An Extant LA II on Essex Street!
Andy Gee
be precise. This guy is being set up to be the Next Big Thing, so if you
spot any of his work, especially on a (re)moveable surface, pay close
attention.
Picture and detail posted on:
www.graffitirider.blogspot.com
BTW this is not true graffiti, but graffiti-style art, commissioned and
sanctioned, but outdoors and visible never the less.
Bill
"Andy Gee" <and...@getridofthis.interport.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9753675C71CCan...@24.29.109.201...
> I finally found a living, breathing LA II on the street. Essex Street, to
> be precise. This guy is being set up to be the Next Big Thing, so if you
> spot any of his work, especially on a (re)moveable surface, pay close
> attention.
Why do you assume that anyone knows (or cares) what an LA II is ? Or
an LA I for that matter. You say someone is being "set up " to be the Next
Big Thing. Does that mean his work cannot make it on its own merits, but
has to hyped by people such as yourself ? Are you sure that your interest
in these crude daubings is not just a way of trying to convince yourself
that what you see is NOT proof of the coarseness, uglyness, degeneracy and
decay of the life around you but is instead a part of a thriving and
vibrant culture ? You talk about peddling to other neighnorhoods to wallow
in, (or revel in, pick one) these acts of aesthetic agression. We can
assume your own neigborhood has not yet become a target for these criminals.
But I wonder if you would welcome it with such glowing terms when that happy
day finally arrives- and it will. I think not. First because it's not
very impressive and has a dull sameness about it.
Surely you've noticed the endless repetition of oversize
initials. ALWAYS outlined with a thick border. Always in the hopes of
drawing attention to the person who sprayed the mess on the wall. Surely
you've noticed the fact that, being exposed to the weather, these in- your-
face daubings begin to deteriorate the moment they are completed and
perpetrator has slunk off into the night. I'll grant you almost ANY chamge
to NY is an improvement but surely you must be aware that the job of
eventually erasing these messes costs an enormous amount of money. Money
which could better be spent on the miserable educational system in New york
city. Sorry, Andy. Don't try to convince anyone you like this stuff. It's
what happens when there is a breakdown in civil bahavior and civic leaders
are intimidated to the point that they would rather live with ugliness than
take the steps needed to correct it.
Have a nice day. Bill
Andy Gee
news:43d33d3e$0$8296$470e...@news.pa.net:
>
> "Andy Gee" <and...@getridofthis.interport.net> wrote in message
> news:Xns9753675C71CCan...@24.29.109.201...
>> I finally found a living, breathing LA II on the street. Essex
>> Street, to be precise. This guy is being set up to be the Next Big
>> Thing, so if you spot any of his work, especially on a (re)moveable
>> surface, pay close attention.
>
> Why do you assume that anyone knows (or cares) what an LA II is ?
Well, he's now a studio artist with pieces in galleries and (I believe)
at least one museum. If I thought I saw that Klee had painted some cats
behind the bandshell in Prospect Park, I would mention that as well.
> Or
> an LA I for that matter. You say someone is being "set up " to be
> the Next Big Thing. Does that mean his work cannot make it on its
> own merits, but has to hyped by people such as yourself ?
This is an excellent point. What percentage of artists do something
outrageous (cut off an ear, let's say, or insist that a urinal is a work
of art, or take a dangerous political stand) that winds up as hype for
their art work? Hey, that's show biz. But I am not the hyper. As far
as I'm concerned, once you're in the studio, you're not really part of
my very narrow and very amateur little project. This is a heads up to
the group, some of this stuff may still be out there and it may escalate
in value very soon. I wouldn't, of course, actually _buy_ anything be
any of the writers I'm posting about.
>Are you
> sure that your interest in these crude daubings is not just a way of
> trying to convince yourself that what you see is NOT proof of the
> coarseness, uglyness, degeneracy and decay of the life around you but
> is instead a part of a thriving and vibrant culture ? You talk
> about peddling to other neighnorhoods to wallow in, (or revel in, pick
> one) these acts of aesthetic agression. We can assume your own
> neigborhood has not yet become a target for these criminals. But I
> wonder if you would welcome it with such glowing terms when that happy
> day finally arrives- and it will. I think not. First because it's
> not very impressive and has a dull sameness about it.
I;m positive. As you can tell from the half of the pictures on my blog
(shameless plug: www.graffitirider.blogspot.com) that I'm not making
fun of, I'm not looking for the crude daubings. Under my criteria, I'm
looking specifically for fresh, new works that happen to be painted
illicitly on walls.
As I've mentioned in previous posts, my neighborhood has completely co-
opted the graffiti idiom and almost all of the extant works on permanent
walls are paid-for murals. They don't qualify under my criteria. The
neighborhoods uptown from me have decided they don't want any graffiti,
so I have to ride quite a ways to find some of the remaining spots
(today, for example, literally under the North River sewage treatment
plant and children's park [no joke, we actually have such a place]) to
find some of the zones still left alone, presumably for cultural
preservation.
Graffiti has become like jazz or opera. The heydays are gone, but there
is the occasional new bit of genius and afficianados to appreciate them.
Oddly enough, I'm also a fan of jazz and opera. They also annoy a lot
of people, but there's no accounting for taste.
>
> Surely you've noticed the endless repetition of oversize
> initials. ALWAYS outlined with a thick border. Always in the hopes of
> drawing attention to the person who sprayed the mess on the wall.
Absolutely. That's why I don't usually photograph them. Sometimes
someone comes up with totally new and surprising ways to convey text,
or, better yet, breaks out of the text idea altogether.
> Surely you've noticed the fact that, being exposed to the weather,
> these in- your- face daubings begin to deteriorate the moment they are
> completed and perpetrator has slunk off into the night.
Ah! That's the best part. If you notice, there is a Bartholdi work
sitting in our harbor, "Liberty Enlightening the World." It's made out
of copper, but today it looks green. Weathering is the greatest aspect
of outdoor art, and my series of the butcher paper oils wethers most and
is my favorite.
>I'll grant
> you almost ANY chamge to NY is an improvement but surely you must be
> aware that the job of eventually erasing these messes costs an
> enormous amount of money. Money which could better be spent on the
> miserable educational system in New york city. Sorry, Andy. Don't
> try to convince anyone you like this stuff. It's what happens when
> there is a breakdown in civil bahavior and civic leaders are
> intimidated to the point that they would rather live with ugliness
> than take the steps needed to correct it.
Actually, we decided not to pay for the removal. If you get caught
writing on the walls, a judge hands you a pail and you get to wash off
paint from anywhere it's still around from anybody whose building they
want it off of. That principal has saved the city an awful lot of
money; if there's no graffiti to wash off, you pick up garbage in the
parks. We traded those no-show city jobs for free labor that actually
gets done. And the money went to schools to educate kids and give them
no reason to complain about their lives by mindlessly writing on walls.
What's left, besides the hard core crews, is people who have to paint on
walls like some of the people here just have to paint.
--ag
Bill
have the last word. You referred several times to the paintings on walls of
prehistoric caves to prove,( I guess), that graffiti has a ancient and
honorable tradition. Having lived in the south of France where many caves
were found, I have a different view. First, it's probably fair to say that
the painters were decorating the INSIDE of their OWN dwellings, and not the
OUTSIDE of some one else's. They prefigure Michael Angelo's masterpiece on
the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. Not the furtive daubings of a midnight
hit and run artist.
Most of these caves, such as the one at Lascaux are closed to the
public. Ostensibly because heavy tourist traffic would alter the
temperature and humidity, introduce bacteria, mold and fungi which would
destroy the paintings in short order. Privately, I was told the real reason
is that the paintings contain over-the- top pornography not suitable for
tourists. The same is true for the burial chambers in the ancient pyramids
of Egypt. So, Yes. paintings on walls have an ancient tradition But so does
the heavy hand of government in deciding when and where art may or may not
be displayed. To do away with such controls may appeal to the sophomoric
mind. But mature adults realize that a world without rules is just another
description of hell.
On the matter of quality and talent displayed by graffiti artists, maybe it'
s not their fault, but I have never seen any real talent. Spray paint is put
out in the primary colors: red, green, black, white, red and OSHA orange
etc, but I've never seen any burnt sienna, or cobalt blue. So the range of
what grafitti is capable of is quite limited. Looking at a rich tapestry in
the painting of an old master our brain tells us it's all one color, but our
eye sees a wide color range from very bright to deeply shadowed hues. Try
that with Krylon. It can't be done regardless of the skill of the artist.
And most are NOT skilled.
Ultimately this comes down to a difference of opinion over the way
cities have developed over the centuries. If you are a "city person" you
desperately want to believe that graffiti is simply one aspect of the
wonderful diversity city life has to offer. If on the other hand. you
believe that God created the hills, the valleys, the rivers and the plains
but that Cain built the first city, then graffiti is just a symptom of the
woeful and degenerate ailment that is only to be expected from what is
basically a terrible blight upon the land. I'm afraid I count myself among
the non- city folk. Can't stand 'em. Never could. To those who argue that
there is nothing like Paris, London or New York, I would answer that there
is nothing like Bubonic Plague either. It's in a class by itself.
andy gee
through the 20 or so pictures on my blog (yet another shameless plug:
www.graffitirider.blogspot.com) and for each picture, answer four
questions:
If it were hanging in a gallery, would it be art or trash?
Does the piece appear to be vandalism or sanctioned?
Did I post it seriously or as a goof?
As for the photo itself, if you saw it in a photo gallery (please pretend
I'm not the world's worst photographer and assume a little lighting and
composition for me) would it be interesting or crap?
We may come to a meeting of the minds!
"Bill" <bm...@XpaM.net> wrote in
news:43d5815e$0$8279$470e...@news.pa.net:
> Let me take one more swing at the graffiti issue. Then I'll let
> you
> have the last word. You referred several times to the paintings on
> walls of prehistoric caves to prove,( I guess), that graffiti has a
> ancient and honorable tradition. Having lived in the south of France
> where many caves were found, I have a different view. First, it's
> probably fair to say that the painters were decorating the INSIDE of
> their OWN dwellings, and not the OUTSIDE of some one else's. They
> prefigure Michael Angelo's masterpiece on the ceiling of the Sistine
> Chapel. Not the furtive daubings of a midnight hit and run artist.
The fact that we can propose counterexamples to each other indicates that
my proposition is correct, ie, some graffiti is good stuff while most is
not. How much influence did political muralism have on Mexican art, for
example? Lot's of famous Mexican muralists with works hanging in Museums,
and a lot of the original stuff was paint and run at midnight. And by the
way, how much paint on the _outside_ of the caves washed away over 25,000
years relative to the stuff inside?
>
> Most of these caves, such as the one at Lascaux are closed to the
> public. Ostensibly because heavy tourist traffic would alter the
> temperature and humidity, introduce bacteria, mold and fungi which
> would destroy the paintings in short order. Privately, I was told the
> real reason is that the paintings contain over-the- top pornography
> not suitable for tourists. The same is true for the burial chambers in
> the ancient pyramids of Egypt. So, Yes. paintings on walls have an
> ancient tradition But so does the heavy hand of government in deciding
> when and where art may or may not be displayed. To do away with such
> controls may appeal to the sophomoric mind. But mature adults realize
> that a world without rules is just another description of hell.
Surely you aren't saying that you want the government to keep us from
seeing painted works because of their content, are you?
> On the matter of quality and talent displayed by graffiti artists,
> maybe it' s not their fault, but I have never seen any real talent.
Does that mean it doesn't exist? Take my simple test above.
> Spray paint is put out in the primary colors: red, green, black,
> white, red and OSHA orange etc, but I've never seen any burnt sienna,
> or cobalt blue. So the range of what grafitti is capable of is quite
> limited. Looking at a rich tapestry in the painting of an old master
> our brain tells us it's all one color, but our eye sees a wide color
> range from very bright to deeply shadowed hues. Try that with Krylon.
> It can't be done regardless of the skill of the artist. And most are
> NOT skilled.
I certainly grant you that different media have different effects and
ranges of possibilities. My personal favorite painting (hanging in my
bedroom) is a Chinese daubed paint on linen of one isolated tree branch.
The medium has its limitations but the totality of the effect is quite
magical.
>
> Ultimately this comes down to a difference of opinion over the way
> cities have developed over the centuries. If you are a "city person"
> you desperately want to believe that graffiti is simply one aspect of
> the wonderful diversity city life has to offer. If on the other hand.
> you believe that God created the hills, the valleys, the rivers and
> the plains but that Cain built the first city, then graffiti is just a
> symptom of the woeful and degenerate ailment that is only to be
> expected from what is basically a terrible blight upon the land.
This is an interesting argument, but disengenuous. Obviously, the Nod
County authorities had trouble from Enochburg from day one, since Cain
needed an order of protection stamped on his forehead. Cain's problem was
inventing this idea that burning some food could provide expiation from
doing somebody wrong, as he was divinely chastized. Both the archeological
record and the Bible story show the settled farmer "murdering" the innocent
nomad, and that's still going on today. The Bible narrative regarding
cities shows the true archelogical pattern of growth, massive expenditure
on really big structures, reliance on monoculture agriculture,
monopolization of water, and intense moral decay leading to statue-worship,
human sacrifice, and temple prostitution or orgiastic rights, for example.
But the nomadics are shown up as bumpkins, constantly tripping themselves
up by relying on "clan rules" as is still happening today. The narrative
clearly shows a desired synthesis of combining the technology and
sophistication of the city with the original morality of the nomad into a
free country with standardized laws and rights and multiple sources of
agriculture and industry. Consider the differences between Shechem and
Sodom. Shechem was so innocent that it eventually became one of the Cities
of Refuge, where a guy could go to avoid being lynched by clan rules, while
Sodom was utterly destriyed. Was graffiti the difference between them?
Would Solomon (or Singapore, for that matter) tolerate graffiti in his
Jerusalem while he was sacrificing pigs in his temple at the behest of one
of his thousand wives? It's not city versus country, in other words.
> I'm
> afraid I count myself among the non- city folk. Can't stand 'em. Never
> could. To those who argue that there is nothing like Paris, London or
> New York, I would answer that there is nothing like Bubonic Plague
> either. It's in a class by itself.
When I resume Century training on the bike this spring, I'll be sure to get
some shots of paint-dripping-from-the-overpass Harry (heart) Debbie
graffiti, drunken frat-boy painting pranks, and perhaps the elusive spray-
painted cows ;)
--ag
Bill
"andy gee" <and...@GETRIDOFTHISinterport.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9755830636EFCa...@216.196.97.142...
> Bill, there's a simple test to help decide some of these questions. Go
I've looked over the examples very carefuly and then looked again lest I
may have missed something. (That was unnecessary since there was LESS there
than meets the eye.) I found nothing there that was not crude, ugly,
repetitious and characterized by a kind of self centered arrogance that
assumed the work was all about the dauber / sprayer and had nothing to do
with the content of the work itself. The words grotesque, nightmarish,
infantile, and meaningless sprang immediately to mind.
I usually can guess or infer something about a person based upon his likes
and dislikes, But honestly, anyone who could wax lyrical about these
splatters leaves me completely baffled. Did something TERRIBLE happen in
your life which transformed your view of the world into a conviction that
ALL was ugliness ? That ugliness was the norm ? That we should celbrate
the ugly aspects of life ? That disenters from this view were dangerously
misguided and perhaps criminal in their non acceptance of your new ugly-
centered philosophy ? I find life and the world that contains it to be
beautiful. And that I think explains our totally different views on art and
life.
> If it were hanging in a gallery, would it be art or trash?
> Does the piece appear to be vandalism or sanctioned?
> Did I post it seriously or as a goof?.........
Sorry Andy. But you're giving this stuff more attention than it deserves.
The correct answer to such questions is who in hell cares ? Do you also
examine the texture of dog poop on New York sidewalks or the chemical
composition of pigeon droppings on your statues ?
> The fact that we can propose counterexamples to each other indicates that
> my proposition is correct, ie, ....
You're saying that because we disagree it proves that you're right and I'm
wrong ?
Permit me to disagee.
>some graffiti is good stuff while most is
> not. How much influence did political muralism have on Mexican art, for
> example? Lot's of famous Mexican muralists with works hanging in Museums,
> and a lot of the original stuff was paint and run at midnight.
You seem to be totally convinced that because someone's painting (or
urinal) is placed in a museum it is proof positive of the merit of the
artist and his work. I think New York is a living, breathing REPUDIATION of
that idea. And if you were objective about it you would agree. Surely you
don't measure the worth of a man by the number of shekels he has
accumulated. Or do you?
> And by the > way, how much paint on the _outside_ of the caves washed away
over 25,000
> years relative to the stuff inside?
I'd guess that all of it is gone. And the point of your question is ??
> Surely you aren't saying that you want the government to keep us from
> seeing painted works because of their content, are you?
please don't try to paint me as favoring censorship. Let me turn the
question around and ask you if you think the city fathers of New York would
tolerate for an INSTANT an exibit of Nazi memorabilia ? And stop trying to
reduce complex questions to simple issues involving the good guys and the
bad guys. Government, with your approval and mine, decides what kind of
food or drugs can be offered to the public and put into our bodies.. It
tries to keep poisonous material under control. It's not far fetched to
expect them to keep poisonous material out of our brains. Despite
sophomoric efforts to demonize government censors.
> I certainly grant you that different media have different effects and
> ranges of possibilities. My personal favorite painting (hanging in my
> bedroom) is a Chinese daubed paint on linen of one isolated tree branch.
> The medium has its limitations but the totality of the effect is quite
> magical.
There is something to be said for minimalist black and white graphics.
But that is not to say they are superior to detailed representational art
using the full range of media develped over centuries by hundreds of
experts. Mostly they are not.
> When I resume Century training on the bike this spring, I'll be sure to
get
> some shots of paint-dripping-from-the-overpass Harry (heart) Debbie
> graffiti, drunken frat-boy painting pranks, and perhaps the elusive spray-
> painted cows ;)
I don't know what Centrury training is. Why do you assume that any of
us at r.a.f. knows ? But let me express my hope that as you peddle you keep
your eye, and camera, focused on beauty and not uglyness ? On graceful
buildings and not shacks ? On the beauty of nature and not rot, decay and
disintegration ? Despite efforts to denigrate it some greenery still
exists in New York other than the tops of your pool tables.
Andy Gee
news:43d6f766$0$8284$470e...@news.pa.net:
>
> "andy gee" <and...@GETRIDOFTHISinterport.net> wrote in message
> news:Xns9755830636EFCa...@216.196.97.142...
>> Bill, there's a simple test to help decide some of these questions.
>> Go through the 20 or so pictures on my blog.......
>
> I've looked over the examples very carefuly and then looked again
> lest I
> may have missed something. (That was unnecessary since there was LESS
> there than meets the eye.) I found nothing there that was not crude,
> ugly, repetitious and characterized by a kind of self centered
> arrogance that assumed the work was all about the dauber / sprayer and
> had nothing to do with the content of the work itself. The words
> grotesque, nightmarish, infantile, and meaningless sprang immediately
> to mind. I usually can guess or infer something about a person based
> upon his likes and dislikes, But honestly, anyone who could wax
> lyrical about these splatters leaves me completely baffled.
I find this odd, because many of the pieces are neither daubed nor
sprayed but are brush painted. As to what the work was about, I'm not
an artist myself but I must assume that a large percentage of art has to
do with what's going on inside the artist. I also believe that
arrogant, nightmarish, and grotesque are good art adjectives -- I only
wish I could find something like The Scream or Guernica on a wall
somewhere. If you substitute naif for infantile, I've got four out of
five, and if you add Jackson Pollock, I've got a full boat.
As for me, my friends know me as someone who finds the good in people,
events, and things and then gets upset when all the good is demonstrated
to be false.
>
>> If it were hanging in a gallery, would it be art or trash?
>> Does the piece appear to be vandalism or sanctioned?
>> Did I post it seriously or as a goof?.........
>
> Sorry Andy. But you're giving this stuff more attention than it
> deserves. The correct answer to such questions is who in hell cares ?
> Do you also examine the texture of dog poop on New York sidewalks or
> the chemical composition of pigeon droppings on your statues ?
Now that you mention it, I did a semester in an ecology field school in
En Geidi, as part of an exchange program with the Weizmann Institute. I
wasn't good enough to sketch birds, so I was in charge of finding,
examining, and cataloging scat. It was 120+ in the shade, but of course
there was precious little shade.
>
>> The fact that we can propose counterexamples to each other indicates
>> that my proposition is correct, ie, ....
>
> You're saying that because we disagree it proves that you're right and
> I'm wrong ?
> Permit me to disagee.
My proposition is that there exists some graffiti that is good art, even
while most may be crap or non-art by reason of its functionality for a
different purpose (ie political, religious, commercial, or gang-
related). I go back through the history of images painted on publicly
visible walls, and you give examples of 3-D initials in bad colors that
aren't Rembrandt. That shows that much graffiti is not good art, but
logically, it doesn't refute the proposition that some graffiti is good
art.
>
>>some graffiti is good stuff while most is
>> not. How much influence did political muralism have on Mexican art,
>> for example? Lot's of famous Mexican muralists with works hanging in
>> Museums, and a lot of the original stuff was paint and run at
>> midnight.
>
> You seem to be totally convinced that because someone's painting
> (or
> urinal) is placed in a museum it is proof positive of the merit of the
> artist and his work. I think New York is a living, breathing
> REPUDIATION of that idea. And if you were objective about it you
> would agree. Surely you don't measure the worth of a man by the
> number of shekels he has accumulated. Or do you?
Since there is no good algorithm to categorize something objectively as
art or non-art, the only criteria to fairly use is if something is
generally accepted as art by curators, critics, and academics.
I don't know what you mean about New York repudiating anything. Are you
saying that if a Da Vinci is in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New
York, that makes it no good, or what?
And I don't know what you mean by the shekel remark. With respect to
most of the stuff in Museums, the original artist didn't get anything or
anything near what the downstream value is, whence the expression
"starving artist." My family has a very, very old expression: Who is
rich? He who is satisfied with what he's got. That's the way I measure
somebody's worth. Net worth, any way.
>> Surely you aren't saying that you want the government to keep us from
>> seeing painted works because of their content, are you?
>
> please don't try to paint me as favoring censorship. Let me turn
> the
> question around and ask you if you think the city fathers of New York
> would tolerate for an INSTANT an exibit of Nazi memorabilia ? And stop
> trying to reduce complex questions to simple issues involving the good
> guys and the bad guys. Government, with your approval and mine,
> decides what kind of food or drugs can be offered to the public and
> put into our bodies.. It tries to keep poisonous material under
> control. It's not far fetched to expect them to keep poisonous
> material out of our brains. Despite sophomoric efforts to demonize
> government censors.
Actually, as a child many, many years ago, every numismatic / philatelic
/ etc exhibition (some in the Colliseum, city property) had huge
displays of Nazi memorabilia, as do quite a few gun shows I happen to
have wandered by down south. We have a Holocaust Museum that has whole
rooms of the stuff on display.
Yes, the USDA should keep the bacteria off the meat. Yes, the FDA
should stop snake oil being sold as cures. No, the United States
Government cannot regulate or restrict speech, which includes artistic
expression.
>> When I resume Century training on the bike this spring, I'll be sure
>> to
> get
>> some shots of paint-dripping-from-the-overpass Harry (heart) Debbie
>> graffiti, drunken frat-boy painting pranks, and perhaps the elusive
>> spray- painted cows ;)
>
> I don't know what Centrury training is. Why do you assume that
> any of
> us at r.a.f. knows ? But let me express my hope that as you peddle you
> keep your eye, and camera, focused on beauty and not uglyness ? On
> graceful buildings and not shacks ? On the beauty of nature and not
> rot, decay and disintegration ? Despite efforts to denigrate it
> some greenery still exists in New York other than the tops of your
> pool tables.
>
Sorry -- Century riding means riding a bicycle 100+ miles in a day. It
takes me out to the country quite a ways. I do it to show that if a 46
year old with osteoarthritis and osteoperosis can ride a bicycle 100
miles, we can avoid the ugliness of oil wars and the rot and decay of
lung disease from ozone and fossil fuel ash, and the eventual
disintegration of this beautiful country by giving all of our "shekels"
to the people sitting on the oil.
But look, Bill, if you're looking for art depicting beautiful nature
scenes and pretty cottages and stuff, guaranteed non-nightmarish and
non-grotesque, have you considered Thomas Kincaid?
--ag
artangel
Bill
-- I only > wish I could find something like The Scream or Guernica on a
wall
> somewhere.
It's clear we're not going to agree on grafitti. How could we ? It's a
part of the cultural war raging in the US. I'm not surprised that you
mention The Scream, Guernica or Pollock's splatterings They are perfect
examples of where we differ. The left sees only ugliness, hopelessness and
depair and screams of outrage are their only viable reaction. Permit me to
disagree. Pollock cannot even pass the Bowser Test. My pet dog can do as
well or better with a paint brush tied to his tail.
> Now that you mention it, I did a semester in an ecology field school in
> En Geidi, as part of an exchange program with the Weizmann Institute. I
> wasn't good enough to sketch birds, so I was in charge of finding,
> examining, and cataloging scat.
You have a habit of mentioning these phrases as if we all should instantly
recognize them and admit they prove your point.
I don't know whatt the Weiztman institute is or what it does. But it should
STOP it and do something ELSE. Surely your time and talent could better be
spent doing something else. But they of course may they may have reasons I'm
not aware of.
That shows that much graffiti is not good art, but
> logically, it doesn't refute the proposition that some graffiti is good
art.
If I say grafitti I have examined is bad, that does not mean the rest is
GOOD. The burden of proof is on you.
> Since there is no good algorithm to categorize something objectively as
> art or non-art, the only criteria to fairly use is if something is
> generally accepted as art by curators, critics, and academics.
Unless the curators , critics and academics are partisans in the cultural
war and have a vested interest in maintaining the ststus as self appointed
status as gurus of national taste. Also, Didn't you say that personal
opinion is king ? "If you don't like my fake Rembrandt, that's fine.
Move on to the next gallery, please."
Are you > saying that if a Da Vinci is in the Metropolitan Museum of Art
in New
> York, that makes it no good, or what?
No. but I'm saying that anyone trumpeting the merit of a Jackson Pollack is
either a liar or a fool.
> My family has a very, very old expression: Who is rich? He who is
satisfied with what he's got. That's the way I measure
> somebody's worth. Net worth, any way.
And my family has an even older rexpression. When dealing with shysters in
the art world- Caveat Emptor.
> Actually, as a child many, many years ago, every numismatic / philatelic
> / etc exhibition (some in the Colliseum, city property) had huge
> displays of Nazi memorabilia, as do quite a few gun shows I happen to
> have wandered by down south.
But we're NOT talking about many, many years ago nor talking about the
South. Any one who thinks the NY city fathers today will tollerate free
expression about naziisnm is a liar or a fool. And you KNOW it, Andy. Since
Hitler was in favor of clean water I'm surprised that New York has not
mandated filthy water. Or have they ?
No, the United States > Government cannot regulate or restrict speech,
which includes artistic
> expression.
Free speech was never absolute and you know it. Stop trying to draw me
into an argument where you can brand me as as a book burner or a cross
burner. If you want narrow minded bigotry you'll find it in abundance
among the aforementioned
curators and academics and art critics of New York..
> But look, Bill, if you're looking for art depicting beautiful nature
> scenes and pretty cottages and stuff, guaranteed non-nightmarish and
> non-grotesque, have you considered Thomas Kincaid?
I can almost see the curl of the upper lip used to dismiss Kinkaid (any
almost any Americana) in the New York art ghetto. The anti- Kincaid
argument I'm sure is based mostly on jealousy and the fact that he has made
a bundle while by passing the NY art world. I think Kincaid is a very
talented artist whose work I'd have no problem hanging on my wall.
Something I could not say about Picasso or Munch ot Pollock. And your
opinion of Kincaid is ?? Remember now. No reference to that filthy lucre.
andy gee
news:1138245425.2...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
> Interesting stuff guys.
>
>
It had been, but now it's tired. Glad you like it!
--ag
artangel
Pollack is
either a liar or a fool."
" I think Kincaid is a very
talented artist whose work I'd have no problem hanging on my wall.
Something I could not say about Picasso or Munch ot Pollock."
Always seems to end on the same note. Sad.
Mani Deli
andy gee
news:1138370202.5...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
You know, I'll tell ya. I used to be one of those people who would walk
into MoMA, see that huge Pollock in the entrance hall, and laugh at it
for just being some spilled and splattered paint. Then I would head
down the stairs to see my beloved Starry Night, and on the way down,
spend some time contemplating my equally beloved Jasper Johns Flag.
(After 9/11 when everyone was putting flags everywhere, I bought a dozen
Jasper Johns postcards and taped them up in my house and my office.)
Then one day, something clicked between those three paintings and I
finally "got" the Pollack. It's never too late to grow. I think. For
most people, any way.
I had risked being rude because I thought calling someone on r.a.f a
Kincaid appreciator would be like calling a New Yorker a Celtics fan.
But there ya go. There are plenty of people who are attracted to
bright, shiny things, so God bless 'em.
--ag
andy gee
news:43d98ac4$0$25067$470e...@news.pa.net:
>
> "Andy Gee" <and...@getridofthis.interport.net> wrote in message
> news:Xns9756C5747E446a...@24.29.109.198...
>
>> Now that you mention it, I did a semester in an ecology field school
>> in En Geidi, as part of an exchange program with the Weizmann
>> Institute. I wasn't good enough to sketch birds, so I was in charge
>> of finding, examining, and cataloging scat.
>
> You have a habit of mentioning these phrases as if we all should
> instantly recognize them and admit they prove your point.
> I don't know whatt the Weiztman institute is or what it does. But it
> should STOP it and do something ELSE. Surely your time and talent
> could better be spent doing something else. But they of course may
> they may have reasons I'm not aware of.
You were the one who brought up inspecting shit in what I consider a
mocking tone. I am pointing out that what you might consider ridiculous
may have a redeeming social or scientific value. Also, I would have
thought that a typical person could parse the words "school," "semester,"
"ecology" and "institute" and get a picture of what was going on.
But since you can't:
Ecology is the study of the interelationships of living organisms and their
environment.
Field school is where you go to put what you learned into practice and
gather some data.
The Weizmann Institute is a premier research university in Isreal.
Ein Gedi is a miserable, hellish place on the shore of the Dead Sea.
Traditionally, the area was punished for manipulating commodities markets
and water rights, and for being unkind to strangers. It seems to have
stayed punished.
Scat is tracker / hunter / scientist lingo for animal feces. It's studied
and tracked over time to see what animals are where and who is eating whom.
The Weizmann Institute should, in fact, continue to do all of their
research, from cancer cures to information science. I could only wish that
in some small way, the data I collected 30 years ago may be of some help in
tracking the effects of global warming on delicate ecologies.
>
> And my family has an even older rexpression. When dealing with
> shysters in the art world- Caveat Emptor.
I should remind you that the original post was about free art in public
places, not subject to curators or shysters or anyone else; anything that
already made it into the museum/gallery system was excluded.
> South. Any one who thinks the NY city fathers today will tollerate
> free expression about naziisnm is a liar or a fool. And you KNOW it,
> Andy. Since Hitler was in favor of clean water I'm surprised that New
> York has not mandated filthy water. Or have they ?
As I mentioned, we have a brand new museum just full of te stuff. I
haven't been to a stamp and coin show in quite a while, but this is an
answerable question. Just take your Nazi memorabilia up here and rent a
hotel conference space and see if anyone stops you. We have no laws
prohibiting such an exhibition. It's France that has that law.
> Free speech was never absolute and you know it. Stop trying to
> draw me
> into an argument where you can brand me as as a book burner or a cross
> burner. If you want narrow minded bigotry you'll find it in
> abundance among the aforementioned
> curators and academics and art critics of New York..
I gave two examples of must-regulate speech and one of never-regulate
speech, so I can't be seen as saying that free speech is absolute. Can you
think of a single case of an oil on canvas that was banned in the US
because of its specific depiction? Are you prepared to ban Georgia O"Keefe
because she paints flowers that look like pedunda?
> And your opinion of Kincaid is ?? Remember now. No reference to that
> filthy lucre.
>
My opinion is that a lot of people are attracted to bright, shiny things.
If he wants to put reflective metallic flakes in his paint and people want
to buy it, fine. But generally speaking, when there's an assembly line
involved, I don't consider it art.
--ag
artangel
I feel so let down.
I thought you were well on your way to getting a nice "nickname" from
our resident poultry brained knome Mani.
Mine is "fartangel".
What fun! It truly is a badge of honor. If Mani gives you a name you
know you are on the right track.
His stupidity and lack of insight are awesome.
(Watch for his reply. )
Andy Gee
news:1138413525.8...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> I thought you were well on your way to getting a nice "nickname" from
> our resident poultry brained knome Mani.
Sigh... There are so few people left who know what usenet is anymore --
try calling your ISP help line and tell them "my nntp isn't feeding" and
see what they say -- and this is a fine arts newsgroup, too. I wouldn't
think people would stoop to name calling.
Is there anyone on the group who is genuinely excited by new art?
--ag
artangel
I dont believe in calling people names either - except for Mani because
it is soo much fun!
Besides the art being "caged" what are your thoughts on the upcoming
Whitney Biennial since it is open to non US artists this year.
Andy Gee
news:1138423573....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Well, I gotta tell ya, the Whitney is a bit farther east than I usually go
to see art. I will cross 5th Avenue to the Guggenheim and make it halfway
to Madison Ave for MoMA, but hitting Madison itself is dangerous for me.
I know I want to see the collages because I heard there's some connection
with the ones in 6 Feet Under. And I want to see Taylor Mead, but I don't
know how they can have Taylor without screening Talylor Mead's Ass.
Speaking of film, I was never comfortable with film installed as part of an
exhibition, but that's just me. Lots of stuff I remember from my youth --
the peace tower and Semiotext(e) from my later youth. I'll probably go and
have pleasant memories and enjoy myself but probably not be moved by
anything new. Are you going? Is r.a.f having a presence?
--ag
Bill
"andy gee" <and...@GETRIDOFTHISinterport.net> wrote in message > You were
the one who brought up inspecting > My opinion is that a lot of people are
attracted to bright, shiny things.
> If he wants to put reflective metallic flakes in his paint and people want
> to buy it, fine. But generally speaking, when there's an assembly line
> involved, I don't consider it art.
Yet, you consider the splatterings of a con man like J. Pollock to be
art and you "get it " ??? What is it that you get Andy ? If he had used
an expensive compressed air spray gun instead of merely dripping paint
from a paint can would that be too mechanical or industrialized for you to
consider his work to be art ? Sprayed art work apparently doesn't trouble
you at all if it's done at night on someone else's wall. Also I was
wondering how long it was going to take you to try to support your argument
by waving the jewish flag. Desperately hoping, I guess, for a chance to
play the anti-semitic card. Sorry to disappoint you. As for bright shiney
things, your dismissal makes no sense at all. Unless you're willing to
admit your deep, knee jerk preference for dull, ugly, repetitious,
grotesque and nightmarish splatterings as being effective answers to a
bright shiney world that most rational people prefer. You have my sympathy,
Andy.
Bill.
artangel
I dont think I have missed one in 35 years.
Guggenheim - great building if they would just empty it of all that
distracting art!
Film/Media in exhibitions are great if done right. Bill Viola, Shirin
Neshat among others.
Tayler Mead? My god, he must be over 200 years old.
Met him a few times in the early 70s Is he in the Biennial?
What about the New Museum's new building in the Bowery? Now thats real
gentrification.
Mani Deli
Most of my messages have nothing to do with name calling. Most every
serious message I wrote here was followed by Artangel calling the
names. I chose to answer in kind.
It started when each message I wrote was followed by:
>Keep pissing into the wind Mani
>Keep pissing into the wind Mani
>Keep pissing into the wind Mani
>Keep pissing into the wind Mani
>Keep pissing into the wind Mani
>Keep pissing into the wind Mani
That makes six times!
And she claims I repeat myself.
Frankly I have no objection to this. She can say what she likes.
Indeed she has little else to say.
Mani Deli
<cityofim...@verizon.net> wrote:
>Dont get discouraged. Mani is just a comic side diversion.
and Bubblebut is just another artzy fartzy fundamentalistn who can't
show her work.
>I dont believe in calling people names either
Like when you followed every message I wrote by:
>Keep pissing into the wind Mani
>Keep pissing into the wind Mani
>Keep pissing into the wind Mani
>Keep pissing into the wind Mani
>Keep pissing into the wind Mani
>Keep pissing into the wind Mani
Which started the whole thing. Indeed its fun.
Mani Deli
> Yet, you consider the splatterings of a con man like J. Pollock to be
>art and you "get it " ???
I get it also. Pollock is an original who was the first to paint the
results of bullemia nervosa He deserves all the credit for doing
something new.
artangel
"keep pissing into the wind" is not a name.
Mani our dear Windpisser, now thats a name!
Mani Deli
<cityofim...@verizon.net> wrote:
Right toots, like Fartangel.
Andy Gee
news:43db1b09$0$25087$470e...@news.pa.net:
>
> "andy gee" <and...@GETRIDOFTHISinterport.net> wrote in message > You
> were the one who brought up inspecting > My opinion is that a lot of
> people are attracted to bright, shiny things.
>> If he wants to put reflective metallic flakes in his paint and people
>> want to buy it, fine. But generally speaking, when there's an
>> assembly line involved, I don't consider it art.
>
> Yet, you consider the splatterings of a con man like J. Pollock to
> be
> art and you "get it " ???
Well, you asked me for my honest opinion and I gave it to you. I've
never asked you for any opinions about anything except my own photos.
You should know that Pollock had an impressive body of work before he
invented splattering on canvas. She Wolf and Moon Woman are my
favorites, and #7 has always been intriguing to me.
But whatever Pollock did, each work was its own unique piece. By any
reasonable definition of fine art, having identical pieces coming out of
an assembly line process is just not fine art. I am very curious about
the opinions of everyone else on r.f.a on Kincaid.
> What is it that you get Andy ? If he
The textbook answer is that it's an expression directly from the
subconcious, without any preconceptions of the conscious mind butting
in. He splatters the paint, you look at it, you get a feeling, it's
done its job. The meta-answer is that it is art that uses the world of
art as its medium: he's painted the art world into an absurdist corner
where people pay good money for something not too different from the
sheets left behind on the floor when the painter has done your house.
If you recall the controversy from 6 or 7 years ago about the fake
article "Towards a Hermaneutics of Quantum Gravity" you'll get the idea.
> Also I was wondering how long it was
> going to take you to try to support your argument by waving the
> jewish flag. Desperately hoping, I guess, for a chance to play the
> anti-semitic card. Sorry to disappoint you.
I reviewed the thread, and I find that it was you who brought up Nazis
and shekels. And by the way, it's "pedal" and not "peddle" (as in
peddler?)
So what is this Jewish Flag that I raised? You mockingly asked a
question about inspecting shit, and I gave you a serious answer about
how shit and its cataloging and inspection is scientifically important.
The story happened to take place in a desert in Israel, supervised by a
research university also in Israel. Most of the students in the
exchange program were not Jewish, by the way. That's the point of
student exchange, to go somewhere different.
You should also know that there is no Jewish Flag. There is a country
called Israel with a majority of Jewish citizens, and Israel has a flag,
the Israeli flag. The tribes of Israel had traditional heraldry, so the
tribe of Judah may have had a battle standard or a banner with a lion
and some barley on it, but that would have been a Judahite flag, and not
a Jewish flag. In the post-Mordecai sense of "Jewish," a Jewish flag
would have been impossible: Dispersed Jews were rabinically mandated to
be loyal citizens of wherever they were and could only have saluted the
local flag. The Israeli flag did not emerge until the World Zionist
Convention in preparation for an actual State of Israel.
As long as I'm listing things you should know, you take an awful lot of
time to denigrate New York City and cities in general. Are you aware
that New York and Los Angeles sent you about 120 billion dollars last
year to subsidize your country idyl? Are you aware that people outside
NY and LA are fat at twice the rate of people in those cities, and that
we have to pay exhorbitant sums in group health insurance premiums to
treat you? Are you aware that if the country as a whole used energy the
way NY does, we would be net exporters of energy, and not have to go
shoot people to secure oil? Are you aware that New York and California
have positive trade balances with the rest of the world, and that we're
only being dragged down in national debt misery because of your Walmart
way of life? You should think about who you're leeching off of before
you criticize.
> As for bright shiney
> things, your dismissal makes no sense at all. Unless you're willing
> to admit your deep, knee jerk preference for dull, ugly,
> repetitious, grotesque and nightmarish splatterings as being
> effective answers to a bright shiney world that most rational people
> prefer. You have my sympathy, Andy.
Kincaid bills himself as the artist of light. You walk through a mall
somewhere, you see a blinding flash, you turn your head, and there's
this gallery of fairy cottages with headlights on them. I like things
hygenically clean and shiny, but attraction to bright shiny things just
by dint of their being bright and shiny is literally juvenile: that's
what babies are attracted to. If it's chrome, let it shine. If getting
the dirt off the truck or plane saves weight and fuel, let it shine. if
it's a tree, let it be green. Incidentally, the last movie I saw of
people really seeming to enjoy bright, shiny things was "Triumph of the
Will."
--ag
Andy Gee
news:1138457515.4...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> Yes, I make a point of seeing the Whitney Biennial every year! (Joke)
>
> I dont think I have missed one in 35 years.
>
> Guggenheim - great building if they would just empty it of all that
> distracting art!
Last time I was their was for the Norman Rockwell expo. You know, for
something that I had thought was non-art, they really brought out the art
and pathos in it.
>
> Film/Media in exhibitions are great if done right. Bill Viola, Shirin
> Neshat among others.
>
> Tayler Mead? My god, he must be over 200 years old.
They say he'll be reading poetry. Warholians aren't really 200, they just
look that way after living that life.
>
> What about the New Museum's new building in the Bowery? Now thats real
> gentrification.
Haven't seen it yet. I'm so hung up on Museums being uptown and chi-chi
galleries being downtown.
--ag
artangel
Check it out.
Neil Maxwell
<and...@getridofthis.interport.net> wrote:
>I finally found a living, breathing LA II on the street. Essex Street, to
>be precise. This guy is being set up to be the Next Big Thing, so if you
>spot any of his work, especially on a (re)moveable surface, pay close
>attention.
Sorry to interrupt this little bit of online performance art (good
thing it's being archived!), but I do have a question:
What *is* an LA II?
Then I'll know if I care...
--
Neil Maxwell - I don't speak for my employer
Andy Gee
news:v5tst1pa09q3qan6t...@4ax.com:
> What *is* an LA II?
Angel Ortiz, a friend of the late Keith Haring. Both street artists who
moved to studio work. Haring's stuff is very expensive, Oritz's isn't
expensive yet.
The goals of the blog project are to find:
1. New "real art" hiding on the streets in the middle of the "plain old"
graffiti.
2. Extant specimens of street art by people who are now working in studios
and commanding good prices.
3. Anything else interesting or photo-worthy or note or comment worthy.
I would appreciate your comments (positive or negative) on the art
worthiness of anything on the blog. Keep in mind that I'm the world's
worst photographer and I've been working in the cold and rain from my bike,
so just "pretend" what the stuff would look like in a good picture.
--ag