"He says that Modernism 'basically became totally enraptured with the idea of destroying and breaking down what came before.'"
aest...@hotmail.com
artangel
this one!
"Cezanne, Matisse and de Kooning, among others-denied a whole
generation the pleasure of enjoying great art."
I never knew they were so active,
Did they blow up museums? Kidnap curators? Burn Librarys? Kill
teachers?
I would like to know more about their methods.
"art is supposed to communicate the most powerful emotions of what it
means to be human"
Until reading the article I thought it still did.
Thank you for the enlightenment.
artangel
Oh thank you so much for reminding me. I had been there before.
"to justify this whole theoretical paradigm, all the artists that
painted recognizable scenes with depth and illusion had to be
discredited ... and discredited they were, with a virulence and
vituperation so scathing and merciless that one would think they must
have been messengers of the devil himself to deserve such abuse. And to
put the final nail in their coffins, all of their art was banished and
their names and accomplishments written right out of history."
Really?
As strongly as the tirades by these people against modern and
contemporary art?
I know and represent many "contemporary" artists, young and older. We
love to go to museums and visit old master works with "recognizable
scenes". We all consider these works our old friends and an
inspiration. It is always a great joy when a younger artist is moved by
a work of one of the great "old" masters for the first time.
Since none of these artists copy them I guess they have "discredited"
them with "vituperation". (Great word I had forgotten)
Banished and written out of history? Then how the hell do they know
about them?
It makes one wonder what kind of closed minded idiots follow this type
of ignorant stupidity.
Mani Deli
>If you want a good laugh, go to Freddie's website, Art Renewal. It is a
>real hoot.
>
Yes go to the website and decide for yourself.
http://www.artrenewal.org/
Then take alook at White's work and laugh; if he still shows any.
s_l_a...@hotmail.com
Mani Deli wrote:
> On 19 Mar 2006 02:41:19 GMT, biljo...@yahoo.com(Biljo White) wrote:
>
> >If you want a good laugh, go to Freddie's website, Art Renewal. It is a
> >real hoot.
> >
>
> Yes go to the website and decide for yourself.
> http://www.artrenewal.org/
>
We have. It's a very silly site created by Ayn Rand devotees.
I certainly wouldn't advise anyone to patronize their "approved
ateliers".
> Then take alook at White's work and laugh; if he still shows any.
Where's your C.V. again?
s_l_a...@hotmail.com
Biljo White wrote:> I never had a website. I don't show my work on line. Mani is just making
> things up, as usual.
No argument from me, that's why I was asking for *his* C. V.
Mani Deli
>Sorry - my newsreader doesn't show nested responses in threads.
>
>As far as anyone knows, mani has never had a gallery or a show;
Bullshit!
> he refuses
>to directly address questions about his C.V.
CV?
> His website is worth visiting
>if you haven't already - the art is poorly executed Dali knockoffs. The
>text is hilarious, though - why all modern artists are no good, etc.
Yes, its at http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
Bimbo White has nothing to show.
Mani Deli
>s_l_a...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
>> Where's your C.V. again?
>
>I never had a website. I don't show my work on line. Mani is just making
>things up, as usual.
I suspect you don't show your work anywhere.
Mani Deli
>Mani Deli <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>> >
>> >As far as anyone knows, mani has never had a gallery or a show;
>>
>> Bullshit!
>Prove it.
Not interested in proving it. Hope you continue making the claim. You
haven't much more to say other than you are Black and gay. Is that
your only achievment in life? Gee you haven't also claimed that I live
in a slum lately, like you do. I guess your venom is drying up. You're
getting jaded.
>>
>> > he refuses
>> >to directly address questions about his C.V.
>>
>> CV?
>
>That means 'Curriculum Vitae,' Mani. Your resume. Can we see it?
It's short as I haven't needed a job since I was 14. However, if you
send $200 and I'll send you a certified copy along with a copy of the
letters about my art school scholarships and a few gallery notices.
Ask Adams to send you his C.V. also. Ask him about his galleries and
which school he has to teach in.
artangel
"thought I saw you on the chicken strip on Eighth Avenue. You were the
one with the Dali T-shirt., right?"
Oh my!
You dont really think our dear troll Mani would make money selling
himself, do you?
I hope you mean he was buying.
In either case this calls for a sex worker union! The streets are bad
enough, but Mani on the prowel?
Hideous!
Mani Deli
>"artangel" <cityofim...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> "thought I saw you on the chicken strip on Eighth Avenue. You were the
>> one with the Dali T-shirt., right?"
>>
>> Oh my!
>>
>> You dont really think our dear troll Mani would make money selling
>> himself, do you?
>
>He says he never had a job after age 14. His website shows he certainly
>can't make salable art; he had to make a living somehow!
>
>>
>> I hope you mean he was buying.
>
>Maybe when he got too old to be selling.
>
>>
>> In either case this calls for a sex worker union! The streets are bad
>> enough, but Mani on the prowel?
>
>He's old and tired now, sitting in Toronto, carping about life on usenet
>and waiting to die. Nothing to worry about anymore.
I've never had it better Bimbo. Hope your tired asshole holds up as
well as I have.
As to artwork, neither of you blowhards have anything to show.
s_l_a...@hotmail.com
LOL ! We know how much you show as well if you've never heard of a C.V.
Mani.
So where exactly is your last show listed in Slate?
Mani Deli
What's your's?
s_l_a...@hotmail.com
"What's your's?" Geez never heard of that gallery.
Does it even exist or is it something you made up?
Thur
"Biljo White" <biljo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:20060325123830.687$p...@newsreader.com...
> s_l_a...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> > >
>> > >So where exactly is your last show listed in Slate?
>> >
>> > What's your's?
>>
>> "What's your's?" Geez never heard of that gallery.
>>
>> Does it even exist or is it something you made up?
>
> little kid. "Where's the stickball you said you have?" Mani: where's
> yours?
>
Re:
> You've gotta realize that this guy is emotionally about eight years old.
> answering a question he reacts like a
> little kid.
Try sitting back a little and weighing all the posts of
any person who puzzles you.
Ask 1) Do they ever begin a thread of their own?
i) Yes. The is there a consistent theme?
ii) No. Well then it's time to check out what and why
they post.
2) Are they in the main negative comments?
or 3) Positive comments?
4) ever criticise the grammar or spelling of others?
5) any particular clues given out about their own agenda?
e.g. the mention of "cv" more than once? Mention of
eduction, mention about the posession of qualifications,
amateurs, hobbyists, etc.
7) ask yourself if you are likely to ever learn anything
new from them, or benefit from their supposed
intelligence, experience, or superior crafts?
I know you like to do battle on this group, and now
and then bring a bit of life to it, but you do have the
option as do we all of being selective.
Of course you may not feel there is a problem. There
is none for me, because I only notice when someone
is sucked into the void and I read their posts.
--
Thur
s_l_a...@hotmail.com
Well I learned that according to you seven comes after five, but
somehow I doubt this qualifies as a "benefit" to be derived from your
"supposed intelligence, experience, or superior crafts."
Your own negative anti-Modernist agenda is unambiguous and poorly
supported.
s_l_a...@hotmail.com
> > >
> > > What's your's?
> >
> > "What's your's?" Geez never heard of that gallery.
> >
> > Does it even exist or is it something you made up?
>
> little kid. "Where's the stickball you said you have?" Mani: where's yours?
>
True enough. He can not seem to defend his arguments with factual
evidence so as a last resort to establish his legitimacy/authority he
conjures up his alleged success as an artist for which he offers no
proof.
Rather similar to the arguments forwarded by ARC actually.
Mani Deli
>
>Rather similar to the arguments forwarded by ARC actually.
You come up with no evidence whatever. You are a academic failure who
has to AK his superiors and spends his life producing fast forgotten
babble. You haven't produced anything of worth. Unlike Bimbo White who
is just plain stupid you hide your invective in pseudo-intellectual
froth. Deep down you are a pompous ass.
s_l_a...@hotmail.com
Now how about that C.V. Mani ?
CB
<s_l_a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1143337901.5...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> Now how about that C.V. Mani ?
>
Well, like it or not, he does at least have the balls to put his work
online. So why don't you, artangel, and Biljo prove the worth of your vision
by doing the same? One gets tired of all talk & no action, it's time for an
artistic cage match....
CB
s_l_a...@hotmail.com
LOL ! In what way would this support his arguments with factual
evidence ?
In what way would this establish his alleged success as an artist?
Nice try, now stick to the point.
CB
<s_l_a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1143342550....@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
The proof of the pudding is in the eating, as they say. I'm curious to see
where you are coming from, and I think - particularly for people who are
actively involved in visual concepts and expression, images one creates say
as much about a POV as any written word. Probably more. I look at Mani's
work - which I appreciate - and get a sense of where he is coming from; but
I also quite enjoy Dan's (though of the occasional posters here, the one
whose work speaks the most strongly to me is LJ Murphy's, particularly her
drawings and etchings). As for CV's, who really gives a fuck? It's good to
help boost a sale, but in the long run it is only the work - and the body of
work - that counts. Most of my favourite painters died broke, or close too
it, or disregarded in their own lifetimes.
So do you produce any art at all, or are you just another Bill McCarty, but
playing left, rather than right, field? I think at one point you said you
were a realistic pencil artist, but I could easily have that wrong.
Cheers;
CB
s_l_a...@hotmail.com
CB wrote:
> The proof of the pudding is in the eating, as they say.
Sorry but the proof of *what* pudding?
If you want to paste a link to your work I certainly woudn't discourage
you from doing so, but once again how does this affect the accuracy of
Fred Ross' account of Modernism or ARC's indebtedness to the aesthetics
of Ayn Rand? Does it suddenly provide supporting evidence for Mani's
allegations or proof that he has a professional career?
The answers to those questions would seem to be the "proof of the
pudding" frankly.
CB
<s_l_a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1143348944....@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Well, if you can find a post where Mani says he had a professional arts
career, please post it. I've seen his posts here for years, and AFAIK after
doing a fair bit of time in training in NY, he went off and did other
things, while keeping an interest in art.
Fred Ross, OTOH, is a somewhat of an artistic idiot, by his own account -
any one who got a grad degree in art education from Columbia but was unaware
of the Salon painters really must have had little intrinsic interest in the
field and was probably more or less killing time and taking up space at an
otherwise good school. And frankly he's a sucker for schlock. But he does
put his money where his mouth is, by supporting artists that he finds worth
supporting. A definite plus in his favour. And ARC is a definite force (if
not the driving cause they would like to see themselves as) of the
re-emergence of traditional artistic training. But if there's a market and
an interest in that work, why disparage it? I figure the more tools one has,
and the more points of view that are brought forward, the better it is for
all of us, traditionalists or not.
As for ARC's indebtedness to Ayn Rand; Brian Yoder is a Rand fan, but many
members are not. But again, who cares? The words are only there to support
the art, and it is the art that matters. Lots of the forerunners of modern
art had far loopier political and philosophical connections. (And again, I
have never seen Mani support Rand, though maybe he does; I am aware that he
tends towards secular humanism, which in itself ok in my books...)
As for the pudding, if you are not willing to show us how good it is by
tasting it yourself - with your work - why should anyone take you seriously?
Cheers;
CB
Mani Deli
wrote:
>
><s_l_a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1143337901.5...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>> Now how about that C.V. Mani ?
>>
>
>Well, like it or not, he does at least have the balls to put his work
>online. So why don't you, artangel, and Biljo prove the worth of your vision
>by doing the same?
Because they have none!
Mani Deli
The point is that this jerk has nothing to show. He's a gasbag.
Mani Deli
I have proof and will send you a resume' for $200. However I hope you
and Bimbo White continue to say I never sold a painting or had a show.
Why not?
Some of my work and opinions can be seen at
http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/Works.htm and anyone here can decide
its value for themselves.
As to you--
Mani Deli
>> Biljo White wrote:
>As far as anyone knows, mani has never had a gallery or a show;
and As far as anyone knows, Bimbo White has never even produced a
painting.
> he refuses to directly address questions about his C.V. His website is worth visiting
>if you haven't already
I agree!
>- the art is poorly executed Dali knockoffs.
Check it out http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/Works.htm
where I wrote.
"I have received many messages from people who in essence say, "Who
are you to criticize" and "You're probably just a lousy artist if you
say that sort of stuff."
Whether one paints well or not is irrelevant to any comments one makes
about modern art. Most critics can't paint at all. Anyone can express
their critical views. It doesn't require an academic pedigree.
The only reason that I show some of my work here is that I am often
accused of being unqualified to criticize Modern Art. I don't make any
claims that I paint particularly well, but I do know something about
technique, drawing and art history. One needn't have any great amount
of knowledge to appreciate art or to distinguish competence from utter
incompetence.
If artwork were judged in terms of quality rather than by its
signature a lot of art history would change."
>The text is hilarious,
It is!
>though - why all modern artists are no good, etc.
Most competent modern art is excellent. It just doesn't reside in the
modern sections of museums.
Check out my opinion on a masterpiece by that illustrious
fumbleclotz Cezanne. I'm sure it got the Bimbo choking with laughter.
s_l_a...@hotmail.com
What re-emergence are you talking about?
But if there's a market and
> an interest in that work, why disparage it?
Well one could say the same thing about the market and interest in
Contemporary work.
I figure the more tools one has,
> and the more points of view that are brought forward, the better it is for
> all of us, traditionalists or not.
But if one argues that more tools one has the better for all of us then
one would choose a school that exposes students to a wide range of art
making strategies and techniques.
> As for ARC's indebtedness to Ayn Rand; Brian Yoder is a Rand fan, but many
> members are not. But again, who cares?
Well if part of the mission of the group is to remove government
funding for the arts, I do.
Since it comes part and parcel with an attack on Modernist and
Post-Modernism art along with some other strange ideas--abtract work is
not art, photography is not art, the goal of all successful work is
Romanticized celebration of heroic individualism--sorry but the
organization appears to be a Neoconservative concern in Libertarian
clothing.
The words are only there to support
> the art, and it is the art that matters. Lots of the forerunners of modern
> art had far loopier political and philosophical connections. (And again, I
> have never seen Mani support Rand, though maybe he does; I am aware that he
> tends towards secular humanism, which in itself ok in my books...)
>
> As for the pudding, if you are not willing to show us how good it is by
> tasting it yourself - with your work - why should anyone take you seriously?
>
> Cheers;
> CB
Because my statements about ARC and Mani are accurate.
s_l_a...@hotmail.com
ROTFL ! Perhaps yes, perhaps no. In what way would this support your
arguments with factual
evidence ?
In what way would this establish your alleged success as an artist?
artangel
> tasting it yourself - with your work - why should anyone take you seriously?
Lets face the fact that posting something here just leads to name
calling.
I do it myself. It can be fun,
Very rarely are serious or interesting points discussed. Usually its
just self promotion and narrow minded assertions that are presented.
(All modern art is bad - bla - bla - bla -)
This being a mild diversion, I feel no need to be taken seriously here.
It does not affect my work or what I do in my gallery. Have Mani and
his ilk or for that matter the opposition posted anything about
interesting artists or shows they have seen? No.
I will be going to New York in May to catch the Whitney Biennial. Any
posts? No. Has anyone seen it? What are your thoughts? What are some
of the interesting shows in you area? Anything going on? Any
interesting developments? Not it you read the posts here.
So the question is why would I care if anyone here takes me seriously?
Why would I open myself to idiotic name calling with my real work and
the way I make my living?
How is Mani's (our little tomato brain troll - see, cant help myself!)
CV important or his view of the art world?
So let just keep carping and sniping and not pretend that this is a
place for any serious discussion on art.
s_l_a...@hotmail.com
Mani Deli wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 02:48:01 GMT, "CB" <caldwell...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> ><s_l_a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:1143337901.5...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >>
> >>
> >> Now how about that C.V. Mani ?
> >>
> >
> >Well, like it or not, he does at least have the balls to put his work
> >online. So why don't you, artangel, and Biljo prove the worth of your vision
> >by doing the same?
>
> Because they have none!
By the same logic, are we to assume you have no history of showing in
galleries because you have not posted it online?
Mani Deli
>
>Mani Deli wrote:
>> On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 02:48:01 GMT, "CB" <caldwell...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> ><s_l_a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >news:1143337901.5...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Now how about that C.V. Mani ?
>> >>
>> >
>> >Well, like it or not, he does at least have the balls to put his work
>> >online. So why don't you, artangel, and Biljo prove the worth of your vision
>> >by doing the same?
>>
>> Because they have none!
>
>By the same logic, are we to assume you have no history of showing in
>galleries because you have not posted it online?
>
>
Absolutly, I have no history and never exhibited, even my paintings
don't exist. When you go to http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/, it's
really an illusion.
However you exist. You are a academic failure who
has to AK his superiors and spends his life producing fast forgotten
babble. You haven't produced anything of worth. Unlike Bimbo White who
is just plain stupid you hide your invective in pseudo-intellectual
froth. Deep down you are a pompous ass.
... and you have no C.V.
s_l_a...@hotmail.com
Well once again, perhaps I am, perhaps I'm not...
But how does this provide evidence for your rather silly arguments
about Modernism?
How does it refute anything I've said about ARC?
How does it prove you actually have an art career?
Mani Deli
>> Absolutly, I have no history and never exhibited, even my paintings
>> don't exist. When you go to http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/, it's
>> really an illusion.
>>
>> However you exist. You are a academic failure who
>> has to AK his superiors and spends his life producing fast forgotten
>> babble. You haven't produced anything of worth. Unlike Bimbo White who
>> is just plain stupid you hide your invective in pseudo-intellectual
>> froth. Deep down you are a pompous ass.
>>
>> ... and you have no C.V.
>
>Well once again, perhaps I am, perhaps I'm not...
>
>But how does this provide evidence for your rather silly arguments
>about Modernism?
If you have anything to say check out my opinion on a masterpiece by
that illustrious fumbleclotz Cezanne for starters.
http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/behind.htm
Point out what's right about this thing. Bet you can't!
>
>How does it refute anything I've said about ARC?
You never said anything coherent about ARC or much about anything
else.
>How does it prove you actually have an art career?
I don't, I'm a gold miner. Never did a painting in my life. I only
collect art equipment and prints in order to show off. I really love
the three stooges of Modern Art, de Kooning, Rothko and Pollock and
only denigrate them in order to annoy you, Fartangel, Fox and Bimbo
White.
It fun!
s_l_a...@hotmail.com
Mani Deli wrote:
> On 26 Mar 2006 22:39:11 -0800, s_l_a...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
> >> Absolutly, I have no history and never exhibited, even my paintings
> >> don't exist. When you go to http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/, it's
> >> really an illusion.
> >>
> >> However you exist. You are a academic failure who
> >> has to AK his superiors and spends his life producing fast forgotten
> >> babble. You haven't produced anything of worth. Unlike Bimbo White who
> >> is just plain stupid you hide your invective in pseudo-intellectual
> >> froth. Deep down you are a pompous ass.
> >>
> >> ... and you have no C.V.
> >
> >Well once again, perhaps I am, perhaps I'm not...
> >
> >But how does this provide evidence for your rather silly arguments
> >about Modernism?
>
> If you have anything to say check out my opinion on a masterpiece by
> that illustrious fumbleclotz Cezanne for starters.
>
> http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/behind.htm
>
> Point out what's right about this thing. Bet you can't!
>
http://www.repropaint.com/Cezanne/cezanne.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitivism
> >
> >How does it refute anything I've said about ARC?
>
> You never said anything coherent about ARC or much about anything
> else.
What part didn't you understand? The Ayn Rand part? Their opposition to
arts funding?
>
> >How does it prove you actually have an art career?
>
> I don't, I'm a gold miner. Never did a painting in my life. I only
> collect art equipment and prints in order to show off. I really love
> the three stooges of Modern Art, de Kooning, Rothko and Pollock and
> only denigrate them in order to annoy you, Fartangel, Fox and Bimbo
> White.
>
> It fun!
You're substituing insult for argument. This is one of the reasons your
criticism is so weak.
Suffice to say its no proof of your claimed success.
Mani Deli
>s_l_a...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>> >
>> > If you have anything to say check out my opinion on a masterpiece by
>> > that illustrious fumbleclotz Cezanne for starters.
>> >
>> > http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/behind.htm
As I said you can't criticize it.
>> >
>> > Point out what's right about this thing. Bet you can't!
>> >
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_C=E9zanne
>>
>> http://www.repropaint.com/Cezanne/cezanne.htm
The usual modern art stuff. criticizes nothing. On the bottom of the
page you can see some of his modern art school level work.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitivism
Cezanne isn't a primitive. He studied in school. It never helped.
>These are good starting points.
No Cezanne's miserable "bathers" is a good starting point and you said
nothing about it.
> For those who want to learn a little about
>Cezanne's painting and why it was revolutionary work that changed all that
>followed,
Nobody of any note paints like Cezanne. He influenced almost nothing
except by causing critics to have verbal orgasms over a century of
Modern incompetence. Check out blowbag Schapiro. You can read my
comments on his typical Artspeak on another idiotic Cezanne at
http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/FebArtspeak.htm
> Cezanne's work is complex
Its totally unoriginal and incompetent.
Its only about three times as complex as Fox's furniture store wall
decoration.
>What is interesting about Mani and the ARC crowd is not so much their
>parochial view of art in general - namely, that any work that deviates from
>traditional realism is invalid,
20th century Surrealism isn't traditional. What you are really
complaining about is anyone who can draw well.
> but that they choose as their
>standard-bearer a salon painter like Bougereau, whose waxy pastiches and
>soft-core porn are laughable, over the many fine realist painters of the
>19th century.
He thinks the only painter I like is B.
There are about 25 other major Salon Painters mentioned on ARK.
...It was also said of him that he was a lecher and was only happy
painting female nudes. Certainly, Bouguereau truly loved women, but
then again, that calumny doesn't’T stand up to examination and the
nude represents less than 10% of his oeuvre. It’s particularly
hypocritical to hear this kind of talk perpetuated in a day and age
when one is likely to see considerably worse on prime time television
and spoken by the same people who would extol the virtues of explicit
sexuality in the works by Mapplethorpe or Francis Bacon."
>By the way, the chances of getting Mani's C.V. are about as good as
>learning the name of the college where Bill got his indoctrination about
>Picasso, that Jewish charlatan.
Send $200 and I'll mail you a copy. And when you get a chance ask for
the same from Bimbo White, Artangel and Adam and where's your's?
>Mani always reacts to information and arguments with insults.
Hey, for a lowlife drunken prick like you who claims I live in a slum
along a steady stream of insults which I'll quote if you like, I
answer in kind. However, say what you like it makes it more fun.
I answer serious points on a serious level.
Mani Deli
>>
>> >How does it prove you actually have an art career?
>>
>> I don't, I'm a gold miner. Never did a painting in my life. I only
>> collect art equipment and prints in order to show off. I really love
>> the three stooges of Modern Art, de Kooning, Rothko and Pollock and
>> only denigrate them in order to annoy you, Fartangel, Fox and Bimbo
>> White.
>>
>> It fun!
>
>You're substituing insult for argument. This is one of the reasons your
>criticism is so weak.
>
>Suffice to say its no proof of your claimed success.
What claim of sucess?
And what's your "claimed success?" Aren't you really just another run
of the mill failure academic who has to AK his superiors and spends
his life producing fast forgotten babble? You haven't produced
anything of worth. Deep down you are a pompous ass.
Where's your resume'?
Mani Deli
>
>Mani Deli wrote:
>> On 26 Mar 2006 22:39:11 -0800, s_l_a...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >How does it refute anything I've said about ARC?
>>
>> You never said anything coherent about ARC or much about anything
>> else.
>
>What part didn't you understand? The Ayn Rand part?
All you said was they like Rand. What's Rand got to do with the
artwork in ARK?
> Their opposition to arts funding?
>
They think art should support itself. You don't like that. So What?
What's it got to do with 19th century painting or the schools they
support? That's what they are about.
I wrote a criticism of ARC, why don't you comment on that?
s_l_a...@hotmail.com
Mani Deli wrote:
> On 27 Mar 2006 20:58:18 -0800, s_l_a...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >
> >Mani Deli wrote:
> >> On 26 Mar 2006 22:39:11 -0800, s_l_a...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>
>
> >> >How does it refute anything I've said about ARC?
> >>
> >> You never said anything coherent about ARC or much about anything
> >> else.
> >
> >What part didn't you understand? The Ayn Rand part?
>
> All you said was they like Rand. What's Rand got to do with the
> artwork in ARK?
>
> > Their opposition to arts funding?
> >
> They think art should support itself. You don't like that.
No, I don't like their opposition to arts funding.
Mani Deli
>Ask Mani why he believes that terrible artists such as Cezanne, Picasso,
>Rothko, etc., are studied,
Because they are still in fashion and art schools no longer teach the
craft. Rothko Studied, what a joke.
> written about, bought, and exhibited so
>extensively over long periods of time.
Justlike Dali, Disney and Rockwell etc?