postmodernist disney?
sirb...@hotmail.com
mani mani, are they drawn well?
Mounard le Fuogueux
> http://www.cartoonholiday.com/new/ds17/gallery1.html
>
> mani mani, are they drawn well?
>
sirblob
> sirbl...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >http://www.cartoonholiday.com/new/ds17/gallery1.html
>
> > mani mani, are they drawn well?
>
> the greatest 20th century artists. No joke, he actually does.
lol!
Mani Deli
wrote:
>sirb...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> http://www.cartoonholiday.com/new/ds17/gallery1.html
>>
>> mani mani, are they drawn well?
>
>You may or may not know this, but mani believes that Walt Disney was one of
>the greatest 20th century artists. No joke, he actually does.
Correct, among other great animators. Not a joke like Picasso and AE
bullshit.
You'll notice that Marcus has nothing to show and I suspect never
will.
Mani Deli
In fact none of you have any artwork to show.
sirblob
> On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 09:21:59 -0400, Mounard le Fuogueux
>
> >sirbl...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>http://www.cartoonholiday.com/new/ds17/gallery1.html
>
> >> mani mani, are they drawn well?
>
> >no skill - no art
>
> In fact none of you have any artwork to show.
can i moon at the webcam and stick it on youtube?
sirblob
> On 20 Mar 2007 12:32:17 GMT, marcusdenn...@yahoo.com(Marcus Denning)
> wrote:
>
> >sirbl...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>http://www.cartoonholiday.com/new/ds17/gallery1.html
>
> >> mani mani, are they drawn well?
>
> >You may or may not know this, but mani believes that Walt Disney was one of
> >the greatest 20th century artists. No joke, he actually does.
>
> Correct, among other great animators. Not a joke like Picasso and AE
> bullshit.
>
> You'll notice that Marcus has nothing to show and I suspect never
> will.
mani, you're imploding; you're the zidane and materazzi of the gcse
art class.
James Whitehead
"sirblob" <sirb...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1174429576.0...@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
No! he's saying that Disney is a greater artist than Picasso - that's pure
po-mo art theory...
Mani Deli
>mani, you're imploding; you're the zidane and materazzi of the gcse
>art class.
Surslob is starting to sputter.
Mani Deli
<some...@overtherainbow.com> wrote:
>
>No! he's saying that Disney is a greater artist than Picasso - that's pure
>po-mo art theory...
>
Your failure to show any artwork is impure POMO.
James Whitehead
"Mani Deli" <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:v5q203p6ifgoe48ju...@4ax.com...
Thats good then...
sirb...@hotmail.com
oh my god, you're my soulmate, for i do also believe arcade fire are
full of shit!!!!
Mani Deli
<some...@overtherainbow.com> wrote:
>
>"Mani Deli" <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>news:v5q203p6ifgoe48ju...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 07:29:38 -0000, "James Whitehead"
>> <some...@overtherainbow.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >No! he's saying that Disney is a greater artist than Picasso - that's
>pure
>> >po-mo art theory...
>> >
>>
>> Your failure to show any artwork is impure POMO.
>
>Thats good then...
--as an average phoney philosophical excuse for failure.
spira...@yahoo.com
(and have read through many previous months of spar-filled postings).
IMHO, Mani Deli is the only one who consistently has principles
grounded in reason - and artistic experience. His website is brilliant
and whether you like his art or not really doesn't matter. He's
learned to draw, compose, and make decisions about value, color, and
concept. He's even gone further than that. He's taken the ideas inside
his head and used the skills he has refined through years of practice
to produce imagery. Imagery that in most ways is virtually superior
to almost any "master" of the 20th century. He is one of the few here
who has earned his credentials and consequently I think his opionion
is more valid as a result. If you disagree - show me your 'art' and
then I can respect your opinion more or less if your art sucks. I
would predict that most of the posters here are really posers that
can't draw or paint. Mani continuously battles the obscene arguments
weilded out of ignorance here and I'm suprised so many seemingly
intelligent people are unwilling to consider his arguments as valid in
spite of his talents and well articulated thoughts. I fully support
Mani's position and hope to learn from him in an effort to make my art
better - better for myself but more importantly better for humanity.
If you don't understand the last sentence, maybe you shouldn't be
posting here at all.
If we're lucky, Burt Young will weigh in (I'm obviously just kidding).
skilled artists are the best judges of great art.
James Whitehead
the double negative - bad po-mo = good mo
*Anarcissie*
> to assign posters silly names, effectively demolishing their arguments.
Mani is your resident troll. Many newsgroups have one. They
insure that the discussion won't ever emerge from the most
basic gutter talk, at least not for long. The question is, why do
people pay so much attention to trolls? I guess they have
nothing better to do.
James Whitehead
who himself was a fraud
There is no point in showing you *any* art - until you learn to see why
Mani's work isn't art in the generally accepted sense. If you and he are off
on a "we know something - and the whole of western civilization is wrong -
then fine - no more to say. And i'm not being impolite - just pointing out
a fact - every 19 year old arts student writes an original "wasteland" -
etc etc.
<spira...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1174541513.4...@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
spira...@yahoo.com
>who himself was a fraud
It seems to me that the frauds in this group are the ignorant posters
who have nothing to back up their "genius" with other than the
tiresome arguments that perpetuate the modern art lies. Like a bunch
of armchair quaterbacks - or more appropriately, "armchair artists" -
drinking beer and postulating on what comprises great art. Having
never played the game, or perhaps unable to play well results in
opinions that cannot be trusted and are consequently less valid. This
includes most art critics. I give Mani's opinion more credence because
he has at the very least made an effort to understand art and
aesthetics through practice and not solely theory.
Anyway, to get back on the Dali Fraud statement, would you please help
me to understand which well known 20th Century artist was more
authentic, more technically competent, and possessed more genius than
Dali?
>There is no point in showing you *any* art - until you learn to see why
>Mani's work isn't art in the generally accepted sense.
In other words, if something is "generally accepted" it must be true.
Like the fact that it was once "generally accepted" that the world was
flat or that volcanos were the consequence of an angry god. Once I
"learn" to understand art through your inexperienced mind and eyes
(which have been well conditioned through the forces of capitalism), I
will rebuke Mani and join your camp. Once I learn that art founded on
technical incompetence, weak concepts, rhetoric, dogma, and lies is
really the best art, you will show me your work and I will like it.
This sounds very appealing to me considering I have spent my life
seeking the true nature of art and aesthetics.
Please educate me.
>If you and he are off
>on a "we know something - and the whole of western civilization is wrong -
>then fine - no more to say. And i'm not being impolite - just pointing out
>a fact - every 19 year old arts student writes an original "wasteland" -
>etc etc.
Since there seems to be some major abhorrence of actually "learning
the rules of aesthetics through practice" I would at least recommend
reading Dali's book "50 Secrets of Magic Craftsmanship" or DaVinci, "A
Treatise on Painting".
And then to continue on a quest for answers about aesthetics and
authenticity, lets consult the old dead guys even though they had very
little impact on Western Civilization's thinking:
Plato: "The Arts and Measure" (from "Statesman"), "The Love of
Beauty" (from "Symposium")
Aristotle: "What is Art" (found in "Metaphysics") or "Standard of
Aesthetic Goodness" (found in "Nicomachean Ethics")
Franklin Rousseau wrote:
>I looked at your website. It provides definitive proof that a bit of >technical facility does not, by itself, result in fine art. Tip: work on >your faces.
Thanks for your kind words. And I BEG you, PLEASE keep your opinion
VERY quiet. I would be horribly embarrassed if my patrons found out
that their $18k was wasted on a hunk of colored cloth. Thanks for the
tip too. Could you please send me a link to your website so I could
see your art?
sirblob
> >He's (Mani) simply copied Dali
> >who himself was a fraud
>
> It seems to me that the frauds in this group are the ignorant posters
> who have nothing to back up their "genius" with other than the
> tiresome arguments that perpetuate the modern art lies. Like a bunch
> of armchair quaterbacks - or more appropriately, "armchair artists" -
> drinking beer and postulating on what comprises great art. Having
> never played the game, or perhaps unable to play well results in
> opinions that cannot be trusted and are consequently less valid. This
> includes most art critics. I give Mani's opinion more credence because
> he has at the very least made an effort to understand art and
> aesthetics through practice and not solely theory.
played what game? drawing pics? slaving and sweating away in front of
a piece of paper as a kid trying to imitate the hierarchy-fetishising
realistic morons that preceded you? then whining because your theory
can be so easily disproved by the practice provided by life? no, you
and mani mani are just one-trick ponies. it's no coincidence both
small kids and old twirps on the verge of alzheimers agree with you.
if you wanna play art, learn to take the heat, play it like a man,
dont be such automatic saintly pussies. learn to be a goddamn adult.
besides, this is way above your head, seeing how you collapse
sentences in what you hilariously believe to be logic and fact. no
wonder pomo is so convincing when faced with the likes of you.
Mani Deli
wrote:
>spira...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>' ... perpetuate the modern art lies. ....'
>
>You sound like a disciple of Art Renewal. If you aren't, go to
>www.artrenewal.org. I think you'll find a home there.
>
>Best,
>
>Marcus
You sound like Art Failure and you have nothing to show.
Mani Deli
wrote:
>Mani is your resident troll. Many newsgroups have one.
You are a resident Failure who has nothing to show or say.
> They
>insure that the discussion won't ever emerge from the most
>basic gutter talk, at least not for long. The question is, why do
>people pay so much attention to trolls? I guess they have
>nothing better to do.
Here's an important message I wrote. Dare look up the references. Lets
hear you deny what I pointed out.
"The chief enemy of creativity is 'good taste.' "
"To finish a picture? What nonsense!" [Picasso]
It often helps if you can get started.
Litho by Charles Bargue
http://www.19thc-artworldwide.org/spring_05/reviews/gr/brad_07a.jpg
Picasso claimed masterpiece of child genius
http://www.lawrence.edu/dept/art/arthistory/frst/images/parth.jpg
Most of the student Picasso so called original masterpieces in the
academic style are just copies out of Bargue's beautiful lessons on
drawing. It was standard instructions at the time.
Want to learn classical drawing? Start like Picasso.
"Students begin their training by working from the Charles Bargue
Drawing Course. The drawings, executed in graphite (pencil), help the
student quickly and effectively gain an understanding of shape,
proportion and tonal rendering."
http://www.academyofrealistart.com/prospectus.asp
sirblob
> On 22 Mar 2007 19:46:49 GMT, marcusdenn...@yahoo.com(Marcus Denning)
> wrote:
>
> >spiralj...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >' ... perpetuate the modern art lies. ....'
>
> >You sound like a disciple of Art Renewal. If you aren't, go to
> >www.artrenewal.org. I think you'll find a home there.
>
> >Best,
>
> >Marcus
>
> You sound like Art Failure and you have nothing to show.
so, mani, when did you get brainwashed by Art Renewalism?
and what's with all those naked angels on that website?!
sirblob
> On 22 Mar 2007 05:26:33 -0700, "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Mani is your resident troll. Many newsgroups have one.
>
> You are a resident Failure who has nothing to show or say.
>
> > They
> >insure that the discussion won't ever emerge from the most
> >basic gutter talk, at least not for long. The question is, why do
> >people pay so much attention to trolls? I guess they have
> >nothing better to do.
>
> Here's an important message I wrote. Dare look up the references. Lets
> hear you deny what I pointed out.
>
> "The chief enemy of creativity is 'good taste.' "
> "To finish a picture? What nonsense!" [Picasso]
>
> It often helps if you can get started.
>
>
> Picasso claimed masterpiece of child geniushttp://www.lawrence.edu/dept/art/arthistory/frst/images/parth.jpg
>
> Most of the student Picasso so called original masterpieces in the
> academic style are just copies out of Bargue's beautiful lessons on
> drawing. It was standard instructions at the time.
>
> Want to learn classical drawing? Start like Picasso.
> "Students begin their training by working from the Charles Bargue
> Drawing Course. The drawings, executed in graphite (pencil), help the
> student quickly and effectively gain an understanding of shape,
> proportion and tonal rendering."http://www.academyofrealistart.com/prospectus.asp
ah!! you universalist unfinished modernityists think everyone's the
same!
Mani Deli
wrote:
>Newcomers to rec.arts.fine -- one of Mani's powerful debating techniques is
>to assign posters silly names, effectively demolishing their arguments.
When I answer in kind to jerks like Denning who has nothing to say and
nothing to show, they complain; one after the other. They should look
at their own messages.
I have written many serious, documented, messages about art. They
happen to disagree with the main stream. I have carefully pointed out
the phoniness of the Modern Academic Art establishment. This bugs the
Modern Art Fundamentalist here to such a degree that most all their
messages are confined to their uncreative fantasies about what their
failure leads them to imagine about the character of those who
disagree with them.
They don't answer my serious points because they can't. I suspect that
those who write half coherently are frustrated art teachers who can't
do better than teaching the next generation of failures. Their main
occupation is really art school politics. Others are disgruntled
members of that grand army of starving artists. The whole lot gets
furious when anyone contradicts their religion.
sirblob
> wrote:
yada yada yada.
fury is too spontaneous; i wish i felt it. it belongs to the zidane
and materazzi of the gcse art classroom.
sirblob
> On 21 Mar 2007 18:53:29 GMT, marcusdenn...@yahoo.com(Marcus Denning)
> wrote:
>
oh BTW, does being a renewalist entail having to shower every morning?
Mani Deli
Whats with them blowhard. Tell us.
sirblob
James Whitehead
<spira...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1174592533.4...@l75g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>He's (Mani) simply copied Dali
>who himself was a fraud
It seems to me that the frauds in this group are the ignorant posters
who have nothing to back up their "genius" with other than the
tiresome arguments that perpetuate the modern art lies.
Mani claims to be Napoloeon and you agree - and the rest of us all wrong...
Like a bunch
of armchair quaterbacks - or more appropriately, "armchair artists" -
drinking beer and postulating on what comprises great art. Having
never played the game, or perhaps unable to play well results in
opinions that cannot be trusted and are consequently less valid. This
includes most art critics. I give Mani's opinion more credence because
he has at the very least made an effort to understand art and
aesthetics through practice and not solely theory.
No he hasnt - he has made up his own theory (flat earth) and shouts that all
the others are wrong - without engaging with them at all.
Anyway, to get back on the Dali Fraud statement, would you please help
me to understand which well known 20th Century artist was more
authentic, more technically competent, and possessed more genius than
Dali?
Sorry not in a use group - your best bet work be to study some art history
given by a reputable institution.
But clues are - his work is 'literal' *- not painted by him - rejected by
his peers - signing blank sheets of paper by the hundred for other to later
add the work - thats fraud.
This makes him an 'illustrator' of an idea - his work is not the 'idea'
itself - not therefore art.
>There is no point in showing you *any* art - until you learn to see why
>Mani's work isn't art in the generally accepted sense.
In other words, if something is "generally accepted" it must be true.
Like the fact that it was once "generally accepted" that the world was
flat
Sigh - art is not science - it transends it - in art we dont say that greek
art was ok but modern art is better - or worse - that shakespeare was crap
speller and modern plays on TV better. Nor is art true in this way - if we
are moved to tears - this is a higher truth -
http://www.tamsquare.com/thumbnail/The_Origin_of_the_World_Gustave_Courbet.jpg
funny - sad - true - disgusting - beautiful - silly...
or that volcanos were the consequence of an angry god. Once I
"learn" to understand art through your inexperienced mind and eyes
(which have been well conditioned through the forces of capitalism), I
will rebuke Mani and join your camp.
My camp - i doubt it.
Once I learn that art founded on
technical incompetence, weak concepts, rhetoric, dogma, and lies is
really the best art,
Thats Dali and Mani! s
you will show me your work and I will like it.
No i'll show you work that you will not like - hate maybe / love /
confound - but not like - not luke warm..
This sounds very appealing to me considering I have spent my life
seeking the true nature of art and aesthetics.
Please educate me.
for free! OK for starters give me some artist you do like - pref not
personal friends and relations.
>If you and he are off
>on a "we know something - and the whole of western civilization is wrong -
>then fine - no more to say. And i'm not being impolite - just pointing out
>a fact - every 19 year old arts student writes an original "wasteland" -
>etc etc.
Since there seems to be some major abhorrence of actually "learning
the rules of aesthetics through practice" I would at least recommend
reading Dali's book "50 Secrets of Magic Craftsmanship" or DaVinci, "A
Treatise on Painting".
And then to continue on a quest for answers about aesthetics and
authenticity, lets consult the old dead guys even though they had very
little impact on Western Civilization's thinking:
Plato: "The Arts and Measure" (from "Statesman"), "The Love of
Beauty" (from "Symposium")
Aristotle: "What is Art" (found in "Metaphysics") or "Standard of
Aesthetic Goodness" (found in "Nicomachean Ethics")
All of the above were no doubt great artists? (NOOOOOOOO)
Franklin Rousseau wrote:
>I looked at your website. It provides definitive proof that a bit of
?>technical facility does not, by itself, result in fine art. Tip: work on
?>your faces.
James Whitehead
> On 21 Mar 2007 18:53:29 GMT, marcus...@yahoo.com(Marcus Denning)
> wrote:
>
> >Mani Deli <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >> "sirslob" wrote:
> >>
> >> >mani, you're imploding; you're the zidane and materazzi of the gcse
> >> >art class.
> >>
> >> Surslob is starting to sputter.
> >
> >Newcomers to rec.arts.fine -- one of Mani's powerful debating techniques
is
> >to assign posters silly names, effectively demolishing their arguments.
>
> When I answer in kind to jerks like Denning who has nothing to say and
> nothing to show, they complain; one after the other. They should look
> at their own messages.
>
> I have written many serious, documented, messages about art. They
> happen to disagree with the main stream. I have carefully pointed out
> the phoniness of the Modern Academic Art establishment. This bugs the
> Modern Art Fundamentalist here to such a degree that most all their
> messages are confined to their uncreative fantasies about what their
> failure leads them to imagine about the character of those who
> disagree with them.
Please, to argue against the whole of a discipline is difficult and
dangerous as you will need some kind of support - art's evaluation is
generally a social phenomenon.
Thinking something so different could imply a mental illness.
>
> They don't answer my serious points because they can't. I suspect that
> those who write half coherently are frustrated art teachers who can't
> do better than teaching the next generation of failures.
I'm yet to see you make a point backed up by evidence - please try.
> Their main
> occupation is really art school politics. Others are disgruntled
> members of that grand army of starving artists. The whole lot gets
> furious when anyone contradicts their religion.
They aren't furious - you appear like a Jehovah's witness to them if they
bother to recognise you at all.
Mani Deli
<some...@overtherainbow.com> wrote:
>He's simply copied Dali
>who himself was a fraud
Where? I showed about 15 paintings now tell us Where I copied Dali and
don't forget to name the Dali I copied. Apparently if you don't paint
AE style schmiers and paint in a surreal format its just coping Dali.
At least to all art students who never learned to draw.
>There is no point in showing you *any* art
Because you have none.
>- until you learn to see why
>Mani's work isn't art in the generally accepted sense.
Great, now tell us why.
> If you and he are off
>on a "we know something - and the whole of western civilization is wrong -
>then fine - no more to say.
You can't say more because you are full of crap. This pompous ass
imagines that he speaks for all "Western Civilization." I guess this
is what art school did for him.
>And i'm not being impolite - just pointing out
>a fact - every 19 year old arts student writes an original "wasteland" -
>etc etc.
?. Etc. etc. from another art school failure.
CB
"James Whitehead" <some...@overtherainbow.com> wrote in message
news:11746642...@proxy00.news.clara.net...
> Please, to argue against the whole of a discipline is difficult and
> dangerous as you will need some kind of support - art's evaluation is
> generally a social phenomenon.
> Thinking something so different could imply a mental illness.
>
That's an interesting POV; very similar to the old Soviet approach to what
they deemed "politics". It's also rather funny that if you read critiques
from the boorgewas press from the mid 1800's regarding what was then "new
painting", they said much the same in defense of Academic art. Plus ca
change, and all that....
>
> They aren't furious - you appear like a Jehovah's witness to them if they
> bother to recognise you at all.
>
>
I don't know, he seems to get more angry response than just about any other
poster, so he's certainly getting some one's knickers in a knot...
Cheers;
Chris
sirb...@hotmail.com
wrote:
> "Mani Deli" <m...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>
> news:vrq503lun44e7gu9n...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
he documents his decisions with further decisions. aint that enough?
>
> > Their main
> > occupation is really art school politics. Others are disgruntled
> > members of that grand army of starving artists. The whole lot gets
> > furious when anyone contradicts their religion.
>
> They aren't furious - you appear like a Jehovah's witness to them if they
> bother to recognise you at all.
oh, it's a hobby
sirb...@hotmail.com
> "James Whitehead" <somewh...@overtherainbow.com> wrote in message
>
> news:11746642...@proxy00.news.clara.net...
>
> > Please, to argue against the whole of a discipline is difficult and
> > dangerous as you will need some kind of support - art's evaluation is
> > generally a social phenomenon.
> > Thinking something so different could imply a mental illness.
>
> That's an interesting POV; very similar to the old Soviet approach to what
> they deemed "politics". It's also rather funny that if you read critiques
> from the boorgewas press from the mid 1800's regarding what was then "new
> painting", they said much the same in defense of Academic art. Plus ca
> change, and all that....
does your alignment with renewalism entail having to take cold showers
in the morning?
>
>
>
> > They aren't furious - you appear like a Jehovah's witness to them if they
> > bother to recognise you at all.
>
> I don't know, he seems to get more angry response than just about any other
> poster, so he's certainly getting some one's knickers in a knot...
>
> Cheers;
> Chris
how can you speak with such a presumption of neutrality without
presenting yourself as what you are; simply another chap with mani
mani's ideology? oohh right, lol, i remember you, you're twirp who
''praised hooded negro for HIS take on things''....
sirb...@hotmail.com
you're an automatic platypus. you think yourself a maverick, yet you
couldnt be more mainstream. i guess that's the requisite for belonging
in the renewalist sect, right?
sirblob
> On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 12:30:30 -0000, "James Whitehead"
>
> >He's simply copied Dali
> >who himself was a fraud
>
> Where? I showed about 15 paintings now tell us Where I copied Dali and
> don't forget to name the Dali I copied. Apparently if you don't paint
> AE style schmiers and paint in a surreal format its just coping Dali.
> At least to all art students who never learned to draw.
>
> >There is no point in showing you *any* art
>
> Because you have none.
>
> >- until you learn to see why
> >Mani's work isn't art in the generally accepted sense.
>
> Great, now tell us why.
>
> > If you and he are off
> >on a "we know something - and the whole of western civilization is wrong -
> >then fine - no more to say.
>
> You can't say more because you are full of crap. This pompous ass
> imagines that he speaks for all "Western Civilization." I guess this
> is what art school did for him.
lol, but but but we's been thinking you renewalists was merely
defending the western civ that pomo put into question... topsy turvy
like the mike leigh pic eh goodness gracious be, you're a fun hunk of
spunk deli belly
James Whitehead
> On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 12:30:30 -0000, "James Whitehead"
> <some...@overtherainbow.com> wrote:
>
> >He's simply copied Dali
> >who himself was a fraud
>
> Where? I showed about 15 paintings now tell us Where I copied Dali and
> don't forget to name the Dali I copied. Apparently if you don't paint
> AE style schmiers and paint in a surreal format its just coping Dali.
> At least to all art students who never learned to draw.
>
> >There is no point in showing you *any* art
>
> Because you have none.
>
> >- until you learn to see why
> >Mani's work isn't art in the generally accepted sense.
>
> Great, now tell us why.
>
history and practice - theory - for the supeficial 'appearance' - like the
writing lesson in of gramatology.
James Whitehead
"CB" <caldwell...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f60Nh.14394$PV3.1...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
>
> "James Whitehead" <some...@overtherainbow.com> wrote in message
> news:11746642...@proxy00.news.clara.net...
> > Please, to argue against the whole of a discipline is difficult and
> > dangerous as you will need some kind of support - art's evaluation is
> > generally a social phenomenon.
> > Thinking something so different could imply a mental illness.
> >
>
> That's an interesting POV; very similar to the old Soviet approach to what
> they deemed "politics". It's also rather funny that if you read critiques
> from the boorgewas press from the mid 1800's regarding what was then "new
> painting", they said much the same in defense of Academic art. Plus ca
> change, and all that....
Well historically it was a european press - so the dealers flogged the
modern stuff to the Americans - who swallowed the lot - (echos of Derrida
and De Man?) This art of the 1800s was a threat to the existining
socio-political systems - hence its rejecion - it represents new thinking -
experiment. With the democatisation of modernity these days art is more
available - and ironic - so Hirst Emin are deliberately shocking - the press
respond - its rubbish - just as before - and he folks go to see, but we all
know its an ironic joke.
CB
Well, there's a bit of vaporous nonsense if I ever saw it :). Care to be
more specific?
Cheers;
CB
James Whitehead
bill.
specific enough...
what makes a dollar bill a dollar bill - is its provenance within a society.
you cant make your own money - its worthless..
OK
Mani Deli
It would be interesting to see what would happen if somebody created a
nude chocolate image of the Prophet Mohammed.
Now there's a whole lot of Jesus dick in art history. However, it's
not really the dick that sets the loonies off, or the chocolate. If
Jesus had a loincloth and at a televangelist's Easter party we
wouldn't hear about it. But it's that those damn "artists" that they
hate so much. Religion and hypocrisy go great together.
Here's a Jesus that's just a chocolate dessert. However some
Christians think if they eat his body and drink his blood that they
might just escape death. If you're really a true believer, none of
that should really bother you.
chazwin
> On 20 mar, 13:32, marcusdenn...@yahoo.com(Marcus Denning) wrote:
>
> > sirbl...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > >http://www.cartoonholiday.com/new/ds17/gallery1.html
>
> > > mani mani, are they drawn well?
>
> > You may or may not know this, but mani believes that Walt Disney was one of
> > the greatest 20th century artists. No joke, he actually does.
Well there was not much competition in the 20th century.
>
> lol!
Mani Deli
Except for the whole animation industry.
chazwin
In which Disney led the field and laid down the standard.
"Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" still stands up as one of the finest
animations ever made despite its advanced age. It was beautifully
handcrafted the work on shadows is unsurpassed in films without the
use of computer assisted animation. I fyouhave not seen it check it
out.
zeno
zeno
James Whitehead wrote:
> an ignorant person might think a photocopy of a dollar bill is a dollar
> bill.
> specific enough...
>
> what makes a dollar bill a dollar bill - is its provenance within a society.
>
> you cant make your own money - its worthless..
>
> OK
Yes, exactly, Its all about the "provenance" for lack of a better word:
http://artscenecal.com/ArticlesFile/Archive/Articles1999/Articles0999/JBoggsA.html
He draws money: francs when in Switzerland, dollars in the U.S., pound notes
when in England. He doesn’t sell his drawings. That’s rule number one. Instead
he “spends” them. That’s rule number two. So far, he’s spent about $250,000
worth of Boggs’ bills. Now, does that figure refer to the face value of those
bills? Or does it refer to how much they’re worth? Even the most elementary
statement about Boggs’ artwork launches an inquiry into the nature of money,
monetary transactions, value, art, abstraction, representation and
reproduction. Therein lies its seductive power: it’s a simple idea with vast
and complex implications. Yet, it’s accessible. Everyone uses money; everyone
talks about it.
http://www.ozwei.net/boggs/et_bernhard.html
This is how it works: Twenty-four hours after the initial transaction, Boggs
informs a collector that he is in possession of a receipt, which he is willing
to sell for, say, $1,000. For a further fee, Boggs will also sell the change
from the transaction. Armed with the receipt, the buyer will then be able to
track down the particular Boggs bill in question. He or she will then be in
possession of not just the Boggs bill, but also of all the other elements of
the transaction -- the bill, the receipt, the change, perhaps even another item
Boggs may have thrown in, like, say, a menu. A Boggs bill is worth quite a lot,
but the complete elements of a transaction can be worth a fortune. Last year, a
collector in Switzerland reportedly paid $420,000 for a complete transaction of
a particularly complex nature.
James Whitehead
produce a doodle on the menu - sign it and offer it for payment - no one
ever asked for cash!
"zeno" <ze...@sonic.net> wrote in message news:461700F4...@sonic.net...
zeno
testable realities.
Flatlanders and Ethernuts, now, at least, have the asylum of the net to babysit their
delusions. Keeps them off the street for what its worth.