helicopters in Iraq.
It lost four soldiers to hypothermia durining training exercises in
Florida.
Two-Hundered eighteen Marines were lost to terroists in Lebanon.
Do these same radical right congressmen clamor fot eh elimination of the
Pentagon?
Catastrophic bad judgement caused congress to vote to increase the
federal loan guarantee insurance from 40,000 to 100,000 which encouraged
savings and loans to make reckless investments. It also liberalized the
investments the savings and loan companies could make and provided loose
oversight regulations (making the S&Ls into candy stores for the likes of
Charles Keating).
All this cost the taxpayers-as near as anyone can figure considering the
books that congress keeps - 500 billion.
Do you even know what a billion is ?
Did congress vote to eliminate itself ?That kind of bad judgement is
certainly dense and possibly, I shudder at the thought, indecent.
Pornographic even.
Pornographic is defined by Webster's as relating to licentious art or
literature and as pandering to base appetite or desire. Like doing
anything to get re-elected.
NOTE:
General nastiness aside, according to the highly respected Harris Poll,
Amreicans by a deciding 79 % margin favor federal, state and local
government involvement in the arts: 57 percent fovor government funding
of the arts and hold onto your hats a 56 percent of Americans say they
would be willing to be taxed an extra $10 or more to have the federal
government support the arts.
This would yeild an annual endowment funding of 1.25 Billion verses the
current 99.5 million.
It must be the radical center speaking ?
Anyoine listening ?" Paul Newman
My question - would somone please post for the buffalo - What exactly a
billion is... and if we take the 1.25 Billion Americans are willing to
devote in the additional 10.00 tax...by the figures from the American
Association of Museums figure..complied by an independent marketing
research group....every dollar spent on the arts turns 20.00 back to the
community... I would say your talking not just product but
dollars...or some thing like 25 + Billion Dollars back to the community ?
Now are you Buffalo Awake yet ?
Do you know what a billion dollars let
alone 25 billion of non-stockpileable product can do for your check book
let alone the spirit of ths violence ridden, stressed out, alcoholic
nation we have today ?
Mattison Fitzgerald
Artist
www.rhinodev.com/M
Bob Cantor
Steve Mueller wrote:
>
> Michael Riehle wrote:
>
> > You know what? Much as I respect and admire B.B. King, I still don't
>
> The issue is whether art should be subsidized or not, and
> I've already said I don't have a problem with that.
>
Those against funding for the art love to use the straw man argument
that the government should not be giving money away to artists who can't
make it on their own. It's much harder for them to deal with the reality
of the situation - that the NEA purchases services at a fair market
value from established artists and art organizations.
One can certainly argue over whether the benefits justify the purchases
or over the usefulness of the current purchasing patterns, but I doubt
that the people who are dead set against funding will ever do this. It's
much easier for them to come up with clever but meaningless sound-bytes
or to express religious-like faith in the perfection of an unfettered
free market (if enough people say it's true and they say if often
enough, than it *must* be true, right? Things like facts and logic and
understanding just confuse the issue ;).
- Bob C.
Michael Riehle
In article <343D62...@acadiacom.net> on Thu, 09 Oct 1997 16:00:52 -0700 jan c. schindler (jcs...@acadiacom.net) wrote:
: Please have a look at Otto Dix or Kate Kollwitz. They both produced work
: at the beginning of this century. Then tell me that their work is for
: pleasure or a distraction from life.( Good reference is Arnason's book
: History of Modern Art)
: As far as literature goes, I never read the Grapes of Wrath for pleasure.
: Art is about ideas and the communication of them. I somehow get the
: feeling from your posts that you are closed to this but I hope one day
: you will come to think otherwise.
: Take care,
Okay, your point is taken. And in fact, in my attempt to make my point
(which is not changed one whit by yours) I too narrowly stated my
opinion. In fact, communication of ideas can, and sometimes is, a goal
in art. Still, even this is a sort of entertainment. It keeps your
mind occupied.
Furthermore: if your ideas are worth communicating, communicate them.
If you feel they are worth money, sell them.
Michael Riehle
In article <343F71...@unforgettable.com> on Sat, 11 Oct 1997 05:29:43 -0700 Steve Mueller (s...@unforgettable.com) wrote:
: Michael Riehle wrote:
:
: > You know what? Much as I respect and admire B.B. King, I still don't
: > for art education, in the context of a school which teaches a broad
: > variety of subjects. In such a context I think that art and music are
: > important in the respect that they encourage students to learn to think
: > creatively. But one an artist is a professional or at least is no
: > longer a student, they're on their own.
: Your argument makes sense, but I don't agree. The government
: subsidizes many fields -- research, farming (paying farmers *not* to
: grow crops!), law enforcement, and so forth. Given that, I don't have a
: problem with the government giving grants in the arts, either, as long
: as the amount is kept reasonable (in proportion to the benefits we
: derive from the subsidies).
Um, yes, but not all of these things are created equally. You started
out well, but one of the purposes of government is to enforce the law
and we (the taxpayers) expect them to pay for it.
OTOH, research and farming are certainly no more deserving than art.
As it happens, I have a problem with most of the things we subsidize.
Some of them I think we are stuck with, like it or not (research, so
long as every other government is subsidizing, we will be forced to,
there are others), but I don't think art is or at least should be one
of them.
Michael Riehle
In article <34412E...@erols.com> on Sun, 12 Oct 1997 16:09:08 -0400 Bob Cantor (bob...@erols.com) wrote:
: Steve Mueller wrote:
: >
: > Michael Riehle wrote:
: >
: > > You know what? Much as I respect and admire B.B. King, I still don't
: >
: > The issue is whether art should be subsidized or not, and
: >
: Those against funding for the art love to use the straw man argument
: that the government should not be giving money away to artists who can't
: make it on their own. It's much harder for them to deal with the reality
: of the situation - that the NEA purchases services at a fair market
: value from established artists and art organizations.
Why is the NEA purchasing *any* art? I really don't care from whom.
Look, I don't have a problem with hanging a nice painting in the hallway
of a public building and using taxpayer money to buy it. It's part of
the cost of maintaining a pleasant building. But I do have a problem
with buying art for the sake of buying art. Or at least I have a
problem with public money being used for it. I just really don't feel
like an organization like the NEA needs to exist at all.
Michael Riehle
In article <ayres-11109...@tip-mp4-ncs-15.stanford.edu> on 11 Oct 1997 22:16:23 GMT Allan M. Ayres (ay...@leland.stanford.edu) wrote:
: m.riehl...@NOSPAM.netcom.com wrote:
: > You know what? Much as I respect and admire B.B. King, I still don't
: > think *any* public money should go to awards or grants for art.
: Michael,
[...snip...]
: Iąd like to ask you, with all sincerity, to wedge open some intellectual
: space to permit the existence of the idea that art does carry meaning for
: some people. Even if this is not a part of your own experience, it *is* a
: part of the experience of other people.
Meaningful, certainly. I can even accept important to some people. Not
once have I claimed art is valueless. Even considered as "mere"
entertainment (I don't buy the "mere" part of that, incidentally, I
believe entertainment is critical to good mental health and this is why
people always find a way to entertain themselves, artistic or
otherwise). Art even sometimes finds its way into history. This is
indisputable.
What I cannot accept is the idea that art as a pursuit is any way
superior to any other pursuit. Or that art has such a special place in
the world that it should be subsidized by me in any way that I don't
specifically choose, myself, using my own tastes as a guideline.
Nor can I accept the idea that in a market-driven society, such as ours,
that art should be valued in any way differently than any other
commodity. If you find it valuable, then you should absolutely spend
your money on it. In fact, I would say you are obligated by fairness to
do so. Enjoying the art and not paying for it would be nothing less
than theft.
: That is one of artąs roles, actually: to get people to have respect for,
: or at least to acknowledge the existence of, things that they canąt see or
: touch, things that arenąt part of their personal experience. (This is
At it's best, it can do this. Mostly it doesn't, IME.
[...snip...]
: But other people *do* experience and pay attention to these parts of human
: existence, and we are wise at least to listen to them. Some people *do*
: find art meaningful; some people *do* preserve their sanity -- and their
: lives -- either by finding a human connection in art or by creating art
: themselves. In some peopleąs experience, art is indeed different from
: entertainment. I donąt think itąs right to dismiss these people simply
: because we donąt see what they see.
I'm not dismissing anybody. I do want to dismiss a few overblown claims
about the importance of enter...oops...sorry...art.
Actually, as I thought about this more, the following occured to me:
If you call yourself a painter, I will respect you and may enjoy your
paintings.
If you call yourself a musician, I will respect you and may enjoy your
music (and be willing to pay for it).
If you call yourself a writer, I will respect you and may enjoy your
writing (and be willing to pay for it).
If you call yourself an artist, I will suspect your motives.
Steve Mueller
Michael Riehle wrote:
> Um, yes, but not all of these things are created equally. You started
> out well, but one of the purposes of government is to enforce the law
> and we (the taxpayers) expect them to pay for it.
>
> OTOH, research and farming are certainly no more deserving than art.
That's basically my point. If we subsidize one area, it's hard to
complain about subsidies in other areas (but see below).
> As it happens, I have a problem with most of the things we subsidize.
> Some of them I think we are stuck with, like it or not (research, so
> long as every other government is subsidizing, we will be forced to,
> there are others), but I don't think art is or at least should be one
> of them.
Even if no other government subsidized research, there are still
programs so massive that they can't or won't be done by private industry
alone. The space program is one such example. I have no problems
subsidizing research that leads to a better understanding of our
universe.
Other subsidies, though, I can take or leave.
Steve
Bob Cantor
Michael Riehle wrote:
>
> Why is the NEA purchasing *any* art?
>
since you've obviously already made up your mind. If you really want an
answer, check out http://arts.endow.gov/Guide/Facts/Contents.html
- Bob C.
Allan M. Ayres
m.riehl...@NOSPAM.netcom.com wrote:
> What I cannot accept is the idea that art as a pursuit is any way
> superior to any other pursuit.
I don't think anyone's arguing that art is necessarily *superior* to any
other pursuit; in any case, I'm not. I'm simply arguing that art is a
public good that by its nature is not particularly well supported by the
free market. As we do in the cases of other such non-commercial things
that are public goods -- scientific research; endangered species and
biodiversity; wetlands and other features of the natural environmental --
I think we ought to find ways to support this good outside of the
commercial market.
> Or that art has such a special place in
> the world that it should be subsidized by me in any way that I don't
> specifically choose, myself, using my own tastes as a guideline.
As has been pointed out in another thread, you subsidize many things that
you don't specifically choose. Some of them are even worthwhile things to
subsidize.
From another perspective, luddites and other non-technical people who pay
taxes subsidize scientific research and DARPA projects, even though these
may not be things they would choose to support, and even though they can't
see the impact in their everyday lives. If you and I reap the benefits of
their support (as we are doing right now, by carrying on this discussion
on the Internet), doesn't it seem fair to accept the reasonably small
burden of supporting another public good even if it's not immediately
clear to us what the benefits to us might be?
> Nor can I accept the idea that in a market-driven society, such as ours,
> that art should be valued in any way differently than any other
> commodity. If you find it valuable, then you should absolutely spend
> your money on it. In fact, I would say you are obligated by fairness to
> do so. Enjoying the art and not paying for it would be nothing less
> than theft.
But I thought we had agreed, more or less, that some goods simply aren't
amenable to the free market. There are a great many needs that wouldn't
be currently satisfied if we abided strictly by the tenets of the free
market.
> : That is one of art零 roles, actually: to get people to have respect for,
> : or at least to acknowledge the existence of, things that they can靖 see or
> : touch, things that aren靖 part of their personal experience. (This is
>
> At it's best, it can do this. Mostly it doesn't, IME.
>
> [...snip...]
OK, I can accept this. As has been stated elsewhere, a lot of art is
crap. A lot of everything is crap. A lot of commercial Hollywood movies
are crap. A lot of the products of the vaunted free market are crap.
Tomoguchi pets, or whatever the hell they are. blargh.
To refer to the part that you snipped, I think science and art -- each one
at its best -- are philosophically much more similar than the
twentieth-century mind allows. (This division is a reasonably new
development, historically speaking. And it's not all bad; it has allowed
the specialization that has spurred a great deal of progress. But it's
not necessarily the whole truth.) Anyway, try this on: Science and art
are both largely non-commercial arenas in which people with training
and/or people with talent explore counterintuitive or
not-necessarily-intuitive ideas.
If this characterization is valid, or approximately valid, it can't be
reasonable to support science non-commercially but to refuse to support
art non-commercially.
--Allan Ayres
Phil Ronzone
In article <ayres-10109...@tip-mp11-ncs-6.stanford.edu> ay...@leland.stanford.edu (Allan M. Ayres) writes:
>ph...@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) wrote:
>
>>In article
>><ayres-10109...@matsci2-fp-dynamic-170.stanford.edu>
>ay...@leland.stanford.edu (Allan M. Ayres) writes:
>>>Plus, the whole notion that scientific research was not
>>>financed by the state before WWII is revisionism of epic
>>>proportions. I'd like someone to remind me exactly which
>>>private corporations employed Newton, Leibniz, Gauss, Lord
>>>Kelvin, Boyle, Joule, Heisenberg, Fermi, Schroedinger, Curie,
>>>Pasteur, von Braun, Salk, Rutherford, Roentgen, Brahe,
>>>Kepler, Darwin.... the list goes on.
>>>
>>Well, Newton was (Director? Head of) the British Mint to pay
>>for his keep.
>>
>>[etc.]
>>
>Funny, I don't see anybody from your list who engaged in
>scientific research as a market-driven enterprise.
1. It wasn't MY list.
2. And thank you for proving my point.
If you work for the State, as say, a janitor or even as Director of
the Mint, the State is *NOT* supporting your other, scientific
endeavors.
3. von Braun did all his work in spite of the State. He had to consistently
lie about what they were doing so as to get State funding. His original
funding was from movies.
4. I don't remember all the details, but I do remember how Salk had
to SOLICIT PRIVATE money to do his research.
Phil Ronzone
>posts you can not keep the language civil - I would
>appreciate you take your anger somewhere else.
First of all, YOU control what's in your posts, not me.
Second, your assumption that women can not deal with four letter words
and require "special" treatement is sexist, outmoded, and terribly assumptive.
>: Have you ever SEEN the FDR Depression era WPA funding of
>"Art"?
>
>That was then this is now.
Really? That was our LAST example of large scale State funding of the "Arts".
>: And why did you add "ba.singles,ba.motss"?
>
>See above - the intent is on a level you cannot seem to
>comprehend...the community is made of all kinds of people who
>if well informed make things happen and care in matters.
Naw, you really added it to see if you get some other counter-culture
creaturoids to spring to your defense. Didn't work, did it?
Again - WHAT gives YOU the right to use coercion (State & taxes at gunpoint)
to "do your" thing?
Talking about it being "better for the average man" is worth zero as
an argument.
If we FORBADE by law people from eating fatty meats, sugar colas, pizza
(etc.) it would be "better" for their health. But we don't do this
because the State ONLY exists to allow us to maximize our pursuit of
happiness.
Steve Mueller
Mattison wrote:
> Well Mikey - You'll have to learn to like it - you are out numbered here
> in Silly Icon Valley. It appears finally art is in and bombs are
> out...check out the Arts Council site.
>
> www.infopoint.com/artscouncil/plan/
And this proves what? That 1000 people helped come up with a plan to
develop arts and cultural program in San Jose/Santa Clara County that
will cost $250 million over 10 years? So what? How does that show
anybody is outnumbered? Maybe specific data in the report have some
percentages, but it appears you have to order the report to get that
data.
I wonder how much will be spent on high tech projects over the next
ten years. Want to bet it's well over $250 million?
And your "art is in, bombs are out" slogan is ridiculous. Art was
never "out", and implying bombs are all engineers make is an insult to
the many not engaged in defense research. It's like saying all
"artists" paint is graffiti on bridges. Give us a break.
English is in; incoherent, illogical posts are out.... Giggles.
Steve
P.S. (Suggestion: Put "http://" before the domain so newsreaders that
support hyperlinking will pick it up.)
Mattison
Michael Riehle (mr13hl3...@netcom.com) wrote:
: OTOH, research and farming are certainly no more deserving than art.
: As it happens, I have a problem with most of the things we subsidize.
: Some of them I think we are stuck with, like it or not (research, so
: long as every other government is subsidizing, we will be forced to,
: there are others), but I don't think art is or at least should be one
: of them.
Well Mikey - You'll have to learn to like it - you are out numbered here
in Silly Icon Valley. It appears finally art is in and bombs are
out...check out the Arts Council site.
www.infopoint.com/artscouncil/plan/
They have posted the cultural plan and marketing survey responses. If
you want a copy of the Cultural Plan call Lynn Rogers - San Jose Arts
Commission.
She will be happy to give you all copies. Tell her I sent you!
Mattison
www.rhinodev.com/M
Ciccio
Joseph Canale <jc...@columbia.edu> writes:
> The notion that artists are entitled to a comfortable middle-class
>lifestyle is boggling to the mind. I know artists who are poor and don't
>whine. Their relative poverty gives their art a certain vitality.
In almost every profession there are those who make millions and others who
hover around the poverty level, with many in between. So what else is new?
Look around and decide if you're at the income level you want. If not, then
go get another profession. If you choose not to, then fine. But please
don't whine and PULLLLLEASE don't ask for tax money to subsidize your choice.
Ciccio
Joseph Canale
On 5 Oct 1997, Roger Keyser wrote:
> I am not sure where this discussion began, but I am an artist who works
> full time in business. I used to do my art full time and would like some
> day to return to that life but not until my paintings bring a price that
> can support that kind of dedication. I will not compromise my art to
> achieve the necessary production speed necessary to make a decent living as
> a painter. That puts me in a difficult "catch 22" position. I can spend
> as much as 3 years on a single painting now which when working full time
> as an artist would have taken a month to produce. Galleries expect an
> artist to produce faster than this. They also expect awards from recent
> exhibitions which only accept recently completed works. I am hoping to use
> the net to bring attention to my work but I realistically do not expect
> sales directly from the net. I have seen other acrylic realism artists
> turn to abstract or watercolor in order to make a living. I have instead
> turned to another career but cannot stop painting. It gives meaning to my
> life and hope for the future. Has anyone found a way out of this bind?
>
Painting is dead. Most of today's compelling art is being done in
other media; therefore, it isn't what one thinks of as traditionally
collectible art.
Fetus
Mattison wrote:
>
> Pass the Soilent Green Please...
>
> Mattison
> All I got is a red paint brush three tubes and the truth...
Soylent Grenn is people!
Fetus
--
ANTI-SPAM: To send me email- remove "o" from "foetus."
Unsolicited commercial email is unwelcome
in my box. I reserve the right to charge the sender a
$500 proofreading bill , and take appropriate collection
actions. Sending me unsolicited commercial email constitutes
consent to the aforementioned terms.
Rabbit
Hear hear! I am a firm believer in artists having regular day jobs to
support
their art until it becomes a self sustaining thing. I work 12 hour days
to support
my art and computer habit and I certainly don't want my money going
towards anyone
elses artistic hobbies.
The tax money should be used strictly for upkeep of museums, not to go
to the artists
themselves.
Ciccio wrote:
>
> Joseph Canale <jc...@columbia.edu> writes:
>
> > The notion that artists are entitled to a comfortable middle-class
> >lifestyle is boggling to the mind. I know artists who are poor and don't
> >whine. Their relative poverty gives their art a certain vitality.
>
> In almost every profession there are those who make millions and others who
> hover around the poverty level, with many in between. So what else is new?
> Look around and decide if you're at the income level you want. If not, then
> go get another profession. If you choose not to, then fine. But please
> don't whine and PULLLLLEASE don't ask for tax money to subsidize your choice.
>
> Ciccio
--
()__ Rabbit Hill Enterprises
{; ___)* 4083 W. Avenue L Suite 254
rabbi...@geocities.com Quartz Hill, CA 93536
"Ideas R Us" 805-726-4640
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/6107/
Stan Rothwell
Bob Cantor wrote:
>
> Those against funding for the art love to use the straw man argument
> that the government should not be giving money away to artists who can't
> make it on their own. It's much harder for them to deal with the reality
> of the situation - that the NEA purchases services at a fair market
> value from established artists and art organizations.
It's not a "fair market transaction" because the purchase is made with SOMEONE
ELSE'S MONEY!!! Fair market value is basically how much you would be willing to
spend with your OWN money, balancing your own wants, needs, and personal
preferences against your limited funds and living with the decision you made...
>
> One can certainly argue over whether the benefits justify the purchases
> or over the usefulness of the current purchasing patterns, but I doubt
> that the people who are dead set against funding will ever do this. It's
> much easier for them to come up with clever but meaningless sound-bytes
> or to express religious-like faith in the perfection of an unfettered
> free market
I supposed that third-party decision by a centralized organization produces
better results??? Sorry, guy, but I trust my own personal judgement based on
my education and experience a hell of a lot more than someone else who does
not have same the vested interested in my personal welfare.
> (if enough people say it's true and they say if often
> enough, than it *must* be true, right? Things like facts and logic and
> understanding just confuse the issue ;).
Your facts and logic seem to be along the line of "people are not capable of
making decisions for themselves, but some individuals are qualified to make
decisions for others"...
Free markets and free minds...
Stan
>
> - Bob C.
Stan Rothwell
Steve Mueller wrote:
> Your argument makes sense, but I don't agree. The government
> subsidizes many fields -- research, farming (paying farmers *not* to
> grow crops!),
Just because it's done doesn't make it right... Personally, I'm just as
opposed to transfer payments for businesses that can't remain competitive in
a free market (and those who won't get off their ass and find a job) as I am
"artists" who think they have a right to put their hand in the public till...
> law enforcement,
A little problem with your analogy there... law enforcement IS a legitimate
function of government, along with defense and the judicial system...
> and so forth. Given that, I don't have a
> problem with the government giving grants in the arts, either, as long
> as the amount is kept reasonable (in proportion to the benefits we
> derive from the subsidies).
It's a matter of priorities... when our taxes approach a third of our GNP and we
still can't keep our roads fixed, is it right to spend money on an art project
that may not be appreciated (or desired) by most??? Sorry, but art is not a
legitimate function of government...
>
> Before any pro-arts people start to argue that other fields get more
> subsidies than the benefits we derive, remember that that's not the
> issue here. The issue is whether art should be subsidized or not, and
> I've already said I don't have a problem with that.
>
> Steve
Fair enough... I just happen to have a different point of view.
Stan
Stan Rothwell
Michael Riehle wrote:
>
> If you call yourself a painter, I will respect you and may enjoy your
> paintings.
>
> If you call yourself a musician, I will respect you and may enjoy your
> music (and be willing to pay for it).
>
> If you call yourself a writer, I will respect you and may enjoy your
> writing (and be willing to pay for it).
>
> If you call yourself an artist, I will suspect your motives.
>
Right On, Brother!!!!!
Richard Foy
In article <Pine.SUN.3.95L.97101...@labdien.cc.columbia.edu>,
>lifestyle is boggling to the mind. I know artists who are poor and don't
>whine. Their relative poverty gives their art a certain vitality.
>
It is not any more boggling to the mind than that sceintists are
entitdle to a comfortable middle-class lifestyle.
--
On this date in:
1066: Battle of Hastings won by William the Conqueror and the Normans.
1644: William Penn was born in London.
1890: Dwight David Eisenhower was born.
1912: Theodore Roosevelt was shot by a would-be assasin.
1947: Chuck Yeager breaks sound barrier.
1957: British Computer Society founded.
"Sin is a dangerous toy in the hands of the virtuous. It should be left
to the congenitally sinful, who know when to play with it and when to let
it alone." --H.L. Mencken
Mattison
Steve Mueller (s...@unforgettable.com) wrote:
: >
: > www.infopoint.com/artscouncil/plan/
: anybody is outnumbered? Maybe specific data in the report have some
: percentages, but it appears you have to order the report to gt that
: data.
Order the report -
: never "out", and implying bombs are all engineers make is an insult to
: the many not engaged in defense research. It's like saying all
: "artists" paint is graffiti on bridges. Give us a break.
A break ?
I will when the Philanthropy rating gets beyond - Here is your break - the
big fat ZERO!!!!!!!!!
You boys are at the red faced - 39!
Well, if you read the post reguarding the NEA and the witch hunt you will
now know how tha artists feel. Oh, you engineers make more that Bombs ?
Really ?
It's about time you all did something more worthwhile with my tax dollars
I perfer they not be stock piled, dead ended economics or
products...seeing a few more learders around this valley rather than
followers might be refreshing...
Mattison
www.rhinodev.com/M
Stay with in the lines!!
Sand in the belly of the
Oyster turns to pearls -
Bombs r our and Art is in!
Noreen Mastascusa
Fetus (foe...@inow.com) wrote:
: Mattison wrote:
: >
: > Pass the Soilent Green Please...
: >
: > Mattison
: > All I got is a red paint brush three tubes and the truth...
:
: Soylent Grenn is people!
So what is Soylent Beige?
--
Noreen Mastascusa, aka namast...@ucdavis.edu
"In this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!"
-H. Simpson
Noreen Mastascusa
Mattison (mat...@netcom.com) wrote:
:
: Well Mikey - You'll have to learn to like it - you are out numbered here
: out...check out the Arts Council site.
Here's a relevant article which I found in the Mon., Oct. 13th edition of
The Davis Enterprise:
ELITISM BLAMED AS SUPPORT FOR ARTS FALLS
NEW YORK (AP) - A federal study concludes that the arts in America
has grown faster than its sources of financial support partly because
artists and art groups have not cultivated a broad public, The New York
Times reported today.
The report, prepared by the National Endowment for the Arts, says
many Americans do not recognize the relevance of art in their lives. Arts
groups also often are elitist, racially segregated, class based and
isolated from the "communities they claim to serve, but don't," it said.
The report was based in part on views of artists, arts officials,
social critics and scholars.
Government, private and corporate support is down, the audience is
aging and the arts is being ignored or neglected in public schools, the
report said.
Steve Mueller
Richard Foy wrote:
> It is not any more boggling to the mind than that sceintists are
> entitdle to a comfortable middle-class lifestyle.
Which is a claim I have seen nobody make.
Steve
Steve Mueller
Mattison wrote:
> Well, if you read the post reguarding the NEA and the witch hunt you will
> now know how tha artists feel. Oh, you engineers make more that Bombs ?
> Really ?
Ignorance is bliss, eh? Engineers are responsible for many things,
from cars, to computers, to the Golden Gate bridge. If you want to be
an ignoramus and think all engineers make bombs, you won't be convincing
anybody here with your "logic".
How would you like the claim that all artists make "modern art" which
is glorified scribbling.
LOL
Steve
Stuart A. Bronstein
Noreen Mastascusa <szno...@dilbert.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
>Fetus (foe...@inow.com) wrote:
>: Mattison wrote:
>: >
>: > Pass the Soilent Green Please...
>: >
>:
>So what is Soylent Beige?
Poople?
--
Stu
"My heart is a bargain today. Will you take it?"
-- W.C. Fields
Steve Mueller
Noreen Mastascusa wrote:
> : Soylent Grenn is people!
> :
> So what is Soylent Beige?
People -- without the food coloring to make it look like plankton.
Steve
Michael Riehle
In article <621t6l$1um$2...@mark.ucdavis.edu> on 15 Oct 1997 08:00:21 GMT Noreen Mastascusa (szno...@dilbert.ucdavis.edu) wrote:
[...snip...]
: ELITISM BLAMED AS SUPPORT FOR ARTS FALLS
[...good article snipped...]
Thank you Noreen. This article is exactly the kind of thing which needs
to be included in any art curiculum. Well, actually, it's important to
any creative discipline:
Elitism kills creativity.