Now THIS is, um ... Art? ???
KMadeleine
<Xns909C83990...@136.182.15.25>:
>
> <http://www.gekkografx.com/monument.jpg>
> If the bronze block == "unite"
> and if the curvey thing is an ear == "listen"
> and the satellite dish thing == "transmit"
> and the bird is probably == "open"
> then the person would be == "empower".
>
> Whaddaya'll think?
i don't think of the satellite dish thing as a satellite dish. maybe
it's a phonograph, which could be either listen or transmit? no idea
on the ear thing, but under this theory, it could be transmit if the
other is listen.
but is it art? <g>
Graham Strong
>
><http://www.gekkografx.com/monument.jpg>
>
> "Commissioned a few years ago, "OPEN" visually suggests "One
> <company name>" and symbolizes five equal parts that define
> <company name> -- our ability to listen, transmit, unite,
> empower, and open. Pictured [in the link above], "OPEN" is a
> bronze sculpture standing 15 ft. tall by sculptor Saint Clair
> Cemen."
>
>So. Take a look at it, please. I'm a tryin' to figger it out. So're
>a buncha people at the company.
>
>You'll note that there are 4 openings, not 5. We've already discerned
>that the fifth "part" that was noted in the blurb above is the
>"unifying" bronze body of the sculpture itself. A solid, imposing
>representation of "One <company name>".
>
>There's a human-type-shape. What appears to be either a satellite
>dish or possibly a communion grail. A bird shape (dove-like, innit),
>and a curvey thing ... what, an ear? A rainbow?
>
>If the bronze block == "unite"
>and if the curvey thing is an ear == "listen"
>and the satellite dish thing == "transmit"
>and the bird is probably == "open"
>then the person would be == "empower".
>
>Whaddaya'll think?
>
>--
I think you are getting too literal. I don't think each "hole" and the
bronze surrounding them are supposed to singularly represent each
aspect. I think that the statue *as a whole* embodies the message of
unite, listen, transmit, open and empower. The bird, for example,
could be transmit *and* empower (not *or*). The dish thing could be
listen and transmit (it seems to be releasing the bird) and open (to
release the bird) etc. etc.
~Graham
>gekko
>
>If you ever drop your keys into a river of molten lava, let'em go,
>because, man, they're gone.
=============================================================
This post is freeware, though donations are always accepted.
If you liked this post, please e-mail me $5 (any currency).
Cash only, no cheques. Thank you.
=============================================================
Jenna C. Thomas-McKie
<snip>
> If the bronze block == "unite"
> and if the curvey thing is an ear == "listen"
> and the satellite dish thing == "transmit"
> and the bird is probably == "open"
> then the person would be == "empower".
> Whaddaya'll think?
the bronze block == "unite"
the curvey thing is actually a door handle == "open"
the satellite dish thingie (or is it a shuttlecock?) == "transmit"
the bird is a dove == "unite"
and the person == "listen" (and is it just me, or is this supposed to
be a female figure?)
or
the bronze block == "open" (because it has all the openings, see?)
the curvey thing is a staple, or a sideways comma == "unite"
the satellite dish thingie (or is it an ear trumpet?) == "listen"
the bird is a carrier pigeon == "transmit"
and the person == "empower"
Is it art? I think so. It certainly seems to be a "[h]uman effort to
imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature." It also
seems to be the "product of [a conscious arrangement of ... forms ... in
a way that affects the aesthetic sense]." So it matches two definitions
of the word, by my reckoning.
--
Jenna Thomas-McKie
jth...@aug.edu
"We can think. We can reason. We can be better than we are."
- C. Eric Lincoln
Paul Martin
> So. Take a look at it, please. I'm a tryin' to figger it out. So're
> a buncha people at the company.
>
> Whaddaya'll think?
I think it's an excellent piece of corporate art. It represents the
business world perfectly. It says, "We have no idea what it is or what it
does or what it's supposed to be, but we were told that it has value so we
invested in it."
Just right for our Dot Com society.
Paul
Hippolyte Lizard
>
>if you look at cemin's bronze work only, you'll find "Homage
>to Darwin", followed by "untitled". "Untitled" looks
>a bit like "Homage" ... except less finished. i'm wondering
>if "Untitled" was a boo-boo that Cemin decided to sell
>anyway. in fact, i'm sure it is. now i'm angry. here's
>this so-called *arteest*, selling us his mistakes, calling
>them "art" just to make a buck. putting one over on us,
>he is! i refuse to accept that piece as art, and nothing
>you can say will make me think of it as art.
It is a beautifully sensitive rendition of a sleepy sea lion who has left
her reading book in the car and is gingerly walking barefoot over the sharp
little rocks in the driveway to retrieve it. I also see a slight rhythm to
her walk, inspired by the salsa she can hear from the house next door. It's
a happy scene, replete with pleasantry, and is truly art of the highest
calibre.
Or, it's a melting starfish.
HL
Paul heslop
>
> <http://www.gekkografx.com/monument.jpg>
>
> "Commissioned a few years ago, "OPEN" visually suggests "One
> <company name>" and symbolizes five equal parts that define
> <company name> -- our ability to listen, transmit, unite,
> empower, and open. Pictured [in the link above], "OPEN" is a
> bronze sculpture standing 15 ft. tall by sculptor Saint Clair
> Cemen."
>
> a buncha people at the company.
>
> that the fifth "part" that was noted in the blurb above is the
> "unifying" bronze body of the sculpture itself. A solid, imposing
> representation of "One <company name>".
>
> There's a human-type-shape. What appears to be either a satellite
> dish or possibly a communion grail. A bird shape (dove-like, innit),
> and a curvey thing ... what, an ear? A rainbow?
>
> and if the curvey thing is an ear == "listen"
> and the satellite dish thing == "transmit"
> and the bird is probably == "open"
> then the person would be == "empower".
>
>
I think anyone with half a brain could make this stuff, but that doesn't
mean it's not art...I just wouldn't want it near my home.....I'll have
to find a pic of the crane sculpture someone paid a lot of money for
here, some girders welded together and painted, but at least the top bit
moves in the breeze!
--
Paul
--------------------------------------------------------------
"My heart is broke, but I have some glue"
--------------------------------------------------------------
"Never judge a work of art by it's defects..." W.A.
http://dreamst8.homestead.com/index.html
---------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Elyard
Gekko:
> Whaddaya'll think?
Me:
It looks like a giant booger-project. Cool.
--
.oO=----------------------------------------------------=Oo.
| Comic: http://209.168.8.90/oscar/ |
| Life (in progress): http://209.168.8.90/ |
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'
Hippolyte Lizard
>
>I think anyone with half a brain could make this stuff, but that doesn't
>mean it's not art...I just wouldn't want it near my home.....I'll have
>to find a pic of the crane sculpture someone paid a lot of money for
>here, some girders welded together and painted, but at least the top bit
>moves in the breeze!
This cheap imitation of a broken ship's anchor rusts peacefully in the town
of my birth and is inexplicably held in reasonable regard by the art world
cognicenti.
http://www.bluffton.edu/~sullivanm/calderberk/calder2.jpg
Like all art, it is art if a single person thinks so. (Artist included.)
I rather liked gekko's example. I also rather like that my company doesn't
go for that sort of thing, though it could well afford it.
HL
Wendy Chatley Green
<paul....@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:
:>
:I think anyone with half a brain could make this stuff, but that doesn't
:mean it's not art...I just wouldn't want it near my home.....I'll have
:to find a pic of the crane sculpture someone paid a lot of money for
:here, some girders welded together and painted, but at least the top bit
:moves in the breeze!
In Basel Switzerland, Kunst (Art) is everywhere: medieval
statuary fountains, memorial bronzes on plinths, religious
bas relief, wonderful kinetic contraptions, and, by a major
intersection, a camping caravan filled with mortared
bricks. The Net Ghod and I spent hours roaming the city,
counting coup on the various art works by pointing and
saying "Kunst!". Being Americans, the locals allowed us our
eccentricities.
One evening, we stood on a bridge over a stream in a rustic
park. Sunk in the mud of the stream below us was a
algae-covered ten-speed bicycle, apparently thrown there by
some thieves who had tired of their plunder.
The Net Ghod pointed. "Kunst!"
For all I know, he may have been right.
--
Wendy Chatley Green
wcg...@cris.com
Paul heslop
He is! We have water art too...only it's real. It consists of some stone
taken from the sea. has some words scrawled on it badly and is then sunk
into the bed of a local stream...but it is actually quite good as the
words are thoughtful, something about if the River Tyne could talk. I
rather fancy running round up here shouting "Kunst" only I'd get beaten
up. They did a thing, Art For the People, where they actually loaned
common people real works of art to live with for a while. It was pretty
cool seeing the kind of people who can't tell the difference between a
newspaper and a book getting to love art by living with it, and even the
real modern stuff took off, except for conceptual which is always in the
eye of the beholder. I like the bike idea, but here it would be a
shopping trolley or baby Buggy.
Mike Stroud
that is how it is, each part symbolizing a specific concept I would say,
no, it is not art but just a logo.
Without considering the suggested words and trying to interpret it as art
I see it thus(which I realize wasn't the way the assignment was supposed
to be done, but homework help is verbotten anyway, right?): There seems
to be a person in the middle being pulled into an uncomfortable shape by
the cut out figures around it. In fact, pushed about by these figures.
To its right, coming out of its hip, or rib perhaps, is a womanly figure,
a woman on a pedestal sort of image - I take this to be a idealized
beauty. Below it is a scythe representing death, threatening at any
moment to pull the figure back down into the earth. Above it, coming out
of its head, is a bird, possible a dove, this seems to represent thought
ascending up to the heavens. The shape to the left is the most
difficult. I am most satisfied thinking this is a sort of flower
representing natural beauty. The man (not sure why I'm convinced now it
is a man) is placed with death dragging it down, ephemeral thought
pulling it up, it stands between idealized human beauty and natural
beauty (the flower). No wonder it is so uncomfortable in its posture.
I take it then to be some sort of comment on the human experience.
If someone were to come up to me and say, 'no its actually a corporate
piece symbolizing its ability to listen, transmit, unite, empower, and
open,' I would probably want to see that in writing from the artist.
Mike
gekko wrote:
> <http://www.gekkografx.com/monument.jpg>
>
> "Commissioned a few years ago, "OPEN" visually suggests "One
> <company name>" and symbolizes five equal parts that define
> <company name> -- our ability to listen, transmit, unite,
> empower, and open. Pictured [in the link above], "OPEN" is a
> bronze sculpture standing 15 ft. tall by sculptor Saint Clair
> Cemen."
>
> So. Take a look at it, please. I'm a tryin' to figger it out. So're
> a buncha people at the company.
>
> You'll note that there are 4 openings, not 5. We've already discerned
> that the fifth "part" that was noted in the blurb above is the
> "unifying" bronze body of the sculpture itself. A solid, imposing
> representation of "One <company name>".
>
> There's a human-type-shape. What appears to be either a satellite
> dish or possibly a communion grail. A bird shape (dove-like, innit),
> and a curvey thing ... what, an ear? A rainbow?
>
> If the bronze block == "unite"
> and if the curvey thing is an ear == "listen"
> and the satellite dish thing == "transmit"
> and the bird is probably == "open"
> then the person would be == "empower".
>
> Whaddaya'll think?
>
> --
Hugh Watkins
>This cheap imitation of a broken ship's anchor rusts peacefully in the
>town
>of my birth and is inexplicably held in reasonable regard by the art world
>cognicenti.
>
>http://www.bluffton.edu/~sullivanm/calderberk/calder2.jpg
CALDER
wow he could make great stuff
I love to sneakily blow on his mobiles in the no touch museums
USA should be proud of genius
http://www.calder.org/SETS/home.html
Hugh W
Bill Funke
>
><http://www.gekkografx.com/monument.jpg>
>
> "Commissioned a few years ago, "OPEN" visually suggests "One
> <company name>" and symbolizes five equal parts that define
> <company name> -- our ability to listen, transmit, unite,
> empower, and open. Pictured [in the link above], "OPEN" is a
> bronze sculpture standing 15 ft. tall by sculptor Saint Clair
> Cemen."
>
>So. Take a look at it, please. I'm a tryin' to figger it out. So're
>a buncha people at the company.
>
>You'll note that there are 4 openings, not 5. We've already discerned
>that the fifth "part" that was noted in the blurb above is the
>"unifying" bronze body of the sculpture itself. A solid, imposing
>representation of "One <company name>".
>
>There's a human-type-shape. What appears to be either a satellite
>dish or possibly a communion grail. A bird shape (dove-like, innit),
>and a curvey thing ... what, an ear? A rainbow?
>
>If the bronze block == "unite"
>and if the curvey thing is an ear == "listen"
>and the satellite dish thing == "transmit"
>and the bird is probably == "open"
>then the person would be == "empower".
>
>Whaddaya'll think?
Actually, I kind of like it, but I suspect the the artist may be
pulling a leg or two.
While he may have told the corporate art buyer all that good stuff
about communication and all, he may have meant the dove of peace will
prevail over the struggle for empowerment against the grail of
consumption and technology.
Artists have interesting senses of humor.
In NYC, something called "Tilted Arc" was installed in the plaza of
the Federal office building. Even the critics and curators hated it.
When I walked next to it, I felt like I was walking next to a ship's
hull. A very large ship.
The thing was a huge lopsided, curved wall and most people went way
out of their ways to avoid it. It's the first piece of public art
that I'm aware of that was removed, not for its message, but because
people were literally frightened of the thing.
Even the graffiti artists avoided it.
Bill
-------------------
"Da Joisey Page" (A Work in Progress)
http://wfnk.home.mindspring.com
Alma Hromic Deckert
wrote:
>In NYC, something called "Tilted Arc" was installed in the plaza of
>the Federal office building. Even the critics and curators hated it.
>When I walked next to it, I felt like I was walking next to a ship's
>hull. A very large ship.
>
>The thing was a huge lopsided, curved wall and most people went way
>out of their ways to avoid it. It's the first piece of public art
>that I'm aware of that was removed, not for its message, but because
>people were literally frightened of the thing.
>
>Even the graffiti artists avoided it.
that might have been a recommendation <G>
A.
Blanche Nonken
>
> Gekko:
> > Whaddaya'll think?
>
>
> Me:
>
> It looks like a giant booger-project. Cool.
Knew a guy where Jeff used to work - he built figurines out of
Wite-Out/Liquid Paper. Every day he'd add another drop or two. The
small, 2 inch tall standing humanoid figure took him at least 6 months.
Blanche Nonken
> I
> rather fancy running round up here shouting "Kunst" only I'd get beaten
> up.
If you did this where gekko works you'd get written up for sexual
harassment.
Graham Strong
>graham...@hotmail.com (Graham Strong) could have given us a decent
>single malt. Instead, we received this:
>
>> I think you are getting too literal. I don't think each "hole" and
>> the bronze surrounding them are supposed to singularly represent
>> each aspect. I think that the statue *as a whole* embodies the
>> message of unite, listen, transmit, open and empower. The bird, for
>> example, could be transmit *and* empower (not *or*). The dish thing
>> could be listen and transmit (it seems to be releasing the bird)
>> and open (to release the bird) etc. etc.
>>
>> ~Graham
>>
>>
>
>hmmmm. good thought. maybeeeee. a few colleagues are
>suggesting the bit in the middle, the bronze shape that
>is formed by the cut-outs is actually the fifth, um,
>element. it seems vaguely human, and rather like it's
>dancing. sort of an official corporate dance.
>
>didja figure out what the curvey-rainbow-ear thing might
>be? just an abstract sort of thing? a futuristic couch?
>
>
Couch or some such thing sounds good to me. Maybe it's nothing, just a
swoosh...
You have to remember that the artist might not even know. You ever
have those times writing when you think "where the hell did *that*
come from", some stroke of genius directly from the muses?
Art is like that. If this piece was commissioned, then the company may
have given the artist just those five words and said "go to it". So
the artist concentrated, meditated on those words and went to work not
knowing what direction, or even how long it would take.
When he finished, he was done, as Yogi Berra might have said.
~Graham
>--
>gekko
>
>Logic: The art of being wrong with confidence...
Blanche Nonken
> This is an attribution line. In this, I'm expected to cite the
> author, Blanche Nonken <mombl...@bigfoot.com>, and the date, 10 May
> 2001, and even the newsgroup in which i read this,
> misc.writing. There. You happy?
> but not, i think, by me. just by the SH nazi.
I'd be seriously tempted to stand by her cubie and say something about
"Stupid Kunstwerk" and be sure to have some German arts journal handy
for the snap accusation. But that's simply my mischevious,
confrontational incarnation.
>
> oh, hey! so, like, we have this tradition in our
> department that when a gaggle of us get promoted, the
> promotees pitch in to host a party. we'all did that
> and had our party last friday. buncha people showed
> up. lotta liquor flowing (held off-site, at a night club).
> a few people got predictably silly. one such got
> a hold of his two-way pager and started paging those
> others who also had their two-way pagers asking "anyone
> wanna go to a titty bar?"
>
> come monday morning, we were all standing around, talking
> about the party. the sex-harass nazi was also standing
> around with the group. she was NOT at the party, btw.
> we got to teasing pager-boy about his messages. i could
> hear the gears meshing and clashing inside of sex-harass
> nazi girl's brain, let me tell you!
<grin> Then you get the group to deny any such thing happened.
Mugwump
gekko wrote:
> graham...@hotmail.com (Graham Strong) could have given us a decent
> single malt. Instead, we received this:
>
> > I think you are getting too literal. I don't think each "hole" and
> > the bronze surrounding them are supposed to singularly represent
> > each aspect. I think that the statue *as a whole* embodies the
> > message of unite, listen, transmit, open and empower. The bird, for
> > example, could be transmit *and* empower (not *or*). The dish thing
> > could be listen and transmit (it seems to be releasing the bird)
> > and open (to release the bird) etc. etc.
> >
> > ~Graham
> >
> >
>
> hmmmm. good thought. maybeeeee. a few colleagues are
> suggesting the bit in the middle, the bronze shape that
> is formed by the cut-outs is actually the fifth, um,
> element. it seems vaguely human, and rather like it's
> dancing. sort of an official corporate dance.
>
> didja figure out what the curvey-rainbow-ear thing might
> be? just an abstract sort of thing? a futuristic couch?
>
> so.
>
> here's more by that artist:
>
> <http://www.askart.com/artist/C/saint_clair_cemin.asp>
>
> click "show all" and slide on down to "Sweet Nothings"
> then see if we can commission mugwump to carve us a donut
> out of marble.
>
> there's something there that looks like the "chair" from
> the woody allen flick "Sleeper" ... when he went to the
> home of those gay guys? anyone else remember?
>
> if you look at cemin's bronze work only, you'll find "Homage
> to Darwin", followed by "untitled". "Untitled" looks
> a bit like "Homage" ... except less finished. i'm wondering
> if "Untitled" was a boo-boo that Cemin decided to sell
> anyway. in fact, i'm sure it is. now i'm angry. here's
> this so-called *arteest*, selling us his mistakes, calling
> them "art" just to make a buck. putting one over on us,
> he is! i refuse to accept that piece as art, and nothing
> you can say will make me think of it as art.
You would accept anything as art. As long as they *told* you it was
art you would die trying to find some meaning behind it, even if it had
no meaning.
>
>
> bah!
Mugwump
Paul Martin wrote:
Dig it.
>
>
> Paul
Mugwump
Mike Stroud wrote:
> Trying to match the figure to the given words doesn't work for me. If
> that is how it is, each part symbolizing a specific concept I would say,
> no, it is not art but just a logo.
Well put.
A side note: I know some neo-expressionists who laugh their asses off when
people try to "interpret" what their art "means".
KMadeleine
<Xns909D65C18...@136.182.15.25>:
>oh, hey! so, like, we have this tradition in our
>department that when a gaggle of us get promoted, the
>promotees pitch in to host a party. we'all did that
>and had our party last friday. buncha people showed
>up. lotta liquor flowing (held off-site, at a night club).
we can and do have alcohol available at off-site social events
sponsored by my company. my husband just got his first real job,
and i was surprised to see the last sentence of the 'drugs and
alcohol free work policy' in the employee handbook: 'No alcoholic
beverages may be consumed at company approved social events.'
i'd never seen a policy like that.
>we got to teasing pager-boy about his messages. i could
>hear the gears meshing and clashing inside of sex-harass
>nazi girl's brain, let me tell you!
i can just imagine.
Paul heslop
>
> This is an attribution line. In this, I'm expected to cite the
> author, Blanche Nonken <mombl...@bigfoot.com>, and the date, 10 May
> 2001, and even the newsgroup in which i read this,
> misc.writing. There. You happy?
>
>
I used to work in childcare for disabled kids and the boss of one of the
homes was a bit of a chauvinist, but you couldn't find a kinder man if
you tried. The guy bled for the kids he cared for, and as they were all
terminally ill he went through hell, losing his wife along the way and
an average of about three of the children a year.
Then, after some thirty years service he is sitting in the staff room
and he says
"What's the difference between BSE and PMT? None, they're both Mad Cows'
Disease!"
It got a muted laugh...and within a week he was suspended and after a
hearing lost his job.....for a tasteless gag! Never underestimate the
power of the narrow minded!
Davida Chazan - The Chocolate Lady
during the misc.writing Community News Flash, ge...@gekkografx.com
(gekko) reported:
>
><http://www.gekkografx.com/monument.jpg>
>
>Whaddaya'll think?
<company name> paid for it? Good bucks?
Yes. It is art.
(I don't like it, but I know its art.)
--
Davida Chazan
<davida @ jdc . org . il>
*****
"Violence gnaws away at the basis of democracy...
peace truly doesn't only exist in prayers."
- Yitzhak Rabin z"l from his last speech on November 4, 1995
*****
Support the Jayne Hitchcock HELP Fund:
http://www.purpleducks.com/booksale/
~*~*~*~*~*~
Visit "Like Chocolate for Poetry"
http://pub58.ezboard.com/bdrchazan
Blanche Nonken
> "What's the difference between BSE and PMT? None, they're both Mad Cows'
> Disease!"
> It got a muted laugh...and within a week he was suspended and after a
> hearing lost his job.....for a tasteless gag! Never underestimate the
> power of the narrow minded!
Hey, that's pretty funny.
Dorks. Did they talk to the parents? I mean, capable people who *want*
to work with spec. needs kids and aren't burned out...dayam. Dorks.
Paul heslop
They weren't interested. His 'Co-workers' refused to work with him. His
daughter worked with me at one of the sister homes and was from then on
unable to do the usual swap-jobs there for a change due to obvious
friction between her and staff. I knew the guy was chauvinist, but it
really had nothing to do with how he did the job, and he had absolutely
no prejudice there, all colours, sexes etc were treat with the same
amount of love and respect...and yeah, the joke was funny too...but
obviously it was their time of the month!
Paul heslop
"I'LL BE BLOWED IF THAT'S ART!
An art teacher is getting £5000 of taxpayer's money to breathe into a
jar-so it can go on show at a public gallery.
The bizarre display by 31 year old Pak Keung Wan was blasted last night
as a serious waste of cash.
Wan will spend seven hours a day in a cave beneath Nottingham Castle
bottling breath.
The exhibition, called Inhaled Rooms will run alongside another one in
which the artist runs his fingers along the rims of jam jars...."
So, whaddya all think of that one?
--
Paul
--------------------------------------------------------------
"One thing alone not even God can do,
to make undone whatever hath been done." Aristotle.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Words...and..pictures....yes!
http://dreamst8.homestead.com/index.html
---------------------------------------------------------------
gekko
your message <3AFF1B42...@cableinet.co.uk>, which you posted to
misc.writing on 13 May 2001:
> "I'LL BE BLOWED IF THAT'S ART!
>
> An art teacher is getting £5000 of taxpayer's money to breathe into
> a jar-so it can go on show at a public gallery.
> The bizarre display by 31 year old Pak Keung Wan was blasted last
> night as a serious waste of cash.
> Wan will spend seven hours a day in a cave beneath Nottingham
> Castle bottling breath.
> The exhibition, called Inhaled Rooms will run alongside another one
> in which the artist runs his fingers along the rims of jam
> jars...."
>
> So, whaddya all think of that one?
i think it's all a sad attempt at divisive sensationalism
and, as such is hardly art. i say it's not art, and no-one
can make me agree it's art. so there.
--
gekko
The highest point in Pennsylvania is lower than the lowest point in
Colorado.
Paul heslop
made music..or like the guy who took some of his own blood and made a
model of his head out of it, frozen...that's art of a sort. Hey, what
about the german guy who takes real people and fills them with plastic
and strips their flesh away? Can we call that art? Should we call it art
or is it more to do with science? Would be sick if we saw it? I've seen
it on German documentaries, but not over here in life...(if that's the
proper word!)
Hippolyte Lizard
It's the art of creative people validating their inventiveness by talking
cash out of dimwitted public servants who don't want to be remembered as the
generation that stopped supporting the arts. Like high-tech jewelry theft
(bypassing alarms etc.), it's hard work that for a moment one might think
has earned a paycheck, until you realize there's no value returned. Value
being in the mind of the purchaser, 'no value returned' remains true in the
case of most public art.
HL
Paul heslop
The art of the perfect con! Like testing why cornflakes go soggy.
Alan Hope
programme, like this one from Paul heslop, calling from misc.writing:
>Just read this today and thought I should share it with you all.
>"I'LL BE BLOWED IF THAT'S ART!
>An art teacher is getting £5000 of taxpayer's money to breathe into a
>jar-so it can go on show at a public gallery.
>The bizarre display by 31 year old Pak Keung Wan was blasted last night
>as a serious waste of cash.
>Wan will spend seven hours a day in a cave beneath Nottingham Castle
>bottling breath.
>The exhibition, called Inhaled Rooms will run alongside another one in
>which the artist runs his fingers along the rims of jam jars...."
>So, whaddya all think of that one?
It's stupid. But if you can come up with a reason why it's a good idea
to paint a picture of a woman sitting reading a book, then we'll go
on.
Art with a genuine purpose is called architecture. The rest is
needless, and superfluous.
--
AH
Alan Hope
What's more it adds to the divisions in our society, as do you with
your divisive comments. Come to think of it, I'm not bringing people
together in much of a group hug by pointing out your faults, so I'm at
least as much to blame.
Oh, bother, said Eeyore.
--
AH
Dick Harper
> An art teacher is getting £5000 of taxpayer's money to breathe into a
> jar-so it can go on show at a public gallery.
> The bizarre display by 31 year old Pak Keung Wan was blasted last night
> as a serious waste of cash.
> Wan will spend seven hours a day in a cave beneath Nottingham Castle
> bottling breath.
> The exhibition, called Inhaled Rooms will run alongside another one in
> which the artist runs his fingers along the rims of jam jars...."
I suppose performance art has its place and I support the idea
of public support for the arts.
I just wish some of the bureaucrats who control public art
purse strings had a better concept of the difference between an
ass and an elbow.
--Dick
Paul heslop
Good point. I'm not really into 'pretty' art, chocolate box stuff, but
then isn't most of the stuff done on commission anyway, for the sitter?
Just a thought.
Paul heslop
Yeah, well said. I guess if you look behind all these things it probably
comes down to who you know rather than how good you are. They guy's a
teacher, he'll know a few people on boards etc, a bit of wangling and he
has his grant.
Bill Funke
<paul....@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:
>Alan Hope wrote:
<...>
>> Art with a genuine purpose is called architecture. The rest is
>> needless, and superfluous.
>>
>> --
>> AH
>
>Good point. I'm not really into 'pretty' art, chocolate box stuff, but
>then isn't most of the stuff done on commission anyway, for the sitter?
>Just a thought.
I'm not sure it's actually such a good point, since our species seems
to value decoration quite highly. And, one would expect there to be
disagreements over the relative values of various decorations.
But,. I digress...
Most art is done on a commision basis. Commercial and portrait stuff,
whether done for fashion ads, cereal boxes, book covers, or to gratify
one's own ego with a life-size portrait, is what keeps a lot of
painters fed. Some of them are very well fed. I knew a few people
years ago who were connected with Portraits, Inc., and were offered
more commissions than they could handle.
Of course, it takes a while to get to that point. (kinda like
freelance writing)
I may as well digress some more at this point and mention that,
apropos the constant hysterics over copyright amongst authors, fine
artists rarely have any rights to their stuff. If the gallery cons
someone into buying your unknown work, and your reputation then takes
off, the work that was orignally bought for $3,000 and is eventually
auctioned at Sotheby's for a million or so puts absolutely nothing in
your pocket.
There are, of course, exceptions to this, but an artwork tends to be
considered more an object than a copyrightable work, or protectable
idea. The common cry I heard a lot was that the gallery built you up
and made tons of money off of reselling your work. If you were then
uppity enough to try to get more on your original sales, they'd simply
announce to their customers that your work was no longer original and
worthwhile, so start collecting this new person they just found...
Things like that are why so many of the better ones just go after
commisions.
As with writers, actors, musicians, etc., there seems to be far more
good artists out there than markets to support them.
Bill Funke
The thing is that these grants are usually awarded by arts councils,
made up of supposed experts. This of course, brings up the question
of whether or not we may be missing something.
More than likely, however, the alleged "experts" are the ones with
little better to do than sit on arts councils, and the real experts
are busy somewhere else. The NEA had some problems with this, a while
back and until some housecleaning was done, only certain types of work
had a good chance of funding.
(If the bureucrate really understood art, would Diego Rivera ever have
been allowed to paint a mural?)
Paul heslop
wonder how much the Estate of Van Goch is worth?
Paul heslop
are? As you said, the real experts are probably busy, and that's the
same in every walk of life. Too much theory and not enough action. If
this world is run by experts why is it such a bloody mess?
Mugwump
gekko wrote:
> Hi, Paul heslop <paul....@cableinet.co.uk>! I'm responding to
> your message <3AFF1B42...@cableinet.co.uk>, which you posted to
> misc.writing on 13 May 2001:
>
> > "I'LL BE BLOWED IF THAT'S ART!
> >
> > An art teacher is getting £5000 of taxpayer's money to breathe into
> > a jar-so it can go on show at a public gallery.
> > The bizarre display by 31 year old Pak Keung Wan was blasted last
> > night as a serious waste of cash.
> > Wan will spend seven hours a day in a cave beneath Nottingham
> > Castle bottling breath.
> > The exhibition, called Inhaled Rooms will run alongside another one
> > in which the artist runs his fingers along the rims of jam
> > jars...."
> >
> > So, whaddya all think of that one?
>
> i think it's all a sad attempt at divisive sensationalism
That is plain crazy. What's sensational or devisive about blowing in
a jar?
>
> and, as such is hardly art.
You are entiltled to your opinion.
> i say it's not art, and no-one
> can make me agree it's art.
Good for you. You have the right to think for yourself. Don't let the
art establishment tell you what is and what is not art. Don't be one of
the sheep. You make up your own mind.
Mugwump
Alan Hope wrote:
> Coming up next, your comments and questions on issues discussed in the
> programme, like this one from gekko, calling from misc.writing:
>
> >Hi, Paul heslop <paul....@cableinet.co.uk>! I'm responding to
> >your message <3AFF1B42...@cableinet.co.uk>, which you posted to
> >misc.writing on 13 May 2001:
>
> >> "I'LL BE BLOWED IF THAT'S ART!
>
> >> An art teacher is getting £5000 of taxpayer's money to breathe into
> >> a jar-so it can go on show at a public gallery.
> >> The bizarre display by 31 year old Pak Keung Wan was blasted last
> >> night as a serious waste of cash.
> >> Wan will spend seven hours a day in a cave beneath Nottingham
> >> Castle bottling breath.
> >> The exhibition, called Inhaled Rooms will run alongside another one
> >> in which the artist runs his fingers along the rims of jam
> >> jars...."
>
> >> So, whaddya all think of that one?
>
> >i think it's all a sad attempt at divisive sensationalism
> >and, as such is hardly art. i say it's not art, and no-one
> >can make me agree it's art. so there.
>
> What's more it adds to the divisions in our society,
How?
I suppose it divides people when it comes to whether or not art funding
should continue, but that is the only devisive aspect I can see.
Mugwump
Paul heslop wrote:
> Just read this today and thought I should share it with you all.
>
> "I'LL BE BLOWED IF THAT'S ART!
>
> An art teacher is getting £5000 of taxpayer's money to breathe into a
> jar-so it can go on show at a public gallery.
> The bizarre display by 31 year old Pak Keung Wan was blasted last night
> as a serious waste of cash.
> Wan will spend seven hours a day in a cave beneath Nottingham Castle
> bottling breath.
> The exhibition, called Inhaled Rooms will run alongside another one in
> which the artist runs his fingers along the rims of jam jars...."
>
> So, whaddya all think of that one?
By damn, I think I must be an artistic genius, because I just thought of
a way to even top this one, if I could get it funded.
I would *think* a piece of art. Why use a medium at all? Why not take it
one step further an use the medium of thought instead of air?
Once I get it funded, I could go into an empty room in the museum, which
is set up speciffically for my mastepiece. I could *think* my work of art,
and leave the room. Whenever the exhibition is over, I could go back and
*unthink it*.
That would be art on a level that probably no one has ever experience
before. God I must be an artistic genius!
Bill Funke
<paul....@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:
<...>
>Ah, my favourite word....'expert'...who died and made them what they
>are? As you said, the real experts are probably busy, and that's the
>same in every walk of life. Too much theory and not enough action. If
>this world is run by experts why is it such a bloody mess?
The wrong experts are running it.
Anyway, freedom is a messy thing. Even in areas like science,
medicine and and accounting, where long years of study and perhaps
some licensing or certification is required, there is legitimate
disagreement amongst the experts. When we get into the arts,
religion. or other areas where opinions are thrown around wantonly,
everyone seems to have one, and someone who has amassed several
degrees and worked a lifetime in the field all too often doesn't have
a big enough big mouth to add some sense to the discussion.
Then, we have politicians and self-appointed pundits whipping us all
up about whatever may get them a vote or an ear, adding fuel to the
fires of ignorance.
(There's just too much stuff out there to know about)
gekko
<3B010082...@swbell.net>, posted to misc.writing, reveals:
Lordy, lordy ™.
--
gekko
Is it possible to be totally partial?
Paul Heslop
>
> Paul heslop wrote:
>
> > Just read this today and thought I should share it with you all.
> >
> > "I'LL BE BLOWED IF THAT'S ART!
> >
> > An art teacher is getting £5000 of taxpayer's money to breathe into a
> > jar-so it can go on show at a public gallery.
> > The bizarre display by 31 year old Pak Keung Wan was blasted last night
> > as a serious waste of cash.
> > Wan will spend seven hours a day in a cave beneath Nottingham Castle
> > bottling breath.
> > The exhibition, called Inhaled Rooms will run alongside another one in
> > which the artist runs his fingers along the rims of jam jars...."
> >
> > So, whaddya all think of that one?
>
> By damn, I think I must be an artistic genius, because I just thought of
> a way to even top this one, if I could get it funded.
> I would *think* a piece of art. Why use a medium at all? Why not take it
> one step further an use the medium of thought instead of air?
> Once I get it funded, I could go into an empty room in the museum, which
> is set up speciffically for my mastepiece. I could *think* my work of art,
> and leave the room. Whenever the exhibition is over, I could go back and
> *unthink it*.
> That would be art on a level that probably no one has ever experience
> before. God I must be an artistic genius!
>
Paul Heslop
people they talk *over* people. This way nobody listens and things just
happen. When a politician says "I said in 1998" well he probably did,
but we all fell asleep before he got to that bit. Then along comes
someone who talks at everyone else's level and he's a nutcase.
Alan Hope
>On Mon, 14 May 2001 23:09:42 GMT, Paul heslop
><paul....@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:
>>Alan Hope wrote:
><...>
>>> Art with a genuine purpose is called architecture. The rest is
>>> needless, and superfluous.
>>Good point. I'm not really into 'pretty' art, chocolate box stuff, but
>>then isn't most of the stuff done on commission anyway, for the sitter?
>>Just a thought.
>I'm not sure it's actually such a good point, since our species seems
>to value decoration quite highly. And, one would expect there to be
>disagreements over the relative values of various decorations.
I was applying a more rigid idea of "purpose" and "value". I wouldn't
want to understate the less tangible value of decoration, or indeed
needless art of any kind. I'm not a complete Flintstone.
--
AH
Scott Elyard
> > What's more it adds to the divisions in our society,
>
> How?
>
> I suppose it divides people when it comes to whether or not art funding
> should continue, but that is the only devisive aspect I can see.
Because you're blind. No matter how well or how many people point this
out to you, you don't seem to get it. No matter what the facts are, if
they don't support your preconceived notions, they are discarded. That is
not the act of an open-minded person.
<yodamode>
And that is why you fail.
D-minus.
</yodamode>
--
.oO=----------------------------------------------------=Oo.
| Comic: http://www.archosaur.org/oscar/ |
| Life (in progress): http://www.archosaur.org/ |
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'
Scott Elyard
(Bill Funke) wrote:
> The thing is that these grants are usually awarded by arts councils,
> made up of supposed experts. This of course, brings up the question
> of whether or not we may be missing something.
The NEA uses a panel to peer-review applications.
Scott Elyard
(Bill Funke) wrote:
> (There's just too much stuff out there to know about)
But by god, I'll try!
Scott Elyard
<paul....@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:
> I think you're spot on about the rights of the artist to his work. I
> wonder how much the Estate of Van Goch is worth?
Millions. But it was all bequeathed to a total stranger, Miriam von
Gooch, over a typo in the writing of the will.
gekko
just make out that on 15 May 2001, stonebu...@yahoo.com (Scott
Elyard) had written:
> The NEA uses a panel to peer-review applications.
each year the PTA sponsors a program to encourage
fine arts among children. The Reflections Program,
it is called. our local PTA would run it in my
kids' elementary school. children were encouraged
to submit entries in as many areas of art that they
wishes, said areas including literature, poetry,
photography, drawing, ink, painting, weaving, tile
mosaic, music, dance, sculpture, chalk/pastels, and ...
others i forget. each year a different feel-good
theme was chosen, and the entries were to *reflect*
the theme.
each entry was judged locally by a panel of judges.
the judges were chosen from the following: a teacher
of the school. a member of the PTA who was not a
teacher. a local artist. a local business person who
contributed the prizes.
each entry was anonymous insofar as the judges were
concerned. the entrant's name was kept hidden from
them.
each year, the teacher chosen was the school's art
teacher.
each year, the school's art teacher would *always*
award the highest points to the fluffiest, most
feel-good, most bunny-rabbit bit of work.
luckily, the other members of the panel took their
jobs seriously and awarded based on other artistic
merits, including execution, how closely it spoke
to the theme, and overall aesthetics, and they tended
to balance out the art teacher.
i wonder if the NEA has a "fluffy bunny" person on
their panel.
Paul Heslop
>
> In article <3B00CF80...@cableinet.co.uk>, Paul heslop
> <paul....@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > I think you're spot on about the rights of the artist to his work. I
> > wonder how much the Estate of Van Goch is worth?
>
> Millions. But it was all bequeathed to a total stranger, Miriam von
> Gooch, over a typo in the writing of the will.
>
Ghatty recently?
Dick Harper
> ... until you realize there's no value returned. Value
> being in the mind of the purchaser, 'no value returned' remains true in the
> case of most public art.
Urrr?
I suppose that means the Sistine Chapel, Water Music, and
Sunfix for Judy(1) are "no value returned"? A painting, a
composition, and a sculpture, they were each created as
commissions for a government and were each intended for public
consumption.
Art has been publicly supported since Og drew the first sketch
on the wall of a cave. Some artists find collectors, some find
private patrons, some find public monies. Collectors and private
patrons often squirrel their collections away.
When we buy art with public money, we also get to experience
it.
There are now and always have been charletans who take
advantage of the bureaucrats who guard the public purse.
Fortunately, there are now and we hope always will be geniuses who
take advantage of the bureaucrats who guard the public purse, too.
--Dick
==============
(1) Sunfix for Judy is a modern sculpture by Kate Pond placed by
the Federal Government at one entrance to the United States, the
Highgate Springs, VT, border station.
http://www.AllArts.org/pub-1.htm
Paul Heslop
>
> Hippolyte Lizard eloquently commented in misc.writing
>
> > ... until you realize there's no value returned. Value
> > being in the mind of the purchaser, 'no value returned' remains true in the
> > case of most public art.
>
> Urrr?
> I suppose that means the Sistine Chapel, Water Music, and
> Sunfix for Judy(1) are "no value returned"? A painting, a
> composition, and a sculpture, they were each created as
> commissions for a government and were each intended for public
> consumption.
> Art has been publicly supported since Og drew the first sketch
> on the wall of a cave.
Hah! Og! His work is trash in comparison to the great Ug!
Mugwump
Scott Elyard wrote:
> In article <3B010135...@swbell.net>, Mugwump <jand...@swbell.net> wrote:
>
> > > What's more it adds to the divisions in our society,
> >
> > How?
> >
> > I suppose it divides people when it comes to whether or not art funding
> > should continue, but that is the only devisive aspect I can see.
>
> Because you're blind.
Okay, I'll bite. *You* tell *me* how it is devisive.
> No matter how well or how many people point this
> out to you, you don't seem to get it. No matter what the facts are, if
> they don't support your preconceived notions, they are discarded. That is
> not the act of an open-minded person.
You have just described most of the people in this goup.
Hippolyte Lizard
>Hippolyte Lizard eloquently commented in misc.writing
>
>> ... until you realize there's no value returned. Value
>> being in the mind of the purchaser, 'no value returned' remains true in
the
>> case of most public art.
>
> Urrr?
> I suppose that means the Sistine Chapel, Water Music, and
>Sunfix for Judy(1) are "no value returned"? A painting, a
>composition, and a sculpture, they were each created as
>commissions for a government and were each intended for public
>consumption.
You suppose wrong. The context was modern. The first two works you cite
were created in an entirely different era. Indeed, Michelangelo's patron's
inspiration was to express the glory of God. Handel's motivation was
probably not much lower. Today's art-patron committees give the impression
they are unable to determine either the quality nor the reason for any work
of art, and award commissions mostly out of fear for what will happen to
their reputations if they don't. The intrinsic value of the piece in
question appears to be considered rarely, and even then is heavily
influenced by the explanations of the artist herself.
Also, I said 'most', not 'all'. Happily there are many exceptions to this.
I'll also acknowledge that the exceptions often aren't recognized as such
until years later. But in those cases I think the average bureaucrat/patron
just got lucky.
> Art has been publicly supported since Og drew the first sketch
>on the wall of a cave. Some artists find collectors, some find
>private patrons, some find public monies. Collectors and private
>patrons often squirrel their collections away.
Actually this thread was started about a privately-commissioned work put on
public display. I would guess most individual patrons put their works on
display too. We seem to disagree; but of course, if they hide them away,
then by definition we won't know about them.
> When we buy art with public money, we also get to experience it.
Right. The question is should we trust the public purse to appointed
bureaucratic 'experts' who then mar the landscape with great iron monsters
with incomprehensible names. It's as if the message of the work is 'waste
and hubris'.
> There are now and always have been charletans who take
>advantage of the bureaucrats who guard the public purse.
>Fortunately, there are now and we hope always will be geniuses who
>take advantage of the bureaucrats who guard the public purse, too.
There's always a mix.
I guess what I haven't articulated is that an important component of an art
work is the motivation of the patron.
>(1) Sunfix for Judy is a modern sculpture by Kate Pond placed by
>the Federal Government at one entrance to the United States, the
>Highgate Springs, VT, border station.
> http://www.AllArts.org/pub-1.htm
It's a neat work. Interesting though that this example of good public art
introduces nothing new. She has merely recreated, with modern techniques
and precision, the very same sort of 'interactive' art as has graced the
Salisbury Plain for time out of mind, or the works of certain ancient
sun-worshipping North Americans. All publicly paid for, of course. I
didn't say it was ALL bad.
Hip Liz
Hippolyte Lizard
>
>> No matter how well or how many people point this
>> out to you, you don't seem to get it. No matter what the facts are, if
>> they don't support your preconceived notions, they are discarded. That
is
>> not the act of an open-minded person.
>
> You have just described most of the people in this goup.
How to win friends and influence people. I'm learning!
- Hip Liz
Dick Harper
> each year, the teacher chosen was the school's art
> teacher.
>
> each year, the school's art teacher would *always*
> award the highest points to the fluffiest, most
> feel-good, most bunny-rabbit bit of work...
>
> i wonder if the NEA has a "fluffy bunny" person on
> their panel.
Worse yet, I wonder what kind of artists your fluffy bunny art
teacher could possibly teach?
--Dick
Dick Harper
> There are now and always have been charletans who take
> advantage of the bureaucrats who guard the public purse.
We should also note that not all charletans who take advantage
of the bureaucrats who guard the public purse are artists. The
$700 toilet seat was not art.
--Dick
Dick Harper
> More than likely, however, the alleged "experts" are the ones with
> little better to do than sit on arts councils, and the real experts
> are busy somewhere else. The NEA had some problems with this, a while
> back and until some housecleaning was done, only certain types of work
> had a good chance of funding.
I can lend a little insight into one of the selection
processes. I mentioned the Kate Pond sculpture in another post
not only because I like Kate, but also because I served on the
committee that commissioned her for that piece.
By law, U.S. government buildings are required to include
publicly owned art in their budgets. Many state governments,
including Vermont, have a similar policy. The Government Services
Administration (GSA) manages the construction of new federal
government buildings, their upkeep, and the acquisition of the
art.
GSA policy is to create a local committee to select the artist
to commission. That committee usually includes government
employees who will actually work in the building, the architect,
and an equal number of area residents with professional
credentials. GSA then solicits proposals from artists. I was on
this committee because I chair a regional arts council. Others
included the director of a major Vermont museum and a board member
from another arts council.
After deciding generally on an outdoor work, our committee
went through about 200 proposals in two steps. We looked quickly
at slides from all the artists, giving each a yea or nay. Many
were simply not suited for this site. That winnowed the selection
to a couple of dozen which we looked at in depth.
Kate's proposal was one of four we recommended to GSA. They
chose her.
--Dick
Scott Elyard
(gekko) wrote:
> i wonder if the NEA has a "fluffy bunny" person on
> their panel.
They did, but they had him taken out and castrated in the name of art.
Paul Heslop
My art teacher was one of those darlings who gives you pieces of
coloured paper at the age of 14 and expects you do something
interesting, something beautiful, and something which fits neatly into
the waste bin. I often objected and asked if we could draw or paint, but
it just went back to bits of coloured paper.
Michael Cargal
<3b029298...@news2.sover.net>:
> We should also note that not all charletans who take advantage
>of the bureaucrats who guard the public purse are artists. The
>$700 toilet seat was not art.
But it was artful.
--
Michael Cargal
Alan Hope
> Art has been publicly supported since Og drew the first sketch
>on the wall of a cave. Some artists find collectors, some find
>private patrons, some find public monies.
Where exactly was the public money coming from in the time of the
great Gothic masters? What public funds put up Notre Dame de Paris?
Did they even *have* public funds in those days, in the sense in which
we mean the term now?
The money doled out by the d'Este, Gonzaga and de'Medici families was
hardly public funds. The patronage of the guilds and merchant
organisations wasn't public. I'm sure you can't be thinking of the
richesse of the Vatican, or the royal houses of Europe.
Which examples of public support for art were you thinking of?
--
AH
Alan Hope
misc.writing:
>Dick Harper wrote in message <3b01dc4d...@news2.sover.net>...
>>Hippolyte Lizard eloquently commented in misc.writing
>>> ... until you realize there's no value returned. Value
>>> being in the mind of the purchaser, 'no value returned' remains true in
>the
>>> case of most public art.
>> Urrr?
>> I suppose that means the Sistine Chapel, Water Music, and
>>Sunfix for Judy(1) are "no value returned"? A painting, a
>>composition, and a sculpture, they were each created as
>>commissions for a government and were each intended for public
>>consumption.
>You suppose wrong. The context was modern. The first two works you cite
>were created in an entirely different era. Indeed, Michelangelo's patron's
>inspiration was to express the glory of God.
The Sistine Chapel was not a commission paid for by public funds. To
take Church money as public funds is to stretch a definition to the
extent of meaninglessness.
>Handel's motivation was
>probably not much lower.
It was very much lower. The Water Music was commissioned to accompany
a ceremonial trip on the Royal Barges down the Thames. Hence the name.
>Today's art-patron committees give the impression
>they are unable to determine either the quality nor the reason for any work
>of art, and award commissions mostly out of fear for what will happen to
>their reputations if they don't.
Speculation.
>The intrinsic value of the piece in
>question appears to be considered rarely, and even then is heavily
>influenced by the explanations of the artist herself.
Speculation. Do you know this? How?
>Also, I said 'most', not 'all'. Happily there are many exceptions to this.
>I'll also acknowledge that the exceptions often aren't recognized as such
>until years later. But in those cases I think the average bureaucrat/patron
>just got lucky.
You must stop this. You're putting words in people's mouths.
>> Art has been publicly supported since Og drew the first sketch
>>on the wall of a cave. Some artists find collectors, some find
>>private patrons, some find public monies. Collectors and private
>>patrons often squirrel their collections away.
>Actually this thread was started about a privately-commissioned work put on
>public display. I would guess most individual patrons put their works on
>display too. We seem to disagree; but of course, if they hide them away,
>then by definition we won't know about them.
The display of privately-owned works at public expense is a proper
subject for public concern. But it's an area fraught with pitfalls
(?!). The reasons most often given for the need to reject, even
suppress, certain works of art rarely have anything to do with
artistic, aesthetic, art-historical or technical merit. They're most
often to do with content, and rejection of a work on grounds of
content is censorship.
In any case, the dollar-cost to the Brooklyn Museum of a display of
Chris Ofili's work, while an appropriate source of complaint for
Brooklyners, has nothing to do with Chris Ofili.
>> When we buy art with public money, we also get to experience it.
>Right. The question is should we trust the public purse to appointed
>bureaucratic 'experts' who then mar the landscape with great iron monsters
>with incomprehensible names. It's as if the message of the work is 'waste
>and hubris'.
What's the alternative? Citizens' committees? Check out the state of
the museums in Libya to see how that works. Closer to home, recall the
effect of just such a plan on the collection in the Louvre just after
the French Revolution. Large parts of it were put to the torch.
We trust every other aspect of disbursement of the public purse to
appointed bureaucratic experts. That's not the point. We have,
presumably, structures of institutional control and democratic
accountability. If my local alderman in charge of culture puts on too
many nitwit exhibitions in municipal space, I know I can hold him
responsible, because he carries the can for the commissars who do the
actual curating. The *job* may be in the hands of unelected
bureaucrats, like most jobs are, but the *responsibility* lies in the
hands of some elected guy, and that's where something can be done.
>> There are now and always have been charletans who take
>>advantage of the bureaucrats who guard the public purse.
There are indeed, and the charlatan deputation from the art world is
hardly at Square One compared to the charlatans dealing in public
construction projects, health-care schemes, environmental projects,
public procurement, defence systems, computer equipment for public
offices, security out-sourcing. Every area of public spending is
fertile ground for the unscrupulous and the rapacious. How could it
not be? The public money wasted on bad art is nothing compared to the
public money wasted in every single other area where public money is
spent.
But of course you're right: it is a problem and should be addressed.
[snip local content]
--
AH
Scott Elyard
<ah...@skynet.be> wrote:
> The Sistine Chapel was not a commission paid for by public funds. To
> take Church money as public funds is to stretch a definition to the
> extent of meaninglessness.
Oh, I dunno. The church certainly had (has) authority to collect tithes
and reassign these funds to whatever upkeeping and art for parishoners.
That's not much different from public support.
...
> >The intrinsic value of the piece in
> >question appears to be considered rarely, and even then is heavily
> >influenced by the explanations of the artist herself.
>
> Speculation. Do you know this? How?
It's wrong, _period_ (on the basis of being purely illogical). Commentary
by the artist itself can contribute, but posthumously, artists'
explainations holds far less presuasive value; the work must then stand on
its own. Neither is it a matter of luck; it's attitude and tastes of the
time that can help work prevail.
Migwamp
gekko wrote:
> Subtlety is the art of saying what you think and getting out of the
> way before it is understood. Mugwump <jand...@swbell.net>, who
> posted in misc.writing on 16 May 2001 demonstrates this principle in
> this way:
>
> Scott Elyard wrote:
> >> No matter how well or how many people point this
> >> out to you, you don't seem to get it. No matter what the facts
> >> are, if they don't support your preconceived notions, they are
> >> discarded. That is not the act of an open-minded person.
> >
> > You have just described most of the people in this goup.
>
> This is what is known as a "IKYABWAI" lame.
Who cares? Sometimes it's true.
Maybe I should have accused him of being the pot calling the kettle
black. These games get rediculous.
>
>
> --
> gekko
>
> According to my calculations the problem doesn't exist.
Mungwungp
Paul Harwood wrote:
> On Thu, 17 May 2001 10:55:59 -0500, Migwamp said in misc.writing:
>
> <who cares?>
>
> Didn't anybody tell you that shapeshifting is a no-no?
I'm sorry, I didn't think of that, honestly. I was not trying to get
around killfiles. People have been messing around with my name, so I
have decided, "If you can't fight 'em, join 'em."
I was just joking around.
Okay, I will go back to using Mugwump again so those of you who have
me killfiled can *keep* me killfiled.
I am sorry for the inconvenience. It was just a joke.
>
>
> Back in the killfile, dribblebrain.
>
> And stop changing your name.
>
> --
> Paul Harwood
Alan Hope
>In article <sas6gt0gmjrev834d...@4ax.com>, Alan Hope
><ah...@skynet.be> wrote:
>> The Sistine Chapel was not a commission paid for by public funds. To
>> take Church money as public funds is to stretch a definition to the
>> extent of meaninglessness.
>Oh, I dunno. The church certainly had (has) authority to collect tithes
>and reassign these funds to whatever upkeeping and art for parishoners.
>That's not much different from public support.
Except that contributors to the Vatican have no say in the allocation
of those funds. Taxes are spent on behalf of the taxpayer, at least in
theory. It's "public money" because it still belongs to the public,
but is administered by an agency or agencies under public control.
I don't think any of that relates to the money spent by the Vatican on
frescoes.
>> >The intrinsic value of the piece in
>> >question appears to be considered rarely, and even then is heavily
>> >influenced by the explanations of the artist herself.
>> Speculation. Do you know this? How?
>It's wrong, _period_ (on the basis of being purely illogical). Commentary
>by the artist itself can contribute, but posthumously, artists'
>explainations holds far less presuasive value; the work must then stand on
>its own. Neither is it a matter of luck; it's attitude and tastes of the
>time that can help work prevail.
Funding bodies *could* be influenced by an artist's own explanations
of his work, and *could* ignore the intrinsic value of the piece. But
what evidence is there that they actually *do*?
--
AH
Hippolyte Lizard
>
>>> >The intrinsic value of the piece in
>>> >question appears to be considered rarely, and even then is heavily
>>> >influenced by the explanations of the artist herself.
>
>>> Speculation. Do you know this? How?
>
>>It's wrong, _period_ (on the basis of being purely illogical). Commentary
>>by the artist itself can contribute, but posthumously, artists'
>>explainations holds far less presuasive value; the work must then stand on
>>its own. Neither is it a matter of luck; it's attitude and tastes of the
>>time that can help work prevail.
>
>Funding bodies *could* be influenced by an artist's own explanations
>of his work, and *could* ignore the intrinsic value of the piece. But
>what evidence is there that they actually *do*?
The evidence is in the monstrous public art that squats in the public areas
of every mid-size and larger city in the land. Of course this is subjective
and speculation. What else could it be? Is it, um ... art?
Okay, so the artists' salesmanship isn't the only influence, and is of
course nil if the artist is dead, but we weren't talking about works bought
off galleries, but commissioned from the artists. And my *speculation* is
the art-buying committees of most of these burgs know little enough and know
they know little enough that they remain open to lobbying by interested
parties who can explain to them why such and such a construction is
cutting-edge art that the burg ought to buy. Don't know why that's so hard
to understand. Some computer-types need proof for everything.
HL
Harrumph
gekko
Michael Cargal <mhca...@home.com>, and the date, 18 May 2001, and even
the newsgroup in which i read this, misc.writing. There. You happy?
harwood writ:
>>Yup. Agent has the ability to filter on pretty much any header. For
>>whatever reason, I had mugwump killfiled on his screen name. I've
>>rectified that :-)
>
> It permits filtering only on subject or author field.
but "author" can take the form of "name", or "email address",
or partial e-mail address, yes?
XNews, btw, permits filtering on oodles of things.
--
gekko
You don't become a Christian by sitting in a church any more than you
become an automobile by sitting in a garage. -- samme
Scott OQ Elyard
> And my *speculation* is
> the art-buying committees of most of these burgs know little enough and know
> they know little enough that they remain open to lobbying by interested
> parties who can explain to them why such and such a construction is
> cutting-edge art that the burg ought to buy. Don't know why that's so hard
> to understand. Some computer-types need proof for everything.
Fine; but this makes the assumption that hoodwinking (or marketeered
my be more PC) the review board approving the funding is actually the
intent and is actually happening. That's not falsifiable, since
there's no way to disprove it _doesn't_ happen.
Restructure the argument.
Dick Harper
> Hah! Og! His work is trash in comparison to the great Ug!
Ug. Blech. All he could do was stain old bones from the
trash heap with bat guano and river mud.
Og piss Ug's on pile of bones. That art.
Dick (not to mention his cave painting of Uma
Harper (with three eyes and one breast)
Dick Harper
> You suppose wrong. The context was modern. The first two works you cite
> were created in an entirely different era. Indeed, Michelangelo's patron's
> inspiration was to express the glory of God.
Lest we forget, the Vatican is a nation-state and the Pope
both a religious and secular head of state.
> Handel's motivation was
> probably not much lower.
The Water Music was composed for a barge ride down the Thames
for, um, the head of state.
> Today's art-patron committees give the impression
> they are unable to determine either the quality nor the reason for any work
> of art, and award commissions mostly out of fear for what will happen to
> their reputations if they don't. The intrinsic value of the piece in
> question appears to be considered rarely, and even then is heavily
> influenced by the explanations of the artist herself.
I suspect that is true of any bureaucracy, or for that matter
of any group of critics. Be that as it may, the committees I've
known personally have
I don't know what a work's "intrinsic value" is. I do know
that Andy Wyeth moves me in ways Picasso doesn't. I also know
what I can pay for art may not be what the artist commands.
> Also, I said 'most', not 'all'. Happily there are many exceptions to this.
> I'll also acknowledge that the exceptions often aren't recognized as such
> until years later. But in those cases I think the average bureaucrat/patron
> just got lucky.
> I guess what I haven't articulated is that an important component of an art
> work is the motivation of the patron.
If the artist paints in the forest is there an image on
canvas?
> It's a neat work. Interesting though that this example of good public art
> introduces nothing new. She has merely recreated, with modern techniques
> and precision, the very same sort of 'interactive' art as has graced the
> Salisbury Plain for time out of mind, or the works of certain ancient
> sun-worshipping North Americans. All publicly paid for, of course. I
> didn't say it was ALL bad.
Kate makes no bones about her interpretation of ancient work
in modern material--it's no different than we writers using the
same plots as earlier writers. She has several of these solstice
pieces spotted around the globe on the 45th parallel as well as
other sun pieces in Europe and Asia. FWIW, any sculpture that
draws your hand to a smooth flank or makes your eye see warmth in
cold stone is interactive.
http://www.AllArts.org/pub-1.htm
Back to the Church v. government role.
The patrons of Michaelangelo's era were, in many ways, the
same as the patrons of today. Let's look at modern classes of art
buyers: governments, wealthy private collectors, and museums.
Governments are fairly obvious. They collect money by rule of
law or force and distribute that money to meet their own ends.
When buying art, they usually try to meet some fixed criteria.
Wealthy private collectors did not come into this argument
originally. They earn or inherit the money the government collects
and use some of what's leftover to buy art and endow museums.
Museums are a more recent phenomenon. They receive funds from
somewhere and usually try to meet their own criteria.
Now let's look backwards. The patrons then werethe Church,
the Kings, and wealthy private collectors.
The Church of 600 years ago collected taxes, provided public
services, made war, and made peace. Although these actions were
presumably for nonsecular purposes, the Church was still a major
governmental force. The Church was led by a single, all powerful
ruler surrounded by minor royalty, sycophants, and bureaucrats.
Meanwhile, governments collected taxes, provided less public
services than the church, made war, and made peace. The nation
states were led by single, all powerful kings surrounded by minor
royalty, sycophants, and bureaucrats.
See the connection?
Wealthy patrons like the deMedicis and the merchant bankers
may be famous for their collections, but so too should modern
collectors. Then as now they underwrote the government and some
artists.
Today the Church is rarely a patron and rarely a factor in
secular affairs. Governments have taken over much of the social
and curation role of the earlier Church.
My point remains the same: public money has supported the arts
for hundreds of years.
New York's Metropolitan Museum got a big shot a century ago
when Francis Darley sent his collection and some significant money
from Philadelphia to New York (he was mad at Philly).
Philadelphia's loss was New York's gain. More recently, the Getty
shocked art prices when it suddenly was required to spend a
gazillion dollars on art. And how about Gates' purchases for his
"electronic museum"?
--Dick
Bill Funke
>Coming up next, your comments and questions on issues discussed in the
>programme, like this one from Dick Harper, calling from misc.writing:
>
>> Art has been publicly supported since Og drew the first sketch
>>on the wall of a cave. Some artists find collectors, some find
>>private patrons, some find public monies.
>
>Where exactly was the public money coming from in the time of the
>great Gothic masters? What public funds put up Notre Dame de Paris?
>Did they even *have* public funds in those days, in the sense in which
>we mean the term now?
The problem is one of definition. The church and state were so
intertwined back then that church projects could well be considered
"public." Their point was to (allegedly) glorify God, not man, but
the funds came from a form of taxation.
>The money doled out by the d'Este, Gonzaga and de'Medici families was
>hardly public funds. The patronage of the guilds and merchant
>organisations wasn't public. I'm sure you can't be thinking of the
>richesse of the Vatican, or the royal houses of Europe.
>
>Which examples of public support for art were you thinking of?
Well, the Medici's pretty well ran things back then, and Lorenzo could
be considered the gummint. The royal houses were the gummint, and the
Vatican tried to run the gummints.
During the Renaissance, powerful merchant families and guilds did
grow, and a powerful middle class appeared. This would, I suppose be
considered the private sector. But, modern distinctions can't really
be applied to those times when democracy was unheard of and the Church
stuck its nose in all things.
Bill
-------------------
"Da Joisey Page" (A Work in Progress)
http://wfnk.home.mindspring.com
Bill Funke
Ahhh, to live in such a civilized place...
Around here, everything's a big fight. In NYC, there are a dozen city
agencies, community boards, self-appointed experts, and who knows who
else is gonna show up whenever something is about to be done. And no
one will give an inch. Power plays and egos are the rule. That is, I
suppose, to be expected in one of the world's art centers where some
of the most powerful people in the art world hang out and hate being
dissed. And a lot of other people who just like to make noise (or
would like to be the most powerful people in the art world).
New Jersey has its share of similar problems. Usually, though, stuff
is just sort of snuck in and magically appears one day.
Then the fight starts.
Paul Heslop
Ah, Uma...but that eye really other breast, just bit high.
--
Paul
--------------------------------------------------------------
Oh Lord, help me to keep my big mouth shut.
--------------------------------------------------------------
For better or for verse.....
http://dreamst8.homestead.com/index.html
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lorrill Buyens
stonebu...@yahoo.com (Scott Elyard) raised the sword of
OscarQuillandCoyle.org, slew the dragon of misc.writing and shouted
the immortal words:
><yodamode>
>And that is why you fail.
>
>D-minus.
></yodamode>
No, Yodamode would be more like:
Why you fail, that is, hmmm?
--
Lorrill Buyens
"He probably ate the food, nearly always a mistake."
- Casady, discussing a dead airline passenger in AFU
Support the Jayne Hitchcock HELP Fund
http://www.geocities.com/hollywood/6172/helpjane.htm
Alma Hromic Deckert
Buyens) wrote:
>On Tue, 15 May 2001 15:40:52 -0800, the intrepid adventurer
>stonebu...@yahoo.com (Scott Elyard) raised the sword of
>OscarQuillandCoyle.org, slew the dragon of misc.writing and shouted
>the immortal words:
>
>><yodamode>
>>And that is why you fail.
>>
>>D-minus.
>></yodamode>
>
>No, Yodamode would be more like:
>
>Why you fail, that is, hmmm?
no, lorril, that is reserved for conversational yodamode. what scott
quoted was, well, er, exactly that - quoted. it wasn't so much as the
way yoda spoke as what yoda SAID <G>
A.
Michael Cargal
<Xns90A5C90C5...@24.1.240.74>:
>This is an attribution line. In this, I'm expected to cite the author,
>Michael Cargal <mhca...@home.com>, and the date, 18 May 2001, and even
>the newsgroup in which i read this, misc.writing. There. You happy?
>> It permits filtering only on subject or author field.
>
>but "author" can take the form of "name", or "email address",
>or partial e-mail address, yes?
>
>XNews, btw, permits filtering on oodles of things.
Yes, Agent can deal with either name or email address in the author
field. This aspect of its filters is one of Agent's weakest points.
One would like to filter on newsgroups, but it can't. I might try
XNews if I weren't so inertial.
--
Michael Cargal
gekko
'bout ol' Michael Cargal <mhca...@home.com>, and it went something
like this:
> I might try
> XNews if I weren't so inertial.
>
you must be willing to succumb to an oblique force
shifting you off course to use XNews, this is true.
once you get it and learn its many wonderful secrets,
you'll delight in it, of course. but those tending
to want to stay with comfy things would be best advised
to NOT give XNews a try.
i've been using it for nearly 2 years. when i first
downloaded it, at the suggestion of jen jensen (because
it had scoring, and whatever i was using at the time
did not), i nearly tossed it aside. a couple of
weeks later, after reading the (inadequate) manual
and playing around a bit, i fell in love with it and
haven't looked back.
to get the most of it, one SHOULD read through the
manual and it's very helpful to read through
<news:news.software.readers> every so often.
--
gekko
I can't remember if I'm the good twin or the evil one.
Scott OQ Elyard
> >><yodamode>
> >>And that is why you fail.
> >>
> >>D-minus.
> >></yodamode>
> it wasn't so much as the
> way yoda spoke as what yoda SAID <G>
And, of course, the "D-minus" was a part of the original theatrical
release, added after the shooting for American audiences who, it was
feared, wouldn't understand that Luke was being tested. It was
removed for subsequent video and director's cut releases on Laser Disc
and DVD.
I'm pretty sure. Of course, now I wish the tags had said
<yoda-quota></yoda-quota>, to distinguish between "conversational
yoda" (which sounds like audiocassettes you can buy to learn to speak
like Yoda) and Quoting Yoda.
I'm pretty sure.
Alan Hope
I'd take your last proviso and extend it to the money spent by the
Church and kings: it's not public money once they get their mitts on
it, whereas taxation nowadays is still public money, in theory at
least, because the public still has some democratic control over it.
It's the difference between money that was once the public's, back
then, and money that is still in some tenuous way the public's,
nowadays.
--
AH
Alan Hope
misc.writing:
>Paul Harwood <pa...@wrevel.com> wrote in
><jgmagtkhfrtsavjhu...@4ax.com>:
>>On 18 May 2001 15:43:41 GMT, gekko said in misc.writing:
>>>Does Agent permit you to filter based on email address,
>>>rather than Name?
>>Yup. Agent has the ability to filter on pretty much any header. For
>>whatever reason, I had mugwump killfiled on his screen name. I've
>>rectified that :-)
>It permits filtering only on subject or author field.
That's the simple kill filter, which offers filtering on email
address, name or subject.
But you can also create filters from scratch that go a lot further.
Check your Help file.
--
AH
Michael Cargal
<vivdgtcffrju5ddp2...@4ax.com>:
>But you can also create filters from scratch that go a lot further.
>Check your Help file.
Thanks. That looks much better.
--
Michael Cargal
Michael Cargal
>Coming up next, your comments and questions on issues discussed in the
I just went through this, and now that I did so, I remember doing it
once before. When I create a filter from scratch for fields other than
author and subject, I get an error: "It is not possible to filter
field Newsgroups" or whatever field I'm trying.
--
Michael Cargal
Alan Hope
Look, I'm sorry if I gave the impression from my previous post that I
have the faintest idea about any of this stuff. I've looked at that
section of the Help file twice. The first time it made no sense to me
whatever, but it's existence stuck in my mind so that when the
question came up here I went back and looked again. Still nothing.
You'll notice, with hindsight, that I was *very* vague and sent you
off to the Help file for yourself.
So I'm unable to take you any further. I might only suggest you post a
query at the newsgroup news:alt.usenet.offline-reader.forte-agent.
They have some very experienced and knowledgable posters there, one or
two of whom may work for Forte.
In the meantime, I've been asked to inform you that any attempt by you
to recover damages for losses incurred by following my stupid advice
will be resisted most strenuously by my legal "dream team," who
include the guy who drew up Robert Blake's pre-nup.
--
AH
Michael Cargal
>In the meantime, I've been asked to inform you that any attempt by you
>to recover damages for losses incurred by following my stupid advice
>will be resisted most strenuously by my legal "dream team," who
>include the guy who drew up Robert Blake's pre-nup.
You mean I can marry you if I promise not to break any laws. Sorry,
Alan, I'm already married, and to a woman.
--
Michael Cargal
Bill Funke
<...>
>
>>During the Renaissance, powerful merchant families and guilds did
>>grow, and a powerful middle class appeared. This would, I suppose be
>>considered the private sector. But, modern distinctions can't really
>>be applied to those times when democracy was unheard of and the Church
>>stuck its nose in all things.
>
>I'd take your last proviso and extend it to the money spent by the
>Church and kings: it's not public money once they get their mitts on
>it, whereas taxation nowadays is still public money, in theory at
>least, because the public still has some democratic control over it.
>It's the difference between money that was once the public's, back
>then, and money that is still in some tenuous way the public's,
>nowadays.
I can still argue the point of public money, but I'll grant you that
Popes and Princes rarely, if ever, paid for art that was for the
education, enlightenment, or enjoyment of the hoi polloi. Aside from
some stuff, like architecture, altars and heroic statuary, what they
bought tended to be for their eyes only. The stuff the people got to
see was more to intimidate them than anything else.
Public art, in the modern sense, is a very modern concept. (Except
maybe for some classical eras.)
Lorrill Buyens
to_news_or_...@NorthPuffin.com (Dick Harper) raised the sword
of Harper Company, slew the dragon of misc.writing and shouted the
immortal words:
>I wrote
>
>> There are now and always have been charletans who take
>> advantage of the bureaucrats who guard the public purse.
>
> We should also note that not all charletans who take advantage
>of the bureaucrats who guard the public purse are artists. The
>$700 toilet seat was not art.
Did I already mention my stepfather's claim (as vectored to him by one
of his business teachers) that they made the "head" on a certain ship
a bit too narrow, and it was easier and cheaper to order a special
toilet seat than to rebuild the ship?
Hugh Watkins
>
>Did I already mention my stepfather's claim (as vectored to him by one
>of his business teachers) that they made the "head" on a certain ship
>a bit too narrow, and it was easier and cheaper to order a special
>toilet seat than to rebuild the ship?
ships toilets often work by suction instead of gravity
Ship Talk
... art appreciation. Vacuum Toilet - Commonly used on ships these toilets
use vacuum
suction when flushed. This system requires less water. Passengers must not
...
www.psa-psara.org/terms.htm
>>>> Vacuum Toilet - Commonly used on ships these toilets use vacuum
suction when flushed.
This system requires less water.
Passengers must not remain seated when flushing the toilet or may risk
getting stuck.
Also here is a definition of a classic cruise ship which you may be able
to add to the feature about old vs new. Classic cruise vessels were
designed primarily for point-to-point transportation in the 1960's or
earlier. There are characterised by elegant, deep keels in order for the
ship to maintain a regular schedule in rough sea and high wind.
Ships had portholes rather than windows and were strongly built with rigid
hull construction which has contributed to their longevity. Often, engines
and other equipment have been replaced with more modern equipment and
additional cabins have been constructed out of public rooms.
<<<
use saltwater too
Hugh W
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=ships+toilets+suction+system