McCartney and Ono - Art in NYC - a personal view
Įine Nic an Fhilidh
Paul's small show at the Matthew Marks gallery, and to Yoko's very big
retrospective at the Japan Society.
The Marks gallery is in Chelsea, all run-down and funky and warehouse-y, right
next door to Gagosian. Hipness aside, if you rode down the street just getting
from one place to another, not knowing there were art galleries there, you'd
never notice them. There are no windows fronting the street, no posters or
signs, and the lettering indicating the gallery's presence is in a cool grey
that can only be read at close quarters. Once inside, a small black sign
indicates that "Paul McCartney Paintings" is to be seen on the second level,
while ... um, another artist's work is in the first-floor gallery.
There is no entrance fee. "Large Yellow Face" hangs in the stairwell for easy
viewing whilst ascending to the upper gallery. At the top of the stairs is a
small desk where, at the time of my visit, copies of the book were for sale. I
had not purchased one up to that point, simply because I already had the Seigen
catalog and I planned to get the commercial book after Christmas. However it
soon became apparent that the gallery was handing out a great bargain - all the
books were signed by Macca, and they were being sold at $50! The gallery staff
informed us that Paul set the price and also imposed the rule of one per person
- although certain interested celebrities were allowed two. There were just
eleven left when we arrived. Yes, I bought one. :) There are also signed
lithographs of three paintings for sale at $1750 each. All proceeds from both
book and litho sales go directly to Sloan Kettering for breast cancer research.
The walls are flat white, with the titles of the paintings and the year of
creation alongside each piece. There is no other technical or biographical
information.
The paintings themselves were surprising to me, even though I was well familiar
with the reproductions. As is true of all art, prints cannot do justice because
of many reasons, not least being the limitations of CMYK printing. Also,
McCartney often employs impasto techniques and such visual depth cannot be
adequately conveyed in two dimensions.
The Seigen show of 1999 apparently was huge, but the Marks showing was pared
down to 28 paintings. While there were some missing I was very much hoping to
see - "Is This A Self-Portrait?" and "Unspoken Words" not least - the selection
overall was pretty well-done, I thought.
The overall impression of the show was very similar to that of most of his
albums: eclectic, but with a recognizable stylistic thread running throughout.
As in many of his 'story' songs, there is an evident fascination for, and
empathy with, 'characters'. "Boxer Lips" perhaps represents a fighter after a
terrible beating and is at once visceral and sympathetic, with a touch of wry
humor; but "White Cross Face" crosses the line into bathos. While
compositionally interesting, this painting irritates because it seems more about
components than content.
The two representatives from his 'Celtic' series of paintings done in the
mid-90's, "Celts" and "Ancient Connections," are among the highlights of the
show. Both are fine examples of a real talent for draftsmanship; and as
interpretations of European Iron Age art/ifacts, they demonstrate a deep
understanding of how how art works and what it could have meant in the context
of a people long vanished. In "Ancient Connections" a bronze face contained
within a box smiles faintly at us, almost as if from a mirror. How much have we
changed in 2,500 years?
"Chief Rug" is the most compositionally ambitious of the show and while I cannot
claim to know what it is really "about", to me it conveys an unashamed,
celebratory vision of sexuality: an innocent, breathless, primitive eroticism.
The "Kiss" series of paintings (not represented at all in this show) show a
similar sense of wide-eyed wonder at the joys of physical love.
Nearly all the paintings, whether pure abstract or figurative to any degree,
seem to contain layers of ideas, parts of the earlier versions peeking out
through the later like old photographs. Some of them contain apparently random
scratched-in sketches of things or letters - "Mountain Landscrape," for
instance, is for some reason laced with the letter "A."
All in all, fairly impressive work for an old rock star. Even the harshest
critic would have to acknowledge, if nothing else, that there is a huge amount
of emotional investment in these paintings.
After we left the Marks gallery, we headed across to the "Yes Yoko Ono" exhibit
at the Japan Society. A giant banner hangs outside the building, making it easy
for out-of-towners like ourselves to spot. Just outside the entrance/exit
stands a charming "wish tree" where you can write down a wish on tags provided,
and tie to the branches.
After paying $5 to enter, the viewer is innundated with oodles of Ono. There
are rooms full of most of her best-known pieces, and on nearly every wall are
detailed explanations, analysis, and biographical data relevant to the period
and the piece.
The majority of the work is the semi-legendary stuff from the early to mid-60's,
the stuff that most Beatles fans have only gotten to read about to this point,
but not to experience directly. On the lighter side, the instructional poems in
Japanese characters on crinkled and slightly-crinkled paper were quite nice, and
the surprise and hilarity generated by "Cough Piece" will stay with me for some
time. In fact I was moved to giggle through a lot of the show, in contrast to
some very earnest arty types in the gallery who studied every piece with
furrowed brow. I must admit to being a bit "over" conceptual art; to me, art
that is about ideas *has* to evoke a certain reaction, and too much of it
doesn't, even some of Yoko's. ;)
A notable exception was her famous mid-60's "Cut Piece." Captured on film with
brutal beauty by the Maysles brothers, I found it quite disturbing and
thought-provoking, resonating somewhere in the psyche that most of us do not
like to go, no matter from what angle it is approached.
As the show wound chronologically into the collaborations with John Lennon, I
felt strangely disconnected from it all. There was a certain trace of Zen
purity and good-humored innocence to her very early pieces, but this work seemed
a bit, well, silly; a bit narcissistic. The work went from attempting to
provoke thought to attempting to dictate thought. Perhaps oddly for a Beatles
fan, I only skimmed through this section, pausing only a minute at John's
ghostly face from the "Smile" film on a video screen.
Nearing the end of the exhibit, the ambivalence persisted. I had finally seen,
live 'n in da flesh, the art that was supposedly deemed so threatening once upon
a time, yet I felt that only one ("Cut Piece") had real, lasting value that
lived up to the hype surrounding it; many were
not-too-clever-but-certainly-humorous commentaries on contemporary society, and
too many were simply self-indulgence. Perhaps, I thought, if these were
stripped of all their ultimately distracting explanations and histories and set
in simple, stark white rooms, they might regain some of their mythic power, if
indeed these pieces ever had that power to begin with. It is the final irony
with conceptual art, the art which is supposed to transcend physical boundaries,
that the concepts *must* be represented with tangible objects if they are to be
appreciated by any but the smallest audience. Yet the tangibles alone cannot
convey the larger meaning. Perhaps this is what is missing?
At the end of the show, to my surprise and even relief, there was something
wonderful. Many pen-and-ink drawings of uniform small size, most (all?) of them
in pointillist style, line the final wall space in a graceful arc. The
"Franklin Summer" drawings exude a depth and warmth all of their own. I felt it
would have been just as worthwhile as the current show, to have filled all the
rooms with these little gemlike bits of imagination, and I lingered for a long
time, experiencing them.
Not a wasted day for a Beatles fan, all said and done. I recommend anyone in
the metropolitan New York area to try and catch both exhibits. McCartney's will
only be there until next Thursday, Ono's will be up until (I believe) sometime
in January.
--
northcut at mindspring dot com
--
All follow-ups are directed to the newsgroup rec.music.beatles.moderated.
If your follow-up more properly belongs in the unmoderated newsgroup, please
change your headers appropriately. -- the moderators
The Ex GF
Įine Nic an Fhilidh <nort...@mindspring.com> wrote:
><snip>
Yet the tangibles alone cannot
> convey the larger meaning.
Oodles of Ono?
Who *are* you writing this for, Marie Claire?
The tangibles alone cannot.
The tangibles alone.
Alone.
You were strangely detached from the joint pieces, were you?
I can't touch your Paul stuff, dorothy, without evoking Paul's "creative
mentor" Willem de Kooning, one of whose most famous paintings resonates
even more loudly and clearly now: 'WOMAN 1' and 'WOMAN 2' represent the
pinnacle of the phallocentric view of women. I forget which one is
predominantly yellow, but I saw enuf of Paul's stuff on the Net and in
the fanphotos from Chermany to see that somebody should tell him to burn
them all and don't show again for ten or fifteen years.
I have drawings from college that are better than his best "brushwork".
Guess he hasn't been finding Lin's channel much lately.
He's a hobbyist painter with a great press agent - Himself.
Francie
--
"If you can't fart in front of yer friends, who are yer friends?" (a
fellow art student, circa 1964)
http://sites.netscape.net/fabest
Deconstructing Paul & Hey Jew... NOW!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
JLW44
>
>Guess he hasn't been finding Lin's channel much lately.
>
>He's a hobbyist painter with a great press agent - Himself.
>
>Francie
>
to you to be so brilliant and have no one notice. I guess you are having some
fun at least working on that film with Yoko.
Áine Nic an Fhilidh
shooby...@my-deja.com wrote on 11/6/00 11:08 AM:
> In article <northcut-8D8C15...@news.giganews.com>,
> Áine Nic an Fhilidh <nort...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> <snip>
>
> Yet the tangibles alone cannot
>> convey the larger meaning.
>
> Oodles of Ono?
Would you prefer "yards o' Yoko"? ;)
> Who *are* you writing this for, Marie Claire?
No. A Usenet newsgroup called rec.music.beatles.moderated. Glad to have
you as a reader!
> The tangibles alone cannot.
>
> The tangibles alone.
>
> Alone.
A.
Lone.
A.
L.
O.
N.
E.
Yes.
> You were strangely detached from the joint pieces, were you?
It's one of my greatest personal failings: I've never really "gotten into"
the whole johnandyoko thing. I honestly prefer the work they did separately
- with a couple of exceptions.
> I can't touch your Paul stuff, dorothy,
Aw, thanks. I'm flattered.
> without evoking Paul's "creative
> mentor" Willem de Kooning, one of whose most famous paintings resonates
> even more loudly and clearly now: 'WOMAN 1' and 'WOMAN 2' represent the
> pinnacle of the phallocentric view of women.
Certain of de Kooning's paintings do present a view of womanhood that may
make some people squirm. Of course one of the goals of all art is to
stimulate response. If it has the power to make people genuinely
uncomfortable, so much the better. However, de Kooning may have been one of
McCartney's stylistic influences, but his approach to representation of
femininity and sexuality is quite different from de Kooning's.
> I forget which one is
> predominantly yellow, but I saw enuf of Paul's stuff on the Net and in
> the fanphotos from Chermany to see that somebody should tell him to burn
> them all and don't show again for ten or fifteen years.
Now that's a bit unkind isn't it?
> I have drawings from college that are better than his best "brushwork".
Well let's see 'em, dammit! Put up a gallery on your website or something.
> Guess he hasn't been finding Lin's channel much lately.
Oooh, nasty!
> He's a hobbyist painter with a great press agent - Himself.
Bitter much?
As I stated in my article, if nothing else, the emotional sincerity of his
paintings should be evident.
- d.
The Ex GF
=?ISO-8859-1?B?wQ==?=ine Nic an Fhilidh <nort...@mindspring.com>
wrote:
<snipped snippy welcome to my world opening>
I do not post to rmbm. I cut off the moderated before they ever get a
chance to edit my stuff.
AS a mattrafact, Ms. Dorothy, I never read it either. Just snip off the
group right out of that Forum field.
>
> As I stated in my article, if nothing else, the emotional sincerity of his
> paintings should be evident.
>
I won't be rude to you this time, I'll just tell you that emotional
sincerity, in music, or in art, is not even discussed by real artists or
real art critics.
A fan's eye view such as yours, untrained in the history of AbEx painting
as you are, would not be expected to conform to any academic standard,
and I commend you for your nerve.
But there is something truly awkward about someone who comments on the
female sexuality of Paul McCartney's paintings. It's like watching a
trapeze artist trying to straddle two elephants running round the center
ring in a media circus.
It has nothing to do with art per se.
On the other hand, you seem to know nothing about Surrealism. Or Pop Art,
for that matter.
Your complete inability to "get" Yoko's retrospective in part or in toto
is not the fault of your parents, who didn't provide much in the way of
museums and galleries, from what I gather.
That said... is already too much.
You forgot to tell them the cab fare from Soho to midtown.
And I wish you would stop isolating your replies as if you needed my
attention more urgently than ANY OTHER POSTER.
f
Áine Nic an Fhilidh
shooby...@my-deja.com wrote on 11/6/00 4:09 PM:
> In article <B62C7C1E.AE18%nort...@mindspring.com>,
> =?ISO-8859-1?B?wQ==?=ine Nic an Fhilidh <nort...@mindspring.com>
> wrote:
>
> <snipped snippy welcome to my world opening>
>
> I do not post to rmbm. I cut off the moderated before they ever get a
> chance to edit my stuff.
>
> AS a mattrafact, Ms. Dorothy, I never read it either.
But you sure did read my article, didn't you? ;)
>> As I stated in my article, if nothing else, the emotional sincerity of his
>> paintings should be evident.
>>
>
> I won't be rude to you this time,
Well, don't feel you have to change on *my* account.
> I'll just tell you that emotional
> sincerity, in music, or in art, is not even discussed by real artists or
> real art critics.
*shrug* I'm not a "real art critic." I have to take exception to your
suggestion that you can speak for all "real artists" and "real art critics"
or even have a clue what all "real artists" and "real art critics" think.
Next, can you define "real art"?
> A fan's eye view such as yours,
It's true, I'm a fan.
> untrained in the history of AbEx painting as you are,
Actually, I have a BFA, with a multidisciplinary major split evenly between
traditional painting and new media. I have four years of art history on the
college level, two of those years focusing on 20th-century art.
> would not be expected to conform to any academic standard,
My comments didn't pretend to adhere to any academic standard - it was an
informal article intended for Beatles fans on a Beatles newsgroup.
> and I commend you for your nerve.
Back at ya! :)
> But there is something truly awkward about someone who comments on the
> female sexuality of Paul McCartney's paintings. It's like watching a
> trapeze artist trying to straddle two elephants running round the center
> ring in a media circus.
Why? Do you know the paintings to which I refer? Can you please explain
where I am misinterpreting? I suppose you're saying that since I have not
commented specifically on all the phallic imagery, then I must not have
noticed it; if this is the case, then let me rectify that situation.
Yes, there is a lot of phallic imagery in the paintings. Yet the mere
presence of a penis in art does not indicate negative connotations nor does
it signal a disrespect for the feminine. You'll note that my original
comments alluded to a celebratory sense of sexuality as a whole, not just of
one gender or another. You brought up de Kooning's "Woman" paintings which
are thought by some to carry overtones of misogyny - I simply stated that
there were no such overtones in McCartney's work.
If you disagree with this, or if I have completely misunderstood where you
are coming from, I'd appreciate it if you'd clarify.
> It has nothing to do with art per se.
I see. Well, my article had everything to do with art - the fact that I am
a "fan" is irrelevant. Some of McCartney's paintings are cringe-worthy: it
just so happens that I believe most of what was selected for this show is
very, very good.
> On the other hand, you seem to know nothing about Surrealism. Or Pop Art,
> for that matter.
Again, can you clarify what exactly brings you to this conclusion?
> Your complete inability to "get" Yoko's retrospective in part
I do have "issues" with concept art as a general rule, but that doesn't mean
I don't "get" it or that I don't like any of it. I just don't always
swallow it whole. As an intellectual exercise, that stuff can be cool. But
like anything else, for it to have lasting value it needs an extra
something. You'll note I handed out megaprops to "Cut Piece" and to Ono's
more recent pointillist drawings.
> or in toto
> is not the fault of your parents, who didn't provide much in the way of
> museums and galleries, from what I gather.
Translation: "You were obviously raised in a barn." LOL!!
> That said... is already too much.
OK.
> You forgot to tell them the cab fare from Soho to midtown.
Around six bucks, IIRC.
> And I wish you would stop isolating your replies as if you needed my
> attention more urgently than ANY OTHER POSTER.
Huh?
Look, I'm sorry you don't like that I commented on the shows. You didn't
have to read it, you know ...
- d.
Yuri
rmbm doesn't edit anyone's posts.
lstoll
Semantics? Is not rmbm's selective filter a form of editing?
Yuri
the urban spaceman
"lstoll" <la...@lstoll.com> wrote in message
news:3A072BF9...@lstoll.com...
> > I do not post to rmbm. I cut off the moderated before
> > they ever get a chance to edit my stuff.
>
> rmbm doesn't edit anyone's posts. Yet another
> baseless accusation from good ol' Francie.
maybe she just had her facts wrong?.........;)
The Ex GF
>
>
Who said anything about editing posts?
They edited the hell out of my book when Stephen "Respectable" Carter
snipped it into fifty pieces with a warning about "offensive language."
If you want to dredge up the old shit between me and saki, you're going
to have to do a lot better than that.
It's *worse* than editing puny swear words out of posts. If the editors
don't like what you write they send it back to you with instructions.
They decide what is appropriate in their moderated forum, just like the
Stumpheads select who may or may not subscribe to their brill forum.
I dislike clubby cackling coffee-nosed cliques... hence I do not venture
where I am censored, snipped, and generally disrespected - although as a
"primary source" of Beatle lore circa 68, they feel free to use my work
any way they want to, with impunity.
Nothing personal, laura, but you're trying to start a fight that was over
months ago.
At least for me it was.
Franny
D 28IF
>
>Who said anything about editing posts?
Well, you, for a start. Short-term memory problems?
>They decide what is appropriate in their moderated forum, just like the
>Stumpheads select who may or may not subscribe to their brill forum.
>
ROTF! It really sticks in your craw, doesn't it?
>I dislike clubby cackling coffee-nosed cliques...
Funny, I recall you being a part of 3 such cliques.
>- although as a
>"primary source" of Beatle lore circa 68, they feel free to use my work
>any way they want to, with impunity.
Why is that in quotes? Feeling low, so you have to remind people how you
consider yourself? You can't be too primary a source, since Mark Lewisohn
didn't need you for his book.
AppleCorp3
>
Well, I was wrong...she could stoop lower. Very nice Francie, whats next?
The Ex GF
d2...@aol.com (D 28IF) wrote:
> You can't be too primary a source, since Mark Lewisohn
> didn't need you for his book.
>
>
Right. But in 1999 he needed me for the BEATLE YEARS radio show, he told
Fred Lindgren to find me and interview me in person. He told Fred to do
whatever he had to do to get together with me. Mark Lewisohn is the
consultant to the show, has been for years.
Yes, I'm feeling low. You would too if you had the job I've got...
returning my parents cremated remains in their heavy cubes to
California,. to the most beautiful place on the west coast of California
(I have never been to Seattle or Anchorage but I have good friends in
both places now...
Yes I am feeling low because I adored my Dat. You may cackle about this
but we called them M and D.
My sister is going out of her mind with grief.
I have to go clean out the photo albums and hole-in-one trophies (there
are three of them, and dozens of club championship trophies) and my
mother's magnificent gourmet library I must give it to the library where
she volunteered until the week she died. Dozens of women friends appeared
out of nowhere to the memorial which I had to lead because my father had
had a stroke and it took his fabulous voice.
So, you asked.
Oh. What 3 cliques am I in? The McCartney lists? Oh pshaw, that was then
and this is now. The last frontier.
rmb 4 ever? I think not.
franny
D 28IF
>> You can't be too primary a source, since Mark Lewisohn
>> didn't need you for his book.
>>
>>
>
>Right. But in 1999 he needed me for the BEATLE YEARS radio show, he told
>Fred Lindgren to find me and interview me in person. He told Fred to do
>whatever he had to do to get together with me. Mark Lewisohn is the
>consultant to the show, has been for years.
"Needed" you? Uh-huh.
>Yes, I'm feeling low. You would too if you had the job I've got...
>returning my parents cremated remains in their heavy cubes to
>California,.
My sympathies.
>
>Yes I am feeling low because I adored my Dat. You may cackle about this
>but we called them M and D.
I wouldn't laugh at any pet names someone had for their family members.
>
>My sister is going out of her mind with grief.
I'm sorry to hear there. I was hoping she was able to be there for you, but I
see you have to bear the burden for you both. Best of luck.
>
>So, you asked.
Well, not exactly, but it doesn't matter.
>
>rmb 4 ever? I think not.
>
You seem to be enjoying it. :-)
Diana
the exhibits and d.'s insightful comments about them? Of course not! This is
rmb. Within about 3 posts this thread deteriorated into a political
playground.
And fool that I am, I had expectations of a discussion abuut Yoko's and Paul's
respective art work.
- - - - - -
The Few, The Proud, The Short.
The Stumpettes.
Jew Eat?
"the urban spaceman" <n...@accsoft.com.au .> wrote:
>
> "Diana" <amara...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20001107063937...@nso-cv.aol.com...
> > d. put a lot of time and effort into writing her review. Are people
> discussing
> > the exhibits and d.'s insightful comments about them? Of course not!
> This is
> > rmb. Within about 3 posts this thread deteriorated into a political
> > playground.
> >
> > And fool that I am, I had expectations of a discussion abuut Yoko's and
> Paul's
> > respective art work.
>
>
>
and one hour afterward, you're hungry again!
Let's Conspire!
--
"And Stella the little fairy wore a pretty shirt that we
could see through! And Mary the faguette wore a
little shawl that hid her stash."
http://sites.netscape.net/fabest
Decon Paul, Hey jew and NEW Disclaimer!
the urban spaceman
The Walrus was Danny
> "I do not post to rmbm. I cut off the moderated
> before they ever get a chance to edit my stuff"
>
> > snipped it into fifty pieces with a warning about "offensive language."
Ha ha!! Brilliant! Well done Stephen! Very funny that one!
> > If you want to dredge up the old shit between me and saki, you're going
> > to have to do a lot better than that.
Oh yes this sounds interesting. Go on Franks clarify! Old shit eh? I'm most
curious, seems this must've been in the olden days.
> >
> > It's *worse* than editing puny swear words out of posts. If the editors
> > don't like what you write they send it back to you with instructions.
Yes but what you don't realise is quite how much they hold you in their arms
and protect you from abuse dear Frankly.
> > They decide what is appropriate in their moderated forum, just like the
> > Stumpheads select who may or may not subscribe to their brill forum.
Too witty. You'd just lurve to know what we spout on about wouldn't you
Franks!! Ha! You never will. How's Jim btw?
>
> That's what makes them "moderated" and "private".
>
> > I dislike clubby cackling coffee-nosed cliques... hence I do not venture
> > where I am censored, snipped, and generally disrespected -
Ha ha! You're just too funny tonight Franks! I disrespect you, I really
really do!
although as a
> > "primary source" of Beatle lore circa 68, they feel free to use my work
> > any way they want to, with impunity.
Folklore! Fairytales. You know when Macca left you in the car to shag
another. Was it Maggie McGiven? Wasn't she the one he was knocking off in
Sardinia after he threw you and yer suitcase out?
> >
> > Nothing personal, laura, but you're trying to start a fight that was
over
> > months ago.
Oh what fight was that? I missed it!
Danny
Susan
I'm green with envy that you were able to attend both shows.
I found the contradistinctions between the two exhibits interesting, but
not at all surprising. For being relatively new to
this genre and starting so late in life, it sounds as if Paul's is doing
quite well. I was afraid that due to some of the other choices that
Paul's made lately that he might be losing it, so this was good to hear.
I'm glad that he kept his exhibit in good taste.
That book might very well be one of the best investments that you've
ever made. Lucky you!
the urban spaceman
"The Walrus was Danny" <thewalru...@totalise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3a0b...@news.telinco.net...
>
> Too witty. You'd just lurve to know what we spout on about wouldn't you
> Franks!! Ha! You never will. How's Jim btw?
hey danny, hadn't you better be running back to the mailing list about now?
it's almost dark and the woods are closing in....:)
The Walrus was Danny
now?
>
>
> it's almost dark and the woods are closing in....:)
That's the best you can cometh up with Nicolas! It's weak weak weak.
On another topic, and indeed a positive one, what's gonna happen with the
next CD? Can I feature please? I need to work out how the hell to transfer
tapes to MP3 mind you, but I'd quite like to contribute.
How much do you charge for the Across the Universe one btw, I nearly made
it! I'm interested in hearing everybody. Could you post me the details.
Despite our disagreements (they are but shallow) I am genuinely interested.
I don't like putting up my banking details over the internet however, so
could you clarify.
Get back in the Ladies!
Danny
the urban spaceman
"The Walrus was Danny" <thewalru...@totalise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3a0b...@news.telinco.net...
> now?
> >
> >
> > it's almost dark and the woods are closing in....:)
>
> That's the best you can cometh up with Nicolas! It's weak weak weak.
i don't need to use me best on you old son.......:)
>
> On another topic, and indeed a positive one, what's gonna happen with the
> next CD? Can I feature please?
why, are you that special?......:)
> I need to work out how the hell to transfer
> tapes to MP3 mind you, but I'd quite like to contribute.
no probs.
>
> How much do you charge for the Across the Universe one btw, I nearly made
> it! I'm interested in hearing everybody. Could you post me the details.
well its all run out. well probably be doing another run soon, but sit tight
and ill let you know.
> Despite our disagreements (they are but shallow)
never a disagreement mate. just like taking the piss out of a guy who so
obviously loves doing it hisselfingtons.....:)
Jew Eat?
Summary Plummery: "Get Back (in the Ladies)", the latest cut from PAST
MASTURBS VOL V, is a honking grate larf. Ectually digitally (!!) recorded
in the wimmins faculties behind Marrowbone Station, its chiefly impotence
is the need to tell wombenkind, "Piss Off!" Short but treacly tickley, it
is mercifly ovum before the listener kin pullup his trowzies. (2.17, Take
54 is the beast of them).
Frenchy La Schwartz, RMB Curmudgeonly Poncey Critiques Dept.
--
"And Stella the little fairy wore a pretty shirt that we
could see through! And Mary the faguette wore a
little shawl that hid her stash."
http://sites.netscape.net/fabest
Decon Paul, Hey jew and NEW Disclaimer!
Jew Eat?
Is this the new and improved Susan? If so, good use of 25 cent words!
Essential element missing from your laudatory bloviation:
Let's ask together, shall we?
Did you (Dorothy) also purchase YES YOKO ONO?
It's on sale at Amazon for just $48, weighs three times as much as Paul's
"Paintings" and when you go to hock your books (having it all on CD)
you'll get 50 cents for Paul's and perhaps $10 for Yoko's... after all,
it's a real coffee table book, good for pressing flowers and if you
attach four "legs", it's a fine minicoffee table.
Francie
D 28IF
> Mrs-...@webtv.net (Susan) wrote:
>> Thanks for posting your nicely written review on the two exhibits d.
>> I'm green with envy that you were able to attend both shows.
>>
>> I found the contradistinctions between the two exhibits interesting, but
>> not at all surprising. For being relatively new to
>> this genre and starting so late in life, it sounds as if Paul's is doing
>> quite well. I was afraid that due to some of the other choices that
>> Paul's made lately that he might be losing it, so this was good to hear.
>> I'm glad that he kept his exhibit in good taste.
>>
>> That book might very well be one of the best investments that you've
>> ever made. Lucky you!
>>
>>
>
>Is this the new and improved Susan? If so, good use of 25 cent words!
>
>Essential element missing from your laudatory bloviation:
>
>Let's ask together, shall we?
>
>Did you (Dorothy) also purchase YES YOKO ONO?
>
>It's on sale at Amazon for just $48, weighs three times as much as Paul's
>"Paintings" and when you go to hock your books (having it all on CD)
>you'll get 50 cents for Paul's and perhaps $10 for Yoko's... after all,
>it's a real coffee table book, good for pressing flowers and if you
>attach four "legs", it's a fine minicoffee table.
>
>Francie
>
>
LOL!
Leave it to Francie to give a backhanded compliment to Susan, and then take
Dorothy to task for her buying habits.
Bored on the East Coast, aye?
Stephen Carter
<thewalru...@totalise.co.uk> wrote:
>> That would be you:
>> "I do not post to rmbm. I cut off the moderated
>> before they ever get a chance to edit my stuff"
>>
>> > They edited the hell out of my book when Stephen "Respectable" Carter
>> > snipped it into fifty pieces with a warning about "offensive language."
Francie....
How many times do you have to be told before it registers
with you that **I** composed that posting. The moderators
did not - NOT - edit it.
You wrote it, I edited it.
--
st...@stephencarterNOSPAM.net
Nothing is Beatle Proof!!
Susan
>people like susie seem to want to adopt
>a whole new language for usenet, when
>they'd be far better sticking to their
>garden variety language instead of trying
>to sound oh so posh.
Nicky, I have no idea what you're babbling about, you must be hitting
the bottle a little early today . So now my post sounds too *posh*,
(isn't she a former Spice girl?) If you have problems reading my posts,
I'll have my seven year old translate for you. Perhaps you're having
trouble comprehending due to my lack of obscenities.
Well d., so much for trying to have a discussion. Despite the hyenas, I
still enjoyed your post.
Hanging Chad (nee:the urban spaceman)
"Jew Eat?" <shooby...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8ugaru$emc$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> >
> > I found the contradistinctions between the two exhibits interesting, but
> > not at all surprising. For being relatively new to
> > this genre and starting so late in life, it sounds as if Paul's is doing
> > quite well. I was afraid that due to some of the other choices that
> > Paul's made lately that he might be losing it, so this was good to hear.
> > I'm glad that he kept his exhibit in good taste.
> >
> > That book might very well be one of the best investments that you've
> > ever made. Lucky you!
> >
> >
>
> Is this the new and improved Susan? If so, good use of 25 cent words!
yeah, its amazing how semi-literate people like susie seem to want to adopt
a whole new language for usenet, when they'd be far better sticking to their
garden variety language instead of trying to sound oh so posh.
nick, who is off to check on some contrafibularities he has stored in his
garden shed......:)
Aine Nic an Fhilidh
Mrs-...@webtv.net (Susan) wrote:
> Thanks for posting your nicely written review on the two exhibits d.
> I'm green with envy that you were able to attend both shows.
>
> I found the contradistinctions between the two exhibits interesting, but
> not at all surprising. For being relatively new to
> this genre and starting so late in life, it sounds as if Paul's is doing
> quite well. I was afraid that due to some of the other choices that
> Paul's made lately that he might be losing it, so this was good to hear.
> I'm glad that he kept his exhibit in good taste.
>
> That book might very well be one of the best investments that you've
> ever made. Lucky you!
>
Thanks, Susan. It was a wonderful weekend for sure.
--
northcut at mindspring dot com
Įine Nic an Fhilidh
wrote:
> Essential element missing from your laudatory bloviation:
"Essential"?
> Let's ask together, shall we?
>
> Did you (Dorothy) also purchase YES YOKO ONO?
Nope.
> It's on sale at Amazon for just $48, weighs three times as much as Paul's
> "Paintings" and when you go to hock your books (having it all on CD)
> you'll get 50 cents for Paul's and perhaps $10 for Yoko's... after all,
> it's a real coffee table book, good for pressing flowers and if you
> attach four "legs", it's a fine minicoffee table.
Yeah yeah, but mediocre concept art isn't any better in a book than it is in
person. If she'd release all of her films on video, I'd buy that.
QuandoPavarotti
Įine Nic an Fhilidh <nort...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> In article <8ugaru$emc$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Jew Eat? <shooby...@my-deja.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Essential element missing from your laudatory bloviation:
>
> "Essential"?
>
Yes, the missing element is the recognition of Yoko's 40 year
contributions as a graphic designer, performance artist, sculptor,
printmaker, artistic antagonist and filmmaker, before and during her
Lennon phase. This essential blindness is caused by two things: a lack of
knowledge of the art and the artist; and the Paul McCartney Filter.
> > Let's ask together, shall we?
> >
> > Did you (Dorothy) also purchase YES YOKO ONO?
>
> Nope.
>
But you plunked down the money for Paul's ripoff. Your loss.
> > It's on sale at Amazon for just $48, weighs three times as much as Paul's
> > "Paintings" and when you go to hock your books (having it all on CD)
> > you'll get 50 cents for Paul's and perhaps $10 for Yoko's... after all,
> > it's a real coffee table book, good for pressing flowers and if you
> > attach four "legs", it's a fine minicoffee table.
>
> Yeah yeah, but mediocre concept art isn't any better in a book than it is in
> person.
Yoko's work is mediocre *only* to those who are ignorant about the avant
garde movement world-wide. Now that her retrospective is touring the
world, and her book, written by distinguished scholars, curators, and
critics with her cooperation, is available to everyone, no one with any
understanding of fine art can say she is not one of the most prolific and
significant figures in the modern art world.
But hey, whatever, Dorothy. Stay comfy in your cocoon of willful
blindness. It's Paul who is the mediocre painter and the great UniBeatle.
Yoko's gotten back to where she once belonged, and it's not about money,
as it is with Paul, or the need for mass acceptance in a medium other
than pop music.
Yoko has survived the Beatles, and I am proud and happy for her.
John would be cheering loudly if he were here.
--
FRANCIE
http://sites.netscape.net/fabest
NEW PAGE w/ Private Photos
Never Before Seen By Human Eyes!
Įine Nic an Fhilidh
<shooby...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <northcut-33E56B...@news.giganews.com>,
> Įine Nic an Fhilidh <nort...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > In article <8ugaru$emc$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Jew Eat?
> > <shooby...@my-deja.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Essential element missing from your laudatory bloviation:
> >
> > "Essential"?
> >
>
> Yes, the missing element is the recognition of Yoko's 40 year
> contributions as a graphic designer, performance artist, sculptor,
> printmaker, artistic antagonist and filmmaker, before and during her
> Lennon phase. This essential blindness is caused by two things: a lack of
> knowledge of the art and the artist; and the Paul McCartney Filter.
*sigh*
No, Francie. (Why did I respond to this troll in the first place?) I recognize
Yoko's 40 year career. Some of it, I think is great. Most of it, I don't think
lives up to its hype. It's nothing more or less than that. Can't help if you
are offended by that.
> > > Let's ask together, shall we?
> > >
> > > Did you (Dorothy) also purchase YES YOKO ONO?
> >
> > Nope.
> >
>
> But you plunked down the money for Paul's ripoff. Your loss.
No, actually it was my gain. 1) Paul's book was signed. Yoko's wasn't. 2) I
collector of Paul McCartney material, so his book even NOT signed is worth the
money - to me.
> > > It's on sale at Amazon for just $48, weighs three times as much as
> > > Paul's
> > > "Paintings" and when you go to hock your books (having it all on CD)
> > > you'll get 50 cents for Paul's and perhaps $10 for Yoko's... after all,
> > > it's a real coffee table book, good for pressing flowers and if you
> > > attach four "legs", it's a fine minicoffee table.
> >
> > Yeah yeah, but mediocre concept art isn't any better in a book than it is
> > in person.
>
> Yoko's work is mediocre *only* to those who are ignorant about the avant
> garde movement world-wide.
Actually, her work is mediocre to plenty of people better versed in the "avant
garde movement world-wide" than you. You really think my criticism was harsh?
Sheesh! I at least thought some of it had lasting value, and I enjoyed the show
as a whole.
> Now that her retrospective is touring the
> world, and her book, written by distinguished scholars, curators, and
> critics with her cooperation, is available to everyone, no one with any
> understanding of fine art can say she is not one of the most prolific and
> significant figures in the modern art world.
Actually, anyone can say anything about anything. Go figure.
> But hey, whatever, Dorothy. Stay comfy in your cocoon of willful
> blindness. It's Paul who is the mediocre painter and the great UniBeatle.
But man, he's sure got a fiiiine ass!
> Yoko's gotten back to where she once belonged, and it's not about money,
> as it is with Paul,
What "it" are you referring to? <giggle>
> or the need for mass acceptance in a medium other
> than pop music.
>
> Yoko has survived the Beatles, and I am proud and happy for her.
I'd say the same thing, but then I remember she was never *in* the Beatles.
> John would be cheering loudly if he were here.
No doubt, and I wish he *was* here cheering loudly! However, none of this means
I have to spend money I don't have for a book I don't want. I'm not buying "1"
either if it makes you feel any better!
Strabbo
news:northcut-8D8C15...@news.giganews.com...
> This evening I returned from New York City, where I and friends went to
both
> Paul's small show at the Matthew Marks gallery, and to Yoko's very big
> retrospective at the Japan Society.
>
I'm just going to jump into this thread for a moment to say that I'm
jealous! Interesting art like this seldom if ever makes it to my part of the
world. I guess I should be thankful we're on the Linda M. short list.
Thanks for the reviews, d.!