Sh*t Art Show: How Are Museum Directors Appointed?
Bill Mulcahy
to have this show and how the "vote" was taken. Was there some
museum directors who objected?
Do these museum directors reflect the religious and ethnic character
of Brooklyn? Who appoints these people? What is their term. Can they be
fired? Who fires them? Will NY State and the Federal Government
remove taxpayer funding from the museum for their despicable display
of anti-Christian "art?"
The news media is giving very few answers and indeed is not even asking
the right questions.
Bill Mulcahy
Jack Lindahl
Bill Mulcahy wrote:
> Do these museum directors reflect the religious and ethnic character
> of Brooklyn? Who appoints these people? What is their term. Can they be
> fired? Who fires them? Will NY State and the Federal Government
> remove taxpayer funding from the museum for their despicable display
> of anti-Christian "art?"
>
The Museum is a private nonprofit corporation. They have no reason to
select board members except as they can add to the organization's
capabilities. They are not "appointed," they are nominated and elected by
current board members, just like any other board. And the state (governor's
office) has said that they have no intention of pulling their funding of
BMA over this issue in light of the museum's overall excellence over many
years.
Dan Tasman
> There have still been very few answers about who made the decision
> to have this show and how the "vote" was taken. Was there some
> museum directors who objected?
Brooklyn? Doesn't sound like it's in UNY to me. Is it a suburb of Syracuse?
--
Dan Tasman tasman (at) verinet.com http://www.cyburbia.org
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The world is my oyster ... but I can't seem to get it open."
Daria Morgendorfer
Miky
Mik
shel...@nycap.rr.com
> > There have still been very few answers about who made the decision
> > to have this show and how the "vote" was taken. Was there some
> > museum directors who objected?
>
> Brooklyn? Doesn't sound like it's in UNY to me. Is it a suburb of Syracuse?
>
As long as Rudy is running for Senate, this concerns us up
here. Unless you want us to stick our heads in the sand.
Leonard Pulver
Charles Saatchi, an Iraqi based in London who
with his brother built what may be the largest
ad agency in the world, collects art. It may not
be "good" art but he buys it in wholesale
quantities and thus popularizes the artists. That
is what inflicted David Salle and Julian Schnabel,
with his broken china, on the art scene in the 80s
Saatchi also has a gallery which markets the work
of artists in whom he is interested.
Jeffrey Hogrefe reports in the NY Observer that
Saatchi bought all of the work in this show in 1990.
He got the Royal Academy of Arts in London to
mount the exhibit in 1997 and the record gate
restored the RAA's fiscal stability. It was
repeated
at the Hamburger Bahnoff in Berlin again to record crowds.
Doubtless Christies, the principal sponsor will be
auctioning the work after the show closes.
The Mayor has representatives on the Brooklyn
Museum Board. They never attend meetings.
The Museum briefed the Mayor about the
"controversial" nature of the show and he voiced
no objection until he got a call from John the
meddler O'Connor.
The end result will be: a blockbuster run for the
museum (thanks to Rudi's nat'l TV coverage)
which might put its finances into the black; The
institution has established its independence; Rudi
has another well deserved black eye; thousands
will have seen that it is all much ado about nothing.
BAA 4 Rudi 0
shel...@nycap.rr.com wrote:
>
> tasman.n0-scams@n0-$pam.verinet.n0-crap.com.n0-junk (Dan Tasman) writes:
>
> > > There have still been very few answer The
about who made the decision
> > > to have this show and how the "vote" was taken. Was there some
> > > museum directors who objected?
> >
snip
Leonard Pulver
You should see it before you criticize!
Bill Mulcahy wrote:
>
> There have still been very few answers about who made the decision
> to have this show and how the "vote" was taken. Was there some
> museum directors who objected?
>
> Do these museum directors reflect the religious and ethnic character
> of Brooklyn? Who appoints these people? What is their term. Can they be
> fired? Who fires them? Will NY State and the Federal Government
> remove taxpayer funding from the museum for their despicable display
> of anti-Christian "art?"
>
roadrunner
I saw a number of full color pictures. But I didn't visit the site. Wouldn't
do so, and didn't need to.
As to art, when I'm in upstate New York, I go to museums in Toronto, Ottawa
and Montreal (as well as the Everson in Syracuse). For 30 odd years, I
visited New York City on business. Probably a total of 300 to 400 trips.
Based on my many personal experiences there, I haven't visited it since I
retired (1989), and don't intend to, until the Mayor finishes cleaning it up.
BUT - thank goodness for TV, publications and the internet. I can see the
""art" without having to smell it. Then I can judge it.
Mike.
--------------------------------------------
Jack Lindahl
roadrunner wrote:
> As to art, when I'm in upstate New York, I go to museums in Toronto, Ottawa
> and Montreal (as well as the Everson in Syracuse). For 30 odd years, I
> visited New York City on business. Probably a total of 300 to 400 trips.
> Based on my many personal experiences there, I haven't visited it since I
> retired (1989), and don't intend to, until the Mayor finishes cleaning it up.
>
Please stay home. NYC will be fine without you.
>
> BUT - thank goodness for TV, publications and the internet. I can see the
> ""art" without having to smell it. Then I can judge it.
>
Your 100% wrong. TV images, magazine images, newspaper images can only give you
false impressions of art work. Go see it, then bring out your complaints. Until
then, stuff it.
roadrunner
It pains me when I send a factually based position into a debate, only to
get,-in return, an emotional, unsubstantiated rant.
You need help.
Mike.
-----------------------------------------------------
Jack Lindahl
roadrunner wrote:
> It pains me when I send a factually based position into a debate, only to
> get,-in return, an emotional, unsubstantiated rant.
>
> You need help.
> >
> > Please stay home. NYC will be fine without you.
> >
> > >
> > > BUT - thank goodness for TV, publications and the internet. I can see the
> > > ""art" without having to smell it. Then I can judge it.
> > >
> >
> > Your 100% wrong. TV images, magazine images, newspaper images can only give you
> > false impressions of art work. Go see it, then bring out your complaints. Until
> > then, stuff it.
That's no rant, son. That's an invitation to stay out of my home town if you don't
like it. And advice to learn what you're talking about before you do it in public -
so you don't look ignorant.
Leonard Pulver
Jack challenged you to
put-up-or-shut-up.
It would seem that you chose
to shut up.
roadrunner wrote:
>
> Jack:
>
> It pains me when I send a factually based position into a debate, only to
> get,-in return, an emotional, unsubstantiated rant.
>
> You need help.
>
> Mike.
> -----------------------------------------------------
>
> Jack Lindahl wrote:
>
> > roadrunner wrote:
> >
> > > As to art, when I'm in upstate New York, I go to museums in Toronto, Ottawa
> > > and Montreal (as well as the Everson in Syracuse). For 30 odd years, I
> > > visited New York City on business. Probably a total of 300 to 400 trips.
> > > Based on my many personal experiences there, I haven't visited it since I
> > > retired (1989), and don't intend to, until the Mayor finishes cleaning it up.
> > >
> >
Dave Hitt
>
>
>roadrunner wrote:
>
>> As to art, when I'm in upstate New York, I go to museums in Toronto, Ottawa
>> and Montreal (as well as the Everson in Syracuse). For 30 odd years, I
>> visited New York City on business. Probably a total of 300 to 400 trips.
>> Based on my many personal experiences there, I haven't visited it since I
>> retired (1989), and don't intend to, until the Mayor finishes cleaning it up.
>>
>
>Please stay home. NYC will be fine without you.
Ah, the famous NYC hospitality. Nothing like it.
>> BUT - thank goodness for TV, publications and the internet. I can see the
>> ""art" without having to smell it. Then I can judge it.
>>
>
>Your 100% wrong. TV images, magazine images, newspaper images can only give you
>false impressions of art work. Go see it, then bring out your complaints. Until
>then, stuff it.
Although there is no comparison between a great work of art and the
very best reproduction, it's not always necessary to see the original
to decide if it's worthwhile or not. Although I never had a chance to
see any of the original Maplethorpe photos, the reproductions were
enough to see that they were really great works of art. A few photos
of Piss Christ was enough to see it was stupid and silly. Likewise,
careful reproductions of this dung splattered scribble is enough to
see that it's just another so-called artist fooling people who have
more money than brains.
----
Let's hope Jesse never learns to keep his mouth shut. Check out "Reform School" at
http://home.nycap.rr.com/hittman/
-Dave Hitt hit...@bigfoot.spamblocker.com (Remove "spamblocker" to reply)
Dave Hitt
>
>
>roadrunner wrote:
>
>> It pains me when I send a factually based position into a debate, only to
>> get,-in return, an emotional, unsubstantiated rant.
>>
>> You need help.
>> >
>> > Please stay home. NYC will be fine without you.
>> >
>> > >
>> > > BUT - thank goodness for TV, publications and the internet. I can see the
>> > > ""art" without having to smell it. Then I can judge it.
>> > >
>> >
>> > Your 100% wrong. TV images, magazine images, newspaper images can only give you
>> > false impressions of art work. Go see it, then bring out your complaints. Until
>> > then, stuff it.
>
>That's no rant, son. That's an invitation to stay out of my home town if you don't
>like it. And advice to learn what you're talking about before you do it in public -
>so you don't look ignorant.
Free clue Sparky, *he's* not the one looking ignorant here.
roadrunner
Jack Lindahl wrote:
> roadrunner wrote:
>
> > It pains me when I send a factually based position into a debate, only to
> > get,-in return, an emotional, unsubstantiated rant.
> >
> > You need help.
> > >
> > > Please stay home. NYC will be fine without you.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > BUT - thank goodness for TV, publications and the internet. I can see the
> > > > ""art" without having to smell it. Then I can judge it.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Your 100% wrong. TV images, magazine images, newspaper images can only give you
> > > false impressions of art work. Go see it, then bring out your complaints. Until
> > > then, stuff it.
>
> That's no rant, son. That's an invitation to stay out of my home town if you don't
> like it. And advice to learn what you're talking about before you do it in public -
> so you don't look ignorant.
Jack:
Let me tell you why you need help.
I said that I had no interest or intention in visiting New York.
Your response was to tell me to stay out. Precisely what I stated firmly in my
initial post.
This response of yours defies logic.
Please, get help.
Mike.
roadrunner
exhibit, when I can clearly see the finger painting of the "madonna", surrounded by
20-odd pictures of asses and c*nts cut from magazines and pasted in.
Do you think I'm blind?
Or are you positing an anti-Christian bigotry, parading as Aristotelian logic?
Mike.
-------------------------------------------
Leonard Pulver wrote:
> That was not a "rant" Mike.
>
> Jack challenged you to
> put-up-or-shut-up.
>
> It would seem that you chose
> to shut up.
>
> roadrunner wrote:
> >
> > Jack:
> >
> > It pains me when I send a factually based position into a debate, only to
> > get,-in return, an emotional, unsubstantiated rant.
> >
> > You need help.
> >
> > Mike.
> > -----------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Jack Lindahl wrote:
> >
> > > roadrunner wrote:
> > >
> > > > As to art, when I'm in upstate New York, I go to museums in Toronto, Ottawa
> > > > and Montreal (as well as the Everson in Syracuse). For 30 odd years, I
> > > > visited New York City on business. Probably a total of 300 to 400 trips.
> > > > Based on my many personal experiences there, I haven't visited it since I
> > > > retired (1989), and don't intend to, until the Mayor finishes cleaning it up.
> > > >
> > >
shel...@nycap.rr.com
So, on my trip to Paris next month, I guess I don't need to go to the
Louvre, since I can see most of the important pieces in books/on-line.
Reproductions are not the same thing.
Cheers,
Sid
Boy....@Hate.spammers (Dave Hitt) writes:
> Jack Lindahl <jackl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >roadrunner wrote:
> >
> >> As to art, when I'm in upstate New York, I go to museums in Toronto, Ottawa
> >> and Montreal (as well as the Everson in Syracuse). For 30 odd years, I
> >> visited New York City on business. Probably a total of 300 to 400 trips.
> >> Based on my many personal experiences there, I haven't visited it since I
> >> retired (1989), and don't intend to, until the Mayor finishes cleaning it up.
> >>
> >
> >Please stay home. NYC will be fine without you.
>
> Ah, the famous NYC hospitality. Nothing like it.
>
> >> BUT - thank goodness for TV, publications and the internet. I can see the
> >> ""art" without having to smell it. Then I can judge it.
> >>
> >
> >Your 100% wrong. TV images, magazine images, newspaper images can only give you
> >false impressions of art work. Go see it, then bring out your complaints. Until
> >then, stuff it.
>
> Although there is no comparison between a great work of art and the
> very best reproduction, it's not always necessary to see the original
> to decide if it's worthwhile or not. Although I never had a chance to
> see any of the original Maplethorpe photos, the reproductions were
> enough to see that they were really great works of art. A few photos
> of Piss Christ was enough to see it was stupid and silly. Likewise,
> careful reproductions of this dung splattered scribble is enough to
> see that it's just another so-called artist fooling people who have
> more money than brains.
>
>
>
Jack Lindahl
Dave Hitt wrote:
> Jack Lindahl <jackl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Please stay home. NYC will be fine without you.
>
> Ah, the famous NYC hospitality. Nothing like it.
heh ... no such thing. I really mean it. So do most New Yorkers. The last thing we need
here is "christian" zealots to tsk-tsk our city. Let them go to Salt Lake City if they
want to hang out with christians.
Leonard Pulver
would not see"
If you do not see the work in the "flesh"
then you have no right or ability to
criticize it. TV news clips or a magazine
photo cannot give you any perspective.
Personally, I have no interest in seeing
this show for 2 reasons 1- I have seen
other examples of Charles Saatchi's
taste and it does not intertest me at all.
2- If it did I still would not stand in line
to see it. - I hate lines not on paper
roadrunner wrote:
>
> Lenoard, I don't understand this post of yours.
It would appear that you understand
nothing that doesn't fit into that little
cookie cutter you call a mind.
Just like your response to my note
calling you attention to your spamming
about 150 people today
Talk about stupid!
I have no intention of going to the
> exhibit, when I can clearly see the finger painting of the "madonna", surrounded by
> 20-odd pictures of asses and c*nts cut from magazines and pasted in.
>
> Do you think I'm blind?
>
> Or are you positing an anti-Christian bigotry, parading as Aristotelian logic?
those that must continually hide behind religion
are either cowards or bigots or
(usually) both.
> Mike.
> -------------------------
------------------
>
> Leonard Pulver wrote:
>
> > That was not a "rant" Mike.
> >
> > Jack challenged you to
> > put-up-or-shut-up.
> >
> > It would seem that you chose
> > to shut up.
> >
> > roadrunner wrote:
> > >
> > > Jack:
> > >
> > > It pains me when I send a factually based position into a debate, only to
> > > get,-in return, an emotional, unsubstantiated rant.
> > >
> > > You need help.
> > >
> > > Mike.
> > > -----------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Jack Lindahl wrote:
> > >
> > > > roadrunner wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > As to art, when I'm in upstate New York, I go to museums in Toronto, Ottawa
> > > > > and Montreal (as well as the Everson in Syracuse). For 30 odd years, I
> > > > > visited New York City on business. Probably a total of 300 to 400 trips.
> > > > > Based on my many personal experiences there, I haven't visited it since I
> > > > > retired (1989), and don't intend to, until the Mayor finishes cleaning it up.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Please stay home. NYC will be fine without you.
> > > >
> > > > >
roadrunner
===============================
roadrunner
probable trip to Venice, to see the mosaics at St. Marks. Done all that before, and have
much of what I'll see in my art files on disk.
. I WILL go long distances to see good art. But not around the corner to see trash.
Have a good trip. The Louvre has some exciting collections.
Mike.
---------------------------------------------
shel...@nycap.rr.com wrote:
> So, on my trip to Paris next month, I guess I don't need to go to the
> Louvre, since I can see most of the important pieces in books/on-line.
>
> Reproductions are not the same thing.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Sid
>
> Boy....@Hate.spammers (Dave Hitt) writes:
>
> > Jack Lindahl <jackl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >roadrunner wrote:
> > >
> > >> As to art, when I'm in upstate New York, I go to museums in Toronto, Ottawa
> > >> and Montreal (as well as the Everson in Syracuse). For 30 odd years, I
> > >> visited New York City on business. Probably a total of 300 to 400 trips.
> > >> Based on my many personal experiences there, I haven't visited it since I
> > >> retired (1989), and don't intend to, until the Mayor finishes cleaning it up.
> > >>
> > >
> > >Please stay home. NYC will be fine without you.
> >
> > Ah, the famous NYC hospitality. Nothing like it.
> >
> > >> BUT - thank goodness for TV, publications and the internet. I can see the
> > >> ""art" without having to smell it. Then I can judge it.
> > >>
> > >
> > >Your 100% wrong. TV images, magazine images, newspaper images can only give you
> > >false impressions of art work. Go see it, then bring out your complaints. Until
> > >then, stuff it.
> >
BJF
Jack Lindahl wrote in message <380F1921...@yahoo.com>...
>>
>> Ah, the famous NYC hospitality. Nothing like it.
>
thing we need
>here is "christian" zealots to tsk-tsk our city. Let them go to Salt Lake
City if they
>want to hang out with christians.
...You speak as if there are no Christians in NYC... It might be your
fantasy, but it's not the case...
Do you have the trains readied for the relocation Comrade? :-)
>
jackl...@yahoo.com
> The last
> thing we need
> >here is "christian" zealots to tsk-tsk our city. Let them go to Salt Lake
> City if they
> >want to hang out with christians.
>
> ...You speak as if there are no Christians in NYC... It might be your
> fantasy, but it's not the case...
> Do you have the trains readied for the relocation Comrade? :-)
>
I can have some trains ready. Where we goin'?
Dave Hitt
>
>So, on my trip to Paris next month, I guess I don't need to go to the
>Louvre, since I can see most of the important pieces in books/on-line.
>
>Reproductions are not the same thing.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Sid
Isn't that what I said? Of course they're not.
BUT...it is still not necessary to see the originals to have a valid
opinion, for or against.
>
>Boy....@Hate.spammers (Dave Hitt) writes:
>
>> Jack Lindahl <jackl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >roadrunner wrote:
>> >
>> >> As to art, when I'm in upstate New York, I go to museums in Toronto, Ottawa
>> >> and Montreal (as well as the Everson in Syracuse). For 30 odd years, I
>> >> visited New York City on business. Probably a total of 300 to 400 trips.
>> >> Based on my many personal experiences there, I haven't visited it since I
>> >> retired (1989), and don't intend to, until the Mayor finishes cleaning it up.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Please stay home. NYC will be fine without you.
>>
>> Ah, the famous NYC hospitality. Nothing like it.
>>
jackl...@yahoo.com
> shel...@nycap.rr.com wrote:
>
> >
> >So, on my trip to Paris next month, I guess I don't need to go to the
> >Louvre, since I can see most of the important pieces in books/on-line.
> >
> >Reproductions are not the same thing.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Sid
>
> Isn't that what I said? Of course they're not.
>
> BUT...it is still not necessary to see the originals to have a valid
> opinion, for or against.
>
You're absolutely wrong. Or, at least, you would have to concede that those who have seen
the work "in person" are more able to put forward an informed, rather than uninformed,
opinion of it.
roadrunner
between the artist and the viewer takes place only if and when the viewer is influenced by
the art. This can take place from a distance of three feet, or three thousand miles. It can
be visual, via photograph or in any other way that the art is communicated to the viewer.
There is no such thing as an experience of art that is based on ignorance.
Mike..
Jon Poletti
>Jack, I'll take this one around just one more time. Art is personal. The communication
>between the artist and the viewer takes place only if and when the viewer is influenced by
>the art. This can take place from a distance of three feet, or three thousand miles. It can
>be visual, via photograph or in any other way that the art is communicated to the viewer.
This just isn't true.
1) Art is more than personal. It is also social. It is not just a 1 on 1
experience. Limiting "art" does not just effect the indidivual, but can
effect society as well.
2) While it is certainly true that "art" can move you from a distance, the
effect can be 180 degrees different than when seen in person. This is also
true if you are looking at one piece vs standing at a particular show (with
multiple pieces by the same artist, pieces from artists from the same period,
pieces from artists on the same subject, etc.).
3) "art is communicated to the viewer." How entirely rational. Unfortunately,
the effects of "art" on humans is an irrational experience.
>There is no such thing as an experience of art that is based on ignorance.
Mike, you are lost. You don't think that personal biases come into play
when someone views "art?" Haven't you ever looked at a piece of art and
not "gotten it?"
The entire episode between Guilinani and the Brooklyn musuem is based on
politics and not the value of art. Isn't that by definition ignorant ;).
Jon
(disclaimer: my mother is life long artist: painter, sculptor, photographer,
teacher)
Dave Hitt
>Dave Hitt wrote:
>
>> shel...@nycap.rr.com wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >So, on my trip to Paris next month, I guess I don't need to go to the
>> >Louvre, since I can see most of the important pieces in books/on-line.
>> >
>> >Reproductions are not the same thing.
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> >
>> > Sid
>>
>> Isn't that what I said? Of course they're not.
>>
>> BUT...it is still not necessary to see the originals to have a valid
>> opinion, for or against.
>>
>
>You're absolutely wrong. Or, at least, you would have to concede that those who have seen
>the work "in person" are more able to put forward an informed, rather than uninformed,
>opinion of it.
>
Do you always contradict yourself in a two sentence post?
I did state that viewing the original is always better than viewing a
reproduction. Yet you're assuming that the viewers opinion is
automatically more informed by seeing the original, which is obviously
not the case. Archie Bunker's view of a Wharhol is not going to be
any more informed because he saw an original. Someone who has studied
the ideas and history and forces behind pop art will have a more
informed opinion that Archie even if they're looking at a copy.
You're argument that no opinion is valid unless the writer has seen
the original is a cop out, a rather pathetic attempt to dismiss the
opinions of people who are unwilling and/or unable to view this piece
of crap. It is entirely unnecessary to view the original to know that
it is, both literally and artistically, a piece of crap.
Dave Hitt
>In article <381287DF...@erols.nospam.com>, roadrunner wrote:
>>Jack, I'll take this one around just one more time. Art is personal. The communication
>>between the artist and the viewer takes place only if and when the viewer is influenced by
>>the art. This can take place from a distance of three feet, or three thousand miles. It can
>>be visual, via photograph or in any other way that the art is communicated to the viewer.
>
>This just isn't true.
It's very true. Incredibly true. Absolutely true. Irrefutability
true.
>1) Art is more than personal.
So? That doesn't invalidate, or even weaken, the above post. The
experience of art is, first and foremost, personal. It can only be
social after a number of individuals have experienced it personally.
> It is also social. It is not just a 1 on 1
>experience. Limiting "art" does not just effect the indidivual, but can
>effect society as well.
>
>2) While it is certainly true that "art" can move you from a distance, the
>effect can be 180 degrees different than when seen in person. This is also
>true if you are looking at one piece vs standing at a particular show (with
>multiple pieces by the same artist, pieces from artists from the same period,
>pieces from artists on the same subject, etc.).
If it were 180 degrees different viewing the original would make you
hate the things you liked, and like the things you hated. Better
learn some geometry, Sparky.
>3) "art is communicated to the viewer." How entirely rational. Unfortunately,
>the effects of "art" on humans is an irrational experience.
I'm sure this made sense to you when you wrote it.
>>There is no such thing as an experience of art that is based on ignorance.
>
>Mike, you are lost. You don't think that personal biases come into play
>when someone views "art?" Haven't you ever looked at a piece of art and
>not "gotten it?"
Yep. Sometimes because I don't have the background or understanding
of it. Sometimes because it's absolute crap (Jackson Polock comes to
mind). Often the only statement the artist is making is "Watch me
extract huge sums of money from rich folks who think they understand
art." A noble goal, but one that should be played in the tents of PT
Barnum instead of MOMA, and one that should not be confused for real
art. There is no other explanation of a Sears Shop Vac displayed in
an acrylic box for $80,000, or three Urinals on a wall at $19,200, or
a couple of fistfuls of candy piled in the corner for three grand. Or
for that matter, a rather crude painting decorated with other people's
photos and splattered with shit.
>The entire episode between Guilinani and the Brooklyn musuem is based on
>politics and not the value of art. Isn't that by definition ignorant ;).
Finally, an accurate statement from you. Congratulations. But then,
almost anything from the mouth of Guilinani is, by definition,
ignorant.
jackl...@yahoo.com
> Jack, I'll take this one around just one more time. Art is personal. The communication
> between the artist and the viewer takes place only if and when the viewer is influenced by
> the art. This can take place from a distance of three feet, or three thousand miles. It can
> be visual, via photograph or in any other way that the art is communicated to the viewer.
>
> There is no such thing as an experience of art that is based on ignorance.
>
> Mike..
>
You can take it as many times as you want, but you'll still be wrong. There is, of course, a
personal response to art, but how personal can it be if you haven't even seen the work your
supposed to be responding to? Paintings, especially, are far more than their pictorial
representation. They have surface, they have scale, they have texture. A photo reproduction of a
painting gives a very limited sense of what the painting is about. Any Response to that limited
view has to be limited in itself.
My suspicion is that you are responding to an erroneous, politically motivated portrayal of a
particular painting without reflecting on the source of your information. My suggestion that you
see the work and then respond to it with some personal knowledge in a public forum seems
reasonable enough. Would you comment on a book without reading it? But perhaps, as you say, I
need help...
Leonard Pulver
prove or disprove what so many people
have been telling you in
this thread. Take a photo from today's
roto section and
make a copy; then copy the copy; then
copy the copy of the copy. Now compare
the last copy with the clipping. Not
so good huh? Realize that your "original"
is 3 or 4 copies away from the original
and has been degraded at least 3 times,
so much detail has been lost.
Then there is a matter of scale. When
you photograph a painting that is 5'x7'
or larger and then print your photo
5"x7" you have reduced it 92% and
obliterated all detail. Try it with
your clipping in your xerox and see.
I'm not going to take time to share my
experience with you. I know Charles
Saatchi's taste and do not share it so I
will not visit his show. I also will
not comment on the work without seeing it
You should do the same
Dave Hitt wrote:
>
> tra...@ss5.fred.net (Jon Poletti) wrote:
>
> >In article <381287DF...@erols.nospam.com>, roadrunner wrote:
> >>Jack, I'll take this one around just one more time. Art is personal. The communication
> >>between the artist and the viewer takes place only if and when the viewer is influenced by
> >>the art. This can take place from a distance of three feet, or three thousand miles. It can
> >>be visual, via photograph or in any other way that the art is communicated to the viewer.
> >
> >This just isn't true.
>
> It's very true. Incredibly true. Absolutely true. Irrefutability
> true.
>
> >1) Art is more than personal.
>
snip to preserve bandwidth
Jon Poletti
>tra...@ss5.fred.net (Jon Poletti) wrote:
>
>>In article <381287DF...@erols.nospam.com>, roadrunner wrote:
>>>Jack, I'll take this one around just one more time. Art is personal. The communication
>>>between the artist and the viewer takes place only if and when the viewer is influenced by
>>>the art. This can take place from a distance of three feet, or three thousand miles. It can
>>>be visual, via photograph or in any other way that the art is communicated to the viewer.
>>
>>This just isn't true.
>
>It's very true. Incredibly true. Absolutely true. Irrefutability
>true.
Very false. Incredibly false. Absolutely false. Irrefutably false.
>>1) Art is more than personal.
>
>So? That doesn't invalidate, or even weaken, the above post. The
>experience of art is, first and foremost, personal. It can only be
>social after a number of individuals have experienced it personally.
No. People who have not seen the art comment on it as if they have, drawing
ignorant judgements, and may influence the people who actually view it.
The absence of art also has social ramifications.
The presence of a piece of art can change a room which can then again change
the effect that the piece has on the viewer. Time, space, lighting, many
things influence a piece that isn't actually in the piece!
Art is also not immediate. You may see it one day and its impact may
not be felt for years. Or you may see it and its impact may last for years -
maybe even change your life - it has happened it me.
>>2) While it is certainly true that "art" can move you from a distance, the
>>effect can be 180 degrees different than when seen in person. This is also
>>true if you are looking at one piece vs standing at a particular show (with
>>multiple pieces by the same artist, pieces from artists from the same period,
>>pieces from artists on the same subject, etc.).
>
>If it were 180 degrees different viewing the original would make you
>hate the things you liked, and like the things you hated. Better
>learn some geometry, Sparky.
I know my geometry. That is exactly what I meant. Forget mind reading.
Embrace comprehension.
>>3) "art is communicated to the viewer." How entirely rational. Unfortunately,
>>the effects of "art" on humans is an irrational experience.
>
>I'm sure this made sense to you when you wrote it.
'Makes sense now. You just don't understand it. Does not compute, I would
suppose.
>>>There is no such thing as an experience of art that is based on ignorance.
>>
>>Mike, you are lost. You don't think that personal biases come into play
>>when someone views "art?" Haven't you ever looked at a piece of art and
>>not "gotten it?"
>
>Yep. Sometimes because I don't have the background or understanding
>of it. Sometimes because it's absolute crap (Jackson Polock comes to
>mind). Often the only statement the artist is making is "Watch me
>extract huge sums of money from rich folks who think they understand
>art." A noble goal, but one that should be played in the tents of PT
>Barnum instead of MOMA, and one that should not be confused for real
>art. There is no other explanation of a Sears Shop Vac displayed in
>an acrylic box for $80,000, or three Urinals on a wall at $19,200, or
>a couple of fistfuls of candy piled in the corner for three grand. Or
>for that matter, a rather crude painting decorated with other people's
>photos and splattered with shit.
It was captured on a media and someone is moved by it. What's wrong with
that? That's certainly one definition of art. Thankfully, *you* don't get to
decide what is *real* art.
The other day I saw an incredibly moving photograph of an old man
sitting in a chair. To some it might be a lark: 'hey some guy thinks a
picture of grandpa is moving,' another might say: 'remember that old drunk? well
some guy took a picture of him when he was half in the bag, and this guy is
moved by that.'
How'd you get to be so cynical? I'm sure it wasn't art that did that to do.
Jon
Dave Hitt
Leonard, your test is not only stupid, but it avoids the point I was
making.
For the umpteenth time, I agree that experiencing the ordinal is
superior to experiencing the copy.
For the umpteenth time, I point out that experiencing the original is
*not* necessary to have a valid opinion on the artwork. I loved Van
Gough before I ever saw an original. I thought Pollack was stupid
before I ever saw an original. I liked Warhol and Liechtenstein
before I ever saw an original. Seeing the originals enhanced the
experience a great deal (although not so much with Liechtenstein,
which isn't all that surprising) but in no way invalidated the
opinions formed when viewing the copies.
There is a reason that people enormous sums of money on elaborate
books full of careful copies of the originals. There is a reason that
copies of all kinds of quality, from the cheaply printed to those
where the very brush strokes are reproduced by an accomplished
painter, hang on walls all over the place. They don't provide the
exact same experience as the original, but they come close enough to
be worth the effort.
You're constant whine that anyone who has not seen the originals is
not only getting to be tiresome, it's a stupid cop out, because you
know most people are unwilling/unable/don't care enough to see the
original. Good thing it's entirely unnecessary.
----
How does it feel to be, one of the beautiful, zygotes?
Read "I Am The Eggman" in the latest Hittman Chronicle
Dave Hitt
>>>1) Art is more than personal.
>>
>>So? That doesn't invalidate, or even weaken, the above post. The
>>experience of art is, first and foremost, personal. It can only be
>>social after a number of individuals have experienced it personally.
>
>No. People who have not seen the art comment on it as if they have, drawing
>ignorant judgements, and may influence the people who actually view it.
Seeing the original helps, but is not always necessary. Seeing copies
and reproductions is often (usually) sufficient for the initial
judgement.
Do you have an opinion on the beauty of any particular movie star? Is
that opinion invalid because you've only seen reproductions of the
person? Is it necessary to meet the person face to face for any
opinion on their physical attributes to be valid?
>The absence of art also has social ramifications.
>
>The presence of a piece of art can change a room which can then again change
>the effect that the piece has on the viewer. Time, space, lighting, many
>things influence a piece that isn't actually in the piece!
>
>Art is also not immediate. You may see it one day and its impact may
>not be felt for years. Or you may see it and its impact may last for years -
>maybe even change your life - it has happened it me.
Here we agree.
>>If it were 180 degrees different viewing the original would make you
>>>hate the things you liked, and like the things you hated. Better
>>learn some geometry, Sparky.
>
>I know my geometry. That is exactly what I meant. Forget mind reading.
>Embrace comprehension.
Learn to write clearly, and comprehension of readers won't be an
issue.
>>>3) "art is communicated to the viewer." How entirely rational. Unfortunately,
>>>the effects of "art" on humans is an irrational experience.
>>
>>I'm sure this made sense to you when you wrote it.
>
>'Makes sense now. You just don't understand it. Does not compute, I would
>suppose.
>>Yep. Sometimes because I don't have the background or understanding
>>of it. Sometimes because it's absolute crap (Jackson Polock comes to
>>mind). Often the only statement the artist is making is "Watch me
>>extract huge sums of money from rich folks who think they understand
>>art." A noble goal, but one that should be played in the tents of PT
>>Barnum instead of MOMA, and one that should not be confused for real
>>art. There is no other explanation of a Sears Shop Vac displayed in
>>an acrylic box for $80,000, or three Urinals on a wall at $19,200, or
>>a couple of fistfuls of candy piled in the corner for three grand. Or
>>for that matter, a rather crude painting decorated with other people's
>>photos and splattered with shit.
>
>It was captured on a media and someone is moved by it. What's wrong with
>that? That's certainly one definition of art. Thankfully, *you* don't get to
>decide what is *real* art.
Of course I do. And so do you. And so does everyone else. Those who
are foolish enough to listen to critics do too. They get to spend
eighty grand on a Sears Shop Vac and think they own art. They're
idiots, of course, but hey, if they want to piss their money away,
more power to them. (And more power to the "artist" who fooled them.)
>The other day I saw an incredibly moving photograph of an old man
>sitting in a chair. To some it might be a lark: 'hey some guy thinks a
>picture of grandpa is moving,' another might say: 'remember that old drunk? well
>some guy took a picture of him when he was half in the bag, and this guy is
>moved by that.'
>
>How'd you get to be so cynical? I'm sure it wasn't art that did that to do.
It's a protective mechanism. It keeps me from spending three thousand
dollars for a pile of candy in the corner. That leaves me with money
to buy something that's really art - perhaps the photograph you're
describing. (Well done photographs of old people can be amazingly
moving. Entire lifetimes are often reflected in their faces and the
way they hold themselves.)
Leonard Pulver
or "cop out" you should look in the mirror.
You are the quintessential curmugeon. No
one, certainly not I, would question
your
taste in art. That is your personal
experience and vision and no one else's
business. What I question is your
ability
as an art critic.
Your "point" was not evaded. It is
pointless and irrational, and unfitting
someone of your intelligence
BTW it appears that "whine" is one of your
favorite verbs. It must be because you do
it so often.
molly solenoid
jackl...@yahoo.com wrote in message <381321CB...@yahoo.com>...
>roadrunner wrote:
>
>You can take it as many times as you want, but you'll still be wrong. There
is, of course, a
>personal response to art, but how personal can it be if you haven't even
seen the work your
>supposed to be responding to? Paintings, especially, are far more than
their pictorial
>representation. They have surface, they have scale, they have texture. A
photo reproduction of a
>painting gives a very limited sense of what the painting is about. Any
Response to that limited
>view has to be limited in itself.
I was under the impression that art contained two halves: the representation
and the denotation. The representation would be the pictoral, visual part,
and the denotation would be the thoughts , ideas and interpretations the
visual inspired. If I am following this arguement correctly, it seems as if
you are saying that in order to recieve the "message" the artist is trying
to send via a visual medium, you have to actually see the work of art.
However, if an aspect of the artwork is offensive to someone, that will
pre-emptively color the denotation of the artwork, as opinions have been
formed prior to the viewing. For some reason, many people are offended by
artists' representation of aspects of their religious faith juxtaposed with
what they would percieve as vulgar and offensive images. The denotation of
their personal faith then , is stronger than the artists' representation of
an image to inspire thought.
Sometimes juxtaposition works well to inspire thought. Sometimes the images
used are too disturbing to some people to be used to gain mass acceptance of
art. I would not visit an exhibit containing graphic violence, child
pornography, or the use of feces on a portrait of the Madonna because I find
it personally offensive. However, when I read what the artist was trying to
convey to the viewers, I could understand why he chose the medium he had. I
just would not choose to view it, for the same reasons I would not see
slasher movies. I can understand his message, but the aesthetics do not
appeal to me.
cheers,
molly
Leonard Pulver
idiot curator types on a card and sticks
on
the wall beside his/her work. Also do
you
know what elephant dung looks like?
Would you recognize it if you saw it on
the ground? Go to the zoo and then see
if you recognize it in that collage.
Not likely.
About notation - it is not to be relied
upon
when regarding a work. I always look
but
only for the creation date to put it in
its
historical perspective.
About 25 yrs ago I went to the opening
of
a three artist show at a college in
Jersey
City. One of the artists was director
of
the gallery and professor of art at the
school. He did three dimensional
paintings
and in front of one he had placed a
piece
of tape on the floor and a sign that
said
please view from this line. At this
point he
came over to chat and I asked: why the
line? " I want every one to see exactly
this perspective," he said as he toed
the line.
I pointed out that since I was about 6"
taller
than he, I would have to stand 3 feet
further
back.
The sign disappeared instantly.
The question of personal response to art
is crucial and cannot be second hand.
Sure one can find a piece of wall paper
attractive in a catalogue, but you will
never decide whether you would hang it
on your wall until you have seen it and
most likely in the room and beside the
other furniture.
When viewing art, I first sort the
pieces
into 2 groups - the first - works to
which
I get no reaction and I forget them. The
second comprises usually 2 parts - the
ones I love and those I hate. I always
go for a second look
at these. The latter usually represent
work that I must admire as excellent
work but not what I would want in my
home. I can exercise my critical
faculties to the max, appreciate the
work and accept that it is not for me.
I have more trouble with the other
emotion because I am unable to say
yummee! I'll take this and this and that!!
roadrunner
Dave Hitt wrote:
Mike adds a small bit of fact:
Dave comes from a family of Democratic politicians. His uncle was lieutenant Governor of NYS,
in a Democratic administration, in the 40's.
THAT's the background he is posting from.
end of msg.......................................
> tra...@ss5.fred.net (Jon Poletti) wrote:
>
> >In article <381287DF...@erols.nospam.com>, roadrunner wrote:
> >>Jack, I'll take this one around just one more time. Art is personal. The communication
> >>between the artist and the viewer takes place only if and when the viewer is influenced by
> >>the art. This can take place from a distance of three feet, or three thousand miles. It can
> >>be visual, via photograph or in any other way that the art is communicated to the viewer.
> >
> >This just isn't true.
>
> It's very true. Incredibly true. Absolutely true. Irrefutability
> true.
>
> >1) Art is more than personal.
>
> So? That doesn't invalidate, or even weaken, the above post. The
> experience of art is, first and foremost, personal. It can only be
> social after a number of individuals have experienced it personally.
>
> > It is also social. It is not just a 1 on 1
> >experience. Limiting "art" does not just effect the indidivual, but can
> >effect society as well.
> >
> >2) While it is certainly true that "art" can move you from a distance, the
> >effect can be 180 degrees different than when seen in person. This is also
> >true if you are looking at one piece vs standing at a particular show (with
> >multiple pieces by the same artist, pieces from artists from the same period,
> >pieces from artists on the same subject, etc.).
>
> If it were 180 degrees different viewing the original would make you
> hate the things you liked, and like the things you hated. Better
> learn some geometry, Sparky.
>
> >3) "art is communicated to the viewer." How entirely rational. Unfortunately,
> >the effects of "art" on humans is an irrational experience.
>
> I'm sure this made sense to you when you wrote it.
>
> >>There is no such thing as an experience of art that is based on ignorance.
> >
> >Mike, you are lost. You don't think that personal biases come into play
> >when someone views "art?" Haven't you ever looked at a piece of art and
> >not "gotten it?"
>
> Yep. Sometimes because I don't have the background or understanding
> of it. Sometimes because it's absolute crap (Jackson Polock comes to
> mind). Often the only statement the artist is making is "Watch me
> extract huge sums of money from rich folks who think they understand
> art." A noble goal, but one that should be played in the tents of PT
> Barnum instead of MOMA, and one that should not be confused for real
> art. There is no other explanation of a Sears Shop Vac displayed in
> an acrylic box for $80,000, or three Urinals on a wall at $19,200, or
> a couple of fistfuls of candy piled in the corner for three grand. Or
> for that matter, a rather crude painting decorated with other people's
> photos and splattered with shit.
>
> >The entire episode between Guilinani and the Brooklyn musuem is based on
> >politics and not the value of art. Isn't that by definition ignorant ;).
>
> Finally, an accurate statement from you. Congratulations. But then,
> almost anything from the mouth of Guilinani is, by definition,
> ignorant.
>
> ----
> Let's hope Jesse never learns to keep his mouth shut. Check out "Reform School" at
roadrunner
molly solenoid wrote:
-------------------------------
Mike(roadrunner) responds: Thank you, Molly for returning class to this posting
string. It was a pleasant sight to see your handle in the header list.
I DO have to admit that Pulver, Poletti and company have a point about seeing
the original. I had rejected the "painting" as religious art BEFORE I became
aware that the 20-odd "butterflies" in the background were cut-and-paste
pictures of vaginas and sphincters, taken from pornographic magazines.
Wish you well.
Mike.
----------------------------
Dave Hitt
>Before you call any one or anything "stupid"
>or "cop out" you should look in the mirror.
>
>You are the quintessential curmugeon.
Thank you. I personally don't think I'm quintessential yet, but I'm
working on it. Once I have it mastered I'll move up to my ultimate
goal - to be a full fledged misanthrope.
> No
>one, certainly not I, would question
>your
>taste in art. That is your personal
>experience and vision and no one else's
>business. What I question is your
>ability
>as an art critic.
>
>Your "point" was not evaded. It is
>pointless and irrational, and unfitting
>someone of your intelligence
>
>BTW it appears that "whine" is one of your
>favorite verbs. It must be because you do
>it so often.
You have never seen me whine, Leonard. I complain, I bitch, I gripe,
but I don't whine. Whining requires a level of self pity and
self-rightonuess that are beyond me, usually accompanied by the
helpless victim mentality I despise.
>> You're constant whine that anyone who has not seen the originals is
>> not only getting to be tiresome, it's a stupid cop out, because you
>> know most people are unwilling/unable/don't care enough to see the
>> original. Good thing it's entirely unnecessary.
You have't addressed this point. But that's fine, this conversation
is getting tiresome.
----
How does it feel to be, one of the beautiful, zygotes?
Read "I Am The Eggman" in the latest Hittman Chronicle
Dave Hitt
>
>
>Dave Hitt wrote:
>
>Mike adds a small bit of fact:
>
> Dave comes from a family of Democratic politicians. His uncle was lieutenant Governor of NYS,
>in a Democratic administration, in the 40's.
>
>THAT's the background he is posting from.
>
>end of msg.......................................
>
Mike, where do you get your "facts?" You are about as wrong as you
can be.
My family was apolitical - their religious beliefs forbid them from
participating in politics. I didn't discover politics until I escaped
and struck out on my own. And my politics today are nothing near the
Democrats, or for that matter, the Republicans.
If you're making a joke, you left out the humor. If you think this is
a fact, you're an idiot.
molly solenoid
Leonard Pulver wrote in message <381C934A...@mindspring.com>...
>Molly no artist is responsible for what some
>idiot curator types on a card and sticks
>on
>the wall beside his/her work.
>
>upon
>when regarding a work. I always look
>but
>only for the creation date to put it in
>its
>historical perspective.
I think you may have misunderstood me, Leonard. I wasn't talking about
"notation" , but rather "denotation".
I had just finished some reading regarding the language of art, and
"denotation" is the message the artist tries to convey (according to the
author) through the "representation" of an object, such as a portrait,
collage, or sculpture. Denotation is more cognitive- it's the reason why
you return to those art works you don't particularily like- there is an
*idea* that interests you more than the representation on the canvas.
A few years ago, there was an exhibit where the viewer had to stand directly
on the American flag in order to view a painting. Many people were outraged
by the idea that people were standing on the flag without taking into
consideration the painting. It got people to think, which was the artists'
intent in the first place.
>The question of personal response to art
>is crucial and cannot be second hand.
>Sure one can find a piece of wall paper
>attractive in a catalogue, but you will
>never decide whether you would hang it
>on your wall until you have seen it and
>most likely in the room and beside the
>other furniture.
But what about black velvet painting of Elvis and dogs playing poker? I know
I don't want them hanging on my wall without seeing them, already. And don't
tell me they are not art; to some they are.
>
The latter usually represent
>work that I must admire as excellent
>work but not what I would want in my
>home. I can exercise my critical
>faculties to the max, appreciate the
>work and accept that it is not for me.
>I have more trouble with the other
>emotion because I am unable to say
>yummee! I'll take this and this and that!!
>
I understand what you say about using a critical eye: I remember being in
grade school and learning about Heironymous Bosch. Although I did not have
any training in aesthetics or art history at that point, there was something
about the painting that evoked a gut reaction. I didn't really like it, but
it was intruiging to look at. This was a far cry fron the first viewing I
had of Sunday on the Grand Jette (unbeliveable) or Nighthawks.
I will be the first to admit, as in my previous post, that I have no desire
to view the aforementioned exhibit, for the same reason that I don't like to
see photographs of starving children or grieving mourners. I am squeamish
about the juxtoposition of pornographic images (which, according to the
artist, represent the struggles the Virgin Mary faced throughout her life),
animal excrement, and an image that is representative of purity. While I
think juxtaposition works well for many artists like Magritte,or
Mapplethorpe for example, some images just do not appeal to me. I don't
think I have the right to tell an artist how to express himself, but I don't
feel obligated to visit every exhibit that comes my way because it's
controversial, either.
ps- I don't know what elephant dung is, but I know what I like ;-)
cheers,
molly
Leonard Pulver
the
most esoteric terms they can dredge up.
Their purpose is to obfuscate. They
want
to protect the "mystique" so you might
swallow their dung whole even though it
is incomprehensible.
Denotation is just another word in their
pantheon of pettifogging bull shit.
American Heritage defines it as the most
direct and simple meaning of a word as
opposed to that which is implied.
molly solenoid wrote:
>
> Leonard Pulver wrote in message <381C934A...@mindspring.com>...
> >Molly no artist is responsible for what some
> >idiot curator types on a card and sticks
> >on
> >the wall beside his/her work.
> >
> >About notation - it is not to be relied
> >upon
> >when regarding a work. I always look
> >but
> >only for the creation date to put it in
> >its
> >historical perspective.
>
> I think you may have misunderstood me
Not at all!!!
, Leonard. I wasn't talking about
> "notation" , but rather "denotation".
> I had just finished some reading regarding the language of art, and
> "denotation" is the message the artist tries to convey (according to the
> author) through the "representation" of an object, such as a portrait,
> collage, or sculpture. Denotation is more cognitive- it's the reason why
> you return to those art works you don't particularily like- there is an
> *idea* that interests you more than the representation on the canvas.
Nonsense!!!! see top ^
Of course it is art - schlock art - of
course but that is why they make
chocolate & vanilla ice cream.
> The latter usually represent
> >work that I must admire as excellent
> >work but not what I would want in my
> >home. I can exercise my critical
> >faculties to the max, appreciate the
> >work and accept that it is not for me.
> >I have more trouble with the other
> >emotion because I am unable to say
> >yummee! I'll take this and this and that!!
> >
> I understand what you say about using a critical eye: I remember being in
> grade school and learning about Heironymous Bosch. Although I did not have
> any training in aesthetics or art history at that point, there was something
> about the painting that evoked a gut reaction. I didn't really like it, but
> it was intruiging to look at. This was a far cry fron the first viewing I
> had of Sunday on the Grand Jette (unbeliveable) or Nighthawks.
Conceptual art makes my teeth ache.
Concepts can only be cerebral and that
is
not what art is about. Art is
emotional, an
experience shared by the viewer and the
artist. You do not need 4 years of Art
History to share the emotions of fine art.
With that we must not forget: different
strokes for different folks
jaykay
Leonard Pulver <red...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:381C3856...@mindspring.com...
> Before you call any one or anything "stupid"
> or "cop out" you should look in the mirror.
>
> one, certainly not I, would question
> your
> taste in art. That is your personal
> experience and vision and no one else's
> business. What I question is your
> ability
> as an art critic.
>
> Your "point" was not evaded. It is
> pointless and irrational, and unfitting
> someone of your intelligence
>
> BTW it appears that "whine" is one of your
> favorite verbs. It must be because you do
> it so often.
>
>
> >
> > Leonard Pulver <red...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Leonard, your test is not only stupid, but it avoids the point I was
> > making.
> >
> > For the umpteenth time, I agree that experiencing the ordinal is
> > superior to experiencing the copy.
> >
> > For the umpteenth time, I point out that experiencing the original is
> > *not* necessary to have a valid opinion on the artwork. I loved Van
> > Gough before I ever saw an original. I thought Pollack was stupid
> > before I ever saw an original. I liked Warhol and Liechtenstein
> > before I ever saw an original. Seeing the originals enhanced the
> > experience a great deal (although not so much with Liechtenstein,
> > which isn't all that surprising) but in no way invalidated the
> > opinions formed when viewing the copies.
> >
> > There is a reason that people enormous sums of money on elaborate
> > books full of careful copies of the originals. There is a reason that
> > copies of all kinds of quality, from the cheaply printed to those
> > where the very brush strokes are reproduced by an accomplished
> > painter, hang on walls all over the place. They don't provide the
> > exact same experience as the original, but they come close enough to
> > be worth the effort.
> >
> > not only getting to be tiresome, it's a stupid cop out, because you
> > know most people are unwilling/unable/don't care enough to see the
> > original. Good thing it's entirely unnecessary.
> >
> >
roadrunner
Dave, I made a BIG mistake, and you are right. I SHOULD have said that Jon Poletti has the uncle
that filled the number 2 seat (and, briefly, the guv's seat) in New York. Although, when Jon and I
talked, I got the feeling that his family wasn't too excited about that.
Jon must be rolling on the floor!
Sorry, again. Mike.
Dave Hitt wrote:
> roadrunner <ceri...@erols.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Dave Hitt wrote:
> >
> >Mike adds a small bit of fact:
> >
> > Dave comes from a family of Democratic politicians. His uncle was lieutenant Governor of NYS,
> >in a Democratic administration, in the 40's.
> >
> >THAT's the background he is posting from.
> >
> >end of msg.......................................
> >
>
> Mike, where do you get your "facts?" You are about as wrong as you
> can be.
>
> My family was apolitical - their religious beliefs forbid them from
> participating in politics. I didn't discover politics until I escaped
> and struck out on my own. And my politics today are nothing near the
> Democrats, or for that matter, the Republicans.
>
> If you're making a joke, you left out the humor. If you think this is
> a fact, you're an idiot.
>
Dave Hitt
>Mike responds:
>
>Dave, I made a BIG mistake, and you are right. I SHOULD have said that Jon Poletti has the uncle
>that filled the number 2 seat (and, briefly, the guv's seat) in New York. Although, when Jon and I
>talked, I got the feeling that his family wasn't too excited about that.
>
>Jon must be rolling on the floor!
>
>Sorry, again. Mike.
Apology accepted. I apologize for overacting myself, being horrified
to be called a democrat. Just about the only thing worse would be to
be called a republican.
Claire Day
for some criminals, Ga has an over abondance of demoncrat politicians.
Here is one. Crooked John Oxedine, Ms Steinberg
Demoncrat Gov Roy Barnes wrote me a letter stating your employee, Ms
Steinberg, would contact me to investigate my claim crooked RR
Medicare Augusta Ga/Travelers Ins Co/Blue Cross/Blue Shield/United
HealthCare of Ga steal $thousands SS taxes to keep criminal doctors
preying on Georgians.
NO pain before surgery, 24 hour a day pain after surgery until I find
one honest, ethical surgeon to break my wrist and reset it. NOT one in
Ga.
Ms Steinberg kicked Royąs butt like you did me when I sent you proofs.
Metaphor
Do something honest for a change.
Claire