re Sgt Jason
Eric
who are you talking to..........
Richard Dering
Just when I thought the postings in my favourite newsgroup were getting
ridiculous, you decide to post "screw the model releases".
Since it appears that you like to offer advice, I will give you some...
Myself and many others utilize this newsgroup to further our skills and
understanding of
the craft of photography. Your childish posts are not a welcome addition.
Stick to talking about photography in an age appropriate manner.
Richard Dering
"Opinions expressed are that of the author and don't represent those of my
employer"
SPECTRUM
Richard,
Your asking quite a bit of them aren't you ? You certainly give
them more credit than I. Anyone that writes about his exploits with beer and
pizza is a little to distracted. Of course that is acceptable in todays
society where piercing your body has been deemed a "art", as if todays
society would know what art is if it bit them on the ass !
This is another reason why I asked about the professional newsgroup
setup a few months ago. Unfortunately that thread was corrupted by a
"professional" who poorly represented the majority of working pro's. It
seems that the majority of people here have little interest in photography
as art, but just as something to fill thier worthless, meaningless days. I
wonder why they bother ?
--
Regards,
John S. Douglas
Spectrum Photographic Inc.
" I gave my
life to become the person I am right now.
Was it worth it ?"
Richard Bach
One
Richard Dering wrote in article
<01bc9625$195ca6b0$1786bc2f@maint_support_2>...
Sgt Jason
>
>
Did someone say something about beer?
Dennis Swanson
Who would have guessed that on Mon, 21 Jul 1997 at 18:57:26 -0500
Eric (er...@onramp.net) would say:
~ who are you talking to..........
>From: "Richard Dering" <Richard...@nt.com>
>Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.people
>Subject: re Sgt Jason
^^^^^^^^^
Den
--
Dennis M. Swanson <>< C/Win32 API programmer UNIX hobbyist
Bill Clinton wants to be your [toll]bridge to the future.
Michael Quack
SPECTRUM <spec...@cybercomm.net> wrote
>
> Your asking quite a bit of them aren't you ? You certainly
give
> them more credit than I. Anyone that writes about his exploits with beer
and
> pizza is a little to distracted. Of course that is acceptable in todays
> society where piercing your body has been deemed a "art", as if todays
> society would know what art is if it bit them on the ass !
>
> This is another reason why I asked about the professional
newsgroup
> setup a few months ago. Unfortunately that thread was corrupted by a
> "professional" who poorly represented the majority of working pro's. It
> seems that the majority of people here have little interest in
photography
> as art, but just as something to fill thier worthless, meaningless days.
I
> wonder why they bother ?
> Spectrum Photographic Inc.
>
> >ridiculous, you decide to post "screw the model releases".
> >Since it appears that you like to offer advice, I will give you some...
> >
> >Myself and many others utilize this newsgroup to further our skills and
> >understanding of
> >the craft of photography. Your childish posts are not a welcome
addition.
> >Stick to talking about photography in an age appropriate manner.
John, I don't subscribe to that. I never really bothered to muse about the
idea of my photography being art or not. I put more energy in the
reflection on my pictures themselves. The complete art discussion is more
or less a sales issue. Once people consider your stuff "art" - and you
can't really push this by calling your stuff "art" - you have extended
advertising capabilities, like exhibitions, museums and public collections.
Plus maybe more money you can charge.
On piercing: I would jump out of the bed, if my lady came home pierced like
a hawk, my personal taste is not into piercing. But I have to admit that
for example the work of Fakir Musafar (S.F. area) is interesting and adding
to the cultural variety. As I already stated on my website: If you like my
stuff (applies to other peoples work as well), fine. If not, I ask
everybody to respect the fact that different people have different
preferences. You can't (and should not try to) make your taste mandatory
without violating other fellows freedom.
Looking into the mirror, you suddenly find out that there is one person
into sexist jokes, and one that is not. This would not change in a pro
newsgroup, Jason is a professional and would show up there as well. Anyway,
nobody should be afraid to read a silly but unharmful joke every now and
then. Judging from the line of Jasons postings, he is overall not a bad
guy. Maybe just one with that awful crewcut.........
I have been shooting the act of piercing in a profesional dungeon two years
ago. One of the girls got 7 (seven !!!!) rings plugged in her.......um,
lips.
While I was close to puking afterards, and for sure wasted no thought on
sex for at least one week, I found that they really enjoyed themselves.
Obviously it hurt like hell, and as long as it gets not mandatory to
everybody, I'll have no objections to that.
Anyway, the quality of this newsgroup is maintained by all contributors.
Ask more questions related to photography, and don't stop by at the silly
art discussion. Better go rightaway to anything beyond. Once you don't
waste time on that, you can start to look for galleries or public museums
or art collection to exhibit. Discussing the art issue is mostly running
fights because the pictures in question have deficiancies of any kind. The
better your work is, the less necessary will the need be to discuss this
yuccy art thing.
In essence this above posting reads: Tolerance, tolerance, tolerance.
Please.
And Karen: You went barefoot in the kitchen, but don't you bother to put
your shoes aside.... ;-))
(Good work on the wedding FAQ !!)
P.S.: Anybody have more suggestions for similar FAQs ? I'll work further on
my explanation of the Canon mounts advantages.
<http://members.aol.com/photoquack/bayonet.htm>, if anyone bothers to look
at.....
--
Michael Quack
(Photo...@aol.com)
Website: <http://members.aol.com/photoquack/index.htm>
Fashion, Beauty, Newswork, Nude, Industry and more
------
And for you automated email spammers out there,
here's the email addresses of the current board of
the Federal Communications Commission:
Chairman Reed Hundt: rhu...@fcc.gov
Commissioner James Quello: jqu...@fcc.gov
Commissioner Susan Ness: sn...@fcc.gov
Commissioner Rachelle Chong: rch...@fcc.gov
SPECTRUM
Michael,
Ahhh ! Something constructive. How nice . You don't see this much in the
NG's. I'll have to take it line by line though.
Michael Quack wrote in article
<01bc967c$becabcc0$Loca...@michael.quack.metronet.de>...
>John, I don't subscribe to that. I never really bothered to muse about the
>idea of my photography being art or not.
I'm not actually concerned with photography AS art , which is the
resulting images . More the art OF photography, which is really a way of
life . That combination of inspiration and perspiration, craft and
creativity that result in the timeless image captured by silver.
>The complete art discussion is more or less a sales issue.
I would like to point out that this is true moreso in the USA than
elsewhere in the world .
>Once people consider your stuff "art" - and you can't really push this by
calling your stuff "art" - you have extended advertising capabilities, like
exhibitions, museums and public collections.
And who are these "people" ? New York hoaksters. Charlatans.They flutter
about the art world like flies on rice. And "they" have a discerning eye
don't they ?! But of course they'll help you become popular ! So long as
they get something out of it ! Some of the bologna that I've seen promoted
in NYC as "art" makes me sick. One girl from Brooklyn managed to convince
the professor of the visual communications department that her work should
be shown at the local county college. Each image was a composite of a
mouth,wide open, in which was placed a diverse selection of things such as a
bowl of chicken livers, chicken embryos and other such stuff. All printed on
brillianty vivid Cibachromes. Pure, unadulterated revolting shock rubbish.
This is what they teach at great schools like RIT and Brooks. I have this on
good authority as one of my local competitors just graduated from RIT. You
should here the stories she has to tell of the type of bologna that gets
professors attentions.Much like the professor that staged the show for the
Brooklyn girl , he has manacaled dummies hanging in his office.
>Plus maybe more money you can charge.
>
>On piercing: I would jump out of the bed, if my lady came home pierced like
>a hawk, my personal taste is not into piercing. But I have to admit that
>for example the work of Fakir Musafar (S.F. area) is interesting and adding
>to the cultural variety.
I don't think he's offering cultural diversity. In fact I think he's
taking advantage of a trend. not uncommon in America. Look at how marketing
targets our children. In fact I believe that most of the people that are
having pierced tongues, lips, noses,cheeks, navals, genitalia are under 25.
A most insecure group of people who will do anything to" make a statement"
much as we did with rock and roll. Unfortunately todays youth is so
uninspired that it has to turn to something like self-mutilation. They have
no roll models . There is no one leader in opinions , concepts or beliefs.
And they don't seem to have the ability to form them on thier own. Look at
the music industry. Thier hasn't been a "great" R&R band getting started in
nearly 20 years and that was Jon Bon Jovi and Madonna. That's why bands like
The Who and Aerosmith are still on top after some 30 years in the industry.
And the same in photography. Shock art aside thier have been few
photographers to make it to the echelons of Adams, Stieglitz, Strand, Weston
and the rest of that era. Sebastio Selgado is the only one I can think of
thats even close.
As I already stated on my website: If you like my
>stuff (applies to other peoples work as well), fine. If not, I ask
>everybody to respect the fact that different people have different
>preferences. You can't (and should not try to) make your taste mandatory
>without violating other fellows freedom.
You absolutely can't make "your taste" manda tory. It's impossible. But
we should all try to achieve that certain aesthetic that is called art.
There has been a game of semantics played with that term for over 2000
years. "Art is in the eye of the beholder" and "So what if it's porno ? It's
art ." . Sophistry.
>Looking into the mirror, you suddenly find out that there is one person
>into sexist jokes, and one that is not. <
I think we can all appreciate a good joke now and then. But tasteless
rambling for no purpose other than to be heard isn't a joke. It's a sign .
>This would not change in a pro newsgroup, Jason is a professional and would
show up there as well. >Anyway, nobody should be afraid to read a silly but
unharmful joke every now and
>then. Judging from the line of Jasons postings, he is overall not a bad
>guy. Maybe just one with that awful crewcut.........
>
>I have been shooting the act of piercing in a profesional dungeon two years
>ago. One of the girls got 7 (seven !!!!) rings plugged in her.......um,
>lips.
I hope you gave her family a copy. Quite a few women are having
complications from that particular procedure. And a few have died from
infections. I wonder if it was worth it ?
>Anyway, the quality of this newsgroup is maintained by all contributors.
Exactly my point. If you don't have anything to contribute but crude
comments like " I almost threw up my pizza." then don't bother posting at
all.
>In essence this above posting reads: Tolerance, tolerance, tolerance.
Tolerance is for children or senior citizens who don't know better. Not
for the adults who should be engaging in intelligent conversations on a
specific topic in a public medium
>And Karen(Good work on the wedding FAQ !!)
Amazing that she did such a complete job with so little notice . I wish
we had more people like her on this group. But most people would just "click
on" to another NG.
Regards,
John S. Douglas
Spectrum Photographic Inc.
KarSim
> Tolerance is for children or senior citizens who don't know better.
Not
>for the adults who should be engaging in intelligent conversations on a
>specific topic in a public medium
John,
Very well put. I agree that while the 'net as a whole is an open forum
and anyone is allowed to post anything they want anywhere, there is an
element of responsibility taken on by those who choose to use the 'net.
One of those responsibilities is to contribute in a positive manner based
on the location of the posting -- i.e. posts to this board should be in
some way photography related. While there is certainly room for other
discussions to occur as subjects shift, juvenile attempts to rile people
or posting obscenities just for the sake of posting, violates those
understood responsibilites in the most basic manner.
There is a difference between being "PC" and being sensitive to other
people's thoughts and opinions.
>>And Karen(Good work on the wedding FAQ !!)
> Amazing that she did such a complete job with so little notice . I
wish
>we had more people like her on this group.
(*blush*) Thank you, thank you. But I will say, there are plenty of
wonderful people on this group -- I should know because I received
helpful, info packed emails from every single one of them. LOTS of late
night reading. I couldn't have done the job without their help. Maybe if
the other garbage posts would lessen we would hear more from the folks who
helped me. This newsgroup would be a better place for their
participation.
Regards,
Karen
-----------------------------------------------
Karen Simmons, Photographer
Marietta, Georgia
www.ks-photography.com
-----------------------------------------------
Frederic Goudal
"SPECTRUM" <spec...@cybercomm.net> writes:
> >Once people consider your stuff "art" - and you can't really push this by
> calling your stuff "art" - you have extended advertising capabilities, like
> exhibitions, museums and public collections.
>
> And who are these "people" ? New York hoaksters. Charlatans.They flutter
> about the art world like flies on rice. And "they" have a discerning eye
> don't they ?! But of course they'll help you become popular ! So long as
> they get something out of it ! Some of the bologna that I've seen promoted
> in NYC as "art" makes me sick.
Maybe but I don't think the world will recognise you as the one who
defines what is art !! In their time Goya painting have surely make
people have the same feeling, and if you read critic of the "Salon des
refuse" and by example the Fauve school, you'll read comments exactly
like yours. What happened ? The official salon painters are unknown,
the other one are recognise as the important one.
>One girl from Brooklyn managed to convince
> the professor of the visual communications department that her work should
> be shown at the local county college. Each image was a composite of a
> mouth,wide open, in which was placed a diverse selection of things such as a
> bowl of chicken livers, chicken embryos and other such stuff. All printed on
> brillianty vivid Cibachromes. Pure, unadulterated revolting shock
> rubbish.
As I said before this newsgroup is rec.photo.conventional.
If this girl was still doing Weston style photography nothing would
evolve. Maybe you should not forgot that people like Strand and
Stieglitz were not considered in their begining. Have you ever read
what people wrote about armory show ??? Exactly the same as you write
today about this girl work. And guess what history says ?
> >In essence this above posting reads: Tolerance, tolerance, tolerance.
>
> Tolerance is for children or senior citizens who don't know better. Not
> for the adults who should be engaging in intelligent conversations on a
> specific topic in a public medium
If being an adult is having such definitive judgment as yours, than I
choose to be a child.
I can't see any intelligence in what you say about art. All what I see
is the good old "The young people are stupid, look my bands were ok
their bands are stupid, my taste is the right one, their taste is
revolting shock rubbish".
There exist some writing from the antic Roma (more that 2000 years
ago) saying the same as you. We are lucky engouh the world evolved
since that time, and theese people have been forgotten.
f.g.
--
Look at the things around you, the immediate world around you. If you are
alive, it will mean something to you, and if you care enough about
photography, and if you know how to use it, you will want to photograph that
meaningness. If you let other people's vision get between the world and your
own, you will achieve that extremely common and worthless thing, a pictorial
photograph.
Paul Strand "The Art Motive in Photography" the British Journal of Photography
1923, p 613
Frederic Goudal - gou...@enserb.u-bordeaux.fr - http://www.insat.com/~filh -
SPECTRUM
Hello again Fred !
Frederic Goudal wrote in article ...
>Maybe but I don't think the world will recognise you as the one who
>defines what is art !!
How can anyone define art for a world ? But I do think that society is
taking a step back and reevaluating what it likes and what it doesn't. And a
universal concept in art is beauty. In one form or another it should be
present. Unfortunately there is little beauty in the world. At least here in
America. What there is is left over from generations gone by.
In their time Goya painting have surely make
>people have the same feeling, and if you read critic of the "Salon des
>refuse" and by example the Fauve school, you'll read comments exactly
>like yours. What happened ? The official salon painters are unknown,
>the other one are recognise as the important one.
Do you crave recognition ? Is that what it takes to make a great work of
art ? Ohhh, I see ! T-Max, Xtol, large format camera and Dektol on ...oh,
lets see. How about Portriga ? And then the recognition. That's it ! That's
what I've been missing all of these 35 years of my life ! At last the secret
ingrediant ! Now I will be able to produce great works of art ! All because
the masses say so !
Please gimme a break.
>
>>One girl from Brooklyn managed to convince
>> the professor of the visual communications department that her work
should
>> be shown at the local county college. Each image was a composite of a
>> mouth,wide open, in which was placed a diverse selection of things such
as a
>> bowl of chicken livers, chicken embryos and other such stuff. All printed
on
>> brillianty vivid Cibachromes. Pure, unadulterated revolting shock
>> rubbish.
>
>As I said before this newsgroup is rec.photo.conventional.
What do you think "inspired" her to "create" such "art" ?
>
>If this girl was still doing Weston style photography nothing would
>evolve.
OK. Let me get this straight. your now saying that Westons photography
didn't evolve ? That the man himself was completely stagnant ? Or is it that
this girl grew from the roots that Weston started and is therefore more
evolved ?
BTW, even the students at the school tore her work up and ripped it from
the walls.
Maybe you should not forgot that people like Strand and
>Stieglitz were not considered in their begining.
Did this stop them ? Would it have had any impact on them as
photographers ? In other words "Does it matter ?"
> And guess what history says ?<
Who cares ! History is written by those who can write it. Just ask
Stalin, Lenin, Hitler, Hoover or whoever you have in your country. Do you
think that history recognized every genious that was ever born ? Every
artist that created something great ?
>If being an adult is having such definitive judgment as yours, than I
>choose to be a child.
You can't have the same "definitive judgement" as I . We have no
commonality. And you may choose to be a child but you have the
responsabilities of an adult. Responsabilities to yourself, your family and
society as a whole.
>
>I can't see any intelligence in what you say about art.
You don't want to try.
All what I see
>is the good old "The young people are stupid, look my bands were ok
>their bands are stupid, my taste is the right one, their taste is
>revolting shock rubbish".
No they aren't stupid. Ignorant, insecure, irresponsable, unfeeling,
uninspired but not stupid !! And at 35 I hope I'm not over the hill ! In
fact I think I'm pretty "young minded" in general. I just have to deal with
the day to day responsabilities of running a business and taking part in
organizations and in general being a part of society.
>
>There exist some writing from the antic Roma (more that 2000 years
>ago) saying the same as you. We are lucky engouh the world evolved
>since that time, and theese people have been forgotten.
Did we evolve or just change ?
>--
>Look at the things around you, the immediate world around you. If you are
>alive, it will mean something to you, and if you care enough about
>photography, and if you know how to use it, you will want to photograph
that
>meaningness. If you let other people's vision get between the world and
your
>own, you will achieve that extremely common and worthless thing, a
pictorial
>photograph.
>
>Paul Strand "The Art Motive in Photography" the British Journal of
Photography
>1923, p 613
>Frederic Goudal - gou...@enserb.u-bordeaux.fr -
http://www.insat.com/~filh -
To update the above so that it fits todays youth a little better simply
change "meaningness" to meaninglessness".
Frederic Goudal
"SPECTRUM" <spec...@cybercomm.net> writes:
>
> Hello again Fred !
>
> Frederic Goudal wrote in article ...
> >Maybe but I don't think the world will recognise you as the one who
> >defines what is art !!
>
> How can anyone define art for a world ? But I do think that society is
> taking a step back and reevaluating what it likes and what it doesn't. And a
> universal concept in art is beauty. In one form or another it should be
> present. Unfortunately there is little beauty in the world. At least here in
> America. What there is is left over from generations gone by.
Definitively not, beauty has nothing to do with art. It has been
clearly stated since the begining of the century, but was underlying
since a very long time. If you consider some painting like Hyeronimus
Bosh one's there is no quest of beauty in such thing, and it's a
medieval master.
>
> In their time Goya painting have surely make
> >people have the same feeling, and if you read critic of the "Salon des
> >refuse" and by example the Fauve school, you'll read comments exactly
> >like yours. What happened ? The official salon painters are unknown,
> >the other one are recognise as the important one.
>
> Do you crave recognition ? Is that what it takes to make a great work of
> art ? Ohhh, I see ! T-Max, Xtol, large format camera and Dektol on ...oh,
> lets see. How about Portriga ? And then the recognition. That's it ! That's
> what I've been missing all of these 35 years of my life ! At last the secret
> ingrediant ! Now I will be able to produce great works of art ! All because
> the masses say so !
I don't really understand the link between what I said and what you
answer. But art without recognition is a very special concept, and
still in discussion for now.
> >
> >>One girl from Brooklyn managed to convince
> >> the professor of the visual communications department that her work should
> >> be shown at the local county college. Each image was a composite of a
> >> mouth,wide open, in which was placed a diverse selection of things such as a
> >> bowl of chicken livers, chicken embryos and other such stuff. All printed on
> >> brillianty vivid Cibachromes. Pure, unadulterated revolting shock
> >> rubbish.
> >
> >As I said before this newsgroup is rec.photo.conventional.
>
> What do you think "inspired" her to "create" such "art" ?
No idea, and I can't care less in this discussion.
But if you really want it is possible to find a lot of
explanations.
>
> >
> >If this girl was still doing Weston style photography nothing would
> >evolve.
>
> OK. Let me get this straight. your now saying that Westons photography
> didn't evolve ? That the man himself was completely stagnant ? Or is it that
> this girl grew from the roots that Weston started and is therefore more
> evolved ?
No I state that if we still werre doing Weston like photo, it would
mean that photo is dead. It is very important and interesting that
people try different thing, and more important that they go to the
frontier. Remember that USA has been built by people who wanted to go
further. Some did succed some other did fail. This girl is going
further in some direction, and that's the important think. Weston did
the same in the 20-40's.
f.g.
SPECTRUM
Frederic Goudal wrote in article ...
>"SPECTRUM" <spec...@cybercomm.net> writes:
>
>>
>> Hello again Fred !
>> How can anyone define art for a world ? But I do think that society
is
>> taking a step back and reevaluating what it likes and what it doesn't.
And a
>> universal concept in art is beauty. In one form or another it should be
>> present. Unfortunately there is little beauty in the world. At least here
in
>> America. What there is is left over from generations gone by.
>
>Definitively not, beauty has nothing to do with art. It has been
>clearly stated since the begining of the century, but was underlying
>since a very long time. If you consider some painting like Hyeronimus
>Bosh one's there is no quest of beauty in such thing, and it's a
>medieval master.
Oh contrare ! Beauty has everything to do with it ! Beauty doesn't have
to take the form of a shapely nude or an ellegant statue or even a Mona
Lisa. It is the intent in the artworks creation that gives it beauty. This
girl I spoke of wasn't concerned with beauty just shock value.
>
>>
>> In their time Goya painting have surely make
>> >people have the same feeling, and if you read critic of the "Salon des
>> >refuse" and by example the Fauve school, you'll read comments exactly
>> >like yours. What happened ? The official salon painters are unknown,
>> >the other one are recognise as the important one.
>>
>> Do you crave recognition ? Is that what it takes to make a great work
of
>> art ? Ohhh, I see ! T-Max, Xtol, large format camera and Dektol on ...oh,
>> lets see. How about Portriga ? And then the recognition. That's it !
That's
>> what I've been missing all of these 35 years of my life ! At last the
secret
>> ingrediant ! Now I will be able to produce great works of art ! All
because
>> the masses say so !
>
>I don't really understand the link between what I said and what you
>answer. But art without recognition is a very special concept, and
>still in discussion for now.
No, no, no ! You can't just not answer something because you don't
understand the question. That's cheating ! Then again if you asked me
anything in French i'd be up a creek without a paddle !
Anyway you said
"The official salon painters are unknown,
>> >the other one are recognise as the important one.
as if to say that because they wern't recognized then they must not have
been any good. I have never really deemed recognition as an affirmation of
excellence. And I don't know anybody in art that does.
>> What do you think "inspired" her to "create" such "art" ?
>
>No idea, and I can't care less in this discussion.
>But if you really want it is possible to find a lot of
>explanations.
I think she was just into oral things .
>No I state that if we still werre doing Weston like photo, it would
>mean that photo is dead. It is very important and interesting that
>people try different thing, and more important that they go to the
>frontier. Remember that USA has been built by people who wanted to go
>further.
Yes but they had some specific guidlines to keep from straying.
Some did succed some other did fail. This girl is going
>further in some direction, and that's the important think.
Yes she went beyond decency and into the pornographic. Vulgarity in the
form of a photograph. I wouldn't think to much about it but she reproduced
the same image with slight variations time after time after time. That's
another way for art to loose it's appeal. Monotony .
Weston did
>the same in the 20-40's.
Yes but before that he was a simple portraitist ! With a lot of girl
friends ! Kids like this little girl are hoping to make such a splash that
they land up in MOMA or on the walls in Washington D.C. or at least in a
magazine. That's what's important to them. Not the art itself !
Frederic Goudal
> >Definitively not, beauty has nothing to do with art. It has been
> >clearly stated since the begining of the century, but was underlying
> >since a very long time. If you consider some painting like Hyeronimus
> >Bosh one's there is no quest of beauty in such thing, and it's a
> >medieval master.
>
> Oh contrare ! Beauty has everything to do with it ! Beauty doesn't have
> to take the form of a shapely nude or an ellegant statue or even a Mona
> Lisa. It is the intent in the artworks creation that gives it beauty. This
> girl I spoke of wasn't concerned with beauty just shock value.
Beauty is such a cultural and a personal judgement that it can't be but in art.
Art is here to move people to make them feel things. This girl succeed in moving you.
> >> In their time Goya painting have surely make
> >> >people have the same feeling, and if you read critic of the "Salon des
> >> >refuse" and by example the Fauve school, you'll read comments exactly
> >> >like yours. What happened ? The official salon painters are unknown,
> >> >the other one are recognise as the important one.
> >>
> >> Do you crave recognition ? Is that what it takes to make a great work
> of
> >> art ? Ohhh, I see ! T-Max, Xtol, large format camera and Dektol on ...oh,
> >> lets see. How about Portriga ? And then the recognition. That's it !
> That's
> >> what I've been missing all of these 35 years of my life ! At last the
> secret
> >> ingrediant ! Now I will be able to produce great works of art ! All
> because
> >> the masses say so !
> >
> >I don't really understand the link between what I said and what you
> >answer. But art without recognition is a very special concept, and
> >still in discussion for now.
>
> No, no, no ! You can't just not answer something because you don't
> understand the question. That's cheating ! Then again if you asked me
> anything in French i'd be up a creek without a paddle !
Sorry but I can't answer something I don't understand, please explain
what you meant (in french if you like). I would be dishonest to invent
a meaning to sentence I don't understand
> Anyway you said
>
> "The official salon painters are unknown,
> >> >the other one are recognise as the important one.
> as if to say that because they wern't recognized then they must not have
> been any good. I have never really deemed recognition as an affirmation of
> excellence. And I don't know anybody in art that does.
There is two points : first a misunderstanding :
The painters who are now recognised as the most important of this
period were not par of the official salon.
Now 90 years later we may put some judgement, fact are old enough. And
what is clear is that the academic school from 1870 to 1920 did not
produce any major painter. They were good technician, and even now
there are studies on their work. But the one who are important in art
history are the one who were judged "poor taste, with no beauty". (As
you judge contemporary art, to go back to our subject).
Recognition as an affirmation of excellence no, but after some delay,
we may recognise the importance of somebody in art history. This
should tell us that too fast judgement are very dangerous.
> >No I state that if we still werre doing Weston like photo, it would
> >mean that photo is dead. It is very important and interesting that
> >people try different thing, and more important that they go to the
> >frontier. Remember that USA has been built by people who wanted to go
> >further.
>
> Yes but they had some specific guidlines to keep from straying.
What does straying means ??
>
> Some did succed some other did fail. This girl is going
> >further in some direction, and that's the important think.
>
> Yes she went beyond decency and into the pornographic. Vulgarity in the
> form of a photograph. I wouldn't think to much about it but she reproduced
> the same image with slight variations time after time after time. That's
> another way for art to loose it's appeal. Monotony .
Vulgarity and pornography and decency are very cultural and period
dependant. You should know it. (Rememeber the day when just a kiss was
forbidden in a picture ??) Theese kind of judgement are not
interesting : they can't give any idea of the value of a work. After
all pornographic art has no more no less interest as portrait art,
just the subject differs, and subject are not a criter to judge what
is art and what is not.
>
> Weston did
> >the same in the 20-40's.
>
> Yes but before that he was a simple portraitist !
It is not because he was a simple portraitist that anybody must follow
this way. People like Robert Capa or Doisneau did not follow theese "study" steps
and did succeed in being great photographers
With a lot of girl
> friends ! Kids like this little girl are hoping to make such a splash that
> they land up in MOMA or on the walls in Washington D.C. or at least in a
> magazine. That's what's important to them. Not the art itself !
I guess you have had a discussion with theese people or is it just a
guess ??? How can you be sure of that. I'm sorry but if you have not
had some discussion with this girl before this conclusion, I'm allowed
to infer the same way you do, that you say that because you are
jealous...
f.g.
P.S. About art the favorite citation of a young french artist is :
"After Duchamp art is anything, and it's better like that"
f.g.again.
SPECTRUM
Frederic Goudal wrote in article ...
>
>Beauty is such a cultural and a personal judgement that it can't be but in
art.
>Art is here to move people to make them feel things. This girl succeed in
moving you.
Yes she moved me. By raping my senses ! And I don't think that thier is
beauty in rape.
>The official salon painters are unknown,
>> >> >the other one are recognise as the important one.
>> >> Do you crave recognition ? Is that what it takes to make a great
work
>> >> of art ? Ohhh, I see ! T-Max, Xtol, large format camera and Dektol on
...oh,
>> >> lets see. How about Portriga ? And then the recognition. That's it !
>> That's what I've been missing all of these 35 years of my life ! At last
the
>> secret ingrediant ! Now I will be able to produce great works of art !
All
>> because the masses say so !
>> >
>> >I don't really understand the link between what I said and what you
>> >answer. But art without recognition is a very special concept, and
>> >still in discussion for now.
Why would it be a special concept ? Art is art ! My point is that just
because someone is recognized in the art world as a "great master" doesn't
really mean that they are and that just because someone was lost to
obscurity they aren't necessarily a failure. The emphasis is on the factor
of recognition. IMO, it doesn't actually effect a artist "greatness" just
the publics perception of it.
>Now 90 years later we may put some judgement, fact are old enough. And
>what is clear is that the academic school from 1870 to 1920 did not
>produce any major painter. They were good technician, and even now
>there are studies on their work. But the one who are important in art
>history are the one who were judged "poor taste, with no beauty". (As
>you judge contemporary art, to go back to our subject).
>
>Recognition as an affirmation of excellence no, but after some delay,
>we may recognise the importance of somebody in art history. This
>should tell us that too fast judgement are very dangerous.
Yes it would have been a tragedy to tell Van Gogh , Rembrandt or others
how great they were while they were alive.
>> Yes she went beyond decency and into the pornographic. Vulgarity in
the
>> form of a photograph. I wouldn't think to much about it but she
reproduced
>> the same image with slight variations time after time after time. That's
>> another way for art to loose it's appeal. Monotony .
>
>Vulgarity and pornography and decency are very cultural and period
>dependant. You should know it. (Rememeber the day when just a kiss was
>forbidden in a picture ??) Theese kind of judgement are not
>interesting : they can't give any idea of the value of a work. After
>all pornographic art has no more no less interest as portrait art,
>just the subject differs, and subject are not a criteria to judge what
>is art and what is not.
Not the subject, but the way it is percieved and therefore it's
presentation.
>>
>> Weston did
>> >the same in the 20-40's.
>>
>> Yes but before that he was a simple portraitist !
>
>It is not because he was a simple portraitist that anybody must follow
>this way. People like Robert Capa or Doisneau did not follow theese "study"
steps
>and did succeed in being great photographers
Certainly. And people like Ansel Adams , Edward Weston, W.Eugene Smith
were portraitist as well .
>
>With a lot of girl
>> friends ! Kids like this little girl are hoping to make such a splash
that
>> they land up in MOMA or on the walls in Washington D.C. or at least in a
>> magazine. That's what's important to them. Not the art itself !
>
>I guess you have had a discussion with theese people or is it just a
> guess ??? How can you be sure of that. I'm sorry but if you have not
>had some discussion with this girl before this conclusion, I'm allowed
>to infer the same way you do, that you say that because you are
>jealous...
Jealous no. Revolted that the world would actually cherish something so
gross, YES !
>Look at the things around you, the immediate world around you. If you are
>alive, it will mean something to you, and if you care enough about
>photography, and if you know how to use it, you will want to photograph
that
>meaningness. If you let other people's vision get between the world and
your
>own, you will achieve that extremely common and worthless thing, a
pictorial
>photograph.
>
>Paul Strand "The Art Motive in Photography" the British Journal of
Photography
>1923, p 613
>Frederic Goudal - gou...@enserb.u-bordeaux.fr -
http://www.insat.com/~filh -
I guess you didn't like my substitution ? !
Frederic Goudal
"SPECTRUM" <spec...@cybercomm.net> writes:
> Frederic Goudal wrote in article ...
> >Beauty is such a cultural and a personal judgement that it can't be but in
> art.
> >Art is here to move people to make them feel things. This girl succeed in
> moving you.
>
> Yes she moved me. By raping my senses ! And I don't think that thier is
> beauty in rape.
Rape is too a notion that very from people and from culture. But
you're right she did art, she raped you, and it was not beauty. Art
has strictly nothing to do with beauty.
> >> >I don't really understand the link between what I said and what you
> >> >answer. But art without recognition is a very special concept, and
> >> >still in discussion for now.
>
> Why would it be a special concept ? Art is art ! My point is that just
> because someone is recognized in the art world as a "great master" doesn't
> really mean that they are and that just because someone was lost to
> obscurity they aren't necessarily a failure. The emphasis is on the factor
> of recognition. IMO, it doesn't actually effect a artist "greatness" just
> the publics perception of it.
Art is art is not an interesting statement said like that, without
more profunf thought. You know the old "cliche" : If a tree falls in a
forest and nobody is here to hear, does it makes a sound ??
Art work is not simply something lying here. We know some work who's
status has changed. You may consider "Art Brut" as defined bu
Dubuffet. Art Brut author are not concerned with art. So what does
makes their work "art" the author does a work, the viewver makes it
art. Art is a strange relation between the author, some viewver, and
the crowd too. That's what I call a special concept. And I'm not a
very intellectual person, so I can't devellop more, but this subject
is a mine of thought.
>
>
> >Now 90 years later we may put some judgement, fact are old enough. And
> >what is clear is that the academic school from 1870 to 1920 did not
> >produce any major painter. They were good technician, and even now
> >there are studies on their work. But the one who are important in art
> >history are the one who were judged "poor taste, with no beauty". (As
> >you judge contemporary art, to go back to our subject).
> >
> >Recognition as an affirmation of excellence no, but after some delay,
> >we may recognise the importance of somebody in art history. This
> >should tell us that too fast judgement are very dangerous.
>
> Yes it would have been a tragedy to tell Van Gogh , Rembrandt or others
> how great they were while they were alive.
No. But you may tell the reverse. When dealing with great thing, time
is the keyword. You can not really say at the time of creation if a
work is just a new attempt or if it is the root of a new movment. Just
like a child you can't tell at birth if he will be Nobel price of
peace or just another thief in the nearby jail.
You tell "We should have recognise Van Gogh", but in another hand, you
condemn this girl. You should remember that speaking about Van Gogh,
some people said exacly (or near exactly) the same words as you do :
"It raped my sences". (To be exact, read the critic about the birth of
the Fauve movment, "Le talisman" by Serusier).
So why would you be more wise than all the critic of this past time ??
We have to give a chance to such work. If it is shit, it will fall by
itself, if it is gold, we may not recognise it.
Be logic.
> >
> >I guess you have had a discussion with theese people or is it just a
> > guess ??? How can you be sure of that. I'm sorry but if you have not
> >had some discussion with this girl before this conclusion, I'm allowed
> >to infer the same way you do, that you say that because you are
> >jealous...
>
> Jealous no. Revolted that the world would actually cherish something so
> gross, YES !
So you agree that you put this statement without discussing, and that
it's just a creation from your imagination....
>
> >Look at the things around you, the immediate world around you. If you are
> >alive, it will mean something to you, and if you care enough about
> >photography, and if you know how to use it, you will want to photograph
> that
> >meaningness. If you let other people's vision get between the world and
> your
> >own, you will achieve that extremely common and worthless thing, a
> pictorial
> >photograph.
> >
>
> I guess you didn't like my substitution ? !
It was.... meaningless...
The importance of meaning in art is too a big subject. In one hand you
may consider the Parnassian school (poets in the end of 19th century)
(Jose Maria de Heredia, Theophile Gauthier) who made art for the
art. The meaning was not important. On the other hand people like
Eugene Smith, Cartier Bresson, (To take people on photography) did a
lot of work too. Which one to choose ?? Neither. The question is not here.
f.g.
--
SPECTRUM
Frederic Goudal wrote in article ...
>"SPECTRUM" <spec...@cybercomm.net> writes:
>> Frederic Goudal wrote in article ...
>> >Beauty is such a cultural and a personal judgement that it can't be but
in
>> art.
>> >Art is here to move people to make them feel things. This girl succeed
in
>> moving you.
>>
>> Yes she moved me. By raping my senses ! And I don't think that thier
is
>> beauty in rape.
>
>Rape is too a notion that very from people and from culture. But
>you're right she did art, she raped you, and it was not beauty. Art
>has strictly nothing to do with beauty.
As I said earlier,art must encompass beauty. Without beauty art has no
soul.
>> Why would it be a special concept ? Art is art ! My point is that
just
>> because someone is recognized in the art world as a "great master"
doesn't
>> really mean that they are and that just because someone was lost to
>> obscurity they aren't necessarily a failure. The emphasis is on the
factor
>> of recognition. IMO, it doesn't actually effect a artist "greatness" just
>> the publics perception of it.
>
>Art is art is not an interesting statement said like that, without
>more profunf thought.
How profound does an absolute need to be ? And art is and absolute. Much
like math.
>> Yes it would have been a tragedy to tell Van Gogh , Rembrandt or
others
>> how great they were while they were alive.
>
>No. But you may tell the reverse. When dealing with great thing, time
>is the keyword. You can not really say at the time of creation if a
>work is just a new attempt or if it is the root of a new movment.
Again what does time have to do with how great a work of art is ?
Whether it's part of a movement or not isn't important to the creator.
Normally anyway. And why can't you tell at the time of conception how great
a work of art is ? What phyical disability aflicts us all to the point of
inhibiting our opinions ?
>You tell "We should have recognise Van Gogh", but in another hand, you
>condemn this girl.
Absolutely. And I don't think that anyone said that Van Gogh created his
art for the sake of shock value. Which is a destructive way to get the
attention of someone who may help furthur the creators art and make him/her
famous.
You should remember that speaking about Van Gogh,
>some people said exacly (or near exactly) the same words as you do :
>"It raped my sences". (To be exact, read the critic about the birth of
>the Fauve movment, "Le talisman" by Serusier).
>So why would you be more wise than all the critic of this past time ??
I'm certainly no critic. Critics pretend to know everything about art ,
I only know what I like. And that's a pretty broad base compared to most
peoples somewhat narrow viewpoints. I don't understand vulgarity. To me it's
a symptom of an ailing psychoses. So my one blindspot is the ugly side of
"art". What a shame !
>We have to give a chance to such work. If it is shit, it will fall by
>itself, if it is gold, we may not recognise it.
Will it fall by the wayside ? I've seen some pretty bad stuff hanging on
the walls of museums and galleries.
>Be logic.
I do try . In fact while I was on the debate team I was often compared
to Mr. Spock on Star Trek (I think it was the ears ! ) . Then I took thier
picture and they thought a little differently !
>> Jealous no. Revolted that the world would actually cherish something
so
>> gross, YES !
>
>So you agree that you put this statement without discussing, and that
>it's just a creation from your imagination....
It's just my opinion. I didn't infer that I had spoke with the girl. I
did try but she was only at the school briefly and didn't return after the
students tore her images from the walls and threw them in the trash. I'm
sure that that'll be interpreted as blatant , destructive , prejudicial
suppresion of this persons attempt to display her "art". Frankly I don't
care. This bending over backwards to provide everyone with the right to
violate on our sensibilities. That's what the public wants anyway. It has
become so inured by the constant bombardment of garbage that the only time
it feels anything anymore is when it senses something so outrageous that it
knows it must be alive because it feels ! And so it feeds on more garbage !
>> I guess you didn't like my substitution ? !
>
>It was.... meaningless...
Yes but I thought it befitting of society today.
Don Copeland
>the music industry. Thier hasn't been a "great" R&R band getting started in
>nearly 20 years and that was Jon Bon Jovi and Madonna. That's why bands like
>The Who and Aerosmith are still on top after some 30 years in the industry.
What? Evidently, you quit listening to new stuff twenty years ago and
at the same time went brain dead. There are plenty of good bands
today, excellent as a matter of fact. Very talented. And, plenty of
shit bands. Your point is taken well that bands of twenty years ago
were some of the best of our generation, but I wonder what the 18-30
Year olds will say 20 years from now. Probably will duplicate your
comment. As far as aerosmith, they are not still around becuase they
are good, they are around because they need the money.
But then again, it is all subjective and anyone could totally disagree
with either of us.
>>I have been shooting the act of piercing in a profesional dungeon two years
>>ago. One of the girls got 7 (seven !!!!) rings plugged in her.......um,
>>lips.
>
> I hope you gave her family a copy. Quite a few women are having
>complications from that particular procedure. And a few have died from
>infections. I wonder if it was worth it ?
>
Can you back this up, can you substantiate it? Sounds like hearsay to
me. Possibly an urban legend.
> Exactly my point. If you don't have anything to contribute but crude
>comments like " I almost threw up my pizza." then don't bother posting at
>all.
Hmmm, I can't agree with you here either. It was so off the wall, so
weird, and so untimely and out of place, that I thought it was
hilarious. Almost laughed out loud in the office when I read that.
I'm sure there are several others who did not respond, but also have
that dry sense of humor that can really laugh at a stupid joke....Kind
of like Monty Python and Leslie Neilsen {of the Airplane and Loaded
weapon series}. Lighten up, don't sweat the small stuff, laugh a
little - even at stupid jokes.
Frederic Goudal
"SPECTRUM" <spec...@cybercomm.net> writes:
> As I said earlier,art must encompass beauty. Without beauty art has no
> soul.
You should read some writing about art. This idea is sooo outdated, that I wonder if you are not
an egyptian mommie....
I'm very sorry to say that, but we can't leave now with ideas from
before middle-age.
And the fact that art and beauty has nothing to do is not mine, I'm not so clever.
You did not answer me on Hyeronimous Bosh. Don't you have anything to sayabout that ?
What about people like Munch ?? What about near all contemporary art ??
We can't forgot all that, we have to take that into account. Art has
its own history and we are living in the present.If you
don't want you should do like Amish, and go living in a closed
world. (Although the notion of beauty and amish should be an
intersting discussion too).
> >Art is art is not an interesting statement said like that, without
> >more profunf thought.
>
> How profound does an absolute need to be ? And art is and absolute. Much
> like math.
But you forgot tonns of philosophers who have written things about
math, the meaning of math. Math is not an absolute. I don't know what
is math.
> >> Yes it would have been a tragedy to tell Van Gogh , Rembrandt or
> others
> >> how great they were while they were alive.
> >
> >No. But you may tell the reverse. When dealing with great thing, time
> >is the keyword. You can not really say at the time of creation if a
> >work is just a new attempt or if it is the root of a new movment.
>
> Again what does time have to do with how great a work of art is ?
not with the greatness of a work. but with recognition by people.
> Whether it's part of a movement or not isn't important to the
>creator.
False. An art work is written in his history. Painting like the
Demoiselles d'Avignon have multipple importance, and the fact that it
is one of the first cubist painting is very very important, because
the painter had to create a new alphabet to achieve his work. And this
is in the painting.
> Normally anyway. And why can't you tell at the time of conception how great
> a work of art is ?
>What phyical disability aflicts us all to the point of
> inhibiting our opinions ?
Because some new piece of art use a new alphabet, and you can't judge
something you don't understant. We sometime need time to learn the
artist language. Some art affictionados learn fast, the general public
learn slowly.
>
> >You tell "We should have recognise Van Gogh", but in another hand, you
> >condemn this girl.
>
> Absolutely. And I don't think that anyone said that Van Gogh created his
> art for the sake of shock value. Which is a destructive way to get the
> attention of someone who may help furthur the creators art and make him/her
> famous.
But how can you be sure that this girl did that for shock value for
the second time : Have you have a direct discussion with this girl ??
Or is it just your imagination ??? Speak frankly !!!
>
> You should remember that speaking about Van Gogh,
> >some people said exacly (or near exactly) the same words as you do :
> >"It raped my sences". (To be exact, read the critic about the birth of
> >the Fauve movment, "Le talisman" by Serusier).
> >So why would you be more wise than all the critic of this past time ??
>
> I'm certainly no critic. Critics pretend to know everything about art ,
> I only know what I like. And that's a pretty broad base compared to most
> peoples somewhat narrow viewpoints. I don't understand vulgarity. To me it's
> a symptom of an ailing psychoses. So my one blindspot is the ugly side of
> "art". What a shame !
I think you don't understand anything to art. You speak like somebody
who have never had a serious discussion about that. You just have
"certitudes". No questions. You circle around two or three false facts.
And theese fact are presented like "evidences". But they are just
uncultured thought.
Montaigne famous Bordelais philosopher (17th century) once wrote
"truth this side of Pyrennee, false the other side"
You wonder why time may change our opinion ? The same way as the side
of a mountain. Because people are like that, because taste evolve. Lot
of what we consider as classical author were considered the same way
the girl is today. And you can't admit that.
All art history teach us that we have to be very prudent with any
definitive judgement.
Another thing you don't handle is the difference between your taste,
and the value of a work. I have the luck to know very well some
museum curators, and they make me understand why art history is so
important to be able to build an exhibition : it allows to choose wich
piece to display without refering to your own taste. It allows to
judge something without liking it.
SPECTRUM
Spectrum writes ;
Don Copeland wrote in article
<2A3D127841AEDFF8.3C4E1ECF...@library-proxy.airnews.ne
t>...
>On Tue, 22 Jul 1997 16:50:41 -0400, "SPECTRUM"
><spec...@cybercomm.net> wrote:
>
>>the music industry. Thier hasn't been a "great" R&y.cyR band getting
started in
>>nearly 20 years and that was Jon Bon Jovi and Madonna. That's why bands
like
>>The Who and Aerosmith are still on top after some 30 years in the
industry.
>
>What? Evidently, you quit listening to new stuff twenty years ago and
>at the same time went brain dead. There are plenty of good bands
>today, excellent as a matter of fact. Very talented. And, plenty of
>shit bands. Your point is taken well that bands of twenty years ago
>were some of the best of our generation, but I wonder what the 18-30
>Year olds will say 20 years from now. Probably will duplicate your
>comment. As far as aerosmith, they are not still around becuase they
>are good, they are around because they need the money.
Absolutely not ! I listen to quite a bit of music while I'm in the
darkroom which accounts for at least four hours a day. Just show me a band
that has a broad based following, can book shows in major arenas and sell
out like Aerosmith, The Who, Steely Dan, Fleetwood Mac, the Moody Blues and
many others who had thier roots in the sixties and seventies. There aren't
any ! Even Bon Jovi has stopped producing music. And when did he come out ?
'84 ? What's been going on since then ? Alternative ? With bands that make a
small splash and them fade into obscurity. I think thats why country music
has been making a comeback. There aren't any rock bands left ! And I don't
think Stephen Tyler "needs the money" !
>
>But then again, it is all subjective and anyone could totally disagree
>with either of us.
Or both of us !
>> I hope you gave her family a copy. Quite a few women are having
>>complications from that particular procedure. And a few have died from
>>infections. I wonder if it was worth it ?
>>
>
>Can you back this up, can you substantiate it? Sounds like hearsay to
>me. Possibly an urban legend.
Watch the news much ? There was a "special report" on the other night
and they covered the body piercing fad. Somewhat illuminating. I like the
one who had her toungue post crumble in her mouth and she choked on it !
That was COool ! Possibly the ultimate in jokes. Nothing like choking on
your own psychoses !
>> Exactly my point. If you don't have anything to contribute but crude
>>comments like " I almost threw up my pizza." then don't bother posting at
>>all.
>
>Hmmm, I can't agree with you here either. It was so off the wall, so
>weird, and so untimely and out of place, that I thought it was
>hilarious.
So this is what we've come to . Laughing at someone who think throwing
up is funny ! I'm sorry. I didn't know I was supposed to laugh at that . I
guess I'm one of those people who doesn't have a sense of humor. At least
not that type of humor !
To each thier own.
Lance W. Bledsoe
In article <5r7hj1$r...@crow.cybercomm.net>,
SPECTRUM <spec...@cybercomm.net> wrote:
> Absolutely not ! I listen to quite a bit of music while I'm in the
>darkroom which accounts for at least four hours a day. Just show me a band
>that has a broad based following, can book shows in major arenas and sell
>out like Aerosmith, The Who, Steely Dan, Fleetwood Mac, the Moody Blues and
>many others who had thier roots in the sixties and seventies. There aren't
>any !
I think the only bands which still can book shows in major arenas and sell
out like Aerosmith, The Who, Steely Dan, Fleetwood Mac, the Moody Blues,
*are* in fact Aerosmith, The Who, Steely Dan, Fleetwood Mac, and the
Moody Blues -- Plus Pink Floyd, The Stones, ZZTop, CS&N, Deep Purple
and several others are still touring in one form or another.
Lance Bledsoe
Austin High School, Class of '75
:-)
--
Avalon Enterprises, Inc. -- Software Consultants Phone: 512-784-7293
Lance Bledsoe Photography (ASMP) Fax: 512-257-2888
9004 Jolly Hollow Drive, Austin, TX 78750 USA Email: l...@io.com
(For More Info: finger l...@io.com) http://www.io.com/~lwb
SPECTRUM
Spectrum writes ;
Frederic Goudal wrote in article ...
>"SPECTRUM" <spec...@cybercomm.net> writes:
>
>> As I said earlier,art must encompass beauty. Without beauty art has
no
>> soul.
>
>You should read some writing about art. This idea is sooo outdated, that I
wonder if you are not
>an egyptian mommie....
I take it that dating something is very important to your concept of
art. Time isn't really relevant to art .Social period certainly but this
concept of time showing us who is and who isn't great and changing the
concept of art and beauty is pure conjecture.
>I'm very sorry to say that, but we can't leave now with ideas from
>before middle-age.
Awww, c'mon ! Why not ?
>
>And the fact that art and beauty has nothing to do is not mine, I'm not so
clever.
Whoever did espouse such nonsense ?
>
>You did not answer me on Hyeronimous Bosh. Don't you have anything to
sayabout that ?
>What about people like Munch ?? What about near all contemporary art ??
Actually my background on the "great painter" is minimal. I definetly
will look them up at the library but that's not the same as seeing thier
work firsthand.
>We can't forgot all that, we have to take that into account. Art has
>its own history and we are living in the present.If you
>don't want you should do like Amish, and go living in a closed
>world.
Doesn't work that way today. You can't really cut yourself off even if
you want to . The laws and social mores prevent such conduct as many
religious organizations are finding out.
(Although the notion of beauty and amish should be an
>intersting discussion too).
Very superficial and desolate. But still beautiful.
>> How profound does an absolute need to be ? And art is and absolute.
Much
>> like math.
>
>But you forgot tonns of philosophers who have written things about
>math, the meaning of math. Math is not an absolute. I don't know what
>is math.
Try telling Stephen Hawking that math isn't an absolute. Something that
describes the universe is definetly an absolute. What would a philosopher
have to say about math ?
>> Again what does time have to do with how great a work of art is ?
>
>not with the greatness of a work. but with recognition by people.
Now you get my point ! And as I pointed out earlier, the recognition of
the people has nothing to do with the greatness of a piece of art .
Absolutely nothing .
>
>> Whether it's part of a movement or not isn't important to the
>>creator.
>False. An art work is written in his history. Painting like the
>Demoiselles d'Avignon have multipple importance, and the fact that it
>is one of the first cubist painting is very very important, because
>the painter had to create a new alphabet to achieve his work. And this
>is in the painting.
And it's important difference probably was important to the creator but
not in the historic sense at the time he was creating the work.
>> Normally anyway. And why can't you tell at the time of conception how
great
>> a work of art is ?
>>What phyical disability aflicts us all to the point of
>> inhibiting our opinions ?
>
>Because some new piece of art use a new alphabet, and you can't judge
>something you don't understant. We sometime need time to learn the
>artist language. Some art affictionados learn fast, the general public
>learn slowly.
I disagree again ! What else is new ! The public doesn't have time to
learn to like art. It either does or doesn't. That was one of the lessons of
the '50's and '60's. Especially in photography. Impact became everything. I
call it the Andy Warhol syndrome.
>> Absolutely. And I don't think that anyone said that Van Gogh created
his
>> art for the sake of shock value. Which is a destructive way to get the
>> attention of someone who may help furthur the creators art and make
him/her
>> famous.
>
>But how can you be sure that this girl did that for shock value for
>the second time : Have you have a direct discussion with this girl ??
>Or is it just your imagination ??? Speak frankly !!!
As I said earlier I wasn't able to meet the "artist" . She hung her work
while the school was closed and the previously mentioned teacher took it
down and returned it to her. or more like the students took it down and the
teacher pulled it out of the trash and returned it to her. I don't think
that shock value needs elaboration. It's what sells tickets to the freak
shows.
>> I'm certainly no critic. Critics pretend to know everything about art
,
>> I only know what I like. And that's a pretty broad base compared to most
>> peoples somewhat narrow viewpoints. I don't understand vulgarity. To me
it's
>> a symptom of an ailing psychoses. So my one blindspot is the ugly side of
>> "art". What a shame !
>
>I think you don't understand anything to art. You speak like somebody
>who have never had a serious discussion about that. You just have
>"certitudes". No questions. You circle around two or three false facts.
Like I said, "I know what I like" and I don't allowe other peoples
judgments to influence my opinions. If your calling my opinions "certitudes"
then so be it. And perhaps I am a little old fashioned in my taste for art.
So what ? Does that make my opinion less valid ? You seem to think that
society is fair and unbiased in it's appreciation of art and that time will
glean the wheat from the chaf. This isn't even close to the truth. And it's
getting further and further away from the truth every day. In todays society
you could sell shoe polish on a sheet as art if you have a good marketing
agent. Those that don't will never be heard or seen or remembered.
>And theese fact are presented like "evidences". But they are just
>uncultured thought.
AAaah ! Culture. That polish that we apply to the furniture in our
houses. It has a limited value . And yes my thoughts are uncultured . And
uncorrupted as well.
>
>Montaigne famous Bordelais philosopher (17th century) once wrote
>"truth this side of Pyrennee, false the other side"
And therefore truth is a very personal absolute isn't it ?
>
>You wonder why time may change our opinion ? The same way as the side
>of a mountain. Because people are like that, because taste evolve. Lot
>of what we consider as classical author were considered the same way
>the girl is today. And you can't admit that.
I'm certain that time changes opinion, both social and personal. But
what time has to do with the true greatness of art seems beyond me. But you
speak more socially than personally. Show me what you like. And why. And
stick to photography since that is the NG that we are in.
>All art history teach us that we have to be very prudent with any
>definitive judgement.
Yes . Lord help us if we actually formed an opinion on our own and it
ran conntrary to the art worlds. I submit that prudence is best left to
politicians who need the "easy out" that it offers.
>
>Another thing you don't handle is the difference between your taste,
>and the value of a work. I have the luck to know very well some
>museum curators, and they make me understand why art history is so
>important to be able to build an exhibition : it allows to choose wich
>piece to display without refering to your own taste. It allows to
>judge something without liking it.
I have to agree about the taste/value part. I put little value on
tasteless art. And certainly art history is of value to many people as well
as museum curators. All knowledge is a tool and art history is probably one
of the most powerful for our endeavors. Unfortunately it is also the most
corrupt. and corrupting. Many people plunge into a particular vien or style
of art only to meagerly repeat the accomplishments of a famous predecessor.
In photography this is very evident as it is a relatively new medium and the
work produced has been deseminated through publications and other means of
communication. That is one reason that I have chosen not to get very wrapped
up in art history as I see it as influencing the opinions of the "artist" to
much.
annie
SPECTRUM wrote:
hhhhhhhhmmmmmmmmmmm...........somehow, methinks I musta stumbled into
alt.music by mistake?????
> >>the music industry. Thier hasn't been a "great" R&y.cyR band getting
> started in
> >>nearly 20 years and that was Jon Bon Jovi and Madonna. That's why bands
> like
> >>The Who and Aerosmith are still on top after some 30 years in the
> industry.
> >
> >What? Evidently, you quit listening to new stuff twenty years ago and
> >at the same time went brain dead.
{snip, snip, snip......my aplogies to the author......}
Sgt Jason
This is the Nineties. Art isn't important, marketing is. Resistance is
futile.
Sgt Jason
...and people complain about me getting off the subject. I'm obviously
being discriminated against because I'm a white, male, heterosexual
who is not bound to a wheel chair.
vincent bilotta
Sgt Jason wrote:
>
> This is the Nineties. Art isn't important, marketing is. Resistance is
> futile.
to issues of exposure has been summed up quite well by Haley Barbour in
his Senate appearance yesterday. "What's the old saying in politics?" he
instantly told the politicians assembled before him. "Perception is
reality." Even Che Guereva had to wait until he was dead to achieve his
full potential as a marketing phenomena. is Art any different?
not even Joe Friday wants the facts anymore.
vincent
GMA
And, isn't it interesting that there was no TV coverage of these
hearings while Demoncats were being questioned, but when a Republican is
on the stand, live coverage is broadcast on several networks.
Anyone still think there's no media bias?
Anyone think Red China buying the White House is more important than
Andrew Cunanan?
george
Frederic Goudal
The problem with you Spectrum is that you totaly deny the work of hundred of people
on art of the last century.
You're basic ideas, are to the art what prehistoric people thought about word :
It is evident that the earth is like a shield on the top of a turtle,
and the sun is just a bowk of fire on a charriot.
You deny the importance of art history, of culture (no not the polish,
the true culture), because you don't want do dig.
The theory that learning about other does too much influence the other
is a nice theory, but a very stupid one. If you transpose it, it's
like if you tryed to build an house without using the thousands year
knowledge we have now.
What is hard for an artist is effectively not to copy the current
stream. But we are humans, not horses, I don't know how do you call in
english the thing you put on horses eyes so they can't look to the
side, but that's what you put on your eyes by ignoring that.
You cite Hawkins, but have you ever read a book by him ?? You don't
understand what philiosopher have to say about math ?? But where do
you come from ?? Are you even able to have a deep thought ??
You should take a break and read some books, you tell me you don't
really knows painters, so have some years studying them, and maybe
you'll begin to have a clue.
Frederic Goudal
Sgt Jason <we...@flash.net> writes:
>
> This is the Nineties. Art isn't important, marketing is. Resistance is
> futile.
>
That's how I understood reallity check....
But the question is :
Shall the photographer follow the taste of the public or shall the
photographer try to make the public taste evolve.
The first is a businessman who do some photograph (and some demagogia
too), the second is a photographer who trys to sell his work.
Yes the first is richer than the second.
But as it is said in the bible, "It is harder for a rich man to get in
paradise, than for a camel...".
Arghh photo and religion. (But this can be a great topic here, look at
the problem of islam and portrait).
Michael H. Collier
In article <33D8F2...@migration.com>, GMA <geo...@migration.com> wrote:
>Anyone think Red China buying the White House is more important than
>Andrew Cunanan?
no way this is on topic (and how much of the traffic here is, these
days?), and it will probably get me flamed to boot (never run from a
good fight!), but as far as i can tell:
1) the DNC apparently solicited and accepted foreign contributions directly.
2) the RNC apparently solicited and accepted foreign contributions via an
elaborate money laundering scheme involving defaulting on a loan issued
through a domestic non-profit corporation and guaranteed by foreign capital.
the second technique is apparently legal, the first is apparently
illegal. go fig. my inference: the RNC is better at money laundering
than the DNC (perhaps thanks to all those people in the party with
experience from panama, el salvador, domestic S&Ls, etc), and the RNC
is *much* better at "plausible deniability" than the DNC.
as well, in both cases, IMO, the premise that influence was not peddled
in exchange for these financial considerations is flagrantly
ludicrous. government policy (foreign and domestic), not to mention a
staggering volume of our tax dollars, have been for sale for a *long*
time, and if you can differentiate the facts in this case from the
torrent of spin, you are a better person that i. personally, i can
condone none of it, regardless of the political affiliations of the
people involved. i say: send them all to the gulag!
well, that's my rant. anyone else want to take a turn? we can convert the
group into rec.photo.politics for a while :-).
--
A Cappella UNIX Enterprise Support Michael H. Collier
11345 E. Grant Rd. email: aca...@netcom.com
Franktown, CO 80116 voice: (303) 898 5794 (24 hrs)
Brain: "Are you pondering what I'm pondering, Pinky?"
Pinky: "I think so, Brain, but if we didn't have ears we'd look like weasels!"
-----
Pursuant to US Code Title 47 - Sec.227(a)(2)(B): a computer/modem/printer
meets the definition of a telephone fax machine; Sec.227(b)(1)(C): it
is unlawful to send any unsolicited advertisement to such equipment;
Sec.227(b)(3)(C): a violation of the aforementioned Section is
punishable by action to recover actual monetary loss, or a download and
archival fee of $500, whichever is greater, for each violation. In
addition, distribution or publication of this account's electronic mail
address for commercial purposes without express written permission is
subject to usage fees in the amount of $500 US, for each distribution
or publication. Use of this account's electronic mailbox or
distribution/publication of this account's electronic mail address for
commercial purposes constitutes acceptance of these terms.
SPECTRUM
Spectrum writes;
Frederic Goudal wrote in article ...>But the question is :
>Shall the photographer follow the taste of the public or shall the
>photographer try to make the public taste evolve.
Why should he care what the public educational level is regarding his
personal work ? If it's something he like, why should he care what the
public opinion is ?And educating the taste of the public is a job that no
one man can handle. Even on a local basis. The best you can hope for is to
establish a trend.
>
>The first is a businessman who do some photograph (and some demagogia
>too), the second is a photographer who trys to sell his work.
And then there's the rest of us. You know. The ones that recognize the
need for food, clothing housing, and art. So we try to compromise . We give
the customers what the want and then do what we want. The means to the end.
Dennis Swanson
Who would have guessed that on Fri, 25 Jul 1997 at 11:36:06 -0700
GMA (geo...@migration.com) would say:
~
~ And, isn't it interesting that there was no TV coverage of these
~ hearings while Demoncats were being questioned, but when a Republican is
~ on the stand, live coverage is broadcast on several networks.
~
~ Anyone still think there's no media bias?
It's real simple, see: Being seen testifying before Congress for alleged
wrong-doing gives the public the impression that the testifier is guilty.
Hence, Democrats being questioned in this way is not "newsworthy". :-)
Den
--
Dennis M. Swanson <>< C/Win32 API programmer UNIX hobbyist
89% voted for Clinton -- results of a Roper Center/Freedom Forum
7% voted for Bush survey on how 139 Washington D.C.-based
4% say they're Republicans news reporters voted in 1992
scottmike
Sgt Jason wrote:
>
> ...and people complain about me getting off the subject. I'm obviously
> being discriminated against because I'm a white, male, heterosexual
> who is not bound to a wheel chair.
No.... I think you are bring discriminated against because of your
1950's Southern views on women.... ie.. barefoot and PG
Sgt Jason
What comes after the Post Modern era?
vincent bilotta
Sgt Jason wrote:
>
> What comes after the Post Modern era?
producing work, concentrating on the issue of perception, maybe the only
legimitate subject of "Art".
vincent
JGWStudios
Post Modern Renessance of course.
Mark Edmondson
On 26 Jul 1997 06:34:02 GMT, "John Towers" <tow...@norcom.mb.ca>
wrote:
>USA media killed art, business killed art, the USA killed art.
Art has merely evolved (or you could argue devolved) due to the
intervention of the so-called "Pop Culture" and others, but to blame
an entire country is going a little too far. And I'm not from the US
so that's one arguement lost.
>Artisans always had sponsors.......royalty, the Pope, nobility, rich
>corporate patrons. Even artists have to eat and buy paint & film.Nothing
>wrong with this.
>
>When deranged weirdos like Andy Warhol et al are hyped and promoted into
>the ranks of "artists", when Duane(???) Whoever plasters snapshots on his
>naked mother and media decrees it to be "artistic photography" you know art
>is dying. You know that garbage is promoted as "art" and nobody wants to
>yell "the emperor has no clothes on!".
>
To some extent I agree.
>Please don't flame me or start a thread on this issue.
Sorry, but I cannot resist.
Judging "ART" is
>very subjective. However, I feel it's valid to ask this question when
>evaluating art:
>"how many people out of a thousand can produce anything like this?"
It's not how many people can do, but who has the initial vision TO do.
>
>Anyone can copy Campbell soupcans, pile up miscellaneous items (an
>"installation") or paint stripes on a canvas---these are OK for
>decorations, to add color, to induce vomiting at clinics or as conversation
>starters. But is it art???
As you've said, art is subjective. I see a print of a Campbell
soupcan, and it's a Campbell soupcan, nothing more or less.
>And how many "artists" can carve a marble "David" or sketch hands like a
>Durer or photograph a "Moon over Hernandez (???)".
>
The again, I know of people who could look at "David" and see a lump
of chipped rock.
>Photography is easy......almost anyone can get an acceptable image today.
Almost anyone can get a descent, focussed, well exposed image, yes,
but it takes an "artist" for want of a better word, to give that image
an illusive something that takes it beyond the mere snaphot and into a
higher realm of quality and distinction.
>We are all artists??? Who cares?? Who is to say???
>
>Please gag me before I go on....and ......on....on......
OK
Mark
Amethyst
With lithesome air "SPECTRUM" <spec...@cybercomm.net> frolicked and sang
out:
>Frederic Goudal wrote in article ...
>All what I see
>>is the good old "The young people are stupid, look my bands were ok
>>their bands are stupid, my taste is the right one, their taste is
>>revolting shock rubbish".
>
> No they aren't stupid. Ignorant, insecure, irresponsable, unfeeling,
>uninspired but not stupid !! And at 35 I hope I'm not over the hill ! In
>fact I think I'm pretty "young minded" in general. I just have to deal with
Sweeping generalisation; sounds pretty ignorant, insecure, irresponsible,
unfeeling and uninspired to me.
And all this because _some_ young people choose to get pierced in
interesting places. Here's some news, so do _some_ "old" people.
--
| -=-=-=-=-> Amethyst <-=-=-=-=- | "Excuse me, I have a hell to go |
| Remove "bweb" for email reply | burn in." - Andrew Wheeler |
| http://www.jadzia.demon.co.uk/ | "The dream lasts so long, even |
| Modelling, web design, fan-fic | after you're gone." - Jewel |
SPECTRUM
Thanks for that bit of info! I'll live for the day that I go to some
eighty year old's funeral and see a barbell through his/her nose ! Maybe
spikes in his/her head ! Or horns !
--
Regards,
John S.
Douglas
Spectrum Photographic Inc.
1- 908 - 505 - 8393
http://www.cybercomm.net/~spectrum
!! World Field Photographers Association !!
"For the photographer who likes to live large ! "
http://www1.tip.nl/~t487331/frame.htm
Amethyst wrote in article <33df3101...@news.demon.co.uk>...
Niklas (nio. noll. sju)
Sgt Jason wrote:
>
> This is the Nineties. Art isn't important, marketing is. Resistance is
> futile.
Still think that art is important. The thing is just that the artist
becomes a icon, the artist himself often becomes more important then
her/his work. And we all know that icon's brings in a lot of money.
Menero79
art is not dead.