Modern art
Graham
anti-intellectual sludge the post-modern Left calls "thought".
http://www.inoohr.org/1963communistdemands.htm
22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of
artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to "eliminate
all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless,
awkward and meaningless forms.”
23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. "Our plan is to
promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art.”
How much did Helen Clark fund her "art" with a few years back? Was it
60 million?
lev_la...@yahoo.com.au
Graham wrote:
> Surely, the ugliness of modern art is a good metaphor for the
> anti-intellectual sludge the post-modern Left calls "thought".
You used "modern" and "postmodern" to refer to the same aesthetic
style.
> http://www.inoohr.org/1963communistdemands.htm
"The following was entered into the Congressional record by Albert
Herlong, Jr. (a Floridian who served in Congress from 1949-69) in
1963."
In other words, someone who made it up as he went along.
Tarla
>Surely, the ugliness of modern art is a good metaphor for the
>anti-intellectual sludge the post-modern Left calls "thought".
>
>http://www.inoohr.org/1963communistdemands.htm
>
>22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of
>artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to "eliminate
>all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless,
>awkward and meaningless forms.”
>
>23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. "Our plan is to
>promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art.”
Dipshit. This was someone's IDEA of what the Communist Party's goals
were 41 years ago.
--
Tarla
Graham
>
> Graham wrote:
> > Surely, the ugliness of modern art is a good metaphor for the
> > anti-intellectual sludge the post-modern Left calls "thought".
>
> You used "modern" and "postmodern" to refer to the same aesthetic
> style.
The term modern predates post-modern. Post-modern is simply a
head-up-the-ass bullshit term for what is currently modern.
>
> > http://www.inoohr.org/1963communistdemands.htm
>
> "The following was entered into the Congressional record by Albert
> Herlong, Jr. (a Floridian who served in Congress from 1949-69) in
> 1963."
>
> In other words, someone who made it up as he went along.
As anyone can see, those communist demands are in line with much of
what the left has already achieved.
You're a liar. So, fuck off. OK?
M. Q
> > Graham wrote:
> > > Surely, the ugliness of modern art is a good metaphor for the
> > > anti-intellectual sludge the post-modern Left calls "thought".
Placing the word thought in inverted commas is a "leftist" language
technique that employs postmodern/ poststructurlaist discourses. In
attempting to discredit one thought as thought, do you not make all thought
suspect? Legitimacy, originality, objectivity, authorship and
consciousness- ingredients of a freshly tossed salad.
> > You used "modern" and "postmodern" to refer to the same aesthetic
> > style.
>
> The term modern predates post-modern. Post-modern is simply a
> head-up-the-ass bullshit term for what is currently modern.
There you're just playing with modern as an adjective and modern as a noun.
M. Q
Dr.Dog
Graham wrote:
> "lev_la...@yahoo.com.au" wrote:
> >
> > Graham wrote:
> > > Surely, the ugliness of modern art is a good metaphor for the
> > > anti-intellectual sludge the post-modern Left calls "thought".
> >
> > You used "modern" and "postmodern" to refer to the same aesthetic
> > style.
>
> The term modern predates post-modern. Post-modern is simply a
> head-up-the-ass bullshit term for what is currently modern.
Nonsense. Two entirely different sensibilities and worldviews. You're
showing your ignorance.
> > > http://www.inoohr.org/1963communistdemands.htm
> >
> > "The following was entered into the Congressional record by Albert
> > Herlong, Jr. (a Floridian who served in Congress from 1949-69) in
> > 1963."
> >
> > In other words, someone who made it up as he went along.
>
> As anyone can see, those communist demands are in line with much of
> what the left has already achieved.
Anything remotely progressive is "communist," according to Americans.
> You're a liar. So, fuck off. OK?
Ah. Coherent argument at last. :)
Dog
Tarla
>"lev_la...@yahoo.com.au" wrote:
>>
>> Graham wrote:
>> > Surely, the ugliness of modern art is a good metaphor for the
>> > anti-intellectual sludge the post-modern Left calls "thought".
>>
>> You used "modern" and "postmodern" to refer to the same aesthetic
>> style.
>
>The term modern predates post-modern. Post-modern is simply a
>head-up-the-ass bullshit term for what is currently modern.
No it's not. It's a specific style. The works of Ross Ritchie are good
examples of Kiwi post-modernism.
>
>>
>> > http://www.inoohr.org/1963communistdemands.htm
>>
>> "The following was entered into the Congressional record by Albert
>> Herlong, Jr. (a Floridian who served in Congress from 1949-69) in
>> 1963."
>>
>> In other words, someone who made it up as he went along.
>
>As anyone can see, those communist demands are in line with much of
>what the left has already achieved.
>
>You're a liar. So, fuck off. OK?
What did he lie about? It's one man's opinion of the goals of a group
he wasn't a member of over 40 years ago. "Modernism" as an art form
started in the early part of the 20th century about 1915 or so.
Georgia O'Keefe is considered Modernist, as well as Klimt and Cezanne.
--
Tarla
Tilly
> Surely, the ugliness of modern art
That is a subjective POV. I feel sorry for people who are such intellectual
dwarves they can't see the beauty in a Moore or Hepworth sculpture or in a
great modern painting. Just because an artist doesn't paint what appeals to
you personally doesn't make it crap.
is a good metaphor for the
> anti-intellectual sludge the post-modern Left calls "thought".
Thought can be expressed in many ways. Who is to say which way has most
validity?
BTW many of the great composers works were considered to be revolutionaries
and their music to be 'crap' .
Unfortunately intellectuals and people who think differently, tend to be
treated with derision, especially by narrow minded religious sheeple who
can't bear to be challenged.
Tilly
Enkidu
>"lev_la...@yahoo.com.au" wrote:
>>
>> Graham wrote:
>> > Surely, the ugliness of modern art is a good metaphor for the
>> > anti-intellectual sludge the post-modern Left calls "thought".
>>
>> You used "modern" and "postmodern" to refer to the same aesthetic
>> style.
>
>The term modern predates post-modern. Post-modern is simply a
>head-up-the-ass bullshit term for what is currently modern.
>
In a post-modern way, you could be right. However, in a post-modern
way, you could be wrong.
Cheers,
Cliff
--
The National Party manifesto can be viewed here:
Enkidu
wrote:
>
>Graham wrote:
>> "lev_la...@yahoo.com.au" wrote:
>> >
>> > Graham wrote:
>> > > Surely, the ugliness of modern art is a good metaphor for the
>> > > anti-intellectual sludge the post-modern Left calls "thought".
>> >
>> > You used "modern" and "postmodern" to refer to the same aesthetic
>> > style.
>>
>> The term modern predates post-modern. Post-modern is simply a
>> head-up-the-ass bullshit term for what is currently modern.
>
>Nonsense. Two entirely different sensibilities and worldviews. You're
>showing your ignorance.
>
No, not true. By saying that the postmodern paradigm differs from the
modern, is to misunderstand the paradigm, and the concept of paradigm
completely. From his reactionary point-of-view (as opposed to his
embedding paradigm), Graham is in a gloriously postmodern way
absolutely correct. To someone who doesn't understand the postmodern
Graham's statement is both logical and correct. To someone with an
inkling of the postmodern the shift in paradigm is apparent, leaving
Graham, firmly embedded in the not-so modern.
Enkidu
wrote:
>On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 13:18:24 +1300, Graham <tr@tr.r> wrote:
>
>>"lev_la...@yahoo.com.au" wrote:
>>>
>>> Graham wrote:
>>> > Surely, the ugliness of modern art is a good metaphor for the
>>> > anti-intellectual sludge the post-modern Left calls "thought".
>>>
>>> You used "modern" and "postmodern" to refer to the same aesthetic
>>> style.
>>
>>The term modern predates post-modern. Post-modern is simply a
>>head-up-the-ass bullshit term for what is currently modern.
>
>No it's not. It's a specific style. The works of Ross Ritchie are good
>examples of Kiwi post-modernism.
>
Post-modern is not a style! It's a whole new world-view. It's the
questioning of the "truth" as represented the "stories" that people
act out, as in the paradigms that they are embedded in. Among other
things that is. A modern person cannot understand a postmodern one
because their world views operate in different ways. The postmodern
person has only limited understanding of a modern one - because most
people come to post-modernism from modernism.
Post-modernism is not a style, or even a set of styles. It's a new way
of thinking about things. You would not refer to a suit as postmodern
say because of its lapels, and labelling an item of art as postmodern
is just as ludicrous and says that you don't understand it.
It defies categorisation.
Graham
>
> On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 13:18:24 +1300, Graham <tr@tr.r> wrote:
>
> >"lev_la...@yahoo.com.au" wrote:
> >>
> >> Graham wrote:
> >> > Surely, the ugliness of modern art is a good metaphor for the
> >> > anti-intellectual sludge the post-modern Left calls "thought".
> >>
> >> You used "modern" and "postmodern" to refer to the same aesthetic
> >> style.
> >
> >The term modern predates post-modern. Post-modern is simply a
> >head-up-the-ass bullshit term for what is currently modern.
> >
> In a post-modern way, you could be right. However, in a post-modern
> way, you could be wrong.
And you're the perfect example of someone whose head is so full of
intellectual bullshit that you have great difficulty with the most
basic truths...
Graham
>
> Graham wrote:
> > Surely, the ugliness of modern art
>
> That is a subjective POV.
No, it's not. It's an objective fact that pseudo intellectuals find
objectively ugly garbage attractive, when much the rest of society
(the people who paid for it with their taxes) sees that shit for what
it is.
Remember the lump of concrete with steel rods sticking out of it in
the Parliament lobby? What would you pay for something off a
demolition site.
The only reason it existed is because tax-payer money was stolen to
pay for it. Have you heard of the National Endowment for the Arts in
the US? It also pays for rubbish that no one wants...
> I feel sorry for people who are such intellectual
> dwarves they can't see the beauty in a Moore or Hepworth sculpture or in a
> great modern painting. Just because an artist doesn't paint what appeals to
> you personally doesn't make it crap.
>
> is a good metaphor for the
> > anti-intellectual sludge the post-modern Left calls "thought".
>
> Thought can be expressed in many ways. Who is to say which way has most
> validity?
> BTW many of the great composers works were considered to be revolutionaries
> and their music to be 'crap' .
BS. It wasn't funded by tax-payers, thus must have had value. Lumping
together idiots who admire Piss Christ or the Virgin Mary covered with
elephant dung with the great composers is a bit rich.
> Unfortunately intellectuals and people who think differently, tend to be
> treated with derision, especially by narrow minded religious sheeple who
> can't bear to be challenged.
It's the left-wing elite that wrongly views people with derision and
themselves "enlightened". Because their elitism is not earned by
merit: their pet indulgences are paid for by spending taxpayers'
money.
Graham
In the CONTEXT of art, it's a style.
In the case of post-modern art, beauty and meaning has been flushed
down the toilet, complete with sounds of braying donkeys. Retard...
Enkidu
>> >
>> Post-modern is not a style! It's a whole new world-view. It's the
>> questioning of the "truth" as represented the "stories" that people
>> act out, as in the paradigms that they are embedded in. Among other
>> things that is. A modern person cannot understand a postmodern one
>> because their world views operate in different ways. The postmodern
>> person has only limited understanding of a modern one - because most
>> people come to post-modernism from modernism.
>>
>> Post-modernism is not a style, or even a set of styles. It's a new way
>> of thinking about things. You would not refer to a suit as postmodern
>> say because of its lapels, and labelling an item of art as postmodern
>> is just as ludicrous and says that you don't understand it.
>>
>> It defies categorisation.
>
>In the CONTEXT of art, it's a style.
>
>In the case of post-modern art, beauty and meaning has been flushed
>down the toilet, complete with sounds of braying donkeys. Retard...
>
you demonstrate that you know nothing of art, let alone post-modern
art (Is there any such thing? Only in the minds of the modernist and
their like)
First tell me what a style is? Is it the way you frame an object? Is
it the canvas that you daub your paint on? Or the medium that you use
- water based or oil-based or mud-based? Are you going to draw lines
around what you consider is art?
What is art? Tell me that? Is it a picture in a rectangular frame? Or
a sculture? Is it the accumulated postings of people on a newsgroup?
Is Guernica by Picasso, a pinnacle of the modern, a work of beauty?
Are you saying that if something shocks and disgusts you it is not
art? Because that denies that the modernist Picasso's work is a work
of art. It denies a whole host of pieces of art, all the way back to
medieval crucifixes and beyond.
Braying donkeys are not art? The crowing toilets in Candid Camera back
in the 50s (60s?) were a classic piece of television art.
Enkidu
Duh! I guess we can do the "What is truth" thing if you wish.
Tarla
>On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 13:43:33 +1300, Tarla <ta...@inspire.net.nz>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 13:18:24 +1300, Graham <tr@tr.r> wrote:
>>
>>>"lev_la...@yahoo.com.au" wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Graham wrote:
>>>> > Surely, the ugliness of modern art is a good metaphor for the
>>>> > anti-intellectual sludge the post-modern Left calls "thought".
>>>>
>>>> You used "modern" and "postmodern" to refer to the same aesthetic
>>>> style.
>>>
>>>The term modern predates post-modern. Post-modern is simply a
>>>head-up-the-ass bullshit term for what is currently modern.
>>
>>No it's not. It's a specific style. The works of Ross Ritchie are good
>>examples of Kiwi post-modernism.
>>
>Post-modern is not a style! It's a whole new world-view. It's the
>questioning of the "truth" as represented the "stories" that people
>act out, as in the paradigms that they are embedded in. Among other
>things that is. A modern person cannot understand a postmodern one
>because their world views operate in different ways. The postmodern
>person has only limited understanding of a modern one - because most
>people come to post-modernism from modernism.
You're extending the metaphor beyond the original posting. I was
keeping it within the framework of fine art, which is why I didn't
mention writers, musicians, or philosophers.
>
>Post-modernism is not a style, or even a set of styles. It's a new way
>of thinking about things. You would not refer to a suit as postmodern
>say because of its lapels, and labelling an item of art as postmodern
>is just as ludicrous and says that you don't understand it.
Jeez Cliff, baby steps. If he's not even thinking in terms of
movements then it's useless to go into that deep an explanation.
>
>It defies categorisation.
That's another thread for another time.
--
Tarla
Tarla
<Striking1...@yahoo.co.nz> wrote:
>Graham wrote:
>> Surely, the ugliness of modern art
>
>
>
>That is a subjective POV. I feel sorry for people who are such intellectual
>dwarves they can't see the beauty in a Moore or Hepworth sculpture or in a
>great modern painting. Just because an artist doesn't paint what appeals to
>you personally doesn't make it crap.
Rodin is Post-modern. If you can't see the beauty in his work, you're
blind and have no hands.
--
Tarla
Enkidu
>Tilly wrote:
>>
>> Graham wrote:
>> > Surely, the ugliness of modern art
>>
>> That is a subjective POV.
>
>No, it's not. It's an objective fact that pseudo intellectuals find
>objectively ugly garbage attractive, when much the rest of society
>(the people who paid for it with their taxes) sees that shit for what
>it is.
>
That very subjective of you Graham.
>
>Remember the lump of concrete with steel rods sticking out of it in
>the Parliament lobby? What would you pay for something off a
>demolition site.
>
Well, I don't know what you refer to, but it got you thinking, didn't
it?
I guess the "broken colums" at the Lambton/Stout corner is acceptable?
Why would that be?
>
>> Unfortunately intellectuals and people who think differently, tend to be
>> treated with derision, especially by narrow minded religious sheeple who
>> can't bear to be challenged.
>
>It's the left-wing elite that wrongly views people with derision and
>themselves "enlightened". Because their elitism is not earned by
>merit: their pet indulgences are paid for by spending taxpayers'
>money.
>
Oh, OK, we got a definition of Art! It's something that was created by
someone, but which WASN'T paid for by central or local government!!
I'm glad we cleared that up.
Tarla
>Tilly wrote:
>>
>> Graham wrote:
>> > Surely, the ugliness of modern art
>>
>> That is a subjective POV.
>
>No, it's not. It's an objective fact that pseudo intellectuals find
>objectively ugly garbage attractive, when much the rest of society
>(the people who paid for it with their taxes) sees that shit for what
>it is.
You're going to have to be more specific, Graham. There are a number
of artists within the movement. Name one that you find "ugly" (since
there is only subjectivity when it comes to art), and perhaps we can
discuss it, but to label a whole movement which includes hundreds of
artists who interpret reality in completely different ways from each
other, is simply closed-minded.
>Remember the lump of concrete with steel rods sticking out of it in
>the Parliament lobby? What would you pay for something off a
>demolition site.
Sorry, not familiar with this. Are you sure it's Post-modern?
>
>The only reason it existed is because tax-payer money was stolen to
>pay for it. Have you heard of the National Endowment for the Arts in
>the US? It also pays for rubbish that no one wants...
Such as?
--
Tarla
Tilly
> Rodin is Post-modern. If you can't see the beauty in his work, you're
> blind and have no hands.
I adore Rodin!!
I love a broad range of art Tarla.
Was your remark directed at Graham, who no doubt thinks landscapes and
portraits are the only valid form of art?
--
Tilly
Graham
>
[bullshit]
What would you pay for a fucking dunny with donkey sound effects?
You really a fucking imbecile.
lev_la...@yahoo.com.au
Graham
>
> On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 15:50:02 +1300, Graham <tr@tr.r> wrote:
>
> >Tilly wrote:
> >>
> >> Graham wrote:
> >> > Surely, the ugliness of modern art
> >>
> >> That is a subjective POV.
> >
> >No, it's not. It's an objective fact that pseudo intellectuals find
> >objectively ugly garbage attractive, when much the rest of society
> >(the people who paid for it with their taxes) sees that shit for what
> >it is.
> >
> That very subjective of you Graham.
Today's art is ugly and you clearly have no sense of appreciation for
that. You think you know better but you're actually the last person
who should be deciding what monstrosities people should be forced to
look at in public places, or what their money should be spent on.
Elitist scumbag.
> >
> >Remember the lump of concrete with steel rods sticking out of it in
> >the Parliament lobby? What would you pay for something off a
> >demolition site.
> >
> Well, I don't know what you refer to, but it got you thinking, didn't
> it?
>
> I guess the "broken colums" at the Lambton/Stout corner is acceptable?
No. The people who pay for it should decide if they even want art
strewn around the place, and, then, what it should be.
> Why would that be?
Well, there hasn't been a vote on it yet, so you're just pissing in
the wind.
> >
> >> Unfortunately intellectuals and people who think differently, tend to be
> >> treated with derision, especially by narrow minded religious sheeple who
> >> can't bear to be challenged.
> >
> >It's the left-wing elite that wrongly views people with derision and
> >themselves "enlightened". Because their elitism is not earned by
> >merit: their pet indulgences are paid for by spending taxpayers'
> >money.
> >
> Oh, OK, we got a definition of Art! It's something that was created by
> someone, but which WASN'T paid for by central or local government!!
> I'm glad we cleared that up.
You're changing the subject, moron...
Politicians should stop WASTING money on unredeeming GARBAGE. Trust
you to subordinate the interests of the many to your snobbishness and
bogus sense of superiority. Typical leftist...
If what you claim is art is art then art no longer means anything,
since anything can be art. This destroys art; art is no longer
anything special:.Art is a garish monstrosity or a chair sitting in an
empty room or a few shapes on a canvas. You arrogant know-it-alls HATE
art and simply want to define it outside the realm of appreciation by
the masses. The more likely it is that only morons like you "like" it,
the better the art it must be. Cocksuckers...
Let me repeat what I quoted earlier:
BR
>Braying donkeys are not art? The crowing toilets in Candid Camera back
>in the 50s (60s?) were a classic piece of television art.
Whether or not a dunny full of braying donkeys is art, It sure as hell
isn't a fiscally responsible way of spending taxpayers' money.
So what is art? I can think of no better description than that which
is created to delight the observer. Even if this objective is
achieved, that still doesn't mean it should be funded by public money.
Bill.
Max Burke
>> Enkidu <enk...@cliffp.com> wrote:
>> Braying donkeys are not art? The crowing toilets in Candid Camera
>> back in the 50s (60s?) were a classic piece of television art.
> Whether or not a dunny full of braying donkeys is art, It sure as hell
> isn't a fiscally responsible way of spending taxpayers' money.
Why not? (see below)
> So what is art? I can think of no better description than that which
> is created to delight the observer. Even if this objective is
> achieved, that still doesn't mean it should be funded by public money.
OK so we have an observer who believes that it was fiscally responsible to
spend $500,000 on the braying/exploding dunny that was to be sent to New
York as an example of New Zealand art.
We have another observer who says it's a complete waste of taxpayers money
and whoever spent that money should be fired and have to pay it all back.
Which observer is right BR???
And yes I did go to see the braying/exploding dunny when it was exhibited at
the City Gallery in Wellington last year. It was highly amusing, especially
some of the reactions of others that were there at the time. The kids
reactions were the best, most adults just looked embarrassed :-)
<quote>
ACT New Zealand Arts, Culture and Heritage Spokesman Deborah Coddington
demanded that Prime Minister Helen Clark explain just why she thinks it's a
good idea to spend $500,000 on a port-a-loo that makes donkey noises, and
then explodes, in the name of art.
"Thanks to Miss Clark - also the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage -
Labour has forked out half a million dollars of taxpayers' money to send
this `art' to the Venice Biennale to showcase New Zealand contemporary art,"
Miss Coddington said.
http://www.racecafe.co.nz/cgi-bin/forum/general.pl?noframes;read=39931
<end quote>
--
mlvb...@xxxxxxxx.nz
Replace the obvious with paradise.net to email me
Found Images
http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/~mlvburke
lev_la...@yahoo.com.au
Graham wrote:
> "lev_la...@yahoo.com.au" wrote:
> >
> > Graham wrote:
> > > Surely, the ugliness of modern art is a good metaphor for the
> > > anti-intellectual sludge the post-modern Left calls "thought".
> >
> > You used "modern" and "postmodern" to refer to the same aesthetic
> > style.
>
> The term modern predates post-modern.
That's not the point. You were referring to the same aesthetic style.
They're not.
> Post-modern is simply a
> head-up-the-ass bullshit term for what is currently modern.
Not at all actually. It suggests suggesting a different mode of
consciousness, aesthetic expression and normative behaviour (compare
traditional auratic arrt and traditional religious moral norms to
modern realism and secularism).
> > > http://www.inoohr.org/1963communistdemands.htm
> >
> > "The following was entered into the Congressional record by Albert
> > Herlong, Jr. (a Floridian who served in Congress from 1949-69) in
> > 1963."
> >
> > In other words, someone who made it up as he went along.
>
> As anyone can see, those communist demands are in line with much of
> what the left has already achieved.
Most of them were common sense, that could be supported by liberals,
radicals or conservatives.
It is clear as day that he simply made this wish-list up in order to
fool simple people in believing that he had unearthed some
extraordinary document specifying the plans of communist takeover of
the United States. The fact is that there is no other evidence except
for his assertion that this is indeed a list orchestrated by the CP-USA
or any similar organisation.
Seems on the matter of art the Congressman had something against
abstract art. Probably didn't like bahaus or surrealism either.
> You're a liar. So, fuck off. OK?
It has often been said that on usenet that the person who resorts to
abuse has lost the argument. It seem such a proposition remains true.
Still, if you're going to quote a paranoid bible-bashing organisation
such as "The International Organization of Heterosexual Rights" as the
height of your knowledge of aesthetic matters, I would suggest you
still have some learning to do.
Have a nice day,
Lev
Max Burke
>> Enkidu wrote:
> Surely, the ugliness of modern art
>> That is a subjective POV.
> No, it's not. It's an objective fact that pseudo intellectuals find
> objectively ugly garbage attractive, when much the rest of society
> (the people who paid for it with their taxes) sees that shit for
> what it is.
>> That very subjective of you Graham.
> Today's art is ugly
Who said art has to be 'pretty?' Or not pretty for that matter...
> and you clearly have no sense of appreciation for
> that. You think you know better but you're actually the last person
> who should be deciding what monstrosities people should be forced to
> look at in public places, or what their money should be spent on.
> Elitist scumbag.
If it's elitist art then it's usually locked away where only the elite can
look at it.
> Remember the lump of concrete with steel rods sticking out of it in
> the Parliament lobby? What would you pay for something off a
> demolition site.
>> Well, I don't know what you refer to, but it got you thinking, didn't
>> it?
>> I guess the "broken colums" at the Lambton/Stout corner is
>> acceptable?
> No. The people who pay for it should decide if they even want art
> strewn around the place, and, then, what it should be.
So who decided who can say what is and isn't art?????
You? Me?
All the sculptures WCC have been buying (with ratepayers money note) are
generally accepted and wanted by most rates payers; Some ratepayers however
don't like that money being spent on particular sculptures because they're
NOT what they think as art, other ratepayers don't think the WCC should be
spending any ratepayers money on art.
Who is right here Graham?
Same for Te Papa spending several million on works of art. Who gets to
decide if that money gets spent or not when their are just as many, if not
more, wanting the money to be spent as there are that don't....
>> Why would that be?
> Well, there hasn't been a vote on it yet, so you're just pissing in
> the wind.
>>>> Unfortunately intellectuals and people who think differently,
>>>> tend to be treated with derision, especially by narrow minded
>>>> religious sheeple who can't bear to be challenged.
> It's the left-wing elite that wrongly views people with derision and
> themselves "enlightened". Because their elitism is not earned by
> merit: their pet indulgences are paid for by spending taxpayers'
> money.
Doesn't the Government collect taxes to spend????
>> Oh, OK, we got a definition of Art! It's something that was created
>> by someone, but which WASN'T paid for by central or local
>> government!! I'm glad we cleared that up.
> You're changing the subject, moron...
How?
> Politicians should stop WASTING money on unredeeming GARBAGE. Trust
> you to subordinate the interests of the many to your snobbishness and
> bogus sense of superiority. Typical leftist...
So your REAL argument is that tax payers money should only be spent on what
YOU (and those with your POV) want it to be spent on.
Why is that Graham?
> If what you claim is art is art then art no longer means anything,
For everyone? Or is that just your opinion?
> since anything can be art.
It can, when viewed in the context OF ART.
Or it can be garbage when viewed as garbage....
> This destroys art;
No it doesn't. It may well destroy what YOU think of as art, but hey not
everyone has to be/think like you....
> art is no longer anything special:.
Define what you mean by 'special'.....
> Art is a garish monstrosity or a chair sitting in an
> empty room or a few shapes on a canvas.
It's still art to those (of us) that see it as art. That's our choice, just
as it's your choice to say it isn't. Or are you saying we cannot say
something is art if you don't think it is?
If so, then you're no discussing what is, or is not art at all.
How important are the visual arts in our society? I feel strongly that the
visual arts are of vast and incalculable importance. Of course I could be
prejudiced. I am a visual art.
Kermit the Frog, muppet
Tarla
>Let me repeat what I quoted earlier:
>
>http://www.inoohr.org/1963communistdemands.htm
>
>22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of
>artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to "eliminate
>all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless,
>awkward and meaningless forms.”
>
>23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. "Our plan is to
>promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art.”
It doesn't make it any more the truth because you repeat it. This is
STILL one mans IDEA about what the communist ideals were...not any
sort of manifest written by the Communist party. In fact, many of the
post-modernist work in the old Soviet Union was quite stunning.
--
Tarla
Tarla
<Striking1...@yahoo.co.nz> wrote:
>Tarla wrote:
>> Rodin is Post-modern. If you can't see the beauty in his work, you're
>> blind and have no hands.
>
>
>I adore Rodin!!
>I love a broad range of art Tarla.
>Was your remark directed at Graham, who no doubt thinks landscapes and
>portraits are the only valid form of art?
I have no idea what he thinks are valid forms of art. He hasn't
specified any artists that he admires or dislikes.
--
Tarla
Enkidu
Delight? Could be. Could also be shock, horrify, digust, sooth,
excite. Anything really.
Art is useless if it is occasionally peered at by a bunch of
adolescents on a school trip. If it shocks and draws attention, then
it is good. Fiscally it is debatable whether the dunny broke even. How
do you measure the value of the attention that it got?
Enkidu
>Enkidu wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 15:50:02 +1300, Graham <tr@tr.r> wrote:
>>
>> >Tilly wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Graham wrote:
>> >> > Surely, the ugliness of modern art
>> >>
>> >> That is a subjective POV.
>> >
>> >No, it's not. It's an objective fact that pseudo intellectuals find
>> >objectively ugly garbage attractive, when much the rest of society
>> >(the people who paid for it with their taxes) sees that shit for what
>> >it is.
>> >
>> That very subjective of you Graham.
>
>Today's art is ugly and you clearly have no sense of appreciation for
>that. You think you know better but you're actually the last person
>who should be deciding what monstrosities people should be forced to
>look at in public places, or what their money should be spent on.
>Elitist scumbag.
>
Sweeping generalization time. "Today's art is ugly". You, with your
narrow, blinkered point of view, are trying to tell me that I've no
sense of appreciation? Dammit, I hate such arrogant, pin-headed
idiotic points of view. Gods, you probably think that Anne Geddes is
art! Well, it is I suppose of a very blinkered kind.
For you art has to be pretty, does it? Well MOST art is not pretty.
Most religious art is FAR from pretty. Much art depicts stuff like
rape and killing.
>
>> >
>> >Remember the lump of concrete with steel rods sticking out of it in
>> >the Parliament lobby? What would you pay for something off a
>> >demolition site.
>> >
>> Well, I don't know what you refer to, but it got you thinking, didn't
>> it?
>>
>> I guess the "broken colums" at the Lambton/Stout corner is acceptable?
>
>No. The people who pay for it should decide if they even want art
>strewn around the place, and, then, what it should be.
>
Are so the big beef here is that you didn't get to choose it?
>
>> Why would that be?
>
>Well, there hasn't been a vote on it yet, so you're just pissing in
>the wind.
>
Ditto.
>
>> >> Unfortunately intellectuals and people who think differently, tend to be
>> >> treated with derision, especially by narrow minded religious sheeple who
>> >> can't bear to be challenged.
>> >
>> >It's the left-wing elite that wrongly views people with derision and
>> >themselves "enlightened". Because their elitism is not earned by
>> >merit: their pet indulgences are paid for by spending taxpayers'
>> >money.
>> >
>> Oh, OK, we got a definition of Art! It's something that was created by
>> someone, but which WASN'T paid for by central or local government!!
>> I'm glad we cleared that up.
>
>You're changing the subject, moron...
>
Not at all. We are talking about art. You refer to "pet indulgences"
by which I assumed you meant their art, since this was the subject
under discussion.
>
>Politicians should stop WASTING money on unredeeming GARBAGE. Trust
>you to subordinate the interests of the many to your snobbishness and
>bogus sense of superiority. Typical leftist...
>
You're sliding away from the topic, which is that (post)modern are is
rubbish.
I don't know about snobbishness. You're the one who is going around
saying "this is art" and "that isn't art".
Matthew VII 1 - 6.
>
>If what you claim is art is art then art no longer means anything,
>since anything can be art. This destroys art; art is no longer
>anything special:.Art is a garish monstrosity or a chair sitting in an
>empty room or a few shapes on a canvas. You arrogant know-it-alls HATE
>art and simply want to define it outside the realm of appreciation by
>the masses. The more likely it is that only morons like you "like" it,
>the better the art it must be. Cocksuckers...
>
>Let me repeat what I quoted earlier:
>
>http://www.inoohr.org/1963communistdemands.htm
>
>22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of
>artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to "eliminate
>all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless,
>awkward and meaningless forms.”
>
>23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. "Our plan is to
>promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art.”
Same old, same old.
Enkidu
wrote:
>On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 15:50:02 +1300, Graham <tr@tr.r> wrote:
>
>>Tilly wrote:
>>>
>>> Graham wrote:
>>> > Surely, the ugliness of modern art
>>>
>>> That is a subjective POV.
>>
>>No, it's not. It's an objective fact that pseudo intellectuals find
>>objectively ugly garbage attractive, when much the rest of society
>>(the people who paid for it with their taxes) sees that shit for what
>>it is.
>
>You're going to have to be more specific, Graham. There are a number
>of artists within the movement. Name one that you find "ugly" (since
>there is only subjectivity when it comes to art), and perhaps we can
>discuss it, but to label a whole movement which includes hundreds of
>artists who interpret reality in completely different ways from each
>other, is simply closed-minded.
>
>>Remember the lump of concrete with steel rods sticking out of it in
>>the Parliament lobby? What would you pay for something off a
>>demolition site.
>
>Sorry, not familiar with this. Are you sure it's Post-modern?
>
Maybe it's just a post?
Enkidu
wrote:
Why do you say it is postmodern? It is very much in the modern idiom.
John B
news:18u1t051qnicoclhe...@4ax.com...
Seeing it was funded by taxpayers, you calculate how much was spent on it.
Materials, time & labour, plus all the bureaucrats involved and their salaries,
and eveything else associated with it.
Then, work out the value each and every taxpayer received from the exercise. I
think you'll find the taxpayer was diddled horribly.
--
John B
Sue Bilstein
>On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 13:43:33 +1300, Tarla <ta...@inspire.net.nz>
>wrote:
>>
>>examples of Kiwi post-modernism.
>>
>Post-modern is not a style! It's a whole new world-view. It's the
>questioning of the "truth" as represented the "stories" that people
>act out, as in the paradigms that they are embedded in. Among other
>things that is. A modern person cannot understand a postmodern one
>because their world views operate in different ways. The postmodern
>person has only limited understanding of a modern one - because most
>people come to post-modernism from modernism.
>
>Post-modernism is not a style, or even a set of styles. It's a new way
>of thinking about things. You would not refer to a suit as postmodern
>say because of its lapels, and labelling an item of art as postmodern
>is just as ludicrous and says that you don't understand it.
>
>It defies categorisation.
In my experience, a work of "modern" art can usually be understood by
looking at the work, whereas a work of post-modern art can only be
understood by reading the explanatory label on the gallery wall.
Sue Bilstein
>blind and have no hands.
Rodin, the French sculptor who worked IIRC late 19th century?
Post-modern? I sincerely doubt it.
Alex Axolotl
>> BR wrote:
>
>
>>> Enkidu <enk...@cliffp.com> wrote:
>>> Braying donkeys are not art? The crowing toilets in Candid Camera
>>> back in the 50s (60s?) were a classic piece of television art.
>
>
>> Whether or not a dunny full of braying donkeys is art, It sure as hell
>> isn't a fiscally responsible way of spending taxpayers' money.
>
>
> Why not? (see below)
>
>> So what is art? I can think of no better description than that which
>> is created to delight the observer. Even if this objective is
>> achieved, that still doesn't mean it should be funded by public money.
>
>
>
> OK so we have an observer who believes that it was fiscally responsible to
> spend $500,000 on the braying/exploding dunny that was to be sent to New
> York as an example of New Zealand art.
>
> We have another observer who says it's a complete waste of taxpayers money
> and whoever spent that money should be fired and have to pay it all back.
>
> Which observer is right BR???
>
> And yes I did go to see the braying/exploding dunny when it was
> exhibited at
> the City Gallery in Wellington last year. It was highly amusing, especially
> some of the reactions of others that were there at the time. The kids
> reactions were the best, most adults just looked embarrassed :-)
>
I doubt it, you would know more about it otherwise.
Sue Bilstein
wrote:
>Max Burke wrote:
>>
>> And yes I did go to see the braying/exploding dunny when it was
>> exhibited at
>> the City Gallery in Wellington last year. It was highly amusing, especially
>> some of the reactions of others that were there at the time. The kids
>> reactions were the best, most adults just looked embarrassed :-)
>>
>
>I doubt it, you would know more about it otherwise.
Maybe Max didn't read the labels on the gallery walls explaining it -
what do you think, Alex? I bet you did though.
grimly bubble
"Sue Bilstein" <sue_bi...@yahoop.com> wrote in message
news:gb42t05jqodrt6g09...@4ax.com...
I spent a day in the Louisiana Museum of Modern Art...it was so interesting,
so many wonderful works of art in all forms. There was an exhibition of
Modern US art that took my breath away....
Good day. Loved it.
>
Max Burke
>> Max Burke wrote:
>> OK so we have an observer who believes that it was fiscally
>> responsible to spend $500,000 on the braying/exploding dunny that
>> was to be sent to New York as an example of New Zealand art.
>> We have another observer who says it's a complete waste of taxpayers
>> money and whoever spent that money should be fired and have to pay
>> it all back. Which observer is right BR???
>> And yes I did go to see the braying/exploding dunny when it was
>> exhibited at
>> the City Gallery in Wellington last year. It was highly amusing,
>> especially some of the reactions of others that were there at the
>> time. The kids reactions were the best, most adults just looked
>> embarrassed :-)
> I doubt it, you would know more about it otherwise.
You mean it was meant to be taken seriously? ROTFLOL
Did YOU take it seriously? Really?????
Is it a work of art? Sure it is.....
Was it worth the money? IMO yes because it met all the criteria for a work
of art...
It was contriversial, made people think, and had something to say about the
society that allowed it to be created in the first place.
Max Burke
>> Alex Axolotl wrote:
>>> Max Burke wrote:
>>> And yes I did go to see the braying/exploding dunny when it was
>>> exhibited at
>>> the City Gallery in Wellington last year. It was highly amusing,
>>> especially some of the reactions of others that were there at the
>>> time. The kids reactions were the best, most adults just looked
>>> embarrassed :-)
>> I doubt it, you would know more about it otherwise.
> Maybe Max didn't read the labels on the gallery walls explaining it -
> what do you think, Alex? I bet you did though.
I prefer to consider my on 'gut reactions' to works of art BEFORE reading
what the artist or curator has written on the labels on the wall. That's
mostly advertising and/or telling me what I NEED to see and think about what
I'm seeing and thinking ;-)
BR
>>So what is art? I can think of no better description than that which
>>is created to delight the observer. Even if this objective is
>>achieved, that still doesn't mean it should be funded by public money.
>>
>Delight? Could be. Could also be shock, horrify, digust, sooth,
>excite.
>Anything really.
What about irritate and annoy? Do you think that taxpayers money
should be set aside just to irritate and annoy people?
Here's an idea. Why not dress up a dog turd in a doll's wedding dress,
then charge the public ten dollars to look at it, and maybe a further
ten dollars to be able to smell it? It would certainly be a lot
cheaper to make than a full size hee-hawing lavatory, and according to
your definition of art, it might even make a lot of money.
>Art is useless if it is occasionally peered at by a bunch of
>adolescents on a school trip. If it shocks and draws attention, then
>it is good. Fiscally it is debatable whether the dunny broke even. How
>do you measure the value of the attention that it got?
The value of the attention it got is determined by how many suckers
paid money to see it, and how much. If you think all this is such a
good idea, you could always spend your own money on a donkey dunny, or
some other idiotic nonsense, and set up your own exhibition. Maybe you
could canvass some private companies for sponsorship, and see if you
can get them to part with enough cash to recover your costs and make
the project profitable.
For the record, I do not believe that ANY taxpayer's money should be
spent on art. If a work of art is good enough, it will stand on it's
own merits without needing taxpayer's money to subsidise it.
Bill.
Enkidu
wrote:
"...I think you'll find..."?? It means that according to your
prejudices you'd like it to come out that way. I'd like to think that
it comes out the other way.
Like I said, how do you measure the value of the attention it got? If
the value of the attention that it drew to NZ is greater than the cost
you speak about, then every tax-payer benefits.
Enkidu
>On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 19:17:04 +1300, Enkidu <enk...@cliffp.com> wrote:
>
>>>So what is art? I can think of no better description than that which
>>>is created to delight the observer. Even if this objective is
>>>achieved, that still doesn't mean it should be funded by public money.
>>>
>>Delight? Could be. Could also be shock, horrify, digust, sooth,
>>excite.
>
>>Anything really.
>
>What about irritate and annoy? Do you think that taxpayers money
>should be set aside just to irritate and annoy people?
>
If they are the right people to annoy, evidently. Like John B and
Graham, certainly.
>
>Here's an idea. Why not dress up a dog turd in a doll's wedding dress,
>then charge the public ten dollars to look at it, and maybe a further
>ten dollars to be able to smell it? It would certainly be a lot
>cheaper to make than a full size hee-hawing lavatory, and according to
>your definition of art, it might even make a lot of money.
>
True. It could represent the artist's view of mariage, having just
gone through a smelly divorce. The fees could represent the central
place that the money factor takes in marriage and in art. But why a
dog's turd? Why not a human turd? Or are you saying that all women are
bitches?
Go sell the idea. It's not art unless you sell the idea and get it
performed.
>
>>Art is useless if it is occasionally peered at by a bunch of
>>adolescents on a school trip. If it shocks and draws attention, then
>>it is good. Fiscally it is debatable whether the dunny broke even. How
>>do you measure the value of the attention that it got?
>
>The value of the attention it got is determined by how many suckers
>paid money to see it, and how much. If you think all this is such a
>good idea, you could always spend your own money on a donkey dunny, or
>some other idiotic nonsense, and set up your own exhibition. Maybe you
>could canvass some private companies for sponsorship, and see if you
>can get them to part with enough cash to recover your costs and make
>the project profitable.
>
Who said it was a good idea? I was defending it against the accusation
that it wasn't art. The quality of the art in it was never raised, up
until now.
And yes, like I said above, until it actually hits the studio floor in
an exhibition, it's not art, it's just an idea.
>
>For the record, I do not believe that ANY taxpayer's money should be
>spent on art. If a work of art is good enough, it will stand on it's
>own merits without needing taxpayer's money to subsidise it.
>
I consider the govt to be no different from any other art subsidiser.
If you can persuade them to part with the sheckels, good on yer.
Cheers
Enkidu
I laughed out load at that, Sue! Very good. The crucial thing about
what the label says is that if the piece is post-modern, the label,
almost by definition, will miss the point.
Cheers,
John B
Just as your prejudices. However, I have not met one taxpayer who said they
received any value from it. You probably have. That's fine. But as you know, my
argument is only in regard to funding of "art". It should not be funded by
taxpayers dollars. Because what happens is that those holding the purse strings
get to say what is art and what is not, what is worthy and what is not etc.
Their prejudices more or less dictate what is accepted as art in the mainstream,
for want of a better term.
If art is that good, it will be of value to someone who is willing to pay for
it.
> Like I said, how do you measure the value of the attention it got? If
> the value of the attention that it drew to NZ is greater than the cost
> you speak about, then every tax-payer benefits.
You talk of meausring the value? Exactly. How do you measure something that you
have no value for? What is the value you hold for it Cliff?
What are the "extra" values kiwis get from subsidising it? Values kiwis have
never had before... what are they?
--
John B
Alex Axolotl
The outrage that it provoked and the instant urban legend that it became
was a real work of art.
The execution of it was a bit ho hum, but I did like the hydrophone
recording of the Mururoa nuclear test.
geopelia
> On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 15:56:56 +1300, Graham <tr@tr.r> wrote:
> >> >
> >> Post-modern is not a style! It's a whole new world-view. It's the
> >> questioning of the "truth" as represented the "stories" that people
> >> act out, as in the paradigms that they are embedded in. Among other
> >> things that is. A modern person cannot understand a postmodern one
> >> because their world views operate in different ways. The postmodern
> >> person has only limited understanding of a modern one - because most
> >> people come to post-modernism from modernism.
> >>
> >> Post-modernism is not a style, or even a set of styles. It's a new way
> >> of thinking about things. You would not refer to a suit as postmodern
> >> say because of its lapels, and labelling an item of art as postmodern
> >> is just as ludicrous and says that you don't understand it.
> >>
> >> It defies categorisation.
> >
> >
> >In the case of post-modern art, beauty and meaning has been flushed
> >down the toilet, complete with sounds of braying donkeys. Retard...
> >
> Thank you for confirming that you know nothing Graham. Specifically,
> you demonstrate that you know nothing of art, let alone post-modern
> art (Is there any such thing? Only in the minds of the modernist and
> their like)
>
> First tell me what a style is? Is it the way you frame an object? Is
> it the canvas that you daub your paint on? Or the medium that you use
> - water based or oil-based or mud-based? Are you going to draw lines
> around what you consider is art?
>
> What is art? Tell me that? Is it a picture in a rectangular frame? Or
> a sculture? Is it the accumulated postings of people on a newsgroup?
>
> Is Guernica by Picasso, a pinnacle of the modern, a work of beauty?
> Are you saying that if something shocks and disgusts you it is not
> art? Because that denies that the modernist Picasso's work is a work
> of art. It denies a whole host of pieces of art, all the way back to
> medieval crucifixes and beyond.
>
> Braying donkeys are not art? The crowing toilets in Candid Camera back
> in the 50s (60s?) were a classic piece of television art.
>
>
> Cliff
> --
Any kid can produce a reasonable picture of an air raid, bombers, spitfires
etc. What Picasso has done is paint what it feels like to be in a vintage
air raid. It isn't all that modern, the Spanish civil war took place in the
1930s.
geopelia
"Tarla" <ta...@inspire.net.nz> wrote in message
news:8hs1t0l7smg4nq0rg...@4ax.com...
I like communist art, those propaganda pictures of real people doing real
work were a breath of fresh air.
geopelia
"grimly bubble" <ga...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:41d1...@clear.net.nz...
Growing up in London, I spent many happy hours in the National Gallery. Now
that was real art!
If people could paint like that centuries ago, why can't they do it today?
Geopelia
Dr.Dog
Tilly wrote:
> Tarla wrote:
> > Rodin is Post-modern. If you can't see the beauty in his work,
you're
> > blind and have no hands.
>
>
> I love a broad range of art Tarla.
> Was your remark directed at Graham, who no doubt thinks landscapes
and
> portraits are the only valid form of art?
I enjoyed Enkidu's gentle teasing, which Graham missed completely. But
Rodin postmodern, Tarla? Come on. Since when?
Dog
Dr.Dog
That's only part of it, Sue. In fact it is the label that contains the
plurality of meanings and indeed is the "art" [bourgeois notion! can't
we find a better word?] on display. The adornment nearby is a mere
illustration. Think of a rock video: the "main" thing is the music,
right?
Dog
Tom Enright
"geopelia" <phil...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:sTbAd.3261$mo2.1...@news.xtra.co.nz...
> Growing up in London, I spent many happy hours in the National Gallery.
> Now
> that was real art!
> If people could paint like that centuries ago, why can't they do it today?
Modern art is an idea that is so stupid only intellectuals buy
into it. Shock, pseudo-artsy bullshit and rubbish fill the
incredible void left by lack of talent.
-Tom Enright
> Geopelia
Tom Enright
"geopelia"
>> It doesn't make it any more the truth because you repeat it. This is
>> STILL one mans IDEA about what the communist ideals were...not any
>> sort of manifest written by the Communist party. In fact, many of the
>> post-modernist work in the old Soviet Union was quite stunning.
>> --
>> Tarla
> I like communist art, those propaganda pictures of real people doing real
> work were a breath of fresh air.
The commies knew their propaganda and knew their art
as well. It is one of the many ways in which such a blood
thirsty idea could gain acceptance among the overly-educated.
Some of the posters are pretty cool, but I wouldn't have them
in my home anymore than I would have Nazi art.
-Tom Enright
Tom Enright
"John B" <
> Just as your prejudices. However, I have not met one taxpayer who said
> they
> received any value from it. You probably have. That's fine. But as you
> know, my
> argument is only in regard to funding of "art". It should not be funded by
> taxpayers dollars. Because what happens is that those holding the purse
> strings
> get to say what is art and what is not, what is worthy and what is not
> etc.
> Their prejudices more or less dictate what is accepted as art in the
> mainstream,
> for want of a better term.
>
> If art is that good, it will be of value to someone who is willing to pay
> for
> it.
<snip>
Well said. Interesting how the quality of art sharply declined once
governments became involved with funding. Another example of
the government's reverse Midas touch.
-Tom Enright
> --
> John B
>
Tom Enright
"Max Burke" <mlvb...@xxxxxxxxx.nz> wrote in message
news:41d0...@clear.net.nz...
<snip>
> So who decided who can say what is and isn't art?????
>
> You? Me?
<snip>
One of life's great questions. I wish I could come-up
with a way to create an object, idea etc. and than,
when someone points-out that it's stupid I could simply
claim that nobody is qualified to make that judgement.
All this, and living on the taxpayer's dime.
It is pure genius to take an actual pile of garbage, the
real deal; banana peels, candy wrappers, cans, tissue
etc. and call it "art" and denigrate one who calls it a
'pile of garbage.' Man, what a racket.
-Tom Enright
grimly bubble
jewellery that was reputed to be the largest display of faberge ever
gathered together. Now that is real craftsmanship, awe inspiring.
>
>
>
>
grimly bubble
"Tom Enright" <then...@komBOINKcast.nYet> wrote in message
news:GbCdnUXU7dL...@comcast.com...
Disagree about a lot of the works I saw in Lousinana Museum of Modern art.
Some of the exhibits were very complex and beautiful as well as thought
provoking and delightful.
>
> -Tom Enright
>
> > Geopelia
>
>
Tarla
Ritchie's work doesn't require labels. As I've pointed out elsewhere
in this thread, O'Keefe, Klimt, Rodin, are all "Post-modern" I've
never needed a label to understand their works.
--
Tarla
Tarla
wrote:
And they are technically brilliant.
--
Tarla
Tarla
I used to have a beautiful Communist Chinese poster in my house ( I
wonder where it went?) of people working a communal fishpond. The
Chinese train their painters extremely well in my observation. The
work of the Chinese artists that I've seen in NZ is nothing short of
gorgeous every time.
--
Tarla
Tarla
wrote:
Absolutely Dog. Just because he died in '17, doesn't mean he wasn't
one of the fathers of the movement. Look at "She Who Was the
Helmet-Maker's Beautiful Wife" and tell me that it lacks a postmodern
sensibility.
--
Tarla
Tarla
>On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 16:44:07 +1300, Tarla <ta...@inspire.net.nz>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 14:36:23 +1300, "Tilly"
>><Striking1...@yahoo.co.nz> wrote:
>>
>>>Graham wrote:
>>>> Surely, the ugliness of modern art
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>That is a subjective POV. I feel sorry for people who are such intellectual
>>>dwarves they can't see the beauty in a Moore or Hepworth sculpture or in a
>>>great modern painting. Just because an artist doesn't paint what appeals to
>>>you personally doesn't make it crap.
>>
>>Rodin is Post-modern. If you can't see the beauty in his work, you're
>>blind and have no hands.
>>
>Why do you say it is postmodern? It is very much in the modern idiom.
I disagree, Cliff. His timing is modern but his subject matter and
execution are very deconstructionist. He tears down beauty into its
essentials. He presents officials in ways that question their ethics
and authority. I consider him one of the direct precursors of the
movement.
--
Tarla
Tarla
Any Sargeant paintings?
This is how I judge other artists: Do you like Sargeant? If you say
no, then you are likely to not be the kind of artist whose work I will
enjoy. If you say yes, then you have an understanding of technique and
subject matter that tells me I will like your stuff.
--
Tarla
Tarla
wrote:
Some of us still can, Geo. But it takes years of study and most people
aren't willing to go through that. They'd rather slap some shit around
on a canvas and look down their noses at you when you can't understand
what their point is.
--
Tarla
Dr.Dog
I can't see it, myself. It's just an excellent example of realism. I
see no challenge to metanarratives here; no irony; no illusion.
Dog
BR
>On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 22:37:53 +1300, BR <bugg...@spammer.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 19:17:04 +1300, Enkidu <enk...@cliffp.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>So what is art? I can think of no better description than that which
>>>>is created to delight the observer. Even if this objective is
>>>>achieved, that still doesn't mean it should be funded by public money.
>>>>
>>>Delight? Could be. Could also be shock, horrify, digust, sooth,
>>>excite.
>>
>>>Anything really.
>>
>>What about irritate and annoy? Do you think that taxpayers money
>>should be set aside just to irritate and annoy people?
>>
>If they are the right people to annoy, evidently. Like John B and
>Graham, certainly.
Evidently?
So who gets to decide that? You obviously believe that public money
should be earmarked to annoy the people that YOU don't approve of. Is
this one of the reasons for your support of the current government?
>>Here's an idea. Why not dress up a dog turd in a doll's wedding dress,
>>then charge the public ten dollars to look at it, and maybe a further
>>ten dollars to be able to smell it? It would certainly be a lot
>>cheaper to make than a full size hee-hawing lavatory, and according to
>>your definition of art, it might even make a lot of money.
>>
>True. It could represent the artist's view of mariage, having just
>gone through a smelly divorce. The fees could represent the central
>place that the money factor takes in marriage and in art. But why a
>dog's turd? Why not a human turd? Or are you saying that all women are bitches?
Fuck you talk some shit, Cliff. Would you pay twenty bucks to view and
smell the afore-mentioned object on the basis of that ridiculous sales
pitch?
>Go sell the idea. It's not art unless you sell the idea and get it
>performed.
Why isn't it? You are saying that if something doesn't come complete
with a sales campaign, then it isn't art, irrespective of whether
someone gets some pleasure out of it or not. If you have ever
described yourself as any kind of artist, then you are a liar, a cheat
and a fraud.
>>>Art is useless if it is occasionally peered at by a bunch of
>>>adolescents on a school trip. If it shocks and draws attention, then
>>>it is good.
Why is such a thing necessarily good?
>>>Fiscally it is debatable whether the dunny broke even. How
>>>do you measure the value of the attention that it got?
So how much money did the dunny make?
>>The value of the attention it got is determined by how many suckers
>>paid money to see it, and how much. If you think all this is such a
>>good idea, you could always spend your own money on a donkey dunny, or
>>some other idiotic nonsense, and set up your own exhibition. Maybe you
>>could canvass some private companies for sponsorship, and see if you
>>can get them to part with enough cash to recover your costs and make
>>the project profitable.
>>
>Who said it was a good idea?
You said: "If it shocks and draws attention, then it is good."
>I was defending it against the accusation
>that it wasn't art. The quality of the art in it was never raised, up
>until now.
So on what basis does the government decide what is worthy of an arts
grant and what is not. If it isn't based on quality, what is it based
on?
>And yes, like I said above, until it actually hits the studio floor in
>an exhibition, it's not art, it's just an idea.
>>For the record, I do not believe that ANY taxpayer's money should be
>>spent on art. If a work of art is good enough, it will stand on it's
>>own merits without needing taxpayer's money to subsidise it.
>>
>I consider the govt to be no different from any other art subsidiser.
>If you can persuade them to part with the sheckels, good on yer.
You would, given your cavalier attitude to other people's money. If
cheats and conmen like yourself are the likely beneficiaries of public
money, then that fact alone makes a compelling case for the total
abolition of government sponsored arts grants.
Bill.
geopelia
Some of the German propaganda art in early Nazi times, of healthy young
families enjoying the outdoors etc, was pretty good too.
Maybe the unlamented Adolf should have stuck to art. Churchill was a better
painter though.
Decide wars by a painting contest? Now there's an idea!
Geopelia
geopelia
I remember an exhibition in London by Klee. They hung one picture upside
down and nobody noticed for quite a while! He could paint real art as well
though, and so could Picasso.
There were some very good paintings in the Auckland War Memorial Museum last
time I went there.
Geopelia
Tilly
>on. Since when?
>
> Absolutely Dog. Just because he died in '17, doesn't mean he wasn't
> one of the fathers of the movement. Look at "She Who Was the
> Helmet-Maker's Beautiful Wife" and tell me that it lacks a postmodern
> sensibility.
I disagree Tarla, it really can't be classified as post modern. I am
struggling to see how you can possibly say it is.
--
Tilly
Tarla
wrote:
Absolutely. But I think you might mean "realistic" 'cause I consider
all of Picasso's work to be "real art."
>
>There were some very good paintings in the Auckland War Memorial Museum last
>time I went there.
And a couple of beautiful sculptures. I wonder if they still have them
jammed up against a wall so that you can't walk around them?
--
Tarla
Tarla
wrote:
Well, no illusion maybe, but certainly irony (even in the title of the
piece), and hardly realistic in the same sense as his contemporary,
Barye.
--
Tarla
Tilly
> Growing up in London, I spent many happy hours in the National
> Gallery. Now that was real art!
> If people could paint like that centuries ago, why can't they do it
> today?
They can paint like that and many of them do Geopelia, however they paint in
the style that best helps them express what they are trying to say. Great
paintings are not just those of the centuries old great masters.
Just to give a cople of obvious but brief examples . What about
Impressionists such as Monet and Van Gogh , aren't they exceptional? What
about Picasso-whether you like his work or not he was a great master.
Tilly
Tilly
> Today's art is ugly and you clearly have no sense of appreciation for
> that. You think you know better but you're actually the last person
> who should be deciding what monstrosities people should be forced to
> look at in public places, or what their money should be spent on.
> Elitist scumbag.
>
Graham what sort of art do you think should be exhibited in public places?
Sculptures of Jesus on the Cross at every intersection ? <sigh>
--
Tilly
Tilly
>
> Some of the German propaganda art in early Nazi times, of healthy
> young families enjoying the outdoors etc, was pretty good too.
You can't be serious? It was terrible, truly terrible.
> Maybe the unlamented Adolf should have stuck to art.
Adolf was a shockingly bad artist. He didn't even master perspective.
He was so he was refused entrance to Art School on more than one occasion
which is why he then became involved in politics.
Last year in Berlin they had an exhibition of Adolf's art .Those that saw it
had nothing nice to say about Adolfs 'talent'.He was a bad amateur.
Churchill was a
> better painter though.
That wouldn't be difficult.
--
Tilly
Tilly
> If what you claim is art is art then art no longer means anything,
> since anything can be art.
Art is in the mind of the beholder Graham. Simple really.
This destroys art; art is no longer
> anything special:.
Only in your mind.
Art is a garish monstrosity or a chair sitting in an
> empty room or a few shapes on a canvas. You arrogant know-it-alls HATE
> art and simply want to define it outside the realm of appreciation by
> the masses.
The masses? Perhaps you should look at the walls in the average house
Graham. I hate to say it but IMO the majority of people have junky /garish
reproductions on their walls.
The more likely it is that only morons like you "like" it,
> the better the art it must be. Cocksuckers...
That remark is as stupid asothers saying 'if Graham likes it ,it must be
shit', although that's not beyond the realms of possibility.Next thing you
will be telling us what music is worthwhile and what we should listen to.
>
> Let me repeat what I quoted earlier:
>
> http://www.inoohr.org/1963communistdemands.htm
>
> 22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of
> artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to "eliminate
> all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless,
> awkward and meaningless forms."
>
> 23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. "Our plan is to
> promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art."
Relevance to the present? Are you suggesting American Communist cells
changed the course of art in America?? ..Really????
--
Tilly
Enkidu
wrote:
>
>> >Then, work out the value each and every taxpayer received from the exercise.
>> >I think you'll find the taxpayer was diddled horribly.
>> >
>> "...I think you'll find..."?? It means that according to your
>> prejudices you'd like it to come out that way. I'd like to think that
>> it comes out the other way.
>
>Just as your prejudices.
Agreed.
>However, I have not met one taxpayer who said they
>received any value from it. You probably have. That's fine. But as you know, my
>argument is only in regard to funding of "art". It should not be funded by
>taxpayers dollars. Because what happens is that those holding the purse strings
>get to say what is art and what is not, what is worthy and what is not etc.
>Their prejudices more or less dictate what is accepted as art in the mainstream,
>for want of a better term.
>
Yes, that's true (though I'd put a different spin on it to the one you
used! <grin>) But art is not *only* subsided by local and central
government. It's subsidised from many many sources.
>
>If art is that good, it will be of value to someone who is willing to pay for
>it.
>
People buy "art" whatever that is all the time.
>
>> Like I said, how do you measure the value of the attention it got? If
>> the value of the attention that it drew to NZ is greater than the cost
>> you speak about, then every tax-payer benefits.
>
>You talk of meausring the value? Exactly. How do you measure something that you
>have no value for? What is the value you hold for it Cliff?
>
If you are trying to sell to an American and he's seen the dunny thing
or heard about it. He knows it comes from NZ. He may think it's
rubbish. But he KNOWS that NZ, although he may think that we have a
strange sense of art and humuor. That sort of opening is invaluable
and the value incalculable.
>
>What are the "extra" values kiwis get from subsidising it? Values kiwis have
>never had before... what are they?
>
It may provide a salesman an opening where there was not one before.
Cheers,
Cliff
--
The National Party manifesto can be viewed here:
Dr.Dog
That's a hell of a reach. The title isn't ironic in the least. It's as
realistic as "The Thinker." It carries the same weight as his
near-contemporary, Daumier. Please tell me what's "postmodern" about
this piece again?
Dog
Tilly
<clipped>
> Adolf was a shockingly bad artist. He didn't even master perspective.
> He was so
Correction: He was so bad he was refused entrance to Art School despite
applying several times.
>
> Last year in Berlin they had an exhibition of Adolf's art .Those that
> saw it had nothing nice to say about Adolfs 'talent'.He was a bad
> amateur.
INSERT: In fact most people who went to the exhibition on Nazi Art went to
see just how bad it was. They weren't disappointed.
Tilly
>>
>> Rodin is Post-modern. If you can't see the beauty in his work, you're
>> blind and have no hands.
>
> Post-modern? I sincerely doubt it.
I agree.
When I lived in Zurich I regularly visited the Zurich Cathedral, which has
wonderful Chagall stained glass windows and Rodin sculptures. I could never
get enough of it.
It was even better if the choir was rehearsing (with the organist)!
Bliss!!!!!!--
Tilly
John B
news:vlr3t0tktbuus3dod...@4ax.com...
So you can't actually define the values can you? No wonder you can't measure it.
However, if you measure the costs and incomes, you'll find there are certain
people getting rich from it all, but the taxpayer in general receives no
definable benefit or net value gain at all.
It's all hoopla flim-flam bullshit.
--
John B
Enkidu
>>>
>>>What about irritate and annoy? Do you think that taxpayers money
>>>should be set aside just to irritate and annoy people?
>>>
>>If they are the right people to annoy, evidently. Like John B and
>>Graham, certainly.
>
>Evidently?
>
>So who gets to decide that? You obviously believe that public money
>should be earmarked to annoy the people that YOU don't approve of. Is
>this one of the reasons for your support of the current government?
>
aside money for art, then I don't believe that it should all be the
Anne Geddes/Suki Turner's portait type of stuff. At least some of it
should be stuff that would confuse and alarm the likes of John B and
Graham, as does the dunny sculpture.
>
>>>Here's an idea. Why not dress up a dog turd in a doll's wedding dress,
>>>then charge the public ten dollars to look at it, and maybe a further
>>>ten dollars to be able to smell it? It would certainly be a lot
>>>cheaper to make than a full size hee-hawing lavatory, and according to
>>>your definition of art, it might even make a lot of money.
>>>
>>True. It could represent the artist's view of mariage, having just
>>gone through a smelly divorce. The fees could represent the central
>>place that the money factor takes in marriage and in art. But why a
>>dog's turd? Why not a human turd? Or are you saying that all women are bitches?
>
>Fuck you talk some shit, Cliff. Would you pay twenty bucks to view and
>smell the afore-mentioned object on the basis of that ridiculous sales
>pitch?
>
don't think that I'd lick it though.
>
>>Go sell the idea. It's not art unless you sell the idea and get it
>>performed.
>
>Why isn't it? You are saying that if something doesn't come complete
>with a sales campaign, then it isn't art, irrespective of whether
>someone gets some pleasure out of it or not. If you have ever
>described yourself as any kind of artist, then you are a liar, a cheat
>and a fraud.
>
of art into an exhibition, which often costs money, than a actual
sales campaign. But in a sense a work of art IS a sales campaign. The
artist has to sell his ideas to the public by concreting his ideas
into a physical object.
>
>>>>Art is useless if it is occasionally peered at by a bunch of
>>>>adolescents on a school trip. If it shocks and draws attention, then
>>>>it is good.
>
>Why is such a thing necessarily good?
>
though, it is definitely , um, not good.
>
>>>>Fiscally it is debatable whether the dunny broke even. How
>>>>do you measure the value of the attention that it got?
>
>So how much money did the dunny make?
>
the value of the attention it got?
>
>>>The value of the attention it got is determined by how many suckers
>>>paid money to see it, and how much. If you think all this is such a
>>>good idea, you could always spend your own money on a donkey dunny, or
>>>some other idiotic nonsense, and set up your own exhibition. Maybe you
>>>could canvass some private companies for sponsorship, and see if you
>>>can get them to part with enough cash to recover your costs and make
>>>the project profitable.
>>>
>>Who said it was a good idea?
>
>You said: "If it shocks and draws attention, then it is good."
>
and it would not be art, would it? It would just be an attempt to
shock and provoke.
>
>>I was defending it against the accusation
>>that it wasn't art. The quality of the art in it was never raised, up
>>until now.
>
>So on what basis does the government decide what is worthy of an arts
>grant and what is not. If it isn't based on quality, what is it based
>on?
>
>>And yes, like I said above, until it actually hits the studio floor in
>>an exhibition, it's not art, it's just an idea.
>
>>>For the record, I do not believe that ANY taxpayer's money should be
>>>spent on art. If a work of art is good enough, it will stand on it's
>>>own merits without needing taxpayer's money to subsidise it.
>>>
>>I consider the govt to be no different from any other art subsidiser.
>>If you can persuade them to part with the sheckels, good on yer.
>
>You would, given your cavalier attitude to other people's money. If
>cheats and conmen like yourself are the likely beneficiaries of public
>money, then that fact alone makes a compelling case for the total
>abolition of government sponsored arts grants.
>
say in who gets the arts money and I'd want it to stay that way. If I
was the Govt I'd want to spread the arts load by involving a few large
companies and getting them to co-sponsor stuff.
A L P
> No, not true. By saying that the postmodern paradigm differs from the
> modern, is to misunderstand the paradigm, and the concept of paradigm
> completely. From his reactionary point-of-view (as opposed to his
> embedding paradigm), Graham is in a gloriously postmodern way
> absolutely correct. To someone who doesn't understand the postmodern
> Graham's statement is both logical and correct. To someone with an
> inkling of the postmodern the shift in paradigm is apparent, leaving
> Graham, firmly embedded in the not-so modern.
>
Classic! ROFLMAO!
A L P
Enkidu
wrote:
Symbolic, non-realistic, call it what you will, is modern, not
post-modern.
A L P
>
>
> The term modern predates post-modern. Post-modern is simply a
> head-up-the-ass bullshit term for what is currently modern.
>
Yeah right.
Like Post Shop is a bullshit term for fencing contractors' emporium.
A L P.
A L P
>
> Most inspiring exhibit I have ever seen was an exhibition of Faberge'
> jewellery that was reputed to be the largest display of faberge ever
> gathered together. Now that is real craftsmanship, awe inspiring.
>
I do miss craftsmanship. Art underpinned by mastery of the craft may not
be prettier or more challenging (or less) but it has depth that seems to
communicate even to those who are made angry by its form.
"My kid could do that" - and so could I, but I couldn't think like
McCahon or Hotere. I wouldn't know what rules I was breaking or why,
what effect I wanted to achieve. I could be a Me-too in the queue for
Mary-Kate'n'Ashley shiny fame. Would I be satisfied with that? Would
it go with the degree certificate from the John Davy Academy of Personal
Fraudulence?
A L P
A L P
A L P
>
> I like communist art, those propaganda pictures of real people doing real
> work were a breath of fresh air.
>
>
Did you ever see Lindsay Crooks' "Celebrating the NZ worker" series?
Bright, jolly, like his beach paintings. Fruit pickers, shearers at
work - a whole lot. Available as postcards too.
A L P
A L P
>
> I prefer to consider my on 'gut reactions' to works of art BEFORE
> reading what the artist or curator has written on the labels on the
> wall. That's mostly advertising and/or telling me what I NEED to see and
> think about what I'm seeing and thinking ;-)
>
I'm so over the cult of the curator. Enough already. If the artist
can't create a work of art that says what they want to say so it has to
be re-said in words, they're in the wrong business. And I don't want
some bossy-boots curator "making the connections" and "contextualising"
and all that other stuff that means getting between the artist and the
audience. If I can't understand something but think it looks like it's
worth the effort I'll ask, thanks. Till I do I'd be grateful if the
hired help would shut the fuck up.
A L P
A L P
>
> Any kid can produce a reasonable picture of an air raid, bombers, spitfires
> etc. What Picasso has done is paint what it feels like to be in a vintage
> air raid. It isn't all that modern, the Spanish civil war took place in the
> 1930s.
>
Well said! That's the magic, isn't it, when you see something that
makes a connection between the artist's experience and your own. Colin
McCahon's Otago panels did that for me. showed me the shape of my own
patch in a way I'd never seen it before.
The endless parade of novelty doesn't appeal to me, ever more gimmickry
to which a profound meaning *can* be attached if everyone tries hard
enough. I am tired of going to galleries and coming away not enriched
but in fact the opposite, as I have used up time in which I might have
been gardening or watching old tapes of Coronation Street - anything bar
dealing with the door-to-door God-peddlers would enrich my life more.
When I'm made Art Diktator for Life I'm going to ban novelty for at
least 10 years.
A L P
Tilly
that still doesn't mean it should be funded by public money.
>
Then nothing should be sponsored by public money, including sport,any of the
arts, media. Nothing.
--
Tilly
A L P
This is the justification for all sorts of strange expenditure.
Currently we in Dunedin are likely to get lumbered with an extra $50-odd
on our rates to refurbish Carisbrook. This, we are told, will allow the
Rugby Union to carry on its private business and the spin-offs will be
of value to the rest of us. May-b-e----
But there is another thing that should be considered. Is that the BEST
way we can publicise Dunedin, attract people here, increase jobs etc for
that amount of money? In my opinion it is not.
ANYthing that is noticed overseas will imprint "NZ" on the viewer. Is
the dunny the BEST vehicle for doing this imprinting? Is it the best
value for money? Is it likely to give the added value of suggesting
that NZ represents beauty, intelligence, sophisticated tastes - or might
it suggest gullibility, silliness, the spiritual home of the fart cushion?
A L P
> geopelia wrote:
>
>> Some of the German propaganda art in early Nazi times, of healthy
>> young families enjoying the outdoors etc, was pretty good too.
>
>
>
> You can't be serious? It was terrible, truly terrible.
>
healthy young people etc minus knowledge of the social outcome are just
pictures of healthy young people, executed well.
How much knowledge of the socio-political surroundings of an art work is
enough and how much is too much? Must we condemn a poem because the
poet beat his wife?
I believe that it is important to acknowledge vileness where it exists
and condemn it, but not to bracket all the actions of a person who does
something vile along with their good works. Otherwise we will get the
misleading impression that there are black hats and white hats and
that's all there is to be known about folk.
What if the plumber who is always prepared to come out and fix
emergencies any hour of the day or night, weekends, Christmas, and
doesn't charge an arm and a leg, turns out to also have raped his
children? Does that detract from his trade skills or his obligingness?
Are his crimes against the children less terrible because he is in
many other ways a good man?
Do artists with bad beliefs create bad art? If so it must follow that
artists with good attitudes create good art and I find that hard to
justify on the evidence to hand.
>
>
>> Maybe the unlamented Adolf should have stuck to art.
>
>
> Adolf was a shockingly bad artist. He didn't even master
> perspective.
So did Beryl Cook. In one of her books she wrote about her struggles
with a black and white tiled floor, and in the painting you can see she
never did quite get it sussed.
> He was so he was refused entrance to Art School on more
> than one occasion which is why he then became involved in politics.
>
> Last year in Berlin they had an exhibition of Adolf's art .Those that
> saw it had nothing nice to say about Adolfs 'talent'.He was a bad
> amateur.
>
He was also, unlike most bad amateurs, a man responsible for some of the
ugliest episodes in recorded history. Most bad amateur artists are
quite nice people.
Probably most politicians are too, though I don't know enough personally
to judge.
People are mixed. Most have a mixture of fairly good and fairly bad;
some have extremely bad in their makeup.
It's misleading and potentially dangerous to believe that the only
people who are dangerous are somehow "other" in their badness. They
aren't, they are like the rest of us. It's no good looking out for the
bad *person* and thinking that if s/he is taken out of circulation we're
safe. We need instead to be on the watch for the badness that may come
to the fore in even the nicest people and best artists, and in the
meantime celebrate the good, whoever did it.
A L P
geopelia
"A L P" <blue...@clear.nest.nz> wrote in message
news:41d2...@clear.net.nz...
Put in a toilet pan and connect it to the plumbing. Let it perform the
function Dunnies are supposed to provide.
Put a coin operated catch on it, say for $1, and let people pay for the
honour of using it. That way over the years it will earn its keep!
Geopelia
Alex Axolotl
The dunny going overseas is urban legend, but the effectiveness of the
piece was the provocation.
Perhaps people who wouldn't normally go to the City Gallery went along
on the back of the media exposure, looked at the rest of the
exhibitions, stayed in town, did other things, payed for their parking,
became more regular patrons, and contributed to the city centre economy.
In the same way the rugby ground upgrade may contribute the way the
Welly stadium has by changing the demographic of the patrons more
towards visiting mixed groups than solo males. More visitors can raise
the standard of the environment for residents even if they aren't
actively participating in the muddy oafish spectacle.
geopelia
No, I don't know those, but I've only been here since 1959. I'll see if they
are on Google Images.
Geopelia
geopelia
Propaganda art has to be good and inspiring to get the messge across. Back
in the thirties it took the place that today is filled by government
advertisng on TV.
Geopelia
geopelia
"Tilly" <Striking1...@yahoo.co.nz> wrote in message
news:%xlAd.3317$mo2.1...@news.xtra.co.nz...
> geopelia wrote:
> > Growing up in London, I spent many happy hours in the National
> > Gallery. Now that was real art!
> > If people could paint like that centuries ago, why can't they do it
> > today?
>
>
> They can paint like that and many of them do Geopelia, however they paint
in
> the style that best helps them express what they are trying to say. Great
> paintings are not just those of the centuries old great masters.
> Impressionists such as Monet and Van Gogh , aren't they exceptional? What
> about Picasso-whether you like his work or not he was a great master.
>
>
>
>
> Tilly
>
> striking1...@yahoo.co.nz
The Impressionists and Van Gogh are great. You can see what they are meant
to
be, painted in their individual styles.
I like Surrealism too, though some of it is quite extraordinary stuff.
What I don't like are these weird works where paint is just thrown or
dribbled on the canvas, and nobody has a clue what they are supposed to be,
unless some clever critic tells them. As for McCahon's graffiti, well I
won't say what I think of that! Give me a Goldie any day.
Geopelia
Tom Enright
"Tilly"
> Adolf was a shockingly bad artist. He didn't even master perspective.
> He was so he was refused entrance to Art School on more than one occasion
> which is why he then became involved in politics.
>
> Last year in Berlin they had an exhibition of Adolf's art .Those that saw
> it
> had nothing nice to say about Adolfs 'talent'.He was a bad amateur.
No he wasn't. He was not very good compared to his contemporaries, but
he certainly was not a "bad amateur." Could he duplicate the great
masters?
No way. But he easily good produce 99% of what passes for "modern art"
today.
-Tom Enright
> --
> Tilly
>
> striking1...@yahoo.co.nz
>
>
Tilly
> Tilly wrote:
>> geopelia wrote:
>>
>>> Some of the German propaganda art in early Nazi times, of healthy
>>> young families enjoying the outdoors etc, was pretty good too.
>>
>>
>>
>> You can't be serious? It was terrible, truly terrible.
>>
> Don't you think that's because we know what it led to?
No, I was referring to the artistic ability.Adolf's was just plain lousy. He
had none worth speaking about..
The pictures
> of healthy young people etc minus knowledge of the social outcome are
> just pictures of healthy young people, executed well.
They weren't even executed well. That is what I am referring to.
ALP Wagner was a rabid anti-semite and a bigot ,but that doesn't take away
from the fact he was a fantastic composer ,whether you like his music or
not.His influence on music was profound.
> How much knowledge of the socio-political surroundings of an art work
> is enough and how much is too much? Must we condemn a poem because
> the poet beat his wife?
>
> I believe that it is important to acknowledge vileness where it exists
> and condemn it, but not to bracket all the actions of a person who
> does something vile along with their good works. Otherwise we will
> get the misleading impression that there are black hats and white
> hats and that's all there is to be known about folk.
>
> What if the plumber who is always prepared to come out and fix
> emergencies any hour of the day or night, weekends, Christmas, and
> doesn't charge an arm and a leg, turns out to also have raped his
> children? Does that detract from his trade skills or his
> obligingness? Are his crimes against the children less terrible
> because he is in
> many other ways a good man?
The above is irrelevant. I was referrring to artistic ability nothing else.
>
> Do artists with bad beliefs create bad art? If so it must follow that
> artists with good attitudes create good art and I find that hard to
> justify on the evidence to hand.
You said it, I didn't.AFAIK nobody has even suggested it.
The fact it that Adolf was a really lousy artist ,so were most of the
painters he admired and/or commisssioned.
>
>>
>>
>>> Maybe the unlamented Adolf should have stuck to art.
>>
>>
>> Adolf was a shockingly bad artist. He didn't even master
>> perspective.
>
> So did Beryl Cook. In one of her books she wrote about her struggles
> with a black and white tiled floor, and in the painting you can see
> she never did quite get it sussed.
She produced some original well executed paintings ALP. Hitler and his
cronies didn't.That is the difference.
>> He was so he was refused entrance to Art School on more
>> than one occasion which is why he then became involved in politics.
>>
>> Last year in Berlin they had an exhibition of Adolf's art .Those that
>> saw it had nothing nice to say about Adolfs 'talent'.He was a bad
>> amateur.
>>
> He was also, unlike most bad amateurs, a man responsible for some of
> the ugliest episodes in recorded history. Most bad amateur artists
> are quite nice people.
Who suggested most amateur artists aren't nice?
<clipped>
>
> A L P
--
Tilly