Advanced/Expert Level Postmodern Art Forum: Desciption & Guidelines
-N.
Welcome!
This forum is an advanced/expert level arena addressing contemporary
trends in art.
It has been created to address the need of rec.fine.art subscribers
committed to an experienced, educated, serious, and cogent discussion
about art, artists, and issues of the contemporary Postmodern artworld.
1)The Advanced/Expert Level Postmodern Art Forum is for artists already
aquatinted with the contemporary postmodern art trends, theory, and
practice. This is NOT an introductory, refresher, or remedial discussion
on Postmodernism. If you have difficulty with the term 'postmodern' this
is not the place for you...there are other threads on this newsgroup where
you can argue the pros and cons of all of art history. If you are not
familiar with the artworks, artists, theories, critiques, ideas, markets,
and traditions that collectively are referred to as postmodern, this is
not the place for you to participate. You are more than welcome to lurk
and follow the postings, but if you feel a need to respond, do so
elsewhere on the rec.arts.fine newsgroup...there is endless opportunity
elsewhere to have your issues, questions, and comments addressed, even if
they are related to issues on this thread. THIS IS AN ADVANCED LEVEL,
EXPERT THREAD ONLY. If you question whether or not you qualify as ADVANCED
LEVEL or EXPERT, then you don't...this is not the thread for you.
Beginners, intermediates or those just downright opposed to all of this:
lurk or post elsewhere.
2)Professionalism, focus, and restraint on the part of ALL posters is
mandatory to maintain a trajectory that moves within the topics and
artists at hand. As in any public forum, this one risks degenerating into
an open off topic flame-pit and troll-pond. It is counter-productive and
tedious for this forum to become engaged in remedial
Modernist/Postmodernist (what have you) supplementary
discussions/arguments to bring the less
aware/indoctrinated/educated/violently opposed/experienced posters up to
date on contemporary Postmodern trends in art. Certainly as one evaluates
and describes, theory will be breached, but it doesn't mean that this
forum must always deteriorate into a PreModern-Modern-Postmodern 101
course. If your intent is to bash Postmodernism (or for that matter,
either PoMo/MoDo/PreMo/AcDe/ReSa/etc)...do it elsewhere on rec.arts.fine.
If you feel you are somehow incapable of adhering to these guidelines,
then this is not the place for you.
Yo Dude!
In case we didn't make it clear enough -- to those of you who feel the
need to post off topic, have difficulty with the term 'postmodern', are
not experienced at an advanced level in the trends of Postmodern art, deny
the existence of Postmodernism or its influence, need to ask "What is
Postmodernism?", understand Postmodernism to be composed of degenerate
poseurs, those that troll, bait, flame, whine, and insult: YOUąRE A JERK.
You have no business posting here. We don't want your kind on this forum,
no matter how smart or how good an artist you are.
--
N
To reach me, remove _xxx from my address.
Kay Kane
-N. wrote in message ...
O.K. "N",
With all of the clarity and stipulations posted, we will see what happens.
I'm willing to give it a try. Be aware, that I cannot vouch for my own
behavior, but I do try and be fair and when I become boorish and it is
pointed out to me, I do apologize and recant. I hope others take the same
line. What qualifies as "expert"? Should queries not be answered? Some
people may be interested, but put off by the "expert" category. Some may be
curious. I don't like to shut anyone out as long as the focus stays on
contemporary/postmodern/neomodernism/whatever. This will be refreshing
since, I have never read an actual discussion about postmodern artists in
the n.g. for that purpose. Quiet, rational discourse is a bit much to hope
for, I fear. Art, by its very nature is volatile and it is unlikely that we
will all nod our heads wisely in agreement...
Let the games begin!
Kay Kane
Kay Kane
-N. wrote in message ...
><scarl...@theriver.com> wrote:
>
>> -N. wrote in message ...
>> >Advanced/Expert Level Postmodern Art Forum
(snip)
those that troll, bait, flame, whine, and insult: YOUąRE A JERK.
>> >You have no business posting here. We don't want your kind on this
forum,
>> >no matter how smart or how good an artist you are.
>> >
>> >--
>> >N
>> >To reach me, remove _xxx from my address.
>>
>>
>> O.K. "N",
>> With all of the clarity and stipulations posted, we will see what
happens.
>> I'm willing to give it a try. Be aware, that I cannot vouch for my own
>> behavior, but I do try and be fair and when I become boorish and it is
>> pointed out to me, I do apologize and recant. I hope others take the
same
>> line. What qualifies as "expert"?
>
>
>If you are in doubt, assume you are not one. It is a weeding-out
>mechanism. Don't lose any sleep over it. Go with what feels right.
>
>> Should queries not be answered?
>
>Correct.
>[Including my own just now...I am giving you my support by considering
>this a "practice post" by you.] If anyone posts without reading and
>digesting the 'guidelines', we ignore them. Dig? Professional restraint,
>vigilance, focus. Is that too much to ask?
>[Bartender...shot of tequila please]
>
>> Some people may be interested, but put off by the "expert" category.
>
>Then they should lurk until they feel they have something relevant to
>post. They will discern this by lurking. It is in the same spirit that
>FAQ's attempt to eliminate repetitive newcomer bloat-posts. If one decides
>not to post, or, conversely, if the entire concept fails, it makes no
>difference...its not the end of the world. It is just an attempt to
>address a need voiced often and regularly on this NG. It is not the whole
>of RAF by any means...just one small corner table with a pitcher of beer,
>some smokes, and some high octane conversation...with little tolerance to
>contenance fools.
>[Bartender, can I get a refill on this tequila?]
>
>> Some may be curious.
>
>Let them lurk.
>Who is stopping them from their curiosity? I am not banishing anyone,
(That is not within your power "N" boy)
>simply keeping it lean and mean. Maybe we can talk some high octane shit
>and by mutual greatness, actually influence the entire course of western
>art...we wont get there if we have to change our course to include the
>needs of Joe Six-Pack, who has just sidled over from the bar after
>downing a fifth of JD and is only able to catch his breath in shallow
>gulps...and is having a great deal of trouble following the conversation.
>Yes, he can sit here and sweat, drolling down the side of his neck,
>listening, but when he starts to demand to talk, I expect you to push him
>off his chair and roll him into the men's room. If he is ready to
>participate in a months time, he is more than welcome.
What a wonderful picture! Can I roll some drunks???
>> I don't like to shut anyone out as long as the focus stays on
>> contemporary/postmodern/neomodernism/whatever.
>
>It is self-policing: if the "focus stays on
>contemporary/postmodern/neomodernism/whatever" there will be no need to
>shut anyone out. Dig? The premise is sound....or sound enough.
>
>More importantly: Am I hearing you starting to "whine"?
Big mistake, moron! Direct insult! Did you think you would just set me
straight (and the others) as to your self-imposed rules and restrictions?
Here's a compromise...Write what you want, to whom you want. I'll do the
same. You are not only rude, you are absurd!
>Please reread the "Yo Dude!" section above [3rd paragraph]. Are you going
>to start this thing off by introducing the same f--cking B.S. we are
>trying to get away from.
Damn straight! You've given us a lot of excess verbiage but nothing about
art!
Ye Gads!! [no offense, but show some dignity and
>professionalism,
I have dignity and professionalism and don't find it necessary to challenge
others about it because my own opinion of myself is pretty damn healthy and
not reliant on anonymous initial posters. My opinion of my own
professionalism is based on my accomplishments and those of my peers.
its gonna get tedious REAL quick without it].
>[Bartender: shot of DOUBLE tequila.]
I just love trying to reason with a drunk...
>This will be refreshing
>> since, I have never read an actual discussion about postmodern artists in
>> the n.g. for that purpose. Quiet, rational discourse is a bit much to
hope
>> for, I fear. Art, by its very nature is volatile and it is unlikely that
we
>> will all nod our heads wisely in agreement...
>> Let the games begin!
>
>
>Nowhere did I state we needed to agree about art. If all this is too much
>for anyone to digest or comprehend, it may be best for them to just lurk.
"N" no one is going to play with you, because, frankly, you are being a
jerk. Make that a lurking jerk.
>€€I repeat my request for you to open the game with a kickoff artist.
>(I am giving you a cyber hug of encouragement).
>
>[...gimme another shot please.]
I hate when my M-16 jams! Wait a minute...
>Cheers,
>-N
>
>--
>N
>To reach me, remove _xxx from my address.
Kay Kane
P.S. Charles Ray
-N.
<scarl...@theriver.com> wrote:
> P.S. Charles Ray
Saw his retro at the Whitney in NYC.
Previously I reserved a pleasure for Charles Ray's art...not an enourmous
pleasure, mind you, but I was eager to see more and would earmark my radar
for when he came my way.
The majority of my exposure to Ray's work was in the form of reproduction
through publications. I found myself engaged.
His retro brought out the fact that in his earlier years, he was doing
body/performance based work...oddly, when I was much younger I recall
enjoying those plank/wall/body peices, and was surprised to learn that the
artist who did those was the same who was now being surveyed.
My perception of Charles Ray was heavily deflated by his retrospective.
No one work really gripped me, and many works which I had know through
reproduction (and liked) I found I was dissapointed with upon experiencing
them in person...I wish I hadn't seen these latter because they have
irrevocably colored my earlier experiences and memories of Ray's work.
They have diminished my enjoyment of him.
I have concluded that Charles Ray is primarily suited to the form of
reproduction. Close inspection doesn't really yield up anything more than
one gets by having contact with an IMAGE. A quick fleeting image does more
in his case, because it intriques and produces a desire for more. Upon
seing such works in person, the viewer is not further rewarded, beyond
that which was expereinced in the reproduction.
Example. A manakin of Charles Ray wearing a fishing cap and warm-up suit.
As far as sculpture goes, the material exression of the sculpture, the
face, etc, was banal. As one who one could gaze for a long time, say, at a
pieta by Michaelangelo, I found that there wasn't much to look at in front
of the actual manakin/sculpture by Ray: I grew bored rapidly. I walked on
by.
Compare this with the image I saw reproduced of the same or similiar
maniken installed at a beach, and photographed, in a magazine. An odd,
vaguely uncomfortable, artificial yet at the same time real man. Indeed, I
thought the image was of Ray himself, in person, photographed on the
beach...I had conjured the image of an artist capable of making photo
images of himself as if to appear manakin-like, stiffly, uncomfortably,
manakin-like. Unusual quirky mysterious image. In actual presence of the
manakin I experienced no such reactions...everything was on the table and
exhausted almost immediately.
Somehow, through relation, I no longer have a desire to spend my time in
the future going to see such works, and the wonder I felt at the initial
magazine image, is gone. Perhaps this circular process in which an
attraction is then lost, and then buried for good, plays into a notion of
self-negation and self-dimunition that was part of what attracted me to
that magazine image to begin with, but I doubt it. That is my own
imagination creating a use for my own experience of his work, good, bad,
or indifferent.
A salvage operation of value. Having gone through all that , there is a
circuit set up between the fake-manakin Charles image, real manakin
sculpture, and back now to the fake-manakin Charles image...only to
understand it was a real manakin (unless I am mistaken). I think my own
misunderstandings of the work has made it richer for me, than it otherwise
would have been.
Who knows, perhaps the manakin in the museum was Charles Ray (with a
manakin mask) and not a manakin.
The grey primed car sculpture I thought was a great idea, that in no way
justified the effort to make it. The idea was much more fascinating than
the realization. Now, I have not really read anything about Ray's art, so
maybe this is a part of what he sees as his concerns for his art, but if
so, then it is perhaps too tenuous for me...so much art is realized in in
a way that doesn't live up to the potential of the idea.
The sculpture of the TALL woman. I dug photos of it in magazines, people
standing near it, shadowed by it. In front of the sculpture in the museum,
I was left with more than an image. No longer able to have a shock value
of the height/power difference between the sculpture and a human (that was
lost on my first impression in the magazine), I was left to look at the
sculpture...it was up to the sculpture to be redeemed visually, or by fact
of it now being in a museum. The museum if anything disarmed the peice,
and visually, it was too boring to contemplate for more than an instant or
two. Detail revealed nothing but less than inspid workmanship...fingers
and fingernails dull and bluntly fabricated. Face: why anyone would care
to spend time gazing at it is beyond me.
Pretty generic peice of work visually. I imagine that is part of what it
needs to be expereinced as a manakin. I walked on by. I saw others walk up
to , do the same, then walk on by. Sometimes one sees viewers clustered
around works, or one or possibly two artists in rapt attention for a long
time...not here. One minute wonders at best.
Some works were a litte better, but I had seen them before so was less in
need to see them again: the enlarged little boy, and the naked family of
four. These latter two I liked. There was more to be gotten by the actual
looking at the works in their presence.
The many Rays having sex was on the same order of expereince as the TALL
woman manakin and the self portrait manakin...it was boring, after the
first micro-second of 'umph', and its image was too heavily played in the
press to have really surprised me (maybe if was stealthily placed in a
church or something, it would have had a great impact...maybe works such
as that are l;eft for me to do). I need more than a micro-second of
'umph', I need more than White Tower sized art bites .
The table works at the front of the NYC retro and the ink works were
mildly neat in idea, but I just couldn't muster the enthusiasm to get
excited by them...it has been a long time since trivial one-dimensional
ideas as a basis for art have cut it with me.
The rotating wall disk was amazing the first time I saw it (I think in a
Whitney Bienniel years ago..another work I didn't know was Ray's), really
torqueing my perception...ideas and sense experience, and still held up
after all these years, although one can only 'make' a discovery such as
when one stumbles upon a peice like this, once in their life. Even so, It
still had me looking and thinking.
There was a video (or was it a film) that was playing at certain times,
but as i waited around for the designated curtain time, it didn't play. I
asked a guard to call someone to make the operate the projector, but after
waiting for 15 minutes, and based on my other expereinces in the show, I
decided to cut my losses and left.
Tghe one thing i got from the retro is a respect for the range of work he
has done. To this day I never would have associated the rotating sphere to
him had I not seen it in his retro. I like to see range from an artist.
For now on, I would do better to look at Ray's art in publications, and
refrain from seeing them in person. The let-down factor will not enter in
and I can maintain the power that he is able to generate through image
without having that marginalized by viewing the actual works.
That all having been said, I like Ray's more current works, mostly for
what I have gotten from his work in image form. I like that rotating disk.
I like the IDEA of doing a car as he has done. Maybe his benefit is he
gives me banality to project my own constructions of imagination onto
(although I admit that doesn't pan out in the long run...the artist needs
to do as much work as me the viewer). I retain a lukewarm interest in him.
He will not be a must see for me, but when he introduces newe works, I
will be eager to see the images of it in the magazines.
-N.
-N.
<scarl...@theriver.com> wrote:
> -N. wrote in message ...
> >Advanced/Expert Level Postmodern Art Forum
> >
> >poseurs, those that troll, bait, flame, whine, and insult: YOUąRE A JERK.
> >You have no business posting here. We don't want your kind on this forum,
> >no matter how smart or how good an artist you are.
> >
> >--
> >N
> >To reach me, remove _xxx from my address.
>
>
> O.K. "N",
> With all of the clarity and stipulations posted, we will see what happens.
> I'm willing to give it a try. Be aware, that I cannot vouch for my own
> behavior, but I do try and be fair and when I become boorish and it is
> pointed out to me, I do apologize and recant. I hope others take the same
> line. What qualifies as "expert"?
If you are in doubt, assume you are not one. It is a weeding-out
mechanism. Don't lose any sleep over it. Go with what feels right.
> Should queries not be answered?
Correct.
[Including my own just now...I am giving you my support by considering
this a "practice post" by you.] If anyone posts without reading and
digesting the 'guidelines', we ignore them. Dig? Professional restraint,
vigilance, focus. Is that too much to ask?
[Bartender...shot of tequila please]
> Some people may be interested, but put off by the "expert" category.
Then they should lurk until they feel they have something relavent to
post. They will discern this by lurking. It is in the same spirit that
FAQ's attempt to eliminate repetative newcomer bloat-posts. If one decides
not to post, or, conversly, if the entire concept fails, it makes no
difference...its not the end of the world. It is just an attempt to
address a need voiced often and regularly on this NG. It is not the whole
of RAF by any means...just one small corner table with a pitcher of beer,
some smokes, and some high octane conversation...with little tolerance to
contenance fools.
[Bartender, can I get a refill on this tequila?]
> Some may be curious.
Let them lurk.
Who is stopping them from their curiosity? I am not banishing anyone,
simply keeping it lean and mean. Maybe we can talk some high octane shit
and by mutual greatness, actually influence the entire course of western
art...we wont get there if we have to change our course to include the
needs of Joe Six-Pack, who has just siddled over from the bar after
downing a fifth of JD and is only able to catch his breath in shallow
gulps...and is having a great deal of trouble following the conversation.
Yes, he can sit here and sweat, drolling down the side of his neck,
listening, but when he starts to demand to talk, I expect you to push him
off his chair and roll him into the men's room. If he is ready to
participate in a months time, he is more than welcome.
> I don't like to shut anyone out as long as the focus stays on
> contemporary/postmodern/neomodernism/whatever.
It is self-policing: if the "focus stays on
contemporary/postmodern/neomodernism/whatever" there will be no need to
shut anyone out. Dig? The premise is sound....or sound enough.
More importantly: Am I hearing you starting to "whine"?
Please reread the "Yo Dude!" section above [3rd paragraph]. Are you going
to start this thing off by introducing the same f--cking B.S. we are
trying to get away from. Ye Gads!! [no offense, but show some dignity and
professionalism, its gonna get tedious REAL quick without it].
[Bartender: shot of DOUBLE tequila.]
This will be refreshing
> since, I have never read an actual discussion about postmodern artists in
> the n.g. for that purpose. Quiet, rational discourse is a bit much to hope
> for, I fear. Art, by its very nature is volatile and it is unlikely that we
> will all nod our heads wisely in agreement...
> Let the games begin!
Nowhere did I state we needed to agree about art. If all this is too much
for anyone to digest or comprehend, it may be best for them to just lurk.
€€I repeat my request for you to open the game with a kickoff artist.
(I am giving you a cyber hug of encouragement).
[...gimme another shot please.]
Cheers,
-N
zi...@interport.net
Of course this is a continuation, now leveled at anyone who disagrees
with him about anything, of that insulting tone which pomos have been
using to everyone else, here on this group. It has been writtien and
placed here in order to be read by non Pomos. If you guys had your
own little closed group would you need to write this to each other?
This is written for th rest of us.
The thought that any kind of linguistic or other skills were needed
which are special for pomo and don't exist for anything else- or are
different from what is done elsewhere is silly.
The best thing in this posting, is the mstaken use of the word
aquatinted as a requirement for posting on this thread.
I agree with it.
If you are all well aquatinted [that is creatures made up through the
effect of acid eating into metal through rosin] then you are allowed
to take part in this. Acid bitten people are allowed and no others.
Gabriel
On Sun, 07 Feb 1999 22:05:17 -0500, redi...@earthlink.net_xxx (-N.)
wrote:
mdeli
conference wrote:
30 lines of vacuous babble snipped.
>Yo Dude!
>In case we didn't make it clear enough -- to those of you who feel the
>need to post off topic, have difficulty with the term 'postmodern', are
>not experienced at an advanced level in the trends of Postmodern art, deny
>the existence of Postmodernism or its influence, need to ask "What is
>Postmodernism?", understand Postmodernism to be composed of degenerate
>poseurs, those that troll, bait, flame, whine, and insult: YOUąRE A JERK.
Take note, don't mess with -N, lest you suffer the shame of being
branded a jerk by N. N like most Nuts imagines he speaks for we.
Like the Great -N, most who imagine they speak for "we" usually
suffer from egos drenched in wee-wee..
>You have no business posting here. We don't want your kind on this forum,
>no matter how smart or how good an artist you are.
The Great N has spoken. Bet he won't last long here.
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
A Skeptical View of Modern Art was updated Jan.16,99
check out my new book, new work, new comments at:.
http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/
Note: There was an address error in former messages
The above address is correct. Please try again.
burnin...@my-dejanews.com
hug...@interlog.com (mdeli) wrote:
> (-N.) singular head of the Committee of Public Safety on this
> conference wrote:
[...]
>
> Take note, don't mess with -N, lest you suffer the shame of being
> branded a jerk by N. N like most Nuts imagines he speaks for we.
> Like the Great -N, most who imagine they speak for "we" usually
> suffer from egos drenched in wee-wee..
>
> >You have no business posting here. We don't want your kind on this forum,
> >no matter how smart or how good an artist you are.
Fugin' A, dude!!!!
We don't need no steeeenkkkiinnnnnnggggggggg smart or artistic people!!!
We want people just like us!!!!!!!!!
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own