Hollywood turns right
Skip Press
Hollywood. I was saying this on this newsgroup during the last
Presidential election. And like Sharon Lawrence, I was a lifelong
Democrat, until the party was (in the words of Pat Caddell who works on
"The West Wing") hijacked by thugs and gangsters. I must admit, however,
that I get a great deal of amusement watching a lot of knee-jerk
non-thinkers on this newsgroup be wrong time after time with no
recalcitrance.
---
The Hollywood Reporter.com: Frontpage
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hollywoodreporter/frontpage/brief_displa
y.jsp?vnu_content_id=1503398
Friday, May 31, 2002
Early last year, People magazine published a photo of actress Sharon
Lawrence on a page featuring images of prominent Republicans, including
then-president-elect George W. Bush. The placement of the picture seemed
to imply that Lawrence, best known for her work on the TV series "NYPD
Blue," herself was a right-winger. Soon, she was dogged by hate mail and
unfriendly questions from producers about her political views. A
lifelong Democrat, Lawrence publicly declared back then: "If one is even
perceived to be a Republican in Hollywood, there can be an excluding
reaction and people genuinely resent you." Since that incident (which
Lawrence now says "was overblown by the media"), 3,000 Americans were
killed in the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 -- an unprecedented atrocity
that galvanized the populace. Displays of overt patriotism once
dismissed by the political left as quaint and naive are now commonplace,
and the Republican president routinely sports uncommonly high approval
ratings. America, it appears, has drifted to the right since 9/11, but
has famously liberal Hollywood followed suit? Increasingly, insiders are
saying the answer is yes. "People are coming out of the closet,"
writer-director Lionel Chetwynd says. "Hollywood is finally becoming a
two-party town." (Paul Bond)
--
The most damaging phrase in the language is: It's always been done that way.
-- Grace Hopper
All the best,
Skip Press, the Duke of URL
Hollywood and Somewhat Important News at
http://home.earthlink.net/~skippress/
AbbyNormal
In my opinion, if this holds, nothing could be better for the industry than to
have two sides of the coin to think about. Balanced minds are smart minds and
smart minds make smart films :-)
TonyScribe
Citizen Kane: Orson Wells takes on an established media mogul who was notorious
not only for his hatred of then Democrat President Roosevelt but also for his
bigoted attitude toward Jews.
Casablanca: Recall at the time film was released the Republicans wanted to stay
out of the "European War" and further America's isolationist leanings. The
filmmakers denounce "concentration camps" and the main character chooses to
fight against the Nazi's. Only in retrospect is this a great film, many
"conservatives" might have written it off as "liberal" propaganda.
The Godfather: The tale of the Corleone family and La Cosa Nostra presents the
underworld of crime as a systemic part of a corrupt American system. "We're
bigger than US Steel" declares Hymen Roth, while Corleone reminds a corrupt
Senator that "we are both part of the same hypocrisy."
A Clockwork Orange: Kubrick's masterpiece points out the futility of both
traditional prison models and modern rehabilitative solutions. In the end, a
corrupt politician co-opts the main character as they are both players in a
violent, immoral system.
All of these films attack the very fabric of law, government and "conservative"
American ideals.
IMHO, On the Waterfront is the only "conservative" classic in the modern film
era. Communists and liberals are compared to gangsters and thugs and the main
character is called upon to inform on them. The filmmakers presented the
Waterfront union drama as a kind of analogous retelling of the HUAC trials in
which many liberals and communists were blacklisted and driven from the film
industry. And while I think the political leanings of the movie are bullshit
there is no denying it is a classic.
IMHO, the great movies are the ones that challenge the way we think not the
ones that uphold some kind of value system. (Like say, Triumph of the Will) [a
great movie but not something I'd want under my name on IMDB] Most often those
movies tend to come from the left side of the political spectrum. I'm not
saying that conservative minded movies can't be good movies but I would ask
that somebody name some truly great "conservative" films . . .
Peace,
Tony B.
final draft of something
JamiDeise
>Hollywood's greatest work has always come from the left.<<
Building on that, I think the structure of most movies is more Democrat than
Republican ... most good films (and a lot of bad ones, too) have an underdog as
the protagonist; likewise, the Democrats tend to be the party of the underdog,
while the Republicans are the party of the status quo.
Which I why I never understood why millionaires in Hollywood were almost
consistently Democrat; I guess they never stopped viewing themselves as the
underdog trying to make it in a system that's designed to keep them out, even
after they became part of that system.
Jami
Tom Wood
would be anything other than progressive (liberal). Art, by definition, is
meant to challenge the status quo thinking, and is therefore in opposition
to conservative values, which, by definition, seek to conserve the status
quo. And that's okay. Wasn't it David Mamet who drew the distinction between
entertainment and art? By his definition, entertainment seeks to confirm and
preserve the status quo thinking, to reassure the audience that they are
right in their way of characterizing the world.
Filmmaking has, and always will be, a high risk/reward venture. Making
movies that are more entertainment than art is a safe way to ensure a bigger
box office. Now that Hollywood is 'corporatized' the MBAs are trying to
figure out how to flatten the risk curve. And that's okay too, up to a point
(that I can't define). So, in a Hollywood run by business interests that
place the bottom line on top, why is it any surprise that the culture would
change to reflect that?
I like the fact that the machinations of society work well enough that the
lights come on, the toilets flush, and it's relatively safe to walk the
streets. I'd like to conserve those parts that work. But I also see how
things can be better, and (progressive) art is a way to explore the
possibilities. It will be a sad day if art dies because we settled for mere
entertainment.
My two cents from a Yellow Dog Texas Democrat.
TW
Alan Brooks
Skip Press says:
> My caveat is that too many people call their own perversions "art" and
> say you're anti-artistic or anti First Amendment or a Nazi if you
> disagree with them or say their stuff is crap, like "Piss Christ" and
> other such garbage. Film equivalents - David Lynch's "Wild at Heart" or
> any number of recent Oliver Stone indulgences. What's the point? But
> maybe to them those films were pure entertainment.
You can't cut off the trailing edges of free speech and still call it free,
just like you can't call it "free will" if it doesn't include the
possibilities of sainthood and satanism. Art mirrors life that way. I
don't want to live in a country or a world where art has to be approved by
anyone.
And, I bet, neither do you.
Alan Brooks
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A Schmuck with an Underwood
Tra...@pipeline.com
<skip...@SPAMHATERmac.com> wrote:
>The establishment I take on a lot is in Hollywood. I posted years ago
>here about Hollywood turning right and people derided me, just like they
>derided me when I said you're probably better off with a manager than an
>agent, just like they derided me when I said video is the way it's
>going, just like they derided me when I said "Kids Love It" (I did a
>study in 1999) is the formula for box office success.
>
>I was correct then, I'm correct now.
>
>I say these things based on fact. I talk to people, I read, I go places,
>I get confidential emails. I'm not afraid to say the truth, no matter
>how many unfounded shots I take.
What? You're not afraid to say the truth, buyt you don't always say
the truth???? That's what it means when you admit you make unfounded
shots.
As for the rest of your post, very interesting.
Tracy
Tra...@pipeline.com
<skip...@SPAMHATERmac.com> wrote:
>
>
>I agree with just about everything you've said.
>
>My caveat is that too many people call their own perversions "art" and
>say you're anti-artistic or anti First Amendment or a Nazi if you
>disagree with them or say their stuff is crap, like "Piss Christ" and
>other such garbage.
Oh, thank you! I wisah more people would point that out.
"Piss Christ" really pissed me off. :) Not because of
any disrespect to religion, but for the reasons you mention.
DRutsala
actually know anything about this work and it's important to offer the truth.
Piss Christ is a photograph.
The photograph is rather blurry but somewhat attractive imagine of a crucifix
-- seemingly suffused with a orangy, yellow light. In many ways, the image
appears quite reverential.
Then you read the card and see that it is a "plastic crucifix suspended in
urine and cow's blood".
The point, and it's a sledgehammer point, is that underlying all our images of
religiousity is real human life. The whole "beauty is blood" thing. And the
various takes on this idea. It also relates to the fact that many of the great
religious images in the history of art were done with egg tempera. A type of
paint made from pigment and egg yolk.
The key to this piece is the image's appearance is contrary to the medium. You
don't look at the photograph and think, my that looks like a crufix in a vat of
urine.
Not only does it not look like that, it may not even be that.
Serrano was not then, nor is he now, an important artist. But he created a
somewhat attractive image that made a rather obvious point.
But what he did not do, and you'd never know this from press reports, is drag a
vat of urine into a gallery. Piss Christ was a photograph in traditional
gallery framing.
Tra...@pipeline.com
<skip...@SPAMHATERmac.com> wrote:
>In article <3cf7cc3e...@news.lvcablemodem.com>,
>By "take" I mean "receive" - unfounded shots (posts) sent in my
>direction. Is that clear now.
yes, it's clear now.
>
>>As for the rest of your post, very interesting.
>
>Thank you.
>
>--
>
>He who cannot dance puts the blame on the floor.
Indeed.
>
>-- Hindu proverb
Tra...@pipeline.com
I knew that. It's more conceptual junk - 5 seconds, you "get it" and
it no longer has any importance, or anything to offer.
I once came up with a conceptual "art" idea through which I would
express my enormous disregard for conceptual art, and guess what,
they raved about it. They wanted to see me make the thing. I was
even mistaken for the famous conceptual art person I was poking fun
at, because I have the same first name.
So I said, well, it wouldn' t be that hard, why don't you make it for
yourself?
They did not give a hoot about what it meant, they just liked it.
Who knows, maybe it was the poetry that went along with it -
something I scraped off a newgroup floor and stuck together, that
sounded good.
So if the meaning doesn't matter, and the talent has been dumped
out the window, what's left?
Tracy
TonyScribe
>>>>>>>>>Take a look at the movies of the greatest director in film history,
John
Ford. And while you're at it, look up the track record of his buddy and
film's greatest star, John Wayne. <<<<<<<<
First of all, IMHO Martin Scorsese is the greatest director in film history. I
agree with you about John Wayne, his films definitely have a conservative
appeal. The Green Berets is my all time fave just for it's naive blind support
of the Vietnam War. However, you're talking about the same John Ford who
directed The Grapes of Wrath, right? Not really a wholehearted endorsement of
the conservative American Way, the source material is downright socialistic.
>>Before I was born, most movies had "conservative" values. It's a Wonderful
Life is one easy example.<<
Ah, the world according to Capra! Certainly you can't deny that Capra was a bit
of a propagandist and his work perfectly fits the article in your first post in
this thread as "overt patriotism once dismissed by the political left as quaint
and naive." But say for a moment that you take Capra seriously, as in the case
of Ford you have to admit that his view of American institutions is not
completely without cynicism. Mr. Smith goes to Washington is a pretty harsh
indictment against entrenched (and corrupt) conservative values touted in the
name of greed. However, a last minute plot device makes everything fine again
and Jimmy Stewart is carried off like the messiah.
>>>>All the films you cite above are not reactions to conservative values.
You're not quite right about that. They were reactions to ESTABLISHMENT
values, and quite often the establishment is wrong. <<<<
You have a point but I believe that you are taking a revisionist view of the
history surrounding the films that I mention. Take a look at some of the
reviews, dialogue and commentary surrounding these films at the time they were
released you'd find that these films were considered to be very liberal and
attacking the conservative values that more often then not support the status
quo.
>>It's a Wonderful Life is one easy example. <<
Ya got me here. IMHO, this is the best film ever made. But conservative? The
values upheld here are loyalty to family and friends and faith in God. How did
that become a conservative value? I imagine that there are many liberals who
love their family and friends who might also believe in God as well. This
reminds me of the late 90's and how the conservative Republicans touted "family
values" and it turned out they had all dumped their first wives and their
families, didn't Gingrich leave his wife in a cancer ward or something?
>>the best film from Kubrick, Dr. Strangelove, came out in 1964, when
Lyndon Johnson was President<<<
>>>not a conservative by any modern definition. <<<
True. However, I'd contend that Dr. Strangelove was to the left of Johnson as
well. In terms of that political era, probably "ultra-liberal." Many of the
film's critics cited the movie as "radical" in it's parody of modern warfare.
The military (a pretty conservative institution) attempted to ban the film
altogether.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
In America, the social pendulum swings back and forth over generations.
What you are seeing right now (and Hollywood could help if so many here
weren't biased and blind based on nothing and frankly, hooked on drugs)
is the American way of life struggling against millenia of worldwide
supersitition and chaos. The struggle is impeded by those pushing a
"nanny" state. It is impeded by greedy business people (like the Enron
folks). It is impeded by politicans only interested in their survival as
administrators (like Grey Davis in California). And it is impeded by
writers who do not see the real world and boldly dare to speak of it.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<
From this I can tell that you're not as "conservative" as you'd like to think.
Really more progressive, hell even Libertarian than you'd admit. While I may
not agree with everything you write, I respect your opinions.
As far as the new political direction of Hollywood? Both of us know that
primary motivation behind making any movie is to make money. A search for
profit is the true value system behind any Hollywood production, writers of any
political ideology should never forget it.
Peace,
Tony B.
Tra...@pipeline.com
<al...@sirius-software.com> wrote:
>
>Skip Press says:
>
>> My caveat is that too many people call their own perversions "art" and
>> say you're anti-artistic or anti First Amendment or a Nazi if you
>> disagree with them or say their stuff is crap, like "Piss Christ" and
>> other such garbage. Film equivalents - David Lynch's "Wild at Heart" or
>> any number of recent Oliver Stone indulgences. What's the point? But
>> maybe to them those films were pure entertainment.
>
>You can't cut off the trailing edges of free speech and still call it free,
>just like you can't call it "free will" if it doesn't include the
>possibilities of sainthood and satanism. Art mirrors life that way. I
>don't want to live in a country or a world where art has to be approved by
>anyone.
where governmet $$ are involved, yeah, approval comes into it.
Government $$ and art have never had a comfortable relationship,
and frankly, I'm against it ayway.
I think that factor is crucial here, and is being glossed over.
What would happen to the movie industry if it depended on
Government $$? You'd probably start getting movies of less
quality.
Tracy
AbholdR
> As usual, I'm two years ahead of the trades with what's going on in
> Hollywood. I was saying this on this newsgroup during the last
> Presidential election. And like Sharon Lawrence, I was a lifelong
> Democrat, until the party was (in the words of Pat Caddell who works on
> "The West Wing") hijacked by thugs and gangsters. I must admit, however,
> that I get a great deal of amusement watching a lot of knee-jerk
> non-thinkers on this newsgroup be wrong time after time with no
> recalcitrance.
>
But I think only because of Sept. 11. And Decmocrats are thugs and
gangsters?, let's try ALL politicians are thugs and gangsters...let's
see, hm, who was the most recent gunrunning-est, drug dealingest
president? Short name, was it shrub? Tree? Hm, oh wait, BUSH! A
man who affectionately calls his half hispanic grandchildren his
"brownies", instead of just his grandchildren, or something more
endearing than mentioning a skin color. (Clinton was no thug or
gangster, he just turned into a joke.)
I haven't registered to vote yet (not old enough, end of July I will
be) but I'll be a Democrat because even though I don't think I lean
more in favor of one party than the other, I support abortion rights
and I can't stand that the Republicans' public face includes
fundamentalists Christians who believe in the idea of "mud races"
(Ashcroft). Or who write articles for racist Conservative groups like
the Council of Conservative Christians (Trent Lott; if that's what
they're called, may have reversed something). Or people who believe
that religion should be at the forefront of any policy decision to be
considered (Tom Delay). And then there's Pat Buchanan, who hates
anything that's not white, not Christian, and not European (hell, he
loves and admires Hitler). The Republican Party is run by a bunch of
narrowminded, racist, fundamentalist assholes, who if they could,
would turn this country into a fascist regime (oh, wait a second, they
ARE doing that).
But let's all get real, NO politicians are to be trusted. Good people
aren't attracted to power.
> ---
>
> The Hollywood Reporter.com: Frontpage
> http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hollywoodreporter/frontpage/brief_displa
> y.jsp?vnu_content_id=1503398
>
> Friday, May 31, 2002
>
> Early last year, People magazine published a photo of actress Sharon
> Lawrence on a page featuring images of prominent Republicans, including
> then-president-elect George W. Bush. The placement of the picture seemed
> to imply that Lawrence, best known for her work on the TV series "NYPD
> Blue," herself was a right-winger. Soon, she was dogged by hate mail and
> unfriendly questions from producers about her political views. A
> lifelong Democrat, Lawrence publicly declared back then: "If one is even
> perceived to be a Republican in Hollywood, there can be an excluding
> reaction and people genuinely resent you." Since that incident (which
> Lawrence now says "was overblown by the media"), 3,000 Americans were
> killed in the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 -- an unprecedented atrocity
> that galvanized the populace. Displays of overt patriotism once
> dismissed by the political left as quaint and naive are now commonplace,
They're not commonplace anymore; right now it seems only those who
want the attention are flag waving, and sticking feathers in their
caps.
> and the Republican president routinely sports uncommonly high approval
> ratings. America, it appears, has drifted to the right since 9/11, but
> has famously liberal Hollywood followed suit? Increasingly, insiders are
> saying the answer is yes. "People are coming out of the closet,"
> writer-director Lionel Chetwynd says. "Hollywood is finally becoming a
> two-party town." (Paul Bond)
>
> --
>
> The most damaging phrase in the language is: It's always been done that way.
>
> -- Grace Hopper
>
> All the best,
Aw, she died a few years ago...she was a smart, witty, very on the
money lady.
>
> Skip Press, the Duke of URL
> Hollywood and Somewhat Important News at
> http://home.earthlink.net/~skippress/
And I have a questions, are you also Todd67nc? The writing style is
remarkably similar. Just an observation you apparently cranky old
man, with too much time on his hands.
Joe Myers
[snips]
> It's more conceptual junk - 5 seconds, you "get it" and
> it no longer has any importance, or anything to offer.
You're still worked up about it, what, five years later?
Funny how art does that, huh?
Joe Myers
"You'd prefer, say, Thomas Kincaid?"
Joe Myers
> You're right, but if the National Endowment for the Arts (taxpayer
> money) is funding such crap, you're damn right I don't want it approved,
> nor do I want people who objects to such things, like a mayor of New
> York who didn't want elephant dung in the form of the Virgin Mary
> hanging in a museum on city money, chastised as a bigot.
Opponents of NEA play to the cheap seats, getting fundamentalist Christians
and ignorant rednecks all upset over one or two percent of NEA-funded
project.
It distracts the unwashed from multi-billion dollar giveaways like the
"Farm" Bill that pours 97% of its allocations to companies (and campaign
donors) such as Cargill & ADM.
Wipe out the NEA & you'll save about 3 cents off your taxes, and in process
you'll wipe out school children's field trips to museums, concerts,
workshops. You'll eliminate touring groups that bring classical music,
professional theatre, and other cultural outreach programs to rural
communities, to people who'd otherwise never have the opportunity to hear a
symphony, see a ballet, or watch a play better than "High School Hijinks"
starring the Junior Class.
Eliminate corporate welfare and you'll save some real money.
Except conservatives don't do that.
Joe Myers
"Chastise me. I'm a
corporate welfare bigot."
Jacques E. Bouchard
6803D5.062...@nnrp01.earthlink.net:
> As usual, I'm two years ahead of the trades with what's going on in
> Hollywood.
...or eight years behind, in a ten-year cycle.
jaybee
Tra...@pipeline.com
Do I know you from somewhere?
Tracy
Joe Myers
[snip]
> Lyndon Johnson was President. A Democrat, not a conservative by any
> modern definition.
When the "modern definition" considers anyone to the left of Strom Thurmond
a socialist race-mixing communist, everyone who isn't senile is a communist.
> But that Democrat did a lot of good things -- he put through and
> enforced a lot of the civil rights agenda that Kennedy got started.
> Which a lot of Democrats that you might say were liberals opposed, BTW.
The Democrats who opposed Johnson's civil rights legislation quickly
switched to Republican. Strom, for example. Especially during Nixon's
"Southern Strategy," the GOP turned into the Ku Klux Klan's party of choice.
> I've never fully investigated it, but someone I don't think was lying to
> me said that the Johnsons made a lot of money on Vietnam including
> handling shipments of body bags back to the U.S.
I've never fully investigated it, but someone I don't think was lying said
that George W. Bush fucks goats in the ass every Tuesday afternoon between
3:00 and 4;30 pm. Both stories have the same credibility.
> Johnson didn't pull out
> of Vietnam because he didn't want to be the first American President to
> lose a war -- he told a reporter that in confidence.
And that's true. Read Caro's books on LBJ. His entire career was supported
by Brown & Root, a company that's evolved into Halliburton, the company that
laid out a $35 million salary to Dick Cheney in 2000. Truth be known,
Halliburton (nee Brown & Root) gained the most from JFK's assassination.
With that legacy, fixing a presidential election is child's play.
> All the films you cite above are not reactions to conservative values.
> You're not quite right about that. They were reactions to ESTABLISHMENT
> values, and quite often the establishment is wrong.
Damn. Even a blind pig'll find a turnip sometimes.
If you don't think the current Republican ESTABLISHMENT isn't conniving to
take your money and give it to the richest 3% of Americans, you need a
German Shepard with a harness.
> I have said things for years that are reactions to the Hollywood
> establishment. Let me list a few:
>
> (1) In my first Writer's Guide I said get a manager over an agent
> because a manager will spend time with you, and agents don't take that
> time any more (generally). That's been proven right over and over since,
> yet people on this newsgroup derided me endless for saying so.
So this is all about past slights? Sorry, I wasn't around when you were
stung by slings and arrows for recommending a manager instead of an agent.
And this has something to do with "Hollywood turns right" how?
> (2) When my Complete Idiot's Guide to Screenwriting came out, I offered
> readers a bonus if they emailed me - a study I did that showed that
> movies with a quality I called "Kids Love It" (not necessarily a
> "family" film) was predominant in top-grossing box office films, going
> way back. Since that time (three years ago when I did the study), the
> box office has proven me even more right. And I caught flack from
> know-nothings on this newsgroup who disagreed but couldn't really back
> up their disagreement.
And this has to do with the political philosophies of political parties and
the Industry in what way?
> (3) Go search Google - I don't save many posts but I believe it was
> around the time of or just after the 2000 elections when I said there
> are a lot more conservatives in Hollywood than you think, in fact maybe
> 50%, but they're just worried about this "you'll never work in this town
> again" myth about coming out.
So much for "courage of their convictions," huh?
> It is a great thing to challenge an evil establishment. William Randolph
> Hearst was an evil man. He probably did as much as anyone to start the
> Spanish-American War by telling lies about something happening in Cuba.
> He did his best to crush Welles, and failed. Casablanca was a great
> thing, created by those "evil cabalistic Jews" that Jaeger is always
> railing about. We needed to be in WW2 earlier than we did, but people
> let evil go on too long before doing anything.
Conservative isolationist Republicans, actually. Like the Buchanan faction
of the GOP.
> Like the evil of the Clintonistas, which when you get older and some
> perspective on it, you'll see I'm right.
That's a line worthy of DC Harris. What does it mean in English?
> The Godfather was a good thing, because it looked inside the Mafia.
> Unfortunately, it also glorified their lives in many ways. But at least
> it challenged an evil establishment. But what hurt the Mafia in this
> country? Robert F. Kennedy as Attorney General. Rudy Guiliani as Mayor
> of New York. And others you're not paying attention to, most of whom are
> conservatives (Republicans) in their politics.
Bobby Kennedy, Republican. Are you posting from the Bizzaro World?
> In case you're not old enough to remember, if you go examine some of
> John Kennedy's speeches and plans (like getting rid of the Fed) he would
> sound very very much like George W. Bush. You'd have to set aside your
> prejudice and read it with an open mind, but if you did an honest
> comparison that's what you'd find. And FWIW, I loved Kennedy and never
> trusted Nixon.
And if you set aside your prejudice (and common sense) Hitler's speeches
would sound like Ronald Reagan. It's constantly amazing to me that
CONservatives in 2002 cite liberal philosophy that's 40 years old. They say
tax cuts result in increased revenue for federal government? So let's set
the marginal rates at 1962 levels.
Or, if CONservative tax policy is correct, eliminate all federal taxes and
the government will be flooded with money.
The hallmark of CONservative politics is the fact that they'll claim
anything to promote their agenda. If the facts are against them, they argue
philosophy. If their philosophy is contradictory, they parse out
statistics. If facts, philosophy, and statistics are against them, they
wave their arms and drag out ad hominem attacks on those with the audacity
to observe that the CONservative emperor has no clothes.
> Have you ever read Dwight Eisenhower's last speech when leaving the
> Presidency? He warned against the military-industrial complex, in a
> speech that echoed sentiments of George Washington's outgoing speech.
And who's feeding the military industrial complex today? Trent Lott, who
insists on building ships the Navy neither need nor wants, but are
constructed in Alabama. The military-industrial complex considers the
Republican Party to be a wholly-owned subsidiary.
> Now, let's look at On the Waterfront. I happen to be good friends with
> Elia Kazan's editor, Sol Stein. Sol is a very liberal NY Democrat (and a
> Jew in case you can't figure that out). I also quit the National Writers
> Union because of the type of mob thuggery that is depicted in that film.
> NWU is a subsidiary of the Auto Workers Union, BTW. Kazan was DEAD ON
> about what was going on at that time.
Once again, CONservatives are right on the issue....50 years after the fact.
> Know why there's a Writers Guild? Because Harry Tugend, a non-communist,
> persuaded the communist members of the group that formed it to take a
> meeting with the studio bosses and present their case. Harry figured
> they had a stronger position than they thought they did -- the others
> were ready to give up. The majority of the people who started the WGA
> were communists, card-carrying members. They had good reasons for being,
> frankly, but that's another discussion. It's understandable how they
> could adopt the philosophy -- for example, these rich Jews couldn't join
> the big country club in town so they started their own.
Careful, Skipper. You're channeling Jaeger.
> But there is no doubt that there were tons of card-carrying communists
> in Hollywood at the time. A lady I know who was one of Marilyn Monroe's
> best friends and whose father was the druggist at Schwab's Drugstore
> told me that some Friday nights the big actors studio classes in an
> adjacent building would end and the students would sing "La
> Internationale" in the parking lot - the international Communist Party
> theme song.
God damnit, you're right!! We shoulda shot those folks for singin'!!!
It constantly amazes me that the only people left who believe in Communism
are CONservative Americans. Communism only makes since until the people
have enough to eat. After that, they strive for a meritocracy. So what's
the CONservative answer? Starve Cuba!
Communism doesn't work, unless CONservatives make it endure.
> Does that mean Joe McCarthy was not an over the top bigot? No. He was.
> But take a look at the people who worked with him. I won't tell you who
> they were, do your own research. The fact was, there were tons of
> communists in Hollywood at the time who didn't really care much for a
> representative republic - they wanted a socialist nation, which would be
> the death of the world if it arose in the U.S.
Read your goddamn history!! There were tons of Communists throughout the
United States after the Great Depression. FDR single-handedly prevented the
impoverished from waging a revolution. People were starving. Literally.
And (did I mention this?) Communism only makes sense when the people are
starving.
> Want to know what the Clintonistas are really after? Take a look at the
> IMDB.com description of the 1954 film of George Orwell's "Animal Farm":
>
> Plot Outline: A successful farmyard revolution by the resident animals
> vs. the farmer goes horribly wrong when corrupt pigs hijack it for their
> personal gain.
>
> "Corrupt pigs hijack it for their personal gain" -- that's the problem.
> That's always been the problem. Currently, there are a lot more corrupt
> pigs on the Democrat side than the other.
As opposed to Republican orthodoxy, "Trust the farmer until he butchers
you."
Extremists never compromise. Never see the others' point of view.
> I don't say the things I do without having thoroughly examined and
> having met a great number of people at the top in both parties, and in
> Hollywood, over the years. Here's an example -- I was at a party in
> Louisville, Kentucky thrown by the local paper. I was the guest of Paul
> Patton, then the lieutenant governor, now the governor (a Democrat in
> the style of Harry Truman, the kind I like). Michael and Adrianna
> Huffington showed up. I recoiled in horror the moment I saw them. My
> wife said she'd never seen me react so adversely to anyone. And then we
> learn later that Michael is gay or bi at the least (he was covering that
> up). Do I care about his sexuality? No, but I do care about his lack of
> forthrightness, and I intuited it the moment I was five feet from him.
> His opponent was Dianne Feinstein, who is also a corrupt pig. What do I
> base that on? Here's an example -- remember when the Chinese jet jockey
> tried to take down our surveillance plane and President Bush managed to
> get it back without much uproar? Feinstein held a press conference
> apologizing to the Chinese. Why? Because her husband HAS MASSIVE
> INVESTMENTS IN CHINA.
Then, if Bush has any integrity, he'll impose the same sanctions on China as
he endorses for Cuba. Right?
> And that's why you don't see Chinese bad guys in Hollywood movies; the
> establishment is kissing their asses over money and the potential of
> billions of Chinese customers.
Just who do you think "the establishment" votes for these days? Democrats?!
Okay. Now tell me what color you think grass is.
> So here's another prediction for you. The real American majority (and
> this has to do with Hollywood) is a currently undefined model, but
> "compassionate conservative" isn't far off. The real American majority:
>
> (a) Won't take any shit from bullies when push comes to shove;
The "American majority," as you call it, doesn't give a rat's tit about the
issues you raise here. If American armed forces are winning, Americans are
for it. As soon as body bags start returning on a wholesale level, they'll
turn on military action.
Luckily for Bush, eight years of Clinton leadership built up a military
capable of conducting two all-out wars simultaneously. Bush, on the other
hand, continues to try to scrap that strategy; even as it's working. This
administration's obsession with portraying themselves as the "Anti-Clinton"
has resulted in accelerated tensions in the Middle East, a spendthrift tax
policy, a world polluting environmental attitude, kowtowing to the Saudi
Arabian control of petroleum policy, expanded corporate welfare, reduced
support for children born to poverty, increased arsenic levels in drinking
water... the list goes on and on.
> (b) Doesn't really care about anyone's sexual orientation or practices
> as long as they are not predatory (like a lot of Catholic priests);
So *that's* why CONservatives blame the World Trade Center attacks on
Lesbians.
What difference does it make what other people might do in their bedrooms?
Unless, of course, you're in the bedroom with them.
> (c) Believes in conserving things that make America great, like our
> churches, our environment, our political and social institutions, but
> not to the point of absurdity;
Yeah. Don't be so absurd to expect arsenic isn't in the water. Don't be so
absurd to think anyone might not want the "Lord's Prayer" mandated in public
schools. Let's not be so "absurd" we think the Ku Klux Klan is anything
more than a regional cultural phenomenon, a social club like Kiwanis. We
can't be so absurd that we think The Book of Genesis belongs in a science
classroom the way $cientology belongs in a science classroom.
> (d) Does NOT believe in big government but does believe in a strong
> national defense because of the world situation;
Instead, believes in big government for *other* people, just not for them.
And supports ships, planes, tanks and weapons systems the Army, Navy, Air
Force *doesn't* need or want, but are pork barrel handouts to Alabama,
Texas, and other Republican districts.
> (e) Is currently in a spiritual exploration mode, looking for something
> new and dependable to emerge. That's why Buddhism is growing (which I'm
> a lot closer to than anything else). That's why Joseph Campbell's myth
> studies resonate so well with smart people. That's why long-standing
> evil practices in the Catholic church are being eviscerated via the
> media. And if that media is dominated by not particularly religious Jews
> as Jaeger says and they can end the abomination of corrupt pig predatory
> priests and an ossified Vatican, God bless them.
Or, since they're CONservatives, simply want to adopt the King James Version
of the Constitution.
> In short, a new world paradigm is emerging in our lifetimes, and I don't
> see Hollywood reflecting it enough. Audiences worldwide love our movies,
> particularly when simple "leave me alone to live my life" heroes kick
> butt on corrupt and criminal pigs. This paradigm encompasses all areas
> of life and it basically has to do with a simple idea: "How can we live
> a happy life without the oppression of unworkable ideas mostly
> propagated by people lusting for power and influence, who play on our
> fears to gain our assistance?"
Huh?
> Those corrupt pigs include collectivists like Hillary Clinton and
> religious fanatics like the Muslim clerics ruling Iran, dictators like
> Saddam Hussein, and weasel terrorists like Yasser Arafat.
How about Bill-of-Rights-shredding John Ashcroft? Or the
Public-Has-No-Right-to-Know Dick Cheney? The
Lesbians-Are-Responsible-For-the-World-Trade-Center "Christians" like Jerry
Falwell and Pat Robertson?
> In America, the social pendulum swings back and forth over generations.
> What you are seeing right now (and Hollywood could help if so many here
> weren't biased and blind based on nothing and frankly, hooked on drugs)
You don't need to be fucked up on drugs, Skip. You're fucked up on life.
> is the American way of life struggling against millenia of worldwide
> supersitition and chaos. The struggle is impeded by those pushing a
> "nanny" state. It is impeded by greedy business people (like the Enron
> folks). It is impeded by politicans only interested in their survival as
> administrators (like Grey Davis in California). And it is impeded by
> writers who do not see the real world and boldly dare to speak of it.
David Brock finally got the guts to see the real world and boldly dare to
speak of it. Look how the CONservative-dominated mainstream media has tried
(albeit unsuccessfully) to tear him down.
> Nevertheless, I predict that this new world paradigm will win, in your
> lifetime, and we'll all be the better for it.
>
> But back to the problem that's ALWAYS the problem - corrupt pigs.
>
> Those corrupt pigs raise their snouts in ossified establishments who
> think they are above reproach.
And they have corporate jets to fly above reproach.
> One currently-suffering ossified establishment is the Catholic church,
> who enabled predatory priests for years.
And will you also condemn the CONservatives who distort the rape of Catholic
children into an attack on homosexuality? Rape is not a crime of sexuality
or passion, after all. It is a crime of violence, of domination, of
exploitation.
> Another ossified establishment was the Democratic Party-run Congress
> that got taken on in the Reagan Revolution and are still being shaken
> out by George W. Bush and his "compassionate conservatism" (which really
> does exists, and it drives his enemies nuts). But believe me, I don't
> hold any Republican above reproach.
Oh, I believe you, Skipper. Despite any evidence. It's a matter of faith.
> The establishment I take on a lot is in Hollywood. I posted years ago
> here about Hollywood turning right and people derided me, just like they
> derided me when I said you're probably better off with a manager than an
> agent, just like they derided me when I said video is the way it's
> going, just like they derided me when I said "Kids Love It" (I did a
> study in 1999) is the formula for box office success.
>
> I was correct then, I'm correct now.
You're always right, Skip. You're never wrong. From God's lips to your
fingers. That's why I subscribe to mis.writing.screenplays. That, and to
read sane postings from DC Harris.
> I say these things based on fact. I talk to people, I read, I go places,
> I get confidential emails. I'm not afraid to say the truth, no matter
> how many unfounded shots I take.
See, that's why we're such a perfect match. I never talk to people. I
never read. I never go places. I get no confidential e-mails (unlike you
and DC Harris).
> Believe what you will. The truth will set you free.
But it all comes down to what you consider "truth."
You, according to previous posts, pledged your soul to the Southern Baptist
Church.
Later, you were convinced that L. Ron Hubbard was the source of ultimate
Truth.
Now George W. Bush is your source of ultimate knowledge and enlightenment.
I don't know if cocaine, sluts, or hedonism ever entered your life in
between times. But I can guess.
Today, you can't help yourself from making lascivious references about any
actress whose tits might appear on screen. You're desperate to tell people
Annette Benning waved in your direction; that this or that person takes your
calls; that you've met or shaken hands with this one or another.
I've also heard accounts (which, admittedly, I haven't confirmed with a
second source and so, will not repeat on this newsgrope) that you've taken
advantage of people's stories, scripts, and concepts. Some from people
you've come to know via mis-writing-screenplays.
I've come to believe that anyone who comes to the conclusion that you're
anything other than the Hollywood scum you claim you're not, is in for a big
collision with another reality.
I've hoped for a long time you were a person of substance, integrity,
ability, and good will.
There's just not enough evidence to support my hopes.
Joe Myers
"I'll be there Wednesday at 6. Beat me
up too, if that's what floats your boat."
Joseph R Abbott
> In my opinion, if this holds, nothing could be better for the industry than to
> have two sides of the coin to think about. Balanced minds are smart minds and
> smart minds make smart films :-)
The saddest thing is, Americans actually think that
Republican/Democrat are two sides of the coin.
Tra...@pipeline.com
<very...@mindspring.com> wrote:
><Tra...@pipeline.com> wrote re: "Piss Christ."
>
>[snips]
>
>> It's more conceptual junk - 5 seconds, you "get it" and
>> it no longer has any importance, or anything to offer.
>
>You're still worked up about it, what, five years later?
>
>Funny how art does that, huh?
And even when I was still bugged abou it, well:
if somebody used a piece of cheap pop psychology on me,
and I got PO'd because I knew they had used cheap pop
psychology on me, that still would *not* make the cheap pop
psychology valid.
For a while I played with it like a puzzle, to try to figure out why
people liked this stuff, but after my conceptual idea, I knew that
there wasn't any reason. They liked it because they had trained
themselves to like it, and meaning meant nothing.
Tracy
Joe Myers
> And even when I was still bugged abou it, well:
>
> if somebody used a piece of cheap pop psychology on me,
> and I got PO'd because I knew they had used cheap pop
> psychology on me, that still would *not* make the cheap pop
> psychology valid.
>
> For a while I played with it like a puzzle, to try to figure out why
> people liked this stuff, but after my conceptual idea, I knew that
> there wasn't any reason. They liked it because they had trained
> themselves to like it, and meaning meant nothing.
Bet you've never done that with an Elvis on black velvet.
Look, I have neither the knowledge nor the desire to defend or condemn "Piss
Christ."
I merely observed the emotional impact the work obviously contains.
Joe Myers
"The opposite of love is indifference."
Jacques E. Bouchard
> Actually, no, I'm not worked up about it.
Coulda fooled me...
jaybee
Jacques E. Bouchard
@news.lvcablemodem.com:
> And even when I was still bugged abou it, well:
>
> if somebody used a piece of cheap pop psychology on me,
> and I got PO'd because I knew they had used cheap pop
> psychology on me, that still would *not* make the cheap pop
> psychology valid.
>
> For a while I played with it like a puzzle, to try to figure out why
> people liked this stuff, but after my conceptual idea, I knew that
> there wasn't any reason. They liked it because they had trained
> themselves to like it, and meaning meant nothing.
You mean that your assessment of the work of art went no further
than its immediate shock value. You didn't bother looking for meaning
beyond your own indignation.
If you're going to try and pretend having aspirations to hope to
on day attempt giving writing a shot, Tracy, you're going to have to
work on your insight, observation skills and empathy.
jaybee
Tra...@pipeline.com
oh right, typed words give a 100 % accurate idea of a person's mental
state.
tra...@pipeline.com
<jacques_...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>Tra...@pipeline.com wrote in news:3cf94470.21503720
>@news.lvcablemodem.com:
>
>> And even when I was still bugged abou it, well:
>>
>> if somebody used a piece of cheap pop psychology on me,
>> and I got PO'd because I knew they had used cheap pop
>> psychology on me, that still would *not* make the cheap pop
>> psychology valid.
>>
>> For a while I played with it like a puzzle, to try to figure out why
>> people liked this stuff, but after my conceptual idea, I knew that
>> there wasn't any reason. They liked it because they had trained
>> themselves to like it, and meaning meant nothing.
>
> You mean that your assessment of the work of art went no further
>than its immediate shock value. You didn't bother looking for meaning
>beyond your own indignation.
the assessment I refer to above (2nd paragraph) was my reaction to
other people's reaction to my idea, which had nothing to do with urine
or crucifixes.
>
> If you're going to try and pretend having aspirations to hope to
>on day attempt giving writing a shot, Tracy, you're going to have to
>work on your insight, observation skills and empathy.
And how much do you really know about the amount of effort I put into
observing? Not much.
You seem quick to judge, and yet all you know of me is a few typed
words on usenet. Why not ask rather than poke?
Tracy
tra...@pipeline.com
PS Are you sooooo sure you know my subtext?? :)
spam]@world.std.com Blair P. Houghton
>As usual, I'm two years ahead of the trades with what's going on in
>Hollywood.
And 16 years behind everyone else...
--Blair
"Ahem. Chuck Heston, Tom Selleck, etc."
Brian Christgau
news:skippress-6803D...@nnrp01.earthlink.net...
"...A
> lifelong Democrat, Lawrence publicly declared back then: "If one is even
> perceived to be a Republican in Hollywood, there can be an excluding
> reaction and people genuinely resent you."
The problem with most Liberals, the Hollywood kind included, is that
they talk a lot about diversity and tolerance but they have little or no
tolerance for *political* diversity.
I've had long, thoughtful, polite conversations with Young Republicans,
Social Darwinists, Satanists and even Neo-Nazis. I make no secret of the
fact that I vehemently disagree completely with their political beliefs, but
that doesn't mean I don't respect their right to have and express those
beliefs. Quoth Voltaire: "I disagree with what you say, but I defend to
death your right to say it."
Is Hollywood going to start leaning to the Right? Sure. Why? because
that's the current flavor in the country.
Right now we're totally back in the 80's, mood-wise, and what kind of
movies did they make back then? "Rambo: First Blood Part 2", "Red Dawn",
"Born American", "Top Gun", etc. So, of course, we're going to see another
influx of that kind of Nationalistic crap because people will gobble it
right down. They loved seeing those evil, robot-like Russkies being
annihilated by Good Americans back then, so now of course they're going to
love seeing those evil, brown-skinned, diaper-headed camel jockeys eating
some good, wholesome American lead. They're going to give the people what
they want because Hollywood is a business first, and businesses are all
about making money.
Mind you, while I consider Right Wing, pro-war movies to be shit, that
doesn't mean I'm opposed to them being made. I think there's room for
*everything* in fiction, music, film, comic books, etc. I *like* seeing and
hearing different viewpoints, even if I disagree with them. The problem with
the average American Liberal is that, not only don't they share my point of
view, but they want to *squash* any opinions that are different from their
own.
The problem with a film like "Starship Troopers" is that it was should
have been directed by someone like John Milius (who in my not-so-humble
opinion is a Fascist) because it's a novel with a very Right Wing point of
view. But, instead, the job was given to Neumier and Verhoeven, guys who
obviously didn't agree with the politics of the novel and made fun of its
Right Wing philosophy. Which is why they ended up with a shitty movie.
America, it appears, has drifted to the right since 9/11, but
> has famously liberal Hollywood followed suit? Increasingly, insiders are
> saying the answer is yes. "People are coming out of the closet,"
> writer-director Lionel Chetwynd says. "Hollywood is finally becoming a
> two-party town." (Paul Bond)
Which would be fine... if it weren't for the fact that we have a
one-party system masquerading as a two-party system. The reason nobody
remembers the last two presidential debates is because there was no
debating. They agreed on everything. The mutual antipathy between Democrat
and Republican has less to do with politics and more with the childish
squabbling siblings are prone to.
Cheers,
B
Jacques E. Bouchard
news:adefcs$mrm$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net:
> The problem with a film like "Starship Troopers" is that it was
> should
> have been directed by someone like John Milius (who in my
> not-so-humble opinion is a Fascist) because it's a novel with a very
> Right Wing point of view. But, instead, the job was given to Neumier
> and Verhoeven, guys who obviously didn't agree with the politics of
> the novel and made fun of its Right Wing philosophy. Which is why they
> ended up with a shitty movie.
I'm not sure that's quite it. I liked "Starship Troopers" because
I got the satirical aspect of it (although I didn't think they nearly
took it far enough), plus there's DENISE RICHARDS (*drool*).
But most people seemed to miss that the movie was satirizing
fascist military society. Probably the same people who didn't like
"Falling Down" because they couldn't tell who the "good guy" and the
"bad guy" were, because Michael Douglas overshadowed Robert Duvall so
much.
And let's not forget "Contact", which sorely dashed people's hopes
of seeing tentacled green martians. I happen to like the movie very much
every time I see it, in spite of its somewhat anti-climatic ending, if
only for the intelligent dialogue on spiritualism, science and politics.
jaybee
JamiDeise
> The problem with most Liberals, the Hollywood kind included, is that
>they talk a lot about diversity and tolerance but they have little or no
>tolerance for *political* diversity.
> I've had long, thoughtful, polite conversations with Young Republicans,
>Social Darwinists, Satanists and even Neo-Nazis. I make no secret of the
>fact that I vehemently disagree completely with their political beliefs, but
>that doesn't mean I don't respect their right to have and express those
>beliefs.<<
You just described the mission statement of the ACLU, which, last time I
checked, wasn't exactly a bastion of Republicanism.
Liberals -- taken from the word "liberty", BTW -- generally have a lot of
tolerance for the opinions of others. It's when those opinions include killing,
raping and otherwise suppressing a group of people based on race, sex,
religion, etc., that those opinions become less tolerable.
Jami
Oranse
The problem with most Liberals, the Hollywood kind included, is that
they talk a lot about diversity and tolerance but they have little or no
tolerance for *political* diversity. >>
What kind of diversity? Left and right, or up and down. Do you support the age
discrimination factor as it applies to who can be president of the united
states? What about age discrimination on voting rights? Ever voted for anyone
that has done jail time? Ever voted for a canidate that was born outside of the
country? Ever voted for a heathen?
These are my issues I deal with in politics. Im my heart Im to the left of
anarchy, but I cant pratice my far out ideologies at the voting booth, cause I
would just be wasting my vote. So I vote issue, or I vote under-represented. I
dont know who to vote for governor of Florida. I won't vote for Janet Reno
cause of the high body count under her supervision, and I don't want to vote
for Jeb Bush, cause he's a carpetbagger, and I don't want to vote for a
sibbling of a current President. And voting for a 3rd canidate would just be
wasting my vote. So now what? I'll probably vote for Jeb Bush, he's got
baggage, but body bags beat bank bags, so thats that.
Almost all of the local politicians go to jail here. The last mayor of Miami is
in jail for beating his wife, remember him from the Elian days, Mr Bug eyes,
the guy that fired the Chief of Police over the Elian raid? Well that chief of
police is serving 8 years now, for stealing money from the cops kids charity.
The entire penultimate city commision is behind bars, except the ones that
ratted, and are in the WPP. All the elections here are fiascos. Its a 3rd
world banana republic but we got the pussy. Oh yes, we got that diversity, in
all shapes, sizes, and colors.
Oranse
Joe Myers
> Tolerance? ACLU? hahahahahahahaha! That was really funny. What other
> jokes do you know? You mean like suppressing a group of Christian kids
> who want to have a prayer group in school, while suing school districts
> that won't let gay kids hold meetings after school? That the kind of
> tolerance and suppression you're talking about?
Prove you're not pulling yet another conservative myth out of your ass,
Skip.
A prayer group *in* school? Damned straight the should be against it. A
prayer group *after* school, is groovy and constitutional.
Tell me where this "suppression" is going on. Specific details. Places,
names.
Joe Myers
"Otherwise put your
lies back up your ass."
Thomas L. C.
"Skip Press" <skip...@SPAMHATERmac.com> wrote in message
> My caveat is that too many people call their own perversions "art" and
> say you're anti-artistic or anti First Amendment or a Nazi if you
> disagree with them or say their stuff is crap, like "Piss Christ" and
> other such garbage. Film equivalents - David Lynch's "Wild at Heart" or
> any number of recent Oliver Stone indulgences. What's the point? But
> maybe to them those films were pure entertainment.
I don't think anyone is going to attack you for not being a fan of "piss
Christ" or any other piece of art, where you might run into problems is if
you try to censor it. That's all. The government just shouldn't be
involved in which messages are heard and which are not.
--
Thomas L. C.
---------------------------------------------------
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro"
-HST
Thomas L. C.
--
Thomas L. C.
---------------------------------------------------
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro"
-HST
<Tra...@pipeline.com> wrote in message
news:3cf94470...@news.lvcablemodem.com...
Paula
<NOiza...@Mwi.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Skip Press" <skip...@SPAMHATERmac.com> wrote in message
>news:skippress-693F2...@nnrp05.earthlink.net...
>> My caveat is that too many people call their own perversions "art" and
>> say you're anti-artistic or anti First Amendment or a Nazi if you
>> disagree with them or say their stuff is crap, like "Piss Christ" and
>> other such garbage. Film equivalents - David Lynch's "Wild at Heart" or
>> any number of recent Oliver Stone indulgences. What's the point? But
>> maybe to them those films were pure entertainment.
>
>I don't think anyone is going to attack you for not being a fan of "piss
>Christ" or any other piece of art, where you might run into problems is if
>you try to censor it. That's all. The government just shouldn't be
>involved in which messages are heard and which are not.
Should the government be funding it in the first place?
Paula
tra...@pipeline.com
On Mon, 3 Jun 2002 16:38:26 -0500, "Thomas L. C."
<NOiza...@Mwi.rr.com> wrote:
>people still bitch about freddy got fingered, and god knows that's not art
>
>--
>Thomas L. C.
hehe :)
tra...@pipeline.com
<skip...@SPAMHATERmac.com> wrote:
>In article <cAQK8.18772$gb1.7...@twister.kc.rr.com>,
> "Thomas L. C." <NOiza...@Mwi.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>"Skip Press" <skip...@SPAMHATERmac.com> wrote in message
>>news:skippress-693F2...@nnrp05.earthlink.net...
>>> My caveat is that too many people call their own perversions "art" and
>>> say you're anti-artistic or anti First Amendment or a Nazi if you
>>> disagree with them or say their stuff is crap, like "Piss Christ" and
>>> other such garbage. Film equivalents - David Lynch's "Wild at Heart" or
>>> any number of recent Oliver Stone indulgences. What's the point? But
>>> maybe to them those films were pure entertainment.
>>
>>I don't think anyone is going to attack you for not being a fan of "piss
>>Christ" or any other piece of art, where you might run into problems is if
>>you try to censor it. That's all. The government just shouldn't be
>>involved in which messages are heard and which are not.
>
>Maybe you're right. They sure as hell shouldn't be involved in FUNDING
>crap like "Piss Christ."
That's part of what I was saying.
Brian Christgau
JamiDeise <jami...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020602230131...@mb-fo.aol.com...
> Brian writes:
>
> > I've had long, thoughtful, polite conversations with Young
Republicans,
> >Social Darwinists, Satanists and even Neo-Nazis. I make no secret of the
> >fact that I vehemently disagree completely with their political beliefs,
but
> >that doesn't mean I don't respect their right to have and express those
> >beliefs.<<
>
> You just described the mission statement of the ACLU, which, last time I
> checked, wasn't exactly a bastion of Republicanism.
Last time I checked, I was a card carrying member.
I probably should have mentioned, I'm a Liberal myself. Problem is, what
passes for a Liberal these days is PC Fascist. And Fascists, be they on the
right or left, have little patience for people who think differently from
the way they do. At college, I found it much easier to get along with Young
Republicans (scary as that sounds) than PC Lefties because the former were
(surprisingly) much more well informed and tolerant of people who thought
differently.
> Liberals -- taken from the word "liberty", BTW -- generally have a lot of
> tolerance for the opinions of others.
Unfortunately, that's not my experience. When a representative for the
Nation of Islam was coming to my university to give a lecture, the event was
cancelled by the campus Lefties. They wouldn't let him speak. Incidents like
this happened at colleges across the country all the time. Instead of
letting the speaker show up and do their thing and *debating* him or her on
the subjects at hand, they merely put a gag on him.
Colleges used to be a place where people explored and exchanged ideas.
Not any more. And it's not the Right we have to blame for that. When Ray
Bradbury wrote "Fahrenheit 451" he predicted that the final death blow to
the 1st Amendment would come, not from the Right, but from the Left. How
correct he was.
It's when those opinions include killing,
> raping and otherwise suppressing a group of people based on race, sex,
> religion, etc., that those opinions become less tolerable.
Actually, most Liberals I've known are *disgusted* by the thought of
groups such as the Neo-Nazis having First Amendment rights and are sickened
when a group like the ACLU defends those rights. They'll say that the 1st
wasn't intended to defend *that* kind of speech (when someone brings up the
old "yelling 'fire!' in a crowded theatre, you know where they *really*
stand). But the 1st was created specifically to defend that kind of speech,
which is to say UNPOPULAR speech.
I'm hoping that the current wave of Nationalism in this country will
bring about a strong counter-culture and a resurgence in old-school
Liberalism, but I know the odds of that are slim at best.
Cheers,
B
Ogden
this book is a possessory credit. Like Stephen King's _The Shining_. In
other words, Skippy is obviously a complete idiot who has written a guide to
screenwriting.
Sell a lot of books with your warm and fuzzy approach on this ng do you,
Skipper?
Or are you too busy calling people out for fisticuffs, which is, I can't
even tell you how laughable.
Ogden
Thomas L. C.
news:3cfbf49b...@netnews.worldnet.att.net...
whoever and keep its hands out of it. I'd rather have no government art
funding than selective government art funding, because that's just a more
under-the-radar sort of censorship...which is really the more dangerous
kind.
Paula
<NOiza...@Mwi.rr.com> wrote:
>I think if it funds art at all, it has to trust the museum curators or
>whoever and keep its hands out of it. I'd rather have no government art
>funding than selective government art funding, because that's just a more
>under-the-radar sort of censorship...which is really the more dangerous
>kind.
I would prefer NO government art funding myself. "Art" should not
fall within a government's purview.
Paula
Jette D. Sorensen
funded.
Jette
AbbyNormal
>
> In article <adh824$llb$1...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net>,
> same as and feel the same as you do.
Yup. Count me among them.
AbbyNormal
> I think if it funds art at all, it has to trust the museum curators or
> whoever and keep its hands out of it. I'd rather have no government art
> funding than selective government art funding, because that's just a more
> under-the-radar sort of censorship...which is really the more dangerous
> kind.
Hear here!
And to quote a Usenet post from rec.arts.tv that sums it up for me:
<< Jim Hill wrote:
Every taxpayer in the country pays for things we disagree
with. I'm not terribly fond of subsidizing other peoples' poor family
planning, but I wasn't asked. I'm not fond of buying the Air Force
large bombers they didn't ask for, but I wasn't asked. I'm not fond of
underwriting radio programming I don't listen to or television
programming I don't watch, but I wasn't asked. I'm not fond of paying
extra on my phone bill every month so school libraries can get wired for
the seeping septic tank that is "The Internet" (pause for chorus of
angels to do its thing) on the cheap -- but again, I wasn't asked. Are
the people who advocate that taxpayers be forced to subsidize social or
military programs that others might disagree with fascists?
An arts program benefits everyone; art speaks to the soul. Sometimes,
though, you have to accept that it's going to say something you don't
want to hear. Christianity shouldn't be exempt from "blasphemous" art
just because more Americans claim to be Christians than any other faith.
If the message you take away from "Piss Christ" or "Yo Mama's Last Supper"
or "Our Lady of Guadalupe" is that some people don't worship the way you
do, that's a valuable lesson. Clearly the defenders of these exhibits
(and others) see some redeeming qualities. Why should _you_ and a loud
mouthed bunch of bellyachers get to decide what is and what is not
appropriate for public display? Is it because you pay taxes? I pay
taxes, and I want to see "Our Lady of Guadalupe". >>
AbbyNormal
Art has been funded by governments throughout modern history because
civilizations recognize that art is what makes us special and is a large part of
what speaks of us to future generations. It is important to nurture and feed
what is best--but not always most practical--in a society.
"A human activity having for its purpose the transmission of the highest and
best feelings to which men have risen. "
-Leo Tolstoy, on the purpose of art
tra...@pipeline.com
That's just it - they reached a limit, and the government who, as I
undestand it, helped fund abstract expressionism in the beginning,
now finds the thing it helped create has reached its point of
"reductio ad absurdum." And they don't like it.
If government funds the art, they can have a say in it. That's the
way it is. If gov $$ had not been involved from the beginning,
I think this kind of art would have had a much harder time
getting any attention at all.
What if "piss christ" had been carved into a marvelous marble
sculpture? That would have taken talent.
Some people dislike it on grounds other than the ones you mention.
So, on that note, I'm going to describe my idea for an earthwork
piece to be constructed on the lawn of the museum that housed
"Our Lady of Guadalupe." Ready? Hold your nose, now!
******************************************************************************
I will place some sheets of plastic down on the grass, and
place individual pieces of cow dung on the plastic so as to make an
arrow pattern, pointing the way to the museum. I will create a whole
row of these. Then I will meditate in a brooding manner over them.
This will create an outlet for all the unexpressed mass frustration
caused by all the frauds in art, sitting around in the collective
unconscious, and it will be chanelled by the cow-dung arrows towards
the museum, thus allowing me and the entire collective unconscious of
a big segment of society, whose voice is most definitely not being
heard, to achieve a synthesis of conscious and subconscious, and an
outlet in the realm of the conscious. There, that's shamanism for ya.
oh and i will of course sign each piece of plastic, can't forget that
now! Very vital, that is.
Think I could get away with that?? I bet I could.
*****************************************************************************
Tracy
(most definitely NOT Tracy Emin)
JamiDeise
Well, that's very sad. Though I can understand if the speaker from the Nation
of Islam had, in other speeches on college campus, referred to Jews as "dirty"
and praised some of the philosophies of the Holocaust, as some of these
speakers have done, I can understand if campus authorities were worried about
violence. And I have yet to meet many 20-year-olds with the maturity to support
the right of people to say things that they disagree with, even if they
considered themselves open-minded. (I'm not going to use the word "liberal"
here because the right has turned it into a dirty word, and most left-leaners
won't apply it to themselves. Just as most young women fighting to have it all
won't call themselves feminists.) Then again, most of these decisions are made
at a higher level by people who seem to get offended if you happen to cross the
street away from them. Guess all those hoops you have to jump to get tenure
warps your powers of perception ...
Jesse Jackson once referred to New York as "Hymie-town" and he's still regarded
as a liberal.
I believe there's a difference between true conservativism and true liberalism,
and how it is sometimes practiced. Just as I don't believe a true Christian
hates gays.
Conservativism is supposed to be the belief that the free market works best
unencumbered, and less government is preferable. Liberalism is supposed to be
the belief that society should look out for its weakest members, and a strong
government is the best way to do that.
Obviously, that's not true in practice. George W. Bush is supposed to be a
conservative, and he's done more to hurt free trade than your average Democrat.
In any case ... Brian, Skip, others ... I'm very sorry that you've had such
negative experiences with people claiming to be liberals. But I don't think you
should decide your own personal philosophy based on the behavior of others who
claim certain labels. Bill Clinton was a slut. Reagan and Bush traded arms for
hostages. Carter should have stayed on the peanut farm. Ford took the fall for
Nixon's crimes, the least of which are the ones he's most well known for. Might
as well stay home on election day.
Leaders come and go. They all have faults, some so big that they should be
disqualified from office. Most voters don't have a clue about what the real
issues are, and vote depending on how they feel about guns or abortion.
(especially guns. That's why there's a Democrat in Richmond now.)
Decide what you believe, and vote accordingly. Don't vote Republican because
you hate Clinton, or someone told you that the DNC are a bunch of crooks. Vote
Republican because you believe that small government is best, because you liked
Bush's education bill (even though he didn't offer a budget to support it),
because you think Republicans have a better handle on the mess between Israel
and the PLO, or India and Pakistan.
But if you believe that our society has an obligation to help out our weakest
members, then you should vote Democrat even if you hate Bill Clinton. (unless
you think ADM is weak.) Because even though the parties' platforms get more and
more similar every year, the fundamental difference remains -- Republicans
believe the job of government is to help business, and Democrats believe the
job of government is to help people.
Decide how you feel, and vote accordingly.
Jami
liberal
feminist
stay-at-home mom
Alan Brooks
> That's just it - they reached a limit, and the government who, as I
> undestand it, helped fund abstract expressionism in the beginning,
> now finds the thing it helped create has reached its point of
> "reductio ad absurdum." And they don't like it.
Sorry, but you've got to think about this a bit more or maybe get out and
have some real-world experiences.
"The government" doesn't "like" or "dislike" a particular art movement.
"The government" didn't "help create" any art movement. The government
didn't "fund abstract expressionism".
The government (of the United States) has, like all governments throughout
history, a certain amount of money set aside for arts. The money goes to
artists who are, typically, part of some movement or school or genre. It's
not like the government says they'll fund abstract expressionism but not,
for instance, Dada.
Art is an expression of culture. The urge to ossify the arts into
comfortable, familiar objects and sounds is a step in the direction of
strangling your own culture. If you want to see some horrible art, take a
look at the paintings that came out of the government approved art schools
of the USSR under Lenin and the Chinese schools under Mao. Try to read any
of the truly execrable Chinese plays or fiction written while the Red Guard
was running things in China. Centralized control of cultural expression
works about as well as the Soviets' attempt at centralized control of
farming and transportation.
I don't believe that's where we want to go, and I think the US government is
stuctured just about right to prevent it happening. The government provides
some amount money for cultural development and the arts, but sets up buffer
organizations which make the aesthetic decisions. I like it this way. I
don't want Dick Cheney choosing who gets to perform concerts outside my
window in Central Park, or Dick Rumsfeld curating the next showing at The
Corcoran.
It's not like the government can divorce itself from arts entirely even if
somebody thought that was a good idea. The government puts up buildings,
roads, bridges, monuments, all sorts of public infrastructure, which need to
be designed and decorated. The government makes aesthetic decisions all the
time, and generally takes the right approach in letting experts in various
fields design, and judge the designs of others, before moving forward with a
project. City governments make decisions about who can perform concerts in
public parks, who will run the puppet theater concession for the weekend
kiddie's program, what paintings and tapestries will hang in City Hall. The
government shouldn't abdicate their decision-making role, neither should it
centralize those decision in the hands of people who don't know a paintbrush
from a pot shard.
Mistakes will be made, but I'd rather they were made in the direction of
less constriction and less centralized control of culture.
Alan Brooks
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A Schmuck with an Underwood
-- Let a Hundred Flowers Bloom.
Jacques E. Bouchard
@netnews.worldnet.att.net:
> I would prefer NO government art funding myself. "Art" should not
> fall within a government's purview.
Then what about education? Healthcare? The general welfare of the
population? You take away subsidies for all those programs, you make them
accessible only to those who can afford it. Welcome to the new ghettos.
jaybee
Alan Brooks
> Ah, I dunno, Alan. I'm so impressed by that Mao art I'm thinking of
> starting a rap group called Chunky Chinese Chicks.
Gee Skip, I think anything involving a gender, race and species change
operation falls under Personal Livestyle Choice rather than Cultural
Control. Not that -- as long as you're not looking for government funding
for your operations -- there's anything wrong with that.
Alan Brooks
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A Schmuck with an Underwood
-- Is that where the CCC comes from in CCCP?
Dena Jo
> > Ah, I dunno, Alan. I'm so impressed by that Mao art I'm thinking of
> > starting a rap group called Chunky Chinese Chicks.
Alan Brooks:
> -- Is that where the CCC comes from in CCCP?
Damn good one!
--
Dena Jo
AbbyNormal
AbbyNormal
I have decided how I feel. I reject all extremism but I find most of it
happening on the left, of late (the last decade or so). Maybe that's because I
work on a college campus? Who knows...? I just know what I observe.
As for voting, I am an Independent and hence, never vote for one "camp" or the
other strictly due to some sense of agendized "purpose." Since I come down in
favor of many things on both the left and the right, I simply vote for the best
person, a person who will not exclusively play the party line, one who thinks in
the middle of the spectrum more often than on its edges, and one who has the
integrity to stand up for what s/he believes.
> Jami
> liberal
> feminist
> stay-at-home mom
Lois
independent
mainstream feminist <-- before NOW hijacked the cause and made it militant
college prof/musician/writer
Joe Myers
[snip]
> Actually, most Liberals I've known are *disgusted* by the thought of
> groups such as the Neo-Nazis having First Amendment rights and are
sickened
> when a group like the ACLU defends those rights. They'll say that the 1st
> wasn't intended to defend *that* kind of speech (when someone brings up
the
> old "yelling 'fire!' in a crowded theatre, you know where they *really*
> stand). But the 1st was created specifically to defend that kind of
speech,
> which is to say UNPOPULAR speech.
That's where you're so wrong. As a proud liberal and card-carrying member
of the ACLU, I may not like it when the ACLU defends the Ku Klux Klan's
right to spew their racist filth, but I'm proud they do it. The ACLU is a
stalwart defense against what happened to the German who wrote, "They came
for the Jews, and I didn't complain because I wasn't a Jew...."
What's more, "christians" complaining that the ACLU works against
government-written and/or approved Christian rituals to a captive audiences
in public school rooms is a good thing. I'm sure there's a teacher
somewhere in America whose religion involves eating peyote. If you're gonna
force school children to pray "in Jesus' name," you've got to allow sweat
lodges in kindergarten.
> I'm hoping that the current wave of Nationalism in this country will
> bring about a strong counter-culture and a resurgence in old-school
> Liberalism, but I know the odds of that are slim at best.
Conservative attacks on liberals are the equivalent of liberals painting
Timothy McVeigh's brand of conservatism on the Republican Party. Funny that
the liberals don't stoop to the tactics of Limbaugh, Falwell, Robertson,
Scaife, Murdock, and others in the conservative-dominated mainstream press.
And, as unaccustomed as conservative are of looking at reality, just who
thinks the public has no right to know how this administration decides on
life-and-death policies? That evil liberal Dick Cheney. And who's ripping
the Bill of Rights to shreds, with the full approval and praise of
conservatives? That pinko commie John Ashcroft. Who has manipulated tax
codes and business practices to give crooks like Enron an $18 million
refund....on *no taxes paid"?! Who's the so-called "Free Trader" who's
selective protectionism policies not only counter everything he's said he
believed in, but seem to follow the tons of soft money donations to the GOP?
The guy in the White House who lost the election by 500,000 votes and was
awarded the election on the basis of fraud and subterfuge orchestrated by
his brother.
Joe Myers
"John Ashcroft advocates the King
James Version of the Constitution."
tra...@pipeline.com
<al...@sirius-software.com> wrote:
>Sorry, but you've got to think about this a bit more or maybe get out and
>have some real-world experiences.
Ah. Thank you, I'm not looking for advice in that area right now. :)
>"The government" doesn't "like" or "dislike" a particular art movement.
>"The government" didn't "help create" any art movement. The government
>didn't "fund abstract expressionism".
>
>The government (of the United States) has, like all governments throughout
>history, a certain amount of money set aside for arts. The money goes to
>artists who are, typically, part of some movement or school or genre. It's
>not like the government says they'll fund abstract expressionism but not,
>for instance, Dada.
SIGH.
Here's some recommended reading for ya:
***************************************************************************
Pollock and after : the critical debate / edited by Francis Frascina
Publ info
London ; New York : Routledge, 2000
Edition
2nd ed
Pt. 2
History: representation and misrepresentation - the case of abstract
expressionism: Revisionism in the 1970s and early 1980s
6 American Painting During the Cold War / Max Kozloff
7 Abstract Expressionism, Weapon of the Cold War / Eva Cockcroft
8 Art and Politics in Cold War America / Jane de Hart Mathews
9 Abstract Expressionism: The Politics of Apolitical Painting / David
Shapiro, Cecile Shapiro
10 The New Adventures of the Avant-Garde in America / Serge Guilbaut
11 Avant-Gardes and Partisans Reviewed / Fred Orton, Griselda Pollock
Pt. 3
Revisionism revisited
16 Abstract Expressionism: Other Politics / Ann Eden Gibson
(Read all of part 2, and chapter 16. I snipped out the chapters that
were not relevant)
****************
Gibson, Ann Eden, 1944-
Title
Abstract expressionism : other politics / Ann Eden Gibson
Publ info
New Haven [Conn.] : Yale University Press, c1997
3 Individualism, Universalism, and the Cold War
( I'm only suggesting chapter 3 from this book)
********
Craven, David, 1951-
Title
Abstract expressionism as cultural critique : dissent during the
McCarthy period / David Craven
Publ info
Cambridge, UK ; New York : Cambridge University Press, 1999
Ch. 1 The Various Legacies and Diverse Lineages of Abstract
Expressionism
Ch. 2 Abstract Expressionism and Left-Wing Discourse
Ch. 3 The FBI Files on the New York School
Ch. 4 Mythmaking in the McCarthy Period
Ch. 5 Automatism and the Age of Automation
Ch. 6 The Abstract Expressionist Critique of Technologism
App. A
Meyer Schapiro, "A Critique: Pevsner on Modernity" (1938)
App. B
Meyer Schapiro, "An Antiwar Speech at Columbia" (May 18, 1972)
App. C
Interviews with Meyer Schapiro and Lillian Milgram Schapiro (July 15,
1992-January 22, 1995)
(Oh just read all of this book)
>
>Art is an expression of culture. The urge to ossify the arts into
>comfortable, familiar objects and sounds is a step in the direction of
>strangling your own culture.
And you don't think conceptual art is ossified? Amazing.
It's even being phased out now - on the east coast they are going
back to figurative painting. In England, however......
>If you want to see some horrible art, take a
>look at the paintings that came out of the government approved art schools
>of the USSR under Lenin and the Chinese schools under Mao. Try to read any
>of the truly execrable Chinese plays or fiction written while the Red Guard
>was running things in China. Centralized control of cultural expression
>works about as well as the Soviets' attempt at centralized control of
>farming and transportation.
>
>I don't believe that's where we want to go, and I think the US government is
>stuctured just about right to prevent it happening. The government provides
>some amount money for cultural development and the arts, but sets up buffer
>organizations which make the aesthetic decisions. I like it this way. I
>don't want Dick Cheney choosing who gets to perform concerts outside my
>window in Central Park, or Dick Rumsfeld curating the next showing at The
>Corcoran.
>
>It's not like the government can divorce itself from arts entirely even if
>somebody thought that was a good idea. The government puts up buildings,
>roads, bridges, monuments, all sorts of public infrastructure, which need to
>be designed and decorated. The government makes aesthetic decisions all the
>time, and generally takes the right approach in letting experts in various
>fields design, and judge the designs of others, before moving forward with a
>project.
With no limits whatsoever? What if somebody wanted governemt funding
to do a performance piece - in which he shoots himself in the arm with
a gun? How many government $$ do you think that guy would get?
A friend of mine saw that in a museum in Chicago once.
>City governments make decisions about who can perform concerts in
>public parks, who will run the puppet theater concession for the weekend
>kiddie's program, what paintings and tapestries will hang in City Hall. The
>government shouldn't abdicate their decision-making role,
In what situations should the government exercise its decision-making
role, and and in which cases should it not?
>neither should it
>centralize those decision in the hands of people who don't know a paintbrush
>from a pot shard.
>
>Mistakes will be made, but I'd rather they were made in the direction of
>less constriction and less centralized control of culture.
how many $$ would you give to the guy who wants to shoot himself in
the arm?
Do you think that's art?
Tracy
Alan Brooks
Tracym writes:
> Here's some recommended reading for ya:
>
>
***************************************************************************
>
> Pollock and after : the critical debate / edited by Francis Frascina
<snipped, a dozen or so book references>
> 16 Abstract Expressionism: Other Politics / Ann Eden Gibson
<snipped a few more>
> (Oh just read all of this book)
Okay, I read them.
This is all very interesting, and a special case of the weird hand of
government in arts attempting to send a culturual message to an ouside
enemy. You forgot to bring up the references to how the CIA changed the
ending to "Animal Farm" for foreign distribution, which is a famous part of
the same governmental program, and is at least a little relevant to this
newsgroup.
But the government still didn't "create abstract expressionism". They
didn't meet with Jackson Pollock and explain to him the cultural message he
was to promote. They DID attempt to leverage art movements they felt
promoted "our" message by directing arts funding where they liked. They
also funded a disproportionately large number of black artists to travel and
perform abroad in an effort to promote a false image of the United States as
a tolerant and fully integrated society. But they didn't "create jazz".
The direct funding of targetted "movements" is exactly the sort of arts
funding that we don't need or want, and the overtness of it is peculiar to
the first couple decades of the Cold War, and to the wet dreams of those
today who want politicians to make aesthetic choices on a country-wide
basis.
> >Art is an expression of culture. The urge to ossify the arts into
> >comfortable, familiar objects and sounds is a step in the direction of
> >strangling your own culture.
>
> And you don't think conceptual art is ossified? Amazing.
> It's even being phased out now - on the east coast they are going
> back to figurative painting. In England, however......
I find your terms really weird. "It's being phased out"???? Who,
precisely, is phasing it out. Art movements and modes of expression, if
they have any authenticity, aren't like automobile styles or hemlines.
There isn't anybody to phase them out. They disappear when they lose their
ability to tell us something interesting about our culture and ourselves.
And they remain -- regardless of funding -- while they have something to
say.
I have to admit that amongst my visual artist friends, many more of them are
doing figurative art right now.
> What if somebody wanted governemt funding
> to do a performance piece - in which he shoots himself in the arm with
> a gun? How many government $$ do you think that guy would get?
No idea. I'd let somebody closer to that facet of the art scene decide.
This goes way beyond government funding and into our ability to distinguish
between authentic expression and fraud, and that's a tough decision for
anybody. I've been to shows at the Guggenheim in NYC, with my own little
circle of artists and art appreciaters, and we've been convinced that the
curator fell for a line of complete bullshit and that the "artist" on
display had nothing valid or of value to say. Is the head curator of the
Guggenheim an idiot? I don't think so, but I believe s/he is human and in
the end makes personal, aesthetic decisions like the rest of us. Does
maiming one's self consitute art? Not generally, and perhaps not ever, but
I'll watch the guy do it if he's that keen. Is "Piss Christ" art? My guess
would be the artist had something to say about religious iconigraphy and
filth. Just from the description I'd take a look at it; it sounds charged
and sincere. The only way to make aesthetic decisions is to develop your
own aesthetic sense. And can't do that if you're constantly restricting
your view to the margins of what you already enjoy.
Alan Brooks
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A Schmuck with an Underwood
-- For extra credit: "Compare and Contrast La Traviata and Puppetry of the
Penis"
AbbyNormal
> how many $$ would you give to the guy who wants to shoot himself in
> the arm?
As much as anyone else gets.
> Do you think that's art?
It doesn't matter what I think or what you think art is. Art exists not for you
and me but for the artist and for itself. "Art for art's sake." The whole
point is that art does not aim to please, even though it may.
Joe Myers
[snip]
> -- For extra credit: "Compare and Contrast La Traviata and Puppetry of
the
> Penis"
Only one of them has a role for a castrato?
Joe Myers
"The producer wants
some cuts in the script."
tra...@pipeline.com
<al...@sirius-software.com> wrote:
>
>Tracym writes:
>
>> Here's some recommended reading for ya:
>>
>>
>***************************************************************************
>>
>
>> Pollock and after : the critical debate / edited by Francis Frascina
>
><snipped, a dozen or so book references>
>
>> 16 Abstract Expressionism: Other Politics / Ann Eden Gibson
>
><snipped a few more>
>
>> (Oh just read all of this book)
>
>Okay, I read them.
ok
>
>This is all very interesting, and a special case of the weird hand of
>government in arts attempting to send a culturual message to an ouside
>enemy. You forgot to bring up the references to how the CIA changed the
>ending to "Animal Farm" for foreign distribution, which is a famous part of
>the same governmental program, and is at least a little relevant to this
>newsgroup.
>
>But the government still didn't "create abstract expressionism". They
>didn't meet with Jackson Pollock and explain to him the cultural message he
>was to promote.
When I said they "helped create" it, I meant they helped it along by
giving the artists $$, for the government's own purposes. I meant
they helped create it as a movement, not that they had a hand in
creating it as an art form. Of course they didn't create abstract
expressionism; they merely picked it up and used it as their tool.
>They DID attempt to leverage art movements they felt
>promoted "our" message by directing arts funding where they liked. They
>also funded a disproportionately large number of black artists to travel and
>perform abroad in an effort to promote a false image of the United States as
>a tolerant and fully integrated society. But they didn't "create jazz".
>The direct funding of targetted "movements" is exactly the sort of arts
>funding that we don't need or want, and the overtness of it is peculiar to
>the first couple decades of the Cold War, and to the wet dreams of those
>today who want politicians to make aesthetic choices on a country-wide
>basis.
Do you mean to say that you knew about it already, you pretended not
to, you pretended it wasn't so, then you proceeded to put me down and
tell me that I need to further educate myself? Foul !!!
>
>> >Art is an expression of culture. The urge to ossify the arts into
>> >comfortable, familiar objects and sounds is a step in the direction of
>> >strangling your own culture.
>>
>> And you don't think conceptual art is ossified? Amazing.
>> It's even being phased out now - on the east coast they are going
>> back to figurative painting. In England, however......
>
>I find your terms really weird. "It's being phased out"???? Who,
>precisely, is phasing it out.
Allright, bad choice of words. It's phasing itself out, it's dying of
its own accord, it's choking on its own wheezy, asthmatic lungs
because it doesn't continue to have enough meaning to be able
to draw a full breath on its own. Better?
> Art movements and modes of expression, if
>they have any authenticity, aren't like automobile styles or hemlines.
>There isn't anybody to phase them out. They disappear when they lose their
>ability to tell us something interesting about our culture and ourselves.
Exactly. And it will disappear.
>And they remain -- regardless of funding -- while they have something to
>say.
hmm.
>
>I have to admit that amongst my visual artist friends, many more of them are
>doing figurative art right now.
See?
>
>> What if somebody wanted governemt funding
>> to do a performance piece - in which he shoots himself in the arm with
>> a gun? How many government $$ do you think that guy would get?
>
>No idea. I'd let somebody closer to that facet of the art scene decide.
>This goes way beyond government funding and into our ability to distinguish
>between authentic expression and fraud, and that's a tough decision for
>anybody. I've been to shows at the Guggenheim in NYC, with my own little
>circle of artists and art appreciaters, and we've been convinced that the
>curator fell for a line of complete bullshit and that the "artist" on
>display had nothing valid or of value to say. Is the head curator of the
>Guggenheim an idiot? I don't think so, but I believe s/he is human and in
>the end makes personal, aesthetic decisions like the rest of us. Does
>maiming one's self consitute art? Not generally, and perhaps not ever, but
>I'll watch the guy do it if he's that keen. Is "Piss Christ" art? My guess
>would be the artist had something to say about religious iconigraphy and
>filth. Just from the description I'd take a look at it; it sounds charged
>and sincere.
I bet it took him 10 minuites to think of it. As for talent, well, I'd
look to see if the photograph was in focus. :)
>The only way to make aesthetic decisions is to develop your
>own aesthetic sense. And can't do that if you're constantly restricting
>your view to the margins of what you already enjoy.
Ah, but if I was doing that, how would I know as much about it as I
know? :)
Tracy
tra...@pipeline.com
<AbbyNo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>tra...@pipeline.com wrote:
>
>> how many $$ would you give to the guy who wants to shoot himself in
>> the arm?
>
>As much as anyone else gets.
>
>> Do you think that's art?
>
>It doesn't matter what I think or what you think art is.
It doesn't? Does calling it art automatically put the blinders
on our eyes?
>Art exists not for you
>and me but for the artist and for itself. "Art for art's sake." The whole
>point is that art does not aim to please, even though it may.
But how do we know the guy shooting himself in the arm actually is
art? Because somebody said so?
I guess probably the most extreme example would be the day
Duchamp went into a coffee house, saw somebody's bad painting
of a western landscape on the wall, and merely signed his name
right over the original artist's name. Less originality there than
even the urinal.
Tracy
tra...@pipeline.com
<AbbyNo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
However, I do agree that art should be done for its own sake, in
general. Nabokov, you know.
Tracy
Monique B
> >Nation of Islam was coming to my university to give a lecture, the event
was
> >cancelled by the campus Lefties. They wouldn't let him speak. Incidents
like
> >this happened at colleges across the country all the time. Instead of
> >letting the speaker show up and do their thing and *debating* him or her
on
> >the subjects at hand, they merely put a gag on him.
> > Colleges used to be a place where people explored and exchanged
ideas.
> >Not any more. And it's not the Right we have to blame for that. When Ray
> >Bradbury wrote "Fahrenheit 451" he predicted that the final death blow to
> >the 1st Amendment would come, not from the Right, but from the Left. How
> >correct he was.
You are right, college campuses aren't a place where ideas are exchanged
and explored. And the Right isn't to blame, neither is the Left. Welcome to
the great U.S.of A. and it's driving force: Capitalism. We don't go to
college or university to expand our minds. We go for a degree. We go so we
can eventually get a job that pays on *salary* or at least more than seven
bucks an hour. We go so that we'll be able to support ourselves and maybe
even a family. We go because, in this time and place, it is a requirement.
JamiDeise:
> And I have yet to meet many 20-year-olds with the maturity to support
> the right of people to say things that they disagree with, even if they
> considered themselves open-minded.
As it is often attributed to Voltaire, "I may not agree with what you have
to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
By the way, I am 22 and with all due respect, you ought to meet more 20 year
olds.
This world is an ever changing place and the sixties have come and gone.
Haight Ashbury is just a park and the hippies don't live there anymore.
Colleges aren't coffeeshops. The idea that any sort of "debate" could occur
with a guest speaker is generally laughable.
One speaker in a stadium with an audience of two or more thousands, perhaps
50 of which might be allowed one question each and no rebuttals.
I don't know if you are aware of the processes involved in hosting an event
with a guest speaker but, money does change hands. Even the not so liberal
Lefties have a right to have a say in where their money goes. I f the event
isn't going to be profitable, it isn't going to be.
tra...@pipeline.com
<skip...@SPAMHATERmac.com> wrote:
>In article
><785F284F0AAE4DC7.73F31EDB...@lp.airnews.net>,
>You know, I wanted to believe in that art for Art's sake, but I never
>could get anyone to give me a satisfactory answer about why Art was so
>cool and why we should do all that art for him. I think they were
>talking about Art Carney, but I'm still not sure.
heh. You might have a point. :) For me, it just means not using
art as a soap box for preaching.
Tracy
AbbyNormal
>
> On Tue, 04 Jun 2002 14:23:47 -0500, AbbyNormal
> <AbbyNo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >tra...@pipeline.com wrote:
> >
> >> how many $$ would you give to the guy who wants to shoot himself in
> >> the arm?
> >
> >As much as anyone else gets.
> >
> >> Do you think that's art?
> >
> >It doesn't matter what I think or what you think art is.
>
> It doesn't? Does calling it art automatically put the blinders
> on our eyes?
No, just the opposite.
>
> >Art exists not for you
> >and me but for the artist and for itself. "Art for art's sake." The whole
> >point is that art does not aim to please, even though it may.
>
> But how do we know the guy shooting himself in the arm actually is
> art? Because somebody said so?
Yes. How do you know it's not? Just because you say so?
> I guess probably the most extreme example would be the day
> Duchamp went into a coffee house, saw somebody's bad painting
> of a western landscape on the wall, and merely signed his name
> right over the original artist's name. Less originality there than
> even the urinal.
In your opinion. Maybe he had purpose behind that. Maybe he was saying
something by doing that. Do you know? No.
AbbyNormal
>
> In article <adj3h6$bra$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
> "Alan Brooks" <al...@sirius-software.com> wrote:
>
> >Is "Piss Christ" art? My guess
> >would be the artist had something to say about religious iconigraphy and
> >filth. Just from the description I'd take a look at it; it sounds charged
> >own aesthetic sense. And can't do that if you're constantly restricting
> >your view to the margins of what you already enjoy.
>
> picture, would it be art?
Why not? Art can be anything the artist deems possible. Doesn't matter whether
anyone else ever gets the point or if anyone else ever likes the point.
Trying to define art is like trying to define beauty; it's all subjective to the
individual. Hence, as such, who should be the one(s) to determine what art is
when it comes to funding? No one, because there can be no true answer.
tra...@pipeline.com
<AbbyNo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>tra...@pipeline.com wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 04 Jun 2002 14:23:47 -0500, AbbyNormal
>> <AbbyNo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >tra...@pipeline.com wrote:
>> >
>> >> how many $$ would you give to the guy who wants to shoot himself in
>> >> the arm?
>> >
>> >As much as anyone else gets.
>> >
>> >> Do you think that's art?
>> >
>> >It doesn't matter what I think or what you think art is.
>>
>> It doesn't? Does calling it art automatically put the blinders
>> on our eyes?
>
>No, just the opposite.
Then you are contradicting yourself.
>
>>
>> >Art exists not for you
>> >and me but for the artist and for itself. "Art for art's sake." The whole
>> >point is that art does not aim to please, even though it may.
>>
>> But how do we know the guy shooting himself in the arm actually is
>> art? Because somebody said so?
>
>Yes.
I see. Ok, my 1983 Lincoln continental with the windows that
don't roll up is art, and I think I should get a $million for it.
What does it mean? Well, I'll put some bird dung on it.
Now it has meaning.
I think I should get $2 million for my cow dung earthwork.
>How do you know it's not? Just because you say so?
For me, it's not. If the majority of people think it's not art,
even if only one person does think it is art, and however
many billion people on the planet think it is not art,
does that still make it art? The problem is, you can find
one person out of all the people on the planet who will
believe ANYTHING.
>
>> I guess probably the most extreme example would be the day
>> Duchamp went into a coffee house, saw somebody's bad painting
>> of a western landscape on the wall, and merely signed his name
>> right over the original artist's name. Less originality there than
>> even the urinal.
>
>In your opinion. Maybe he had purpose behind that. Maybe he was saying
>something by doing that. Do you know? No.
If we are not sure whether or not he was "saying something," then how
cn we be sure his action has any vlaue???? Why is "saying something"
enough, by itself?
Tracy
AbbyNormal
No, the dung does not give it meaning in and of itself. The car alone could
have meaning deoending on what the viewer gets out of it. To me, a '66 Mustang
is a work of art.
>
> I think I should get $2 million for my cow dung earthwork.
>
> >How do you know it's not? Just because you say so?
>
> For me, it's not.
That's fine but that opinion does not define art for everyone. All you're
saying is that you don't like it nor respect it. But whether or not it is art
is not dependant upon that opinion.
> If the majority of people think it's not art,
> even if only one person does think it is art, and however
> many billion people on the planet think it is not art,
> does that still make it art? The problem is, you can find
> one person out of all the people on the planet who will
> believe ANYTHING.
Majority opinion is not a measure of art.
Beethoven's 5th Symphony was panned as a cacaphonous mess at its premiere by the
audience and critics alike.
> >> I guess probably the most extreme example would be the day
> >> Duchamp went into a coffee house, saw somebody's bad painting
> >> of a western landscape on the wall, and merely signed his name
> >> right over the original artist's name. Less originality there than
> >> even the urinal.
> >
> >In your opinion. Maybe he had purpose behind that. Maybe he was saying
> >something by doing that. Do you know? No.
>
> If we are not sure whether or not he was "saying something," then how
> cn we be sure his action has any vlaue???? Why is "saying something"
> enough, by itself?
Because that is the broad definition of art and no one can say whether his
actions have meaning or not since this experience is different for each person.
Actually, knowing Duchamp to be an artist who borrows and synthesizes the work
of others into new works, I would say this action was the ultimate extreme
example of his style.
The same with John Cage's composition, 4'33". The ultimate extreme expression
of aleotoric music. The envelope pushed to its seams. Do I like it? Not
really. I don't exactly "listen" to the piece... ever. But I do recognize it
as an important statement about music and as a unique piece of thinking. Art.
AbbyNormal
>
> In article
> just for you. I hope you find them subjectively beautiful.
All depends who they belong to ;-)
tra...@pipeline.com
<AbbyNo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>No, the dung does not give it meaning in and of itself.
Well, I say it *does* have meaning. It stands for, uh,
poverty....yeah that's it. If I say it's art, how do you know it isn't
art?
I bet you I'm the first person to ever think of putting bird dung
on my car and calling it art. Since nobody else ever thought of it.
I have to say I'm original. It's art.
The bird dung did not get thereby itself. I put it there myself,
by holding the bird over the car until it does its thing. Heck there
might even be a pattern there. Yeah, I can see it.
So, Since it's more than a natural occurance, it's art.
> The car alone could
>have meaning deoending on what the viewer gets out of it. To me, a '66 Mustang
>is a work of art.
hmm.
>
>>
>> I think I should get $2 million for my cow dung earthwork.
>>
>> >How do you know it's not? Just because you say so?
>>
>> For me, it's not.
>
>That's fine but that opinion does not define art for everyone. All you're
>saying is that you don't like it nor respect it. But whether or not it is art
>is not dependant upon that opinion.
What does it depend upon? :)
>> If the majority of people think it's not art,
>> even if only one person does think it is art, and however
>> many billion people on the planet think it is not art,
>> does that still make it art? The problem is, you can find
>> one person out of all the people on the planet who will
>> believe ANYTHING.
>
>Majority opinion is not a measure of art.
What is a measure of art?
>
>Beethoven's 5th Symphony was panned as a cacaphonous mess at its premiere by the
>audience and critics alike.
>
>> >> I guess probably the most extreme example would be the day
>> >> Duchamp went into a coffee house, saw somebody's bad painting
>> >> of a western landscape on the wall, and merely signed his name
>> >> right over the original artist's name. Less originality there than
>> >> even the urinal.
>> >
>> >In your opinion. Maybe he had purpose behind that. Maybe he was saying
>> >something by doing that. Do you know? No.
>>
>> If we are not sure whether or not he was "saying something," then how
>> cn we be sure his action has any vlaue???? Why is "saying something"
>> enough, by itself?
>
>Because that is the broad definition of art and no one can say whether his
>actions have meaning or not since this experience is different for each person.
Then how can anybody sell it to anyone else, if there is no way to
know if the meaning has any value? We sure can't throw artistic
techinique into the bargain. If I don't know for sure if anything I
might buy has any value, why should I spend the $$?
Unless you are saying that each person must decide for himself. Which
I do.
>
>Actually, knowing Duchamp to be an artist who borrows and synthesizes the work
>of others into new works, I would say this action was the ultimate extreme
>example of his style.
yeah, and...
>
>The same with John Cage's composition, 4'33". The ultimate extreme expression
>of aleotoric music. The envelope pushed to its seams. Do I like it? Not
>really. I don't exactly "listen" to the piece... ever. But I do recognize it
>as an important statement about music and as a unique piece of thinking. Art.
Ok, so it is "statement" and "unique thinking" that define art. I
got that. I'm the first person to ever think of putting bird dung
on my car and calling it art. I'm making a statement about poverty.
There. Art.
Tracy
David E. Powell
news:20020602230131...@mb-fo.aol.com...
> Brian writes:
>
> > The problem with most Liberals, the Hollywood kind included, is that
> >they talk a lot about diversity and tolerance but they have little or no
> >tolerance for *political* diversity.
> > I've had long, thoughtful, polite conversations with Young
Republicans,
> >Social Darwinists, Satanists and even Neo-Nazis. I make no secret of the
> >fact that I vehemently disagree completely with their political beliefs,
but
> >that doesn't mean I don't respect their right to have and express those
> >beliefs.<<
>
> You just described the mission statement of the ACLU, which, last time I
> checked, wasn't exactly a bastion of Republicanism.
>
> Liberals -- taken from the word "liberty", BTW -- generally have a lot of
> tolerance for the opinions of others. It's when those opinions include
killing,
> raping and otherwise suppressing a group of people based on race, sex,
> religion, etc., that those opinions become less tolerable.
Sounds like the Chinese Communists in Tibet or the Soviets in Eastern Europe
after WW2 could be put into that category - they weren't really right wing
in ideology. Not to mention Pol Pot. Or Nicolai Ceaucescu.
The "mainstream" Republican and Democrat parties in the good ol' USA are
nowhere near the extreme Communist and Fascist regimes seen in our (worse)
pages of history. As political forces go more to the right or the left, they
reach a point where they become the same, in that they crush individual
liberties and become monstrous.
BTW - Many "Conservative" ideals in the USA have their basis in Classical
Liberalism, the philosophy that led to the Awakening in Europe and England.
John Locke and Adam Smith, etc.
"Liberals and Conservatives" in the US - at least in the centralist ranks,
have much less in common with Nazis or Stalinists than Nazis or Stalinists
have with each other across history. Look at Mussolini, Hitler, Mao, Stalin,
Pol Pot etc.etc.
In the US, you'll have people arguing over whether Joe Sixpack should
register his shotgun or how much tax he should pay on beer, but you
generally won't see people setting up labor camps or killing groups to
exterminate citizens. Thanks to the Bill of Rights and the differnence
between US Rightists/Leftists and the fare extremes of history, that will
hopefully remain the case.
(Come on, I get sick of people saying Rush Limbaugh wants to kill all these
people. If Rush or Tom Daschle were president tomorrow, none of the
conspiracy theories people rant about would happen. Neither one is that far
to the extreme - not by a long shot - and the US people wouldn't stand for
it if they tried.)
As for if Hollywood makes a picture written by a more right-leaning writer
or director, so what? How much in Hollywood is written or oriented by or for
left leaning folks? ("The American President," anyone? "The Chins Syndrome?"
How about "Fire Down Below," "On Deadly Ground," or "Silkwood?") Surely with
all that material out there, someone that did not like right leaning
political thought would believe their ideas strong enough to stand one movie
or book with an opposing leaning - or should Hollywood be weeding films for
"political reliability?" If a viewpoint is so weak it can not withstand a
single film made by one with a differing viewpoint, it is already lost
anyway.
Not to mention that the art of filmmaking is a business - if people will
watch it, it will get made because that is where the cash is. Why is the
PG-13 movie market so huge right now? Because they make money with those
things. If a book by Oliver North or Barney Frank will make a movie people
will see, it makes business sense for Hollywood producers, etc. to make it
happen. No matter what the politics of the writer/director.
Damn, Oliver Stone and John Milius wrote a CLASSIC in Conan the Barbarian
that made tons of money and helped Arnold S. get famous, and they have
differing personal politics. (Yeah, it was panned at the time, but people
remember it and still watch it.) I don't think their politics hurt their
collaboration, and the film has a powerful theme of individuality and
liberation which is dear to the work of both men.
On top of that, Starship Troopers was basically a parody of the book -
alt.fan.heinlein is full of bibliophiles that will be all too ready to point
that out.
End of rant.
DEP
> Jami
David E. Powell
news:Xns9221E71BCE21Bj...@216.187.106.195...
> "Brian Christgau" <ra...@NOFRIGINSPAMpipeline.com> wrote in
> news:adefcs$mrm$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net:
>
> > The problem with a film like "Starship Troopers" is that it was
> > should
> > have been directed by someone like John Milius (who in my
> > not-so-humble opinion is a Fascist) because it's a novel with a very
> > Right Wing point of view. But, instead, the job was given to Neumier
> > and Verhoeven, guys who obviously didn't agree with the politics of
> > the novel and made fun of its Right Wing philosophy. Which is why they
> > ended up with a shitty movie.
>
> I'm not sure that's quite it. I liked "Starship Troopers" because
> I got the satirical aspect of it (although I didn't think they nearly
> took it far enough), plus there's DENISE RICHARDS (*drool*).
DEINITELY. The Niel Patrick Harris character made the movie, too. It was a
total parody, and the bugs could be seen in some ways as the good guys. Very
cool, almost like seeing something from a villain's propaganda POV.
> But most people seemed to miss that the movie was satirizing
> fascist military society. Probably the same people who didn't like
> "Falling Down" because they couldn't tell who the "good guy" and the
> "bad guy" were, because Michael Douglas overshadowed Robert Duvall so
> much.
Some people also get confused when a bad guy becomes good or a good guy bad
over the course of a film....
> And let's not forget "Contact", which sorely dashed people's hopes
> of seeing tentacled green martians. I happen to like the movie very much
> every time I see it, in spite of its somewhat anti-climatic ending, if
> only for the intelligent dialogue on spiritualism, science and politics.
A very intelligent movie, IMO. Very underrated.
> jaybee
JamiDeise
>>As for voting, I am an Independent and hence, never vote for one "camp" or
the
other strictly due to some sense of agendized "purpose." Since I come down in
favor of many things on both the left and the right, I simply vote for the best
person, a person who will not exclusively play the party line, one who thinks
in
the middle of the spectrum more often than on its edges, and one who has the
integrity to stand up for what s/he believes.<<
I'm not advocating blind adherence to one party or the other. But simply voting
for the best person, regardless of political label, ignores the fact that there
are 99 other senators and 434 other reps that this "best person" is working
with. And if 51 of these Senators are Dems (barring any complicated addition of
independents, which we won't go into here), the Senate is Democratic. If 218
House members are Republican, the House is Republican. That means the majority
party gets the chair of every single committee and subcommittee in the chamber,
even if their majority is only one person. And the committees get about 1/3rd
more staff in the majority than in the minority. (so if the Senate is
Democratic, the Senate Armed Services Committee would have 21 Democratic
staffers and 14 Republicans, approx.)
The chair decides which bills get a vote, and which bills get killed. (though
the minority has more options in the Senate.) The chair can insert his own
language into a bill his committee is going to vote on.
One person can make the difference between whose agenda goes forward, and whose
agenda stalls at the gate, as far as giving his party the majority. But one
person alone can't do much else in Congress.
My representative is a very nice woman. A Republican with a liberal voting
record, who holds a seat in a Democratic majority district. But she doesn't
have a lot of allies in Congress. The Republicans don't like her for not voting
with them, and the Dems see her as another person keeping them in the minority.
(I voted for her last election, anyway. I knew she'd win, and her opponent was
a millionaire lobbyist for pharmaceutical manufacturers. I thought of the two,
she was the better Democrat.)
Can anyone remember which politician said, "The only thing you'll find in the
middle of the road is a dead skunk?"
BTW, Skip, I was referring to Nixon's lies about our involvement in Vietnam,
which I think were worse than lies about breaking into the DNC. I don't *think*
he was wearing a dress ... but if you want to send me JPEGs of Nixon and a
dress, I could probably use Photoshop to put them together ...
Jami
Alan Brooks
>
> "Alan Brooks" wrote:
>
> >Is "Piss Christ" art? My guess
> >would be the artist had something to say about religious iconigraphy and
> >filth. Just from the description I'd take a look at it; it sounds
charged
> >and sincere. The only way to make aesthetic decisions is to develop your
> >own aesthetic sense. And can't do that if you're constantly restricting
> >your view to the margins of what you already enjoy.
>
> picture, would it be art?
As a Fatter guy than me once said, if you gotta ask the question you ain't
never gonna understand the answer. Mostly it depends on what you mean by
it. I'd guess you don't mean a damn thing, so I'd say no.
Painting, writing, making music... it's all got the same driving force
behind it. You get people with a technical talent and no heart and you get
people with no talent at all but all the heart in the world. In this cruel
world, the first lot will sometimes do very well, but the second lot will
almost always fail commercially, so what you see succeeding is only the
sincere, talented and lucky, and those with technical skill and the cynicism
to pretend they've got some feeling.
So I dunno; piss in my soup with feeling and maybe I'll call it art.
Alan Brooks
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A Schmuck with an Underwood
-- Then I'll see if your cat will drink it.
Brian Christgau
Jacques E. Bouchard <jacques_...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9221E71BCE21Bj...@216.187.106.195...
> "Brian Christgau" <ra...@NOFRIGINSPAMpipeline.com> wrote in
> news:adefcs$mrm$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net:
>
> > The problem with a film like "Starship Troopers" is that it was
> > should
> > have been directed by someone like John Milius (who in my
> > not-so-humble opinion is a Fascist) because it's a novel with a very
> > Right Wing point of view. But, instead, the job was given to Neumier
> > and Verhoeven, guys who obviously didn't agree with the politics of
> > the novel and made fun of its Right Wing philosophy. Which is why they
> > ended up with a shitty movie.
>
> fascist military society.
I certainly didn't. If you're going to make a *satire* of "Starship
Troopers" then you should change the title to something like "Starship
Poopers". I disagree with the Right Wing philosophy of the novel but I found
it quite fascinating and was hoping that the film would be an honest
adaptation. I had high hopes when I heard that it was being made by the
"Robocop" team, but Verhoeven's satirical direction and the "Beverly Hills
90210" stuff in Neumier's script were just plain lame.
Just because I disagree with Ring Wing ideaology doesn't mean I don't
like to see it explored in novels and films. I'm not sure if a film
adaptation of "Stranger in a Strange Land" (Hienlein's novel following
"Troopers", which has a profoundly LEFT Wing philosophy) ever gets
greenlighted, but if it does I hope it's made by people who can "grok" its
hippie weltaaunshaung.
Cheers,
B
tra...@pipeline.com
<al...@sirius-software.com> wrote:
>Skip Press writes:
>>
>> "Alan Brooks" wrote:
>>
>> >Is "Piss Christ" art? My guess
>> >would be the artist had something to say about religious iconigraphy and
>> >filth. Just from the description I'd take a look at it; it sounds
>charged
>> >and sincere. The only way to make aesthetic decisions is to develop your
>> >own aesthetic sense. And can't do that if you're constantly restricting
>> >your view to the margins of what you already enjoy.
>>
>> Alan, if I pissed in your soup and then put a crucifix in it and took a
>> picture, would it be art?
>
>As a Fatter guy than me once said, if you gotta ask the question you ain't
>never gonna understand the answer. Mostly it depends on what you mean by
>it. I'd guess you don't mean a damn thing, so I'd say no.
>
>Painting, writing, making music... it's all got the same driving force
>behind it. You get people with a technical talent and no heart and you get
>people with no talent at all but all the heart in the world. In this cruel
>world, the first lot will sometimes do very well, but the second lot will
>almost always fail commercially, so what you see succeeding is only the
>sincere, talented and lucky, and those with technical skill and the cynicism
>to pretend they've got some feeling.
Best of all would be to have the people with the technical skill
*and* the heart becoming succesful.
There's one problem with your scenario:
In conceptual or highly abstract art, they have taken technical talent
out of it.
music and writing still have it. I've heard it said that it's
because when it comes to music and writing, people have to spend
more than 10 seconds with the result.
>
>So I dunno; piss in my soup with feeling and maybe I'll call it art.
let's put the bowl of soup on top of my hoop-di Lincoln Continental.
Tracy
Joe Myers
[snips]
> ... pissing on a crucifix might mean a
> great deal to the artist, but where's the craft?
I heard an interesting take on this question on a recent NPR broadcast.
I don't remember specific names, but the story was about a museum trying to
collect the works of one of the original "installation" artists. (I'm not
sure if this was the first guy to install a urinal in a gallery, but he did
that *kind* of stuff.)
As art historians collected the works they discovered that, despite the
artist's claims that his installations were "found" art, he had actually
created them. There was no manufactured rake, for example, that precisely
matched the "found" rake he'd hung on a wall in a gallery (to much critical
derision); he had actually hand-crafted the rake to resemble a manufactured
item. Same with other pieces. Like it wasn't a manufactured urinal, but a
unique original piece of porcelain that so closely mimicked the real thing,
everyone had been fooled.
Part of the art was his craft...and his deception that his works were
ordinary things he picked up in a junk yard and planted in a museum. A joke
that persisted long after his death.
And not dissimilar to the guy in LA who recently replaced a freeway sign
(with better information than the original CalTran sign) with one he created
in his studio.
Finally, no one in the NEA or NEH commissioned a work called "Piss Christ."
The artist was awarded a stipend for whatever reason, most likely for
previous work, and in the course of that stipend he came out with the photo
in question. Did he do it to create a ruckus? Probably. To offend?
Maybe. Is it an actual photograph of a crucifix in a beaker of urine? Who
knows? Would it be as offensive to certain parties if it were simply water
colored yellow? I'd bet on it, simply because of the idea conveyed in the
title.
Which brings us to the suppression of unpopular ideas. Which comes close to
censorship.
When did "Piss Christ" first make headlines? Five, six years ago? And it
still riles up people? That's pretty powerful for a photograph, whether or
not it's "art" that personally appeals to you.
Joe Myers
"I want a black velvet painting of Elvis,
in a matador suit, bullfighting a tiger."