WR: writing lesbian and gay male characters, redux
Ajcarol1
thread first attacked her so-tactful prose, then questioned the need for niche
markets, then geno as usual dumped his bigotry and the bible historians
entered, all the while a few of us were finding our way back to a previous
thread which was also so rudely interrupted by geno's bigotry.
So I am going to try to revive "writing lesbian and gay male characters"--geno,
we've already heard from you many times that all homosexual behavior dooms us
to hell, from the bible according to garp, so go talk to your lesbian daughter
(unless that revelation was from your attempts at fiction).
The question that grew out of the lesbian sf anthology thread was, what
constitutes a lesbian book? I posted a list of the 100 greatest gay and
lesbian novels as compiled by group called Triangle Publishing, and noted that
some books on the list didn't have a single gay or lesbian character or theme.
Two of the books, "To Kill a Mockingbird" and "Bastard Out of Carolina" had
young girls as protagonists, and perhaps the selection committee felt that
these girls would grow up to become lesbians, considering their sensitivities
already, or was it the fact that the authors were lesbians that made their
novels lesbian novels?
It certainly does not seem true to me that every novel I write must
automatically be a lesbian novel--though maybe the reason my first mainstream
attempt never got published is because its lesbianism just shone through and
outweighed the theme I intended. Must be that, can't be that my first novel
was no good. All first drafts are of course automatic best sellers. Or when I
was writing for twelve technical and medical journals at an LA publishing house
in the '70s I was really turning out lesbian fiction.
Moira asked what clues there were that a character was gay or lesbian, if the
author did not specifically say so, not counting stereotypical "clues" like
limp wrists or comfortable shoes. To this I have to say, there is absolutely
no way of being absolutely sure a character in real life or in fiction is gay
or lesbian unless the character chooses to reveal sexual orientation (oh, maybe
if the character engages in continual and exclusive same-sex sex, you could
probably take that as self-revelation). If you wonder if a character in book
you are reading was intended to be a lesbian or gay male and you're not sure,
you probably would have to ask the author for intent.
Much as gays and lesbians love to use "gaydar" to try to guess who is in the
closet, we can indeed be wrong. I remember that horrible, hurtful scandal that
Burt Reynolds was gay and dying of AIDS--we were all wrong, he was just ill
from something else. Any male in the mid-1980s who suddenly lost weight was
immediately suspected of having AIDS--after all, it was happening to our
friends all around us, at least in cities like LA where I lived at the time.
So an author could present a thin male being pushed in a wheelchair by another
hunky guy and know that the audience would immediately assume the character was
gay and had AIDS. If the author was lazy, that would be enough, s/he could
engage in self-congratulations for having presented an interesting character,
full-blown, to use a dreadful pun. If the author was smart, s/he'd use the
stereotype to fool the reader, to put up a red herring, perhaps, to add a layer
of complexity and intrigue, to build revealing reactions from other characters
based on their own stereotypes.
Why did I think the protagonist in "Bastard Out of Carolina" was going to grow
up to become an out lesbian when there was only a minor character in the entire
book who was a lesbian and the topic was never really explored? It wasn't just
because the book seemed so autobiographical and Dorothy Allison is of course
very out. It was the fact that the minor character was the only sympathetic
adult in the entire book, the only one who was any kind of role model, the only
one the child related to, the only one that probably would be the girl's life
saver (oops, that was another thread). It was a certain skepticism and doubt,
a feeling of being al oner, of having to hide one's true nature, which told me
that little girl was already a babydyke.
I'm keeping to my one hour of MW a day so this will probably be it for Monday,
though I'll skim as many more posts as I can and then reluctantly dump all the
rest. What one does for love. Oh well, a little MW is better than no MW. And
a little MW can go a long way. (I just read a newspaper story about a woman
who was online 16 hours a day and her husband is suing for divorce, for some
reason. She promised to change, quit for two weeks, and is back to 16 hours.
Have to watch myself that I don't backslide to five hours again.)
Carol Schmidt
moira d
<snip>
>Moira asked what clues there were that a character was gay or lesbian, if the
>author did not specifically say so, not counting stereotypical "clues" like
>limp wrists or comfortable shoes. To this I have to say, there is absolutely
>no way of being absolutely sure a character in real life or in fiction is gay
>or lesbian unless the character chooses to reveal sexual orientation (oh, maybe
>if the character engages in continual and exclusive same-sex sex, you could
>probably take that as self-revelation). If you wonder if a character in book
>you are reading was intended to be a lesbian or gay male and you're not sure,
>you probably would have to ask the author for intent.
>
>Much as gays and lesbians love to use "gaydar" to try to guess who is in the
>closet, we can indeed be wrong.
What, precisely, is "gaydar"? I got the gist of it from the context
that followed your use, but ... hell, I'm a lazy-butt.
<snip>
>Why did I think the protagonist in "Bastard Out of Carolina" was going to grow
>up to become an out lesbian when there was only a minor character in the entire
>book who was a lesbian and the topic was never really explored? It wasn't just
>because the book seemed so autobiographical and Dorothy Allison is of course
>very out. It was the fact that the minor character was the only sympathetic
>adult in the entire book, the only one who was any kind of role model, the only
>one the child related to, the only one that probably would be the girl's life
>saver (oops, that was another thread). It was a certain skepticism and doubt,
>a feeling of being al oner, of having to hide one's true nature, which told me
>that little girl was already a babydyke.
That last sentence seems to be very important. "skepticism and doubt,
a loner, hiding one's true nature."
One of my minor characters is a homosexual man. I want him to be
real. I don't want to tell, either. I want to show. I don't
plan on showing obviously. I just want it to be known that he
is gay. I'm not sure why this is important, except that my
protagonist needs to grow up. She's starting out as a shallow
egotistical human being. As she progresses through the story
she learns of the rich diversity of life around her, and how
very real the people around her are. She grows up. The minor
character is one of the devices that I use to help her grow
up.
>I'm keeping to my one hour of MW a day so this will probably be it for Monday,
>though I'll skim as many more posts as I can and then reluctantly dump all the
>rest. What one does for love. Oh well, a little MW is better than no MW. And
>a little MW can go a long way. (I just read a newspaper story about a woman
>who was online 16 hours a day and her husband is suing for divorce, for some
>reason. She promised to change, quit for two weeks, and is back to 16 hours.
>Have to watch myself that I don't backslide to five hours again.)
Limits are fine. But what I do is to use time that I'd spend
doing other solitary tasks. And I do this when the family is
otherwise occupied. If they're all absorbed in a tv program,
I trundle the laptop out to the family room, plug it into the
phone jack and log on and read newsgroups while they watch
the 18 billionth repeat of the "Soup Nazi" episode of Seinfeld.
If The Girl is surgically attached to her phone, The Boy is
down the street tag-teaming with his friend against the friend's
little brother, and The Spousal Unit is snarfing beers with
the neighbor, I am on-line.
When the family needs my attention, or wants my attention, or I
want theirs, I am there. I make sure I spend time playing
"King of the Couch" with The Boy. I take The Girl to the mall
and wait patiently while she tries out every perfume sample in
the entire store. The Spousal Unit and I recline on the sofa
reading novels and/or newspaper sections. The dogs get patted,
brushed and fed.
It works out.
--
moira
Do whatever you want: other people will speak ill of you anyway.
Don May
wrote:
<...>
>What, precisely, is "gaydar"? I got the gist of it from the context
>that followed your use, but ... hell, I'm a lazy-butt.
>
><snip>
Gay + Radar = gaydar
Gaydar is a term used to label the ability to tell by subtle
mannerisms, such as eye contact, watching to see wheither a
person's eyes follow women or men, appearance, and language
if a person is gay. Particularly up until recently it was
very important to pick up on such "signals." Coming out to
the wrong person could cost you your employment, reputation
in the community, and physical violence. You simply couldn't
be wrong because of the consequences.
While some think of it as of a "sixth sense" I think it is
really being very fine tuned to very subtle physical and
verbal actions of people. Gay culture has always had buzz
words that only other gays would know as indicators of being
gay. If there was someone you wanted to meet that you
suspected or wanted to know if they were gay you could drop
a few of those words into the conversation as a signal to
the other person it was safe to come out to you.
Out of necessity all this language, subtle body mannerisms,
and also some dress signals were very subtle and meant to go
over the heads of most heterosexuals who because of their
conditioning only thought of gay's behavior in terms of the
stereotypical images they had been lead to believe indicated
a person was gay.
How else was a guy going to know if that big, burly, butch,
truck driver was looking for a husband. <g>
Don
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The very purpose of existence is to reconcile the glowing opinion
we have of ourselves with the appalling things that other people
think about us.-- Quentin Crisp
Ajcarol1
>>What, precisely, is "gaydar"? I got the gist of it from the context
>>that followed your use, but ... hell, I'm a lazy-butt.
>>
>><snip>
Don explained it fine. I might ask a woman I've just met such questions as who
her favorite singers are--kd lang and Melissa would rate more questions, Billy
Ray Cyrus would be a washout. If she mentioned Toshi Reagon I'd know for sure.
Same with comedians--Kate Clinton would be a sure thing. I might ask if she'd
ever been to P'town, and if she said in July, when Golden Threads has its
annual convention there, I'd know for sure, whereas if she said it was too
crowded and too, well, you know, I'd retreat. (Or if it was a situation where
a confrontation was the thing to do, I'd say, "No, what do you mean, you
know?") Same with Northhampton--if she'd never heard of the place,
fahgedaboutit.
A second round question might be on the Michigan Womyn's Music Festival, or had
she ever read Katharine V. Forrest? I might say Radclyffe Hall in some context
and see if her eyes lit up or looked puzzled. I'd mention Naiad Press and see
if the name registered with her.
Related--I was on a women's message board when a guy tried to pass and he was
asked to describe what tampon applicators were like. He flunked.
As for your closeted gay male character, you might have him get a copy of The
Advocate in the mail and shuffle it under the rest of the mail when someone
approached. He might have a Joseph Hanson mystery in his bookshelf, or a John
Rechy novel.
Of course you know about show tunes, but maybe he could have a CD of "The
Flirtations," a gay a capella group that once sang on Phil Donahue's for a gay
wedding. It had about a dozen members and lost most of them to AIDS and
dropout and was down to two when they added Suede, a lesbian singer, for one
last album and year of performing around 1997.
Most people are on to the rainbow and the purple triangle, but six very
discreet rainbow gems in a ring might be more subtle--or maybe not, scratch
that one. Maybe he could have a rainbow suncatcher in his bathroom, where he
wouldn't expect anyone else to see. Maybe he'd have a small basket of poppers
alongside his bed, since it has been disproved that poppers had anything to do
with the spread of AIDS. Maybe he'd have a New Orleans feather mask on his
bedroom wall.
Pick up a copy of the Advocate and look at the latest rock singers, books, and
other symbols of gay male culture to insert as the more subtle clues in your
book. If you want straight readers to catch the clues, too, you might find
yourself with the stereotypes again, so walk that fine line already! Good
luck!
Carol Schmidt
Alan Hope
Don May <don...@mindspring.com> wrote in article
<37a085bf...@news.mindspring.com>...
> Gay + Radar = gaydar
> Gaydar is a term used to label the ability to tell by subtle
> mannerisms, such as eye contact, watching to see wheither a
> person's eyes follow women or men, appearance, and language
> if a person is gay. Particularly up until recently it was
> very important to pick up on such "signals." Coming out to
> the wrong person could cost you your employment, reputation
> in the community, and physical violence. You simply couldn't
> be wrong because of the consequences.
Is it really the case that what were once gaydar signals have been
co-opted by hets keen to show how cutting-edge they are, and thence
by all the rest who have no idea of the original significance? The
migration of these signals is terribly interesting, not least because
it suggests that straight people nowadays - this having gone on for
quite some time - are openly and perhaps proudly but anyway
inadvertently displaying the symbols of a quondam et futura gay
underground.
Many of them would have apoplexy if they realised, which is no bad
thing in itself.
AH
Don May
wrote:
>
>Don May <don...@mindspring.com> wrote in article
><37a085bf...@news.mindspring.com>...
>
>> Gay + Radar = gaydar
>
"Alan Hope" wrote:
>
>Is it really the case that what were once gaydar signals have been
>co-opted by hets keen to show how cutting-edge they are, and thence
>by all the rest who have no idea of the original significance? The
>migration of these signals is terribly interesting, not least because
>it suggests that straight people nowadays - this having gone on for
>quite some time - are openly and perhaps proudly but anyway
>inadvertently displaying the symbols of a quondam et futura gay
>underground.
>
>Many of them would have apoplexy if they realised, which is no bad
>thing in itself.
I must admit to a touch of amusement as I watched a dance
floor crowded with straight mild mannered accountants and
office workers dancing their hearts out to Macho Macho Man
at Bill's last Christmas party. Many had no idea that it was
a gay group singing about wanting to be desirable macho sex
symbols and it was very seventies gay disco dance music. I
don't wish to generalize too much ... but why not ... Many
moral upright heterosexuals would be very shocked if they
knew how much of their clothing styles and amusements
originated within the gay community, sometimes years before
reaching the general straight population.
I suppose I could puff up my ego a bit and pretend it is
because gays are inherently creative, but I suspect it's
only because when you are pushed to the limits of society
and have less to loose, you become more daring and free to
break current dress and amusement norms.
I suspect in general gays have a greater sense of play later
on into life than the average heterosexual who through peer
pressure and raising children are forced to "settle down"
and play the current "normal" heterosexual lifestyle.
When forced to write your script and act it out to be
accepted and for personal protection a strange thing often
happens. You discover life's a big stage and everyone
straight or gay are simply playing roles. Some have a sense
of it and some don't. Some write their own scripts and
others simply go along with what mama and daddy and their
teachers told them was who they are, who everyone was
suppose to be without question, little knowing they had been
given a script they blindly act out for the biggest play on
earth, blindly passing simular scripts on to the next
generation to play without question. Actors who don't know
they are actors. Creativity? I suspect it's not so much
breaking the rules as it is simply writing your own script
and acting it out.
And then comes the point in life when you began to suspect
there is no real you, your so called uniqueness lies in how
a collection of scripts happened to fall into place, you are
a snowflake. Forming, falling, and melting into a common
pool over and over for eternity.
Don
Have a good day folks. Today i'm hanging up my writing cap
and going to the city to play fairy carpenter. How macho
that is, well that remains in the eyes of the beholder
doesn't it?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There are no grades of vanity, there are only
grades of ability in concealing it.-- Mark Twain
paghat
(Don May) wrote:
> I must admit to a touch of amusement as I watched a dance
> floor crowded with straight mild mannered accountants and
> office workers dancing their hearts out to Macho Macho Man
> at Bill's last Christmas party. Many had no idea that it was
> a gay group singing about wanting to be desirable macho sex
> symbols and it was very seventies gay disco dance music. I
> don't wish to generalize too much ... but why not ... Many
> moral upright heterosexuals would be very shocked if they
> knew how much of their clothing styles and amusements
> originated within the gay community, sometimes years before
> reaching the general straight population.
Yeah, but african american culture is frequently ahead of gay culture in
tacky pop fads. So it goes from Black America to Gay America to Teenage
America and finally to those dorkass accountants.
> I suppose I could puff up my ego a bit and pretend it is
> because gays are inherently creative, but I suspect it's
> only because when you are pushed to the limits of society
> and have less to loose, you become more daring and free to
> break current dress and amusement norms.
You might read Edward Carpenter's INTERMEFDIATE TYPES, a turn
of the century classic that shows pretty clearly how & why
all innovations in society have required an "outsider" input
specifically from that percentage of the society that is
homosexual. Carpenter presents a very compelling case.
> I suspect in general gays have a greater sense of play later
> on into life than the average heterosexual who through peer
> pressure and raising children are forced to "settle down"
> and play the current "normal" heterosexual lifestyle.
Since parenthood is commonplace in the gay community, are you saying those
faggots & dykes who're parenting have lost their sense of play? Parents
whether gay or straight do seem to lose a few braincells right from the
first day they bring a kid home from the hospital or midwife clinic, but
I've seen some pretty playful gay parents (and straight ones), while I've
seen an awful lot of uptight sour-pus creatively retarded faggots who're
not parents -- & do you count those disgusting old chickenhawks in the
park as "playful"?
-paghat
Don May
(paghat) wrote:
Tacky pop fads, dork head accounts, parents lose a few brain
cells, uptight sour-pus retarded faggots, and disgusting old
chicken hawks ... Yes, dear heart, I must question the
validity of my conclusions.
Yes, I agree, some of us do loose our sense of play and
become tediously serious and a tad elitist.
Don
moira d
<snip>
>Many
>moral upright heterosexuals would be very shocked if they
>knew how much of their clothing styles and amusements
>originated within the gay community, sometimes years before
>reaching the general straight population.
I KNEW IT! I just KNEW those pink shirts and dove-gray ties
were from the gay community! I KNEW IT!!!
>I suppose I could puff up my ego a bit and pretend it is
>because gays are inherently creative, but I suspect it's
>only because when you are pushed to the limits of society
>and have less to loose, you become more daring and free to
>break current dress and amusement norms.
Back to the topic of "gaydar" ... that works fine for someone
who knows zie is homosexual and is looking for others like
zir.
What about those who are just discovering their sexuality? How
do they learn about these things? I am thinking back about
a young man who was very confused about a lot of things, sexuality
being one of them.
He was told by a gay man that he was gay. He lived the gay
lifestyle for quite a few years. Then he was told by another
gay man that he was NOT gay, but had been predated upon. That
the young man's original gay lover had taken advantage of his
naivity and confusion.
The young man subsequently discovered he was bisexual when he
realized that those feelings of attraction for men and women both
were natural for him.
But ... how would a young man or woman (or transgendered) discover
these things and learn the signals?
If I were to write a story about a person discovering zir sexuality,
it might be useful to know about some of these confusions and
realizations.
>Have a good day folks. Today i'm hanging up my writing cap
>and going to the city to play fairy carpenter. How macho
>that is, well that remains in the eyes of the beholder
>doesn't it?
Pink coveralls with a dove-gray tee-shirt underneath, right?
--
moira <G>
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.
Ajcarol1
>Back to the topic of "gaydar" ... that works fine for someone
>who knows zie is homosexual and is looking for others like
>zir.
>
>What about those who are just discovering their sexuality? How
>do they learn about these things? I am thinking back about
>a young man who was very confused about a lot of things, sexuality
>being one of them.
>
>He was told by a gay man that he was gay. He lived the gay
>lifestyle for quite a few years. Then he was told by another
>gay man that he was NOT gay, but had been predated upon. That
>the young man's original gay lover had taken advantage of his
>naivity and confusion.
>
>The young man subsequently discovered he was bisexual when he
>realized that those feelings of attraction for men and women both
>were natural for him.
>
>But ... how would a young man or woman (or transgendered) discover
>these things and learn the signals?
>
>If I were to write a story about a person discovering zir sexuality,
>it might be useful to know about some of these confusions and
>realizations.
There are quite a few books about the coming out process for young
lesbigaytrans individuals. Also, you could lurk on a NG for kids considering
coming out. I'm sure the predators do, too.
Carol Schmidt
Paul Martin
> Also, you could lurk on a NG for kids considering
> coming out. I'm sure the predators do, too.
> Carol Schmidt
What an ugly thought. Talk about making it even more difficult for the kids! I
mean, as if they weren't confused enough, to have to worry about whether the
person encouraging them is a predator... ugh.
Paul
--
Life: A dangerous sexually-transmitted disease, 100% fatal to all who contract
it.
Don May
wrote:
>Back to the topic of "gaydar" ... that works fine for someone
>who knows zie is homosexual and is looking for others like
>zir.
>
>What about those who are just discovering their sexuality? How
>do they learn about these things? I am thinking back about
>a young man who was very confused about a lot of things, sexuality
>being one of them.
>
>He was told by a gay man that he was gay. He lived the gay
>lifestyle for quite a few years. Then he was told by another
>gay man that he was NOT gay, but had been predated upon. That
>the young man's original gay lover had taken advantage of his
>naivity and confusion.
I can only relate how I personally view the situation.
While I will not presume what was going through this young
man's mind I can share a few things that might shed some
light on what is wrong with this picture.
Perhaps thinking about it this way will help. When you feel
attraction mental or physical, toward another person is it
something you "choose" to feel? Attraction to a particular
gender, physical or mental, is not something you can be told
you have or have not, you either have it or you do not. I
doubt that he was confused about his attraction to men or to
women. The confusion was most likely how given society's
prejudices was he going to deal with those feelings out in
the real world, particularly if his attraction was toward
both sexes in rather equal amounts.
It would seem that at first he felt he had to choose one
over the other. Gay/straight, either or, no in-between
choice. Given it would have been the easy route in today's
society to suppress his feelings toward men and only express
those he felt toward women why on earth would he entertain
the thought of expressing the desires he felt toward men?
Why would he let anyone, gay or straight, tell him how he
felt inside? Would he let anyone tell him he was gay then
lead a "gay lifestyle?"
He must have already known he was attracted to men to some
degree. Given, in a sense, "permission" by another gay man
he lived out his desires. He would never have consented to
do so had he not been aware of his attraction to men. He in
a sense needed someone to tell him it was "ok."
For one gay person to tell him he is gay and another to tell
him he is not gay was equally absurd on their parts, if
indeed that was the case. He and he alone knows how he feels
in the presence of either sex. Of course denial may come
into play, but that does not alter the feeling of attraction
only suppress it. I would say if he allowed someone to tell
him he was gay it was because he needed someone to give him
permission to live out his already existing desires. He was
not "told" what they were.
If I might add, while it seems innocent "gay lifestyle" is a
very charged label used mostly by anti-gay political and
certain religious forces to give the impression that gays
"choose" to be gay. That they chose to lead a "gay
lifestyle" and that this "gay lifestyle" is fraught with
socially unacceptable behavior. I know you did not use it
intentionally or in a negative sense. But I would be amiss
not to inform you it is not a label of our choosing. It is a
term used most often as a political weapon against gays
Also the term "Gay Agenda." Is a term specifically coined a
few years back by anti-gay forces in Oregon to strike fear
in people that gays were not to be trusted, they have a
"secret agenda" to do harm to society and influence
children.
You can give them credit for this. It was a very effective
political weapon used to stir up anti-gay feelings to the
degree it would lead to political action against gays.
Beware! Gays have an "agenda" You must stop them before they
complete that agenda to corrupt "family values" and our
children. Political buzz words use to stir up negative
feelings, weapons, mind games.
>
>The young man subsequently discovered he was bisexual when he
>realized that those feelings of attraction for men and women both
>were natural for him.
Then is seems he finally came to terms with how to express
his feelings of attraction without being told what he should
feel or how to express his sexual orientation.
>
>But ... how would a young man or woman (or transgendered) discover
>these things and learn the signals?
The context in which gaydar is used is changing as more
easily approached support groups exist that any person of
questioning sexuality can go to for aid and to meet those
who are dealing with the same issue. Gaydar, depending where
you live and how open gays are, is becoming less a necessity
and more an amusement. What is now called gaydar, is
historically a fairly new term for a sense of recognition
developed as a person became acquainted with other gays.
Takes one to know one. But most folks know when eye contact
lasts that few seconds past what is normally experienced.
Most know that when you look back at someone you find
interesting and catch them looking back at you there is some
chance of sexual attraction. Then there are those wrestling
games between buddies where after the pin down the other
person is, well breathing a bit to hot for the occasion and
does not release their grip quite as fast as one would
expect between heterosexuals in the same situation. But in
the beginning even though I was desperate to meet someone
"like me" you would have had to hit me over the head to make
me realize I was being cruised.
>
>If I were to write a story about a person discovering zir sexuality,
>it might be useful to know about some of these confusions and
>realizations.
Lots of good books on the coming out experience you might
reference. There are web groups specifically for those
coming to terms with their sexuality who are seeking support
that also are a good source of seeing the current state of
what kids are going through. You may lurk to get a sense of
what is going on. But these groups by necessity are well
moderated to prevent posts from those who would condemn
these kids and also to weed out sexual predictors in a
period of time when these kids most need support from those
who have no ulterior motive to try and influence their
coming to terms with their sexuality what ever it may be.
paghat
(Don May) wrote:
So, you're saying you LIKE disgusting old chickenhawks? Some of
don't feel elitist over NAMBLA, we feel anger and/or disgust.
-paghat
Don May
<pm2...@vcu.org> wrote:
>Ajcarol1 wrote:
>
>> Also, you could lurk on a NG for kids considering
>> coming out. I'm sure the predators do, too.
>> Carol Schmidt
>
>What an ugly thought. Talk about making it even more difficult for the kids! I
>mean, as if they weren't confused enough, to have to worry about whether the
>person encouraging them is a predator... ugh.
>
>Paul
The support news group I know of is well moderated to
prevent those who would condemn these kids for whatever
reason and to prevent sexual predators from trying to
influence their decisions.
Most gays know full well how difficult this period is from
personal experience when the weight of the majority of
society is pressuring them not to be true to their most
basic feelings.
The vast majority of gays are certainly not so callused we
would wish to see any person endure what we had to endure by
being misguided during this period of questioning, neither
do we wish anyone to endure the even greater pain of living
a lie if indeed they are gay. All that is necessary is to
help a person come to terms with their feelings, and not
encourage them to be anything other than what they come to
through their own personal realization.
It would be perverse for a gay to influence a kid or adult
to be anything other than who they are and it is equally
perverse for heterosexuals to pressure their children and
other adults to live a lie rather than be who they are.
Equally perverse and inexcusable.
Evan Hetu
slow ways in most books. I am not sure why this is. Perhaps it is the
way it really happens in life. Clues that slowly add up to the
knowledge that someone is (or may be) gay. Another reason might be
because the author is trying to be sly - that childish trick of placing
silly clues about the story which really serve no point. A final reason
is often a method used by the author to reveal something about the
character narrating the piece. If the narrator is naive, or if he is
constantly looking for clues, it tells us something about that
character.
My favorite stories of the gay fiction genre (if indeed it is considered
a genre) are the ones written by gays for gays. This is not because I
expect that they know 'how to be gay' better than a straight person
would, it's just that not everything is always spelled out. It is like
a mood or setting that invades the piece and colors it with something
different. Just like a novel about artists written for art lovers or
artists leaves out what the author assumes the audience already knows.
That is often more interesting than what is actually said. It is the
part that is left out that tells me what may be universal experience.
For what it's worth.
The Saint
Drop on by my site!
MENSA Writers' Web Ring -
http://members.home.com/evanstmartin/writers.htm
Don May
>> cells, uptight sour-pus retarded faggots, and disgusting old
>> chicken hawks ... Yes, dear heart, I must question the
>> validity of my conclusions.
>>
>> become tediously serious and a tad elitist.
>>
>> Don
>
>
>So, you're saying you LIKE disgusting old chickenhawks? Some of
>don't feel elitist over NAMBLA, we feel anger and/or disgust.
>
>-paghat
Dear, to make your point it is not necessary to mislead
people to think the term "chicken hawk" is the same as a
pedophile. It is a gay slang term that was used for ages
only to label older men who like younger men. Not
necessarily old men, or young men, who like children, that
dear is a pedophile. You know that and I know that.
It was the labels you like to attach to things and people.
Tacky, dork head, sour-pus, retarded, faggots, disgusting
old men. That I was pointing out. You understood exactly the
point I was making in my post. Don't feel you have to stoop
so low as to imply I approve of pedophilia because you have
been called on your propensity to use such degrading
terminology.
It is quite obvious that you have a great deal to share with
all of us. Obviously in the profession of writing, and also
in other matters of life. I will admit I may have been
overly quick to point out my annoyance with some aspects of
your personality this morning, that of course does not
negate you as a total human being.
From your posts here, in your choice of words, I keep
feeling a lot of anger bottled up in you Pahat. I am truly
sorry about that, but that does not mean I will be your
target. I don't do beating post. How about saving it for
those who like it.
Shall we be friends or does this end here and now?
Ajcarol1
>My favorite stories of the gay fiction genre (if indeed it is considered
>a genre) are the ones written by gays for gays. This is not because I
>expect that they know 'how to be gay' better than a straight person
>would, it's just that not everything is always spelled out. It is like
>a mood or setting that invades the piece and colors it with something
>different. Just like a novel about artists written for art lovers or
>artists leaves out what the author assumes the audience already knows.
>That is often more interesting than what is actually said. It is the
>part that is left out that tells me what may be universal experience.>
What I like best about books written by lesbians and gays is that the lesbian
and gay characters live normal lives, well-integrated into society, not
introduced for some ulterior reason such as to be a red herring, to provide
exotic sex interest, to tack on diversity, to be a diversion, to be a foil,
etc.
I get suspicious when suddenly a character is giving off clues that he or she
might be gay or lesbian and there has been no reason for this character
before--is their sexual orientation to be the most or only important feature
about them?
Is this character going to be a disappointment by not ringing true after
raising my hopes to actually see myself and my life reflected in another book
not specifically in my "genre"? Is this character going to be used and
discarded?
Just a few more thoughts on the topic of writing lesbian and gay male
characters.
Carol Schmidt, delighted to see the thread still hanging on
Don May
<evan...@home.com> wrote: In response to Carol Schmidt's
post
>Interesting post. I find that gay characters 'reveal' themselves in
>slow ways in most books. I am not sure why this is. Perhaps it is the
>way it really happens in life. Clues that slowly add up to the
>knowledge that someone is (or may be) gay. Another reason might be
>because the author is trying to be sly - that childish trick of placing
>silly clues about the story which really serve no point. A final reason
>is often a method used by the author to reveal something about the
>character narrating the piece. If the narrator is naive, or if he is
>constantly looking for clues, it tells us something about that
>character.
>
>My favorite stories of the gay fiction genre (if indeed it is considered
>a genre) are the ones written by gays for gays. This is not because I
>expect that they know 'how to be gay' better than a straight person
>would, it's just that not everything is always spelled out. It is like
>a mood or setting that invades the piece and colors it with something
>different. Just like a novel about artists written for art lovers or
>artists leaves out what the author assumes the audience already knows.
>That is often more interesting than what is actually said. It is the
>part that is left out that tells me what may be universal experience.
>
You make a very good point. The over concern with "reveling"
a character is gay can lead to the "let me tell you this
person is gay" syndrome. Also the insertion of "let me tell
you this character is really ok to like" speeches, should
you wish the readers to like the character (in spite of the
fact he/she is gay/lesbian). And the worst situation, the
use of blatant stereotypical behaviors expected by
heterosexual readers unfamiliar with current gay cultural
norms. May I illustrate my point briefly . . .
Tab looked down at the copy of Playboy lying on John's beat
up coffee table. Oh, dear! John must be a heterosexual, but
then, some of my best friends are heterosexuals, he reminded
himself. Tab fell into deep thought, as he contemplated how
he was going to let John know that he knew John was a
heterosexual and that was alright with him, as long as he
didn't come on to him.
How is John was going to approach this murder investigation
differently being a heterosexual, Tab pondered as he stared
at John's Budweiser beer sign flashing off and on, adding to
the disheveled appearance of the early American style couch
sitting in the corner. The wrong couch, the wrong corner,
Tab thought, feeling his asthenic sensibilities being
assaulted.
A Maxwell Parish print would look simply fabulous there, he
mused. I always suspected John was a heterosexual, he has
absolutely no sense of decor. Someone needs to tell that man
how to arrange furniture!
A wee bit over the top, but I trust my point was made.
KMadeleine
>
>Ajcarol1 wrote:
>
>> Also, you could lurk on a NG for kids considering
>> coming out. I'm sure the predators do, too.
>> Carol Schmidt
>
>What an ugly thought. Talk about making it even more difficult for the kids! I
>mean, as if they weren't confused enough, to have to worry about whether the
>person encouraging them is a predator... ugh.
>
>Paul
yes, predators lurking there is indeed an ugly thought, but i'm
sure there's some truth to it. this is one of the reasons i've
been so glad carol joined us, and is back at least a bit. because
she calls them like she sees them, and also gives useful info
instead of just whining [no offense paul, i'm just thinking back
to a discussion about how, since gay partners aren't legally married,
they're not viewed as family by hospitals. in carol's response in
that thread, she included helpful info about how to legally make sure
that committed partners can get access in those situations.]
and a writing-related note to moira, which i'm sure she knows anyway:
everyone's story is different, straight/lesbigay/trans/otheerwise,
so the more coming-out stories you read, the more perspectives you'll
get, and don't assume everybody is the same. but i know you wouldn't
do that, i'm just being 'really painfully clear'.
paghat
(Don May) wrote:
> >> Tacky pop fads, dork head accounts, parents lose a few brain
> >> cells, uptight sour-pus retarded faggots, and disgusting old
> >> chicken hawks ... Yes, dear heart, I must question the
> >> validity of my conclusions.
> >>
> >> Yes, I agree, some of us do lose our sense of play and
> >> become tediously serious and a tad elitist.
> >>
> >> Don
> >
> >
> >So, you're saying you LIKE disgusting old chickenhawks? Some of
> >don't feel elitist over NAMBLA, we feel anger and/or disgust.
> >
> >-paghat
>
> Dear, to make your point it is not necessary to mislead
> people to think the term "chicken hawk" is the same as a
> pedophile. It is a gay slang term that was used for ages
> only to label older men who like younger men.
You are wrong. Chickhenhawk is any man, usually older, who goes for minor
boys. Chickenhawks hang out outside the doors of underage clubs. They are
a severe problem. If they ever go for anyone over 18, it's because the
boy-harlot can still pass for younger. Chickenhawk is gay slang for a
PREDATORY pedophile who will PAY for sex with minors & his
self-justification (running parallel to NAMBLA's) is that the boys are out
there trying to make a living so they've volunteered to be molested.
> Not
> necessarily old men, or young men, who like children, that
> dear is a pedophile. You know that and I know that.
>
> It was the labels you like to attach to things and people.
> Tacky, dork head, sour-pus, retarded, faggots, disgusting
> old men. That I was pointing out. You understood exactly the
> point I was making in my post.
But you evidently aren't smart enough to understand mine. You may not LIKE
politically incorrect vulgarity but then you're a wussy. Some things don't
merit respect. Or as a long-suffering Zatoichi once said moments before
his swordcane wooshed out, "Some people deserve to die."
> Don't feel you have to stoop
> so low as to imply I approve of pedophilia because you have
> been called on your propensity to use such degrading
> terminology.
Unlike you, I feel no need to allude to such people respectfully.
> It is quite obvious that you have a great deal to share with
> all of us.
Including smart alecky obnoxiousness. I was a shy little kid & making up
for it in old age.
> Obviously in the profession of writing, and also
> in other matters of life. I will admit I may have been
> overly quick to point out my annoyance with some aspects of
> your personality this morning, that of course does not
> negate you as a total human being.
>
> From your posts here, in your choice of words, I keep
> feeling a lot of anger bottled up in you Pahat.
And I'm REALLY pissed you mispelled my name. Not.
> I am truly
> sorry about that, but that does not mean I will be your
> target. I don't do beating post. How about saving it for
> those who like it.
>
> Shall we be friends or does this end here and now?
My friends laugh at my smartass manner or join in. They rarely take offence.
-paghat
paghat
ajca...@aol.com (Ajcarol1) wrote:
>
> What I like best about books written by lesbians and gays is that the lesbian
> and gay characters live normal lives, well-integrated into society,
I HATE books like that. I like gay characters who know the world is fucked
up & want no part of a status quo that destroys nature, injures children,
supports governments at war, supports greed, rapes in a number of ways, &
cares nothing about the downtrodden except how to trod on them more, all
in an unseeing manner that permits them to feel like they're all just nice
people playing no part in the rampant villainy that IS mainstream society.
Heros stand against the status quo. Faggots & dykes are natural outsiders.
Books that assume we're just like Ma and Pa Kettle or Ward & June except
for the same-sex bit Which Hardly Matters can be quite convincing -- that
yes gays can be the same blind, blithe, status quo morons as straight
people. Hell, even a Charles Bronson avengers are better characters than
that.
Different strokes.
-paghat the ratgirl
Evan Hetu
> I HATE books like that....Faggots & dykes are natural outsiders.
> Books that assume we're just like Ma and Pa Kettle or Ward & June except
> for the same-sex bit Which Hardly Matters can be quite convincing -- that
> yes gays can be the same blind, blithe, status quo morons as straight
> people. Hell, even a Charles Bronson avengers are better characters than
> that.
Interesting point--
I have heard this numerous times. In fact, I think that it is arguably
one of the key issues currently in gay fiction and in gay politics. Not
all gay people think they are like straights and not all think they
ought to be. There is the dichotomy between fiction written from and
for these two camps. The fiction for the 'we're different' camp usually
focuses on the more extreme aspects of gay life. The 'we're just like
you' camp focuses on the more mundane aspects of existence. Both have
their roots in homophobia though, and here's why...
Gay fiction either serves its audience to reassure that the reader's
mother, sister, brother, etc should not shun them because of their
sexuality. These types of fiction key on the sameness of being gay.
Other fiction serves its audience by showing some of the more seedy
aspects (usually sexuality) and showing it to be fun and glamourous. It
takes the reader and makes him/her realize that its OK to be different.
I like both, but in the end, we are left with characters.
The character needs to be believable regardless of who they might be
sleeping with when we are not looking.
Suggested reading: "Glamourpuss" and "Sex toys of the gods" - both
fiction, both light reading - nothing too heavy or graphic regardless of
the titles. They are written by Christian Laughlin-- kind of like
reading gay version of a Jackie Collins novel. Good characterization, I
thought.
Anyway, enough of my blabbing. Good luck to who ever it was who
initially posted this message about how to write convincing gay and
lesbian characters. The Saint
Drop on by my site!
MENSA Writers' Web Ring -
http://members.home.com/evanstmartin/writers.htm
Actually, this is perfect for what I mention eariler. I disagree about
gays being natural outsiders, but that does not change the validity of
paghat's comments. There are lots of books which key on this aspect of
'gayness' and lots of books that key on their 'like the rest of the
world-ness". Both types of fiction focus on that part of being gay, but
what is left out of the discussion in both books are the issues that
most gay people
Peter Hickman
paghat wrote:
> In article <19990731081312...@ng-cf1.aol.com>,
> ajca...@aol.com (Ajcarol1) wrote:
>
> >
> > What I like best about books written by lesbians and gays is that the lesbian
> > and gay characters live normal lives, well-integrated into society,
>
> I HATE books like that. I like gay characters who know the world is fucked
> up & want no part of a status quo that destroys nature, injures children,
> supports governments at war, supports greed, rapes in a number of ways, &
> cares nothing about the downtrodden except how to trod on them more, all
> in an unseeing manner that permits them to feel like they're all just nice
> people playing no part in the rampant villainy that IS mainstream society.
> Heros stand against the status quo. Faggots & dykes are natural outsiders.
> Books that assume we're just like Ma and Pa Kettle or Ward & June except
> for the same-sex bit Which Hardly Matters can be quite convincing -- that
> yes gays can be the same blind, blithe, status quo morons as straight
> people. Hell, even a Charles Bronson avengers are better characters than
> that.
>
Oddly enough, this puts your gay characters in the standard position of your
average heros in your basic novels, who are all more or less outsiders, at least
for the space of the story, since otherwise how do you get some drama in the old
plot mechanism?
For example, take Anne Eliot in _Persuasion_ certainly is exposed to (and
exposes) a lot of "the rampant villainy that IS mainstream society"...but this has
little to do with her precise sexual proclivities, though something (one has to
suppose) with the economics of desire and frustration.
And there is the additional oddity that there seem to be plenty of books where
the gay writer has had to make do with heterosexual goings on as the bulk of their
plot mechanisms. I guess I'm thinking of Proust, but I believe there are other
such cases....Maybe this has little to do with my basic point...which is that I
have to agree that whoever is the hero of a book I like, they have to stand against
some aspect of the status quo...consciously or unconsciously and how they manage to
have their fun is not necessarily a key element in their stand.
You never can tell..............Pete
paghat
> paghat wrote:
> > I HATE books like that....Faggots & dykes are natural outsiders.
> > Books that assume we're just like Ma and Pa Kettle or Ward & June except
> > for the same-sex bit Which Hardly Matters can be quite convincing -- that
> > yes gays can be the same blind, blithe, status quo morons as straight
> > people. Hell, even a Charles Bronson avengers are better characters than
> > that.
>
> Interesting point--
>
> I have heard this numerous times. In fact, I think that it is arguably
> one of the key issues currently in gay fiction and in gay politics. Not
> all gay people think they are like straights and not all think they
> ought to be. There is the dichotomy between fiction written from and
> for these two camps. The fiction for the 'we're different' camp usually
> focuses on the more extreme aspects of gay life. The 'we're just like
> you' camp focuses on the more mundane aspects of existence. Both have
> their roots in homophobia though, and here's why...
A story about the angst of being an outsider, of feeling deeply that one
was born in the wrong time or a society with the wrong moral system, can
be acted out with reference to homophobia.
> Gay fiction either serves its audience to reassure that the reader's
> mother, sister, brother, etc should not shun them because of their
> sexuality.
You mean crappy gay fiction can. The good stuff still has Quest as it's
primary motivation -- that can be a quest for beauty in an ugly world, for
safety in a dangerous world, for treasures either spiritual or material,
for emotional satisfaction whether in assisting or avenging or succeeding
or coming to terms with failure. You can say that the story of an
angst-ridden quest for beauty on a ruined planet is inherently rooted in
homophobia, but you'll never convince me. Outsider status is imparted not
only upon gays or racial minorities, but on youths, on the areligious
growing up in Utah, dreamers trapped in shitty jobs, artists, thieves,
retarded adults, wetbacks, idealists, & psychopaths.
> These types of fiction key on the sameness of being gay.
Because you're assuming things about gay literature that is only true of
that which is mediocre, inartistic, & appeals only to dullards.
> Other fiction serves its audience by showing some of the more seedy
> aspects (usually sexuality) and showing it to be fun and glamourous.
The distinction may well be of class rather than sexual. A character
pitted against the world may live on the seemy side out of poverty induced
by gangsterism, or sub-working-class heritage, or because they're trying
to live off what they can earn as artists rather than day-traders. The
assumptions you make seem to stem from within you & are not inherent ot a
literature -- unless as seems probable you're just talking about the bad
stuff.
> It
> takes the reader and makes him/her realize that its OK to be different.
"Difference is." It requires no justification or scientific rational.
That's what you're missing, & that's what is missing from the kind of
dreary fiction you're assuming is the norm.
> I like both, but in the end, we are left with characters.
>
> The character needs to be believable regardless of who they might be
> sleeping with when we are not looking.
> Suggested reading: "Glamourpuss" and "Sex toys of the gods" - both
> fiction, both light reading - nothing too heavy or graphic regardless of
> the titles. They are written by Christian Laughlin-- kind of like
> reading gay version of a Jackie Collins novel.
I'm glad to see that what I was sensing is correct -- you're describing
the lower end of storytelling as an art. I'll allow you're probably right
when addressing overt junk-fiction worthy of Jackie Collins.
-paghat the ratgirl
> Good characterization, I thought.
>
> Anyway, enough of my blabbing. Good luck to who ever it was who
> initially posted this message about how to write convincing gay and
> lesbian characters. The Saint
>
> Drop on by my site!
> MENSA Writers' Web Ring -
> http://members.home.com/evanstmartin/writers.htm
>
>
>
>
>
Don May
(icefox) wrote:
>On Sat, 31 Jul 1999 05:38:56 GMT, don...@mindspring.com (Don May)
>wrote:
>
>>Dear, to make your point it is not necessary to mislead
>>people to think the term "chicken hawk" is the same as a
>>pedophile. It is a gay slang term that was used for ages
>>only to label older men who like younger men. Not
>>necessarily old men, or young men, who like children, that
>>dear is a pedophile. You know that and I know that.
>
>(snip)
>
>
>Well, color me confused. During the '60s, or maybe more specifically,
>the Vietnam war, a "chickenhawk" used to be a combat helicopter pilot.
>What I'd like to know is how this term got commandeered to mean what
>you all are talking about.
All those boys, well most, in Vietnam would have been very
displeased if they knew chickenhawk has been used in the gay
community all my lifetime and that goes back to the fifties.
Commandeered indeed! . . . Course, there could have been a
few chickenhawks flying those copters.
I guess you could say it is used in a slightly different
context when cruising over rice paddies in Vietnam than when
cruising down the streets in San Francisco.
Don
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I hasten to laugh at everything for fear of being
obliged to weep at it.--Pierre de Beaumarchais
Evan Hetu
However, please offer up some gay fiction that is worthy (in your eyes)
that has some redeeming content other than sex. I have found few if any.
> > lesbian characters. The Saint
> >
> > Drop on by my site!
> > MENSA Writers' Web Ring -
> > http://members.home.com/evanstmartin/writers.htm
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
Deck Deckert
> >Well, color me confused. During the '60s, or maybe more specifically,
> >the Vietnam war, a "chickenhawk" used to be a combat helicopter pilot.
> displeased if they knew chickenhawk has been used in the gay
> community all my lifetime and that goes back to the fifties.
The term is also used to refer to politicians like Clinton and Gingrinch
and a hundred others who love war -- as long as they don't have to put
their own asses in front of the guns.
Deck
paghat
<de...@seminole.gate.net> wrote:
It also describes a hawk that eats chickens.
-paghat
paghat
> Its obvious that you feel strongly about this so I will not argue.
> However, please offer up some gay fiction that is worthy (in your eyes)
> that has some redeeming content other than sex. I have found few if any.
I already provided a longish list in this thread, but here's another
list off the top of my head that probably won't overlap the other that
much, because there are thousands such tales & novels in the supernatural
& science fiction genres alone (which is what I personally know
in-depth). Anyone very knowledgeable in the mystery genre could make a
similar list without blinking twice -- there are hundreds of novels &
tales about gay detectives & if they have no redeeming value beyond sex,
then neither do the thousands of books wherein the detectives are hetero
(and there is no better example by Patrica Highsmith). And anyone well
read in what passes for "mainstream" would be able to make the longest
list of all. But here's a quicky of material memorable & good & with gay
characters (mainly as protagonists) & most of them though overtly
homosexual would not have to be hidden from mom or the kids:
The Picture of Dorian Grey by Oscar Wilde
"The Doll" by Victorian lesbian bluestocking Vernon Lee
"The Woman Who Loved the Moon" by Liz Lynn
"Since I Died" by Elizabeth Stuart Phelps
What Keeps Me Here by Rebecca Brown
Kittatiny by Joanna Russ
Zeita & Reikel by Isaac B. Singer
Studies in Death by Stanislaw Eric Count Stenbock
"Ink & the Moon Goddess" by S. G. Johnson
"Snow White & Rose Red" Rachel Pollack
"Young Lady Who Loved Caterpillars" by me
A Regiment of WOmen by Clemence Dane
Nyria by Rosa Praed
Allan's Wife by H. Rider Haggard
Comrade Loves of the Samurai by Saikaku
"Come to me not in winter's white" by Roger Zelazney
"Bloodchild" by Octavia Butler
Orlando by Virginia Woolf
Sister Light Sister Dark by Jane Yolen
Maia by Richard Adams
"Unicorn Mountain" by Bishop
Glimmering by Elizabeth Hand
"First Person Plural" by F. M. Busby
Ring of Swords by Eleanor Arnason
Divine Endurance by Gwynneth Jones
Stone Dogs by S. M. Sterling
Les Guerilliers by Monique Wittig
Fire's Stone by Tanya Hauf
On Wings of Song by Tom Disch
"Carmilla" by LeFanu
Davy by Edgar Pangborn
Tales of Neveryon by Chip Delany
Door into Fire by Diane Duane
"The Other Winter's Tale" by Nicola Griffith
Forever War by Joe Haldeman
Daughters of the Coral Dawn by Katherine Forrest
Passing for Human by Jody Scott
Golden Witchbreed by Mary Gentle
Motherlines by Suzy Charnas
A Warriors Tale by Alan Cole
Shards of Honor by Lois Bujold
"Her Girl Friday" by Herb Varley
Nights at the Circus by Angela Carter
Thendara House by Marion Zimmer Bradley
"Life of Buddha" by Lucius Shepard
"Third Sex" by Alan Brennart
Drawing Blood by Poppy Z. Brite
Burning Chrome by Bill Gibson
"In the Hills, the Cities" by Clive Barker
War for the Oaks by Emma Bull
The Wanderground by Sally Miller Gearhart
"The Crooked Man" by Charles Beaumont
"Cherokee Bat and the Goat Guys" by Francesca Lia Bloch
"The Pollinators of Eden" by John Boyd
Plus endless endless endless others. It bewilders me what people assume
about homosexuality as treated in literature of all sorts. Because the
assumptions just aren't sustained by actual readings.
Sex acts per se are rarely the "theme" of good stories whether there are
gay characters or not.
The above avoids obscure writers who've also done great works. If anyone
wanted to track down the stories using my hasty list, search the Locus
website story by story & create your own reading list.
-paghat
Ajcarol1
(in your eyes)
>that has some redeeming content other than sex. I have found few if any.
You didn't ask me, but since I feel generally abused in your generic insult of
gay fiction, I'll offer up my own novels.
Sweet Cherry Wine looks at child sexual abuse from the point of view of how
too-early sexual awakening messes up your entire sexual development and can
lead to either extreme of frigidity or what some guys love to laugh at as
nymphomania.
No other work before it that I know of described how this abuse awakens
sexuality prematurely, and how the child can feel aroused and disgusted by the
arousal which must absolutely be wrong, no one admits it exists, kids are not
sexual beings.
If from infancy you have been aroused and used as a sex object your whole life
turns around your sex object status, and my character goes through a Janis
Joplin-like stage in the '70s and a cycle of alcoholism in the '80s and spins
through all the social movements in her own particular perspective.
The sex in it is not great, it is shallow, superficial, unsatisfying--my lead
even describes the character's thin, overused skin as feeling like Tupperware,
hardly a romantic image, and yet the sex goes on, in its non-romantic way, more
a mirror of much real-life casual sex than sanitized literary versions.
My lead goes through her own changes of not wanting to be manipulated by this
character, of not wanting to take care of her the rest of her life which is
what is badly wanted, of not wanting to be disgusted by this character, which
is what she is used to.
In my third novel, Cabin Fever, I traced the roots of anti-Semitism in the
Michigan Militia back to Henry Ford's blatant publication of hate tracts still
being distributed today, tracts which were used by the Hitler Youth, tracts
which won him a ribbon from Hitler awarded also to Mussolini.
I took a Jewish lesbian stuck in a tiny upper peninsula Michigan vacation
resort town amongst the fundamentalists and militia folk, and had her learn
about her own roots and how she could find meaning in 6,000 years of Jewish
struggle for survival, as celebrated in a small Hanukkah candle lighting, for
her current struggle for identity and pride and even survival.
I predated the Oklahoma city bombings by two weeks when my book came out. I
truly expected that my book would be seen as this great forecaster and
insight-giver into the Michigan Militia, since nobody seemed to know anything
about the militias in 1995 while I had lived next door to one of the leaders of
the Michigan Militia and Timothy McVeigh had visited next door several times.
But my publisher fell down on publicity and the book died a smallish, typical
lesbian novel death of around 6,000 copies. It's still in print, I still get
occasional letters from women who are thrilled to discover it, but it didn't
make me rich and famous!
But then that has never been my primary
goal, I am a teller of tales and One Who Remembers, who still wants to change
the world with my messages. There are many gay and lesbian writers like me.
Do not dismiss us all as unworthy.
Carol Schmidt
paghat
But I'll resist the impulse to review some of my own novels in like
manner. It's enough to say that more works with gay protagonists do strive
for something more than Evan Hutu by some mystifying method deduced.
-paghat
In article <19990801120008...@ng-fh1.aol.com>,
Steve Pritchard
paghat wrote in message <7nv0au$25s$2...@199.201.191.2>...
>In article <19990731081312...@ng-cf1.aol.com>,
>ajca...@aol.com (Ajcarol1) wrote:
>
>>
>> What I like best about books written by lesbians and gays is that the
lesbian
>> and gay characters live normal lives, well-integrated into society,
>
>I HATE books like that. I like gay characters who know the world is
fucked
>up & want no part of a status quo that destroys nature, injures children,
>supports governments at war, supports greed, rapes in a number of ways, &
>cares nothing about the downtrodden except how to trod on them more, all
>in an unseeing manner that permits them to feel like they're all just
nice
>people playing no part in the rampant villainy that IS mainstream
society.
Whew! Draw a breath somewhere paghat!<g>
Not to make an argument here, but to ask a question - do you see gay
characters in literature as ones that *cannot* buy in the lifestyle you
mention above and still keep that convenient label?
And is it not possible for straight characters to want no part of the same
world you describe?
paghat
Pritchard" <st...@spelbind.demon.co.uk> wrote:
If they do, they become as boring as any other suburboid braindead idiot
characters. Conversely, hetero characters that are at odds with a demented
society are more interesting to read about (& know as actual people) than
the kind of blithe cretins who question little & understand even less.
-paghat
John Jordan
>Well, color me confused. During the '60s, or maybe more specifically,
>the Vietnam war, a "chickenhawk" used to be a combat helicopter pilot.
>What I'd like to know is how this term got commandeered to mean what
>you all are talking about.
It's been used by gays to refer to an older guy who likes young guys
since before anyone in the U.S. was aware that Vietnam existed. I
found it once in a book that was published in the 50's.
NOTICE: The e-mail address is deliberately incorrect. Add an "f" to
make the domain name "faradic."
Steve Pritchard
paghat wrote in message <7o302j$26q$0...@199.201.191.2>...
>> Not to make an argument here, but to ask a question - do you see gay
>> characters in literature as ones that *cannot* buy in the lifestyle you
>> mention above and still keep that convenient label?
>>
>> And is it not possible for straight characters to want no part of the
same
>> world you describe?
>
>If they do, they become as boring as any other suburboid braindead idiot
>characters. Conversely, hetero characters that are at odds with a
demented
>society are more interesting to read about (& know as actual people) than
>the kind of blithe cretins who question little & understand even less.
Anything that makes a character more interesting is a given, I agree. How
they view the world around them and what they find to be important or
mundane is a good way of judging their character too, but this does not
have to be connected tot heir sexual preferences. It may well be, but the
two are not going to be mutually exclusive.
I'm not sure if this is what you were suggesting or not, it is just the
message that came across when I first read your post.
Ajcarol1
>>Well, color me confused. During the '60s, or maybe more specifically,
>>the Vietnam war, a "chickenhawk" used to be a combat helicopter pilot.
>>What I'd like to know is how this term got commandeered to mean what
>>you all are talking about.
>
>It's been used by gays to refer to an older guy who likes young guys
>since before anyone in the U.S. was aware that Vietnam existed. I
>found it once in a book that was published in the 50's.
I heard it as a gay term long ago, too, though chickenhawk is such a vivid
image, you can see where it could be called upon for many uses.
Carol Schmidt
Ajcarol1
>>> Not to make an argument here, but to ask a question - do you see gay
>>> characters in literature as ones that *cannot* buy in the lifestyle you
>>> mention above and still keep that convenient label?
>>>
>>> And is it not possible for straight characters to want no part of the
>same
>>> world you describe?
>>
If they do, they become as boring as any other suburboid braindead idiot
>>characters. Conversely, hetero characters that are at odds with a
>demented
>>society are more interesting to read about (& know as actual people) than
>>the kind of blithe cretins who question little & understand even less.
>
agree. How
>they view the world around them and what they find to be important or
>mundane is a good way of judging their character too, but this does not
>have to be connected tot heir sexual preferences. It may well be, but the
>two are not going to be mutually exclusive.
>
>I'm not sure if this is what you were suggesting or not, it is just the
>message that came across when I first read your post.
Plenty of lesbians and gay males are indeed thoroughly integrated into that
horrible mainstream world paghat despises, and plenty of us are working to
create new alternatives--same as straights. Gays and lesbians are just as
diverse and maybe more so than what is pictured as general society. And even a
Babbitt can be a fascinating character.
Carol Schmidt
Don May
<st...@spelbind.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Paghat, it is not that I disagree with your assessment of
mainstream society or have no understanding of your rage.
The rage is real as it should be, but it can blind and be
destructive against friend and foe alike if it not focused.
My impression is you are lashing out too broadly. I am not
attacking you. I am sharing how I feel how I perceive you
from your words here. I don't know you personally your words
here are all I have. I feel you are judging and lashing out
to quick without knowing more about some of the us who best
understand where you are coming from. I know I voiced
displeasure at your, shall I say writing style, but in past
posts I feel you have judged me and others too quickly,
alienating some of us before you have a chance to see where
we are truly coming from. Read my post today in response to
Alex under "Re: The Holocaust Memorial Museum was:" Then
judge me and tell me if you think or not I have some feeling
for your rage and the state of society in general. Yes,
Paghat, I have rage and I am going to use it to fuel how I
personally lash out at injustice with my writing. My style
and Caroll's style of doing so may not be to your liking as
yours sometimes rubs me the wrong way, but we are in many
ways coming from the same place. Rage at injustice . . . not
just words but something you and I feel in our guts.
Don
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The music of an unhappy people, of the children of disappointment;
they tell of death and suffering and unvoiced longing toward a
truer world, of misty wanderings and hidden ways.
W. E. B. Du Bois (1868-1963), U.S. civil rights leader and author.
The Souls of Black Folk(1903).
paghat
(Don May) wrote:
Any art that fails to be confrontational in one way or another is
purposeless; it doesn't even qualify as shit because shit can fertilize
flowers. Rage is one, but rarely a primary, hardly even an important
factor in confrontation. Someone who sees strong opinions given strongly &
assumes it has to come from a starting point of rage, that individual is
apt to remain pretty milquetoast except when he or she is in the midst of
feeling rage himself; especially since rage tends to make people blither
nonsensically rather than reason or create or challenge. Such an
individual lacks a broader comprehension of horror as black comedy,
zealotry as satire, shouting as the art of pig-calling, junkyard dog as
the happy gate patrol, or working class crudeness as poetry.
You can admit to your own rage in your own writing if that's what you know
motivates you personally, but if you're quick to assume your rage is
likewise motivating others whenever you encounter that which is rude,
loud, or certain, then you're just playing amateur psychotherapist which
is interchangeable with fool. And you have failed to understand the moral
power & spiritual strength that attends being alienated from that which
only moral cretins & the spiritually sapped belong to; or the joy that
arises from savaging that which is self-satisfied, cloying, rose-tinted,
stupid, or wrong. And it is not the overt incidents of burning Jews or
raping children that is cause for the most alarm -- those are causes for
outrage & action -- it is rather the general tenor of a status quo that is
blithe, unseeing, selfish, & overcome with a sense of well-being &
satisfaction in such a world -- those are the true monsters of the planet,
they are the majority, they are the reason that the natural world is fast
disappearing with only crazies & zealots capable of standing against the
onslaught. A psychotic movement like nazism, which you bring up, is merely
the expected outcome of a blithe status quo -- & it is "normal" people who
are most to be challenged whether by teaching them to think or just by
kicking them in their butts.
In fictional characters, I prefer angst to rage -- a personal perference.
Baudelaire's candid obnoxiousness & delight in demons did not require
rage, but it did require a proud sense of not belonging to any comfortable
unthinking society, & understanding that the nobility of spirit will be
found EXCLUSIVELY in the dirt of the gutter & never in the high castle.
But as to what you would easily mistake for rage, you should try to
comprehend that confrontational language & behavior can be a very peaceful
thing for the one viewed as violent by those who fear words & believe such
politeness as honors & perserves that dispicable status quo.
Even the samurai were most enamored of Zen because a warrior mind is most
deadly without rage. It's why the Dorians curled & scented their hair
before going into battle. It's why photography of the Civil War or WWII
has as much beauty to it as it does horror & sadness. It's why Homer wrote
of warfare instead of housecleaning & cookery, & Spenser found warlike
amazons the best symbolic figures for protagonist & antagonist alike. It's
why fairy tales are cruel, Dante's visit to hell is more memorable than
his visit to heaven, & the Bible is immortal literature whether or not the
reader is a religious goofball.
As for my having judged you I have a short-term memory when it comes to
UseNet. It means I have no grudges despite that I can thrill to a
flame-war, but it also means I don't have much sense of continuity among
the 300 or 400 UseNet posters I encounter each week. There are perhaps ten
people in all I remember clearly week to week & with whom I have
intentional ongoing exchanges. So if I'm not specifically reminded, I'm
not apt to know what the heck someone is talking about a week or a month
after the fact.
-paghat the ratgirl
Steve Pritchard
paghat wrote in message <7o4iqo$eco$0...@199.201.191.2>...
>Any art that fails to be confrontational in one way or another is
>purposeless; it doesn't even qualify as shit because shit can fertilize
>flowers.
Art does not have to be confrontational in order to stimulate. It can
appeal to ones sensibilites without needeing to outrage them.
>You can admit to your own rage in your own writing if that's what you
know
>motivates you personally, but if you're quick to assume your rage is
>likewise motivating others whenever you encounter that which is rude,
>loud, or certain, then you're just playing amateur psychotherapist which
>is interchangeable with fool. And you have failed to understand the moral
>power & spiritual strength that attends being alienated from that which
>only moral cretins & the spiritually sapped belong to; or the joy that
>arises from savaging that which is self-satisfied, cloying, rose-tinted,
>stupid, or wrong. And it is not the overt incidents of burning Jews or
>raping children that is cause for the most alarm -- those are causes for
>outrage & action -- it is rather the general tenor of a status quo that
is
>blithe, unseeing, selfish, & overcome with a sense of well-being &
>satisfaction in such a world -- those are the true monsters of the
planet,
>they are the majority, they are the reason that the natural world is fast
>disappearing with only crazies & zealots capable of standing against the
>onslaught.
And you are trying to suggest that there is no anger within your words,
that rage is not your motivating force? Amateur psychology or not I think
your views are portrayed in such a confrontational and controversial
manner for one good reason - you wish to shock and anger others. The
others that you have branded as "moral cretins and the spiritually sapped"
for not wishing to express their views in the same manner. If you gain
such joy from attacking everything that you abhor as "normality" then I'd
say you are destined to live a very bitter and very empty life.
>As for my having judged you I have a short-term memory when it comes to
>UseNet. It means I have no grudges despite that I can thrill to a
>flame-war, but it also means I don't have much sense of continuity among
>the 300 or 400 UseNet posters I encounter each week. There are perhaps
ten
>people in all I remember clearly week to week & with whom I have
>intentional ongoing exchanges. So if I'm not specifically reminded, I'm
>not apt to know what the heck someone is talking about a week or a month
>after the fact.
Which allows you to be indiscriminate and unaccountable for anything you
say. Nice life.
paghat
Pritchard" <st...@spelbind.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> paghat wrote in message <7o4iqo$eco$0...@199.201.191.2>...
> >Any art that fails to be confrontational in one way or another is
> >purposeless; it doesn't even qualify as shit because shit can fertilize
> >flowers.
>
> Art does not have to be confrontational in order to stimulate. It can
> appeal to ones sensibilites without needeing to outrage them.
It often turns out to be the case that idiots are "outraged" by art -- but
being confronted & challenged is not the same as being outraged --
becoming outraged is a method of avoiding the challenge. Things other than
art do stimulate, but I reiterate, art MUST be confrontational in one way
or another, it's one of the key measuring rods that'll help you tell a
work of art from a garden ornament. You might be stimulated by dirty
pictures or an essay on black holes but that's not art. And You've
perhaps mistaken "arts & crafts" or commercial doodads for the real deal
-- "art" that you can drink out of, cook with, hang over the smelly bed in
a cheap hotel -- that's "art" only in the broadest sense that puckering up
your ass to squeeze out a turd is art. The real deal -- literary or other
-- cannot exist if it in no way challenges or changes a person. It might
be useful in the coming ice age if it can be burned, but not otherwise.
> >You can admit to your own rage in your own writing if that's what you
> know
> >motivates you personally, but if you're quick to assume your rage is
> >likewise motivating others whenever you encounter that which is rude,
> >loud, or certain, then you're just playing amateur psychotherapist which
> >is interchangeable with fool. And you have failed to understand the moral
> >power & spiritual strength that attends being alienated from that which
> >only moral cretins & the spiritually sapped belong to; or the joy that
> >arises from savaging that which is self-satisfied, cloying, rose-tinted,
> >stupid, or wrong. And it is not the overt incidents of burning Jews or
> >raping children that is cause for the most alarm -- those are causes for
> >outrage & action -- it is rather the general tenor of a status quo that
> is
> >blithe, unseeing, selfish, & overcome with a sense of well-being &
> >satisfaction in such a world -- those are the true monsters of the
> planet,
> >they are the majority, they are the reason that the natural world is fast
> >disappearing with only crazies & zealots capable of standing against the
> >onslaught.
>
> And you are trying to suggest that there is no anger within your words,
> that rage is not your motivating force? Amateur psychology or not I think
> your views are portrayed in such a confrontational and controversial
> manner for one good reason - you wish to shock and anger others. The
> others that you have branded as "moral cretins and the spiritually sapped"
> for not wishing to express their views in the same manner. If you gain
> such joy from attacking everything that you abhor as "normality" then I'd
> say you are destined to live a very bitter and very empty life.
You respond with what is in you. Some people laugh & are amused, some are
horrified, some are outraged. Each in turn assumes that what they imagine
is what is real. As for my "empty life" I am reminded that people with a
lot of anger & no imagination love to say "loser" to people without any
concept of how rich their lives may be. I have a sweety who loves me
dearly & we just bought an enomrous Edwardian house; I continue to assist
people in acute crisis; until we moved to this big house on the other side
of Puget Sound I visited regularly with terminal patients in the hospital
I worked in many years ago; I have won awards for my writing & never
failed to sell whatever I got around to completing; & I piss you off by
being smarter & meaner & a hell of a lot calmer than you are even when
you're outraged.
> >As for my having judged you I have a short-term memory when it comes to
> >UseNet. It means I have no grudges despite that I can thrill to a
> >flame-war, but it also means I don't have much sense of continuity among
> >the 300 or 400 UseNet posters I encounter each week. There are perhaps
> ten
> >people in all I remember clearly week to week & with whom I have
> >intentional ongoing exchanges. So if I'm not specifically reminded, I'm
> >not apt to know what the heck someone is talking about a week or a month
> >after the fact.
>
> Which allows you to be indiscriminate and unaccountable for anything you
> say. Nice life.
Except that I can very easily discriminate between you & someone
worthwhile, so no prob.
-paghat the ratgirl
Prince Richard Kaminski
Steve Pritchard wrote:
> If you gain
> such joy from attacking everything that you abhor as "normality" then I'd
> say you are destined to live a very bitter and very empty life.
Funny coming from you, one of the most boring gits I've ever seen on Usenet.
Paul Harwood
>It often turns out to be the case that idiots are "outraged" by art -- but
>being confronted & challenged is not the same as being outraged --
>becoming outraged is a method of avoiding the challenge. Things other than
>art do stimulate, but I reiterate, art MUST be confrontational in one way
>or another,
I disagree.
Art need not be confrontational. What art must do is to help us see in
a way that is clearer, or more perfect, than the way in which we have
seen. It can coax, it can lead, it can reveal, it can be epiphanous,
and -- yes -- it can confront. But whatever its method, it must
reveal.
>it's one of the key measuring rods that'll help you tell a
>work of art from a garden ornament.
It's *a* measuring rod. Definitely not a "key" measuring rod. A key
measuring rod is the extent to which a piece makes someone re-examine,
say, a basic tenet of life. Now, *that* is art. And it doesn't have to
happen confrontationally.
>You might be stimulated by dirty
>pictures or an essay on black holes but that's not art. And You've
>perhaps mistaken "arts & crafts" or commercial doodads for the real deal
>-- "art" that you can drink out of, cook with, hang over the smelly bed in
>a cheap hotel -- that's "art" only in the broadest sense that puckering up
>your ass to squeeze out a turd is art. The real deal -- literary or other
>-- cannot exist if it in no way challenges or changes a person.
Something can changes a person is without being confrontational. It's
a question of style, not goal.
>I have won awards for my writing & never
>failed to sell whatever I got around to completing; & I piss you off by
>being smarter & meaner & a hell of a lot calmer than you are even when
>you're outraged.
Well, good for you. Too bad about the "meaner" part. It's really out
of place.
It's time you knew; someone had to say it. The "piss you off" is also
pretty useless.
Rat-thing: Stop confronting and start enriching. You have it in you;
why not use it?
Paul Harwood
KCT Website >>> http://www.pb5th.com/k12
Are you saying you have a lot in common?
Julnar Zaay Al-Huriyeh
====================================
http://www.pb5th.com/k12
=====================================
Unanswered questions:
If you don't pay an exorcist on
time, do you get repossesed?
paghat
<richard....@lineone.net> wrote:
> Steve Pritchard wrote:
>
> > If you gain
> > such joy from attacking everything that you abhor as "normality" then I'd
> > say you are destined to live a very bitter and very empty life.
>
> Funny coming from you, one of the most boring gits I've ever seen on Usenet.
Makin' me laugh princie!
-paghat
paghat
> On 3 Aug 1999 01:10:13 GMT, paghat said in misc.writing:
>
> >It often turns out to be the case that idiots are "outraged" by art -- but
> >being confronted & challenged is not the same as being outraged --
> >becoming outraged is a method of avoiding the challenge. Things other than
> >art do stimulate, but I reiterate, art MUST be confrontational in one way
> >or another,
>
> I disagree.
>
> Art need not be confrontational. What art must do is to help us see in
> a way that is clearer, or more perfect, than the way in which we have
> seen. It can coax, it can lead, it can reveal, it can be epiphanous,
> and -- yes -- it can confront. But whatever its method, it must
> reveal.
I'll have to think about that one a while. It's not nonsense at least. It
still seems to me that if there is no element of confrontation that FORCES
new insight & greater clarity, then it's merely decoration. I perfect
rendering of a seagull on piling is art to some -- to me it's a geegaw --
but have a thousand seagulls attack Tipi Hedron and suddenly it's art.
-paghat
I'm nice where appropriate. If people find only sheep, lemmings, & rabbits
pleasant company for themselves, & sincerely wish there were no such
things tigers, hawks, & badgers -- it's not the badger who has something
wrong with it.
-paghat
> Paul Harwood
Bob Pastorio
> In article <37a9586a...@207.126.101.101>, Pa...@computerbits.com wrote:
>
> > Art need not be confrontational. What art must do is to help us see in
> > a way that is clearer, or more perfect, than the way in which we have
> > seen. It can coax, it can lead, it can reveal, it can be epiphanous,
> > and -- yes -- it can confront. But whatever its method, it must
> > reveal.
>
> I'll have to think about that one a while. It's not nonsense at least. It
> still seems to me that if there is no element of confrontation that FORCES
> new insight & greater clarity, then it's merely decoration. I perfect
> rendering of a seagull on piling is art to some -- to me it's a geegaw --
> but have a thousand seagulls attack Tipi Hedron and suddenly it's art.
The first time I saw Andres Segovia play guitar, it was a revelation. It was a
new way of seeing an instrument I was familiar with. It was as though the world
had widened and I had a new opportunity. It was a shattering revelation. I saw
how little I knew.
It was news. It was big news.
By my lights, art has to have a big component of news. Of newness. And how it
conveys that news is finally irrelevant. Confrontation is one way. Picasso had
crude confrontation in mind when he painted Guernica. The cuts of Goya showing
dead and dying people. Bosch and his fanciful hells.
But Debussy wasn't trying to smack me. None of the Bachs either. Leonardo.
Henry Moore.
Some of them seem like they were trying to charm us into seeing with new eyes.
Hearing with new ears. Even touching with new fingers.
My bonsai are very subtle and quietly persuasive. My cooking is art when it's at
its finest. Tasting with new mouths.
Some of the poetry in my book is confrontational. Some is merely musing. Some
is musical. Some is even funny. Charlie Chaplin was funny.
Some people, me included, want to see new vistas and seek them. Some people are
receptive and sensitive to new ways. No force necessary.
Bob (If confrontational means to challenge old notions, then it all is. But the
challenge doesn't have to be violent.) Pastorio
Steve Pritchard
paghat wrote in message <7o5fhl$h0j$0...@199.201.191.2>...
>In article <933638212.25435.0...@news.demon.co.uk>, "Steve
>Pritchard" <st...@spelbind.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> Art does not have to be confrontational in order to stimulate. It can
>> appeal to ones sensibilites without needeing to outrage them.
>
but
>being confronted & challenged is not the same as being outraged --
>becoming outraged is a method of avoiding the challenge. Things other
than
>or another, it's one of the key measuring rods that'll help you tell a
>work of art from a garden ornament. You might be stimulated by dirty
>pictures or an essay on black holes but that's not art. And You've
>perhaps mistaken "arts & crafts" or commercial doodads for the real deal
>-- "art" that you can drink out of, cook with, hang over the smelly bed
in
>a cheap hotel -- that's "art" only in the broadest sense that puckering
up
>your ass to squeeze out a turd is art.
I see; a Constable landscape is not "art" but a text filled with hatred,
vitriol and twisted opinions is "art"? I don't want to point out the
obvious here, paghat, but I think you are in something of a vast minority
in your opinions. However, as you have stated that this is exactly where
you desire to be then this is clearly not a problem for you.
>The real deal -- literary or other
>-- cannot exist if it in no way challenges or changes a person. It might
>be useful in the coming ice age if it can be burned, but not otherwise.
Challenges or changes a person? A piece of art must do this?
On checking the OED under "art" I can find not one part of the massive
definition which fits with your interpretation of the word. Now I know
that the OED is boring and mundane, therefore is to be hated and
destroyed, but I was just trying to grasp the idea that you might be using
some archaic use of the term that I was not aware of.
Perhaps I'm looking at this in a wrong way somehow. Give me an example of
what you would call "art" and I will give you an example of my own. I'd
class Rodan's "The Kiss" as art. It in no way confronts or challenges me
in the manner you are suggesting (though it may be confrontational in the
sense of the emotions it portrays so publicly, emotions we all have but
often deny or hide away) so it therefore fails your definition. "It
is art in only the broadest sense that puckering up your ass to squeeze
out a turd is art".
As an aside: If "The Kiss" showed two men in a similar embrace and was
therefore somehow more "confrontational", would that pass as art?
>You respond with what is in you. Some people laugh & are amused, some are
>horrified, some are outraged. Each in turn assumes that what they imagine
>is what is real. As for my "empty life" I am reminded that people with a
>lot of anger & no imagination love to say "loser" to people without any
>concept of how rich their lives may be.
Does that not swing both ways? All of these people who you describe as
soulless individuals that fill no real role but to wander through the
mundane treadmill of life, might they not have a rich and fulfilled
existence that you are unaware of?
>I have a sweety who loves me
>dearly & we just bought an enomrous Edwardian house; I continue to assist
>people in acute crisis; until we moved to this big house on the other
side
>of Puget Sound I visited regularly with terminal patients in the hospital
>I worked in many years ago; I have won awards for my writing & never
>failed to sell whatever I got around to completing; & I piss you off by
>being smarter & meaner & a hell of a lot calmer than you are even when
>you're outraged.
You piss me off? Oh come, paghat, you are far from pissing me off. You are
having me read your opinions, think them somewhat "off the wall" and then
responding to them to try and work out *why* you hold those views, views
that seem slightly extreme to me. Pissed off? Erm . . not even close.
I am glad your life works for you, I really am. I cannot imagine having
such a widespread distaste for everything around me and yet still enjoying
my day to day existence - it seems so incredibly soul destroying to live
that way. However, I would never suggest that anyone make changes to a
lifestyle they enjoy; it is not my position to do so and my life is
certainly not a model many could base their own upon and be happy.
As for being smarter than me, that is a little hard to discern from what
has been written here. You know your field of study, that much is certain,
but then again that is all that has been discussed really. Meaner than me?
I'll probably agree with that one as being mean isn't something I aspire
to. And finally, a hell of a lot calmer than me, you say? If that was the
case, I think I'd be worried, but it is clearly a falsehood.
>> >As for my having judged you I have a short-term memory when it comes
to
>> >UseNet. It means I have no grudges despite that I can thrill to a
>> >flame-war, but it also means I don't have much sense of continuity
among
>> >the 300 or 400 UseNet posters I encounter each week. There are perhaps
>> ten
>> >people in all I remember clearly week to week & with whom I have
>> >intentional ongoing exchanges. So if I'm not specifically reminded,
I'm
>> >not apt to know what the heck someone is talking about a week or a
month
>> >after the fact.
>>
>> Which allows you to be indiscriminate and unaccountable for anything
you
>> say. Nice life.
>
>Except that I can very easily discriminate between you & someone
>worthwhile, so no prob.
Tell you what, I'll leave it here. What was a discussion is turning to
flame and there are enough moron flamers here at present. No one wants to
see another lengthy exchange between two people who will clearly not agree
on anything, particular when one of those involved has decided to
denigrate and insult the other.
I hope your life continue to be enjoyable.
Wiley20658
THis is out now with the first book, Walk to the End of the World, under the
title The Slave and the Free. I'm reading it now, on Walk to the End of the
World presently. My first time to read them. Have the others in the series on
the shelf to read next: The Furies and The Conqueror's Child.
paghat
For music I grant it can be contentless & still awesome but music is a
special case. There are throughout the world ten year old musical
geniuses, real geniuses who get to stand out in front as guest "stars" for
world-class ochrestras. But there is nowhere in the world a ten year old
genius of a novelist. So it's possible to achieve heights of perfection in
the musical world without adult emotional or intellectual capacity --
without confrontation -- but you can't do that with the written word. But
add WORDS to the music & you're back to the real sense that without that
confrontational ingredient, it's just junk. Tom Waits singing "There ain't
no devil that's just God on a drunk" is art; Bobby Sherman singing "Julie
Julie Julie do you LOVE me" (written by David "The Fugitive" Jansen) is
not art, but commerce.
-paghat
-paghat
paghat
Pritchard" <st...@spelbind.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> I see; a Constable landscape is not "art" but a text filled with hatred,
> vitriol and twisted opinions is "art"? I don't want to point out the
> obvious here, paghat, but I think you are in something of a vast minority
> in your opinions. However, as you have stated that this is exactly where
> you desire to be then this is clearly not a problem for you.
You're using vitriol inartistically AND assuming you can only experience
confrontation by getting your pecker in a knot then faulting me for your
crime. And right, landscape painting is universally garbage. Who are the
great medieval landscape painters? Look at Brueghel's landscape with
sleeping field hands & it slowly sinks in those are dead bodies. Who are
the great Renaissance landscape painters? Centuries from now there'll
still be someone who'll ponder the confrontational nature of Picasso, but
the landscape painters will across the board be relegated to that enormous
pile of mere decorations from the 19th & 20th Century. Art is that which
strikes a note of awe even outside its time & place -- & I use "awe" in
its full meaning of terror. "Ain't that purdy" is just not enough. The
real deal draws blood.
I frankly wonder if you possess the intellectual tools to follow the
argument on even the most rudimentary level that can be acted out on
UseNet. You may possess them, but I haven't seen the evidence in your
responses. Because what you view as a vast minority opinion is really not
as innovative as you've assumed in my behalf. The debate is a very old
one. For example it's still bandied & discussed by crafts historians
whether the utilitarian design works of William Morris are or are not art
in any pure sense. Both sides can be argued & frequently are argued.
Morris himself thought if you couldn't sit in it or wear it for hat, it
wasn't all that art can be. Oddly enough HIS is the minority opinion &
mine -- that Morris is a great designer & craftsman but not much of an
artist -- is the greater concensus. Had he challenged people rather than
decorated their houses he might've been as well regarded as the Rosettis,
whose angst-ridden lives charged even "pretty" artwork with eerie
eroticism, sadness, decay, death. Arthur Machen said "Beauty plus
strangeness equals terror." And if, instead of obseessing on your personal
hatred of a UseNet poster -- which reveals you to be pretty much a nutball
-- & pondered the possibility that "confrontation" can mean a lot more
than your hate & anger -- you might BEGIN to build your thus-far lacking
intellectual capacity to understand what is art & what is merely commerce
or craftsmanship.
> I am glad your life works for you, I really am. I cannot imagine having
> such a widespread distaste for everything around me and yet still enjoying
> my day to day existence - it seems so incredibly soul destroying to live
> that way. However, I would never suggest that anyone make changes to a
> lifestyle they enjoy; it is not my position to do so and my life is
> certainly not a model many could base their own upon and be happy.
And I cannot imagine being so blithe as to respond with such
self-satisfaction in a polluted war torn politically insane world wherein
even the best of us are likewise going to die. There is an egocentric joy
in facing the darkness and, come the end, realizing, ha!, see!, I was
right. But naifs are in for a big surprise when the blithe ignorance of
their lives, which they mistook for joy, finally comprehends reality.
There is a certain authority in having it right & I'm not the one who must
eventually experience disillusion. The blithe are to be pitied unless they
die quickly before comprehension finally dawns.
> >
> >Except that I can very easily discriminate between you & someone
> >worthwhile, so no prob.
>
> Tell you what, I'll leave it here. What was a discussion is turning to
> flame and there are enough moron flamers here at present.
It happens when a dork takes the "you're a loser" route in reply. Happily
I enjoy a flame as much as I enjoy my more typically generalized (as
opposed to finger-pointing) observations.
> No one wants to
> see another lengthy exchange between two people who will clearly not agree
> on anything, particular when one of those involved has decided to
> denigrate and insult the other.
While I'll warrant your flames of me were pretty lame, but your persisting
in assuming it all comes from me while you go at it so busily reveals you
to have a limited capacity to reflect on your own behavior. I began with a
statement that from the gutter, one can see the stars -- swiped from Wilde
who likewise believed art must be confrontational -- & you decided to make
it personal in every lame way you could imagine -- that I personally am
vitriolic but you're not, that I personally live a bitter life, & so on --
you are one angry motherfucker in your responses. Which is fine. But then
to fault me for responding in kind while denying your own behavior just
makes you look dumb.
> I hope your life continue to be enjoyable.
Me too. If my sweety ever dumped me it could all turn lousy quick as that.
-paghat the ratgirl
Don May
Some days you just don't feel like being pissy. You're born,
you die, and you can't take the gold stars with you.
Don
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Humans search a lifetime for enlightenment ... I nap in the
sun. -- Cowcat
Skip Press
(paghat) wrote:
>And right, landscape painting is universally garbage.
I'll alert the Van Gogh purchasers immediately.
paghat
<skippress-030...@pool0214.cvx14-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net>,
skip...@earthlink.net (Skip Press) wrote:
> In article <7o707f$ct$0...@199.201.191.2>, paggersSP...@my-deja.com
> (paghat) wrote:
>
> >And right, landscape painting is universally garbage.
>
> I'll alert the Van Gogh purchasers immediately.
Those are works about insanity & alienation & sadness, about genius in
CONFRONTATION with the halt, blind masses whose first response was
dismissal. VERY confrontational to the deepest core, even though a lot of
cretins see only the pretty colors & have reduced most of his work to mere
calandar decorations. That such really nutty stuff may well have eternal
appeal seems to prove my point, even if to the intellectually lacking it's
mere "landscapes" rather than the skeleton of expressionism, providing one
of the most alarming & confrontational moments in art history.
-paghat the arty-smarty
Steve Pritchard
paghat wrote in message <7o707f$ct$0...@199.201.191.2>...
>I frankly wonder if you possess the intellectual tools to follow the
>argument on even the most rudimentary level that can be acted out on
>UseNet.
What I do possess in the intellectual ability to realise this is a
pointless exchange. You continually insist on suggesting my intelligence
is suspect because I disagree with you. You were right on one point - you
are meaner than me. And I'm just so impressed by that, you know. Really
impressed. You've won. I'm out of here.
>> I hope your life continues to be enjoyable.
>
>Me too. If my sweety ever dumped me it could all turn lousy quick as
that.
The sentiment remains the same, whether or not I respect your opinions.
P.S. I was really hoping you'd answer that bit about "The Kiss" - that
would have given me some sort of clue as to your motivations.
Bob Pastorio
Pastorio wrote:
I dunno, but you seem to be limiting art to words. And only words that confront.
Feels like you're making sure that all the pegs fit into the holes you designed.
You seem to be dismissing music ("...without adult emotional or intellectual
capacity...) and damning with faint praise. And you seem only to be including radio
music. Even without understanding German, the "Ode to Joy" is uplifting and
emotionally loaded. But "Bolero" most emphatically was confrontational when first
presented. With no words.
Sculpture. Dancing. Singing without words (as Vocalise).
You define art as "...without that confrontational ingredient, it's just junk" and
the examples I gave above don't necessarily have that element. Henry Moore. He
isn't telling me that what I know is wrong, he's saying that this is new and an
expansion of an old way. Stanley Jordan. He's saying that the past is prologue for
the guitar and that it can be dealt with in wholly new ways. Phillip Johnson. He
isn't saying that architecture was wrong in the past, just that new materials and
new living needs offer new ways to express the whole idea of building.
Bonsai is never confrontational because it's so detailedly defined. It is within
very severe constraints that the artist must work. Violation of the constraints
means that it isn't bonsai. Yet, bonsai is art. And, to make it more complex,
living art that also demands science to maintain that life.
Haiku is suggestive rather than confrontational. It is a conjurative art like
abstract painting.
Art is about feelings. It's about being moved. It's usually about seeing,
smelling, tasting, hearing, touching, considering... in ways that mean a change from
the past. It's about having your vista enlarged. It doesn't seem to me to
*require* force, partly because many people *want* that change. Want to have the
new experience. Want that *WOW* factor. And partly because there are some artistic
ventures that offer a different path by their very definitions.
Some art specifically strives for serenity, as Japanese gardens. And much eastern
art is predicated on doing what has been done many times but doing it better, as
both Chinese and Japanese brush painting of familiar subjects.
If Lenny Bruce was an artist, then that confrontational requirement is clearly at
hand. If Louis Grizzard is an artist, then it isn't.
And I have a hard time fitting novels into this confrontation mold. It's only in
the severely "literary" novel that this seems to be the case. Kafka. Joyce.
And what about writers like e. e. cummings? Form changes, mostly.
Confrontational? Well, maybe. But mostly confronting grammarians.
I dunno, this definition requiring art to be confrontational seems too restrictive,
if I understand it as you mean it.
Bob (why can't we all just get along...?) Pastorio
paghat
Pritchard" <st...@spelbind.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> paghat wrote in message <7o707f$ct$0...@199.201.191.2>...
> >I frankly wonder if you possess the intellectual tools to follow the
> >argument on even the most rudimentary level that can be acted out on
> >UseNet.
>
> What I do possess in the intellectual ability to realise this is a
> pointless exchange.
If it ain't fun, don't do it. For me it's fun.
> You continually insist on suggesting my intelligence
> is suspect because I disagree with you.
Just mentioned that I wondered -- & you conviently out-of-contexed that
since the rest of the statement was I could be wrong but that's just how
you've sounded in this thread. That fact that I wonder, rather than claim
to know one way or the other, gives you the benefit of extreme doubt. I
can be obnoxious but I put out there a lot of ideas. You're just obnoxious
while complaining about obnoxiousness & pretending you're not.
> You were right on one point - you
> are meaner than me.
You've been TRYING you just fail because you express your orneriness in cliches.
> And I'm just so impressed by that, you know. Really
> impressed. You've won. I'm out of here.
Don't let the door hit you in the ass.
> P.S. I was really hoping you'd answer that bit about "The Kiss" - that
> would have given me some sort of clue as to your motivations.
Already forgotten what that might've been. But one of the tricks of people
who don't have any good ideas is to tell someone on UseNet "you didn't
respond to the important part." Posts go from long to superlong if one
doesn't pick one or two things only to respond to. If you have one
important thing you think merits reply, post the one important thing.
Otherwise don't whine that what you personally regarded as a good bit
didn't make any impact.
-paghat
moira d
>
>
>I see; a Constable landscape is not "art" but a text filled with hatred,
>vitriol and twisted opinions is "art"?
It can be, but not for the sake of the hatred, vitriol and
"twisted" opinions. Some folks get the idea that all they
need do is cop a 'tude and they have art. The gangsta'
rappers, ripping off a riff and putting a few rhythmic
hatred-filled words in front -- most of 'em have produced nothing
but commerce. I don't know the magic, but something must
happen to make it truly shine. 'Tude alone doesn't do it.
But 'tude doesn't negate it.
--
moira
Stress is when you wake up screaming & you realize you haven't fallen
asleep yet.
paghat
Good counterpoints above & below. Happens that Bolero was ruined for me by
a Spanish cartoon spoof of Fantasia that shows the march of dinosaurs to
extinction. The tackiness of the piece was never made more evident & I can
never hear it without seeing lumbering dinosaurs dropping dead in their
tracks. And Tchaikovsky was correct to hate the Nutcracker Suite. Junk
for the masses, pleasant but lowest common denominator stuff.
> and
> the examples I gave above don't necessarily have that element. Henry
Moore. He
> isn't telling me that what I know is wrong, he's saying that this is new
and an
> expansion of an old way.
I think someone needs to look up "confrontation" in the dictionary.
Displacing old values would qualify. Showing a new direction shoves you
off a preordered path that you would never otherwise have seen -- without
that confrontation.
The other problem with the semantics of the thing is that too many people
confuse craft & skill with creative art. The ability to play Beethoven
perfectly is not the art; the art is in the composer, & to bring that art
to the ear requires skill. But people will persist in regarding as the
performer, rather than the creator, as the artist. And great artists tend
in the majority of cases to have lived out their lives in continuous
confrontation with the mediocrity that surrounded them.
> Stanley Jordan. He's saying that the past is prologue for
> the guitar and that it can be dealt with in wholly new ways. Phillip
Johnson. He
> isn't saying that architecture was wrong in the past, just that new
materials and
> new living needs offer new ways to express the whole idea of building.
You seem to have tossed the fundamental structure of any identifiable form
of art, music, or archetecture. It begins with the experimental, it
reaches an apex of perfection within its own guidelines, then it decays
into satire & decadence. Among each category of primitives, perfectors, &
decadents there will be one or two actual artists -- the rest are genre
practitioners. And after the decadence comes new ideas -- back to the
experimental that is inherently confrontational & upon which all else must
be built if it is to succeed. The discarded methods weren't necessarily
inferior, but the fact that there was nothing left to do with it, that no
capacity for confrontation remained, meant it was dead as an art, & there
could be only imitating crafters thereafer -- insufficient for the rare
genuine artist who has no choice but to dismantle convention.
> Bonsai is never confrontational because it's so detailedly defined.
But stunting & crippling is inherently cruel -- whether you rip a plant
out of a pot and remove key roots so it can't grow, or you selectively
breed a dog until it is five inches tall & no longer has a mussle. I'm not
convinced I buy your feeling that dicking with nature is an artform, but
if it is, it is so fantastically confrontational it dares to kick even God
in the butt as an inadequate moron whose plan can be improved.
> It is within
> very severe constraints that the artist must work. Violation of the
constraints
> means that it isn't bonsai. Yet, bonsai is art. And, to make it more
complex,
> living art that also demands science to maintain that life.
>
> Haiku is suggestive rather than confrontational. It is a conjurative art like
> abstract painting.
>
> Art is about feelings. It's about being moved.
You would include sentimentality as art, but that would mean a puppy in
your lap is art, a Keane painting is art, a factory-produced painting of a
treelined street in Paris (if it makes you feel sentimental for that day
you got laid under a tree like that) is art. It may all be quite nice --
but "nice" is invariably a perjorative. Sentimentality is opiating & the
adversary of art.
> It's usually about seeing,
> smelling, tasting, hearing, touching, considering... in ways that mean a
change from
> the past. It's about having your vista enlarged. It doesn't seem to me to
> *require* force, partly because many people *want* that change. Want to
have the
> new experience. Want that *WOW* factor. And partly because there are
some artistic
> ventures that offer a different path by their very definitions.
Excellent theorizing but I buy very little of it. And what you call the
"WOW" factor seems to be the same as what I called the (confrontational)
ingredient of Awe, and it's no accident that Awe also means Fear and
Terror.
> Some art specifically strives for serenity, as Japanese gardens.
A Zen garden seeks to nulify nature; it stands in continous confrontation
against the natural inclinations of plantlife, against the wind. Most
Japanese art purports to include a significant flaw -- a perfectly made
cup is a failure, but the crack in the glaze indicates the work of a
master. In gardening, pottery, & painting the serenity of perfection means
nothing if there is not also that thread of incompletion & annihilation,
the mono-no-aware that makes every artistic success at its very core a
reminder of death. But as always, there are always going to be superficial
observers who don't want the teapot with the stone flaw because it has a
mistake in it, think the raked sand is cool mainly because it looks like
the sea, have no desire to know the full & horrifying meaning of a poem
about plum blossoms . . . In all, Japasese art, in its subtlest forms,
could be used to prove that "politeness" is only a veneer for the cruelest
cut of all. But it can't be used as evidence that art can be
nonconfrontational.
> And much eastern
> art is predicated on doing what has been done many times but doing it
better, as
> both Chinese and Japanese brush painting of familiar subjects.
>
> If Lenny Bruce was an artist, then that confrontational requirement is
clearly at
> hand. If Louis Grizzard is an artist, then it isn't.
That would seem to be in my favor, though I've tried not to compare the
sublime to the ridiculous to make my point.
> And I have a hard time fitting novels into this confrontation mold.
It's only in
> the severely "literary" novel that this seems to be the case. Kafka. Joyce.
> And what about writers like e. e. cummings? Form changes, mostly.
> Confrontational? Well, maybe. But mostly confronting grammarians.
>
> I dunno, this definition requiring art to be confrontational seems too
restrictive,
> if I understand it as you mean it.
All specific forms of art are defined by their restrictions & limitations,
but that which transcends conventionality will have an element of
confrontation either against the old norms or against the social norms its
thematic material addresses.
Prince Richard Kaminski
paghat wrote:
> > Bonsai is never confrontational because it's so detailedly defined.
>
> But stunting & crippling is inherently cruel -- whether you rip a plant
> out of a pot and remove key roots so it can't grow, or you selectively
> breed a dog until it is five inches tall & no longer has a mussle.
I was going to make exactly this point when I read his bonsai bit, right down to the
selective breeding of dogs. Thanks for doing it so well on my and others' behalf.
paghat
> On Tue, 3 Aug 1999 11:42:31 +0100, Steve Pritchard was all...
> >
> >
> >I see; a Constable landscape is not "art" but a text filled with hatred,
> >vitriol and twisted opinions is "art"?
>
>
> It can be, but not for the sake of the hatred, vitriol and
> "twisted" opinions. Some folks get the idea that all they
> need do is cop a 'tude and they have art. The gangsta'
> rappers, ripping off a riff and putting a few rhythmic
> hatred-filled words in front -- most of 'em have produced nothing
> but commerce. I don't know the magic, but something must
> happen to make it truly shine. 'Tude alone doesn't do it.
>
> But 'tude doesn't negate it.
That's right, blame the niggers.
-paghat
Bob Pastorio
See, I'm having a bit of a problem with this. When Bolero was introduced, it was
revolutionary. It was in everybody's face. It made the critics and concertgoers
question what the "proper" forms for music were. 16 bars repeated and repeated and
repeated. Trivial variations. It was exploring the boundaries of what concert hall
music should and should not be. Your dinosaurs notwithstanding.
> > and
> > the examples I gave above don't necessarily have that element. Henry
> Moore. He
> > isn't telling me that what I know is wrong, he's saying that this is new
> and an
> > expansion of an old way.
>
> I think someone needs to look up "confrontation" in the dictionary.
Confront, v.t. [Latin com- together, and frons forehead]
1. to stand facing, to face, to stand in front of.
2. to face boldly, defiantly or antagonistically; to meet in hostility; to oppose.
3. to set face to face; to bring into the presence of, as an accused person and a
witness, in court
4. to set together for comparison; to compare
> Displacing old values would qualify. Showing a new direction shoves you
> off a preordered path that you would never otherwise have seen -- without
> that confrontation.
Sorry, paghat. You still demand violence. You still demand force. And you demand
it as a necessary component of the definition of art. But the definitions of
confront don't support that and the practical realities of making and appreciating
art don't demand that combative sense. You make it sound as though all art is
forged in anger and angst. It may well be that for you, but for the larger
community, it doesn't necessarily work that way.
> The other problem with the semantics of the thing is that too many people
> confuse craft & skill with creative art. The ability to play Beethoven
> perfectly is not the art; the art is in the composer, & to bring that art
> to the ear requires skill. But people will persist in regarding as the
> performer, rather than the creator, as the artist. And great artists tend
> in the majority of cases to have lived out their lives in continuous
> confrontation with the mediocrity that surrounded them.
I'm beginning to sense a certain anthropomorphic sense here. You have posited the
cliché "struggling, misunderstood artist" as the standard for the artist. You have
dismissed the performance of music as itself a form of art. The ability to play
Beethoven so as to move an audience is, indeed, an art. And, of course, the
composition itself is an art. But musical notation is hardly exact. Interpretation
is not only possible, it's mandatory. That interpretation is an art. Otherwise, no
actors would be artists. No dancers.
> > Stanley Jordan. He's saying that the past is prologue for
> > the guitar and that it can be dealt with in wholly new ways. Phillip
> Johnson. He
> > isn't saying that architecture was wrong in the past, just that new
> materials and
> > new living needs offer new ways to express the whole idea of building.
>
> You seem to have tossed the fundamental structure of any identifiable form
> of art, music, or archetecture. It begins with the experimental, it
> reaches an apex of perfection within its own guidelines, then it decays
> into satire & decadence. Among each category of primitives, perfectors, &
> decadents there will be one or two actual artists -- the rest are genre
> practitioners. And after the decadence comes new ideas -- back to the
> experimental that is inherently confrontational
Nope. At least, it is a reinterpretation of the rules. It may be a discarding of
the rules. It may be an elaboration of the rules. BUt it doesn't *have* to be
confrontational.
> & upon which all else must
> be built if it is to succeed. The discarded methods weren't necessarily
> inferior, but the fact that there was nothing left to do with it, that no
> capacity for confrontation remained, meant it was dead as an art, & there
> could be only imitating crafters thereafer -- insufficient for the rare
> genuine artist who has no choice but to dismantle convention.
>
> > Bonsai is never confrontational because it's so detailedly defined.
>
> But stunting & crippling is inherently cruel -- whether you rip a plant
> out of a pot and remove key roots so it can't grow, or you selectively
> breed a dog until it is five inches tall & no longer has a mussle.
This is utterly irrelevant. Your opinion of what's cruel or not isn't germane.
Obviously, I disagree about what happens with bonsai. I have plants I've kept very
healthy and alive long past their "normal" lifespans. Green, healthy,
well-nourished, flourishing. No crippling or stunting involved. The plants aren't
stunted, they're trimmed, just like your lawn and your rosebushes. They aren't
crippled, the weak and frail parts are removed to permit the strong remainder to
thrive.
I don't know about dogs and their breeding.
> I'm not
> convinced I buy your feeling that dicking with nature is an artform, but
> if it is, it is so fantastically confrontational it dares to kick even God
> in the butt as an inadequate moron whose plan can be improved.
It seems that everything is a fight for you. Read Wallace Stevens. "Someone placed
a jar in Tennessee..." It's absurd to portray human activity in this light. If
your view has any truth, anything we make or change from the natural world is
insulting to god. C'mon. That's simply over the top.
I have never heard any bonsai artist say that their plants are better than they are
in nature. The general view is that we're making sculpture that's alive. It isn't
a win-lose structure. We win, god loses?
> > It is within
> > very severe constraints that the artist must work. Violation of the
> constraints
> > means that it isn't bonsai. Yet, bonsai is art. And, to make it more
> complex,
> > living art that also demands science to maintain that life.
> >
> > Haiku is suggestive rather than confrontational. It is a conjurative art like
> > abstract painting.
> >
> > Art is about feelings. It's about being moved.
>
> You would include sentimentality as art, but that would mean a puppy in
> your lap is art, a Keane painting is art, a factory-produced painting of a
> treelined street in Paris (if it makes you feel sentimental for that day
> you got laid under a tree like that) is art. It may all be quite nice --
> but "nice" is invariably a perjorative. Sentimentality is opiating & the
> adversary of art.
I agree. I didn't make my assertion tight enough. I don't mean that *anything*
that moves us is art. Otherwise, those warm, fuzzy Johnson & Johnson commercials
where the bride is radiant and the daddy has a tear would be art. (As I am about to
discard them, I think of Toulouse-Lautrec and his commercial posters. Hmmm. Aubrey
Beardsley.) Not everything that moves us is art. But all art has to move us or it
is a failed attempt.
> > It's usually about seeing,
> > smelling, tasting, hearing, touching, considering... in ways that mean a
> change from
> > the past. It's about having your vista enlarged. It doesn't seem to me to
> > *require* force, partly because many people *want* that change. Want to
> have the
> > new experience. Want that *WOW* factor. And partly because there are
> some artistic
> > ventures that offer a different path by their very definitions.
>
> Excellent theorizing but I buy very little of it. And what you call the
> "WOW" factor seems to be the same as what I called the (confrontational)
> ingredient of Awe, and it's no accident that Awe also means Fear and
> Terror.
Nope. I don't have to feel fear or terror to have an epiphany. It's more like,
"Holy shit, why didn't I think of that?" No fear. No terror. Instant expansion.
Not only not fearful, but utterly joyful for the discovery.
> > Some art specifically strives for serenity, as Japanese gardens.
>
> A Zen garden seeks to nulify nature; it stands in continous confrontation
> against the natural inclinations of plantlife, against the wind.
Nope. A zen garden seeks to create a microcosmic vision. A reduced suggestion of
what's beyond the walls. A hint of the vastness of nature. It isn't reductionist
at all. It's celebratory. It *is* minimalist in that it temporarily holds aside
the mundane. But isn't that what all art is finally about. It seeks to elevate or
persuade or challenge or educate or inform or amuse or transform.
> Most
> Japanese art purports to include a significant flaw -- a perfectly made
> cup is a failure, but the crack in the glaze indicates the work of a
> master. In gardening, pottery, & painting the serenity of perfection means
> nothing if there is not also that thread of incompletion & annihilation,
> the mono-no-aware that makes every artistic success at its very core a
> reminder of death.
Yes, but death in a shinto or buddist culture has a very different meaning than it
does in the west. It isn't *fatal* in the sense that all is finished. It is merely
a step and, for all that, a small one. For us, that's a big step with very
different consequences.
> But as always, there are always going to be superficial
> observers who don't want the teapot with the stone flaw because it has a
> mistake in it, think the raked sand is cool mainly because it looks like
> the sea, have no desire to know the full & horrifying meaning of a poem
> about plum blossoms . . .
Well, to a point, I agree. But if you don't accept the philosophical underpinnings
that include reincarnation, the imperfection is, indeed, a flaw. If the goal of the
viewer is to find the one, perfect tea cup, the flawed one is, well, flawed.
The blossom of the ume are transitory and that is their beauty and their tragedy.
They are representations of all the cycles and that is their beauty. They die and
that is their tragedy. That they will return is another beauty.
The raked sand, like all art, can be appreciated on a number of levels. And,
withal, it does look cool, don't you think?
> In all, Japasese art, in its subtlest forms,
> could be used to prove that "politeness" is only a veneer for the cruelest
> cut of all.
This is a western viewpoint. To the Japanese, it isn't any more cruel than the
sunrise or a perfectly ripe apricot. Life and death are the same and neither is
good or bad.
> But it can't be used as evidence that art can be
> nonconfrontational.
Well, I disagree since the premises you've offered include a western
interpretation. To those acculturated with Japanese values, the poems and carvings,
the trees and music all ennoble and elevate. They improve the creator and the
viewer and help prepare them for their next go-round in their string of lives that
head toward perfection.
> > And much eastern
> > art is predicated on doing what has been done many times but doing it
> better, as
> > both Chinese and Japanese brush painting of familiar subjects.
> >
> > If Lenny Bruce was an artist, then that confrontational requirement is
> clearly at
> > hand. If Louis Grizzard is an artist, then it isn't.
>
> That would seem to be in my favor, though I've tried not to compare the
> sublime to the ridiculous to make my point.
>
> > And I have a hard time fitting novels into this confrontation mold.
> It's only in
> > the severely "literary" novel that this seems to be the case. Kafka. Joyce.
>
> > And what about writers like e. e. cummings? Form changes, mostly.
> > Confrontational? Well, maybe. But mostly confronting grammarians.
> >
> > I dunno, this definition requiring art to be confrontational seems too
> restrictive,
> > if I understand it as you mean it.
>
> All specific forms of art are defined by their restrictions & limitations,
> but that which transcends conventionality will have an element of
> confrontation either against the old norms or against the social norms its
> thematic material addresses.
I don't think we're going to agree on the premise here. I concede that *some* art
is confrontational. I don't agree that art *must* do combat against anything. A
wholly new idea doesn't have to trash anything that went before. Art also lives in
subtleties. YoYo Ma plays a cello. He is acclaimed by those who follow such things
as an artist. He plays what others have created. He doesn't have to challenge
anyone else. His music makes people feel differently than they did before they heard
him play. He doesn't have to alter accepted norms. He doesn't have to address
anything but the result of his bowing and plucking.
Well, that and his name.
Once on a TV program, I identified him as Yo MaMa. A few of us thought it was
funny.
Bob (But, seriously <takes off glasses for emphasis> we are talking about *art*
here, you know...?) Pastorio
Steve Pritchard
moira d wrote in message <7o7bei$ca...@nntp.cig.mot.com>...
>On Tue, 3 Aug 1999 11:42:31 +0100, Steve Pritchard was all...
>>
>>
>>vitriol and twisted opinions is "art"?
>
>
>"twisted" opinions. Some folks get the idea that all they
>need do is cop a 'tude and they have art. The gangsta'
>rappers, ripping off a riff and putting a few rhythmic
>hatred-filled words in front -- most of 'em have produced nothing
>but commerce. I don't know the magic, but something must
>happen to make it truly shine. 'Tude alone doesn't do it.
>
>
>But 'tude doesn't negate it.
Attitude does not negate it, no, but I feel there has to be something
*behind* the attitude to make it valid. If all you have is bluster without
substance, anger without cause, you don't have a whole lot going for you.
Steve Pritchard
Bob Pastorio wrote in message <37A76940...@rica.net>...
>paghat wrote:
>> Displacing old values would qualify. Showing a new direction shoves you
>> off a preordered path that you would never otherwise have seen --
without
>> that confrontation.
>
>Sorry, paghat. You still demand violence. You still demand force. And
you demand
>it as a necessary component of the definition of art. But the
definitions of
>confront don't support that and the practical realities of making and
appreciating
>art don't demand that combative sense. You make it sound as though all
art is
>forged in anger and angst. It may well be that for you, but for the
larger
>community, it doesn't necessarily work that way.
Precisely my thoughts too, Bob. Art born of passion, of anger or of desire
can be powerful, moving stuff. Art created from other emotions can be as
powerful. Both motivations can fail to produce anything of note too.
To suggest that there is some "true" art, one that can only be appreciated
by a selection of people that consider themselves outside the norm, is
pompous in the extreme. To suggest that this "true" art has to be forged
from anger and violence is absolute rubbish.
And I snipped a bit of this post earlier where you said:-
"When Bolero was introduced, it was
revolutionary. It was in everybody's face. It made the critics and
concertgoers
question what the "proper" forms for music were. 16 bars repeated and
repeated and
repeated. Trivial variations. It was exploring the boundaries of what
concert hall
music should and should not be."
Again, I concur. I mentioned "The Kiss", a piece of sculpture that has
confronted, outraged and shocked audiences in the past. If it has done
these things then, by paghat's definition, it is art. Now that it no
longer shocks is it no longer art?
>I have never heard any bonsai artist say that their plants are better
than they are
>in nature. The general view is that we're making sculpture that's alive.
It isn't
>a win-lose structure. We win, god loses?
Well, that would be kinda confrontational, wouldn't it? <g>
Wendy Chatley Green
:paghat wrote:
<snip>
I butt in for a correction--
:> Good counterpoints above & below. Happens that Bolero was ruined for me by
:> a Spanish cartoon spoof of Fantasia that shows the march of dinosaurs to
:> extinction.
That scene was not set to Bolero, but to The Rite of Spring,
a ballet in which a young girl sacrifices herself by dancing to death
to honor the gods.
>The tackiness of the piece was never made more evident & I can
:> never hear it without seeing lumbering dinosaurs dropping dead in their
:> tracks. And Tchaikovsky was correct to hate the Nutcracker Suite. Junk
:> for the masses, pleasant but lowest common denominator stuff.
Stravinsky later described Bolero as "banal".
:See, I'm having a bit of a problem with this. When Bolero was introduced, it was
:revolutionary. It was in everybody's face. It made the critics and concertgoers
:question what the "proper" forms for music were. 16 bars repeated and repeated and
:repeated. Trivial variations. It was exploring the boundaries of what concert hall
:music should and should not be. Your dinosaurs notwithstanding.
The Rite of Spring caused riots at its premiere, IIRC. I
don't know about Bolero.
--
Wendy Chatley Green
wcg...@cris.com
paghat
>
> > The other problem with the semantics of the thing is that too many people
> > confuse craft & skill with creative art. The ability to play Beethoven
> > perfectly is not the art; the art is in the composer, & to bring that art
> > to the ear requires skill. But people will persist in regarding as the
> > performer, rather than the creator, as the artist. And great artists tend
> > in the majority of cases to have lived out their lives in continuous
> > confrontation with the mediocrity that surrounded them.
>
> I'm beginning to sense a certain anthropomorphic sense here. You have
posited the
> cliché "struggling, misunderstood artist" as the standard for the artist.
Misunderstood usually, but not necessarily struggling. When A HUNDRED
YEARS OF SOLITUDE became one of the bestselling mass market paperbacks of
all time, it can't be argued that greatness is INVARIABLY unpopular. It
does generally tend to be true that pablum sells lots & lots while the
great stuff appeals to a minority -- in part because the blithe masses
cannot face confrontation -- but quite often the great few do rate a
messenger from the Pope & a villa from the King. But the history of great
artists who couldn't afford the thread to sew their own old clothes back
together is certainly real -- Baudelaire & Poe were worth a good deal more
dead than had ever fallen to them while alive, & d'Isle Adam even while
finding weekly publication & eager editors earned so little that he died
homeless in the streets.
> You have
> dismissed the performance of music as itself a form of art. The ability
to play
> Beethoven so as to move an audience is, indeed, an art.
If every major city in the world can put together an orchestra filled
primarily with privileged-class underpaid gentry who can create the exact
same sound anywhere in the world, it's not an art. It's a skill. Hard
earned skill, but essentially anyone who devotes their life to it can do
it. But great art, no; many devote their whole life to it & only a
miniscule percentage do even a halfway competent job of it. Art would
require more individuality than that, & people capable of doing aren't so
common that as skilled musicians. A beggar banging on tin cans for pennies
has a better chance of being an artist.
> >
> > > Bonsai is never confrontational because it's so detailedly defined.
> >
> > But stunting & crippling is inherently cruel -- whether you rip a plant
> > out of a pot and remove key roots so it can't grow, or you selectively
> > breed a dog until it is five inches tall & no longer has a mussle.
>
> This is utterly irrelevant. Your opinion of what's cruel or not isn't
germane.
> Obviously, I disagree about what happens with bonsai. I have plants
I've kept very
> healthy and alive long past their "normal" lifespans.
And slaves sometimes outlived their masters & seedlings have broken
through sidewalks to find the sun.
> Green, healthy,
> well-nourished, flourishing. No crippling or stunting involved. The
plants aren't
> stunted, they're trimmed, just like your lawn and your rosebushes.
They're stunted. A pine tree does not turn into a gnarly thick tree nine
inches tall by mere trimming. And I have a whole other rap on the evil of
mowed lawns. Meadows support many life forms; lawns are sustained only
through constant destruction & even poisoning of every other species of
plant & all animals save Poochy and Kittums.
> They aren't
> crippled, the weak and frail parts are removed to permit the strong
remainder to
> thrive.
Right, and winning at the Special Olympics makes everyone's IQ normal.
It would be fun about here to write a spoof-flame about cruel bastards who
torture plants but as a vegetarian someone might try to make me stop
munching the little darlings. And it's raining WAY hard right now & I want
to run outside & get wet.
-paghat the ratgirl
> [loads of thoughtful stuff clipped]
moira d
...
>
>moira d wrote in message <7o7bei$ca...@nntp.cig.mot.com>...
>>Some folks get the idea that all they
>>need do is cop a 'tude and they have art. The gangsta'
>>rappers, ripping off a riff and putting a few rhythmic
>>hatred-filled words in front -- most of 'em have produced nothing
>>but commerce. I don't know the magic, but something must
>>happen to make it truly shine. 'Tude alone doesn't do it.
>>
>>
>>But 'tude doesn't negate it.
>
>Attitude does not negate it, no, but I feel there has to be
>something *behind* the attitude to make it valid. If all you have is
>bluster without substance, anger without cause, you don't have a
>whole lot going for you.
I can agree with this. In fact, I already did. <g>
--
moira (you ever gonna authorize me on ICQ, dOOd?)
I'm a peripheral visionary.
Bob Pastorio
> In article <37A76940...@rica.net>, Bob Pastorio <Past...@rica.net> wrote:
>
> >
> > > The other problem with the semantics of the thing is that too many people
> > > confuse craft & skill with creative art. The ability to play Beethoven
> > > perfectly is not the art; the art is in the composer, & to bring that art
> > > to the ear requires skill. But people will persist in regarding as the
> > > performer, rather than the creator, as the artist. And great artists tend
> > > in the majority of cases to have lived out their lives in continuous
> > > confrontation with the mediocrity that surrounded them.
> >
> > I'm beginning to sense a certain anthropomorphic sense here. You have
> posited the
> > cliché "struggling, misunderstood artist" as the standard for the artist.
>
> Misunderstood usually, but not necessarily struggling. When A HUNDRED
> YEARS OF SOLITUDE became one of the bestselling mass market paperbacks of
> all time, it can't be argued that greatness is INVARIABLY unpopular. It
> does generally tend to be true that pablum sells lots & lots while the
> great stuff appeals to a minority -- in part because the blithe masses
> cannot face confrontation -- but quite often the great few do rate a
> messenger from the Pope & a villa from the King. But the history of great
> artists who couldn't afford the thread to sew their own old clothes back
> together is certainly real -- Baudelaire & Poe were worth a good deal more
> dead than had ever fallen to them while alive, & d'Isle Adam even while
> finding weekly publication & eager editors earned so little that he died
> homeless in the streets.
History argues against this position of the pauper artist. Until relatively
recently in human history, artists were hired hands. It's only in the past couple
hundred years that it hasn't been the case.
> > You have
> > dismissed the performance of music as itself a form of art. The ability
> to play
> > Beethoven so as to move an audience is, indeed, an art.
>
> If every major city in the world can put together an orchestra filled
> primarily with privileged-class underpaid gentry who can create the exact
> same sound anywhere in the world, it's not an art. It's a skill.
I take it you don't listen to symphonic music very much and you haven't paid much
attention to the backgrounds of the orchestras. If you did, you'd know more about
who comprises the orchestras and something about how much money they earn. Most
musicians in symphony orchestras are hardly gentry. The greatest preponderance of
them is jes' reglar folk who showed talent and were encouraged to continue studying
music. Like my son. He chose to go in another direction, but the choice and the
chance were his. Trust me. I'm not gentry and I'm most assuredly not
privileged-class. Nor were his schoolmates.
Orchestras *don't* all sound the same any more than all rock groups comprised of two
guitars, a bass and drums all sound alike. Otherwise, recordings by different
orchestras wouldn't command different responses and different sales levels. And
concert ticket sales wouldn't look like they do.
> Hard
> earned skill, but essentially anyone who devotes their life to it can do
> it.
You are obviously not a musician or you'd know better. This is simply not so. No
more so than the acquisition of any other disciplined skill. Not just anyone can
become a cabinet maker. Not just anyone can become a tapestry weaver. Not just
anyone can walk a tightrope.
> But great art, no; many devote their whole life to it & only a
> miniscule percentage do even a halfway competent job of it. Art would
> require more individuality than that, & people capable of doing aren't so
> common that as skilled musicians. A beggar banging on tin cans for pennies
> has a better chance of being an artist.
This is so far off the mark that I can't respond to it. A beggar banging on tin
cans is a beggar banging on tin cans. And Yitzak Perlman is just pushing horsehair
across some strings.
> > > > Bonsai is never confrontational because it's so detailedly defined.
> > >
> > > But stunting & crippling is inherently cruel -- whether you rip a plant
> > > out of a pot and remove key roots so it can't grow, or you selectively
> > > breed a dog until it is five inches tall & no longer has a mussle.
> >
> > This is utterly irrelevant. Your opinion of what's cruel or not isn't
> germane.
> > Obviously, I disagree about what happens with bonsai. I have plants
> I've kept very
> > healthy and alive long past their "normal" lifespans.
>
> And slaves sometimes outlived their masters & seedlings have broken
> through sidewalks to find the sun.
>
> > Green, healthy,
> > well-nourished, flourishing. No crippling or stunting involved. The
> plants aren't
> > stunted, they're trimmed, just like your lawn and your rosebushes.
>
> They're stunted.
Paghat. I do bonsai. It isn't some theoretical body of knowledge for me. I've
been doing it since the 60's. You are simply wrong. There is no effort to
*prevent* growth. That would kill the plants.
> A pine tree does not turn into a gnarly thick tree nine
> inches tall by mere trimming.
That's *precisely* how it gets to be that way. Roots are trimmed. Buds and
branches are trimmed. They are very well nourished. They are put into places where
they get a lot of light. They are repotted at measured intervals. There is no
"stunting" involved. Growth is channeled and controlled by feeding for the kind of
growth desired by the artist and trimming to shape form and size.
And, parenthetically, bonsai aren't all small. They can be more than a yard tall
and still be bonsai. I have a honeysuckle tree (yes, tree. I trim it so it stays a
tree and every year it grows hundreds of wonderful flowers that give way to
beautiful orange-colored berries) that's 2 1/2 feet tall. A juniper that's 3 1/2
feet down. It grows like a tree on a cliffside that grows *down* the cliff.
Another juniper about 4 feet tall that I will shorten by about a foot. And a grove
of mimosas that I've grown from seed I collected 7 years ago.
> And I have a whole other rap on the evil of
> mowed lawns. Meadows support many life forms; lawns are sustained only
> through constant destruction & even poisoning of every other species of
> plant & all animals save Poochy and Kittums.
Too extreme. And too irrelevant. You also aren't a horticulturist. I have a
lawn. I have it cut. I don't use insecticides or any other 'cides. I do
fertilize. It feeds the plants. Makes them stronger and helps them to develop a
root system that can sustain them in the kind of drought we're having. Many of my
neighbors have dead lawns because they didn't mow and feed wisely. Or at all.
> > They aren't
> > crippled, the weak and frail parts are removed to permit the strong
> remainder to
> > thrive.
>
> Right, and winning at the Special Olympics makes everyone's IQ normal.
If you want to talk about the stuff we were talking about, I'll be happy to do so.
If you want to play these games, I don't. You don't have to agree with a damn thing
I write here. But I have accorded you the respect to stay with what you've said and
the viewpoints I have that deal with that.
> It would be fun about here to write a spoof-flame about cruel bastards who
> torture plants but as a vegetarian someone might try to make me stop
> munching the little darlings. And it's raining WAY hard right now & I want
> to run outside & get wet.
Bob (Enjoy the rain...) Pastorio
paghat
> For some inexplicable reasons, Bob Pastorio <Past...@rica.net> wrote:
>
> :paghat wrote:
> <snip>
>
> I butt in for a correction--
> :> Good counterpoints above & below. Happens that Bolero was ruined for me by
> :> a Spanish cartoon spoof of Fantasia that shows the march of dinosaurs to
> :> extinction.
>
> That scene was not set to Bolero, but to The Rite of Spring,
> a ballet in which a young girl sacrifices herself by dancing to death
> to honor the gods.
Nahhh. It was a Spanish language cartoon called ALEGRO NON TROPO. The part
with dinosaurs marching to their deaths was set to Bolero. And the last
creature standing was an ape who'd encouraged the extinctions. I think
you're thinking of a bit from FANTASIA itself. If I'm wrong, well fuck me.
-paghat
>
> The Rite of Spring caused riots at its premiere, IIRC. I
> don't know about Bolero.
paghat
> paghat wrote:
>
> > In article <37A76940...@rica.net>, Bob Pastorio
<Past...@rica.net> wrote:
> > > I'm beginning to sense a certain anthropomorphic sense here. You have
> > posited the
> > > cliché "struggling, misunderstood artist" as the standard for the artist.
> >
> > Misunderstood usually, but not necessarily struggling. When A HUNDRED
> > YEARS OF SOLITUDE became one of the bestselling mass market paperbacks of
> > all time, it can't be argued that greatness is INVARIABLY unpopular. It
> > does generally tend to be true that pablum sells lots & lots while the
> > great stuff appeals to a minority -- in part because the blithe masses
> > cannot face confrontation -- but quite often the great few do rate a
> > messenger from the Pope & a villa from the King. But the history of great
> > artists who couldn't afford the thread to sew their own old clothes back
> > together is certainly real -- Baudelaire & Poe were worth a good deal more
> > dead than had ever fallen to them while alive, & d'Isle Adam even while
> > finding weekly publication & eager editors earned so little that he died
> > homeless in the streets.
>
> History argues against this position of the pauper artist. Until relatively
> recently in human history, artists were hired hands. It's only in the
past couple
> hundred years that it hasn't been the case.
By NO means true. Many a poet, having spent years virtually in monastic
seclusion & without any financial support from king or queen, had first to
submit the finished work to the Pope & if the Pope said it was
inappropriate, it would have to be either revised or destroyed, & IF the
Pope eventually said it's no longer a sacrelege, THEN the poor skinny
bastard might expect some minor gentry to lend some small support. Often
an artist or poet was on his last legs before anything resembling
financial support happened & their best chance of any real income in their
lives would be from tutoring jobs.
> You also aren't a horticulturist.
I've clipped your I'm-a-big-cheese-horticulturalist-you're-not boasts as
you failed to convince me. Classical bonsai requires STUNTING by means of
root-clipping/restriction in addition to torturing, trimming, &
restriction of limbs. It is NOT otherwise natural for an ordinarily 25
foot pine to remain a foot tall for 100 years. I grew up part of my youth
in an interacial home, attended Buddhist temple regularly (Japanese as it
turned out as there was not a Thai temple to hand), took all sorts of
silly little courses on such subjects as bonsai, iai, folkdance, & flower
arranging, & helped set up bonsai shows during Bon Odori. Though it never
held my attention as a serious hobby, in classes I have watched the real
experts upturn hundred-year-old living family heirlooms to get at the
roots with clippers. I wouldn't try to match expertise with a hobbyist,
no, but nothing I said was incorrect, & your need to claim only you
yourself possess any knowledge & no one else possibly could possibly know
a thing makes me very, very dubious that you could've learned from a
master. Though if you did, power to you.
Plus if you think a big expanse of green lawn is as environmentally sound
as a meadow -- rather than actually destructive to environmental diversity
in cities & suburbs -- it's just another of those fundamental status quo
errors you've bought into & failed to question. There was a "city meadow
movement" in the 1970s which discouraged single-species clipped lawns &
"This Is An Inner City Meadow" plaques graced many a weedy front yard. But
a viciously self-preserving status quo was too horrified & the movement
died out as too radical, with the constant harrassment of dolts who
thought a meadow between two close-cropped lawns was an eyesore because of
the meadow, even claiming damage to property values. Lawn nazis; shoot
'em. Yet in England "weed gardens" are respectable. Suburboid Americans
simply have neither aesthetics nor imagination, & piddling in their crappy
rose gardens to develop big stupid flowers on top of stringy boring thorns
while killing all the insects (hence all the birds) certainly never gave
them even a half-assed appreciation for the scope & beauty of nature.
So it's dangerous that you should presume someone else has no experience &
only you do. When my great-grandparents & my great-aunt lived, I helped
farm acres of produce growing every basic vegetable & some not so basic,
grandma's U-pic-em strawberry field, & grampa's corn-rowed commercially
grown mums, besides mixed gardens that fed ourselves plus some of the
neighbors. (Even before that, as a toddler with an itinerant mother, I
lived among farmworkers & gypsies in occasionally desparate
circumstances.) With the great-grandparents I also helped care for our
milk cow, raised guinea hens, ducks, & occasionally raised up piglets for
slaughter (horrifying the paternal Jewish side of my family). Everyone at
every age had their own private delights on that land -- mine, which I
handled singlehanded, included raising award-winning rabbits & chickens (&
parakeets -- I had more than 500 of the little bastards). None of it was
very successful commercially; but when there were lots of other small
farmers around, with whom to trade basics for basics, it was possible to
be exceedingly poor & yet eat lots better than the wealthy. The farm began
to die with suburban sprawl caused too many to sell out -- the
grandparents never sold out, but you can't be the only farmer in the midst
of the suburbs -- their lands were whittled with each passing decade,
selling a bit here & there to meet taxes.
When that chapter of my life ended my Asian stepmother & I managed an
inner city "empty lot farm" using amazing agricultural techniques she grew
up with & which maximized yields in small areas. From that one small lot
we harvested each year a vast amount of vegetables both for our own use &
for the Freemont Saturday Market. We even grew some tropicals in temperate
Seattle by starting them inside at midwinter.
So it's just not a world in which you can easily stick out your chest &
claim big-time horticultural expertise that nobody but yourself could
possibly possess. You can express your conservative take on how it's all
done & what it all means, but it's patently not a definitive take.
Hospital Food is the result of university-given expertise & dietician
degrees -- what passes for expertise in this world is often complete crap
because no one actually thinks. Even your:
> You are obviously not a musician or you'd know better
is presumptuous. I'm not a GOOD musician by any stretch & never was -- I
wouldn't even claim adequate. I nevertheless played 8-string hagstrum base
& rhythm guitar professionally. Badly but professionally. Live long enough
in more than one place, & never acquire any profession beyond writing,
it's possible to do quite a lot in a single short life. And I'm not done
yet.
I enjoyed the soaking in the lightning storm earlier today. While standing
in my big front yard MEADOW.
-paghat
Paul Harwood
<Lots of stuff. Snip to just a couple of points, since I know nothing
of haiku, bonsai, or Zen>
>The other problem with the semantics of the thing is that too many people
>confuse craft & skill with creative art.
I certainly agree that there's a difference between craft & art; craft
relates to quality of production, while art relates to things like
universality and resonance. They are not the same.
>The ability to play Beethoven
>perfectly is not the art; the art is in the composer, & to bring that art
>to the ear requires skill. But people will persist in regarding as the
>performer, rather than the creator, as the artist. And great artists tend
>in the majority of cases to have lived out their lives in continuous
>confrontation with the mediocrity that surrounded them.
This shows profound ignorance of the performing arts.
The composer is an artist, yes: The composer creates a skeleton for a
piece.
The performer's job is to interpret to the piece, to add flesh, muscle
and sinew, and bring it to life. If you genuinely believe that all a
performer need do is follow the composer's artistry, then you have
missed much. Have you ever wondered what distinguishes, say, Olivier's
Hamlet from Mel Gibson's? They both mouth the same lines, after all;
both just illustrating Shakespeare's genius, eh?
The reason that people persist in regarding performers as artists is
that performers *are* artists. There is real art in interpretation, in
drawing forth the fundamental and universal aspects of a piece, in
knowing what to emphasize and what to let recede.
>You seem to have tossed the fundamental structure of any identifiable form
>of art, music, or archetecture. It begins with the experimental, it
>reaches an apex of perfection within its own guidelines, then it decays
>into satire & decadence.
This is more than a little backward. Art does *not* begin with the
experimental; it begins with a full appreciation of tradition and
established modes of communication. As T.S. Eliot said, "Anything
completely new is completely bad." Art *must* draw on tradition and
archetype, and depart from there. The successful postmodernist is a
complete master of modern forms.
>Among each category of primitives, perfectors, &
>decadents there will be one or two actual artists -- the rest are genre
>practitioners. And after the decadence comes new ideas -- back to the
>experimental that is inherently confrontational & upon which all else must
>be built if it is to succeed.
How did "confrontational" sneak into this? It doesn't follow at all
from your earlier discussion.
>The discarded methods weren't necessarily
>inferior, but the fact that there was nothing left to do with it, that no
>capacity for confrontation remained, meant it was dead as an art, & there
>could be only imitating crafters thereafer -- insufficient for the rare
>genuine artist who has no choice but to dismantle convention.
Blech. This is pure silliness. Classic methods are not discarded; how
many postmodernists do you read, say, as opposed to modernists or even
classicists? Read a lot of Barthelme, do you? Or would you rather read
someone like Raymond Carver, with his pure classical forms? Hemingway
and Faulker were antitheses, but were contemporary. Aristotle's
Poetics *still* provides a valid foundation for dramatic art, 2500
years after it was written.
No. You are confusing art with the avant-garde. They are not the same.
>All specific forms of art are defined by their restrictions & limitations,
Sheesh. Now *you're* confusing art with craft. It is craft that
defines a piece within a form. Art is what brings the piece to life,
what makes it speak to us at some fundamental level.
>but that which transcends conventionality will have an element of
>confrontation either against the old norms or against the social norms its
>thematic material addresses.
This is tautological, to say the least. Your point appears to have
degenerated to "If it's new, it's different." Well, yes. So? You also
seem to have reformulated your position from "art must be
confrontational" to "if it's unconventional, then it must confront
established forms". I agree with this, but it's almost banal.
Paul Harwood
Bob Pastorio
> In article <37A786C0...@rica.net>, Bob Pastorio <Past...@rica.net> wrote:
>
> > You also aren't a horticulturist.
>
> I've clipped your I'm-a-big-cheese-horticulturalist-you're-not boasts as
> you failed to convince me. Classical bonsai requires STUNTING by means of
> root-clipping/restriction in addition to torturing, trimming, &
> restriction of limbs.
I didn't say I was a big cheese, I said you were a little cheese. Just as in your
definitions of art, you use your own vocabulary when there is already one
established by the practitioners.
Stunting is absolutely what doesn't happen in bonsai. You say differently from a
smattering of information. Fine. Have it your way. Use the loaded words and
believe as you will.
> It is NOT otherwise natural for an ordinarily 25
> foot pine to remain a foot tall for 100 years. I grew up part of my youth
> in an interacial home, attended Buddhist temple regularly (Japanese as it
> turned out as there was not a Thai temple to hand), took all sorts of
> silly little courses on such subjects as bonsai, iai, folkdance, & flower
> arranging, & helped set up bonsai shows during Bon Odori. Though it never
> held my attention as a serious hobby, in classes I have watched the real
> experts upturn hundred-year-old living family heirlooms to get at the
> roots with clippers. I wouldn't try to match expertise with a hobbyist,
> no, but nothing I said was incorrect, & your need to claim only you
> yourself possess any knowledge & no one else possibly could possibly know
> a thing makes me very, very dubious that you could've learned from a
> master. Though if you did, power to you.
I didn't say only I possessed the knowledge. I said you didn't. Clipping the roots
is exactly what I said happened. Let it grow a bit and trim it off. The tree stays
the same height but trunks and branches thicken. Horticulture 101. Exactly what
nursery workers do with plants for sale as landscape plantings. They root-prune and
also prune tops to keep top and bottom in balance.
I've studied with John Naka and Yuji Yoshimura if those names mean anything to you.
> Plus if you think a big expanse of green lawn is as environmentally sound
> as a meadow -- rather than actually destructive to environmental diversity
> in cities & suburbs -- it's just another of those fundamental status quo
> errors you've bought into & failed to question.
I didn't say that and I certainly wouldn't have. I addressed what you said.
> There was a "city meadow
> movement" in the 1970s which discouraged single-species clipped lawns &
> "This Is An Inner City Meadow" plaques graced many a weedy front yard. But
> a viciously self-preserving status quo was too horrified & the movement
> died out as too radical, with the constant harrassment of dolts who
> thought a meadow between two close-cropped lawns was an eyesore because of
> the meadow, even claiming damage to property values. Lawn nazis; shoot
> 'em. Yet in England "weed gardens" are respectable. Suburboid Americans
> simply have neither aesthetics nor imagination, & piddling in their crappy
> rose gardens to develop big stupid flowers on top of stringy boring thorns
> while killing all the insects (hence all the birds) certainly never gave
> them even a half-assed appreciation for the scope & beauty of nature.
A little emotional here, aren't we? I live in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia
which is rural and agricultural and has a huge amount of land dedicated to whatever
wants to grow there. Last couple summers, I let the back yard lawn grow and cut a
maze in it for The Kid to play in. Grass tall enough to hide in. The Kid and the
cats ran their diminutive asses around the yard. Sometimes from the middle of this
sea of grass would emerge a column of soap bubbles flying up and away. Tinkling
laughter punctuating the breaths that gave the gossamer bubbles life.
> So it's dangerous that you should presume someone else has no experience &
> only you do.
I didn't say that or presume it. I said you were talking over-the-top nonsense.
> When my great-grandparents & my great-aunt lived, I helped
> farm acres of produce growing every basic vegetable & some not so basic,
> grandma's U-pic-em strawberry field, & grampa's corn-rowed commercially
> grown mums, besides mixed gardens that fed ourselves plus some of the
> neighbors. (Even before that, as a toddler with an itinerant mother, I
> lived among farmworkers & gypsies in occasionally desparate
> circumstances.) With the great-grandparents I also helped care for our
> milk cow, raised guinea hens, ducks, & occasionally raised up piglets for
> slaughter (horrifying the paternal Jewish side of my family). Everyone at
> every age had their own private delights on that land -- mine, which I
> handled singlehanded, included raising award-winning rabbits & chickens (&
> parakeets -- I had more than 500 of the little bastards). None of it was
> very successful commercially; but when there were lots of other small
> farmers around, with whom to trade basics for basics, it was possible to
> be exceedingly poor & yet eat lots better than the wealthy. The farm began
> to die with suburban sprawl caused too many to sell out -- the
> grandparents never sold out, but you can't be the only farmer in the midst
> of the suburbs -- their lands were whittled with each passing decade,
> selling a bit here & there to meet taxes.
I'm seeing a bit of that around here and it's sad. You might like the farmer's
market I sell my stuff at every Saturday morning. This Saturday, my 8 YO daughter,
Carla, and I will be doing cooking demonstrations with local produce and meats.
Free samples.
> When that chapter of my life ended my Asian stepmother & I managed an
> inner city "empty lot farm" using amazing agricultural techniques she grew
> up with & which maximized yields in small areas. From that one small lot
> we harvested each year a vast amount of vegetables both for our own use &
> for the Freemont Saturday Market. We even grew some tropicals in temperate
> Seattle by starting them inside at midwinter.
>
> So it's just not a world in which you can easily stick out your chest &
> claim big-time horticultural expertise that nobody but yourself could
> possibly possess.
You know, Paghat, for somebody as bright as you clearly are, you can be a pain in
the ass with your distortions of what has been said and your straw man
constructions. I didn't and don't claim exclusivity of information. I leave that
to the religious wackos and other fanatics. Parenthetically, it is a very different
horticultural body of information that produces vegetables to eat and artistic pot
plants.
> You can express your conservative take on how it's all
> done & what it all means, but it's patently not a definitive take.
Read this aloud to yourself several times and see how it applies to everything
you've said.
> Hospital Food is the result of university-given expertise & dietician
> degrees --
Here we absolutely agree.
> what passes for expertise in this world is often complete crap
> because no one actually thinks. Even your:
>
> > You are obviously not a musician or you'd know better
>
> is presumptuous.
Nope. It's based on your clearly wrong (and don't bother me with facts)
understanding of performance art. In particular about orchestral music. That was
to point out exactly what you document here. That you don't have any depth in the
field of music beyond strumming and humming. And that you don't know how it works
in the professional ranks with people who make their entire living at it.
> I'm not a GOOD musician by any stretch & never was -- I
> wouldn't even claim adequate. I nevertheless played 8-string hagstrum base
> & rhythm guitar professionally. Badly but professionally.
Playing now and then for money is not the same as having made a career choice.
> Live long enough
> in more than one place, & never acquire any profession beyond writing,
> it's possible to do quite a lot in a single short life. And I'm not done
> yet.
BTW, your publication list is very, very impressive. But not relevant to the
discussion here.
> I enjoyed the soaking in the lightning storm earlier today. While standing
> in my big front yard MEADOW.
Can you spell neener neener?
Much as I think you're smart and articulate, you don't play nice and so I don't want
to continue this. So, as I fade into the sunset, it's all yours.
Bob (Whatever you say...) Pastorio
Steve Pritchard
moira d wrote in message <8E17A26F2O...@enews.newsguy.com>...
>I can agree with this. In fact, I already did. <g>
Heh!
>moira (you ever gonna authorize me on ICQ, dOOd?)
My machine has rejected my ICQ client, its poor processor unable to keep
up with the demands on its power, has thrown off the software and can now
breathe again.
when I return from my holiday I will be building a nice new machine, with
lots more power, and *then* I'll be able to give this ICQ a real run for
its money.
Thanks for your patience, Moira.
Minzi
Bob Pastorio <Past...@rica.net> wrote:
> Obviously, I disagree about what happens with bonsai. I have plants
I've kept very
> healthy and alive long past their "normal" lifespans. Green, healthy,
> well-nourished, flourishing. No crippling or stunting involved. The
plants aren't
> stunted, they're trimmed, just like your lawn and your rosebushes.
They aren't
> crippled, the weak and frail parts are removed to permit the strong
remainder to
> thrive.
Hmm, what would happen if this idea was applied to the human race?
Weeding the weak and frail parts away? Seem to remember somebody has
already tried.
Is somebody up there 'growing' a human race? Or are we a garden left
alone to wither? Would our gardener's peers consider us art, and if so,
how good art?
In my strictly personal opinion, the human race could use some weeding.
Not so much when it pertains to physically weak, or even mentally weak,
but more in terms of 'stunted growth', people who refuse to grow as
people. And also in terms of numbers. There are waay too many of us.
And no, I have no intention of trying any weeding of my own. I trust out
gardener, whoever zie may be, to do that. Me, I only intend to do my
best to make sure I'm not one of those weeded.
Minzi
--
Minzi mi...@my-dejanews.com
Mission in life: Have fun and confuse people!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Bil Greene
> [big snips]
>
> Misunderstood usually, but not necessarily struggling. When A HUNDRED
> YEARS OF SOLITUDE became one of the bestselling mass market paperbacks of
> all time, it can't be argued that greatness is INVARIABLY unpopular.
IMO, _Hundred Years of Solitude_ was the most tedious, pointless, and
meaningless pile of ink smeared pages I've ever attempted to read.
The white pages from the local phone book is only slightly more
droning. I know the guy won a Nobel Prize and I tried to pull
something, anything profound from the book just out of respect for
that. I never could.
moira d
> Bob Pastorio <Past...@rica.net> wrote:
>> Obviously, I disagree about what happens with bonsai.
>> your lawn and your rosebushes. They aren't crippled,
>> the weak and frail parts are removed to permit the strong
>> remainder to thrive.
>
>Weeding the weak and frail parts away? Seem to remember somebody has
>already tried.
Yep. Ma Nature.
--
moira
You know you're addicted to the 'net when you wake up at 3 a.m. to go
to the bathroom and stop and check your e-mail on the way back to bed.
paghat
> On 3 Aug 1999 19:13:23 GMT, paghat said in misc.writing:
>
> <Lots of stuff. Snip to just a couple of points, since I know nothing
> of haiku, bonsai, or Zen>
>
> >The other problem with the semantics of the thing is that too many people
> >confuse craft & skill with creative art.
>
> I certainly agree that there's a difference between craft & art; craft
> relates to quality of production, while art relates to things like
> universality and resonance. They are not the same.
>
> >The ability to play Beethoven
> >perfectly is not the art; the art is in the composer, & to bring that art
> >to the ear requires skill. But people will persist in regarding as the
> >performer, rather than the creator, as the artist. And great artists tend
> >in the majority of cases to have lived out their lives in continuous
> >confrontation with the mediocrity that surrounded them.
>
> This shows profound ignorance of the performing arts.
And you have a profound ignorance of profundity -- besides a banality of
thought that is sufficiently commonplace you needn't worry about censor.
It remains that great artists are not a dime a dozen & it would NOT be
possible to put together a symphony orchestra in two hundred major cities
if musicianship required one to be an artist. It requires study, practice,
skill, for some instruments physical dexterity, & it required
conventionality -- whether the specific convention is bluegrass or
classical. An artist's work is not a collaborative affair involving
dozens. Hence at best a musicians interpret the art of the composer, but
the musicians are not the artists.
> The composer is an artist, yes: The composer creates a skeleton for a
> piece.
>
> The performer's job is to interpret to the piece, to add flesh, muscle
> and sinew, and bring it to life.
This may be true of jazz where the structure provides room for wild improv
& an element of original composition is incorporated in every performance.
But if an entire orchestra started dicking around with the notes on the
page the audience would walk out. Many have observed that a century ago,
three centuries ago, interpretation of the notes on the page were likely
much more radical than today. Today, a symphony can barely dredge up an
audience to listen to anything beyond the top 100 greatest hits of the ten
best known classical composers. If *art* was even possible it would not be
allowed.
> If you genuinely believe that all a
> performer need do is follow the composer's artistry, then you have
> missed much.
Or I wisely failed to buy into a popular delusion. Take the same
instruments, the same number of musicians from ten world-class orchestras,
record the same piece of music, then have some recognized "expert" who
buys into the myth of it all being done by artists & ask him to identify
which recording belongs to which orchestra. The coloration & subtle
differences between one performance & the next still does not add up to
sufficient individuality & personal creativity essential if "art" exists
-- unless art really requires nothing but a high level of skill & nothing
whatsoever original -- & get rid of the confrontational element while
you're at it sure why not. Because honest-to-shit ART is not
collaborative, & the more people you have doing the same thing the LESS
the chances you have for art.
> Have you ever wondered what distinguishes, say, Olivier's
> Hamlet from Mel Gibson's? They both mouth the same lines, after all;
> both just illustrating Shakespeare's genius, eh?
I'd already thought of just that comparison. An actor, at least, can
really be alone in his performance, so there is more chance to transcend
conventionality. That there haven't been more than a dozen Oliviers in the
world (anyone who thinks the insipid Kenneth Branaugh compares is truly a
dunce) does indicate an actor can become an artist without having to write
his own lines. And perhaps a great violinist who is out there ALONE can do
the same -- if it happens, there is going to be an element of
confrontation in that performance that causes it to transcend, neener
neener.
> The reason that people persist in regarding performers as artists is
> that performers *are* artists. There is real art in interpretation, in
> drawing forth the fundamental and universal aspects of a piece, in
> knowing what to emphasize and what to let recede.
>
> >You seem to have tossed the fundamental structure of any identifiable form
> >of art, music, or archetecture. It begins with the experimental, it
> >reaches an apex of perfection within its own guidelines, then it decays
> >into satire & decadence.
>
> This is more than a little backward. Art does *not* begin with the
> experimental; it begins with a full appreciation of tradition and
> established modes of communication. As T.S. Eliot said, "Anything
> completely new is completely bad."
As I said in the clipped part, it's cyclical. The experimental (or
primitive) beginning of a new form always requires some element of that
which has gone before, but sufficiently reinterpreted to overcome the
decadent satirization of the previous form, to not obviously be old hat
while purporting to be new.
> Art *must* draw on tradition and
> archetype, and depart from there. The successful postmodernist is a
> complete master of modern forms.
When Conrad Aiken fully mastered lyric form & began writing, instead,
"fragmented" and "found" poems, he was deconstructing what went before to
create something new, & his work is brilliant. The majority of today's
poets in the modern form couldn't write a lyric verse that didn't sound
like a hallmark card if their lives were on the line for it. It's one
reason they're not artists but only genre practitioners. And the same goes
for the majority of modern artists. Picasso could (& sometimes did) paint
realistically; too many that followed created chaotic images because they
could do nothing else. Some museums & collectors are fooled by it, but the
Time will judge them more harshly.
> >Among each category of primitives, perfectors, &
> >decadents there will be one or two actual artists -- the rest are genre
> >practitioners. And after the decadence comes new ideas -- back to the
> >experimental that is inherently confrontational & upon which all else must
> >be built if it is to succeed.
>
> How did "confrontational" sneak into this? It doesn't follow at all
> from your earlier discussion.
The primitive/experimental is obviously in confrontation with former
"norms" that are being tweeked, dismantled, or discarded. The decadent
last years of any such flourishing either makes fun of, renders grotesque
(not a perjorative), or uses the by-then-conventional barriers to excess &
extremes, which is again most confrontational. If what comes in the middle
is merely of the genre then it's not art except in a sense of art as a
category rather than a creative expression; if it does transcend its genre
to become, really become art, there WiLL be something confrontational
about it. You as a member of the common observing horde might prefer the
genre to the art & whose to say that's bad.
> >The discarded methods weren't necessarily
> >inferior, but the fact that there was nothing left to do with it, that no
> >capacity for confrontation remained, meant it was dead as an art, & there
> >could be only imitating crafters thereafer -- insufficient for the rare
> >genuine artist who has no choice but to dismantle convention.
>
> Blech. This is pure silliness. Classic methods are not discarded;
You may wish. My example stands. Aiken dismantled what he mastered to
create something new; he DISCARDED rhyme. His imitators afterward have had
no such connection to romanticist & lyric poets & I would not regard them
as artists at all. Ginzberg dismantled an ANCIENT form of religious
chanting, but one hell of a lot was DISCARDED to get from "O, Israel!" to
HOWL.
> how
> many postmodernists do you read, say, as opposed to modernists or even
> classicists? Read a lot of Barthelme, do you?
All of him in fact. A novel of mine issued from Dell begins with a quote
from Barthelme.
> Or would you rather read
> someone like Raymond Carver, with his pure classical forms? Hemingway
> and Faulker were antitheses, but were contemporary. Aristotle's
> Poetics *still* provides a valid foundation for dramatic art, 2500
> years after it was written.
>
> No. You are confusing art with the avant-garde. They are not the same.
In your own list "confrontation" is loud & clear. Barthelme in
confrontation against conventional form & highly favoring angst; Carver in
confrontation against upper middle class pomposity & lying self-importance
& pretense of morality; Hemingway against nature & stylistically against
ornament; Faulkner so biblical & gothic as to practically qualify for a
fire & brimstone preacher. They wouldn't be artists any more if gutted of
anything confrontational.
> >All specific forms of art are defined by their restrictions & limitations,
>
> Sheesh. Now *you're* confusing art with craft.
Not at all. The classical age of Ukiyo-e came about because you could be
killed or imprisoned or your arms strapped down for a month if you broke
any rules of form & content. The great artists of Persia were under
similar restraints. Absolute freedom is absolute chaos. With no defining
elements at all you could shovel dirt into a pile & call it art. There are
in fact flimflam artists shoveling dirt into piles & calling it art. The
ESSENTIAL ingredient of confrontation requires something to confront,
walls to breach, restraints to overcome, & censors to fool.
> It is craft that
> defines a piece within a form. Art is what brings the piece to life,
> what makes it speak to us at some fundamental level.
A waterfall untouched by human hands speaks to us on a fundamental level.
Childbirth, & children at play, speak to us on a fundamental level. A good
meal after not eating for three days speaks to us on a fundamental level
of grunting & moaning & salivating for joy. You are going in entirely the
wrong direction to find what sets "art" apart from that which MERELY
speaks to us on some fundamental level.
> >but that which transcends conventionality will have an element of
> >confrontation either against the old norms or against the social norms its
> >thematic material addresses.
>
> This is tautological, to say the least. Your point appears to have
> degenerated to "If it's new, it's different." Well, yes. So?
You removed that quote from its context of
Primitive-to-Decadent/experimental-to-decadent eternal cycle.
Nothing is new.
> You also
> seem to have reformulated your position from "art must be
> confrontational" to "if it's unconventional, then it must confront
> established forms". I agree with this, but it's almost banal.
That sounds pretty basic to me.
-paghat
> Paul Harwood
Peter Hickman
Bil Greene wrote:
I have to agree with you. There's really nothing worse than surrealism warmed
over by South Americans.
Pete
paghat
That's a great relief to hear. I do believe lawns are evil. Unless you're
a duffer I guess.
> > So it's dangerous that you should presume someone else has no experience &
> > only you do.
>
> I didn't say that or presume it. I said you were talking over-the-top
nonsense.
Actually you said point-blank that I had no expertise or I wouldn't say
such things. As well for me to say you don't know a dog turd from a work
of art or you'd know none of it is nonsense. When it could well turn out
that you're a veterinarian who wrote a doctorate thesis on diseases
evident in dog feces. It's actually stupid to assume lack of knowledge in
someone merely on the basis of opposing understanding.
> Much as I think you're smart and articulate, you don't play nice and so
I don't want
> to continue this. So, as I fade into the sunset, it's all yours.
By then. It'd pretty much run its course anyway.
-paghat
paghat
<William...@msfc.nasa.gov> wrote:
> paghat wrote:
> > [big snips]
> >
> > Misunderstood usually, but not necessarily struggling. When A HUNDRED
> > YEARS OF SOLITUDE became one of the bestselling mass market paperbacks of
> > all time, it can't be argued that greatness is INVARIABLY unpopular.
>
> IMO, _Hundred Years of Solitude_ was the most tedious, pointless, and
> meaningless pile of ink smeared pages I've ever attempted to read.
> The white pages from the local phone book is only slightly more
> droning. I know the guy won a Nobel Prize and I tried to pull
> something, anything profound from the book just out of respect for
> that. I never could.
Maybe you should try his story about the winged man who falls in the
chicken coup. It was written for children & doesn't have too many words in
it.
-paghat
Bil Greene
paghat wrote:
Once again the attitude of "If you don't share my opinion then you're
an idiot" pops up. This does seem to be the one essential and
repeating theme of this thread.
paghat
<William...@msfc.nasa.gov> wrote:
Superficial comprehension there goopy-breath. That's a GREAT story & was
turned into a pretty good film. Now if I'd recommended Dr Seuse you might
be on to something. But I recommended something GREAT that would be
accessible to someone who found one of the great works of modern
literature tedius, pointless, & meaningless (& never mind that any
rational thinking human being could not actually read it & find it
pointless & meaningless, whether or not it was for them tedius &
uninteresting. I find Joyce tedius & uninteresting, but I'm not such a
dumbshit as to regard his work as lacking purpose or meaning).
-paghat
Peter Hickman
paghat wrote:
Yes! Joyce is basically not all that interesting and neither is warmed over
surrealism.
You never can tell............................Pete
Peter Hickman
paghat wrote:
> In article <37a8c062...@207.126.101.101>, Pa...@computerbits.com wrote:
>
> > On 3 Aug 1999 19:13:23 GMT, paghat said in misc.writing:
> >
> > <Lots of stuff. Snip to just a couple of points, since I know nothing
> > of haiku, bonsai, or Zen>
> >
> > >The other problem with the semantics of the thing is that too many people
> > >confuse craft & skill with creative art.
> >
> > I certainly agree that there's a difference between craft & art; craft
> > relates to quality of production, while art relates to things like
> > universality and resonance. They are not the same.
> >
> > >The ability to play Beethoven
> > >perfectly is not the art; the art is in the composer, & to bring that art
> > >to the ear requires skill. But people will persist in regarding as the
> > >performer, rather than the creator, as the artist. And great artists tend
> > >in the majority of cases to have lived out their lives in continuous
> > >confrontation with the mediocrity that surrounded them.
> >
It depends on how much warming over of naive Romanticism you can fool
yourself into thinking you aren't doing. First of all the "creator vs.
performer" distinction is not only narrow and misleading, but actually absurd.
For example, Beethoven did not invent music as it was written, published and
performed in Central Europe and like all good musicians he was deeply interested
in everything about an actual performance and was himself a good performer in his
younger years. Beethoven, again like every artist, came to a tradition and
worked within it whilst perhaps pushing it a little here and there.
While you might want to think he "confronted " mediocrity, he actually went along
with as much mediocrity as he had to to keep his publishers happy and his music
selling. Unlike less confrontational composers like Hayden and Mozart, he was
able to do very well off his publishing contracts....so go figure.
And how "mediocre" was the musical world of late 18th to early 19th century
Vienna? I would guess it was the least mediocre musical scene on the planet at
the time.
If you think there is no art to playing Beethoven, you might want to get out
some standard scores (or better look into the editorial history of even the
best-known scores) and decide which versions or traditional interpretative
schemes you want to use in your "perfect" Beethoven. Do you want to sound just
like Beethoven sounded in his own time? How are you going to do that and why?
Are you going to get reconstructions of the instruments of the period and tune
them to A=410? Reproduce all the musical practices of the time? Are all these
details somehow irrelevent?
Art toads persist in thinking that the Romanitic ideal of the artist as
solitary genius confronting society is a worthwhile thing to bring up in its
various modernist variations. I myself have always found it to be a highly
misleading set of notions of what is involved in artistic work.
You never can tell.....................Pete
Bil Greene
paghat wrote:
> Bil Greene wrote:
> > paghat wrote:
> > > Bil Greene wrote:
> > > > paghat wrote:
> > > > > [big snips]
> > > > >
> > > > > Misunderstood usually, but not necessarily struggling. When A HUNDRED
> > > > > YEARS OF SOLITUDE became one of the bestselling mass market
> paperbacks of
> > > > > all time, it can't be argued that greatness is INVARIABLY unpopular.
> > > >
> > > > IMO, _Hundred Years of Solitude_ was the most tedious, pointless, and
> > > > meaningless pile of ink smeared pages I've ever attempted to read.
> > > > The white pages from the local phone book is only slightly more
> > > > droning. I know the guy won a Nobel Prize and I tried to pull
> > > > something, anything profound from the book just out of respect for
> > > > that. I never could.
> > >
> > > Maybe you should try his story about the winged man who falls in the
> > > chicken coup. It was written for children & doesn't have too many words in
> > > it.
> >
> > Once again the attitude of "If you don't share my opinion then you're
> > an idiot" pops up. This does seem to be the one essential and
> > repeating theme of this thread.
>
> Superficial comprehension there goopy-breath.
Please curb your urge to call me names. I haven't insulted you at
all.
> That's a GREAT story & was
> turned into a pretty good film. Now if I'd recommended Dr Seuse you might
> be on to something. But I recommended something GREAT that would be
> accessible to someone who found one of the great works of modern
> literature tedius, pointless, & meaningless
Yes, I did take your suggestion to read a children's story that
"doesn't have too many words" as an insult. Further, here you
specifically say that you tailored your response based upon what you
thought would be "accessible." The repeated suggestion is, exactly as
I stated, that because my opinion differs from yours I must therefore
be less intelligent than you. If that wasn't what you meant then I
apologize for my misinterpretation but I would suggest you be more
careful with your words.
I haven't read the story you've recommended. I cannot comment as to
its "greatness." Based upon our different opinions wrt _A Hundred
Years of Solitude_ I'm not sure that I'd take your evaluation at face
value. Sorry. You do understand, I hope, that greatness or lack of
greatness is nothing more than opinion. Sure, it may in some cases be
a much agreed to opinion but it is nonetheless opinion.
> (& never mind that any
> rational thinking human being could not actually read it & find it
> pointless & meaningless, whether or not it was for them tedius &
> uninteresting. I find Joyce tedius & uninteresting, but I'm not such a
> dumbshit as to regard his work as lacking purpose or meaning).
Ahh, here you've made a mistake. Nothing has inherent meaning.
Meaning is to be found in the mind of the reader, not upon the pages
of the book. From the beginning of this discussion I stated that what
I said about the book was "in my opinion." The point is that for me,
this book was pointless, it had no meaning. I put down the book and
took nothing at all from it. While reading it I wasn't amused, wasn't
angry, wasn't even confronted (as you seem to require for "art") by
anything more than tedium. After I stopped reading the book, it all
faded fast from my memory. For me it was meaningless. For me it was
pointless. I am happy for you that you found something more there.
Several months ago when I was still engaged in the pursuit of agency
representation, I spoke with one agent from California over the
phone. We discussed my book and she brought up a couple of points
which she said bothered her. I started to explain to her what they
were supposed to convey but she cut me off. She told me that what
they were supposed to convey was ultimately irrelevant. What mattered
is what _is_ conveyed. What mattered was what the reader took away
from the page, not what the writer had intended to place on the page.
She was absolutely correct.
paghat
<William...@msfc.nasa.gov> wrote:
>
> Several months ago when I was still engaged in the pursuit of agency
> representation, I spoke with one agent from California over the
> phone. We discussed my book and she brought up a couple of points
> which she said bothered her. I started to explain to her what they
> were supposed to convey but she cut me off. She told me that what
> they were supposed to convey was ultimately irrelevant. What mattered
> is what _is_ conveyed. What mattered was what the reader took away
> from the page, not what the writer had intended to place on the page.
> She was absolutely correct.
Usually what matters to the publisher is can it be packaged to fit into a
preconceived marketing slot. Beyond that, it can be rubbish, but most
certainly cannot be particularly original or won't fit the unvarying
monthly marketing scheme.
-paghat
Bob Pastorio
> In article <37A76940...@rica.net>,
> Bob Pastorio <Past...@rica.net> wrote:
> > Obviously, I disagree about what happens with bonsai. I have plants
> I've kept very
> > healthy and alive long past their "normal" lifespans. Green, healthy,
> > well-nourished, flourishing. No crippling or stunting involved. The
> plants aren't
> > stunted, they're trimmed, just like your lawn and your rosebushes.
> They aren't
> > crippled, the weak and frail parts are removed to permit the strong
> remainder to
> > thrive.
>
> Hmm, what would happen if this idea was applied to the human race?
> Weeding the weak and frail parts away? Seem to remember somebody has
> already tried.
Sure. And animal breeders do it routinely. So do plant breeders. Humans,
OTOH, are doing the opposite. With modern medicine, we're preserving the
unfit and they reproduce. The weak parts continue and flourish.
> Is somebody up there 'growing' a human race? Or are we a garden left
> alone to wither? Would our gardener's peers consider us art, and if so,
> how good art?
We're growing a human race and all our efforts to change the "natural" world
have consequences in who we will become as our own evolution proceeds.
> In my strictly personal opinion, the human race could use some weeding.
> Not so much when it pertains to physically weak, or even mentally weak,
> but more in terms of 'stunted growth', people who refuse to grow as
> people. And also in terms of numbers. There are waay too many of us.
>
> And no, I have no intention of trying any weeding of my own. I trust out
> gardener, whoever zie may be, to do that. Me, I only intend to do my
> best to make sure I'm not one of those weeded.
As will everyone else.
Bob (What a planet, huh?) Pastorio
beth.m...@ma.gov.ab.ca
>
>Any art that fails to be confrontational in one way or another is
>purposeless; it doesn't even qualify as shit because shit can fertilize
>flowers.
(snip balance of an interesting, passionate post)
>
>-paghat the ratgirl
<button pushed mode on>
This is a position held, unfortunately, by many who have formally studied art
in the modern day (modern as is 1900's and later), and those influenced by
them. It is a view of art that has great overtones of snobbery ... "art is
not for the masses." It is a view of art I have never agreed with. Art did
not evolve to satisfy the intellectual aspirations of the over-educated and
the angry. Both are part of the audience of visual, auditory and dramatic
arts, but they do not have exclusive privileges. One theory of the origins of
art postulate that it came into being to satisfy spiritual needs, a longing to
explain and comfort; not to discomfort. Art can be used to shake up the
observer, true, but it can just as validly be used to evoke a sense of wonder,
of calm, of the pure beauty that can exist in the mind, eye, and heart of
human-kind.
<button pushed mode off>
Beth McKinley (educated but not brain-washed)
Blanche Nonken
> Kid and the
> > cats ran their diminutive asses around the yard. Sometimes from the
> middle of this
> > sea of grass would emerge a column of soap bubbles flying up and away.
> Tinkling
> > laughter punctuating the breaths that gave the gossamer bubbles life.
>
> That's a great relief to hear. I do believe lawns are evil. Unless you're
> a duffer I guess.
A duffer? If by that you're justifying golf courses, that's your
opinion. There's a Nursing Home...er, I mean a Life Care
Community, and they needed to talk to a Master Gardener about an
idea they had. There was a lovely sunny patch of lawn by the
fence, and they wanted to put in a tomato garden by the walkway
there for the residents to enjoy.
Except that the fence bordered the golf course.
Golf courses tend to use lots and lots of herbicides that target
things that aren't turf. Things like tomatoes.
They had to put the tomatoes in bit pots up on the deck. I hope
they remember to water them.
Oh, if I was wrong about you justifying golf courses, I
apologize. It's just a sore spot with me.
Blanche Nonken
> In article <37aa6e6c....@news.cc.utexas.edu>, wcg...@cris.com wrote:
>
> > For some inexplicable reasons, Bob Pastorio <Past...@rica.net> wrote:
> >
> > :paghat wrote:
> > <snip>
> >
> > I butt in for a correction--
> > :> Good counterpoints above & below. Happens that Bolero was ruined for me by
> > :> a Spanish cartoon spoof of Fantasia that shows the march of dinosaurs to
> > :> extinction.
> >
> > That scene was not set to Bolero, but to The Rite of Spring,
> > a ballet in which a young girl sacrifices herself by dancing to death
> > to honor the gods.
>
> Nahhh. It was a Spanish language cartoon called ALEGRO NON TROPO. The part
> with dinosaurs marching to their deaths was set to Bolero. And the last
> creature standing was an ape who'd encouraged the extinctions. I think
> you're thinking of a bit from FANTASIA itself. If I'm wrong, well fuck me.
I think you're right. I have the laser disk, and don't watch it
anymore because of that horrible scrap of emotion involving the
bit with the poor kitty that dies in the end. <shudder> But the
Bolero bit, with life evolving from the scum in a nearly empty
Coca-Cola bottle - well, that's pretty cool.
Barry Bruyea
wrote:
>paghat wrote:
>> [big snips]
>>
>> Misunderstood usually, but not necessarily struggling. When A HUNDRED
>> YEARS OF SOLITUDE became one of the bestselling mass market paperbacks of
>> all time, it can't be argued that greatness is INVARIABLY unpopular.
>
>IMO, _Hundred Years of Solitude_ was the most tedious, pointless, and
>meaningless pile of ink smeared pages I've ever attempted to read.
>The white pages from the local phone book is only slightly more
>droning. I know the guy won a Nobel Prize and I tried to pull
>something, anything profound from the book just out of respect for
>that. I never could.
I tend to agree; I read it over a period of about two weeks. Best two
weeks of sleep I've ever had. Ever read that overblown short story
"The Bridges of Madison County?" It was on the Best Seller list for
months and was bloody awful but I have to admit some strong envy for
the author's bank account.
paghat
> In article <7o4iqo$eco$0...@199.201.191.2>, paggersSP...@my-deja.com
(paghat) expounded:
>
> >
> >Any art that fails to be confrontational in one way or another is
> >purposeless; it doesn't even qualify as shit because shit can fertilize
> >flowers.
>
> (snip balance of an interesting, passionate post)
> >
> >-paghat the ratgirl
>
> <button pushed mode on>
> This is a position held, unfortunately, by many who have formally studied art
> in the modern day (modern as is 1900's and later), and those influenced by
> them. It is a view of art that has great overtones of snobbery ... "art is
> not for the masses."
Frequently the "lower classes" is where the greatest art arises & all but
invariably where innovation arises; whereas the cultural elite supporting
their opera & ballet remain a century behind the times. But that does not
translate into the masses. One can look at an artfully political journal
like THE MASSES from early in the century, about & for social awareness
oozing with working class sentimentality. Sadly it turns out the editors &
authors were mostly of the priveleged class & sentimentality was all it
was -- come summer when the weather got nasty-hot in the Village, the
staff of the MASSES repaired to cool Provincetown to launch whatever was
the newest Eugene O'Neil play, & heaven protect any poor beggar or
Portugese fisherman who had the audacity to crash their party. Not that it
was anything to guard against because it took an elite to recognize what
Eugene was doing -- & though the occasional INDIVIDUAL from the actual
"masses" did join this keen sorority (and Eugene's fandom was mostly
women) she'd have the good grace to disguise herself as one of the elite &
at least SEEM to be the equivalent of an orea who makes every kneejerk
liberal jackass proud to have a nigger for a friend.
But whether or not art ever REACHES the masses, it is not done by masses
of people. Genius & originality & ability even in any restricted sense --
like a retard brilliant at drawing monkeys -- just doesn't occur in vast
numbers. It does, however, GENERALLY occur where the satisfied smug status
quo (i.e., the privileged classes) are NOT looking.
Loved your commentary anyway.
-paghat the ratgirl
paghat
The kitty doesn't die in the end. That was the kitty's ghost investigating
the ghost of the destroyed building. I suspect the cat was still there
when it got knocked down. We just don't know it's a ghost-cat until the
last few frames. It was a sad little story but the fact that the art style
spoofed Keene's big sappy-eyed animals & children, there was another
emotional response, namely, SMASH that horrible thing.
-paghat
paghat
> paggersSP...@my-deja.com (paghat) wrote:
>
> > Kid and the
> > > cats ran their diminutive asses around the yard. Sometimes from the
> > middle of this
> > > sea of grass would emerge a column of soap bubbles flying up and away.
> > Tinkling
> > > laughter punctuating the breaths that gave the gossamer bubbles life.
> >
> > That's a great relief to hear. I do believe lawns are evil. Unless you're
> > a duffer I guess.
>
> A duffer? If by that you're justifying golf courses, that's your
> opinion. There's a Nursing Home...er, I mean a Life Care
> Community, and they needed to talk to a Master Gardener about an
> idea they had. There was a lovely sunny patch of lawn by the
> fence, and they wanted to put in a tomato garden by the walkway
> there for the residents to enjoy.
>
> Except that the fence bordered the golf course.
>
> Golf courses tend to use lots and lots of herbicides that target
> things that aren't turf. Things like tomatoes.
>
> They had to put the tomatoes in bit pots up on the deck. I hope
> they remember to water them.
>
> Oh, if I was wrong about you justifying golf courses, I
> apologize. It's just a sore spot with me.
I was kidding. Golf courses take the evil of lawns to the maximum -- then
put up fences & fees to keep the unwashed hordes at bay -- so come the
revolution the duffers get shot right away. The most you can say in behalf
of golf courses is that every couple months another old fart of a duffer
gets whacked in the temple with a golf ball & has to be rushed to the
hospital. Instant karma.
And the real deal wasn't originally a walk on a big lawn anyway. It was
rugged hill climbing from link to link on natural Scottish hillsides.
-paghat
KMadeleine
says...
>
>paghat wrote:
>> [big snips]
>>
>> Misunderstood usually, but not necessarily struggling. When A HUNDRED
>> YEARS OF SOLITUDE became one of the bestselling mass market paperbacks of
>> all time, it can't be argued that greatness is INVARIABLY unpopular.
>
>IMO, _Hundred Years of Solitude_ was the most tedious, pointless, and
>meaningless pile of ink smeared pages I've ever attempted to read.
>The white pages from the local phone book is only slightly more
>droning. I know the guy won a Nobel Prize and I tried to pull
>something, anything profound from the book just out of respect for
>that. I never could.
hmmmm, i loved it. every english class in my high school had to read
it, except mine. my best friend had read it, as required in his class,
and told me i'd love it, so i read it on my own, and he was right.
moby dick i could never finish. and it takes a LOT for me not to
finish a book. i mean, i read cereal boxes, ya know?
Serdar Yegulalp
the course of my own work.
I used to believe that the only "real", "valid" art was the kind that (here
come the cliches) was VOMITED FORTH FROM THE BURNING PIT OF MY SOUL WITH
RAGE, TO LAND SPLAT IN THE FACE AND LAP OF THE READER, SPEWING SIXTEEN
DIFFERENT VENOMS IN ALL DIRECTIONS!!! You know the drill -- everyone
probably goes through at least a little of this when they're a writer.
Usually this gets dismissed by either your writing teacher, your agent, or a
critic (friend or foe) as "Cheap Shock". Which is not far from the truth.
Now, I've written plenty of things that were designed to shock, but that did
not RELY on the shock as being the only merit. There was a point of view, a
form of analysis or consideration being brough to bear as well. You can't
just ram your words sideways into someone's gut and expect Art to
spontaneously emerge.
I did, and still do, have a taste for art which doesn't take the easy way
out. But I've also learned not to confuse my tastes with my definitions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
ser...@thegline.com ICQ: 934998
you can crush me as I speak/write on rocks what you feel/now feel this
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carol Flynt
ajca...@aol.com (Ajcarol1) wrote:
>No other work before it that I know of described how this abuse
>awakens sexuality prematurely, and how the child can feel aroused
>and disgusted by the arousal which must absolutely be wrong, no one
>admits it exists, kids are not sexual beings.
When I first went into therapy, my therapist kept asking me
if I had been sexually abused as a child. I had not - of
this I am quite sure. He accepted my sure answer, but
in the course of further therapy, it came back up.
We finally figured it out - no, no repressed memories, folks.
I just "developed" extremely early. Menses by age 7,
"obscene" without a bra by the 5th grade. At age 12, I
was not allowed to do "kid-only" things at amusement parks,
etc., even though 12 and under got discounts. I just didn't
look 12. (The flip side of being carded when you're
older.) Men 18-20 found me interesting in ways I simply
couldn't understand. My emotional, mental and chronological
ages were all far younger than my physiological age.
This caused a lot of confusion. (Imagine trying to explain
a gynecological exam to a 7-year-old child!). And the results
of that confusion produced traits in me that echoed traits
found in victims of child sexual abuse.
I've always suspected that growing up gay in anything
less than a completely homo-comfortable environment
must produce similar confusion as growing up too
early in a heterosexual society - while we are
all unique and difference is the norm, we tend as
humans and social creatures to adapt as close to some
commonly defined "norm," or feel uncomfortable, weird
or confused if we can't. Particularly where sexuality
is concerned in a still-too-Puritan society as exists
here in the U.S.
Something that I think I would incorporate into any
gay character of mine.
Comments? I'm interested.
Carol
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| PREFERRED EMAIL ADDRESS: ca...@cflynt.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carol Flynt
paggersSP...@my-deja.com (paghat) wrote:
>Any art that fails to be confrontational in one way or another is
>purposeless; it doesn't even qualify as shit because shit can fertilize
>flowers.
I must disagree with you, Paghat. First, not *all* shit
fertilizes - it is only the fecal matter of non-meat-eating
creatures that fertilizes. Remnants of meat-eaters breed
disease.
Secondly, I do not think that *all* art must be confrontational.
The only thing *all* art *must* be is a communication -
the subject, tone, timbre and motivation of the art can, and does,
vary signficantly, in my opinion. It seems t me that
what defines the different arts from one another is the
mode of communication - and little else.
You, of course, are entitled to a different opinion, if you
choose. But I would suggest that it is merely your
*taste* in art which really differs - you do not appreciate
any art that fails to be confrontational.
I engage in art - both my own form and other forms - sometimes
to learn, and confrontational art can sometimes be the
most effective. But I have other purposes, both in my
artistic expression and my artistic receiving - and those, too,
are "purposes" of art.
Carol (who begs to differ with you) Flynt
Carol Flynt
paggersSP...@my-deja.com (paghat) wrote:
>I think someone needs to look up "confrontation" in the dictionary.
>Displacing old values would qualify. Showing a new direction shoves you
>off a preordered path that you would never otherwise have seen -- without
>that confrontation.
I question the necessity of novelty as an ingredient of art.
Art can also confirm/affirm what is already known; highlight
it and let us share in our common human experience. The
nurse in Shakespeare's "Romeo and Juliet" is a brilliant
character because she is so "common." We've all met someone
like her, and some of us have been blessed with someone like
her in a close relationship. Shakespear presents her, warts
and all, exactly as we expect her to be. And we smile from
our common understanding. It knits us together as part
of a common society.
This, too, can be a "purpose" of art. It need not be
confrontational.
>The other problem with the semantics of the thing is that too many people
>confuse craft & skill with creative art. The ability to play Beethoven
>perfectly is not the art; the art is in the composer, & to bring that art
>to the ear requires skill. But people will persist in regarding as the
>performer, rather than the creator, as the artist.
Ahh, but the performance is art. The Nurse as played by
Glenn Close is not the same as the Nurse played by Whoopi
Goldbert is not the Nurse as played by Judi Dench. When
Bob Dylan performs a Bob Dylan song, you have a multi-media
extravaganza; the composition, the performance, the lyrics,
the experience. Mel Torme covering the same song is a
different experience - and equally as artful.
So the real question is what elevates skill/craft into
artistic realm?
Carol Flynt
Ajcarol1
memories, folks.
>I just "developed" extremely early. Menses by age 7,
>"obscene" without a bra by the 5th grade. At age 12, I
>was not allowed to do "kid-only" things at amusement parks,
>etc., even though 12 and under got discounts. I just didn't
>look 12. (The flip side of being carded when you're
>older.) Men 18-20 found me interesting in ways I simply
>couldn't understand. My emotional, mental and chronological
>ages were all far younger than my physiological age.
>
>This caused a lot of confusion. (Imagine trying to explain
>a gynecological exam to a 7-year-old child!). And the results
>of that confusion produced traits in me that echoed traits
>found in victims of child sexual abuse.
>
I would agree, having sex-arousing hormones flowing early would be just like
having sex-arousing experiences too early in terms of causing psychological
confusion.
There is a medical name for this problem, precocious sexual development, and it
is becoming more and more common today, some blaming the Bovine Growth Hormone
which so much of our beef cattle are injected to spurt them to early growth and
development.
>I've always suspected that growing up gay in anything
>less than a completely homo-comfortable environment
>must produce similar confusion as growing up too
>early in a heterosexual society - while we are
>all unique and difference is the norm, we tend as
>humans and social creatures to adapt as close to some
>commonly defined "norm," or feel uncomfortable, weird
>or confused if we can't. Particularly where sexuality
>is concerned in a still-too-Puritan society as exists
>here in the U.S.
Exactly right. Kids do so much want to "fit in" to all those unspoken but
obvious norms, and so few actually do.
Carol Schmidt