4TH RFD: Proposal to create us.arts.poetry
Henrietta K. Thomas
unmoderated group us.arts.poetry
This is a formal Request for Discussion to create a new newsgroup in the us.*
hierarchy, us.arts.poetry.
Changes from previous RFDs:
Revised short line description.
Re-wrote first paragraph of charter.
Revised 3rd paragraph of topic list.
Added two lines to topic list.
Deleted awkward sentence defining 'United States'.
Re-organized/re-wrote Posting Guidelines and Format
sections.
Deleted details for selecting a new newsgroup host.
Deleted details on amending charter.
Re-arranged paragraphs in the charter.
Newsgroups line:
us.arts.poetry Discussion and critique of US poetry.
Rationale: us.arts.poetry
There are, at present, four international poetry groups in
Usenet (alt.poetry, alt.arts.poetry.comments, alt.arts.poetry.
urban, and rec.arts.poems). Traffic appears to be pretty
good, and the groups appear to be mostly on-topic. But
although most of the posters appear to be US Americans,
there is no special emphasis on US poetry as such. To
rectify this, it is proposed to create a group focusing on
US poetry in the us.* hierarchy.
CHARTER: us.arts.poetry
us.arts.poetry is an unmoderated newsgroup for the
discussion of poetry written by US poets, both known
and unknown; or poetry written by others with a US
theme. It includes both critical discussion of the works
of US poets, recognized or not; and the posting of
original works by participants in the group.
Appropriate topics for discussion include:
- the history of poetry in the United States from colonial
days to the present;
- the lives and works of US poets, whether famous or not
so famous;
- the metrical forms and conventions necessary to
understand poems posted here, including the discussion
of uniquely 'American' poetical forms;
- the degree of American-ness in US poetry;
- critiques of original works posted by US poets.
Poetry from other countries is off-topic unless used for
the sake of contrast with, or reference to, poets or poetry
in the United States. Poetry from other countries is on-topic
if it involves the United States as part of its subject matter.
Posting Guidelines:
The Posting Rules for the us.* hierarchy apply to this
group. Where there is a conflict between this charter
and the hierarchy rules, the provisions of this charter
will control.
Violations of this charter or the hierarchy rules may be
reported to the us.* hierarchy administration, your Internet Service Provider,
and/or legal authorities in appropriate situations.
Format:
* This is a text newsgroup. Posts containing binaries,
html, or attachments are considered as off topic posts
regardless of content, and may be cancelled without
warning.
*The us.* hierarchy has a 5-group crosspost limit, but
5 groups are hardly ever needed. When crossposting,
please consider which groups are most relevant (often
only one or two) and construct your newsgroups line
accordingly. W hen following up to a crosspost, make
note of whether your follow up is still on topic for all
groups you are crossposting to, and trim the newsgroups
line if needed.
* When responding to an article, quote only what you need
to quote, then put your response AFTER each quote as if you
were having a conversation.
*Foul language is not encouraged in us.arts.poetry.
If you must broach the subject of sex, or scatology,
do us all a favor by being as clever as possible;
avoid the common "four letter" words, and try to use circumlocutions whenever
possible.
*Copyrighted poems should not be posted without
permission. If you are trying to identify the author
of a poem that simply has you stumped, then post
just enough of the poem as you think is necessary
for a reasonably informed reader to recognize.
Naturally, an obscure poem may need more of its
body posted than a famous poem but, In any case,
the subject line of your message should include
the letters ID REQ as a 'flag' to readers that you are
requesting help in identifying the author of a poem.
*Poets are encouraged to attach copyright notices
to their own original works.
Newsgroup Host
The Newsgroup Host will monitor the group on a regular
basis to answer questions about the group and keep an
eye open for newcomers who need help. The host is also expected to report
serious violations of the us.* hierarchy
rules to the us.* hierarchy administration. Further action, including
cancellation of an offending post, is at the
discretion of the us.* hierarchy administration.
If for any reason, the host is unable or unwilling to
continue monitoring the group, s/he shall inform the
us.* hierarchy administration, and a new host may
be selected in accordance with the procedures set
forth in 'Newsgroup Creation in the us.* Hierarchy'.
Six-month Trial
This charter shall remain in full force and effect for six
months. At the end of the six-month trial period, the us.*
hierarchy administration may post a Call For Discussion
on the status of the group in accordance with procedures outlined in the us.*
hierarchy newsgroup creation rules.
END CHARTER
Procedure:
This proposal will remain on the table for seven days,
to and including May 29, 2001. If at the end of seven
days, there are no major objections and all necessary
changes have been made, a final RFD will be posted,
and the control message creating the group will be
issued in about a week.
Distribution: us.config, us.arts
Pointers to: rec.arts.poems, alt.poetry, alt.arts.poetry.comments,
alt.arts.poetry.urban.
Proponent: Matthew Montchalin <mmon...@OregonVOS.net>
Proponent: Henrietta K. Thomas <h...@wwa.com>
Newsgroup Host: TBA
Jim Kingdon
> Pre-Declaration Of Independence to the present.
Don't you mean:
- the history of poetry in the geographical area now known as the
United States, including territories, possessions, and what-not such
as Kansas, the US Virgin Islands, Guam, and wholly owned
subsidiaries such as Honduras (which was the prototypical Banana
Republic in the early 1900's or so - but I digress). The historical
period covered is limited from the dawn of mankind to the present.
Poems written by Giant Sloths or in the future are off-topic.
We've just about perfected this RFD process, haven't we crew?
Henrietta K. Thomas
<da...@frackit.com> wrote, in us.config:
>In <qrblgt4hpbtpf36fr...@4ax.com>, Henrietta K. Thomas
><h...@wwa.com> wrote:
>
>> Request for Discussion (4TH RFD)
>> unmoderated group us.arts.poetry
>>
>>Appropriate topics for discussion include:
>>
>>- the history of poetry in the United States from colonial
>>days to the present;
>
>Nit-pick:
>
>There WAS no US in Colonial Days. Theoretically
>it >began with the signing of the Declaration of
>Independence.
Correct.
>How about:
>
>- the history of poetry in the what is now the United
>states from Pre-Declaration Of Independence to the
>present.
How about:
- the history of poetry in what is now the United States
from colonial days to the present?
>Also:
>
>>- critiques of original works posted by,
>
>and for,
>
>>US poets,
>
>copyright provided.
Not quite sure what you mean here. I can go along
with "critiques of original works posted by US poets",
but don't get the need for the rest of the sentence.
Please clarify.
>>*Foul language is not encouraged in us.arts.poetry.
>>If you must broach the subject of sex, or scatology,
>>do us all a favor by being as clever as possible;
>>avoid the common "four letter" words, and try to use
>>circumlocutions whenever possible.
>
>Like the genre or not, there IS legitimate poetry out
>there with obscenities in it. The above can change
>the impact of the work as intended by the poet.
>Personally, I don't much care for that sort of poetry
>myself, but I like even less the modification of serious
>work to avoid injuring some ones sensibilities.
Well, these are Matthew's words, and I think he's just
trying to discourage trolls from coming aroung messing
up the group with nonsense. Jim Riley thinks it is a red
flag inviting trolls to do just that. Nevertheless, I like it
because it is well said (IMHO), and I think Matthew has
a point.
>Opinions are cheap,
>And mine cost so little.
>I hope they're worth considering,
>Even a widdle.
>
>(c) Busted Meter Poetry Inc.
Yeah, but it's kinda cute.
Henrietta
edward ohare
>Nit-pick:
>
>There WAS no US in Colonial Days. Theoretically it began with the signing of
>the Declaration of Independence. How about:
HA! Where's Agincourt to explain Thomas Jefferson's Declara... er....
Allegation of Indepdence.
Jim Kingdon
No, not really. Adam nailed me on the same thing just a few days ago
(concerning the same sentence, even).
Jim Riley
wrote:
> Request for Discussion (4TH RFD)
> unmoderated group us.arts.poetry
>Newsgroups line:
>us.arts.poetry Discussion and critique of US poetry.
|us.arts.poetry US poetry, poets, critiques, history; Original poems.
["|" to avoid line wrap in my newsreader]
Rather than describing what poetry is, I think the description should
be about _the newsgroup_. The name does not indicate whether original
poems are appropriate, or what the discussion is about.
>Rationale: us.arts.poetry
>
>There are, at present, four international poetry groups in
>Usenet (alt.poetry, alt.arts.poetry.comments, alt.arts.poetry.
>urban, and rec.arts.poems). Traffic appears to be pretty
>good, and the groups appear to be mostly on-topic. But
>although most of the posters appear to be US Americans,
>there is no special emphasis on US poetry as such. To
>rectify this, it is proposed to create a group focusing on
>US poetry in the us.* hierarchy.
>
>CHARTER: us.arts.poetry
>
>us.arts.poetry is an unmoderated newsgroup for the
>discussion of poetry written by US poets, both known
>and unknown; or poetry written by others with a US
>theme. It includes both critical discussion of the works
>of US poets, recognized or not; and the posting of
>original works by participants in the group.
us.arts.poetry is an unmoderated newsgroup for the discussion and
presentation of poetry written by US poets, both known and unknown; or
poetry written by others with a US theme.
Two important aspects of the newsgroup are:
- posting of original works by participants in the group, including
followup discussion and criticism.
- critical discussion of the works of US poets, recognized or not.
Appropriate topics for discussion include:
>- the history of poetry in the United States from colonial
>days to the present;
>- the lives and works of US poets, whether famous or not
>so famous;
>- the metrical forms and conventions necessary to
>understand poems posted here, including the discussion
>of uniquely 'American' poetical forms;
>- the degree of American-ness in US poetry;
>- critiques of original works posted by US poets;
- announcements and reviews of poetry readings;
- books, web pages and other publications of US poetry.
--
Jim Riley
Jim Riley
wrote:
>- the history of poetry in what is now the United States
>from colonial days to the present?
- the history of American poetry from colonial days to the present.
In the us.* hierarchy, America can be presumed to refer to this
country rather than the continents of the Americas.
--
Jim Riley
Henrietta K. Thomas
<jim...@pipeline.com> wrote, in us.config:
>On Thu, 24 May 2001 02:51:33 GMT, Henrietta K. Thomas
>h...@wwa.com> wrote:
>
>>- the history of poetry in what is now the United States
>>from colonial days to the present?
>
>- the history of American poetry from colonial days to the present.
Change 'American' to 'US' and you've got yourself
a deal.
- the history of US poetry from colonial days to the present.
>In the us.* hierarchy, America can be presumed to refer
>to this country rather than the continents of the Americas.
Call me stubborn if you like, but I still prefer to
emphasize US. That way, there will hopefully be
no arguments as to what is meant.
Henrietta
Henrietta K. Thomas
<jim...@pipeline.com> wrote, in us.config:
>On Tue, 22 May 2001 18:37:27 GMT, Henrietta K. Thomas
><h...@wwa.com> wrote:
>
>> Request for Discussion (4TH RFD)
>> unmoderated group us.arts.poetry
>
>>Newsgroups line:
>>us.arts.poetry Discussion and critique of US poetry.
>
>|us.arts.poetry US poetry, poets, critiques, history; Original poems.
>
>["|" to avoid line wrap in my newsreader]
>
>Rather than describing what poetry is, I think the description
>should be about _the newsgroup_.
Agreed. So why did you put all those key words up there?
>The name does not indicate whether original
>poems are appropriate, or what the discussion
>is about.
And neither did my short description.
But I still don't like what I'm seeing. Try this on
for size:
us.arts.poetry Discuss US poetry, or post your own poems.
[snip rationale]
>>CHARTER: us.arts.poetry
>>
>>us.arts.poetry is an unmoderated newsgroup for the
>>discussion of poetry written by US poets, both known
>>and unknown; or poetry written by others with a US
>>theme. It includes both critical discussion of the works
>>of US poets, recognized or not; and the posting of
>>original works by participants in the group.
>
>us.arts.poetry is an unmoderated newsgroup for the
>discussion and presentation of poetry written by US
>poets, both known and unknown; or poetry written
>by others with a US theme.
>
>Two important aspects of the newsgroup are:
>
>- posting of original works by participants in the group,
>including followup discussion and criticism.
Here, I would use a semi-colon and add the word 'and'
(i.e., followup discussion and criticism; and)
>- critical discussion of the works of US poets, recognized or not.
Do we need to say 'recognized or not'?
> Appropriate topics for discussion include:
>
>>- the history of poetry in the United States from colonial
>>days to the present;
You've already changed this one in another article.
>>- the lives and works of US poets, whether famous or not
>>so famous;
>>- the metrical forms and conventions necessary to
>>understand poems posted here, including the discussion
>>of uniquely 'American' poetical forms;
>>- the degree of American-ness in US poetry;
>>- critiques of original works posted by US poets;
>
>- announcements and reviews of poetry readings;
>- books, web pages and other publications of US poetry.
Yes, the whole thing sounds good to me.
Henrietta
Matthew Montchalin
|>- critical discussion of the works of US poets, recognized or not.
|
|Do we need to say 'recognized or not'?
How about 'recognizable or not'?
Henrietta K. Thomas
<mmon...@OregonVOS.net> wrote, in us.arts:
Very funny. :-)
Seriously, I think we'll have to put something in
to define what we mean by 'US poet'. I found a
definition for 'American composer' on the web
that I'd like to use in these kinds of groups --
i.e., for US poets, US writers, US composers,
US artists, etc. My browser is down right now,
but when I get it back up, I'll go find the actual
statement and post it here to get feedback on
the idea.
Henrietta
Le Mod Pol
Howbout ~~~ known or
LP
Matthew Montchalin
|On Thu, 24 May 2001 21:50:40 -0700, Matthew Montchalin
|<mmon...@OregonVOS.net> wrote, in us.arts:
|
|>On Fri, 25 May 2001, Henrietta K. Thomas wrote:
|>|>- critical discussion of the works of US poets, recognized or not.
|>|
|>|Do we need to say 'recognized or not'?
|>
|>How about 'recognizable or not'?
|
|Very funny. :-)
|
|Seriously, I think we'll have to put something in
|to define what we mean by 'US poet'.
Belaboring a definition seems counterproductive here. :)
|I found a definition for 'American composer' on the
|web that I'd like to use in these kinds of groups --
|i.e., for US poets, US writers, US composers,
|US artists, etc. My browser is down right now,
|but when I get it back up, I'll go find the actual
|statement and post it here to get feedback on
|the idea.
A poet writes poems-
What makes a good poem, depends,
on buffeting bounces and bends,
on words and sweet phrases,
on rhythmical traces,
on curious marks and fine blends,
on par with great hallmarks of gold,
a poem well-written's, well-told,
it rolls off the tongue,
or stings until stung,
but then, once it's formed, breaks the mold;
an opus, achievement, a crown,
a jewel, unearthed from the ground,
whether high-born or low,
you hear it, and know,
by each of its letters and sound.
:)
Matthew Montchalin
|a jewel, unearthed from the ground,
| whether high-born or low,
| you hear it, and know,
|by each of its letters and sound.
by the WAY the darn THING oughta sound!
:D
Henrietta K. Thomas
wrote, in us.config:
Sounds good to me! :-)
Henrietta K. Thomas
wrote, in us.config:
>On Fri, 25 May 2001, Henrietta K. Thomas wrote:
[snip]
>|Seriously, I think we'll have to put something in
>|to define what we mean by 'US poet'.
>
>Belaboring a definition seems counterproductive here. :)
Yes, I know, but I think we need to talk about it anyway.
>|I found a definition for 'American composer' on the
>|web that I'd like to use in these kinds of groups --
>|i.e., for US poets, US writers, US composers,
>|US artists, etc. My browser is down right now,
>|but when I get it back up, I'll go find the actual
>|statement and post it here to get feedback on
>|the idea.
>
>A poet writes poems-
>
>What makes a good poem, depends,
>on buffeting bounces and bends,
> on words and sweet phrases,
> on rhythmical traces,
>on curious marks and fine blends,
>
>on par with great hallmarks of gold,
>a poem well-written's, well-told,
> it rolls off the tongue,
> or stings until stung,
>but then, once it's formed, breaks the mold;
>
>an opus, achievement, a crown,
>a jewel, unearthed from the ground,
> whether high-born or low,
> you hear it, and know,
>by each of its letters and sound.
Well done, Matt, but my problem is to distinguish
'American' poets and poetry from all other poets
and poetry in the world.
Henrietta
Jim Kingdon
would improve this whole process. I tried writing one and failed,
though, which may mean it is time for me to stop trying to "improve"
the RFD.
Le Mod Pol
"Henrietta K. Thomas" wrote:
>
, but my problem is to distinguish
> 'American' poets and poetry from all other poets
> and poetry in the world.
>
if s/he was born here or lived/worked here or
published here
LP
Jim Riley
wrote:
>On Thu, 24 May 2001 17:56:12 -0500, Jim Riley
><jim...@pipeline.com> wrote, in us.config:
>>- the history of American poetry from colonial days to the present.
>
>Change 'American' to 'US' and you've got yourself
>a deal.
Nope.
>- the history of US poetry from colonial days to the present.
>
>>In the us.* hierarchy, America can be presumed to refer
>>to this country rather than the continents of the Americas.
>
>Call me stubborn if you like, but I still prefer to
>emphasize US. That way, there will hopefully be
>no arguments as to what is meant.
It is precisely because we use "US" in the same sentence with
"history" and "colonial" that there is confusion.
The creation of the US is the event that terminated the colonial days.
--
Jim Riley
Jim Riley
wrote:
>On Thu, 24 May 2001 17:56:00 -0500, Jim Riley
><jim...@pipeline.com> wrote, in us.config:
>
>>On Tue, 22 May 2001 18:37:27 GMT, Henrietta K. Thomas
>><h...@wwa.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Request for Discussion (4TH RFD)
>>> unmoderated group us.arts.poetry
>>
>>>Newsgroups line:
>>>us.arts.poetry Discussion and critique of US poetry.
>>
>>|us.arts.poetry US poetry, poets, critiques, history; Original poems.
>>
>>["|" to avoid line wrap in my newsreader]
>>
>>Rather than describing what poetry is, I think the description
>>should be about _the newsgroup_.
>
>Agreed. So why did you put all those key words up there?
I didn't think those were key words, but simply a description of the
newsgroup.
>>The name does not indicate whether original
>>poems are appropriate, or what the discussion
>>is about.
>
>And neither did my short description.
>
>But I still don't like what I'm seeing. Try this on
>for size:
>
>us.arts.poetry Discuss US poetry, or post your own poems.
OK.
ps the 1986 description of rec.arts.poems is "Poetry."
>[snip rationale]
>
>>Two important aspects of the newsgroup are:
>>
>>- posting of original works by participants in the group,
>>including followup discussion and criticism.
>
>Here, I would use a semi-colon and add the word 'and'
>(i.e., followup discussion and criticism; and)
OK.
>>- critical discussion of the works of US poets, recognized or not.
>
>Do we need to say 'recognized or not'?
No, since we've already split out the posting of poems by unrecognized
poets. But maybe we should include:
- critical discussion of the works of US poets, and poems about the
US.
>> Appropriate topics for discussion include:
>>
>>>- the history of poetry in the United States from colonial
>>>days to the present;
>
>You've already changed this one in another article.
Yep. Make it American.
--
Jim Riley
Henrietta K. Thomas
us.arts:
>On Fri, 25 May 2001 04:20:42 GMT, Henrietta K. Thomas <h...@wwa.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 24 May 2001 17:56:12 -0500, Jim Riley
>><jim...@pipeline.com> wrote, in us.config:
>
>>>- the history of American poetry from colonial days to the present.
>>
>>Change 'American' to 'US' and you've got yourself
>>a deal.
>
>Nope.
;-(
>>- the history of US poetry from colonial days to the present.
>>
>>>In the us.* hierarchy, America can be presumed to refer
>>>to this country rather than the continents of the Americas.
You and I can presume that, but others may not.
Some may claim to be 'Americans' as well, and
use that as a pretext to post materials not really
related to the United States.
>>Call me stubborn if you like, but I still prefer to
>>emphasize US. That way, there will hopefully be
>>no arguments as to what is meant.
>
>It is precisely because we use "US" in the same sentence with
>"history" and "colonial" that there is confusion.
I understand your point, but I submit that the word
'American' is equally confusing.
>The creation of the US is the event that terminated
>the colonial days.
In the 13 colonies which rebelled, yes, but nowhere
else. Somehow we need to figure out a way to include
those 13 colonies without giving the impression we
are the only 'Americans' in the world. This is a ticklish
problem we need to resolve, not just for the 'poetry'
group, but for most groups in the hierarchy which
allow discussion of any kind of pre-revolutionary times.
ht
Henrietta K. Thomas
us.arts:
>On Fri, 25 May 2001 04:20:47 GMT, Henrietta K. Thomas <h...@wwa.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 24 May 2001 17:56:00 -0500, Jim Riley
>><jim...@pipeline.com> wrote, in us.config:
>>
>>>On Tue, 22 May 2001 18:37:27 GMT, Henrietta K. Thomas
>>><h...@wwa.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Request for Discussion (4TH RFD)
>>>> unmoderated group us.arts.poetry
>>>
>>>>Newsgroups line:
>>>>us.arts.poetry Discussion and critique of US poetry.
>>>
>>>|us.arts.poetry US poetry, poets, critiques, history; Original poems.
>>>
>>>["|" to avoid line wrap in my newsreader]
>>>
>>>Rather than describing what poetry is, I think the description
>>>should be about _the newsgroup_.
>>
>>Agreed. So why did you put all those key words up there?
>
>I didn't think those were key words, but simply a description
>of the newsgroup.
OK, but it looks like a string of key words to me.
>>>The name does not indicate whether original
>>>poems are appropriate, or what the discussion
>>>is about.
>>
>>And neither did my short description.
>>
>>But I still don't like what I'm seeing. Try this on
>>for size:
>>
>>us.arts.poetry Discuss US poetry, or post your own poems.
>
>OK.
Even better might be: US poetry, poets, and original poems.
>ps the 1986 description of rec.arts.poems is "Poetry."
I can see why you called it a mini-charter. I think
that's how things were done in 1986, but I'll bet
that wouldn't pass muster in news.groups today.
It's quite interesting, though; it gave them leeway
to do just about anything they wanted.
>>[snip rationale]
>>
>
>>>Two important aspects of the newsgroup are:
>>>
>>>- posting of original works by participants in the group,
>>>including followup discussion and criticism.
>>
>>Here, I would use a semi-colon and add the word 'and'
>>(i.e., followup discussion and criticism; and)
>
>OK.
>
>>>- critical discussion of the works of US poets, recognized or not.
>>
>>Do we need to say 'recognized or not'?
>
>No, since we've already split out the posting of poems by
>unrecognized poets. But maybe we should include:
>
>- critical discussion of the works of US poets, and poems
>about the US.
OK, sounds good to me.
>>> Appropriate topics for discussion include:
>>>
>>>>- the history of poetry in the United States from colonial
>>>>days to the present;
>>
>>You've already changed this one in another article.
>
>Yep. Make it American.
OK.
Note to the audience: A 5TH RFD will be posted
soon, so get your comments in asap.
Henrietta
Henrietta K. Thomas
<Agincour...@btinternet.nospam.com>
wrote, in us.config:
>On Thu, 24 May 2001 02:51:33 GMT,
>Henrietta K. Thomas <h...@wwa.com>
>put fingers to keyboard and tapped away writing:
>
>? On Wed, 23 May 2001 22:25:44 GMT, Dave Ratcliffe
>? <da...@frackit.com> wrote, in us.config:
>?
>? >In <qrblgt4hpbtpf36fr...@4ax.com>, Henrietta
>K. Thomas <h...@wwa.com> wrote:
[snip]
>? >>*Foul language is not encouraged in us.arts.poetry.
>? >>If you must broach the subject of sex, or scatology,
>? >>do us all a favor by being as clever as possible;
>? >>avoid the common "four letter" words, and try to use
>? >>circumlocutions whenever possible.
>? >
>? >Like the genre or not, there IS legitimate poetry out
>? >there with obscenities in it. The above can change
>? >the impact of the work as intended by the poet.
>? >Personally, I don't much care for that sort of poetry
>? >myself, but I like even less the modification of serious
>? >work to avoid injuring some ones sensibilities.
>?
>? Well, these are Matthew's words, and I think he's just
>? trying to discourage trolls from coming aroung messing
>? up the group with nonsense. Jim Riley thinks it is a red
>? flag inviting trolls to do just that. Nevertheless, I like it
>? because it is well said (IMHO), and I think Matthew has
>? a point.
>
>It would rule out most of the poet, Phil Larkin's work.
>Although British, Larkin has lived and written in the
>US for the last 30 years.
Larkin died in 1985. I found his biography on the web
at http://www.poets.org/poets/poets.cfm?prmID=179
and there isn't one word there about him living in the
USA. Please don't play games with the RFDs; nobody
has time to double-check if you are trolling or not.
Sorry for the delay in responding; my browser took
a sudden vacation, and I had to go through some
changes to get it back again.
Henrietta
Jim Riley
wrote:
>You and I can presume that, but others may not.
>Some may claim to be 'Americans' as well, and
>use that as a pretext to post materials not really
>related to the United States.
They should post to them.* not us.*.
>In the 13 colonies which rebelled, yes, but nowhere
>else. Somehow we need to figure out a way to include
>those 13 colonies without giving the impression we
>are the only 'Americans' in the world. This is a ticklish
>problem we need to resolve, not just for the 'poetry'
>group, but for most groups in the hierarchy which
>allow discussion of any kind of pre-revolutionary times.
We _are_ the Americans in the USA.
--
Jim Riley
Matthew Montchalin
|I appreciate the point that placing words in the description that
|someone searching might use instead of a name component. But in the
|instance of this particular group, you have not suggested any words
|that a person is likely to be searching for. You are placing form
|before substance. Would:
|
|us.autos Behemoths, cruising, chrome, Detroit, metallic poetry.
|
|Really help someone searching for such a group?
Um, maybe. But I would vote for *some* redundancy, and supplying
the thing with repetition of *some* kind is bound to help. The words
'us' and 'automobile' might need to be repeated at least once in the
description.
The ultimate "poem" in motion
is on land, and is *not* on the ocean;
it runs on four wheels,
leaves marks when it peels,
and knows only gloss, not corrosion;
with the top down, the breezes will soothe,
they muss up your hair when you cruise,
and no matter how far
you drive in your car
you go where you want and you choose,
five bucks fills a tank to the top,
the next station's hardly a hop,
and you get there in time,
and stop on a dime,
or possibly, right on the dot.
:D
Jim Riley
<mmon...@OregonVOS.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 27 May 2001, Jim Riley wrote:
>|I appreciate the point that placing words in the description that
>|someone searching might use instead of a name component. But in the
>|instance of this particular group, you have not suggested any words
>|that a person is likely to be searching for. You are placing form
>|before substance. Would:
>|
>|us.autos Behemoths, cruising, chrome, Detroit, metallic poetry.
>|
>|Really help someone searching for such a group?
>
>Um, maybe. But I would vote for *some* redundancy, and supplying
>the thing with repetition of *some* kind is bound to help. The words
>'us' and 'automobile' might need to be repeated at least once in the
>description.
Sure, might as well put cars and trucks there as well.
>The ultimate "poem" in motion
>is on land, and is *not* on the ocean;
> it runs on four wheels,
> leaves marks when it peels,
>and knows only gloss, not corrosion;
Would you place art cars under us.arts.* or us.autos.*?
--
Jim Riley
Matthew Montchalin
|>|us.autos Behemoths, cruising, chrome, Detroit, metallic poetry.
<snip>
|>The ultimate "poem" in motion
|>is on land, and is *not* on the ocean;
|> it runs on four wheels,
|> leaves marks when it peels,
|>and knows only gloss, not corrosion;
|
|Would you place art cars under us.arts.* or us.autos.*?
Good question. I think it should go under us.autos.demos or
maybe us.autos.spectacles.
Henrietta K. Thomas
us.config:
>On Sat, 26 May 2001 07:01:24 GMT, Henrietta K. Thomas <h...@wwa.com> wrote:
>
>>You and I can presume that, but others may not.
>>Some may claim to be 'Americans' as well, and
>>use that as a pretext to post materials not really
>>related to the United States.
>
>They should post to them.* not us.*.
:-)
>>In the 13 colonies which rebelled, yes, but nowhere
>>else. Somehow we need to figure out a way to include
>>those 13 colonies without giving the impression we
>>are the only 'Americans' in the world. This is a ticklish
>>problem we need to resolve, not just for the 'poetry'
>>group, but for most groups in the hierarchy which
>>allow discussion of any kind of pre-revolutionary times.
>
>We _are_ the Americans in the USA.
And my argument is that we need to show this in
our charters and hierarchy documents.
Henrietta
Henrietta K. Thomas
us.config:
Something like that only a little more elaborate.
The quote I saw said it wasn't enough to just
emigrate to the United States, that a person
who wanted to claim to be an American composer
(or other artist) had to have lived and worked
in the United States prior to creating his/her best
works, and lived here at the time said best works
were done. I'm still looking for it. I want to post
it here and get reaction.
Henrietta
Le Mod Pol
"Henrietta K. Thomas" wrote:
>
> On Fri, 25 May 2001 13:21:15 -0400, Le Mod Pol <mod...@espmail.com> wrote, in
> us.config:
>
> >"Henrietta K. Thomas" wrote:
> >>
> >, but my problem is to distinguish
> >> 'American' poets and poetry from all other poets
> >> and poetry in the world.
> >>
> >
> >if s/he was born here or lived/worked here or
> >published here
>
> Something like that only a little more elaborate.
> The quote I saw said it wasn't enough to just
> emigrate to the United States, that a person
> who wanted to claim to be an American composer
> (or other artist) had to have lived and worked
> in the United States prior to creating his/her best
> works,
Who is to decide which are the best works Hmmmmmm?
Henrietta K. Thomas
us.config:
>
>
>"Henrietta K. Thomas" wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 25 May 2001 13:21:15 -0400, Le Mod Pol <mod...@espmail.com> wrote, in
>> us.config:
>>
>> >"Henrietta K. Thomas" wrote:
>> >>
>> >, but my problem is to distinguish
>> >> 'American' poets and poetry from all other poets
>> >> and poetry in the world.
>> >>
>> >
>> >if s/he was born here or lived/worked here or
>> >published here
>>
>> Something like that only a little more elaborate.
>> The quote I saw said it wasn't enough to just
>> emigrate to the United States, that a person
>> who wanted to claim to be an American composer
>> (or other artist) had to have lived and worked
>> in the United States prior to creating his/her best
>> works,
>
>Who is to decide which are the best works Hmmmmmm?
The critics, other poets, and the general public.
Le Mod Pol
"Henrietta K. Thomas" wrote:
> >
> >Who is to decide which are the best works Hmmmmmm?
>
> The critics, other poets, and the general public.
that is a no decision or do we have to wait for:
"The Envelope, Please!"???
LP
The public and the critics frequently change their
view of artist's work as time passes and fashions
change. And how does anyone 20, 40, or 100 years
postmortem decide what was his best?
Let us take 3 artists - 2 dutch and a japanese
Willem de Kooning came here in 1926, 22 years old
and only 2 years out of the Rotterdam Academy and
over the years his style evolved from
expressionism to abstract expressionism and onward
About 1983 Bill became ill and his long separated
wife Elaine (best known for her monumental
portraits of JFK) had to move to East Hampton to
care for him.
Bill continued to paint for several years spare
stripped down abstracts devoid of any trace of the
lushness in his other work. By 1990 Alzheimers
had totally debilitated him and he just stopped.
MOMA had a posthumous show of this later work, and
when I visited it people all around me were raving
how beautiful! how wonderful! and I just wanted to
cry because in the work I could see the path Bill
de Kooning, steadily more feeble, painted to the
grave. Sure his dealer got big money for that
junk. After all they were de Koonings and there
would be no more. :~(( :~((
Piet Mondrian was a different story. Until he was
35 or 36 he painted conventional dutch landscapes
- low squat houses, on flat land painted in dark
tones of ocher and burnt umber looking as if they
were lost in London smog. Then he discovered the
Fauves, theosophy, Braque and Picasso. All of a
sudden in the space of 2 or 3 years he had
acquired a philosophy of life, abstraction and
line, cubism and vivid brilliant color. In 1917,
with Theo van Doesburg he founded de Stijl which
was both a magazine and an art movement and
through which Mondrian influenced the Bauaus
architects, artists and designers and the whole NY
school. In 1940 he escaped the Nazi invasion and
came to NY where he died in 1944. One of the last
paintings he did was painted as a tribute to the
people of NY and titled "Broadway Boogie Woogie".
Many think it is his best work. It resides at MOMA.
Do you call him An American artist or no.
Certainly his period of greatest influence was
between 1918 and 1931 when he developed his
palette of the three primaries + white, grey and
black, and his horizontal and verticle bars.
But his influence on the NY artists is
immeasureable. He was active in the Club. It met
weekly to discuss art methods, materials, problems
etc. with panels. If de Koonig was pressed into
panel duty, shy, he never opened his mouth.
Mondrian had lots to say and he did.
Isamu Naguchi, Japanese born best known work (but
few knew he did it ) is the little collapsible
Japanese paper lampshade that all of us have had
at least one of sometime. Ah so joponees design
make in thailand sell well in States vewy good.
Less known but perhaps his defining work is his
design for the Miami park near the bottom of
Biscayne Blvd. It is spectacular whether you are
looking at the drawings in the Naguchi Museum in
Long Island City NY or in the reality in Miami.
Matthew Montchalin
|The public and the critics frequently change their
|view of artist's work as time passes and fashions
|change. And how does anyone 20, 40, or 100 years
|postmortem decide what was his best?
|
|Let us take 3 artists - 2 dutch and a japanese
Well, if we ask who is the best artist, should we
answer that question by asking whose art was the
best? No, of course we can't answer that question
that way, nor can we even ask that question without
a small amount of cynicism.
If a corporation hired anonymous artists to produce
artistic works, or series of artistic works, that
the public praised for generations to come, would
the corporation really be responsible for the art
it commissioned? But is anonymously created work
"less" an amazing piece of work, because of that
anonymity?
One should not confuse the merits of the artist
with the merits of the art that is created.
Henrietta K. Thomas
<h...@wwa.com> wrote, in us.config:
OK, I finally found it, again, at
http://www.hapka.com/usopera/about.html
It talks about American composers, but I think it's
relevant to all American artists, regardless of the
artistic endeavor(s) in which they are involved, and
if others agree, I'd like to find a way to incorporate
this in our charters, or perhaps in our official hierarchy
documents.
>What is an American?
>
>The best defenition of an American composer I have
>found is John Taker Howard's, in his introduction to
>Our American Music:
>
>"...[W]ho is the American composer? Many think he must
>e born in this country; that those who urge the adoption
>of foreign residents as Americans do so because we have
>so few natives. That a French-born composer is always a
>Frenchman; a German-born, a German.... But our case is
>a little different. We have all adopted America, even those
>of us who let our ancestors do our immigrating for us.
>Ans shall we be like college boys in treating newcomers
>as freshmen, just because our ancestors had the idea
>first?
>
>"You may say that the Constitution requires the
>president of the country to be a native-born citizen;
>but there can be only a few presidents, and we have
>room for many composers. You and I know many
>native Americans whose families have been here for
>generations, but whose temperaments and points of
>view are as foreign as those of their cousins who
>stayed at home. Of course, it is obvious that a mere
>residence will not make an American, and we cannot
>call a composition American merely because its
>composer has had a part of his physical existence in
>this country. If that were allowable, the New World
>Symphony would have been written while Dvorák was
>an American copmposer. No; visitors are welcome,
>but they are not Americans.
>
>"It must be a case of extended residence, to all intents
>permanent; the adopted composer may go home to
>visit, but he mustn't stay away too long. And it must be
>something more subtle and subjective than citizenship.
>Legal naturalization may make a citizen, but it does not
>in itself make an American. The foreigner must become
>one of us, become identified with our life and our institutions.
>And also he must make his reputation here. He must come
>to us in his formative years, not as an established artist.
>
>"Try this definition: a composer is an American if, by birth
>or choice of permanent residence, he becomes identified
>with American life and institutions before his talents have
>had their greatest outlet; and through his assosiations
>and sympathies he makes a genuine contribution to our
>cultural development.
>
>"These specifications would admit Charles Martin Loeffler,
>who came here at the beginning of his career; Ernest Bloch,
>who recieved his first important recognition in this country;
> Percy Grainger, who came to us as a well-established
>pianist, but most of whose composing was yet to be
>accomplished; the more recent composers Lukas Foss,
>Alexei Haieff, Nikolai Lopatnikoff, Gian-Carlo Menotti,
>Bernard Wagenaar; and among the composers of lighter
>music, Victor Herbert, Rudolf Friml, Sigmund Romberg,
>and Jule Styne. The definition obviously does not include
>many of those who were widely discussed and internationally
>known composers before political events drove them from
>Europe. Arnold Schoenberg, Igor Stravinsky, and Darius
>Milhaud, Sergei Rachmaninoff, Ernst Krenek, Kurt Weill,
>Paul Hindemith, and dozens of others have taken up
>residence in this country and in many cases become
>Americans by naturalization. Our nation may well be
>proud of this fact, but it does not seem appropriate to
>include them in this volume as musical products of the
>United States."
>
>I recognize that any such distinctions I make will be
>arbitrary; please direct your wrath to me. If you're
>in doubt as to whether a composer has been excluded
>due to these considerations or whether I simply haven't
>gotten to them yet, check out the Other Composers page
>for brief descriptions of some composers who haven't
>been included in this prioject.
Henrietta
Henrietta K. Thomas
wrote, in us.config:
>"Henrietta K. Thomas" wrote:
>
>> >
>> >Who is to decide which are the best works Hmmmmmm?
>>
>> The critics, other poets, and the general public.
[snip]
I would call de Kooning an American artist because
he apparently adopted the US and did his best work
while here, but Mondrian would only be recognized
for his influence on and tribute to New York.
>Isamu Naguchi, Japanese born best known work (but
>few knew he did it ) is the little collapsible
>Japanese paper lampshade that all of us have had
>at least one of sometime. Ah so joponees design
>make in thailand sell well in States vewy good.
>Less known but perhaps his defining work is his
>design for the Miami park near the bottom of
>Biscayne Blvd. It is spectacular whether you are
>looking at the drawings in the Naguchi Museum in
>Long Island City NY or in the reality in Miami.
Naguchi could be recognized for the 'American'
works cited above, but could not be considered
an 'American' artist because he never even lived
here. The charter of us.arts.poetry clearly states
that works by foreign artists are on-topic if they are
based on a US theme. A charter for us.arts.artists
could say the same thing.
Henrietta
Matthew Montchalin
of the US, or wishes he was.
Le Mod Pol
That is a sidebar to precisely the point I was
trying to make: that no one can judge who is an
"American artist" by where his "best work" was done.
Speaking of corporate collections, I am familiar
with the cynical processes involved in their
selection since the curators of both the Chase
Manhattan and Ciba-Geigy collections were friends.
A friend of mine who is both a fine artist and a
great teacher of artists says "Talent is a dime a
dozen. It is what they DO with the talent that
makes the artist."
LP
Le Mod Pol
> >through which Mondrian influenced the Bauhaus
> >architects, artists and designers and the whole NY
> >school. In 1940 he escaped the Nazi invasion and
> >came to NY where he died in 1944. One of the last
> >paintings he did was painted as a tribute to the
> >people of NY and titled "Broadway Boogie Woogie".
> >Many think it is his best work. It resides at MOMA.
> >
> >Do you call him An American artist or no.
> >Certainly his period of greatest influence was
> >between 1918 and 1931 when he developed his
> >palette of the three primaries + white, grey and
> >black, and his horizontal and verticle bars.
> >But his influence on the NY artists is
> >immeasureable. He was active in the Club. It met
> >weekly to discuss art methods, materials, problems
> >etc. with panels. If de Koonig was pressed into
> >panel duty, shy, he never opened his mouth.
> >Mondrian had lots to say and he did.
>
> I would call de Kooning an American artist because
> he apparently adopted the US and did his best work
> while here, but Mondrian would only be recognized
> for his influence on and tribute to New York.
But his "best work" was done in NYC
> >Isamu Naguchi, Japanese born best known work (but
> >few knew he did it ) is the little collapsible
> >Japanese paper lampshade that all of us have had
> >at least one of sometime.
> >Less known but perhaps his defining work is his
> >design for the Miami park near the bottom of
> >Biscayne Blvd. It is spectacular whether you are
> >looking at the drawings in the Naguchi Museum in
> >Long Island City NY or in the reality in Miami.
>
> Naguchi could be recognized for the 'American'
> works cited above, but could not be considered
> an 'American' artist because he never even lived
> here.
How can you say that when most of his work was
done in his studio (now his museum) in Long Island
City NY close by the East River, and I knew him
personally for 25 years. I chose those examples
because I knew 2 and Mondrian because he was
Bill's countryman.
> The charter of us.arts.poetry clearly states
> that works by foreign artists are on-topic if they are
> based on a US theme. A charter for us.arts.artists
> could say the same thing.
What is an US theme in an abstract painting.
Check out Mark Rothko or Ellsworth Kelly and, and,
and. Frank Stella did a whole series about a
dozen years ago which he said was based on his
memories of his childhood home in Poland. Even
the 3 dimensional pieces were abstract. Jean
Cohen painted a small abstract and asked me to
name it. I said it reminds me of "Knicks vs
Lakers" (this was after those great championship
duels between the Knicks and Jabbar's Lakers) I
wanted to sell it to the Gardens but she had
already sold it to Leonard Bocour for $1,000 worth
of paint. Look at reproductions or if they are in
your local art museum, paintings by Hans Hoffman
(abstract expressionist) and Kasimir Malevich
(constructivist). If you are not already familiar
with the work you would have no way to distinguish
the work of the American (Hoffman) from the
Russian. I had to check my encyclopedia for the
correct spelling of Kasimir but I could never
forget either man's work. I can email a small
reproduction of a Malevich work to any one who
drops the sp to ask.
The upshot of this all proves that your criteria
for "American" art or poetry or history is so full
of holes they make swiss cheese look solid.
Forget the labels unless they have "fade-away" edges
LP
Henrietta K. Thomas
<mmon...@OregonVOS.net> wrote, in us.arts:
>An article is on topic if it is posted by someone who is a citizen
>of the US, or wishes he was.
Citizenship would not necessarily be a main criteria.
Taking up permanent residence and doing your best
work here would be much more important. See the
definition posted in "Identifying 'American' Artists".
Henrietta
Matthew Montchalin
|On Tue, 29 May 2001 12:31:08 -0700, Matthew Montchalin
|<mmon...@OregonVOS.net> wrote, in us.arts:
|
|>An article is on topic if it is posted by someone who is a citizen
|>of the US, or wishes he was.
|
|Citizenship would not necessarily be a main criteria.
Okay.
|Taking up permanent residence and doing your best
|work here would be much more important. See the
|definition posted in "Identifying 'American' Artists".
If I go to us.arts in hope of striking up a business relationship
with an artist living in the US, I ought to have a better chance
than going to the rec.* hierarchy, or so I would hope. True,
I wouldn't talk business in the newsgroup, but I would talk with
the artists enough for me to be impressed with their abilities,
attitudes, and backgrounds, and so become confident in doing
business with them later. Same thing goes with us.arts.poems,
if I end up desiring to hire an American Poet (one from the US)
instead of one from the UK, or Canada. Did you read the case
of Johannsen v. Brown, from around 1992? Don't have the citation
at hand, but I can recite it, if you like.
Matthew Montchalin
|> If a corporation hired anonymous artists to produce
|> artistic works, or series of artistic works, that
|> the public praised for generations to come, would
|> the corporation really be responsible for the art
|> it commissioned? But is anonymously created work
|> "less" an amazing piece of work, because of that
|> anonymity?
|>
|> One should not confuse the merits of the artist
|> with the merits of the art that is created.
|
|That is a sidebar to precisely the point I was
|trying to make: that no one can judge who is an
|"American artist" by where his "best work" was done.
Okay. But as a forum for judging works of art created
in the US, or by artists having close ties to the US,
us.arts is a particularly good place for it.
|Speaking of corporate collections, I am familiar
|with the cynical processes involved in their
|selection since the curators of both the Chase
|Manhattan and Ciba-Geigy collections were friends.
Okay, I think I can imagine. It might be magnitudes
of order worse than what happened in that movie, "Bean."
|A friend of mine who is both a fine artist and a
|great teacher of artists says "Talent is a dime a
|dozen. It is what they DO with the talent that
|makes the artist."
A rose plant may have a wonderful scheme to grow buds
into flowers, but if those buds are nipped off, the
flowers are never seen.
Le Mod Pol
That is a complete pile of chicken guano. I did
not snip any of it so that all may see it's
altitude ~ stratospheric
:~)
LP
Le Mod Pol
"Henrietta K. Thomas" wrote:
< snip >
> The charter of us.arts.poetry clearly states
> that works by foreign artists are on-topic if they are
> based on a US theme.
In 1957, Noland began a series of target
paintings that combined painterly brushwork with
strictly structured compositions. By 1960 the
targets were painted in a
hard-edged manner, with bright, pure color rings
and could have been mistaken for RAF and RCAF
aircraft insignia.
Fortunately for your guidelines, Ken Noland was
born in Asheville NC, 1924.
I have some Noland stories but will save them for
another time.
Le Mod Pol
Matthew Montchalin wrote:
>
> On Tue, 29 May 2001, Le Mod Pol wrote:
> |> If a corporation hired anonymous artists to produce
> |> artistic works, or series of artistic works, that
> |> the public praised for generations to come, would
> |> the corporation really be responsible for the art
> |> it commissioned? But is anonymously created work
> |> "less" an amazing piece of work, because of that
> |> anonymity?
> |>
> |> One should not confuse the merits of the artist
> |> with the merits of the art that is created.
> |
> |That is a sidebar to precisely the point I was
> |trying to make: that no one can judge who is an
> |"American artist" by where his "best work" was done.
>
> Okay. But as a forum for judging works of art created
> in the US, or by artists having close ties to the US,
> us.arts is a particularly good place for it.
But the criteria for deciding the eligibility for
discussion in the group is a thin slice of swiss
cheese
> |Speaking of corporate collections, I am familiar
> |with the cynical processes involved in their
> |selection since the curators of both the Chase
> |Manhattan and Ciba-Geigy collections were friends.
>
> Okay, I think I can imagine. It might be magnitudes
> of order worse than what happened in that movie, "Bean."
Didn't see it Know nothing of it :~)
> |A friend of mine who is both a fine artist and a
> |great teacher of artists says "Talent is a dime a
> |dozen. It is what they DO with the talent that
> |makes the artist."
>
> A rose plant may have a wonderful scheme to grow buds
> into flowers, but if those buds are nipped off, the
> flowers are never seen.
Quite true
:~)
Henrietta K. Thomas
wrote, in us.config:
>
>
>"Henrietta K. Thomas" wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 28 May 2001 21:27:26 -0400, Le Mod Pol
>><mod...@espmail.com> wrote, in us.config:
[snip]
Your story gives the impression he only lived here
four years, from 1940-1944. What did he do with his
life and work before he came here?
>> >Isamu Naguchi, Japanese born best known work (but
>> >few knew he did it ) is the little collapsible
>> >Japanese paper lampshade that all of us have had
>> >at least one of sometime.
>
>> >Less known but perhaps his defining work is his
>> >design for the Miami park near the bottom of
>> >Biscayne Blvd. It is spectacular whether you are
>> >looking at the drawings in the Naguchi Museum in
>> >Long Island City NY or in the reality in Miami.
>>
>> Naguchi could be recognized for the 'American'
>> works cited above, but could not be considered
>> an 'American' artist because he never even lived
>> here.
>How can you say that when most of his work was
>done in his studio (now his museum) in Long Island
>City NY close by the East River, and I knew him
>personally for 25 years. I chose those examples
>because I knew 2 and Mondrian because he was
>Bill's countryman.
Your story did not say what you reveal above --
that the museum in Long Island was Naguchi's
place of work for X number of years.
>> The charter of us.arts.poetry clearly states
>> that works by foreign artists are on-topic if they are
>> based on a US theme. A charter for us.arts.artists
>> could say the same thing.
>
>What is an US theme in an abstract painting.
Not memories of one's childhood in Poland, that's
for sure.
(snip -- Don't have time to look up all those artists,
but I understand your point.)
>The upshot of this all proves that your criteria
>for "American" art or poetry or history is so full
>of holes they make swiss cheese look solid.
Not if we have all the facts about the artist in question.
I didn't have all the facts, and didn't take the time to
look up your 3 artists on the web. My bad. Had I done
that, you might have received a different response.
>Forget the labels unless they have "fade-away" edges
For arts groups with 'fade away' labels, try alt.* or
Big 8. That's what those hierarchies were created
for.
Henrietta
Henrietta K. Thomas
wrote, in us.config:
>
>
I will look forward to it in us.arts.artists.
Henrietta
Matthew Montchalin
|> |That is a sidebar to precisely the point I was
|> |trying to make: that no one can judge who is an
|> |"American artist" by where his "best work" was done.
|>
|> Okay. But as a forum for judging works of art created
|> in the US, or by artists having close ties to the US,
|> us.arts is a particularly good place for it.
|
|But the criteria for deciding the eligibility for
|discussion in the group is a thin slice of swiss
|cheese
Well, certainly. And the success of any newsgroup
requires some kind of cooperation between the users
of the newsgroup. I don't mind digressions, since
it is only natural. I think the topics should sooner
or later head back to the subject of the US, if only
because those two letters have something to do with
the us.* hierarchy, if for no other reason.
|> |Speaking of corporate collections, I am familiar
|> |with the cynical processes involved in their
|> |selection since the curators of both the Chase
|> |Manhattan and Ciba-Geigy collections were friends.
|>
|> Okay, I think I can imagine. It might be magnitudes
|> of order worse than what happened in that movie, "Bean."
|
|Didn't see it Know nothing of it :~)
A British art museum gets this letter from a Californian
art museum requesting them send over someone famous, to
discuss an art exhibit to be opened up. The British
art museum sends over a lowly security guard, with papers
that he was the top in the field. (The British board of
directors hoped he would do poorly, so they could dismiss
him for cause.) Of course, with any good comedy, things
go from bad to worse, as the security guard inadvertently
destroys an irreplaceable piece of art, and then tries
to cover up the fiasco. It's really a pretty funny
movie. The star of the movie is Rowan Atkinson (spelling?),
who hasn't that many lines to deliver, but lots of antics
to go through. On the surface, the movie MIGHT seem to
belong to the genre of films that Pee Wee Herman (Paul
Reuben) pioneered, but UNDER the surface, you can tell
that the stuffy art critics and curators are pretty
thoroughly mocked through the whole movie. Some parts
of the movie are insufferable, because of the intended
market (junior high and high school kids), but there
are some parts for adults, too.
Le Mod Pol
No impression - fact - He came with the intention
of living and working here the rest of his life
and he did. He died in NYC Feb 1, 1944 age 72.
In that short period he not only produced some of
his best work but he also gave unstintingly of
himself, his experience, his knowledge, his ideas
and his art to all of the artists' community in NY
> What did he do with his
> life and work before he came here?
I split off the portion that describes briefly
the period from 1917 to 1931. After the death of
his collaborator with whom he had been quarreling
for years over "artistic principles" he shut down
de Stijl but continued painting his compositions
of blue, yellow, red, grey and black bars at 90
and 180º to the base, on white ground. His
quarrel with Van Doesburg was simple but both were
rigid. PM insisted on vertical and horizontal
lines while TVD painted 45º. The artists at the
Bauhaus that he influenced strongly included Josef
Albers who later established the School of Art at
Yale. I had many friends who studied with Albers
at Yale. He invented Op Art (as in optical)
alternating red and blue vertical and horizontal
bars that vibrated when you looked at them. One
of his students taught me how.
> >> >Isamu Naguchi, Japanese born best known work (but
> >> >few knew he did it ) is the little collapsible
> >> >Japanese paper lampshade that all of us have had
> >> >at least one of sometime.
> >
> >> >Less known but perhaps his defining work is his
> >> >design for the Miami park near the bottom of
> >> >Biscayne Blvd. It is spectacular whether you are
> >> >looking at the drawings in the Naguchi Museum in
> >> >Long Island City NY or in the reality in Miami.
> >>
> >> Naguchi could be recognized for the 'American'
> >> works cited above, but could not be considered
> >> an 'American' artist because he never even lived
> >> here.
Did you think that a City like Miami would entrust
it's landmark park to a foreigner (except maybe a
Cubano)?? Not very likely!! :~)
> >How can you say that when most of his work was
> >done in his studio (now his museum) in Long Island
> >City NY close by the East River, and I knew him
> >personally for 25 years. I chose those examples
> >because I knew 2 and Mondrian because he was
> >Bill's countryman.
>
> Your story did not say what you reveal above --
> that the museum in Long Island was Naguchi's
> place of work for X number of years.
>
> >> The charter of us.arts.poetry clearly states
> >> that works by foreign artists are on-topic if they are
> >> based on a US theme. A charter for us.arts.artists
> >> could say the same thing.
> >
> >What is an US theme in an abstract painting.
>
> Not memories of one's childhood in Poland, that's
> for sure.
It is ABSTRACT without reading a label how can you
tell what it is. Like that black "virgin" in the
"Sensation" exhibit at the Brooklyn Museum, if you
don't read the card or the catalogue it is just a
stylized painting of an African ? woman.
He said, and I took his word for it, that he lived
in Poland in the 30's, but it could not have been
long because he was born in Malden Mass in 1936.
It really must have been Poland, Maine because how
much could he remember at 2 or 3 years old? His
paintings may have been sort of dry ( no question
they were but he moved into 3d with corved lines
and he recently uneiled a monumental sculpture in
a prime location in DC. (I did not pay enough
attention to the location to remember where)
>
> (snip -- Don't have time to look up all those artists,
> but I understand your point.)
>
> >The upshot of this all proves that your criteria
> >for "American" art or poetry or history is so full
> >of holes they make swiss cheese look solid.
>
> Not if we have all the facts about the artist in question.
> I didn't have all the facts, and didn't take the time to
> look up your 3 artists on the web. My bad. Had I done
> that, you might have received a different response.
>
> >Forget the labels unless they have "fade-away" edges
>
> For arts groups with 'fade away' labels, try alt.* or
> Big 8. That's what those hierarchies were created
> for.
Nah dey donno fum labels!!! :~)
>
:~)
LP
Le Mod Pol
Matthew Montchalin wrote:
>
> On Tue, 29 May 2001, Le Mod Pol wrote:
> |> |That is a sidebar to precisely the point I was
> |> |trying to make: that no one can judge who is an
> |> |"American artist" by where his "best work" was done.
> |>
> |> Okay. But as a forum for judging works of art created
> |> in the US, or by artists having close ties to the US,
> |> us.arts is a particularly good place for it.
> |
> |But the criteria for deciding the eligibility for
> |discussion in the group is a thin slice of swiss
> |cheese
>
> Well, certainly. And the success of any newsgroup
> requires some kind of cooperation between the users
> of the newsgroup. I don't mind digressions, since
> it is only natural. I think the topics should sooner
> or later head back to the subject of the US, if only
> because those two letters have something to do with
> the us.* hierarchy, if for no other reason.
I think that you are walking on the right hand
rail and I on the other side of the track. Art is
universal and it is personal and it knows no
boundaries. That is why the Australian National
Museum, 20 years ago, before the big boom in
modern art sales, paid US$6 million for Jackson
Pollock's "Blue Poles" and they probably have
spent another megabuck restoring it because
Pollock, who could not pass a booze vender as long
as he had a buck or 2 in his pocket, so he had to
use the paints from his house painting jobs.
There were no water or alcohol based house paints
in those days (40's) and he had no money for
primers so all of his canvas is rotting (oil
destroys natural fibers like cotton or linen) and
the had to treat the canvas from behind to
stabilize it before the paint fell off ~ fun!
Now it did not hurt that the vending dealer, Max
Hutchinson, was a native Aussie. When I last
heard Max had opened a "sculpture farm" in upstate
NY.
What I object to is narrowing the definitions too
tightly and rigidly. I am looking for flexibility
that movie, "Bean."
> |
> |Didn't see it Know nothing of it :~)
>
> A British art museum gets this letter from a Californian
> art museum requesting them send over someone famous, to
> discuss an art exhibit to be opened up. The British
> art museum sends over a lowly security guard, with papers
> that he was the top in the field. (The British board of
> directors hoped he would do poorly, so they could dismiss
> him for cause.) Of course, with any good comedy, things
> go from bad to worse, as the security guard inadvertently
> destroys an irreplaceable piece of art, and then tries
> to cover up the fiasco.
This sounds like a Rowan (no pun) and Martin production.
Of course you remember Laugh In.
:~)
LP
Matthew Montchalin
|that movie, "Bean."
|> |
|> |Didn't see it Know nothing of it :~)
|>
|> A British art museum gets this letter from a Californian
|> art museum requesting them send over someone famous, to
|> discuss an art exhibit to be opened up. The British
|> art museum sends over a lowly security guard, with papers
|> that he was the top in the field. (The British board of
|> directors hoped he would do poorly, so they could dismiss
|> him for cause.) Of course, with any good comedy, things
|> go from bad to worse, as the security guard inadvertently
|> destroys an irreplaceable piece of art, and then tries
|> to cover up the fiasco.
|
|This sounds like a Rowan (no pun) and Martin production.
The movie serves a useful function, namely, to introduce youngsters
to the world of art museums, and what happens (?) when one museum
wants to buy and exhibit pieces of art. A good movie for junior
high and high school kids. :)
|Of course you remember Laugh In.
Oh, yes, certainly. :)
Henrietta K. Thomas
<mmon...@OregonVOS.net> wrote, in us.config:
>On Tue, 29 May 2001, Henrietta K. Thomas wrote:
>|On Tue, 29 May 2001 12:31:08 -0700, Matthew Montchalin
>|<mmon...@OregonVOS.net> wrote, in us.arts:
>|
>|>An article is on topic if it is posted by someone who is a
>|>citizen of the US, or wishes he was.
>|
>|Citizenship would not necessarily be a main criteria.
>
>Okay.
>
>|Taking up permanent residence and doing your best
>|work here would be much more important. See the
>|definition posted in "Identifying 'American' Artists".
>
>If I go to us.arts in hope of striking up a business
>relationship with an artist living in the US, I ought
>to have a better chance than going to the rec.*
>hierarchy, or so I would hope.
Yes, I should think so.
>True, I wouldn't talk business in the newsgroup,
>but I would talk with the artists enough for me to
>be impressed with their abilities, attitudes, and
>backgrounds, and so become confident in doing
>business with them later.
Yep, that's about the way I look at it too.
>Same thing goes with us.arts.poems, if I end up
>desiring to hire an American Poet (one from the
>US) instead of one from the UK, or Canada.
Agreed.
>Did you read the case of Johannsen v. Brown,
>from around 1992? Don't have the citation
>at hand, but I can recite it, if you like.
Nah, it's not that important. I think I still have
the other article where you mentioned it, and
I'll look it up when I get a chance.
Henrietta
Matthew Montchalin
|>Did you read the case of Johannsen v. Brown,
|>from around 1992? Don't have the citation
|>at hand, but I can recite it, if you like.
|
|Nah, it's not that important. I think I still have
|the other article where you mentioned it, and
|I'll look it up when I get a chance.
Johannsen was an artist living in Oregon, and the proprietors of
Relix, Magazine, asked him to draw a picture of two "Grateful Dead"
like skeletons in front of a barn carrying an electric guitar,
sort of like that quaint old painting, American Gothic. He agreed,
and they paid him. Relix, Magazine, specialized (specializes?) in
Americana, and relics, and antiques, I gather. Anyway-
The illustration was SO good that the proprietors of the magazine
decided to make posters out of it, and sell the posters in record
shops (where the "Grateful Dead" have immediate name recognition,
either through their name, or the symbols that are associated with
them). The artist found out about this, and demanded to be paid
off, and a whole bunch of other stuff. -So, after a court battle,
the artist won. The publishers, flying in from New York, complained
about the court's jurisdiction, asserting "forum inconveniens,"
but weren't able to get the case dismissed from the 9th Circuit.
Henrietta K. Thomas
<mmon...@OregonVOS.net> wrote, in us.config:
>On Thu, 31 May 2001, Henrietta K. Thomas wrote:
On second thought, thanks for saving me a trip
to the source. I agree with the artist and the court.
He was entitled to a piece of the action because
it was his work.
Henrietta
Matthew Montchalin
|>-So, after a court battle, the artist won. The
|>publishers, flying in from New York, complained
|>about the court's jurisdiction, asserting "forum
|>inconveniens," but weren't able to get the case
|>dismissed from the 9th Circuit.
|
|On second thought, thanks for saving me a trip
|to the source. I agree with the artist and the
|court.
Yes. District Judge Helen Frye is very famous,
and she was 100% correct, and for a dozen different
reasons, if you read the opinions associated with
the case. (The first opinion was issued on the
matter of forum inconveniens, the second opinion
on the matter of copyright, and in whom the
copyright ought to vest, and whether it was
properly a work for hire.)
|He was entitled to a piece of the action because
|it was his work.
Yes, but because of this case, and the burden of
proving forum inconveniens, I prefer to contract
with an artist here in Oregon, and stay out of
deals that involve artists in distant states. (Sigh.)
Matthew Montchalin
||He was entitled to a piece of the action because
||it was his work.
|
|Yes, but because of this case, and the burden of
|proving forum inconveniens, I prefer to contract
|with an artist here in Oregon, and stay out of
|deals that involve artists in distant states. (Sigh.)
Which is not to say that striking up a deal outside
the state is impossible, but that the issue of which
court has jurisdiction is a very important one-
Deep down inside, I think that the world would have
been a nicer place to be in, if the Johannsen case
had never surfaced, and Relix Magazine, Inc., had
given the artist a fair accounting, and a fair share
of the profits realized from his artwork, and its
derivations. Everybody would have walked away happier,
and the artist would probably still be doing business
with them.
Le Mod Pol
"Henrietta K. Thomas" wrote:
>
>
> On second thought, thanks for saving me a trip
> to the source. I agree with the artist and the court.
> He was entitled to a piece of the action because
> it was his work.
Most art work and photography done for magazines
(except staff photogs) are sold per repro. In
other Randy Jones used to do editorial cartoons
for the NY Times news of the week and he got paid
a fee for first publication. If the syndicate
sold it to another paper or mag he got I think it
was half or two thirds of the reproduction fee
which is calculated on the number of copies to be printed
The key is that he does them in his own place, on
his own time, with his own materials. The only
control that the publisher/editor exercises ~ he
outlines the story over which it will be placed so
that he has a theme and of course he has a
deadline. He couldn't do a Dickens ~ only start
to create when he ran out of booze and money to
buy it.
:~)
LP
Henrietta K. Thomas
wrote, in us.arts:
Thanks again for this relevant information.
I'm sure the subject will come up in us.arts.artists,
if and when that group is created.
ht
Henrietta K. Thomas
<mmon...@OregonVOS.net> wrote, in us.arts:
>On Thu, 31 May 2001, Henrietta K. Thomas wrote:
>|>-So, after a court battle, the artist won. The
>|>publishers, flying in from New York, complained
>|>about the court's jurisdiction, asserting "forum
>|>inconveniens," but weren't able to get the case
>|>dismissed from the 9th Circuit.
>|
>|On second thought, thanks for saving me a trip
>|to the source. I agree with the artist and the
>|court.
>
>Yes. District Judge Helen Frye is very famous,
>and she was 100% correct, and for a dozen different
>reasons, if you read the opinions associated with
>the case. (The first opinion was issued on the
>matter of forum inconveniens, the second opinion
>on the matter of copyright, and in whom the
>copyright ought to vest, and whether it was
>properly a work for hire.)
Thanks for the information. I'd really like to get
her views on copyright law.
>|He was entitled to a piece of the action because
>|it was his work.
>
>Yes, but because of this case, and the burden of
>proving forum inconveniens, I prefer to contract
>with an artist here in Oregon, and stay out of
>deals that involve artists in distant states. (Sigh.)
That is probably a wise decision. You could
specify in the contract that any disputes would
be settled in accordance with Oregon law. That
way, neither of you would be inconvenienced.
Or, if you had to go to Federal court instead,
you'd both still be in your own area.
ht
Matthew Montchalin
|>Yes. District Judge Helen Frye is very famous,
|>and she was 100% correct, and for a dozen different
|>reasons, if you read the opinions associated with
|>the case. (The first opinion was issued on the
|>matter of forum inconveniens, the second opinion
|>on the matter of copyright, and in whom the
|>copyright ought to vest, and whether it was
|>properly a work for hire.)
|
|Thanks for the information. I'd really like to get
|her views on copyright law.
I think she is aware of the developments in copyright
law that are presented to her by the lawyers that
circle around her.
For a firm like that magazine publisher, who flew
in from New York to advance a theory of forum
inconveniens, they were likely to have hired a local
lawyer to represent them. They are going to have
to deal with the local brotherhood, which have their
own slant on things.
To get an idea on a slant on copyright law that is
currently acceptable to the University of Oregon,
see the recent article:
"Cyberspace as Public Space: A Public Trust
Paradigm for Copyright in a Digital World,"
79 Or.L.Rev. 647 (2000)
which probably figures highly with the local lawyers.
An artist should probably read this article before
instructing his attorney on how to handle his case.
Matthew Montchalin
Relix Magazine, Inc., never having been incorporated,
it was a corporation in "name" only, and the principals
were, uh, somebody like Toni Brown, and, uh, maybe a
couple other people. That's why the case is known
as Johannsen v. Brown. (Have you ever tried to have
process served on a corporation that doesn't exist?
You could spend a long, long, time trying to hunt
these folks down, trying to locate their legal
representatives.)
|who flew in from New York to advance a theory of forum
|inconveniens, they were likely to have hired a local
|lawyer to represent them. They are going to have
|to deal with the local brotherhood, which have their
|own slant on things.
It is a really interesting case, from several different
angles, and ought to be read by any entrepreneur that
has dreams of doing business with artists, or with
magazine publishers.
Henrietta K. Thomas
<mmon...@OregonVOS.net> wrote, in us.config:
>On Fri, 1 Jun 2001, Henrietta K. Thomas wrote:
>|>Yes. District Judge Helen Frye is very famous,
>|>and she was 100% correct, and for a dozen different
>|>reasons, if you read the opinions associated with
>|>the case. (The first opinion was issued on the
>|>matter of forum inconveniens, the second opinion
>|>on the matter of copyright, and in whom the
>|>copyright ought to vest, and whether it was
>|>properly a work for hire.)
>|
>|Thanks for the information. I'd really like to get
>|her views on copyright law.
[snip]
>To get an idea on a slant on copyright law that is
>currently acceptable to the University of Oregon,
>see the recent article:
>
> "Cyberspace as Public Space: A Public Trust
> Paradigm for Copyright in a Digital World,"
> 79 Or.L.Rev. 647 (2000)
>
>which probably figures highly with the local lawyers.
>An artist should probably read this article before
>instructing his attorney on how to handle his case.
I will try to find it. Thanks for the cite.
ht