New Nik Painting
Nik Maack
Portrait of a Nerd God.
http://www.nikart.com/new/39.html
Comments and death threats and idle chatter are all welcome.
William Barkin
psycho-drama...
-Bill
--------------------------
William Barkin - Fine Artist
Online Portfolio
http://www.bcn.net/~wbarkin
"Nik Maack" <nikm...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3CAB1A65...@sympatico.ca...
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com
put up a smaller image with an option to click for a larger detailed image
or you can design specifically for 19 inch monitors and larger. You could
add a line to your page that tells the rest of us that your images are best
viewed on 19 inch plus monitor.
I am not going to download and resize just to get a good look at the overall
image.
keith
Nik Maack <nikm...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3CAB1A65...@sympatico.ca...
>
Nik Maack
"keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com" wrote:
> Nik: the entire picture of Jacque does not show on a 17 in monitor. You can
> put up a smaller image with an option to click for a larger detailed image
> or you can design specifically for 19 inch monitors and larger.
That's probably a good idea -- click for an even larger image. I'm
always torn between putting up a photo that fits on the entire screen,
or putting up a large photo that allows for looking at intricate and
messy bits.
Thanks for the heads-up.
Dale Houstman
> http://www.nikart.com/new/39.html
>
> Comments and death threats and idle chatter are all welcome.
>
self-important.
As for the portrait: how many times are you going to do the same thing until
even you get tired of repetition lacking evolution? It's basically cartoon
work (nothing wrong with that) but more interesting examples can be found in
any randomly selected Zap Comix. your work just doesn't seem to project
anything that the photo doesn't project, and - in fact - loses most of what
is interesting about the subject's face.
But what's the point? You only like people who think you're a genius of
production, and seem incapable of accepting criticism except as a sign of
mental depravity.
dmh
Duchas de Abril
>
>
>Portrait of a Nerd God.
>http://www.nikart.com/new/39.html
>
>Comments and death threats and idle chatter are all welcome.
Soooo, what did Jacques have to say
about his portrait???
As for me, I still think you need to
explore more than one rendition of
whatever portrait it is you're currently
working with. Make some new tracks!
The chicken tracks are getting much
too overwrought, IMO. Let's see some
new application of marks in portraiture.
If you are a fan of Chuck Close, you'll
know that's what his lifetime of portraiture
had been all about - finding ever new ways
of "making faces."
scot...@qwest.net
577 pixels. Your screen settings must be set larger that 800 x 600
pixels to see the complete image in the browser.
Scott
Nik Maack
Duchas de Abril wrote:
> Soooo, what did Jacques have to say
> about his portrait???
I haven't heard anything from him yet, though I did send him email to
let him know about it.
> As for me, I still think you need to
> explore more than one rendition of
> whatever portrait it is you're currently
> working with.
As I see it, I have three possible routes open to me, and I've been
examining them closely.
1) Try doing some subject matter other than faces. (I once painted
words, quite some time ago: BLEED BAKE SCREW SUCK. That was neat. I'm
thinking of doing words again.)
2) Play with faces in new ways.
3) Discard the face and work with colour and line without a specific
form -- go abstract. Colour is, after all, one of my strengths. Or so
I have been told.
Problems with the above:
When I work in abstract art, I get frustrated because I can't figure out
when the work is "finished" or where the work is going. I end up doing
something, painting over it, doing something new, painting over it,
getting annoyed, and -- eventually -- doing a face because that's what I
love doing. The abstract ends up contained in the useful form of the face.
I am obsessed with faces. When I walk down the street, I look at
people's faces and feel flashes of pleasure. Every face makes me happy.
I am in awe of them.
No other subject matter particularly interests me. And I like painting
faces up close, personal, intimate. Other views seem silly.
And then there's the problem that every time someone tells me, "You
should do something different," I have this gut reaction: Would you
tell the guy at the pizza parlour, who makes nothing but pizza, loves
making pizza, and is content making pizza, that -- damn it -- he should
cook something else for a change? If you're happy with what you're
doing, why do something else?
It's silly. I can't help but think that the people who tell me, "Do
something else," are guilty of that typical human foibles. "I know what
you should be doing. Let me tell you what you should do."
No. You do whatever you do. And I'll do what I do. Live your life.
I'll live mine.
> Make some new tracks!
> The chicken tracks are getting much
> too overwrought, IMO.
But that's a good thing, I think. Because eventually the chicken will
explode, and we'll get to see what's inside of her. That's my belief, anyhow.
Do you suppose Lucien Freud gets told he should paint something other
than portraits? No wonder he lives like a recluse and avoids other
artists. He has his own mission. As do I. Not that I am technically
as skilled as Freud, but I understand his compulsion. There is
something in there -- inside these people -- that needs to be told. And
it's not a reproduction, and it's not just a slight distortion.
There's a worm in there, and I am biting my way through the apple
towards the worm. Some people, I think, see my progression towards the
worm. Others don't.
> Let's see some
> new application of marks in portraiture.
> If you are a fan of Chuck Close, you'll
> know that's what his lifetime of portraiture
> had been all about - finding ever new ways
> of "making faces."
Not familiar with him. I just did a search on his name on Google and
found a number of interesting works. Thanks for pointing me in that direction.
Dale Houstman
>
>
>
> And then there's the problem that every time someone tells me, "You
> should do something different," I have this gut reaction: Would you
> tell the guy at the pizza parlour, who makes nothing but pizza, loves
> making pizza, and is content making pizza, that -- damn it -- he should
> cook something else for a change? If you're happy with what you're
> doing, why do something else?
If he baked a bad pizza every time I would feel little regret in at least
informing him that - despite his obvious joy in the act - his enthusiasm
seems either misplaced or badly manifested. This might save him a lot of
embarassment eventually. At any rate, I haven't heard many people (here at
least) telling you to quit painting faces: an obsessional subject is fine.
But I do think you approach the subject with little or no specific interest.
I just think you need to widen your approach to portraiture, so as to
produce something that is at least as interesting as the faces themselves,
as seen in the photos. This may not be your opinion (obviously not) but it
hardly represents a total rejection of your chosen obsession, and - in its
way - is a fairly valid response to your plethora of repetitious images.
As for your use of color, I can't say it is vastly intriguing either, as the
colors appear to have no connotative power, and merely seem (despite your
best efforts) to be a matter of filling up the spaces between the outlines
of the faces. You certainly use a lot of them, and I suppose that is
exciting to some, but to me it seems to flatten out any effect you might
have (or might not have) been attempting. As I've said before, it is rather
good that you provide explanatory captions for the images, because they are
otherwise mostly unproductive of their own story.
But - and I repeat because you seem to have difficulty understanding - it
isn't a matter of anyone telling you to choose a different subject - the
subject is of little import. But your chosen means of expression are mostly
just superficial and the wild coloring and endless doodling almosts seems to
exist to cover up the inadequacies of your work.
dmh
>
>
Dale Houstman
"Duchas de Abril" <du...@noemailever.com> wrote in message
news:3caba...@oracle.zianet.com...
a time, mainly because an art professor wanted us to report on a huge show
of his that was in town. Although his techniques are as far removed from
Nik's rather crude renditions as art allows, I still find his spectrum
rather narrow, although I found some of his smaller studies more intriguing.
I still find the same problem in him as I find in Nik (although with a bit
more appreciation of base technical matters): no matter how large he makes
the portraits, I still find almost nothing in them that is much more
interesting than in the photos he works from. I have lost contact with his
work of late (and with most of the art "scene" for that matter) and he may
have evolved some new approach I am unaware of, so this opinion is tentative
enough. Maybe it's the depressing cold irony of post-modern thought in
general I find most frustrating. It's as if everyone has given up on depth
(even pretensions of same), and on the marvelous, but still wants to take up
a lot of gallery space and be represented in magazines. Or maybe I am
finally jaded by art in toto, except for "outsider," naive, and children's
art. A pile of labeled sticks here, a line of yellow powder there, and a few
gargantuan bone fragments painted fuschia and installed with loud speakers
playing ska over in the corner. Oh well...
dmh
Duchas de Abril
>Do you suppose Lucien Freud gets told he should paint something other
>than portraits?
I never suggested you should paint anything
other than what you desire to paint - and you've
stated clearly that you are "obsessed with faces."
You didn't have to tell ME that - it's obvious.
But I think your method is lacking passion, which
Freud's certainly does NOT. I don't know Freud's
history well enough to say "how" or "if" he
evolved to his present psychologically charged
methods, but I'll bet he did. Freud and Bacon both
for that matter.
>> If you are a fan of Chuck Close
>Not familiar with him.
OHMIGOD! Are you in for your epiphany or what!
Run, race, speed etc to your nearest book source,
be it library or book store, and look for him.
I'll see if I can find some recent publications
to refer you to. Not that you'll relate to
Close's HUGENESS - as both an artist and in
his subject matter. It's his "evolution" while
painting nothing but faces that I think should
be of interest to you - his "obsessiveness" with
the face for his entire art career. He went from
hyper-realism in gigantic 20 ft high faces to
his present pixel-like breakup of the faces.
BTW, he suffered a severely disabling problem
that put him in a wheelchair in recent years,
but it hasn't kept him from continuing to paint
his gigantic canvases. He devised a way to
raise and lower his gigantic canvases into a
well in his studio floor as he works them.
Nik Maack
Dale Houstman wrote:
> If he baked a bad pizza every time I would feel little regret in at least
> informing him that - despite his obvious joy in the act - his enthusiasm
> seems either misplaced or badly manifested.
You can never understand the immense pity I feel for you. You were born
without tastebuds. All you can taste is cardboard. My pizzas are wonderful.
I know you're without tastebuds because of certain telltale signs. You
have no sense of humour. When I glibly say "inane chatter and death
threats welcome", you respond, "How pretentious of you to believe you
merit death threats."
And I laugh because, again and again, you can't tell when I'm kidding.
And if your words were meant to be funny (which I doubt) they fail, horribly.
Over and over again, you come into my pizza shop, sample a slice, and
tell me how it doesn't meet your needs. And even the way you tell me
how it sucks reveals you just don't get it, and never will. Whimsy is
not your forte. Humour is beyond your ken. Laughter is an alien
concept to you. Your funny bone is missing. You're without irony. How
many different ways can I say it?
You just don't get it.
Business is booming. People come into my pizza parlour all the time and
say, "Great stuff." They buy my pizza. They love it. And every day,
without fail, you elbow your way through the crowds to tell me that my
pizza doesn't meet your standards.
I'm sorry, but the standards of a humourless grump just don't mean a
lot. See you tomorrow -- when you'll try to explain your position all
over again.
I understand -- you don't like the pizza. No need to come back. Thank
you. We've written down all your complaints. Why not go talk to other
businesses in your community?
> But - and I repeat because you seem to have difficulty understanding
Are you sure it's I that has difficulty understanding, Dale?
> But your chosen means of expression are mostly
> just superficial and the wild coloring and endless doodling almosts seems to
> exist to cover up the inadequacies of your work.
And once again, you say it without even realizing you say it -- here is
a man that doesn't understand whimsy. Why do I get the feeling you'd
say the same thing to Keith Haring?
Dale Houstman
"cythera" <cyt...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:fadef76.02040...@posting.google.com...> > Duchas de Abril wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > I am obsessed with faces. When I walk down the street, I look at
> > people's faces and feel flashes of pleasure. Every face makes me happy.
> > I am in awe of them.
> >
> > No other subject matter particularly interests me. And I like painting
> > faces up close, personal, intimate. Other views seem silly.
>
> your subject?
>
> Or are they more about color, with the faces themselves tending to
> appear incidental to the painting?
>
> [...]
>
> > There is something in there -- inside these people -- that needs to be
> > told. And it's not a reproduction, and it's not just a slight
distortion.
>
> in part you don't know or understand, or aren't interested in, what
> that "something" is.
>
> Except for the picture of Michelle with glue, your portraits remind me
> of Morpheal's poems: the same thing over and over again, never closing
> in
> or even getting nearer to the essence of the thing itself.
>
>
>
It is amusing that a person who has made such a program of harrassing people
over personal details for so many years seems totally incapable of getting
any personality into his work, but a frenetic and irrelevant "love" of color
that is entirely the result of his own impenetrable ego and unopeness to
evaluation and - thus - evolution. He has spoken so much (in a sentimental
way) of the vivacity and imagination of children, and so I imagine he thinks
this sort of frantic coloration approaches that ideal, but its almost total
lack of spontanaiety and exploration destroys that effect. But it is all of
package with his adolescent poetry and prose and static notions of converse.
dmh
Duchas de Abril
>I still find almost nothing in them that is much more
>interesting than in the photos he works from. I have lost contact with his
>work of late (and with most of the art "scene" for that matter) and he may
>have evolved some new approach I am unaware of
I personally am not that thrilled by artists
who paint the same subjects obsessively for
their entire careers. I appreciate that Close
has done so - not many artists can stick with
it with such intensity. If you know Close's
lifetime progression, he began by being a
photo-realist, down to the very last whisker
on a male kisser. But it was the huge scale
of his works that had to be experienced - not
a reproduction in a magazine. It was the shock
of learning the huge scale of the works that
made his name for him initially - not the fact
he could render photo-realistically.
And you should investigate his latest works.
Especially those created since he was confined
to a wheelchair several years ago. Re-open
the book on him and you'll be glad you did, I think.
Dale Houstman
> In article <uao5sd9...@corp.supernews.com>, dm...@citilink.com says...
>
> >I still find almost nothing in them that is much more
> >interesting than in the photos he works from. I have lost contact with
his
> >work of late (and with most of the art "scene" for that matter) and he
may
> >have evolved some new approach I am unaware of
>
> I personally am not that thrilled by artists
> who paint the same subjects obsessively for
> their entire careers. I appreciate that Close
> has done so - not many artists can stick with
> it with such intensity. If you know Close's
> lifetime progression, he began by being a
> photo-realist, down to the very last whisker
> on a male kisser. But it was the huge scale
> of his works that had to be experienced - not
> a reproduction in a magazine. It was the shock
> of learning the huge scale of the works that
> made his name for him initially - not the fact
> he could render photo-realistically.
I came across him in-gallery and that particular shock isn't really much of
a sensation to anyone who has grown up in a world of movie screens and
billboards. Even then, it is a trifle of a sensation which wears itself out
by the slightest repetition. After that (to me) they are merely very large
photo realist works, no different from the usual run (a run I am not much
enamored of at any rate) except by an obsessive concentration on one subject
with little (apparent) variation in attack over the course of the years.
>
> And you should investigate his latest works.
> Especially those created since he was confined
> to a wheelchair several years ago. Re-open
> the book on him and you'll be glad you did, I think.
>
I will take a look, although one hopes the big evolution isn't only that he
is now presenting huge faces at an point of view considerably below the chin
of his subject. That would be a disppointment.
dmh
elag
>
> OHMIGOD! Are you in for your epiphany or what!
> Run, race, speed etc to your nearest book source,
> be it library or book store, and look for him.
> I'll see if I can find some recent publications
> to refer you to. Not that you'll relate to
> Close's HUGENESS - as both an artist and in
> his subject matter. It's his "evolution" while
> painting nothing but faces that I think should
> be of interest to you - his "obsessiveness" with
> the face for his entire art career. He went from
> hyper-realism in gigantic 20 ft high faces to
> his present pixel-like breakup of the faces.
>
> BTW, he suffered a severely disabling problem
> that put him in a wheelchair in recent years,
> but it hasn't kept him from continuing to paint
> his gigantic canvases. He devised a way to
> raise and lower his gigantic canvases into a
> well in his studio floor as he works them.
I've seen him work in this manner (on video). Watching him is quite marvelous.
It reminds me of the ailing Matisse drawing on the ceiling above his bed
with long sticks... Imagination bursting past the confines of a frail
physical form.
chris
"Dale Houstman" <dm...@citilink.com> wrote in message
news:uaolvdk...@corp.supernews.com...
> It is amusing that a person who has made such a program of harrassing
people
> over personal details for so many years seems totally incapable of getting
> any personality into his work, but a frenetic and irrelevant "love" of
color
> that is entirely the result of his own impenetrable ego and unopeness to
> evaluation and - thus - evolution. He has spoken so much (in a sentimental
> way) of the vivacity and imagination of children, and so I imagine he
thinks
> this sort of frantic coloration approaches that ideal, but its almost
total
> lack of spontanaiety and exploration destroys that effect. But it is all
of
> package with his adolescent poetry and prose and static notions of
converse.
>
> dmh
Dale;
Could you stop beating around the bush and tell us what you really think ?
Cheers;
Chris
PS - thanks for your post, it was certainly more refreshing than any cup of
coffee this morning :)
Dale Houstman
"chris" <bro...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:8qDr8.20$h82....@sapphire.mtt.net...
Glad to be a caffeine substitute.
dmh
Jacques Treatment
>Soooo, what did Jacques have to say
>about his portrait???
You know, I'm actually quite happy about it. There's a
type of "life" to it that I see, being the subject, that
carries more detail of *me* than the actual PHOTO does.
The portrait's out on the website, if you're curious,
with a page for his, Keith's, and any other "Nerd God"
weirdness that ends up coming my way.
--Jacques
Jacques Treatment, a.k.a. Michael Marcus
CodeMeister, Technoronin, Games Designer
Visit http://www.angelfire.com/weird/jtl
Jacques Treatment
>
>You are - either purposefully or otherwise - missing the point: as a portait
>it carries no indication of individuality, and - so - it is a failure.
Nik had previously suggested that you have no taste. I am
suggesting that you have no EYES. Looking at my portrait,
he actually carried more DETAIL of me than did the original
PHOTO from which he based it. There is an energy to his
work that captures elements of character (including some
elements that I might not like, but hey, one HAS to learn
to laugh at himself) that I have not seen much elsewhere.
Rather than acting like a critic, I *CHALLENGE* you to
make one BETTER. E-mail it to me, and let the SUBJECT be
the judge.
>No, you said it was a unique meeting (assigning a name) not just a meeting.
>That uniqueness is the quality your protraits lack: they might as well be
>anyone or noone. They are totally inadequate as works of portraiture orpure
>imagination. They lack ALL interest.
To quote something a teacher once said to me, "Why is it
that *you* find him boring, yet others do not? Perhaps
you lack in some crucial perspective. What might that be?"
>But the point is that your portraits - as I said - not only lack a sense of
>the subject, but have little air of the personal about them from any side.
>They are products (as you seem to think of them at any rate) of a sausgae
>factory, and all cut from the same mechanical process which - as a habit -
>has ruined your ability to convey anything of any "self" through them, but
>that slef which wishes to be noticed and rewarded for being noticed. And -
>as promotion for this self - they do not succeed. They are frenetic without
>being spontaneous. They are - in a word - vacant.
If they're "vacant" to you, how is it I see something there?
I imagine it's something like going into a room devoid of
furniture, but covered in murals. While some of us see
beauty, you only notice that there's no furniture. Or the
other way around, a white room with elegant furniture in
excellent feng shui.
Sometimes, life is an exercise in "hearing" and "seeing."
Sometimes there's so much noise that you can't hear the
music... until you start to appreciate the music of the
noise. The rest is an exercise left to the reader.
The CHALLENGE is still there, for ALL takers. The photo
is on the front page of the site. I *DARE* you to outdo
him.
Dale Houstman
"Jacques Treatment" <mar...@teleweb.net> wrote in message
news:10184268...@axilla.wwnet.net...
> "Dale Houstman" <dm...@citilink.com> ecrawled in his own feces:
> >
> >You are - either purposefully or otherwise - missing the point: as a
portait
> >it carries no indication of individuality, and - so - it is a failure.
>
> Nik had previously suggested that you have no taste. I am
> suggesting that you have no EYES. Looking at my portrait,
> he actually carried more DETAIL of me than did the original
> PHOTO from which he based it. There is an energy to his
> work that captures elements of character (including some
> elements that I might not like, but hey, one HAS to learn
> to laugh at himself) that I have not seen much elsewhere.
I suggest that you are blinded by Nik's little pleasantry about you being
"The King of Nerds." The history of portraiture often reveals that the
subject is the MOST insensible to the flaws and triumphs of the work. Also,
it is as easy for me to claim that it is you who have no EYES with as much
authority. The portrait is lousy. I won't go into my background in the
visual arts in any detail, as it cannot compare with the fact you have a
website. Ooooh.
>
> Rather than acting like a critic, I *CHALLENGE* you to
> make one BETTER. E-mail it to me, and let the SUBJECT be
> the judge.
Your face doesn't interest me. I am not "acting" like a critic, but merely
expressing my position as to the portrait he produced. Which - by the way -
you are also. Are you "acting" as a critic, albeit one with an interest in
the work?
>
> >No, you said it was a unique meeting (assigning a name) not just a
meeting.
> >That uniqueness is the quality your protraits lack: they might as well be
> >anyone or noone. They are totally inadequate as works of portraiture
orpure
> >imagination. They lack ALL interest.
>
> To quote something a teacher once said to me, "Why is it
> that *you* find him boring, yet others do not? Perhaps
> you lack in some crucial perspective. What might that be?"
I am NOT the only one who finds him boring, so your comment is without
validity. But your teacher is an ass: the mere quantity of approval or
disdain means nothing. You - like Nik himself - seem fixated on quantity as
a sign of value. Interesting.
>
> >But the point is that your portraits - as I said - not only lack a sense
of
> >the subject, but have little air of the personal about them from any
side.
> >They are products (as you seem to think of them at any rate) of a sausgae
> >factory, and all cut from the same mechanical process which - as a
habit -
> >has ruined your ability to convey anything of any "self" through them,
but
> >that slef which wishes to be noticed and rewarded for being noticed.
And -
> >as promotion for this self - they do not succeed. They are frenetic
without
> >being spontaneous. They are - in a word - vacant.
>
> If they're "vacant" to you, how is it I see something there?
Because it's a picture of you? Not very difficult that one.
> I imagine it's something like going into a room devoid of
> furniture, but covered in murals. While some of us see
> beauty, you only notice that there's no furniture. Or the
> other way around, a white room with elegant furniture in
> excellent feng shui.
>
> Sometimes, life is an exercise in "hearing" and "seeing."
> Sometimes there's so much noise that you can't hear the
> music... until you start to appreciate the music of the
> noise. The rest is an exercise left to the reader.
Very Buddhistic, but strangely irrelevant, like so much "profundity."
>
> The CHALLENGE is still there, for ALL takers. The photo
> is on the front page of the site. I *DARE* you to outdo
> him.
>
You might live in a world in which competition forms the basis for every
action and evaluation, but I do not. Your CHALLENGE is irrelevant. Even if I
cannot "outdo" his feeble stab at portraiture, this has no bearing on my
assessment of his work.
Is it the air in Canada?
dmh
Lost Girl
after your death! :) My personal suspicion is that the criticism comes from
personal animosity rather than from the heart of an art lover.
"Jacques Treatment" <mar...@teleweb.net> wrote in message
news:10184237...@axilla.wwnet.net...
Brandon Freels
"Lost Girl" wrote
Brandon Freels
> You never said if you were going to submit anything to my Dirty Word Art
> Project. Why not prove once and for all that you're an individual, with
> your own strengths and your own mind? Swim against the tide of
> conformist alt.surrealists, and make some funny and obscene work!
I'll pass on the game, Nik. It doesn't interest me. One of the problems I
have with the game is that it's restrictive. The best piece so far is
Michelle's and one could argue about the "dirtyness" of the "sacred mother"
phrase (how is it dirtier than "fart"?). Cythera offered up some interesting
collaborative suggestions of text/image clashes, but you rejected the
collaboration, which I felt was unfair of you. Perhaps it would be better if
the project was directed towards "obsessional" words, rather than "dirty"
words. For example, I have been obsessed with the word "olo" (Chinook for
"hunger") for some time now, and could see myself in the future doing a
collage or drawing or even a poem or story based around this word. I have a
certain attachment to it that I don't have for mere "dirty" words.
> You've met Dale in person, right? Not that I want you to tell tales
> outside of school, but do you think he lacks a sense of humour? Do you
> think he takes himself too seriously?
No, I've never met him in person. Yes, I think he has a sense of humor, it
just isn't yours.
Nik Maack
Brandon Freels wrote:
> I'll pass on the game, Nik.
Well, that's to be expected -- but still disappointing.
> It doesn't interest me. One of the problems I
> have with the game is that it's restrictive.
Perhaps a little. But that's sort of the point. I'm not going to just
say, "Hey everyone! Paint whatever you'd like and I'll put it up on my
website!" Presumably people could do that on their own.
> The best piece so far is
> Michelle's and one could argue about the "dirtyness" of the "sacred mother"
> phrase (how is it dirtier than "fart"?).
As explained clearly on my website, in the culture of Quebec "Sacre
Mere" is quite offensive. It's the sort of thing that, when spoken in
public, would cause mothers to cover their children's ears. You can't
say it on Quebec TV shows. Hearing it spoken loudly on the subway might
even make innocents blush.
In North American culture, you can say "fart" on television and it's not
that big a deal. Fart jokes even appear in kid's cartoons and the like.
(Who can forget that terrible children's film, "The Garbage Pail Kids",
which features a young lad who farted noxious green poisonous clouds?
Not I.) So the word FART is not exactly in keeping with words like
"fuck" and "cunt". There isn't a culture, that I'm aware of, where the
English word "FART" is considered obscene.
Another example of cultural differences would be "bastardo" -- which I'm
told is considered a particularly nasty insult in Italy. A friend of
mine is working on a piece that features some Russian swear words. I
look forward to that one.
> Cythera offered up some interesting
> collaborative suggestions of text/image clashes, but you rejected the
> collaboration, which I felt was unfair of you.
Cythera suggested I take pictures of myself naked with words like
"loser" and "bore" painted across myself and across my dick. Forgive me
for not leaping at this chance to "collaborate" with her -- I'm somewhat
modest. Feel free to take her instructions and follow them yourself, if
you consider them so interesting.
> Perhaps it would be better if
> the project was directed towards "obsessional" words, rather than "dirty"
> words.
By all means, feel free to start your own project. I not only encourage
you to do so -- I'll gladly submit something, should you ever choose to
undertake it.
Dale Houstman
"Lost Girl" <lost...@kittens.choohoo.com> wrote in message
news:ub8ug73...@corp.supernews.com...
> I liked it. It will probably sell for a million dollars - about ten years
> after your death! :) My personal suspicion is that the criticism comes
from
> personal animosity rather than from the heart of an art lover.
>
worthless as additions to a conversation.
It is very interesting though that both "supporters" of Nik seemed overly
intrigued by quantity and monetary value, as opposed to any manifested
quality of imagination.
dmh
Duchas de Abril
cyt...@my-deja.com says...
>Why do people with average desires and a withered imagination find
>boring things interesting?
Boors of a feather bore together?
Jacques Treatment
>> that *you* find him boring, yet others do not?
>
>boring things interesting?
I don't know. I find you interesting, too.
I have no idea about my desires, or what would make them "average"
or otherwise, so I can't speak to it. My imagination, though,
well, that's still around here somewhere. I don't think I've
unpacked it, yet, really, since I moved. If I remember correctly,
it's in one of the old shopping bags I decided to use (reusing
*is* recycling, after all) and it's sitting in the closet between
"Mad Love," by Andre Breton and a 300-page first draft called
"Hawaii By Bus" that I haven't had the time to go back and edit.
Speaking of which, I'd better find my spare punctuation box. I
think I'm running low.
--J
Jacques Treatment
>I liked it. It will probably sell for a million dollars - about ten years
>after your death! :) My personal suspicion is that the criticism comes from
>personal animosity rather than from the heart of an art lover.
Who's to know? It's certainly easier to post
vitriolic criticism than something that might
actually help others understand a potential
problem and what steps might be made to
correct it. My guess is that most of the
animosity here is "impersonal animosity,"
though--the sort of things that one might find
on the flames-board of some teenager's BBS.
"Boredom" as a criticism doesn't really speak
to *anything* that might pose solutions, nor
does it lend itself easily to any real probing
questions of analysis. Certainly, if one can
produce a more "exciting" portrait, so that
people can compare and contrast, such a person
has done a service to the art-loving community
as a whole. That's the thing, though. We are
not seeing any such response.
One could suppose, though, that the critics in
question are either unwilling or unable to
create a suitable counterexample. If they are
unable to do so, then they might as well bow
out in the name of their own incompetence. If
they are UNWILLING, though, one has to wonder
the real reason behind that. Clearly, it's
not a matter of time--these people have the
time for long-winded harangues. Perhaps they
cannot afford the art supplies. In that case,
I'd be willing to help out. It may be, though,
that they are afraid of being criticized,
themselves. In which case, they are base
cowards who might as well be ignored.
It seems that one of the arguments that they
are using for not CREATING a counterexample is
that they are too "uninterested." What
motivates "disinterest?" Fear of failure?
Fear of success? More interest in doing
something ELSE? If that's the case, why are
they busy responding to posts and criticising
others when they could be off somewhere doing
something *constructive*?
As for me, I *know* why I'm letting this post
go long. Once I finish writing my responses
here, I'm going to actually have to go and do
some WORK so that I can afford to go back to
doing what I really enjoy--creative writing
and games design.
--J
Jacques Treatment
>I suggest that you are blinded by Nik's little pleasantry about you being
>"The King of Nerds." The history of portraiture often reveals that the
>subject is the MOST insensible to the flaws and triumphs of the work. Also,
>it is as easy for me to claim that it is you who have no EYES with as much
>authority. The portrait is lousy. I won't go into my background in the
>visual arts in any detail, as it cannot compare with the fact you have a
>website. Ooooh.
I won't even dignify the first part
beyond noting that you apparently
haven't read any of the items on my
site where I explain my overall
feelings over the whole "Nerd God"
thing. I do note that those who
have met me personally seem to think
that he's captured something about
my attitude in the portrait that
does not seem to show as well in the
original photo. That's what really
intrigues me.
As for "background in the visual
arts," I do know many people who,
while having all sorts of impressive
credentials, are still incompetent
and worthless as individuals.
>> Rather than acting like a critic, I *CHALLENGE* you to
>> make one BETTER. E-mail it to me, and let the SUBJECT be
>> the judge.
>
>Your face doesn't interest me. I am not "acting" like a critic, but merely
>expressing my position as to the portrait he produced. Which - by the way -
>you are also. Are you "acting" as a critic, albeit one with an interest in
>the work?
Then don't do it out of interest.
Do it as an example for all to see,
to show how something should be
PROPERLY done. If you feel I'm too
biased as the subject, I'll put it
up on my website, and we can put a
piece of "poll" code up. Or a
message board. Either way, we can
get a wide variety of comments, and
you can be seen as more than just a
critic.
But you're right, Dale, you're not
"acting" like a critic, and I must
apologize to all the actors in the
reading audience. It was not
intended as an insult to them. I
do have an interest in this, now,
mainly because I like the works that
have been done so far, and I'm
curious about what others might
suggest or do in the same instance.
Clearly, there's an investment of
ego involved--no denying that--much
as there's no denying the investment
of ego you seem to put into all this
criticism.
>> To quote something a teacher once said to me, "Why is it
>> that *you* find him boring, yet others do not? Perhaps
>> you lack in some crucial perspective. What might that be?"
>
>I am NOT the only one who finds him boring, so your comment is without
>validity. But your teacher is an ass: the mere quantity of approval or
>disdain means nothing. You - like Nik himself - seem fixated on quantity as
>a sign of value. Interesting.
The validity of the statement comes
the fact that there are those who
find a given subject interesting,
not from those who do not. What my
teacher was trying to get across
was that by seeking to find the
perspectives by which something
"ordinary" or "boring" become
"extraordinary" or "exciting" can
frequently provide all sorts of
insights that encourage the seeker
to grow. It's not so much about
who is "right" or "wrong" as it is
about seeing things in a new light.
>> If they're "vacant" to you, how is it I see something there?
>
>Because it's a picture of you? Not very difficult that one.
I cede that point to you, but
how is it that *others* see
something there, including those
who have not met me?
>> I imagine it's something like going into a room devoid of
>> furniture, but covered in murals. While some of us see
>> beauty, you only notice that there's no furniture. Or the
>> other way around, a white room with elegant furniture in
>> excellent feng shui.
>>
>> Sometimes, life is an exercise in "hearing" and "seeing."
>> Sometimes there's so much noise that you can't hear the
>> music... until you start to appreciate the music of the
>> noise. The rest is an exercise left to the reader.
>
>Very Buddhistic, but strangely irrelevant, like so much "profundity."
Very short-sighted, but strangely
predictable, like so much
"criticism."
>> The CHALLENGE is still there, for ALL takers. The photo
>> is on the front page of the site. I *DARE* you to outdo
>> him.
>>
>You might live in a world in which competition forms the basis for every
>action and evaluation, but I do not. Your CHALLENGE is irrelevant. Even if I
>cannot "outdo" his feeble stab at portraiture, this has no bearing on my
>assessment of his work.
You might live in a world where
inability to produce forms the
basis for the ability to evaluate,
but I do not. If you're not even
capable of a "feeble stab at
portraiture," you cannot do, you
can only teach. And apparently,
you are either not willing or not
able to teach in this group, so
all that's left to you is blather.
Personally, I am somewhat
disappointed. This would have
been such a great opportunity to
teach by example, not to mention
the opportunity to impress all
present with the culmination of
what that "background in the
visual arts" has taught you
about the creation of artwork.
>Is it the air in Canada?
Given that I'm in the US, I would
not think so.
--J
Dale Houstman
> "Dale Houstman" <dm...@citilink.com> produced the following steaming pile:
> >I suggest that you are blinded by Nik's little pleasantry about you being
> >"The King of Nerds." The history of portraiture often reveals that the
> >subject is the MOST insensible to the flaws and triumphs of the work.
Also,
> >it is as easy for me to claim that it is you who have no EYES with as
much
> >authority. The portrait is lousy. I won't go into my background in the
> >visual arts in any detail, as it cannot compare with the fact you have a
> >website. Ooooh.
>
> I won't even dignify the first part
> beyond noting that you apparently
> haven't read any of the items on my
> site where I explain my overall
> feelings over the whole "Nerd God"
> thing.
Sorry, I do apologize for not seeking such undoubtedly essential arenas of
information.
> I do note that those who
> have met me personally seem to think
> that he's captured something about
> my attitude in the portrait that
> does not seem to show as well in the
> original photo. That's what really
> intrigues me.
I am happy for your intriguement, and for those who you have personally met:
this is all very sweet and irrelevant. Portraits however have to convey such
matters most especially to those who have not met and have no intention of
meeting said subject. I am - of course - glad to hear that when one is given
the chance to see both you and the portrait in close proximity a general
ambience of good feeling and elevation occurs. Still, it is an irrelevant
point.
>
> As for "background in the visual
> arts," I do know many people who,
> while having all sorts of impressive
> credentials, are still incompetent
> and worthless as individuals.
Well of course, and that's why I didn't go into it, except as a way to make
a joke about you. But it is equally true that those who have NO "impressive
credentials" are often incompetent and worthless." So - again - your point
is irrelevant. You seem - like Nik himself - to be quite incapable of
separating comments on a piece of work from personal attacks, albeit rather
pallid examples of same. You "like" the portrait (not surprisingly) and so
anyone who doesn't "like" it MUST (in your mind) lack EYES. But this - as an
argument - fall pathetically short of intelligent. As I said: I could say
the same about you with as much (or as little) validity.
>
> >> Rather than acting like a critic, I *CHALLENGE* you to
> >> make one BETTER. E-mail it to me, and let the SUBJECT be
> >> the judge.
> >
> >Your face doesn't interest me. I am not "acting" like a critic, but
merely
> >expressing my position as to the portrait he produced. Which - by the
way -
> >you are also. Are you "acting" as a critic, albeit one with an interest
in
> >the work?
>
> Then don't do it out of interest.
> Do it as an example for all to see,
> to show how something should be
> PROPERLY done. If you feel I'm too
> biased as the subject, I'll put it
> up on my website, and we can put a
> piece of "poll" code up.
Again: a very uninteresting CHALLENGE, based on competition and - on your
part - a strange and pointless rancor. If I were interested in your face (or
indeed in producing portraiture at all) I would do this simply because it
would be worth doing. As a childish test of cajones, it simply fails to meet
my standard of value.
>Or a
> message board. Either way, we can
> get a wide variety of comments, and
> you can be seen as more than just a
> critic.
I have posted some of my visual work on sites: type in my name and see for
yourself. Unlike Nik, I am not trying to sell them like hot dogs, so you
make a bad mistake if you take my refusal as a sign that I can't "do it."
But that's your problem of course.
But I am already seen as "more than just a critic" by a quite extensive body
of people, both on and off line. Whether or not you and any who would be
interested in you are convinced that my interests lie outside that of being
a "critic" it simply makes no difference to me. All in all, this huge poo
that Nik (and his doppelgangers) are making over one picture reveals more
about him as an artist than it does about me as a critic, even if I were
one. Any artists worth his or her salt learns as early as possible to be as
objective about their own work as possible, and not to allow themselves
undue gastric problems over this or that comment, extracting what is useful
and discarding the rest. That Nik has seemingly enlisted others (and others
who write suspciously in his same adolescent manner) in his "corner" only
reveals him to be as insecure about his own work as many think he should be,
but only unable to admit to it without a loss of pride.
>
> But you're right, Dale, you're not
> "acting" like a critic, and I must
> apologize to all the actors in the
> reading audience. It was not
> intended as an insult to them. I
> do have an interest in this, now,
> mainly because I like the works that
> have been done so far, and I'm
> curious about what others might
> suggest or do in the same instance.
>
> Clearly, there's an investment of
> ego involved--no denying that--much
> as there's no denying the investment
> of ego you seem to put into all this
> criticism.
Hardly.
>
> >> To quote something a teacher once said to me, "Why is it
> >> that *you* find him boring, yet others do not? Perhaps
> >> you lack in some crucial perspective. What might that be?"
> >
> >I am NOT the only one who finds him boring, so your comment is without
> >validity. But your teacher is an ass: the mere quantity of approval or
> >disdain means nothing. You - like Nik himself - seem fixated on quantity
as
> >a sign of value. Interesting.
>
> The validity of the statement comes
> the fact that there are those who
> find a given subject interesting,
> not from those who do not.
Does that make sense?
>What my
> teacher was trying to get across
> was that by seeking to find the
> perspectives by which something
> "ordinary" or "boring" become
> "extraordinary" or "exciting" can
> frequently provide all sorts of
> insights that encourage the seeker
> to grow. It's not so much about
> who is "right" or "wrong" as it is
> about seeing things in a new light.
Then see Nik's work in a new light, and give me the results of that
epiphany. As I have said before, I always approach new work with the
intention of finding something of interest in it. It is only after several
years of exposure to Nik's work, and to his pathetic attempts to sell them
like t-shirts at a Limp Biskit concert, that I have finally determined them
to be repetitive and without particular merit. So - again -your point is
irrelevant, simply because it is positing a fact about my attitudes that is
without merit.
>
> >> If they're "vacant" to you, how is it I see something there?
> >
> >Because it's a picture of you? Not very difficult that one.
>
> I cede that point to you, but
> how is it that *others* see
> something there, including those
> who have not met me?
So? I'm not saying everyone shares or should share my opinion (as - by the
way - you do seem to be doing). I merely trust my own senses, educated (or
not educated) as they might be. And I expressed those positions. You seem
unduly involved in the discussion, considering you only had a bad portrait
painted.
>
> >> I imagine it's something like going into a room devoid of
> >> furniture, but covered in murals. While some of us see
> >> beauty, you only notice that there's no furniture. Or the
> >> other way around, a white room with elegant furniture in
> >> excellent feng shui.
> >>
> >> Sometimes, life is an exercise in "hearing" and "seeing."
> >> Sometimes there's so much noise that you can't hear the
> >> music... until you start to appreciate the music of the
> >> noise. The rest is an exercise left to the reader.
> >
> >Very Buddhistic, but strangely irrelevant, like so much "profundity."
>
> Very short-sighted, but strangely
> predictable, like so much
> "criticism."
Actually, there is a lot of good criticism available. You are - by the way -
writing bad criticism yourself here, albeit it of a sentimental and
personally-involved sort. You are using "criticism" in a popular yet
incorrect fashion, as applying only to negative comments. But criticism is
also a matter of enthusiasms, so your enthusiasm is a (weak) example of
criticism.
>
> >> The CHALLENGE is still there, for ALL takers. The photo
> >> is on the front page of the site. I *DARE* you to outdo
> >> him.
> >>
> >You might live in a world in which competition forms the basis for every
> >action and evaluation, but I do not. Your CHALLENGE is irrelevant. Even
if I
> >cannot "outdo" his feeble stab at portraiture, this has no bearing on my
> >assessment of his work.
>
> You might live in a world where
> inability to produce forms the
> basis for the ability to evaluate,
> but I do not. If you're not even
> capable of a "feeble stab at
> portraiture," you cannot do, you
> can only teach.
A feeble and incorrect myth.
And apparently,
> you are either not willing or not
> able to teach in this group, so
> all that's left to you is blather.
You're very hot under the collar for a nerd: I suspect even Nik's title was
inaccurate.
>
> Personally, I am somewhat
> disappointed. This would have
> been such a great opportunity to
> teach by example, not to mention
> the opportunity to impress all
> present with the culmination of
> what that "background in the
> visual arts" has taught you
> about the creation of artwork.
Again with the testosterone-filled CHALLENGES. I do my work as I see fit,
and - unlike Nik - I am not childishly upset if others do not find it as
marvelous as I do. Criticism is a form of teaching.
>
> >Is it the air in Canada?
>
> Given that I'm in the US, I would
> not think so.
Well, I assumed the virulent hot air of Nik - breathed so lovingly into your
face - might transmit quite adequately via e-mail.
dmh
mdeli
words to praise Da daa Kooning a moment before boarding Trans-Vestite
Air Line flight Zero.”
Perhaps he will include this masterpiece on his web site.
...no skill no art
"The Emperor's New Clothes aren't clothing you stupid little girl. They are body installations containing invisible Color Fields."
Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page
New address- http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli
Jacques Treatment
>Just sent Jacques Treatment my painting called: “Jacques strapped for
>words to praise Da daa Kooning a moment before boarding Trans-Vestite
>Air Line flight Zero.”
>
>Perhaps he will include this masterpiece on his web site.
I certainly did, taking the time to retool the page to load
more quickly.
It is, after all, the thought that counts.
Jacques Treatment
>Well of course, and that's why I didn't go into it, except as a way to make
>a joke about you. But it is equally true that those who have NO "impressive
>credentials" are often incompetent and worthless." So - again - your point
>is irrelevant. You seem - like Nik himself - to be quite incapable of
>separating comments on a piece of work from personal attacks, albeit rather
>pallid examples of same. You "like" the portrait (not surprisingly) and so
>anyone who doesn't "like" it MUST (in your mind) lack EYES. But this - as an
>argument - fall pathetically short of intelligent. As I said: I could say
>the same about you with as much (or as little) validity.
Actually, no. I find criticism like, "boring" or "vacant"
to be less than useful, and in fact, practically valueless.
Some edification regarding how *either* of those qualities
might be avoided--in somewhat more concrete terms than you
have dribbled here--would provide actual *information*.
The rest of your commentary is otherwise rather irrelevant.
>Again: a very uninteresting CHALLENGE, based on competition and - on your
>part - a strange and pointless rancor. If I were interested in your face (or
>indeed in producing portraiture at all) I would do this simply because it
>would be worth doing. As a childish test of cajones, it simply fails to meet
>my standard of value.
Were it about cojones--instead of about comparison and
contrast--I would agree. Your "standard of value" is
irrelevant, save that it spares you the mockery of your
peers through inaction.
>I have posted some of my visual work on sites: type in my name and see for
>yourself. Unlike Nik, I am not trying to sell them like hot dogs, so you
>make a bad mistake if you take my refusal as a sign that I can't "do it."
>But that's your problem of course.
I took a look at your "visual work." That, too, suggests
that you can't do it.
>But I am already seen as "more than just a critic" by a quite extensive body
>of people, both on and off line. Whether or not you and any who would be
>interested in you are convinced that my interests lie outside that of being
>a "critic" it simply makes no difference to me. All in all, this huge poo
>that Nik (and his doppelgangers) are making over one picture reveals more
>about him as an artist than it does about me as a critic, even if I were
>one. Any artists worth his or her salt learns as early as possible to be as
>objective about their own work as possible, and not to allow themselves
>undue gastric problems over this or that comment, extracting what is useful
>and discarding the rest. That Nik has seemingly enlisted others (and others
>who write suspciously in his same adolescent manner) in his "corner" only
>reveals him to be as insecure about his own work as many think he should be,
>but only unable to admit to it without a loss of pride.
By your own earlier arguments, others' opinions are
irrelevant. I find it odd, now, that you are using the
word "poo" that you had previously said was so "childish."
As far as "enlisting" goes, though, I actually came out
here out of curiosity and started reading. At this point,
I'm just amazed at how much you feel the need to comment
about it.
>Then see Nik's work in a new light, and give me the results of that
>epiphany. As I have said before, I always approach new work with the
>intention of finding something of interest in it. It is only after several
>years of exposure to Nik's work, and to his pathetic attempts to sell them
>like t-shirts at a Limp Biskit concert, that I have finally determined them
>to be repetitive and without particular merit. So - again -your point is
>irrelevant, simply because it is positing a fact about my attitudes that is
>without merit.
I'm primarily amazed that you take so much effort to
miss the point.
>So? I'm not saying everyone shares or should share my opinion (as - by the
>way - you do seem to be doing). I merely trust my own senses, educated (or
>not educated) as they might be. And I expressed those positions. You seem
>unduly involved in the discussion, considering you only had a bad portrait
>painted.
You seem surprisingly involved in discussing these
things with me, considering you consider much of what
I have said as "irrelevant" or "bad criticism." Is
it that your hiding some other agenda, or just that
you like to see your words in print?
>> You might live in a world where
>> inability to produce forms the
>> basis for the ability to evaluate,
>> but I do not. If you're not even
>> capable of a "feeble stab at
>> portraiture," you cannot do, you
>> can only teach.
>
>A feeble and incorrect myth.
It's a conditional--you're the one who suggested
that you may not be capable of a "feeble stab of
portraiture." I said that *if* you are, as you
suggested, so incapable, than you cannot do.
>You're very hot under the collar for a nerd: I suspect even Nik's title was
>inaccurate.
Yes, well, you'll never know, since it's all
rather irrelevant to you, due to your lack of
curiosity.
>>
>> Personally, I am somewhat
>> disappointed. This would have
>> been such a great opportunity to
>> teach by example, not to mention
>> the opportunity to impress all
>> present with the culmination of
>> what that "background in the
>> visual arts" has taught you
>> about the creation of artwork.
>
>Again with the testosterone-filled CHALLENGES. I do my work as I see fit,
>and - unlike Nik - I am not childishly upset if others do not find it as
>marvelous as I do. Criticism is a form of teaching.
Sorry, no testosterone there. Just watching
you miss an opportunity to give an example of
portraiture done correctly. Your style of
criticism has been pretty empty and worthless
for teaching.
Brandon Freels
"mdeli" <n...@mail.com> wrote
> New address- http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli
Dale Houstman
> n...@mail.com (mdeli) wrote:
> >Just sent Jacques Treatment my painting called: "Jacques strapped for
> >words to praise Da daa Kooning a moment before boarding Trans-Vestite
> >Air Line flight Zero."
> >
> >Perhaps he will include this masterpiece on his web site.
>
> I certainly did, taking the time to retool the page to load
> more quickly.
>
> It is, after all, the thought that counts.
>
any real interest to me, trafficking as it does in the vaguest sentiments
about "creativity" and apparently possessing little reason to exist beyond
the fact that it can, which is sufficient but not intriguing I suppose.
Still, it's harmless enough as these things go.
By the way, Nik's "essay" on ArtSpeak is drivel of the highest order, but I
don't suppose you have the EYES to see that.
dmh
Dale Houstman
"Brandon Freels" <brandon...@aaahawk.com> wrote in message
news:a925bl$5a7$1...@news.chatlink.com...
>
> > You've met Dale in person, right? Not that I want you to tell tales
> > outside of school, but do you think he lacks a sense of humour? Do you
> > think he takes himself too seriously?
>
> No, I've never met him in person. Yes, I think he has a sense of humor, it
> just isn't yours.
>
I think you've heard my "muscial" piece "Little Men In Paper Hats," which I
think settles the question as to whether or not I have a sense of humor. One
would have to have a sense of humor (and a strong stomach for
self-humiliation) to actually put that out therefor others to hear and turn
from in wild disdain.
dmh
Dale Houstman
> "Dale Houstman" <dm...@citilink.com> wrote:
> >Well of course, and that's why I didn't go into it, except as a way to
make
> >a joke about you. But it is equally true that those who have NO
"impressive
> >credentials" are often incompetent and worthless." So - again - your
point
> >is irrelevant. You seem - like Nik himself - to be quite incapable of
> >separating comments on a piece of work from personal attacks, albeit
rather
> >pallid examples of same. You "like" the portrait (not surprisingly) and
so
> >anyone who doesn't "like" it MUST (in your mind) lack EYES. But this - as
an
> >argument - fall pathetically short of intelligent. As I said: I could say
> >the same about you with as much (or as little) validity.
>
> Actually, no. I find criticism like, "boring" or "vacant"
> to be less than useful, and in fact, practically valueless.
You would be correct except that my "criticism" of Nik's work was far more
extensive than that: the short versions were merely for you in reiteration.
Your comments have bee confined to personal attacks and such illuminating
things as "I like it."
> Some edification regarding how *either* of those qualities
> might be avoided--in somewhat more concrete terms than you
> have dribbled here--would provide actual *information*.
Again: I did go into a more detailed analysis of his work, and in concrete
terms, mostly related to the portraits' irrelevant hysteria of colors
(unrelated to either physicality or emotive features), and other matters.
>
> The rest of your commentary is otherwise rather irrelevant.
To you, but you have no EYES.
>
> >Again: a very uninteresting CHALLENGE, based on competition and - on your
> >part - a strange and pointless rancor. If I were interested in your face
(or
> >indeed in producing portraiture at all) I would do this simply because it
> >would be worth doing. As a childish test of cajones, it simply fails to
meet
> >my standard of value.
>
> Were it about cojones--instead of about comparison and
> contrast--I would agree. Your "standard of value" is
> irrelevant, save that it spares you the mockery of your
> peers through inaction.
A baseless (and super-predictable!) response. I show my work to my "peers"
all the time and although I must (immodestly) admit that mockery is not the
usual response, I wouldn't be too abashed if it were. But then, I'm not
trying (like Nik) to sell my work like t-shirts, or (like you) using a
website to beg for financial support of same.
>
> >I have posted some of my visual work on sites: type in my name and see
for
> >yourself. Unlike Nik, I am not trying to sell them like hot dogs, so you
> >make a bad mistake if you take my refusal as a sign that I can't "do it."
> >But that's your problem of course.
>
> I took a look at your "visual work." That, too, suggests
> that you can't do it.
To you, but - again - you have no EYES. It doesn't bother me that you
disparage my pieces, because I don't rely on you (unlike Nik) to sustain my
ego. But - as I have said before - whether or not I could (and I can)
produce a better portrait than Nik is irrelevant to my capability (or lack
thereof) to judge his portraiture. There simply is no connection, as much as
you think there ought to be.
>
> >But I am already seen as "more than just a critic" by a quite extensive
body
> >of people, both on and off line. Whether or not you and any who would be
> >interested in you are convinced that my interests lie outside that of
being
> >a "critic" it simply makes no difference to me. All in all, this huge poo
> >that Nik (and his doppelgangers) are making over one picture reveals more
> >about him as an artist than it does about me as a critic, even if I were
> >one. Any artists worth his or her salt learns as early as possible to be
as
> >objective about their own work as possible, and not to allow themselves
> >undue gastric problems over this or that comment, extracting what is
useful
> >and discarding the rest. That Nik has seemingly enlisted others (and
others
> >who write suspciously in his same adolescent manner) in his "corner" only
> >reveals him to be as insecure about his own work as many think he should
be,
> >but only unable to admit to it without a loss of pride.
>
> By your own earlier arguments, others' opinions are
> irrelevant.
No, I didn't say others' opinions were irrelevant. Some are of course.
> As far as "enlisting" goes, though, I actually came out
> here out of curiosity and started reading. At this point,
> I'm just amazed at how much you feel the need to comment
> about it.
And it is even more amazing how much you feel the need to comment on my
comments. And I still maintain you were "emlisted" not that it matters much
to the quality of your comments: they fail quite on their own demerits.
> >Then see Nik's work in a new light, and give me the results of that
> >epiphany. As I have said before, I always approach new work with the
> >intention of finding something of interest in it. It is only after
several
> >years of exposure to Nik's work, and to his pathetic attempts to sell
them
> >like t-shirts at a Limp Biskit concert, that I have finally determined
them
> >to be repetitive and without particular merit. So - again -your point is
> >irrelevant, simply because it is positing a fact about my attitudes that
is
> >without merit.
>
> I'm primarily amazed that you take so much effort to
> miss the point.
When you make one, I'll catch it. But I didn't miss this one: you stated
that I was making a quick and prejudiced judgement on Nik's work, and I said
(in detail) that I wasn't. It seems more than relevant to me.
>
> >So? I'm not saying everyone shares or should share my opinion (as - by
the
> >way - you do seem to be doing). I merely trust my own senses, educated
(or
> >not educated) as they might be. And I expressed those positions. You seem
> >unduly involved in the discussion, considering you only had a bad
portrait
> >painted.
>
> You seem surprisingly involved in discussing these
> things with me, considering you consider much of what
> I have said as "irrelevant" or "bad criticism." Is
> it that your hiding some other agenda, or just that
> you like to see your words in print?
You seem surprisingly involved in discussing these things with me,
considering that you have (from the start) dismissed me as one who has no
EYES. Yet you persist: are you hiding an agenda, or do you just like to see
your words in print?
>
> >> You might live in a world where
> >> inability to produce forms the
> >> basis for the ability to evaluate,
> >> but I do not. If you're not even
> >> capable of a "feeble stab at
> >> portraiture," you cannot do, you
> >> can only teach.
First off, I never said I was incapable of "a feeble stab at portraiture"
(and certainly not of "producing") only that it was not of particular
personal interest for me to do portraiture. I HAVE done them for those
friends who have personally requested I do them. And your repeat of that
lame myth about the stiff dichotomy of "teach/do" doesn't render it any less
untrue than the first time you said it.
> >
> >A feeble and incorrect myth.
>
> It's a conditional--you're the one who suggested
> that you may not be capable of a "feeble stab of
> portraiture."
No I didn't.
>I said that *if* you are, as you
> suggested, so incapable, than you cannot do.
You brought up the "teach/do" myth.
>
> >You're very hot under the collar for a nerd: I suspect even Nik's title
was
> >inaccurate.
>
> Yes, well, you'll never know, since it's all
> rather irrelevant to you, due to your lack of
> curiosity.
I didn't say I was not curious. Just because something is irrelevant it
hardly follows that the person pointing that out is incurious. When you jump
to conclusions you should make sure you pack your parachute correctly.
>
> >>
> >> Personally, I am somewhat
> >> disappointed. This would have
> >> been such a great opportunity to
> >> teach by example, not to mention
> >> the opportunity to impress all
> >> present with the culmination of
> >> what that "background in the
> >> visual arts" has taught you
> >> about the creation of artwork.
> >
> >Again with the testosterone-filled CHALLENGES. I do my work as I see fit,
> >and - unlike Nik - I am not childishly upset if others do not find it as
> >marvelous as I do. Criticism is a form of teaching.
>
> Sorry, no testosterone there. Just watching
> you miss an opportunity to give an example of
> portraiture done correctly. Your style of
> criticism has been pretty empty and worthless
> for teaching.
You have no EYES. Even if I HAD said (which I didn't) that I was incapable
of producing a portrait, it isn't really my duty to produce a portrait as
proof I have a right to comment on one. Baudelaire was one of the greatest
art critics of the 19th century, and his work is still quite interesting to
read. He never did much of any visual work. The same is true for many
critics (good, bad, and indifferent), The notion that a critic must be able
to do what he is commenting upon is as weak as the "teach/do" myth, and it
really only appeals to those who are incapable of either analyzing or doing.
That is - I assume - your category?
>
dmh
Jacques Treatment
>You would be correct except that my "criticism" of Nik's work was far more
>extensive than that: the short versions were merely for you in reiteration.
>Your comments have bee confined to personal attacks and such illuminating
>things as "I like it."
Actually, no, but then you persist in not reading and missing the point.
This gets tiresome.
>A baseless (and super-predictable!) response. I show my work to my "peers"
>all the time and although I must (immodestly) admit that mockery is not the
>usual response, I wouldn't be too abashed if it were. But then, I'm not
>trying (like Nik) to sell my work like t-shirts, or (like you) using a
>website to beg for financial support of same.
It's an unfortunate state, but to some extent necessary. I'd rather
support myself doing something I enjoy than work for some corporate
PHB who has even less less of a clue than you do.
>> I took a look at your "visual work." That, too, suggests
>> that you can't do it.
>
>To you, but - again - you have no EYES. It doesn't bother me that you
>disparage my pieces, because I don't rely on you (unlike Nik) to sustain my
>ego. But - as I have said before - whether or not I could (and I can)
>produce a better portrait than Nik is irrelevant to my capability (or lack
>thereof) to judge his portraiture. There simply is no connection, as much as
>you think there ought to be.
Yes, you stroke your ego well enough on your own. Too much of that
and you go metaphysically blind.
>No, I didn't say others' opinions were irrelevant. Some are of course.
Actually, yes, you did, but at this point, it's irrelevant.
>And it is even more amazing how much you feel the need to comment on my
>comments. And I still maintain you were "emlisted" not that it matters much
>to the quality of your comments: they fail quite on their own demerits.
Since you don't actually pay any attention to what's being
said, any opinion you show is thus irrelevant.
>> I'm primarily amazed that you take so much effort to
>> miss the point.
>
>When you make one, I'll catch it. But I didn't miss this one: you stated
>that I was making a quick and prejudiced judgement on Nik's work, and I said
>(in detail) that I wasn't. It seems more than relevant to me.
I did, you missed it. Pointedly. No point in continuing.
>> You seem surprisingly involved in discussing these
>> things with me, considering you consider much of what
>> I have said as "irrelevant" or "bad criticism." Is
>> it that your hiding some other agenda, or just that
>> you like to see your words in print?
>
>You seem surprisingly involved in discussing these things with me,
>considering that you have (from the start) dismissed me as one who has no
>EYES. Yet you persist: are you hiding an agenda, or do you just like to see
>your words in print?
Both are certainly true, but then, this discussion is
at an end.
>First off, I never said I was incapable of "a feeble stab at portraiture"
>(and certainly not of "producing") only that it was not of particular
>personal interest for me to do portraiture. I HAVE done them for those
>friends who have personally requested I do them. And your repeat of that
>lame myth about the stiff dichotomy of "teach/do" doesn't render it any less
>untrue than the first time you said it.
It doesn't matter--you've shown you don't have it in
you to try. You're irrelevant.
>> It's a conditional--you're the one who suggested
>> that you may not be capable of a "feeble stab of
>> portraiture."
>
>No I didn't.
Those four words are yours, but it ceases to matter.
>You brought up the "teach/do" myth.
That, too, is irrelevant, since you dismiss it anyway.
>> Yes, well, you'll never know, since it's all
>> rather irrelevant to you, due to your lack of
>> curiosity.
>
>I didn't say I was not curious. Just because something is irrelevant it
>hardly follows that the person pointing that out is incurious. When you jump
>to conclusions you should make sure you pack your parachute correctly.
Perhaps I should have said "lack of curiosity about the
subject matter," but then, you seem unable to grasp
referents anyway.
>> Sorry, no testosterone there. Just watching
>> you miss an opportunity to give an example of
>> portraiture done correctly. Your style of
>> criticism has been pretty empty and worthless
>> for teaching.
>
>You have no EYES. Even if I HAD said (which I didn't) that I was incapable
>of producing a portrait, it isn't really my duty to produce a portrait as
>proof I have a right to comment on one. Baudelaire was one of the greatest
>art critics of the 19th century, and his work is still quite interesting to
>read. He never did much of any visual work. The same is true for many
>critics (good, bad, and indifferent), The notion that a critic must be able
>to do what he is commenting upon is as weak as the "teach/do" myth, and it
>really only appeals to those who are incapable of either analyzing or doing.
>That is - I assume - your category?
No, you're just speaking from ignorance again. See
previous item. As for you, you're certainly no
Baudelaire. No need to respond, though--it won't
be read.
Dale Houstman
> "Dale Houstman" <dm...@citilink.com> scrawled:
> >You would be correct except that my "criticism" of Nik's work was far
more
> >extensive than that: the short versions were merely for you in
reiteration.
> >Your comments have bee confined to personal attacks and such illuminating
> >things as "I like it."
>
> Actually, no, but then you persist in not reading and missing the point.
> This gets tiresome.
It certainly does, especially as you seem to find repeating "missing the
point" over and over again with no discernible evidence to support the
claim.
>
> >A baseless (and super-predictable!) response. I show my work to my
"peers"
> >all the time and although I must (immodestly) admit that mockery is not
the
> >usual response, I wouldn't be too abashed if it were. But then, I'm not
> >trying (like Nik) to sell my work like t-shirts, or (like you) using a
> >website to beg for financial support of same.
>
> It's an unfortunate state, but to some extent necessary. I'd rather
> support myself doing something I enjoy than work for some corporate
> PHB who has even less less of a clue than you do.
You want others to support you.
>
> >> I took a look at your "visual work." That, too, suggests
> >> that you can't do it.
> >
> >To you, but - again - you have no EYES. It doesn't bother me that you
> >disparage my pieces, because I don't rely on you (unlike Nik) to sustain
my
> >ego. But - as I have said before - whether or not I could (and I can)
> >produce a better portrait than Nik is irrelevant to my capability (or
lack
> >thereof) to judge his portraiture. There simply is no connection, as much
as
> >you think there ought to be.
>
> Yes, you stroke your ego well enough on your own. Too much of that
> and you go metaphysically blind.
A stupid statement. I am beginning to see exactly why you might have "liked"
your portrait: it maybe makes you look brighter than you really are.
>
> >No, I didn't say others' opinions were irrelevant. Some are of course.
>
> Actually, yes, you did, but at this point, it's irrelevant.
No I didn't, but your "missing the point" is irrelevant at this point.
>
> >And it is even more amazing how much you feel the need to comment on my
> >comments. And I still maintain you were "emlisted" not that it matters
much
> >to the quality of your comments: they fail quite on their own demerits.
>
> Since you don't actually pay any attention to what's being
> said, any opinion you show is thus irrelevant.
A baseless claim.
>
> >> I'm primarily amazed that you take so much effort to
> >> miss the point.
> >
> >When you make one, I'll catch it. But I didn't miss this one: you stated
> >that I was making a quick and prejudiced judgement on Nik's work, and I
said
> >(in detail) that I wasn't. It seems more than relevant to me.
>
> I did, you missed it. Pointedly. No point in continuing.
A baseless claim.
>
> >> You seem surprisingly involved in discussing these
> >> things with me, considering you consider much of what
> >> I have said as "irrelevant" or "bad criticism." Is
> >> it that your hiding some other agenda, or just that
> >> you like to see your words in print?
> >
> >You seem surprisingly involved in discussing these things with me,
> >considering that you have (from the start) dismissed me as one who has no
> >EYES. Yet you persist: are you hiding an agenda, or do you just like to
see
> >your words in print?
>
> Both are certainly true, but then, this discussion is
> at an end.
It is only proper that you end it before you run out of nothings to say.
>
> >First off, I never said I was incapable of "a feeble stab at portraiture"
> >(and certainly not of "producing") only that it was not of particular
> >personal interest for me to do portraiture. I HAVE done them for those
> >friends who have personally requested I do them. And your repeat of that
> >lame myth about the stiff dichotomy of "teach/do" doesn't render it any
less
> >untrue than the first time you said it.
>
> It doesn't matter--you've shown you don't have it in
> you to try. You're irrelevant.
A baseless claim.
>
> >> It's a conditional--you're the one who suggested
> >> that you may not be capable of a "feeble stab of
> >> portraiture."
> >
> >No I didn't.
>
> Those four words are yours, but it ceases to matter.
Yes those four words are mine: as applied to Nik, not myself. When one has
to resort to picking out a few words and misapplying them, the end is near
for their intellectual prowess.
>
> >You brought up the "teach/do" myth.
>
> That, too, is irrelevant, since you dismiss it anyway.
Silly.
>
> >> Yes, well, you'll never know, since it's all
> >> rather irrelevant to you, due to your lack of
> >> curiosity.
> >
> >I didn't say I was not curious. Just because something is irrelevant it
> >hardly follows that the person pointing that out is incurious. When you
jump
> >to conclusions you should make sure you pack your parachute correctly.
>
> Perhaps I should have said "lack of curiosity about the
> subject matter," but then, you seem unable to grasp
> referents anyway.
Even sillier. At least you're evolving.
>
> >> Sorry, no testosterone there. Just watching
> >> you miss an opportunity to give an example of
> >> portraiture done correctly. Your style of
> >> criticism has been pretty empty and worthless
> >> for teaching.
> >
> >You have no EYES. Even if I HAD said (which I didn't) that I was
incapable
> >of producing a portrait, it isn't really my duty to produce a portrait as
> >proof I have a right to comment on one. Baudelaire was one of the
greatest
> >art critics of the 19th century, and his work is still quite interesting
to
> >read. He never did much of any visual work. The same is true for many
> >critics (good, bad, and indifferent), The notion that a critic must be
able
> >to do what he is commenting upon is as weak as the "teach/do" myth, and
it
> >really only appeals to those who are incapable of either analyzing or
doing.
> >That is - I assume - your category?
>
> No, you're just speaking from ignorance again. See
> previous item. As for you, you're certainly no
> Baudelaire. No need to respond, though--it won't
> be read.
Oh how sweet: an end to the sub-genius blather at last! By the way, I didn't
say I was Baudelaire. But we've all found out by now that you are bereft of
reading skills and intelligence, and so the mystery of your admiration for
Nik's portrait of you is solved.
>
dmh
Duchas de Abril
>you apparently
>haven't read any of the items on my
>site
>Visit http://www.angelfire.com/weird/jtl
I don't know about Dale and others, but if
the site cited is yours, it doesn't work
for me. I get a "page not found" message.
The jtl ending does NOT look correct to me.
mdeli
full masterpiece. called: “Jacques strapped for words to praise Da
daa Kooning a moment before boarding Trans-Vestite Air Line flight
Zero.”
Its somewhat more complex than the sketch. I hope the artzy fartzies
here will consider this a vast unimprovement!
I hope Jacques Treatment will post it and am looking forward for some
psycobabble from Fox. This one should be right up his alley. Hope he
isn't dissapointed that I didn't include any ass holes.
mdeli
Every piece of Modern Art needs the verbal support of a good
Manifesto.
Is your work just not selling? Do you find that people just don't get
your work?
If you stall for excuses and the right Artspeak when viewers sort of
ignore your masterpieces, my Manifesto Service is just the thing for
you.
For the lowest available fee (depending on length) I will write a high
quality manifesto for any Modern Academic Artist who needs one.
My Qualifications:
I studied in a Bauhaus Academy for nearly two years before being
expelled. This gave me a professional handle on Artspeak, In addition
I was a member of the MOMA before most here were born and lived in the
West Village in NYC for many years. This gave me first hand experience
with all species of artzy fartzies. I know what the rich and
not-so-rich want to hear before they part with their cash.
Note: This service is confidential and I will include a signed
statement that I never wrote it. I also supply new isms for those
Modern Artists who can't think of one.
Kel
likes the painting, the other doesn't. Accept it and move on.
Kel
On 11-Apr-2002, "Dale Houstman" <dm...@citilink.com> wrote:
> "Jacques Treatment" <mar...@teleweb.net> wrote in message
> news:10185182...@axilla.wwnet.net...
> > "Dale Houstman" <dm...@citilink.com> scrawled:
> > >You would be correct except that my "criticism" of Nik's work was far
> more
(a bunch of hoopla snipped)
Jacques Treatment
>mar...@teleweb.net (Jacques Treatment) wrote in message
> news:<10184995...@axilla.wwnet.net>...
>> n...@mail.com (mdeli) wrote:
>> >Just sent Jacques Treatment my painting called: "Jacques strapped for
>> >words to praise Da daa Kooning a moment before boarding Trans-Vestite
>> >Air Line flight Zero."
>
It turns out that was only a first draft; Mani De Li has since
added to it. Additions to the page are up now.
>Jacques, I took a browse of your H.P.L. story generator... surely you
>jest. (?)
Well, to be fair, *I* don't jest--the people who put the thing
together do. "Erich Zahn" was the first story I read by him,
back when I was about eleven, quite coincidentally in a
"yellowing old volume," like you described. I was hooked on
Lovecraft's stories for a few years, until I accidentally
stumbled on *other* people's writings in his mythos, found
most of it appalling, and before I knew it, my family had moved
us out of range of that wonderful library and into a morass of
pinkness known as Boca Raton, Florida.
Thank you for pointing me to those other stories, by the way.
I should get a chance to read them at some point after my
migraine goes away.
Jacques Treatment
>IN ERROR I sent the incomplete study for the painting rather then the
>full masterpiece. called: “Jacques strapped for words to praise Da
>daa Kooning a moment before boarding Trans-Vestite Air Line flight
>Zero.”
>
>Its somewhat more complex than the sketch. I hope the artzy fartzies
>here will consider this a vast unimprovement!
>
>I hope Jacques Treatment will post it and am looking forward for some
>psycobabble from Fox. This one should be right up his alley. Hope he
>isn't dissapointed that I didn't include any ass holes.
I managed to get the pages up now--derailed as I was temporarily by
PAYING WORK--and I moved things around a little so that it all scans
better and proves easier to read. I left both up on the site so that
people can compare your "study" with the final version. That way
viewers can decide which piece is more like "art." As far as any
"ass holes" go, I think there are already quite enough of them about.
mdeli
>
>Hello,
>I was wondering if you by any chance had known Ray Prohaska.
Sounds a bit familiar but I can't place him. What about him?
Lost Girl
"Jacques Treatment" <mar...@teleweb.net> wrote in message
news:10184821...@axilla.wwnet.net...
Jacques Treatment
>They are wonderful!!!
>
>I just emailed you my contribution to the gallery.
I'm going to put up both of them--do you have a website
where you show other works?
Your work and Jack's (of Jaxart's Place) will be up
probably some time tomorrow (as in Sunday). This
is proving to be a weekend of both PAYING WORK and
Reserved Relaxation.
Jacques Treatment
>Well as far as I'm concerned, Nik rulez ;)
So do a *lot* of people, now. Due to a sudden
spate of insomnia, I did get down to work on the
latest Nerd God additions, including those of
Jack Schuller of Jaxart Place and Cythera Brown
of this wondrous local place called USENET.
Cythera, if you're reading, please let me know
if you'd like a link associated with your name
so people can find other things that you did.
I'm also in the process of moving it all off of
Angelfire because I'm sick of the pop-up ads
and other problems that plague it. I've got a
mostly-done replication up at
http://www.treatmentlabs.com (although I plan
to change a bit more of the site itself to
reflect the new treatmentlabs home info). The
process *did* point out something that either
never got noticed or never got reported before:
The link for the Games portion of the site was
blocked by a little chunk of invisble brickwork
that the original website editor put in the way.
I figure that most of the people in these news-
groups would at least like the IDEA of Doctor
Snee's Revenge! if they could get to actually
*look* at the quick blurb about it.
--Jacques
Jaxas
>I did get down to work on the
>latest Nerd God additions, including those of
>Jack Schuller of Jaxart Place and Cythera Brown
>of this wondrous local place called USENET.
I hate "Untitled" since I love word play.
So I emailed you a selection of titles,
including "Jacquel and Hyde" - my personal
favorite - to apply to my earlier contribution
to the immortalization of THE NERD GOD, be
s/he ever omniscient!
http://www.treatmentlabs.com/jaxart_Jacques2.JPG
Jacques Treatment
>you were to see your portrait mixed in with lots of other pieces by
>Nik, it could no longer stand out. His portraits all look the same.
I don't completely agree with you, but I don't completely disagree,
either. He uses very nearly the same *techniques* with each picture,
which give them a great deal of similarity, but I do find that I do
get very different emotional senses when I look at one versus another.
Your mileage may vary, though, and I respect that.
>Compare any three of them to the three sent to you by Mani and you
>should see what I mean.
I do see what you mean, to some degree. It's quite possible to come
at a work from a variety of different angles; admittedly Nik has
not done that amongst his portrait series. I do not know, though,
if that corresponds with his intended goal at this stage, though.
He may be exploring this technique for the sake of his own study, or
he may be stuck in a rut. From the outside, it's hard to tell. I
generally try to give people the benefit of the doubt.
>It's just cythera with a small c.
>
>I really like Jack's piece. His title "Jacquel and Hyde" is a great
>name for it, too.
Both revisions have been made and are up.
>> Cythera, if you're reading, please let me know
>> if you'd like a link associated with your name
>> so people can find other things that you did.
>
>Thank you :), but I don't have a website.
Okay. Let me know, though, if you'd like some space on the Treatment
Labs site. I can use the practice with web design. Speaking of which,
have you had any problems with accessing anything at
http://www.treatmetlabs.com/ at all? I did the work there while in the
grip of migraine-medication-induced insomnia, and I'm not sure if it
all works correctly. It seems to look right to *me*, but then, I would
not be objective as I proofread it all.
--J
Jaxas
cyt...@my-deja.com says...
>I really like Jack's piece. His title "Jacquel and Hyde" is a great
>name for it, too.
Muchisimas gracias! Thanks a bunch!
You and Dan have made my day. My sister
told me today that my house looks as if
"a Mexican lives there." That's probably
the most complimentary thing she's ever
said to me - and of course she meant it
as a slur ("On who?" you rightly ask).
I told her, "Thank you - I really worked
hard to achieve the effect." Mi hermana
es una bodoque grande!
Jacques Treatment
>In article <fadef76.02041...@posting.google.com>,
>cyt...@my-deja.com says...
>
>>I really like Jack's piece. His title "Jacquel and Hyde" is a great
>>name for it, too.
>
>Muchisimas gracias! Thanks a bunch!
And now that name is in place.
>You and Dan have made my day. My sister
>told me today that my house looks as if
>"a Mexican lives there." That's probably
>the most complimentary thing she's ever
>said to me - and of course she meant it
>as a slur ("On who?" you rightly ask).
>I told her, "Thank you - I really worked
>hard to achieve the effect." Mi hermana
>es una bodoque grande!
And only you're authorized to say that!
Still, I used to live in Socorro--every
place, save perhaps New Mexico Tech's
dorms, looked llike a Mexican lived there.
But then, this is no surprise (and it is
neither complimentary nor derogatory, just
an observation).
--J
Ned Manual Crank Ludd
> >Well as far as I'm concerned, Nik rulez ;)
>
> So do a *lot* of people, now. Due to a sudden
> spate of insomnia, I did get down to work on the
> latest Nerd God additions, including those of
> Jack Schuller of Jaxart Place and Cythera Brown
> of this wondrous local place called USENET.
>
[* SNIP! *]
For the love of labor-intensive machinery, take it off
the infernal usenet and onto private mail or a motel room.
There's no way to say this diplomatically, but you dig:
you're not pretty, your portrait is a similiar shade of
ugly, and it's time to stop talking about both. Please
spare us additional variations of the original, inane
thread.
Think of the children.
Love, Ned Ludd.
Duchas de Abril
>Still, I used to live in Socorro--every
>place, save perhaps New Mexico Tech's
>dorms, looked llike a Mexican lived there.
Ohmigod! I hope you were honored with the
"Red/Green Chile" award for tolerance above
and beyond... in Socorro - New Mexico's garden
spot - heartbeat of the Land of Enchantment.
Or perhaps that's heartburn? On the banks
of the Rio Grande, where the sandhill cranes
and old crones winter over. And summers are
as long as year-around.
NightMist
Crank Ludd) wrote:
Greyface strikes!
This is one of the few times I have ever actually seen RAF play well
together. By Eris, somebody actually complimented Mani!
Let the subtle discord make it's own way.
You don't wanna read it, you know where your delete key is.
(You do know how to do that don't you?)
NightMist
--
everybody is somebodys chew toy
Jacques Treatment
>On 14 Apr 2002 01:44:22 -0700, eLud...@engineer.com (Ned Manual
>Crank Ludd) wrote:
>>For the love of labor-intensive machinery, take it off
>>the infernal usenet and onto private mail or a motel room.
>>
>>There's no way to say this diplomatically, but you dig:
>>you're not pretty, your portrait is a similiar shade of
>>ugly, and it's time to stop talking about both. Please
>>spare us additional variations of the original, inane
>>thread.
>>
>>Think of the children.
>
I always thought that Greyface would be a great Batman villain
name. But then, so would Goldstar and Samsung.
>This is one of the few times I have ever actually seen RAF play well
>together. By Eris, somebody actually complimented Mani!
I compliment all of you, including Ned Ludd. Nods and grins
to you all!
>Let the subtle discord make it's own way.
Right. Hail Eris, Aum Shiva, Praise "Bob," and Kiss Hank's
Ass.
>You don't wanna read it, you know where your delete key is.
>(You do know how to do that don't you?)
I was going to suggest the ol' killfile, myself, but thankee
kindly, Nightmist!
--J
Jacques Treatment
Thank you for pointing out that my Stupid
Gland is still working. I worry about it
sometimes. I like to think of Socorro as
lovely beachfront property with no water
to mess up the view. I remember, quite
fondly, driving into town to look at the
'M' lit up on M Mountain. 'M Mountain'
is called 'M Mountain' for the light-up
'M' at its summit. The 'M,' of course,
stands for 'Socorro.'
--J
Jacques Treatment, a.k.a. Michael Marcus
CodeMeister, Technoronin, Games Designer
Visit me at http://www.treatmentlabs.com
Duchas de Abril
>The 'M,' of course,
>stands for 'Socorro.'
We should probably take this to personal
email, but here's my last shot at off-topic.
In nearby El Paso (nearby in 'western' terms),
there is Univ of Tex El Paso, who also have
their white-washed but unlit "M" on the mountain
in that city. And on that
same mountain is what USED to be the
Christmas Star, lit ONLY at Xmas time. But
someone got the bright idea (pun intended) to
light the star year-around as El Paso's
unique contribution to light pollution,
thereby negating the Xmas theme. Unplugging
the Xmas connection was, of course, in keeping
with being P-C these days...it's a five-sided
star, donchano.
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com
skill but, wish to be the person honoured with initiating your
demonstration. Would you write a sample manifesto for a sculpted or framed
slice of normal air no more than 5mm thick 50mm high and 100mm in length.
Using the frame or support of your choice. The title of the work is:
'crucifixion'.
your humble servant: keith (the Bytown Gentleman)
mdeli <n...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:3cb6642f...@news1.on.sympatico.ca...
mdeli
> Would you write a sample manifesto for a sculpted or framed
>slice of normal air no more than 5mm thick 50mm high and 100mm in length.
>Using the frame or support of your choice. The title of the work is:
>'crucifixion'.
Sure, But as I said below, " For the lowest available fee (depending
on length) I will write a high quality manifesto for any Modern
Academic Artist who needs one."
Just send $200 US and I'll start work. I'm sure that with a good song
and dance you will sell enough of your crap to pay for this necessary
upgrade.
PS The frame is your problem.
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com
I provided the opportunity for you to engage in a topic that is at the root
of many modern art discussions but, the implication contained within what
appears as a frivolous challenge seems to have passed high above your head.
very interesting: keith
mdeli <n...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:3cc1902...@news1.on.sympatico.ca...
mdeli
deeply affects some people, especially those more sensitive romantic
souls aspiring to a profession. When such a soul passes through the
museum's Modern Academic section and sees all those large colorful
abstractions and minimal sculptural concoctions along with earlier
incompetent realism he is often deeply inspired. In some, a small
tickle in the back of the mind fires off a revelation. "By god I can
learn to do THAT." When he sees art books on the creators of this
stuff it makes him feel ecstatic. When he learns what prices Blue Chip
modern paintings go for, he is bowled over. "By god, I'll be rich."
A percentage of those who have had this experience go on to study at
some Modern Art academy convinced they can fulfill their dreams. Here
they are assured that skill and craft count for little by teachers who
have nearly none. They are then encouraged to imitate those who
created THAT kind of stuff which originally inspired them. All the
while this dominating theme runs through their naive minds, "I can do
THAT," and indeed, most can.
In school they study the most famous Modern Academic paintings in some
detail and their confidence overflows. The incompetent drawings of
their favorite masters now assure them that competence at this
difficult pursuit is of little necessity. This comes as a great
relief. The only slightly negative thing these now aspiring geniuses
learn is the starving artist myth. Armed by a learned creed and with
an almost religious enthusiasm, their art school period eventually
comes to a close and they head out to the real world. What do they
have to fear, for doubtlessly they and their teachers know that they
can do THAT.
In the real world with their imagined abilities they set off to
professionally do THAT. For some the starving artist myth becomes a
reality, but most go on to other professions. Most of those remaining
are indeed able to do THAT just as well as their successful mentors,
yet they never understand why THAT hasn't gained them their desired
glory and riches. A few with the right connections and personality
take up the profession of teaching the next generation of failures
while a very small handful win the Modern Academic Art Lottery and
become the next generation of Blue Chip modern artists.
...no skill no art...
Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page
William Barkin
it?
-Bill
--------------------------
William Barkin - Fine Artist
Online Portfolio
http://www.bcn.net/~wbarkin
"mdeli" <n...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:3cf70c42...@news1.on.sympatico.ca...
Mayo Florece
>
>Mani, I've read this before from you here in this NG...how 'bout updating
>it?
When the ice at the poles is gone, the
oceans have dried up, and the sun has
become a super nova, maybe THEN Mani
will have something new to say.
mdeli
wrote:
>In article <uff0o34...@corp.supernews.com>, wba...@bcn.net says...
>>
>>Mani, I've read this before from you here in this NG...how 'bout updating
>>it?
For someone who paints third rate repetitive impressionism you
shouldn't complain.
>
>When the ice at the poles is gone, the
>oceans have dried up, and the sun has
>become a super nova, maybe THEN Mani
>will have something new to say.
>
>
Yes, and when the above happens you might even get around to
addressing the point. I suspect it irritates you because you paint
"THAT"
Take note, I never said this here before.
mdeli
Biennial-By ROBERTA SMITH Some quotes:
This review contains much of what I have been saying for years. Along
with the usual excuses for some average Modern Academic Art drivel. It
also contains a large selection of intestinal rumbles of doubt which I
have chosen to quote. I predict that these sorts of doubts by artzy
fartzy fundamentalists will increase with time until one of them
decides its time to flush the whole toilet.
>It includes little in the way of painting and photography, and not much color anywhere.
>The experiential possibilities of this show too often come down to reading labels or sitting passively in dark rooms waiting for something to happen. The installation design solves the perennial biennial problem of overcrowding by going so far in the opposite direction that much of it seems to be in solitary confinement. You move from cell to cell, get the point and shuffle on to the next label.
>The show gives some indication that there is plenty out there beyond New York and Los Angeles. Stretching the term, the best painter (although she doesn't have a lot of competition and is not represented by her best work) is the Northern California quiltmaker Rosie Lee Tompkins, whose patchwork geometries provide some of the show's few spots of color.
It's the usual stupidity. As I said Modern Academic art at its best
doesn't reach the level of an average patch quilt. (this one is well
below average)
>---One of the show's discoveries, an anonymous collective named Forcefield, demonstrates some of the confusion. The group has recycled discarded materials into an eerie, alien-inhabited diorama with what seems to be unusual finesse and lots of knitting. The sculptures might be interesting, but looking at them in the dark, to the accompaniment of assorted clicks and buzzes, is inane.
In other words, the usual garbage dump rescue pile-up!
>The biennial signals the possibility that museums could become unrecognizable to people who want to use their eyes and therefore their brains, in ways that go beyond the visual inundations of daily life. In this it reflects what might be called the fear of form that is rife in contemporary art today.
>TOO much of the art on view at the Whitney simply adds up. It is literally what it is, about what it is about, and otherwise just sits there. There is no room for the imagination, nothing to project into, no place for reverie or dreams.
>Today, museum boards are just another way to enter high society rather than a chance to escape from it. They are largely the purview of wealthy socialites and captains of industry with little imagination or vision, who nonetheless, and usually for not a lot of money, have a big say in a museum's affairs.
---no kidding! Wonder how long this reviewer will last at the job.
Until one of these blow-bags whose writing is allowed into the media
expresses some sensible doubt about the miniscule abilities of the
three stooges of Modern Academic Art, de Kooning, Rothko and Pollock
and takes a close look at the utter incompetence of its patron saints,
Cezanne, Picasso, Matisse, Modern Academic Art will dominate the
headlines to the exclusion of far better work.
silverpoint
say that his message remains as relevant today as it would have been 15, 20,
30, 40 years ago because that's where the mass of hapless romantics and
clueless academics remain stuck. When they change, so will the criticism.
Wouldn't a "What the hell is this new, never seen or done before stuff??" be
a more interesting post? Something a real artist would study before
pronouncing it the same older than Dick Clark dance tune he's heard a
million times before?
Mani could update this a bit if he realized that criticisms from the ab ex
era over 40 years were completely overrun by the grad school dadaists, who
view painting condescendingly as something that is "allowed" only if a found
object imitation is created by accident.
Yikes.
"William Barkin" <wba...@bcn.net> wrote in message
news:uff0o34...@corp.supernews.com...
Andrew D
Florece) wrote:
+In article <uff0o34...@corp.supernews.com>, wba...@bcn.net says...
+>
+>Mani, I've read this before from you here in this NG...how 'bout updating
+>it?
+
+When the ice at the poles is gone, the
+oceans have dried up, and the sun has
+become a super nova, maybe THEN Mani
+will have something new to say.
If it aint broke....
Andy D.
"I'm a great speller - but a hopless tpyist!"