Piss Christ II
Mugwump
I have looked through Maplethorp's books. Yes, I think he is a
talented photographer, but I find his "Piss Christ" objectionable on
multiple levels.
For one, it's unfair to blame the sins of Christians themselves on
Jesus, or other Christians for that matter. Jesus never condoned the
kind of sins that many Christians have commited in his name.
For another thing, that kind of artistic statement only adds fuel to
the already too numerous hatreds and divisions between people. It has an
overall negative effect on society in my opinion.
I know, there will be people who say that it raises awareness because
it gets people thinking and discussing important issues. But I think
that is misleading. Generally it only gets people arguing about things
which there will never be agreement on. And it only further perpetuates
the illusion that there is *nothing* that society can agree upon, and no
way for us to avoid conflict in all things. That is the kind of thinking
that makes it impossible for us to resolve anything.
And why pick on all Christians at once? They are a diverse group.
Most of them don't deserve that kind of slap in the face.
And "Piss Christ" was mainly an attempt to stir up controversy to get
Maplethorpe's name in the press. Therefore, it is not art in my opinion.
It is what is commonly known as a publicity stunt. If that is art, then
P.T. Barnum was the greatest artist of all time.
I don't mind art being sensational when there is a purpose to it, but
too much art these days is sensationalist for strictly mercinary
reasons. A point I continually try to make is that sensationalism these
days is usually based on dollars, not artistic sensabilities. In that
respect sensationalism is killing art! New artists seem to forget that
it all started out as a gimmick to get artists noticed. Now it is seen
by some as a end in itself. Art is in a pitiful state in that regard. It
often does more harm than good.
And sensational statements like this are used by the powers-that-be
to fight the usual battles and round up the usual suspects. It's all so
predictable. The free-speech people use it to beat their drums, and the
people who are offended by it use it to beat their drums.
All of that destracts from the reality of the situation, usually,
which is that the artist is using *everyone* to further his own career,
and for no other reason.
The political groups get their forum. The galleries, or museums, get
their money through higher attendence. The press sells more papers. The
television media gets higher ratings. And the artist gets a boost in
name recognition. But the public gets *ripped-off* if they think this
has anything to do with art. It's a dog-and-pony show with all of the
interested parties feeding off eachother. No matter which part you play
in this charade, unless you are one of the parties who is directly
profiting from it, you are being suckered.
For this reason, I suspect that many of the best artists, with the
highest artistic integrity, are relatively unknown, and will remain so
untill the public wises up to this whole farce.
Hound of Cullen
> I have looked through Maplethorp's books. Yes, I think he is a
> talented photographer, but I find his "Piss Christ" objectionable on
> multiple levels.
>
"Piss Christ" is not a Mapplethorpe work, it is Andres Serrano.
If you're going to rant, at least get the facts straight.
Hound
Jerry Kindall
<jand...@swbell.net> wrote:
> I have looked through Maplethorp's books. Yes, I think he is a
> talented photographer, but I find his "Piss Christ" objectionable
> on multiple levels.
I guess the real photographer's "publicity stunt" (you know, to get his
name in all the papers) didn't work so well, if it caused you to credit
the work to Mapplethorpe instead of him...
--
Jerry Kindall <mailto:je...@mlabor.com> Seattle, WA
Mugwump
Jerry Kindall wrote:
> In article <3ADC76C3...@swbell.net>, Mugwump
> <jand...@swbell.net> wrote:
>
> > I have looked through Maplethorp's books. Yes, I think he is a
> > talented photographer, but I find his "Piss Christ" objectionable
> > on multiple levels.
>
> I guess the real photographer's "publicity stunt" (you know, to get his
> name in all the papers) didn't work so well, if it caused you to credit
> the work to Mapplethorpe instead of him...
I was *thinking* it was someone else. Didn't he have a hispanic name?
But I thought I heard someone else in the thread say that it was one of
Maplethorpe's photo's, so I though maybe I was remembering wrong. Any way,
I have looked through many of Maplethorpe's books, and I have also seen the
"Piss Christ", but it was in a collection if I remember right, a book with
the work of several photographers.
Either way, the guy was famous temporaily, and that is all he could
expect.
The controversy is so old now that many people have forgotten his name.
But we still remember he exists don't we, and so does almost everyone else.
If the artist himself isn't a household name, his "Piss Christ" is. He is
now part of art history. And most people in America at that time heard
about him because of that one photo. *It worked like a charm, admit it*. It
usually does.
The fact that I forgot his name doesn't negate my point that artists
sometimes are intentionally controversial just to get noticed. Then the
next artist feels the need to top the previous one, and so on, and so on.
It's hucksterism, plain and simple, not art. The artists know it. And
people in the art world know it.
Hound of Cullen
>
>
>Jerry Kindall wrote:
>
>> In article <3ADC76C3...@swbell.net>, Mugwump
>> <jand...@swbell.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I have looked through Maplethorp's books. Yes, I think he is a
>>> talented photographer, but I find his "Piss Christ" objectionable
>>> on multiple levels.
>>
>> I guess the real photographer's "publicity stunt" (you know, to get
>> his name in all the papers) didn't work so well, if it caused you to
>> credit the work to Mapplethorpe instead of him...
>
> I was *thinking* it was someone else. Didn't he have a hispanic
> name?
With the entire world wide web at your fingertips, you could have taken
five minutes to find out. I didn't remember Serrano's name, either. I
hopped over to http://www.northernlight.com/ and typed "Piss Christ" in the
search field. The second link in the list gave me his name.
The whole thing took less time than it took for me to write the
description, above.
> The fact that I forgot his name doesn't negate my point that artists
>sometimes are intentionally controversial just to get noticed.
It makes it look as though you don't care enough about your argument. If
you can't be bothered with fact-checking, what *else* have you ignored in
your argument?
Hound
J-P
Hound of Cullen <pzisel...@iname.com> wrote:
) Mugwump <jand...@swbell.net> wrote in <3ADC76C3...@swbell.net>:
)
) > I have looked through Maplethorp's books. Yes, I think he is a
) > talented photographer, but I find his "Piss Christ" objectionable on
) > multiple levels.
) >
)
) "Piss Christ" is not a Mapplethorpe work, it is Andres Serrano.
<delurking> Indeed: it was on Memepool a week or so back -
<http://www.nyu.edu/classes/finearts/karmel/modern/m_67.html>. Apparently
the work is about the juxtaposition between the divine and the earthy. A
throwback, I imagine, to the lengthy arguments the Church had in the
middle ages over whether Jesus ate or not[1].
It looks like a scene from the beginning of Titanic, lit in a funny way. I
find it therefore hard to consider it astonishingly degrading. Perhaps I
am jaded. Perhaps they found the idea of Christ pooing shocking and filthy
in the middle ages. Certainly *I* would, but only if he did it, like, just
anywhere. And while people were eating.
J-P
[1] It was decided he ate, but did not poo. I don't know if this meant he
swelled to enormous size or not. Certainly I wouldn't have dared to poke
him with a spear when he was on the cross, lest I fertilized several
square kilometres of Golgotha and made a huge BANG.
--
Radio One DJ Trevor Nelson apparently has a warm dry
handshake not unlike a large bear.
Blanche Nonken
> [1] It was decided he ate, but did not poo. I don't know if this meant he
> swelled to enormous size or not. Certainly I wouldn't have dared to poke
> him with a spear when he was on the cross, lest I fertilized several
> square kilometres of Golgotha and made a huge BANG.
<gasp> You JUST provided the connection to some very strange lyrics in
a profane Yiddish song. What year was this decision made? Trade ya for
the lyrics...
Alan Hope
>In article <3ADC76C3...@swbell.net>, Mugwump
><jand...@swbell.net> wrote:
>> I have looked through Maplethorp's books. Yes, I think he is a
>> talented photographer, but I find his "Piss Christ" objectionable
>> on multiple levels.
>I guess the real photographer's "publicity stunt" (you know, to get his
>name in all the papers) didn't work so well, if it caused you to credit
>the work to Mapplethorpe instead of him...
And it wasn't a photograph. It was a crucifix-type trinket suspended
in a glass jar of some liquid or other, I forget what exactly.
--
AH
Keltic
>And it wasn't a photograph. It was a crucifix-type trinket suspended
>in a glass jar of some liquid or other, I forget what exactly.
The artist's urine. Hence the name.
Cheers, Keltic
Check out my movie reviews at:
http://comments.imdb.com/CommentsAuthor?104469
Mugwump
Alan Hope wrote:
Yes, but it was then photographed by the artist, and if I remember right,
it was the photograph which was displayed, not the jar, piss, and crucifix.
I was the photograph. It was included with other photographs by the same
photographer in a collection. That was what made me think it was exibited
that way, as a photograph.
>
>
> --
> AH
Alan Hope
>On Wed, 18 Apr 2001 00:21:00 +0200, Alan Hope <ah...@skynet.be> wrote:
>>And it wasn't a photograph. It was a crucifix-type trinket suspended
>>in a glass jar of some liquid or other, I forget what exactly.
>The artist's urine. Hence the name.
Gotcha.
--
AH
Mugwump
Apparently Piss Christ was also a painting. Here are some links with more
information about it:
http://home.vicnet.net.au/~twt/serrano.html
http://www.usc.edu/schools/annenberg/asc/projects/comm544/library/images/502.html
http://www.artistresource.org/forums/forum5/forum5.htm
If you read the last reply in the under piss christ, in the following link, it
also alludes to the fact that piss christ was a photograph, in addition to being
a paiting.
http://www.artistresource.org/forums/forum5/forum5.htm
Mugwump
Keltic wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Apr 2001 00:21:00 +0200, Alan Hope <ah...@skynet.be> wrote:
>
> >And it wasn't a photograph. It was a crucifix-type trinket suspended
> >in a glass jar of some liquid or other, I forget what exactly.
>
> The artist's urine. Hence the name.
Yes, but apparently it was a painting too. Maybe the artist made more
than one version of Piss Christ. Check the links I included in a
preceeding message. I couldn't find the photographed version, although I
have seen it myself in a collection of photographs.
Keltic
wrote:
> Yes, but apparently it was a painting too. Maybe the artist made more
>than one version of Piss Christ. Check the links I included in a
>preceeding message. I couldn't find the photographed version, although I
>have seen it myself in a collection of photographs.
Hmm, I haven't heard of that one. I know the "jar" version was
exhibited here because it offended one individual's sensitivities so
much that it was attacked with a stick and damaged. Apparently, they
had a backup jar o' piss, so disaster was averted.
Mugwump
Keltic wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Apr 2001 15:48:12 -0500, Mugwump <jand...@swbell.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Yes, but apparently it was a painting too. Maybe the artist made more
> >than one version of Piss Christ. Check the links I included in a
> >preceeding message. I couldn't find the photographed version, although I
> >have seen it myself in a collection of photographs.
>
> Hmm, I haven't heard of that one. I know the "jar" version was
> exhibited here because it offended one individual's sensitivities so
> much that it was attacked with a stick and damaged.
The photo I saw was also the jar version, but since it was mixed in with
other examples of photography as art, by the same artist I believe, I assumed
that was the way it was originally ehibited.
Apparently he works in more than one medium, and apparently his Piss
Christ has been ehibited in more than one medium.
But I still say it was just a gimick to get him well known.
Mugwump
gekko wrote:
> On 18 Apr 2001, an orbital photo revealed ancient Nazca pictograms which
> described a gigantic Mugwump <jand...@swbell.net> saying:
>
> > I couldn't find the photographed version, although I
> > have seen it myself in a collection of photographs.
> >
>
> <http://www.nyu.edu/classes/finearts/karmel/modern/m_67.html>
No gekko, that is the painting (I think). The photograph I saw was black
and white. It was taken from a few feet away from the jar, and it had a sign
that said "Piss Christ" behind it. You could pretty much see all the way
through the jar.
It wasn't a picture like at a museum or something. It was taken outside,
like it was at his studio or something. The way the photo was arranged, I
assumed it was the photo which was supposed to be the work of art. Maybe I'm
just remembering wrong. Maybe it was just a photo that the artist had taken
of his original piece, the jar itself. But evidently there is a painting
*and* a jar, by the same artist.
Check out this link:
http://home.vicnet.net.au/~twt/serrano.html
Acctually it is someone else who is quoted as saying that it is a
painting. Maybe they didn't know what they are talking about. But the photo
I saw was a little different than the link you provided me.
>
>
> --
> gekko
>
> When in trouble or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout. -- R.
> Heinlein
Dr Zen
J-P <jst...@plato.wadham.ox.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:9bi5u7$u4e$1...@plato.wadham.ox.ac.uk...
As son of God, he most certainly was not constrained by the normal rules of
anatomy. He ate a little, just to be polite, but why would he need to shit?
The man rose from the dead, for fuck's sake. If you could master rising from
the dead, I reckon not shitting would be a doddle.
Zen
Dr Zen
gekko <ge...@gekkografx.com> wrote in message
news:Xns90868485A...@136.182.15.25...
> Mugwump <jand...@swbell.net> fought off the bad guys, rescued the
> hostage, phoned Mom on her birthday and then posted to misc.writing:
>
> > But I thought I heard someone else in the thread say that it was
> > one of Maplethorpe's photo's,
>
>
> You saw Jervis credit Maplethorpe with Serrano's work. Jervis
> is big on windy treatises, but short on accuracy.
>
> Granted, you had no way to know this, and your news reception
> is reportedly spotty, so you probably missed the followups
> that corrected Jervis' mistake.
Be fair and even-handed. Kimball called it a photo, too. Serrano sculpted
Piss Christ.
Zen
J-P
Blanche Nonken <mombl...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
) jst...@plato.wadham.ox.ac.uk (J-P) wrote:
)
) > [1] It was decided he ate, but did not poo. I don't know if this meant he
) > swelled to enormous size or not. Certainly I wouldn't have dared to poke
) > him with a spear when he was on the cross, lest I fertilized several
) > square kilometres of Golgotha and made a huge BANG.
)
) <gasp> You JUST provided the connection to some very strange lyrics in
) a profane Yiddish song. What year was this decision made? Trade ya for
) the lyrics...
Well, it's cited in Milan Kundera's Unflyable Lightness of Boeing (see
<http://www.law.utoronto.ca/ultravires/sept99/opinions_02.htm> for a /few/
more details) but I /think/ it was in the 2nd Century: Valentinus was
around that time, and it was him wot said it.
Middle Ages was optimistic on my part, I see.
There was once a claim that the waffer-thin communion host was never shat,
being made of the bodyandtheblood and all that. There would be a simple
test to see whether that was true or not; nobody conducted it, though.
Does "second century" gain me the lyrics, then? All web searches lead to
bloody Kundera, so I'm a bit stumped.
J-P
--
I'm pretty sure it's about my relationship with God, I was pretty smashed
and it might have been about my relationship with my record player, too.
Blanche Nonken
> Does "second century" gain me the lyrics, then? All web searches lead to
> bloody Kundera, so I'm a bit stumped.
That's a fair bit pre-Yiddish. But it'll do.
"Der goyische gott zitst oyfen dachu;"
"'ot a tochis 'un a lochu;"
"'ot a boach 'un a mogn;"
"tzeine goyim miz'nm trogn."
"Vuzhe lachte noch?"
"Ah choleria mit a broch!"
gekko
<http://www.computerbits.com/search/cbo?stx=author&sapn=Nancy+Ahern>
, turned to misc.writing, and posted:
who is kimball?
--
gekko
If you think nobody cares about you, try missing a couple of
payments.
Steve Pritchard
> who is kimball?
The bloke fitted up for the murder of his wife by the one-armed man.
Jerry Kindall
<jand...@swbell.net> wrote:
> I was the photograph.
Oh. My.
Mugwump
Jerry Kindall wrote:
> In article <3ADD80B4...@swbell.net>, Mugwump
> <jand...@swbell.net> wrote:
>
> > I was the photograph.
>
> Oh. My.
Yes, that's me, Jesus. Yet the world refuses to heed my warnings.
They just piss on me.
(Dislexic typing; read that as *saw*)
Jerry Kindall
<jand...@swbell.net> wrote:
> Jerry Kindall wrote:
>
> > In article <3ADD80B4...@swbell.net>, Mugwump
> > <jand...@swbell.net> wrote:
> >
> > > I was the photograph.
> >
> > Oh. My.
>
> Yes, that's me, Jesus. Yet the world refuses to heed my warnings.
> They just piss on me.
>
> (Dislexic typing; read that as *saw*)
Dyslexic, hell. It strikes me that "I Was The Photograph" would be an
excellent title for a Twilight Zone-ish short story. It's _inspiration_
is what it is. Writing the actual story is left as an exercise for the
reader. Or the writer.
Dr Zen
Is he not Kimball? Fuck! I could have sworn he was. Man alive, alive-oh, am
I losing it!
Zen
Scott Elyard
(gekko) wrote:
> that may be, but i still don't know who kimball, or whoever, is.
Kimball? Rabbit character from Pogo. Based loosely (or not so loosely)
on Ward Kimball, an animator who shared a sweatoffice with Walt Kelly when
they both worked for Disney.
I doubt that helps.
--
.oO=-"The picture of a faithful alligator boundin' into-=Oo.
| daddy's lap ain't one the public is ready for." |
| --Walt Kelly (Beauregard) |
| Comic: www.oscarquillandcoyle.org |
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'
gekko
the bathroom sink:
> In article <Xns908994384...@136.182.15.25>,
> ge...@gekkografx.com (gekko) wrote:
>
> > that may be, but i still don't know who kimball, or whoever,
> > is.
>
> Kimball? Rabbit character from Pogo. Based loosely (or not so
> loosely) on Ward Kimball, an animator who shared a sweatoffice
> with Walt Kelly when they both worked for Disney.
>
> I doubt that helps.
>
prolly not, innit. unless the rabbit said something about
the piss christ being a photo.
could he have been talking about the organ manufacturer?
--
gekko
I'd kill for a Nobel Peace Prize.
Scott Elyard
(gekko) wrote:
> prolly not, innit. unless the rabbit said something about
> the piss christ being a photo.
>
> could he have been talking about the organ manufacturer?
I didn't know Ward made organs. What kind?
gekko
the bathroom sink:
> > could he have been talking about the organ manufacturer?
>
> I didn't know Ward made organs. What kind?
Hand-crank kind. For use with monkeys.
J-P
Dr Zen <dave...@nospamnospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
) As son of God, he most certainly was not constrained by the normal rules of
) anatomy. He ate a little, just to be polite, but why would he need to shit?
Why, for that matter, wouldn't he shit and not eat? What's wrong with
shitting and right with eating? "Go forth and fertilize."
Yea.
J-P
--
Buttercup: We'll never survive.
Westley: Nonsense! You're only saying that because no one ever has.
KMadeleine
>MOMMY!!! Look what stonebu...@yahoo.com (Scott Elyard) left in
>the bathroom sink:
>
>>> could he have been talking about the organ manufacturer?
>>
>> I didn't know Ward made organs. What kind?
>
>Hand-crank kind. For use with monkeys.
hmmm. maybe he meant miles kimball, the mail order company? i'm
sure they'd personalize any organ you ordered from them.
--
KMadeleine
Dave Hitt
>On Wed, 18 Apr 2001 15:48:12 -0500, Mugwump <jand...@swbell.net>
>wrote:
>
>> Yes, but apparently it was a painting too. Maybe the artist made more
>>than one version of Piss Christ. Check the links I included in a
>>preceeding message. I couldn't find the photographed version, although I
>>have seen it myself in a collection of photographs.
>
>Hmm, I haven't heard of that one. I know the "jar" version was
>exhibited here because it offended one individual's sensitivities so
>much that it was attacked with a stick and damaged. Apparently, they
>had a backup jar o' piss, so disaster was averted.
What does it say about a work of art when all it takes to make a 100%
accurate reproduction is another specimen cup and a couple of cheap
beers?
----
How to make sure the bureaucrats make the right decision
about dredging the Hudson River.
http://www.davehitt.com/april01/bottomfishing.html
-Dave Hitt hit...@bigfoot.spamblocker.com (Remove "spamblocker" to reply)
J-P
Dave Hitt <Boy....@Hate.spammers> wrote:
) What does it say about a work of art when all it takes to make a 100%
) accurate reproduction is another specimen cup and a couple of cheap
) beers?
What does it say about a work of science when all it takes to make a 100%
accurate reproduction is a laser pointer and two pinholes? Without getting
into the "what is art?" discussion, it's important to bear in mind that a
brash, otherwise unacceptable statement might be made through a piece of
throwaway art (Liechtenstein, Warhol, Bryan Ferry, er, maybe not the last
one) which can be easily reproduced.
Like the catflap, the cover of Suede's first album, and the declaration of
independence - it's not what's being said or how they're saying it, it's
that it's been said first.
Or does all art have to be unique? Argh. I shouldn't oughta have asked
/that/ one. That way madness lies.
J-P
--
Regard all art critics as useless and dangerous
Michael Cargal
<9bt5nt$pta$1...@plato.wadham.ox.ac.uk>:
>In article <3ae414b2....@news3.newscene.com>,
>Dave Hitt <Boy....@Hate.spammers> wrote:
>) What does it say about a work of art when all it takes to make a 100%
>) accurate reproduction is another specimen cup and a couple of cheap
>) beers?
>
>What does it say about a work of science when all it takes to make a 100%
>accurate reproduction is a laser pointer and two pinholes?
And what does it say about a work of literature when all it takes to
make a 100% accurate reproduction is a word processor? It ain't the
making that's hard, it's the thinking up what to make.
--
Michael Cargal
mhca...@home.com
Dr Zen
> In article <3adeadbe@grissom>,
> Dr Zen <dave...@nospamnospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
> ) As son of God, he most certainly was not constrained by the normal rules
of
> ) anatomy. He ate a little, just to be polite, but why would he need to
shit?
>
> Why, for that matter, wouldn't he shit and not eat? What's wrong with
> shitting and right with eating? "Go forth and fertilize."
>
> Yea.
Quite. Although even in Biblical times, eating was more often done in public
than shitting. I expect people would have noticed if Jesus didn't eat at the
Last Supper, but no one was checking he took a shit afterwards.
Zen
gekko
guys, rescued the hostage, phoned Mom on her birthday and then
posted to misc.writing:
> Quite. Although even in Biblical times, eating was more often
> done in public than shitting. I expect people would have noticed
> if Jesus didn't eat at the Last Supper, but no one was checking
> he took a shit afterwards.
Ever been to Bet Sh'an (of whatever variation in spelling
you care to use) in Israel?
I love that place, and will do my best to one day return.
One of the partially restored (may be fully restored) sites
has a public bath ... Roman style, of course. Public toilets,
too. Man, those guys did EVERYTHING together!
I wonder (haven't finished reading the Gnostic Gospels yet),
if perhaps Jesus' bathroom habits WERE recorded, but the
PTBs of course didn't feel it appropriate to note that
the Son of Man made poo.
--
gekko
What is the difference between the men's final at Wimbledon and a
choral performance? The tennis final has more men.
Dave Hitt
>In article <3ae414b2....@news3.newscene.com>,
>Dave Hitt <Boy....@Hate.spammers> wrote:
>) What does it say about a work of art when all it takes to make a 100%
>) accurate reproduction is another specimen cup and a couple of cheap
>) beers?
>
>What does it say about a work of science when all it takes to make a 100%
>accurate reproduction is a laser pointer and two pinholes? Without getting
>into the "what is art?" discussion, it's important to bear in mind that a
>brash, otherwise unacceptable statement might be made through a piece of
>throwaway art (Liechtenstein, Warhol, Bryan Ferry, er, maybe not the last
>one) which can be easily reproduced.
I'd like to see someone recreate a Liechtenstein, Warhol, or Ferry
with the same amount of effort as pissing into a cup.
Although the first two highlighted the mundane, elevating it to the
status of art, doesn't diminish their talent. And it would take
considerable talent to do the same things any of them did. Piss
Christ took less time and talent than painting a velvet Elvis by the
numbers.
>Like the catflap, the cover of Suede's first album, and the declaration of
>independence
Not familiar with the cover art, but there was a considerable amount
of work and talent devoted to the crafting of the DOI.
>- it's not what's being said or how they're saying it, it's
>that it's been said first.
>
>Or does all art have to be unique? Argh. I shouldn't oughta have asked
>/that/ one. That way madness lies.
Nothing's completely unique. Hell, the most unique thing about Warhol
was his point of view - that there was beauty to be found in every day
mundane things. Illustrating that point of view is what made his work
art.
If a twelve year old had created Piss Christ and took it into school
as an art project, he'd probably end up in therapy. But because some
hokey so called artist did it, it's considered art by the "experts."
Sorry, I don't buy it. There was nothing artistic about it. It was
just some putz throwing a tantrum and trying to get as much attention
as possible by doing something gross. It is no more art than a kid
showing you a mouthful of chewed food and saying "Train Wreck!"
Scott Elyard
(Dave Hitt) wrote:
> What does it say about a work of art when all it takes to make a 100%
> accurate reproduction is another specimen cup and a couple of cheap
> beers?
Hey! Depends on vitamin intake, _thank_ youverymuch!
But, this is actually an interesting point, one I prolly ought to address.
I also do visual art, and right now, I'm experimenting with a mode of art
that is 100% duplicatable mathematically^1. Is it any less art? I think
not.
_________________
1. Graphics tablet simulated brushwork in Adobe Illustrator.
(Illustrator is more responsive than Photoshop.)
Scott Elyard
jst...@plato.wadham.ox.ac.uk (J-P) wrote:
> In article <3ae414b2....@news3.newscene.com>,
> Dave Hitt <Boy....@Hate.spammers> wrote:
> ) What does it say about a work of art when all it takes to make a 100%
> ) accurate reproduction is another specimen cup and a couple of cheap
> ) beers?
>
> What does it say about a work of science when all it takes to make a 100%
> accurate reproduction is a laser pointer and two pinholes?
That experiments that are replicatable with duplicatable results indicate
consistent laws of nature?
> Without getting
> into the "what is art?" discussion,
You do relalize that's futile?
> it's important to bear in mind that a
> brash, otherwise unacceptable statement might be made through a piece of
> throwaway art (Liechtenstein, Warhol, Bryan Ferry, er, maybe not the last
> one) which can be easily reproduced.
>
> Like the catflap, the cover of Suede's first album, and the declaration of
> independence - it's not what's being said or how they're saying it, it's
> that it's been said first.
No. Not that it's been said first ('cause it hasn't), but that it's been
synthesised in one place, in one fashion, in a way that probably couldn't
be repeated given another chance under similar circumstances.
Having said that, that's a useless definition of what art is or isn't.
Art is.
What isn't is a matter of opinion.
> Or does all art have to be unique? Argh. I shouldn't oughta have asked
> /that/ one. That way madness lies.
What does madness have to lie about?
> J-P
> --
> Regard all art critics as useless and dangerous
Onk?
Scott Elyard
(gekko) wrote:
> Hand-crank kind. For use with monkeys.
I don't _want_ to think about monkeys with hand-cranks.
But, thanks to you, I now can't _stop_ thinking about _sea_ monkeys with
hand cranks.
Aaaaaaaaaa!
Hugh Watkins
>
>"Piss Christ" is not a Mapplethorpe work, it is Andres Serrano.
>
just a sort of troll in the art world like Dada
Hugh W
Andres Serrano. Piss Christ. 1987.
Andres Serrano. Piss Christ. 1987.
www.nyu.edu/classes/finearts/karmel/modern/m_67.html -
Piss Christ
... Artist: Andres Serrano Title: Piss Christ Date: 1989 Material: Plastic
crucifix in
urine with cowąs blood Original Size: City/Country: Magnify to Screen
Size, ...
www.usc.edu/dept/finearts/fa121/images/502.html
"Piss Christ" Creator Andres Serrano In Urine, Blood, Semen
Click Here. ... Piss Christ" Creator Andres Serrano In Urine, Blood, Semen.
Ask Jeeves! Free Web E-Mail. From PR Web. Get Headlines: ...
www.prweb.com/releases/1998/prweb4898.htm
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=Robert+Mapplethorpe&spell=1
corrected spelling
Mugwump
Dave Hitt wrote:
> If a twelve year old had created Piss Christ and took it into school
> as an art project, he'd probably end up in therapy. But because some
> hokey so called artist did it, it's considered art by the "experts."
> Sorry, I don't buy it. There was nothing artistic about it.
I don't either, but the *painted* version of Piss Christ would have to be
considered art, I guess, though I think it would be a matter of opinion as to
how good it was.
I just don't apreciate art that seems to be trying to accomplish nothing but
stirring hatreds, no matter how well it was executed.
I don't think the question is whether or not the stuff in question *is* art
or not. I think the question is: is it good art, or fine art, or high art? I
tend to agree with you, obviously. Much of it is pure sensationalism intended
to stir up controversy. It is often just a publicity stunt. If that's the case,
I think the artists is fooling everyone.
He wants us all to think he is making some kind of bold and original
artistic statement, in order to get us to break free from our narrow ways of
viewing the world (no doubt), when in reality he is just suckering us because
he knows that the boundaries of art are nonexistant these days, even to the
point where *anything* can be considered art, including shameless
self-promotion.
Anyone who is in the know about the powerful people in the upper levels of
the art world can tell you that the whole scene is corrupted. There are a group
of extremely influential people who run high profile galleries and museums who
decide who and what is to be the latest sensation. It is much like the fashion
world in that sense. It's a huge lucrative racket.
> It was
> just some putz throwing a tantrum and trying to get as much attention
> as possible by doing something gross. It is no more art than a kid
> showing you a mouthful of chewed food and saying "Train Wreck!"
Yes, I met an artist one time who owns a high-class framing shop. That is
how he supports himself so that he can contine to paint.
We were discussing this one time, and I said to him,"Have you ever noticed
that these days you could put just about any object at all in a large art
museum, and it would "look" like art, even if it wasn't? He agreed with me; in
fact he had a name for that phenomenon which he made up himself, although I
can't remember it right now.
But think about it. The large open spaces of an art museum, added to the
fact that we expect to see important things there, give added importance to
anything that is ehibited. In fact that is one of the most basic principals of
art. Any time you place a single object within a large empy space, that object
takes on importance. If you paint a picture with a single object in a large
field, that object will take on importance in your painting.
The dictators of the art world are using their knowledge of how art works to
fool us into accepting their dictates as to what is and is not art.
If you had a large empty gallery, and a space in the center which was all
lit up, perhaps with a pedastal in the center; then absolutely *anything* you
put on that pedastal would be imbued with meaning and importance simply because
it was the only object withing a cavernous space. It's placement on a pedestal
would add to it's inportance.
For example suppose the pedastal in the center of the empty galley, was a
simple white square formica box three feet high, and ten feet long on each
side, which was intended to display art upon.
If you were to put a large electric fan at one end, and then disassemble a
smaller electric fan and scatter the pieces in front of the larger fan, to make
it look like the larger fan had blown the samller fan to pieces; it would look
like art to anyone who walked in and assumed it was meant to be art. They would
examine it carefully, give it their full attention, and try "experience" it.
They would be convinced that it was *sonebody's* idea of art anyway.
But if you did the exact same thing in a large warehouse, where no one is
expecting to see art, people would probably assume that someone took the fan
apart to fix it, then gave up and left.
I think there is a lot of art that only looks like art when it is ehibited.
If you were to pile it on a curb, a person might think it was junk to be hauled
away.
Mugwump
gekko wrote:
> I wonder (haven't finished reading the Gnostic Gospels yet),
> if perhaps Jesus' bathroom habits WERE recorded, but the
> PTBs of course didn't feel it appropriate to note that
> the Son of Man made poo.
But if he did, you can bet it didn't stink.
J-P
Dave Hitt <Boy....@Hate.spammers> wrote:
) If a twelve year old had created Piss Christ and took it into school
) as an art project, he'd probably end up in therapy.
The same might be said of Eraserhead, much of Pixies' back catalogue,
Kafka's Metamorphosis and Munch's The Scream, which makes it a rather
bizarre thing to say about a work of art. Doubtless Vinny "Pardon?" Van
Gogh ought to have been in therapy; that this has nothing to do with
whether or not he produced works of art is telling in some way, I think.
(Anyone who responds to this with an outraged, button-pushed "are you
comparing Piss Christ to the works of Van Gogh?" will get roundly ticked
off for their inability to see analogy, the punishment of which is my
hackneyed Bryan Magee story.)
I've never heard of the "what is art?" question being answered by "well,
certainly anything that isn't done by a bunch of workshy fops skiving off
the arts council," which isn't so much an argument as a variation on
Monty Python's The Four Yorkshiremen.
"This isn't an argument."
J-P
--
Motorhead mainman Lemmy doesn't like chickens: " I hate their
little fuckin' beady eyes and their feet," he said.
Mugwump
J-P wrote:
> In article <3ae3290e....@news3.newscene.com>,
> Dave Hitt <Boy....@Hate.spammers> wrote:
> ) If a twelve year old had created Piss Christ and took it into school
> ) as an art project, he'd probably end up in therapy.
>
> The same might be said of Eraserhead, much of Pixies' back catalogue,
> Kafka's Metamorphosis and Munch's The Scream, which makes it a rather
> bizarre thing to say about a work of art. Doubtless Vinny "Pardon?" Van
> Gogh ought to have been in therapy; that this has nothing to do with
> whether or not he produced works of art is telling in some way, I think.
>
> (Anyone who responds to this with an outraged, button-pushed "are you
> comparing Piss Christ to the works of Van Gogh?"
But Van Gogh didn't appear to be trying to be controversial just as some
publicity stunt. In fact he probably could have had more commercial success
if he would have scrificed his unique vision and played the game.
I'll admit that it's not always easy to tell when an artist is trying to
be controversial out of a sincere desire to express himself and enlighten the
public, or when he is just executing a cynical and mercinary publicity stunt
just to get his name in the paper. But I think it's a safe guess that Piss
Christ was the ultimate publicity stunt.
I refuse to kiss the artist's ass and tell him how great he is just
because he's willing to do anything to get famous.
Even if it was a sincere artistic statement, I wouldn't have liked it. I
don't mind when art sets out to shake people up. That is one of the functions
of art. But I believe art should be out to make the world a better place. I
don't thinkPiss Christ accomplished anything positive.
Now I have become so cynical about art that I *always* suspect ulterior
motives whenever I see that kind of controversy.
I would rather dismiss it entirely than be another one of the suckers.
And I am not going to jump on the 'free-speech' bandwagon or the 'cut
funding for the arts' bandwagon either.
J-P
Mugwump <jand...@swbell.net> wrote:
) But I think it's a safe guess that Piss
) Christ was the ultimate publicity stunt.
Ultimate? Hmm. And given the huge misunderstanding that surrounded the
Pope-under-a-rock recently (the artist actually being quite strongly Roman
Catholic), then I wouldn't presume to know when
Personally, I think the ideas behind Piss Christ could have a lot to them.
I think they're shoddily executed, definitely - very unsubtle - but
there's a great deal of history that may or may not be in that work,
especially in the way the Church has historically viewed itself with
respect to the world that it is immersed in.
I don't really care about whether or not free speech should permit it,
(partly because it clearly has done already, and it's unavoidable unless
you have some sort of governmental 24/7 ArtistWatch scheme), but at any
rate I find it risible that the work should be perceived as /important/
enough either way to start deciding over whose civil liberty should be
stamped on in order that this obscene disgusting filthy thing should etc.
etc. ad nauseam for full story see pp7-9 and the accompanying editorial:
"it's a scandal," says Archbishop Carey.
On the other hand, I do find the idea of requiring art to "make the world
a better place" a bit bizarre and, well, twee. Again, depending on your
criteria, you could end up opposing people like Bill Hicks, for example:
it might be argued that he spent night after night flinging verbal shit at
his audience and telling them how much they sucked; and yet through
disparagement, insult, rage and satire he brought into light a lot of
truths and nasties about society, that the "better place" crowd would like
to see covered up, along with poo, genitalia and anything that hasn't been
approved by the Parents With Inheritable Neuroses Association.
A lot of people would say he'd turned the world into a worse place. A lot
of those people have influence and quite loud voices.
) I refuse to kiss the artist's ass and tell him how great he is just
) because he's willing to do anything to get famous.
You may be confusing appreciation of art with appreciation of celebrity
here, I'm not sure. At any rate, I don't know Serrano, so I'm not
particularly interested in kissing his arse. But I do know just about
enough about the possibilities behind the production of his piece /other/
than the most dismissive ones, not to merely plump for the most dismissive
ones.
Of course, for all we know, if Serrano were listening to this discussion -
perhaps he'd feel that the mere fact it were taking place was enough to
justify the piss. Er, piece.
J-P
--
Insist on a bicycle made of solid matter. Liquid and vapor bikes are a
passing fancy; argon frames are particularly shoddy.
J-P
) Christ was the ultimate publicity stunt.
Given the huge misunderstanding that surrounded the Pope-under-a-rock
recently (the artist actually being quite strongly Roman Catholic, ISTR),
then I wouldn't presume to know when an artist is or isn't aiming for
publicity, except when I know a little more about the artist's character -
Tracey Emin springs to mind at this point. And ultimate? Hmm. Aside from
this discussion, and a brief appearance on Memepool a week or so ago, I'd
never even heard of him. Amazing publicity stunt. Er.
Personally, I think the ideas behind Piss Christ could have a lot to them.
I think they're shoddily executed, definitely - very unsubtle - but
there's a great deal of history that may or may not be in that work,
especially in the way the Church has historically viewed itself with
respect to the world that it is immersed in.
I don't really care about whether or not free speech should permit it,
(partly because it clearly has done already, and it's unavoidable unless
you have some sort of governmental 24/7 ArtistWatch scheme), as I find it
risible that this should be seen as a case for invoking civil liberties
/either/way/, either for Serrano or for anyone else. I mean, am I not a
human being? "If you water me, do I not piss?" What if he suspended a
cross in Budweiser, and told all the most conservative people he could
find that it was really piss? Is it still as controversial? Why? Why not?
What's /wrong/ with piss that isn't wrong with, say, air, or incense
smoke, or intricately patterned silk, or even water, or synthetically-
created uric acid? Examine your reaction to the work, and you might see
there's more to it than you first thought. Or don't, if you prefer.
On the other hand, I do find the idea of requiring art to "make the world
a better place" a bit bizarre and, well, kitsch. Again, depending on your
criteria, you could end up opposing people like Bill Hicks, for example:
it might be argued that he spent night after night flinging verbal shit at
his audience and telling them how much they sucked; and yet through
disparagement, insult, rage and satire he brought into light a lot of
truths and nasties about society, that the "better place" crowd would like
to see covered up, along with poo, genitalia and anything that hasn't been
approved by the Parents With Inheritable Neuroses Association.
A lot of people would say he'd turned the world into a worse place. A lot
of those people have influence and quite loud voices. I can't help but
feel if you end up on the other side of the fence to Bill Hicks, then your
grass is definitely less green. But more legal.
) I refuse to kiss the artist's ass and tell him how great he is just
) because he's willing to do anything to get famous.
You may be confusing appreciation of art with appreciation of celebrity
here, I'm not sure. At any rate, I don't know Serrano, so I'm not
particularly interested in kissing his arse. But I do know (just about, as
I'm really no expert) enough about the possibilities behind the production
of his piece /other/ than the most dismissive ones, not to merely plump
for the most dismissive ones.
Of course, were Serrano listening to us right now - he might feel that
merely us /having/ this discussion made it worth his while making the
original piss. Er, piece.
J-P
--
I want my rock stars dead! I want them to fucking play with one hand and
put a gun in their other fucking hand and go "I hope you enjoy the show!"
(gun-fire noise) Yes! Yes! Play from your fucking heart!
... I am available for children's parties, by the way.
Mugwump
Thanks for the post. I found this quote in one of the links:
Mr. Serrano's most controversial piece was a [close-up photograph] of a crucifix in a jar of urine, known as "Piss Christ." (Offense aside,
I think it is a beautiful image.)
Blanche Nonken
>
> J-P <jst...@plato.wadham.ox.ac.uk> wrote in message
> > Why, for that matter, wouldn't he shit and not eat? What's wrong with
> > shitting and right with eating? "Go forth and fertilize."
> >
> > Yea.
>
> Quite. Although even in Biblical times, eating was more often done in public
> than shitting. I expect people would have noticed if Jesus didn't eat at the
> Last Supper, but no one was checking he took a shit afterwards.
People poop in the bible. King Saul went to poop, and David had a
chance to kill him then, but decided to be honorable (and a bit
mischevious). So instead he snuck up behind him, quietly sliced off the
back of his robe or skirt or something, and snuck away.
Blanche Nonken
> Keltic <kel...@SPAM.zip.com.au> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 18 Apr 2001 15:48:12 -0500, Mugwump <jand...@swbell.net>
> >wrote:
> >
> >> Yes, but apparently it was a painting too. Maybe the artist made more
> >>than one version of Piss Christ. Check the links I included in a
> >>preceeding message. I couldn't find the photographed version, although I
> >>have seen it myself in a collection of photographs.
> >
> >Hmm, I haven't heard of that one. I know the "jar" version was
> >exhibited here because it offended one individual's sensitivities so
> >much that it was attacked with a stick and damaged. Apparently, they
> >had a backup jar o' piss, so disaster was averted.
>
> What does it say about a work of art when all it takes to make a 100%
> accurate reproduction is another specimen cup and a couple of cheap
> beers?
It's called "Dada." There's a piece in the Philadelphia Museum of Art
called "Fount."
Blanche Nonken
> I think there is a lot of art that only looks like art when it is ehibited.
> If you were to pile it on a curb, a person might think it was junk to be hauled
> away.
Somebody in SoCal had an exhibit at the Newport Harbor Art Museum. It
looked like a pile of cardboard boxes.
Then you got close enough, and you realized it was canvas stretched over
a wooden framework. It was painted so accurately that it took quite
close examination to see that it wasn't just a cardboard box. Printing,
creases, slightly mashed corners. I guess that would be 3D trompe
l`oeil.
Mugwump
J-P wrote:
> Given the huge misunderstanding that surrounded the Pope-under-a-rock
> recently (the artist actually being quite strongly Roman Catholic, ISTR),
> then I wouldn't presume to know when an artist is or isn't aiming for
> publicity, except when I know a little more about the artist's character -
> Tracey Emin springs to mind at this point. And ultimate? Hmm. Aside from
> this discussion, and a brief appearance on Memepool a week or so ago, I'd
> never even heard of him. Amazing publicity stunt. Er.
Even without the "publicity stunt" angle. I still think some artists see art
as a "one-up-manship" of ever escalating shock value. I think I am more likely
to appreciate something like that if I believe it sincere. I have become very
cynical about many contemporay artists. I guess that's partly because I have
known a few.
I mean if Piss Crist is an artistic statement, then wouldn't it also be an
artistic statement if I were do a piece of perfromance art where I sat on the
floor in a diaper and threw feces at a life-size statue of Jesus on the cross?
To me, that is the way a child expresses his feelings. If I am free to
interpret art for myself, then I would say Piss Christ is a childish way of
criticizing something. I see no real genius behind it.
Yes, it gets people discussing things. But that would be possible without
art.
If I hired a helicopter and dumped a load of pig manure on the statue of
Jesus on that mountain peak in Rio De Jinero, I would get people talking in the
same way. But would it be art?
In fact I could claim that it is the *ultimate* in performance art, because I
was not afraid to actually put myself on the line (by breaking the law) in order
to execute my artistic vision. I could claim that any artist who is not willing
to push the limits in that way is really just a prostitute who is afraid to put
himself and his art on the line.
In fact if I had an art degree, and I could prove that I had some talent, and
I actually carried out the helicopter idea, I have no doubt that there would be
some wacky artists out there who would think that I was the latest artist to
top, in the ever escalating "shock value" competition that contemporary artists
seem to engage in.
>
> On the other hand, I do find the idea of requiring art to "make the world
> a better place" a bit bizarre and, well, kitsch. Again, depending on your
> criteria, you could end up opposing people like Bill Hicks, for example:
> it might be argued that he spent night after night flinging verbal shit at
> his audience and telling them how much they sucked; and yet through
> disparagement, insult, rage and satire he brought into light a lot of
> truths and nasties about society, that the "better place" crowd would like
> to see
I guess what I meant by that is that I think art should be careful not to
hurt people or contribute to the already rampant animosities in the world. John
Lennon once appologised for making that remark about "Chairman Mao" in his song
Revolution. He never changed his mind about Mao, but he realized that a lot of
Chinese still respected Mao, even if naively.
But Lennon didn't like the idea that one of his songs might inadvertantly add
to the animosities of the world. *That* was his point in regretting the remark,
even though it was a rather tame comment.
I think that was one of the things he learned from his "Jesus" statement. It
probably took him a while to come around to that, because he was immediately put
on the defensive, but I don't think he liked knowing that it was *his comment*
which led people to go out in the streets and burn Beatles records, or burn
anything for that matter. I think he decided that art doesn't need to stir
things up to *that* degree to make an effective statement.
> Of course, were Serrano listening to us right now - he might feel that
> merely us /having/ this discussion made it worth his while making the
> original piss. Er, piece.
Yes, but that could have been accomplished with a publicity stunt by a
non-artist. That alone doesn't make it art, although I know that's not what you
are suggesting.
Mugwump
gekko wrote: he probably
> cursed when he smacked his finger with one of the tools in
> the carpentry shop (but he prolly had to be careful not to
> curse *too* seriously.
I have read that the assumption that Jesus was a carpenter was based on a
single word that has been misinterpeted to mean carpenter. According to what
I read, the word was also a euphemism for a learned man who had wisdom and
spoke in public. (I forget the exact translation because it has been a while
since I read that).
>
> --
> gekko
>
> Everybody is entitled to his or her own informed opinion. -- Harlan
> Ellison
Mugwump
Blanche Nonken wrote:
Now I think I would appreciate something like that.
Blanche Nonken
> If I hired a helicopter and dumped a load of pig manure on the statue of
> Jesus on that mountain peak in Rio De Jinero, I would get people talking in the
> same way. But would it be art?
Depends. Is your name Christo?
gekko
song 'bout ol' Mugwump <jand...@swbell.net>, and it went something
like this:
> I have read that the assumption that Jesus was a carpenter was
> based on a
> single word that has been misinterpeted to mean carpenter.
> According to what I read, the word was also a euphemism for a
> learned man who had wisdom and spoke in public.
i've read it meant "stonemason", rather than wood carpenter. the
word for "learned man with wisdom who speaks in public" ... that
isn't the same as "rabbi"???
--
gekko
Q: What do you do with a drummer who has no rhythm? A: Take away one
of his sticks and call him a conductor.
Alan Hope
couple, traded marital harmony for frankness in
<3AE485FB...@swbell.net> by stating:
>gekko wrote: he probably
>> cursed when he smacked his finger with one of the tools in
>> the carpentry shop (but he prolly had to be careful not to
>> curse *too* seriously.
> I have read that the assumption that Jesus was a carpenter was based on a
>single word that has been misinterpeted to mean carpenter. According to what
>I read, the word was also a euphemism for a learned man who had wisdom and
>spoke in public.
Cab-driver?
--
AH
Alan Hope
couple, traded marital harmony for frankness in
>Dave Hitt wrote:
>> If a twelve year old had created Piss Christ and took it into school
>> as an art project, he'd probably end up in therapy. But because some
>> hokey so called artist did it, it's considered art by the "experts."
>> Sorry, I don't buy it. There was nothing artistic about it.
> I don't either, but the *painted* version of Piss Christ would have to be
>considered art, I guess, though I think it would be a matter of opinion as to
>how good it was.
There's no reason to discriminate against a work of art simply because
of the medium in which it was executed. Piss Christ was a created
piece in its original version, just as the painting of the piece was
subsequently created. In actual fact, it's now accepted in
art-theoretical terms that a piece need not be created in order to be
considered as art. That's since Marcel Duchamp. There's a whole
section of the glossary dealing with "found art".
Your questions regarding the quality of the piece are valid, however.
> I just don't apreciate art that seems to be trying to accomplish nothing but
>stirring hatreds, no matter how well it was executed.
You don't appreciate art which stirs hatreds. Do you suppose anyone
does? The question is: does it stir hatreds? Your objection contains a
question begged.
> I don't think the question is whether or not the stuff in question *is* art
>or not. I think the question is: is it good art, or fine art, or high art? I
>tend to agree with you, obviously. Much of it is pure sensationalism intended
>to stir up controversy. It is often just a publicity stunt. If that's the case,
>I think the artists is fooling everyone.
But not you.
> He wants us all to think he is making some kind of bold and original
>artistic statement, in order to get us to break free from our narrow ways of
>viewing the world (no doubt),
No doubt. That's been the way of artists since the Renaissance. When
Alberti published his treatise on perspective, it caused ructions of
Galilean proportions. In essence, he was saying that when you paint
the Virgin in front of a castle, the Virgin should really be shown to
be smaller than the building. It's hard to imagine what a shock-wave
that sent through the world, and remember that the art world in those
days was the almost entirely Church-based.
Have you seen the painting of the Virgin and Saint Anne by Leonardo?
It depicts the Virgin and Saint Anne (duh) with both John the Baptist
and Jesus as babies. They look like babies, and are painted with an
insolent freedom and dynamism which offended a great many people in
Leonardo's time.
Not many people nowadays would say Leonardo was out to shock, but he
was. It wasn't, perhaps, his primary aim, but he was prepared for the
eventuality. It's possible Serrano and his like are similarly
well-intentioned. For the time being, all we see is the shock-value.
We're like cardinals to the Borgia court. Who's to say that 100 years
down the line people won't be using this example, together with CDs
and Windows ME, to show just how naive or barbaric we were? Recall, if
you will, that Manet and his cohort were rejected with maximum
distaste by the art establishment of their time: the term
Impressionist (from a painting by Monet) was a put-down then. Now,
you'll find they're the single most popular school of painting
anywhere in the world, bar none. They're on posters, postcards,
table-mats, biscuit-tins.
Tastes change.
>when in reality he is just suckering us because
>he knows that the boundaries of art are nonexistant these days, even to the
>point where *anything* can be considered art, including shameless
>self-promotion.
If it were true that shock is impossible because there are no
boundaries, then you wouldn't be complaining.
> Anyone who is in the know about the powerful people in the upper levels of
>the art world can tell you that the whole scene is corrupted. There are a group
>of extremely influential people who run high profile galleries and museums who
>decide who and what is to be the latest sensation. It is much like the fashion
>world in that sense. It's a huge lucrative racket.
The only problem with this is that there have to be buyers. It may be
that rich and influential people are being bamboozled into buying
rubbish. But there's a precedent for that. I call the Catholic Church.
>> It was
>> just some putz throwing a tantrum and trying to get as much attention
>> as possible by doing something gross. It is no more art than a kid
>> showing you a mouthful of chewed food and saying "Train Wreck!"
> Yes, I met an artist one time who owns a high-class framing shop. That is
>how he supports himself so that he can contine to paint.
> We were discussing this one time, and I said to him,"Have you ever noticed
>that these days you could put just about any object at all in a large art
>museum, and it would "look" like art, even if it wasn't? He agreed with me; in
>fact he had a name for that phenomenon which he made up himself, although I
>can't remember it right now.
It's not really very important. Your penchant for anecdote betrays you
once again: if your man were such a great artist, how come he's
working as a framer? I don't suppose his lack of success leads you to
reconsider his evaluation? Still Life with Sour Grapes, perhaps?
> But think about it. The large open spaces of an art museum, added to the
>fact that we expect to see important things there, give added importance to
>anything that is ehibited.
You're not an habitué of art exhibits, plainly. If you think people
wander round in a perpetual state of awe at what's exposed, you need
to peel off from the Japanese tour-groups once in a while. Most
visitors to most exhibits are very critical indeed, in my experience.
Not always on good grounds, but that's a lack of education, not of
will. You mustn't assume you're the only amateur who's seen through
Art's scam.
>In fact that is one of the most basic principals of
>art. Any time you place a single object within a large empy space, that object
>takes on importance. If you paint a picture with a single object in a large
>field, that object will take on importance in your painting.
That's the most stupid comment you've made, or are likely to make. I
refer you to the Sistine Chapel, and its ceiling frescoes. Tell me
which single object placed in a large field made that a treasure of
Western art.
In any case, what the fuck is wrong with choosing your subject and its
setting? Isn't that the whole point of any art? To separate out a
particular event and place it in a central position in the
consciousness of the viewer/reader/spectator?
Your understanding of the method is woefully lacking, but you've
grasped the driving idea, at least. What do you do in your writing?
Report everything?
> The dictators of the art world are using their knowledge of how art works to
>fool us into accepting their dictates as to what is and is not art.
No. They're "using their knowledge of how [the art market] works" to
sell paintings/other works. Just as you'd expect your agent to use
every trick in the book to sell your ill-informed ramblings to
whomever could be persuaded to part with a buck. Whether it's truly
art or not is a matter not vouchsafed to us. As Mao said about the
French Revolution: it's too soon to say. Our descendants will decide,
or perhaps theirs. Bach was ignored for two generations after his
death. Felix Mendelssohn revived his reputation. Can you even begin to
imagine a world without Bach?
> If you had a large empty gallery, and a space in the center which was all
>lit up, perhaps with a pedastal in the center; then absolutely *anything* you
>put on that pedastal would be imbued with meaning and importance simply because
>it was the only object withing a cavernous space. It's placement on a pedestal
>would add to it's inportance.
Only to observers. Removed from the imposing surroundings, the art
would still have to stand up, as it were.
> For example suppose the pedastal in the center of the empty galley, was a
>simple white square formica box three feet high, and ten feet long on each
>side, which was intended to display art upon.
> If you were to put a large electric fan at one end, and then disassemble a
>smaller electric fan and scatter the pieces in front of the larger fan, to make
>it look like the larger fan had blown the samller fan to pieces; it would look
>like art to anyone who walked in and assumed it was meant to be art. They would
>examine it carefully, give it their full attention, and try "experience" it.
>They would be convinced that it was *sonebody's* idea of art anyway.
You take the gellery-attending public to be the most utter fools. In
fact they're not at all. In my experience they show far more
sophistication and understanding of the subtleties of the marketplace
than you do here. I get the impression, from what you write, that you
have very little experience of art exhibitions. You may have trotted
along to the big shows at the major public galleries, but I'll lay a
penny to a pound you have no knowledge of the role, work or business
of private galleries. That's where the art you complain of is being
shown. By the time it gets to a public gallery and you see it, it's
too late.
> But if you did the exact same thing in a large warehouse, where no one is
>expecting to see art, people would probably assume that someone took the fan
>apart to fix it, then gave up and left.
You're ignorant of where people get ideas from, it seems. You might as
well say Saul Bellow was scamming us all with The Dean in December
because you went to a university once and there was nothing going on.
> I think there is a lot of art that only looks like art when it is ehibited.
>If you were to pile it on a curb, a person might think it was junk to be hauled
>away.
Yawn. As usual with a Mugwump post, one asks oneself: does this guy
really think he has something new to say? You certainly have a talent
for trotting out the unreflected old cliches.
Do yourself a favour, Mug. You seem like a boy who wants to engage
with serious issues, yet you do no more than retail shop-worn received
wisdom. Set yourself an exercise. Pick a position, and argue the exact
opposite of what you believe. Keep it up over a whole discussion, and
see how long you can maintain the pose. That'll help you, I think, to
take a dispassionate view on what works and what doesn't in an
argument (you'll see here the most conviction-filled people, like
Lutz, fall on their faces time after time). It'll also force you to
defend your own views to yourself, and that's no bad thing either.
You could also do it for the fun. Fun is greatly under-rated as a
Usenet driving force.
--
AH
Dr Zen
Blanche Nonken <mombl...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:c6n8et4skkfn8kiou...@4ax.com...
Read what I wrote, Blanche. Even King Saul went off to one side to shit.
Zen
Dr Zen
I've never known "Piss Christ" to be considered Dada. I don't see how it
could be.
> There's a piece in the Philadelphia Museum of Art
> called "Fount."
There's a guy down the chipshop swears he's Elvis. So what?
Zen
Mugwump
Blanche Nonken wrote:
Actually I kind of like some of Christo's stuff. I don't know why exactly. I guess
because it is so big that it takes over the scenery. I'm not sating it is great art,
or even art at all. But I think it is usually something that people can appreciate on
some level.
But I doubt even Christo would try anything like the helicopter scenario. I don't
imagine he would want to be a proponent of negativity.
Mugwump
gekko wrote:
> Luretta-Jo done plucked on her banjo in misc.writing and sang a
> song 'bout ol' Mugwump <jand...@swbell.net>, and it went something
> like this:
>
> > I have read that the assumption that Jesus was a carpenter was
> > based on a
> > single word that has been misinterpeted to mean carpenter.
> > According to what I read, the word was also a euphemism for a
> > learned man who had wisdom and spoke in public.
>
> i've read it meant "stonemason", rather than wood carpenter. the
> word for "learned man with wisdom who speaks in public" ... that
> isn't the same as "rabbi"???
As I said, I don't remember the exact translation as the book
explained it, but it wasn't rabbi, otherwise it would have been
translated as rabbi. The author said the word had a dual meaning in
those times. He suggests that it makes more sense to interpret it to
mean that Jesus was a philosopher who spoke in public.
There were other philospophers who spoke in public in that time and
place, not just rabbis.What this author was trying to say, I believe, is
that the other definition of that word makes more sense, and that the
whole notion that Jesus was a carpenter came from the translation of
that one word. There are no other references to Jesus's trade except for
that one word in that one line of scripture. The author was sugesting
that the tradition of Jesus being a carpenter may be based on a
misunderstanding of the way that particular word was used in those
times.
Michael Cargal
>He suggests that it makes more sense to interpret it to
>mean that Jesus was a philosopher who spoke in public.
>
> There were other philospophers who spoke in public in that time and
>place, not just rabbis.
The Greeks called them sophists.
--
Michael Cargal
mhca...@home.com
Blanche Nonken
> > People poop in the bible. King Saul went to poop, and David had a
> > chance to kill him then, but decided to be honorable (and a bit
> > mischevious). So instead he snuck up behind him, quietly sliced off the
> > back of his robe or skirt or something, and snuck away.
>
> Read what I wrote, Blanche. Even King Saul went off to one side to shit.
I went through this thread and read all the messages I saw by you.
Didn't see one referencing King Saul. It probably mysteriously vanished
- seems like no one ISP is perfect. <sigh>
Mugwump
Alan Hope wrote:
> Mugwump, the less well-known half of misc.writing's most glamorous
> couple, traded marital harmony for frankness in
> <3AE41CB9...@swbell.net> by stating:
>
> >Dave Hitt wrote:
>
> >> If a twelve year old had created Piss Christ and took it into school
> >> as an art project, he'd probably end up in therapy. But because some
> >> hokey so called artist did it, it's considered art by the "experts."
> >> Sorry, I don't buy it. There was nothing artistic about it.
>
> > I don't either, but the *painted* version of Piss Christ would have to be
> >considered art, I guess, though I think it would be a matter of opinion as to
> >how good it was.
>
> There's no reason to discriminate against a work of art simply because
> of the medium in which it was executed.
Yes, but paintings are generally considered art even if they are bad art
because they are an *attempt* at art. But something like Piss Christ probably
wouldn't be considered art by most people unless an *artist* had created it.
If someone with no artistic abilities at all were to put a crucifix in a jar of
urine, and call it art, it would generally not be accpeted as art unless he could
prove he was a *real* artist.
I'll give you an exaple. A few years back there was a man who hired an old welder
to weld pieces of scrap iron together. He paid him by the hour and told him to weld
the pieces together however he liked. He then marketed these creations as the works
of an artist. And he was making a tidy profit off of the pieces.
But before long it was discovered that the old man who was creating these pieces
wa not an artist at all. Immediately the once valuble pieces became worthless
because it was discovered that the man who produced them was not a *real artist*.
The pieces themselves had not changed; only the way people looked at them.
> Piss Christ was a created
> piece in its original version, just as the painting of the piece was
> subsequently created. In actual fact, it's now accepted in
> art-theoretical terms that a piece need not be created in order to be
> considered as art. That's since Marcel Duchamp. There's a whole
> section of the glossary dealing with "found art".
>
> Your questions regarding the quality of the piece are valid, however.
>
> > I just don't apreciate art that seems to be trying to accomplish nothing but
> >stirring hatreds, no matter how well it was executed.
>
> You don't appreciate art which stirs hatreds. Do you suppose anyone
> does? The question is: does it stir hatreds? Your objection contains a
> question begged.
I think that crude attacks against what many hold sacred probably do more harm
than good. But I willing to keep a somewhat open mind. I never read Satanic Visions,
but I did read Rushdie's Grimus. He's obviously an extremely talented writer. So I
would expect a lot from Satanic Verses. I would guess that there was much more to it
than attempt to throw excrement at Islam.
But how can I know that about Piss Christ? How can I know the man who created it
is even an artist? If I have to be prepared first, before I can accept it as a work
of art, I don't think it's worth the trouble, at least in the case of something that
uses negativity to that degree.
In the case of Satanic Verses I am willing to suspend judgement because I konw
Rushdie is talented, but in the case of Piss Christ I am not. If Serrano wants to
convince me he is a great artist, he will have to try harder than that.
>
>
> > I don't think the question is whether or not the stuff in question *is* art
> >or not. I think the question is: is it good art, or fine art, or high art? I
> >tend to agree with you, obviously. Much of it is pure sensationalism intended
> >to stir up controversy. It is often just a publicity stunt. If that's the case,
> >I think the artists is fooling everyone.
>
> But not you.
It's hard to say really. Obviously I can't be *sure* that that kind of art is
always a publicity stunt. But I know for sure that artists sometimes play jokes on
the public just to make suckers out of them and watch them fawn all over something
that is essentially meaningless.
All I am sying is that I have become cynical as a result. I refuse to be one of
those people who automatically acclaims every inovation or new idea to be an instant
masterpiece.
>
>
> > He wants us all to think he is making some kind of bold and original
> >artistic statement, in order to get us to break free from our narrow ways of
> >viewing the world (no doubt),
>
> No doubt.
But my point in this case is that his art also can be considered a juvenile
stunt. Was that his point? Who knows? But I'm not going to acclaim it as a
masterpiece just because no one thought of it before. I am not going to join the
Serrano fan club just because some art authority tells me that Piss Christ is a
masterpiece.
> That's been the way of artists since the Renaissance.
Of course.
> When
> Alberti published his treatise on perspective, it caused ructions of
> Galilean proportions.
Yes, I know that.
> In essence, he was saying that when you paint
> the Virgin in front of a castle, the Virgin should really be shown to
> be smaller than the building. It's hard to imagine what a shock-wave
> that sent through the world, and remember that the art world in those
> days was the almost entirely Church-based.
>
> Have you seen the painting of the Virgin and Saint Anne by Leonardo?
> It depicts the Virgin and Saint Anne (duh) with both John the Baptist
> and Jesus as babies. They look like babies, and are painted with an
> insolent freedom and dynamism which offended a great many people in
> Leonardo's time.
>
> Not many people nowadays would say Leonardo was out to shock, but he
> was. It wasn't, perhaps, his primary aim, but he was prepared for the
> eventuality.
I imagine his primary aim was to express himself fully. He saw the rules as
unnecesarily limiting, so he ignored them.
> It's possible Serrano and his like are similarly
> well-intentioned.
It's possible, but I am immediately suspicious of those kinds of statements. Piss
Christ is just too obvious, in my opinion. He knew it would shock. Apparently that
was all he was after. I can certainly respect his negative feelings regarding the
dark side of Christian history, but I think his means of expression was rather crude
and juvenile. I can't *know* if it was mainly designed as a publicity stunt, but I
suspect so. It happens.
> For the time being, all we see is the shock-value.
> We're like cardinals to the Borgia court. Who's to say that 100 years
> down the line people won't be using this example, together with CDs
> and Windows ME, to show just how naive or barbaric we were? Recall, if
> you will, that Manet and his cohort were rejected with maximum
> distaste by the art establishment of their time: the term
> Impressionist (from a painting by Monet) was a put-down then.
Yes, but I think the impressionists were just trying to break free of
restrictions so they could express themselves in new ways. Is that what Serrano was
trying to do with Piss Christ? Possibly; so what? Now artists are free to go farther
when they criticize organised religion, because Serrano took it to it's limits. Was
that his point? Maybe so. Either way I think it was crude. Maybe a new artist will
decide to push the boundaries a bit by making a work of art using nothing but human
blood. Does that mean that is another restrictive boundary that needs to be broken
through before art is truly free?
> Now,
> you'll find they're the single most popular school of painting
> anywhere in the world, bar none. They're on posters, postcards,
> table-mats, biscuit-tins.
>
> Tastes change.
>
> >when in reality he is just suckering us because
> >he knows that the boundaries of art are nonexistant these days, even to the
> >point where *anything* can be considered art, including shameless
> >self-promotion.
>
> If it were true that shock is impossible because there are no
> boundaries, then you wouldn't be complaining.
I should have said that there *seem to be* few boundaries left in art.
>
>
> > Anyone who is in the know about the powerful people in the upper levels of
> >the art world can tell you that the whole scene is corrupted. There are a group
> >of extremely influential people who run high profile galleries and museums who
> >decide who and what is to be the latest sensation. It is much like the fashion
> >world in that sense. It's a huge lucrative racket.
>
> The only problem with this is that there have to be buyers. It may be
> that rich and influential people are being bamboozled into buying
> rubbish. But there's a precedent for that. I call the Catholic Church.
>
>
> >> It was
> >> just some putz throwing a tantrum and trying to get as much attention
> >> as possible by doing something gross. It is no more art than a kid
> >> showing you a mouthful of chewed food and saying "Train Wreck!"
>
> > Yes, I met an artist one time who owns a high-class framing shop. That is
> >how he supports himself so that he can contine to paint.
> > We were discussing this one time, and I said to him,"Have you ever noticed
> >that these days you could put just about any object at all in a large art
> >museum, and it would "look" like art, even if it wasn't? He agreed with me; in
> >fact he had a name for that phenomenon which he made up himself, although I
> >can't remember it right now.
>
> It's not really very important. Your penchant for anecdote betrays you
> once again: if your man were such a great artist, how come he's
> working as a framer?
First of all, I never said he was a great artist. But he is a *trained* artist
who has a masters degree in art, or so he claimed.
Secondly, most artists never make a living from their art. That doesn't mean
their art has no artistic value, it just means they can't sell enough of it to make
a living. Lots of artists do other things to earn a living, besides art. In fact
most of them do.
There is not enough money being spent on art to supply all of the good artists
with a livelyhood.
> I don't suppose his lack of success leads you to
> reconsider his evaluation? Still Life with Sour Grapes, perhaps?
I didn't get that impression when I was talking to him.
>
>
> > But think about it. The large open spaces of an art museum, added to the
> >fact that we expect to see important things there, give added importance to
> >anything that is ehibited.
>
> You're not an habitué of art exhibits, plainly. If you think people
> wander round in a perpetual state of awe at what's exposed,
That's not what I am trying to say. I am saying that when something is ehibited
in a gallery or museum, we are willing to tmporarily suspend our judgement a bit
before we immediately dismiss something as having no artistic value. But some works
of art, especially when they consist of ordinary objects arranged in a certain way,
may not even be recognized as art it we saw them in a location where we weren't
expecting to *see* art.
That was my point.
> you need
> to peel off from the Japanese tour-groups once in a while. Most
> visitors to most exhibits are very critical indeed, in my experience.
> Not always on good grounds, but that's a lack of education, not of
> will. You mustn't assume you're the only amateur who's seen through
> Art's scam.
I've never assumed that. And I also know the reverse is true. Some artists are
dismissed to quickly by amateurs.
>
>
> >In fact that is one of the most basic principals of
> >art. Any time you place a single object within a large empy space, that object
> >takes on importance. If you paint a picture with a single object in a large
> >field, that object will take on importance in your painting.
>
> That's the most stupid comment you've made, or are likely to make.
Why do you say that? Read some art books. By positioning an object in the center
of a big empty space, for instance in the center of a painting or drawing, the eye
is immediately pulled to it. That can create more interest in the central object
than anything else in the picture. That is a simple fact of peception. It has been
proven by psychological studies. It's simply how the brain works.
If you were in a room with many paintings hung all over the place, except for one
wall, which only had one painting right in the center of the wall, your mind would
automatically see that as possibly signifigant. It would be very easy to assume that
painting was more important than the rest. That is simple tendency of perception.
It's just how the mind works. Artists have intuitively know about phenomena such as
that long before psychologists could explain them.
> I
> refer you to the Sistine Chapel, and its ceiling frescoes. Tell me
> which single object placed in a large field made that a treasure of
> Western art.
You seem to be misunderstanding my point.
>
>
> In any case, what the fuck is wrong with choosing your subject and its
> setting? Isn't that the whole point of any art?
I ws merely pointing out that people tend to look at things completely
differently when they are in a setting where they expect to see art, then they do in
a setting where they don't expect to see art.
> To separate out a
> particular event and place it in a central position in the
> consciousness of the viewer/reader/spectator?
>
> Your understanding of the method is woefully lacking,
And you understanding of perception seems to be lacking. My statement is in no
way controversial among those who study the mind.
> but you've
> grasped the driving idea, at least. What do you do in your writing?
> Report everything?
>
> > The dictators of the art world are using their knowledge of how art works to
> >fool us into accepting their dictates as to what is and is not art.
>
> No. They're "using their knowledge of how [the art market] works" to
> sell paintings/other works.
Yes, but I am saying that the whole system becomes self-serving to a certain
degree once power becomes entrenched. And make no mistake about it, those people
have real power to decide who is considered the latsest genius and who isn't.
> Just as you'd expect your agent to use
> every trick in the book to sell your ill-informed ramblings to
> whomever could be persuaded to part with a buck. Whether it's truly
> art or not is a matter not vouchsafed to us. As Mao said about the
> French Revolution: it's too soon to say.
I see your point. Yes, their will probably be artists who are rejected today, but
who will become well respected later, and vice versa. But what I am saying is that
the leaders of the art world have too much power when it comes to deciding *today*
who is and who is not considered genius.
> Our descendants will decide,
> or perhaps theirs. Bach was ignored for two generations after his
> death. Felix Mendelssohn revived his reputation. Can you even begin to
> imagine a world without Bach?
>
> > If you had a large empty gallery, and a space in the center which was all
> >lit up, perhaps with a pedastal in the center; then absolutely *anything* you
> >put on that pedastal would be imbued with meaning and importance simply because
> >it was the only object withing a cavernous space. It's placement on a pedestal
> >would add to it's inportance.
>
> Only to observers. Removed from the imposing surroundings, the art
> would still have to stand up, as it were.
Yes, but what I am saying is that when you combine the lack of boundaries in
what is considered art in the first place, with the "meuseum effect" (for lack of a
better term for it), it would be highly possible to fool the public if you chose to
do so. In fact I think that would be a good experiment. I think meuseums should
start exhibiting a few pieces that are not art at all, but not let the public know
which pieces they are. Then, after a while, they could reveal the secret and see how
many people were duped by the phoney art.
>
>
> > For example suppose the pedastal in the center of the empty galley, was a
> >simple white square formica box three feet high, and ten feet long on each
> >side, which was intended to display art upon.
> > If you were to put a large electric fan at one end, and then disassemble a
> >smaller electric fan and scatter the pieces in front of the larger fan, to make
> >it look like the larger fan had blown the samller fan to pieces; it would look
> >like art to anyone who walked in and assumed it was meant to be art. They would
> >examine it carefully, give it their full attention, and try "experience" it.
> >They would be convinced that it was *sonebody's* idea of art anyway.
>
> You take the gellery-attending public to be the most utter fools.
No I don't. I was merely illustrating a principal of perception to show how our
minds can be fooled into thinking something has artistic value when it may not
necessarily *be* art at all.
> In
> fact they're not at all. In my experience they show far more
> sophistication and understanding of the subtleties of the marketplace
> than you do here. I get the impression, from what you write, that you
> have very little experience of art exhibitions. You may have trotted
> along to the big shows at the major public galleries, but I'll lay a
> penny to a pound you have no knowledge of the role, work or business
> of private galleries. That's where the art you complain of is being
> shown. By the time it gets to a public gallery and you see it, it's
> too late.
>
> > But if you did the exact same thing in a large warehouse, where no one is
> >expecting to see art, people would probably assume that someone took the fan
> >apart to fix it, then gave up and left.
>
> You're ignorant of where people get ideas from, it seems. You might as
> well say Saul Bellow was scamming us all with The Dean in December
> because you went to a university once and there was nothing going on.
>
> > I think there is a lot of art that only looks like art when it is ehibited.
> >If you were to pile it on a curb, a person might think it was junk to be hauled
> >away.
>
> Yawn. As usual with a Mugwump post, one asks oneself: does this guy
> really think he has something new to say?
I didn't say it was new.
> You certainly have a talent
> for trotting out the unreflected old cliches.
But you yourself in this very post admitted that artists sometimes intentionally
set out to dupe the public. That is what I am trying to say.
And I am also saying that I think there is corruption in the art world.
Mugwump
gekko wrote:
> At midnight, on 24 Apr 2001, fully a fortnight after the bizarre
> events of that horrible Monday at the ancient abbey, Mugwump
> <jand...@swbell.net> assembled the suspects in the great hall of
> misc.writing, withdrew the fabled <3AE56226...@swbell.net> from
> the hidden recesses of a stained cloak, and in dolorous tone
> announced,
> Jesus was indeed a philosopher who spoke in public. But he was
> also a participating member of his culture, who practiced a trade,
> and said trade was recorded as being the same as his earthly
> father's ... was his earthly father, Joseph, also a public speaker?
>
> I don't know if it matters. Perhaps The Pedantic Woman has more
> insight into the Greek that was recorded in the NT and the variations
> on the word used to record Jesus' earthly occupation prior to his
> three-year stint as wandering itinerant minister.
>
> Anyway, if you could dig up that reference, that'd be a cool one
> to add to my reading list.
I wish I could remember.
I read one book that was written by a man who is from an Aramaic
culture in the middle east. The contention of his book is that most
scholars have misunterstood Aramic figures of speech in the New
Testament.
He also claims that Aramaic culture is virtually unchanged from what
it was thousands of years ago, and that therefore their figures of speech
have not changed much either..
According to him, Aramaic figures of speech are colorful and
frequently misunderstood by outsiders. He says that Jesus's figures of
speech are common to Aramaic culture, but that they have been mistakenly
interpreted literally by most Biblical scholars.
If you apply his interpretations of Aramaic figures of speech to
Jesus's words, it change the meaning entirely in most cases.
The author's explanations make sense. They de-mystify many of Jesus's
words and makes them seem like simple expressions of what is right and
wrong. His words are often less cryptic when seen in this light.
I wish I could remember the name of it. All I remember is that it is a
thin paperback book with green lettering.
I'm not even sure if that was the book I got it from, but it was a
good book nevertheless.
>
>
> --
> gekko
>
> Photons have mass? I didn't know they were Catholic'
The Pedantic Woman
wrote:
:
:I don't know if it matters. Perhaps The Pedantic Woman has more
:insight into the Greek that was recorded in the NT and the variations
:on the word used to record Jesus' earthly occupation prior to his
:three-year stint as wandering itinerant minister.
[The Pedantic Woman, who has not yet replaced her Greek
texts since the last time that they were used, reaches for
them.]
The Greek phrase used to describe Jesus' occupation
is "tektovos ho huios" (Matt 13:55) and "ho tektwv ho huios"
(Mark 6:3).
"Huios" is the nominative for "son" (occ. "child".)
"Tektwv" is the nominative ("tektovos" is genitive) for "a
worker in wood; carpenter; joiner". The word also is used
for craftsmen or workmen in general (but rarely
metalworkers.) There are examples of this word in ancient
Greek writings used to describe a master in any art. Its
roots are Sanskrit--"form by cutting, plane, chisel, chop".
Matthew's sentence translates as "Isn't he the son
of the carpenter?" while Mark's sentence is "Isn't he the
carpenter, the son of Mapias and brother to IakAbou and
Iwsatos and Iouda and Simwvos?"
Why the difference in case? I don't know. My Muse
(Thalia--I share her with Mel Brooks) suggests that Matthew
told the story from the point of view of someone who
remembered Jesus as a young boy while Mark used someone who
only knew him as a grown, working man. This is, of course,
conjecture.
[The Pedantic Woman, her books still not returned to her
bookcases, returns to her perusal of misc.writing]
--
The Pedantic Woman
wcg...@cris.com
Wendy Chatley Green
wrote:
:"Although even in Biblical times, eating was more often done in
:public than shitting."
:
:wherein he does not imply that there are no biblical records of
:people pooping, and perhaps he is interpreting your comment to
:indicate that he IS implying that there are no biblical records
:of people pooping, which he is not.
Deuteronomy 23:12-14
--
Wendy (left as an exercise for the student)
Chatley Green -- wcg...@cris.com
Dr Zen
gekko <ge...@gekkografx.com> wrote in message
news:Xns908D75FD6...@136.182.15.25...
> At midnight, on 24 Apr 2001, fully a fortnight after the bizarre
> <mombl...@bigfoot.com> assembled the suspects in the great hall of
> misc.writing, withdrew the fabled
> <mfvaet0u2eonta853...@4ax.com> from the hidden recesses
> of a stained cloak, and in dolorous tone announced,
>
> checked the third.
>
> But perhaps Zen was refering to this quote:
>
> "Although even in Biblical times, eating was more often done in
> public than shitting."
Yes.
> wherein he does not imply that there are no biblical records of
> people pooping, and perhaps he is interpreting your comment to
> indicate that he IS implying that there are no biblical records
> of people pooping, which he is not.
Yes.
> although why he would get that implication from what you wrote
> escapes me at the moment.
No surprises there.
> then again, i could be reading his subsequent comment to you
> in the wrong way, in which case, never mind.
No, you've got it.
> anyway, it seems you can't win for losing, when you respond to
> zen, innit.
Get fucked.
No charge.
Zen
Alan Hope
wild, and the leftover whipped cream donated to charity. Defence
lawyer Mugwump commented:
> Yes, but paintings are generally considered art even if they are bad art
>because they are an *attempt* at art. But something like Piss Christ probably
>wouldn't be considered art by most people unless an *artist* had created it.
> If someone with no artistic abilities at all were to put a crucifix in a jar of
>urine, and call it art, it would generally not be accpeted as art unless he could
>prove he was a *real* artist.
This is what's called begging the question. A work is only art if
produced by an artist, who presumably becomes an artist by producing
works of art. Neatly circular, see? So you can dismiss any work that
doesn't please you by "proving" it's creator is no artist, and his
work therefore not art. He's no artist, coincidentally, because he
produces works that are not art.
If that's your view, then there's nothing to discuss. You'll have
noticed that by your own terms, Serrano, who is widely accepted as a
"real" artist by all sorts of people, has created a work which he
declares to be art. Given his status, we have to agree. We travel by
different roads, but arrive at the same destination all the same.
--
AH
Blanche Nonken
> you're rather far off base regarding blanche. she's a sweet
> person, who stays out of flamewars for the most part (but
> did let herself get angry once or twice),
No, actually I have a vicious temper. I just have learned to avoid
triggers to keep it from spewing, and with my therapist's help maybe
I'll be able to someday attend an American Nazi gathering and not spray
everyone in brown shirts with bullets.
Until then, I just avoid those sorts of situations. Pragmatic, you
know.
J-P
Blanche Nonken <mombl...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
) "Vuzhe lachte noch?"
) "Ah choleria mit a broch!"
Thanks :) Um. Do I get any kind of translation? Does Altavista's babelfish
do Yiddish?
J-P
--
"What Bob doesn't know, is that in about 5 minutes, I'm going to park my
bike right up the crack of his arse!"
J-P
Alan Hope <ah...@skynet.be> wrote:
) If that's your view, then there's nothing to discuss. You'll have
) noticed that by your own terms, Serrano, who is widely accepted as a
) "real" artist by all sorts of people, has created a work which he
) declares to be art. Given his status, we have to agree.
Well, given his status, we have /not/to/be/ dismissive is closer to the
point. Especially because we have some sort of hang-up over piss.
(Position #47: "hang-up over piss." Excised from the final version.)
Mugwump
J-P wrote:
> In article <oa3eetkp0r4o3s2vn...@4ax.com>,
> Alan Hope <ah...@skynet.be> wrote:
> ) If that's your view, then there's nothing to discuss. You'll have
> ) noticed that by your own terms, Serrano, who is widely accepted as a
> ) "real" artist by all sorts of people, has created a work which he
> ) declares to be art. Given his status, we have to agree.
There I disagree with you. We may believe the artist himself considers it
art, but we are free to diagree with him. We don't have to agree with him
about anything. Neither does that rest of the art world. But we definitely
don't have to agree that it is great art, or a masterpiece.
Keltic
wrote:
> There I disagree with you. We may believe the artist himself considers it
>art, but we are free to diagree with him. We don't have to agree with him
>about anything. Neither does that rest of the art world. But we definitely
>don't have to agree that it is great art, or a masterpiece.
So... how do we define art then? Or great art, which is a much bigger
step. Who is the arbiter of art?
Cheers, Keltic
Check out my movie reviews at:
http://comments.imdb.com/CommentsAuthor?104469
Blanche Nonken
> In article <a5ktdtsnrj1oqv3vv...@4ax.com>,
> Blanche Nonken <mombl...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> ) "Vuzhe lachte noch?"
> ) "Ah choleria mit a broch!"
>
> Thanks :) Um. Do I get any kind of translation? Does Altavista's babelfish
> do Yiddish?
>
> J-P
I doubt it; the spelling's pretty arbitrary. :-)
Here's my best attempt at a line-by-line translation.
"Der goyische gott zitst oyfen dachu;"
The gentile god sits on a bench
"'ot a tochis 'un a lochu;"
He has a butt without a rectum
"'ot a boach 'un a mogn;"
He has a belly without internal organs
"tzeine goyim miz'nm trogn."
He must be carried about by 10 other gentiles.
"Vuzhe lachte noch?"
Why are you still laughing?
"Ah choleria mit a broch!"
The closest I can get to translating this is "an illness without
vomiting." The last two lines are *really* obscure; I'm not sure to
what they might be referring.
Alan Hope
wild, and the leftover whipped cream donated to charity. Defence
lawyer Mugwump commented:
>> In article <oa3eetkp0r4o3s2vn...@4ax.com>,
>> Alan Hope <ah...@skynet.be> wrote:
>> ) If that's your view, then there's nothing to discuss. You'll have
>> ) noticed that by your own terms, Serrano, who is widely accepted as a
>> ) "real" artist by all sorts of people, has created a work which he
>> ) declares to be art. Given his status, we have to agree.
> There I disagree with you.
"By your own terms," Mugs. That's not my point of view. It's yours,
extrapolated from your previous statements. Disagree with it all you
like. I don't care.
>We may believe the artist himself considers it
>art, but we are free to diagree with him. We don't have to agree with him
>about anything. Neither does that rest of the art world. But we definitely
>don't have to agree that it is great art, or a masterpiece.
I never said we did. You said that.
--
AH
Hugh Watkins
>
>
> There I disagree with you. We may believe the artist himself considers
>it
>art, but we are free to diagree with him. We don't have to agree with him
>about anything. Neither does that rest of the art world. But we definitely
>don't have to agree that it is great art, or a masterpiece.
leave all that to posterity
we are to close to living artists to sort the cream from the whey
Hugh W
Hugh Watkins
>So... how do we define art then? Or great art, which is a much bigger
>step. Who is the arbiter of art?
time
Hugh W
Keltic
By that measure, nothing new can be art. Doesn't work for me.
Paul Heslop
I reckon art is in the eye of the beholder...but anyone who can look at
a soiled bed and call it art wants their eyes testing!
--
Paul
--------------------------------------------------------------
"My brain hurt like a warehouse,
it had no room to spare"
--------------------------------------------------------------
My other side...
http://dreamst8.homestead.com/index.html
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mugwump
Keltic wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Apr 2001 06:21:34 -0500, Mugwump <jand...@swbell.net>
> wrote:
>
> > There I disagree with you. We may believe the artist himself considers it
> >art, but we are free to diagree with him. We don't have to agree with him
> >about anything. Neither does that rest of the art world. But we definitely
> >don't have to agree that it is great art, or a masterpiece.
>
> So... how do we define art then?
I really don't know. I guess it's like beauty, it is in the eye of the
beholder.
> Or great art, which is a much bigger
> step.
Yes, but great art should have to pass greater tests than lesser art,
shouldn't it?
In my eyes Piss Christ is not great art. It reminds me of how I feel about
football. I appreciates finesse more than brute force. Piss Christ was a clumsy
way of making a statement in my opinion. It showed no finesse. I didn't
appreciate it for that reason. It seemed to be needlesly crude and juvenile to
me.
> Who is the arbiter of art?
I guess we all are. That's the point I think. None of us has the final word
about any work of art.
Mugwump
Hugh Watkins wrote:
That implies that there has to be consensus before art can be declared
great. I think this shows that you think just the way that the power
brokers in the art world want you to think.
They want to be the final authority on what is and is not considered
great art, and they want you to take their opinions as the final word on
the subject.
>
>
> Hugh W
Mugwump
Alan Hope wrote:
> (Contd. from front page) that the sea-lion would be returned to the
> wild, and the leftover whipped cream donated to charity. Defence
> lawyer Mugwump commented:
>
> >> In article <oa3eetkp0r4o3s2vn...@4ax.com>,
> >> Alan Hope <ah...@skynet.be> wrote:
> >> ) If that's your view, then there's nothing to discuss. You'll have
> >> ) noticed that by your own terms, Serrano, who is widely accepted as a
> >> ) "real" artist by all sorts of people, has created a work which he
> >> ) declares to be art. Given his status, we have to agree.
>
> > There I disagree with you.
>
> "By your own terms," Mugs. That's not my point of view. It's yours,
> extrapolated from your previous statements.
I believe if you will go back and read what I said, I said that people tend
to be more likely to accept something as art if it was created by someone who
is obviously an artist. I didn't say that I thought it was right, just that it
is common. But all of us will be *influenced* by that kind of thing to some
degeree. It's human nature.
> Disagree with it all you
> like. I don't care.
>
> >We may believe the artist himself considers it
> >art, but we are free to diagree with him. We don't have to agree with him
> >about anything. Neither does that rest of the art world. But we definitely
> >don't have to agree that it is great art, or a masterpiece.
>
> I never said we did. You said that.
I've lost my place in the thread, so I don't know exactly what you mean. But
I don't think I meant to imply that you think we should accept it just because
he is considered a great artist. I really don't believe that, and I wouldn't
expect you to either.
>
>
> --
> AH
Mugwump
Hugh Watkins wrote:
I don't think so. Art is a very personal experince. We either like that
experience or we don't. We can make up our own minds who we think is great and
who we don't. We don't have to get permission from the art critics and art
experts before we disagree with them.
>
>
> Hugh W
Mugwump
gekko wrote:
> Mugwump <jand...@swbell.net> fought off the bad guys, rescued the
> hostage, phoned Mom on her birthday and then posted to misc.writing:
>
> > But I thought I heard someone else in the thread say that it was
> > one of Maplethorpe's photo's,
>
> Maplethorpe's photo's what?
>
> You saw Jervis credit Maplethorpe with Serrano's work. Jervis
> is big on windy treatises, but short on accuracy.
>
> Granted, you had no way to know this, and your news reception
> is reportedly spotty, so you probably missed the followups
> that corrected Jervis' mistake.
I guess so. I saw the photo for the first time back in 1990. That is
also the first time I saw Maplethorps work. It's been so long since then,
that i thought i must have been remembering wrong. But when someone said it
wasn't Maplethorpe, then I remembered the guy had a hispanic sounding name.
But that's all I could remember.
>
>
> --
> gekko
>
> As the light changed from red to green to yellow and back to red again,
> I sat there thinking about life. Was it nothing more than a bunch of
> honking and yelling? Sometimes it seemed that way.
Rob Allen
>On Fri, 27 Apr 2001 06:37:55 +0200, "Hugh Watkins"
><Hugh_W...@net.dialog.dk> wrote:
>
>>kel...@spam.zip.com.au,Ny-Internet writes:
>>>So... how do we define art then? Or great art, which is a much bigger
>>>step. Who is the arbiter of art?
>>
>>time
>
>By that measure, nothing new can be art. Doesn't work for me.
I seem to recall a quote from Gore Vidal to the effect that art is energy
shaped by intelligence. I think that's a good place to start.
Rob <I think he's using a broad definition of "intelligence"> Allen
----- Posted via NewsOne.Net: Free (anonymous) Usenet News via the Web -----
http://newsone.net/ -- Free reading and anonymous posting to 60,000+ groups
NewsOne.Net prohibits users from posting spam. If this or other posts
made through NewsOne.Net violate posting guidelines, email ab...@newsone.net
Hugh Watkins
>
>
> That implies that there has to be consensus before art can be declared
>great. I think this shows that you think just the way that the power
>brokers in the art world want you to think.
> They want to be the final authority on what is and is not considered
>great art, and they want you to take their opinions as the final word on
>the subject.
but when they are all dead so posterity gets it sorted
Hugh W
Hugh Watkins
>
> I don't think so. Art is a very personal experince. We either like that
>experience or we don't. We can make up our own minds who we think is
>great and
>who we don't. We don't have to get permission from the art critics and art
>experts before we disagree with them.
>
I agree I know what is art to me
but my definitions may be invalid for you
so time is the only arbiter
the canon in literature for example is a consensus of academic (and
sometimes artistic) quality#
Hugh W
Hugh Watkins
>
>By that measure, nothing new can be art. Doesn't work for me.
living artists all say that they do art
but once they are dead you can stand back and look at / listen to / read
the corpus
and come to some conclusion in perspective
Hugh W
Paul heslop
Look, when Van Goch was alive people thought he was rubbish...and oh,
sorry, he was! (bad joke head on today)
Dave Hitt
>In article <3ae414b2....@news3.newscene.com>, Boy....@Hate.spammers
>(Dave Hitt) wrote:
>
>
>> What does it say about a work of art when all it takes to make a 100%
>> accurate reproduction is another specimen cup and a couple of cheap
>> beers?
>
>
>Hey! Depends on vitamin intake, _thank_ youverymuch!
>
>But, this is actually an interesting point, one I prolly ought to address.
>
>I also do visual art, and right now, I'm experimenting with a mode of art
>that is 100% duplicatable mathematically^1. Is it any less art? I think
>not.
Did it take talent to create? Is it something that, if someone else
did it, it would be something completely different? Does it require
more talent than taking a urine test?
----
How to make sure the bureaucrats make the right decision
about dredging the Hudson River.
http://www.davehitt.com/april01/bottomfishing.html
-Dave Hitt hit...@bigfoot.spamblocker.com (Remove "spamblocker" to reply)
Alan Hope
wild, and the leftover whipped cream donated to charity. Defence
lawyer Mugwump commented:
> I believe if you will go back and read what I said, I said that people tend
>to be more likely to accept something as art if it was created by someone who
>is obviously an artist.
I don't agree. The only people who "think" that are the ones who
haven't thought much about it. It's art if it was made by an artist?
What a useless definition. How does one become an artist, then? Not by
making art, plainly, since you have to be an artist already to do
that.
>I didn't say that I thought it was right, just that it
>is common. But all of us will be *influenced* by that kind of thing to some
>degeree.
No we won't.
>It's human nature.
No it isn't.
--
AH
Alan Hope
wild, and the leftover whipped cream donated to charity. Defence
>jand...@swbell.net,Ny-Internet writes:
>> I don't think so. Art is a very personal experince. We either like that
>>experience or we don't. We can make up our own minds who we think is
>>great and
>>who we don't. We don't have to get permission from the art critics and art
>>experts before we disagree with them.
>I agree I know what is art to me
>but my definitions may be invalid for you
Exactly. That allows you to say what *is* art for you. But it doesn't
allow you to declare what is *not* art. Which is what Mugwump's been
trying to do.
--
AH
Hugh Watkins
>
>Look, when Van Goch was alive people thought he was rubbish...and oh,
>sorry, he was! (bad joke head on today)
>--
not everybody
his brother and Gaugin liked his stuff
Hugh W
Mugwump
Alan Hope wrote:
Some people seem to think that anything Picasso scribbled on a piece of paper
was a masterpiece. Being a great artist, I'm sure he didn't believe that himself.
>
>
> >It's human nature.
>
> No it isn't.
It is human nature to make assumtions like that. What I am saying is that people
may look at the work of a great artist differently that the work of a novice. His
stature as an artist may bias their opinion of his art in a positive way. They may
be more willing to accept it as great art simply because of who he is.
> --
> AH
Mugwump
Alan Hope wrote:
No, that is not what Mugwump is trying to do.
Just because I am not willing to consider Piss Christ as great art doesn't
mean I think I have the final word on the subject. I have said that before. All
I am saying is that I reserve the right to decide for myself. Besides, when it
comes to a piece like Piss Christ, I don't think *anyone* can authoritatively,
and for all time, say how great it is. It would be virtually impossible to
quantify. It would always be a matter of opinion. There is no definitive test
which can determine it's greatness. However, in the case of Michelangelo's
Pieta, no test is necessary; only two eyes. Do you see what I am trying to say?
And no, I am not saying that those kinds of judgements can only be made
regarding representational art. All I am sying is that when a piece of art is
just a simple accumulation of ordinary articles, in this case three: piss,
christ, jar; it seems to me that it would be a much more difficult task to
decide it's potential greatness. I don't think Serrano himself could decide
fairly. In fact it is entirely possible that he is one of the people who doesn't
think it is great at all.
>
>
> --
> AH
Scott Elyard
(Dave Hitt) wrote:
> Did it take talent to create?
Once again, talent is 100% subjective.
> Is it something that, if someone else
> did it, it would be something completely different?
Of course. But the same can be said about going to the grocery store,
changing a tire, or filling out a crossword.
> Does it require
> more talent than taking a urine test?
Probably. But making terrible spaghetti prolly requires more effort and
training.
Art is. What isn't is just a matter of opinion.
(I see similaries, and therefore prefer inclusive definitions.)
(Cf. Scott McCloud's most excellent resource for just about everyone,
Understanding Comics, and actually Reinventing Comics, for more salient an
erudite discussion on the topic of what constitutes art.)
--
.oO=-"The picture of a faithful alligator boundin' into-=Oo.
| daddy's lap ain't one the public is ready for." |
| --Walt Kelly (Beauregard) |
| Comic: www.oscarquillandcoyle.org |
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'
Alan Hope
wild, and the leftover whipped cream donated to charity. Defence
lawyer Mugwump commented:
> Some people seem to think that anything Picasso scribbled on a piece of paper
>was a masterpiece. Being a great artist, I'm sure he didn't believe that himself.
Nobody's talking about great art. We were talking about art. You
change the terms to suit yourself. You're the walking, talking
embodiment of Straw Man arguments. Talking to you is like arguing with
a guy in headphones.
Of course not everything by Picasso is great art. Nobody ever claimed
it was, apart from perhaps some Japanese investors. But what's
undeniable is that it's all art. No question of that.
--
AH