why i love this newsgroup
Bobby Adams
hypercritical establishment out there to rebel against. Picasso's big
complaint about modern art was that it had no rules anymore...art died and
artists were born...there were no more rules....
you people have taught me that people DO still think there are rules...I
love it! I love you! You have sparked new life! Long live trolls, if
that's what you want to call us! Long live those who are willing to play
the game without the least concern for your rules! I am not trying to get a
response...please do not respond...just suffice it to say that I thank you
for the inspiration to rebellion. I kiss you!!
bobby adams
Bobby Adams
don't know about....but he said that art died with the renaissance...after
that there was no "ideal" to compare one's works with...either way...i kiss
you
bobby adams
Redclay 6 <redc...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19991202224954...@ng-xa1.aol.com...
> Picasso's big
> complaint about modern art was thet it din look like nothin it was sposed
to.
Redclay 6
Martijn Benders
> I kiss you!!
> bobby adams
Omigod, I swear, it's Mahir!!!
(see: http://members.xoom.com/_XMCM/primall/mahir/081199.html )
Martijn.
--
Martijn Benders -
De Nederlandsche Cacaofabriek:
http://www.dse.nl/cacao/
Sea Cannibal Online:
http://www.denederlandschecacaofabriek.nl/sea/sea.htm
'I am tall and I am thin
of an enviable height
and I've been known to be quite handsome
from a certain angle, a certain light'
Nick Cave, from 'O Malley's Bar'
dale houstman
Bobby Adams <bobby...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:827dil$a48$1...@holly.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>...just suffice it to say that I thank you
> for the inspiration to rebellion. I kiss you!!
> bobby adams
>
I commend you on your urge to rebel, and only hope it takes you somewhere
worth rebelling against by some later rebel. But it would be only kind of me
to mention that rebellions are only the beginning of new paradigms, not
total free for alls, and that you too will find that poetry - like music and
ballistics - is bound by the limitations of human expression and that -
despite all your struggles - there will be nothing you can do within
language that hasn't already been done (in general terms) before. All I ask
is that you explain to me exactly what the substance of this great evolution
of yours is?
As for Picasso, the strange thing about him is that he is basically a
conservative artist: he remained within the realms of representation all his
life, despite the distortions. And so much of he became came (rather old hat
of him!) from African art. So much for "rebelling against the rules." A
better example would have been Duchamp, who abandoned art altogether and
gave birth to conceptual art. But even conceptual art is not an abandonment
of all "rules" but harkens back to Dada, in turn influenced by ritualistic
"primitive" invocations.
The - perhaps unfortunate - truth about all artistic revolts is that - like
flowers - they have to be nurtured in the waste of previous generations or
they don't put forth shoots.
However, the desire to feel you are "breaking all chains" is in itself
commendable. One can only hope you find yourself worthy of such attentions
several decades from now. The odds are against you.
DMH
Mike Billard
misunderstanding of what many of us are saying. Your ignorance, in this
case, seems to truly equate bliss.
People like you tend to "rebel" against a nonexistent "establishment" more
for the way it makes you feel than for the art it will lead you to create.
You don't even know what we're gtalking about. How can you possibly rebel
against something about which you know nothing?
Bobby Adams <bobby...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:827dil$a48$1...@holly.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> I love this newsgroup because it reminds me that there IS a conservative,
> hypercritical establishment out there to rebel against. Picasso's big
> complaint about modern art was that it had no rules anymore...art died and
> artists were born...there were no more rules....
> you people have taught me that people DO still think there are rules...I
> love it! I love you! You have sparked new life! Long live trolls, if
> that's what you want to call us! Long live those who are willing to play
> the game without the least concern for your rules! I am not trying to get
a
> response...please do not respond...just suffice it to say that I thank you
JAS Carter
Billard" <bil...@alsopreview.com> said meaningfully:
>Unfortunately, your "love" for this newsgroup is based on a complete
>misunderstanding of what many of us are saying. Your ignorance, in this
>case, seems to truly equate bliss.
>
>People like you tend to "rebel" against a nonexistent "establishment" more
>for the way it makes you feel than for the art it will lead you to create.
>You don't even know what we're gtalking about. How can you possibly rebel
>against something about which you know nothing?
Ah, but I rebel against quantum mechanics all the time.
I do! Rilly!
Julie Carter
--
jsgo...@jsgoddess.ourfamily.com
http://jsgoddess.ourfamily.com
ICQ: 1265510
Bobby Adams
has said that every painting of his must in some way rebel...(wish i had the
book i'm thinking of handy so i could directly quote him...)every piece must
challenge the viewer (or reader, in this case)...I suppose my main point was
that Picasso (as you pointed out with the african scultpture as well as his
pottery) was always trying new styles, new ways of doing things.
I just get the feeling that a lot of the poeple here don't like what THEY
consider to be "silly" poetry...i don't know what I'm saying (rambling out
of me arse)...
As to the "substance of the great evolution"...i was becoming bored with my
poetry...feeling like what i was writing was boring and run-of-the-mill and
such and such...and this newsgroup reminded me that there are people who
HATE my silly poems...and that these poems are not "poetry" to them...and
then I felt free again to write...I felt free to be as silly or sillier than
I wanted to be...
perhaps I will shut up now and wish that I had thought a little more about
what I wanted to say before responding. I appreciate your response.
And you are right that "there is nothing new under the sun"...there is no
way to truly rebel anymore (and THAT is what I meant...so much of the
commentary here seems to say "you can't write poems like this!" and it
excites me TO WRITE POEMS LIKE THAT!.
I babble like a fool. I suppose I am a fool. That is ok.
bobby adams
dale houstman <dm...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:828aa6$1gk$1...@nntp3.atl.mindspring.net...
>
> Bobby Adams <bobby...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:827dil$a48$1...@holly.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
>
> >...just suffice it to say that I thank you
> > for the inspiration to rebellion. I kiss you!!
> > bobby adams
> >
nic
<maan...@chello.nl> wrote:
>Bobby Adams wrote:
>
>> I kiss you!!
>> bobby adams
>
>Omigod, I swear, it's Mahir!!!
>
>(see: http://members.xoom.com/_XMCM/primall/mahir/081199.html )
That was on 'this morning' with richard and judy, a very bad day-time
tv show.
Apparently someone hacked into his site and made those alterations...
that might just be an excuse though.
nic.
Bobby Adams
plastic establishment to rebel against. How am I ignorant?
I totally believe that poems that obey strict rules of stanza length, meter,
rhyme scheme, etc. are VERY VERY amazing...I love to see how people create
beautiful, powerful pieces under strict rules...adds such a nice extra
dimension of interpretation(the poem itself and the poem in terms of how it
obeys/strays from its rules). A well written (and original) sonnet is far
more impressive than a three line poem usually...but I get the feeling many
"resident critics" here automatically dismiss a three line poem (of course
this is not always the case...i am generalizing a bit) because they don't
feel "enough time or work has gone into it."
A great poem is sometimes written very quickly, but only produced after
years of experience with a subject. I just love you guys! I love you!
bobby adams
Mike Billard <bil...@alsopreview.com> wrote in message
news:828dia$l9v$1...@autumn.news.rcn.net...
> Unfortunately, your "love" for this newsgroup is based on a complete
> misunderstanding of what many of us are saying. Your ignorance, in this
> case, seems to truly equate bliss.
>
> People like you tend to "rebel" against a nonexistent "establishment" more
> for the way it makes you feel than for the art it will lead you to create.
> You don't even know what we're gtalking about. How can you possibly rebel
> against something about which you know nothing?
>
>
> Bobby Adams <bobby...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:827dil$a48$1...@holly.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > I love this newsgroup because it reminds me that there IS a
conservative,
> > hypercritical establishment out there to rebel against. Picasso's big
> > complaint about modern art was that it had no rules anymore...art died
and
> > artists were born...there were no more rules....
> > you people have taught me that people DO still think there are rules...I
> > love it! I love you! You have sparked new life! Long live trolls, if
> > that's what you want to call us! Long live those who are willing to
play
> > the game without the least concern for your rules! I am not trying to
get
> a
> > response...please do not respond...just suffice it to say that I thank
you
> > for the inspiration to rebellion. I kiss you!!
> > bobby adams
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
Bobby Adams
rebellion when I'm writing...I write what amuses or intrigues me......to
quote Monty Python's "Meaning of Life," "[I'm just] trying to make everybody
happy"...perhaps a smile or something....
I went WRONG the first time i posted (sadly, i posted a VERY silly poem)
because i hadn't really visited the newsgroup before and I didn't make it
clear that I WASN'T trying to create "high art" (one could play around with
that statement..."high" and so forth)...I was immediately branded a "troll"
and a "kid" and people threw what seemed like very personal insults at me (I
have since seen much, much worse). I foolishly got personally insulted, as
though they could read my mind or my intentions, and I lashed back
defensively.
It was my mistake, I have since read the faq and watched for the tone of
this newsgroup, and I realize I'm not so much the type of person wanted
around here. I am not serious enough about my poetry.
But still, when I get what seems like a funny notion in my head, I try to
share it...just for that ONE person who might find it enjoyable. This
newsgroup makes poems that I find mildly humorous even funnier when I read
other poems that, to me, are DREADFULLY serious.
I just take offense to the condescending attitude of many of the "critics"
here. I don't mind them saying a poem sucks (I usually agree), but to say
one is "not well read enough" or to tell people "this is not a poem" is just
WRONG...there is no way of judging one's background based on a crappy
poem...I have written MANY and I hope that I am relatively well read
(thinking back on college). I just don't write well (enough for some).
I appreciate your feedback, and I really do LOVE to talk about Picasso and
the others (your points are all quite valid and well informed and show a
great overall attitude towards art that I agree with).
And now I shall stop babbling.
bobby adams
dale houstman <dm...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:82anht$n59$1...@nntp4.atl.mindspring.net...
>
> Bobby Adams <bobby...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:XyZ14.124$nu....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > you are right, Picasso WAS in his own way artistically
conservative...but
> he
> > has said that every painting of his must in some way rebel...(wish i had
> the
> > book i'm thinking of handy so i could directly quote him...)every piece
> must
> > challenge the viewer (or reader, in this case)...
>
> Surely, but this rebellion and challenge obviously needn't take on the
form
> of merely snubbing a bunch of "old fogies": Picasso's immediate influence
> (and so many others' immediate parent) is of course Cezanne, and much the
> same could be said of him, yet he also grew directly out of a generation
of
> French landscape and still-life painting. And ALL of it is
representational:
> this rather lamely put (and innocuously non-specific) "revolt" you
sparsely
> delineate is not the historical mechanism you seem to think. Even Duchamp
> grew out of Cubism and thus Cezanne. And so on and so on... You just
haven't
> provided much in the way of "interesting grit" in your attempt to digest a
> disparate group of poets. Like a chicken, you may have to swallow some
> rather tougher stones if you want to grind that corn down!
>
> >I suppose my main point was that Picasso (as you pointed out with the
> african scultpture as >well as his pottery) was always trying new styles,
> new ways of doing things.
>
> Yes, but what you failed to notice was that the new way of doing things he
> tried was an old way, and your rejection (expressed as a rebellion with -
> whatever you think - a very vague notion of what it is rebelling against)
> isn't the same creature. So your quotation of him as a source of
inspiration
> for your program of rebellion agsinst all us useless retreads of a worn
> aesthetic doesn't hold water.
>
> I can't speak for all here (there are as many different kinds of poets as
> there are people writing poems), but my inspirations are as modern as the
> Language Poets, and I am quite aware of the Slam Scene (Beat Lite as I
call
> it), and the Academic scene, and even the candycane swirls of Jewel and
> Garfunkel. I have read the Dadaists, the Surrealists, the experimental
work
> of the Post Revolution Russian poets, the Vorticists, the Imageists,
> Mallarme, etc etc etc. I have been influenced by the "highest" (Rimbaud
> perhaps?) as well as the "lowest" (comic books, science fiction, song
lyrics
> and structures, etc.) -I never felt the need to rebel against anything in
> particular but bad poetry; all other movement was inspired - frankly - by
> love.
> >
> > I just get the feeling that a lot of the poeple here don't like what
THEY
> > consider to be "silly" poetry...i don't know what I'm saying (rambling
out
> > of me arse)...
>
> Yes: the word "silly" is - I'm sorry - rather typically vague of you.
People
> write marvelously silly poems here all the time. I know I have.
> >
> > As to the "substance of the great evolution"...i was becoming bored with
> my
> > poetry...feeling like what i was writing was boring and run-of-the-mill
> and
> > such and such...and this newsgroup reminded me that there are people who
> > HATE my silly poems...and that these poems are not "poetry" to
them...and
> > then I felt free again to write...I felt free to be as silly or sillier
> than
> > I wanted to be...
>
> Who's stopping you? And you should realize - in empathetic turn - that
your
> rejection of us as a merely amusing sop to your Grand Rebellion might also
> amuse (or bemuse, or "in-muse") a number of us, releasing a similar gust
of
> free wind. That wind blows up and down your leg...
> >
> > perhaps I will shut up now and wish that I had thought a little more
about
> > what I wanted to say before responding. I appreciate your response.
>
> No problem...
> >
> > And you are right that "there is nothing new under the sun"...there is
no
> > way to truly rebel anymore (and THAT is what I meant...so much of the
> > commentary here seems to say "you can't write poems like this!" and it
> > excites me TO WRITE POEMS LIKE THAT!.
>
> To be perfectly honest, I haven't read much of your poetry: I wouldn't put
> it quite that way even if I felt it to be so, and I sort of doubt anyone
> else had either. But there are poems (just as there are plays and bridges
> and Mars missions!) that must be considered as failures, and the sooner a
> writer learns to recognize this himself, the sooner more productive and
> (really) satisfying poems will be written. You may never want to do this,
> and you have every right to ignore whatever is said about your poetry, and
> more power to you. But we have a right to both dislike your poetry and to
> tell you so. If you are so firmly convinced of the value of your work, no
> one else's opinion should be able to harm that stance. You are secured
> behind either your assurance or complacency. The sad thing is you may not
> distinguish the two before it is too late.
>
> DMH
>
>
>
House of Chards
>
> It was my mistake, I have since read the faq and watched for the tone of
> this newsgroup, and I realize I'm not so much the type of person wanted
> around here. I am not serious enough about my poetry.
Serious regarding content or serious regarding effort required? Make
sure that you don't confuse gravity of subject matter with degree of
effort. What people are most likely to respond negatively to is someone
who posts poems that are not "serious" enough to be candidates for
revision - occasional light-verse quickies excepted. There is nothing
more annoying than spending your time trying to help someone iron out
the wrinkles in their poem only to be told, "sod your opinion, I would
never revise this, it doesn't matter that much." It's like going to a
mechanic's convention despite the fact you've no interest in fixing
cars. If you're content to write poems that sputter and belch down the
road, you're right: this is a hostile environment for that attitude.
>
> But still, when I get what seems like a funny notion in my head, I try to
> share it...just for that ONE person who might find it enjoyable. This
> newsgroup makes poems that I find mildly humorous even funnier when I read
> other poems that, to me, are DREADFULLY serious.
Again, separate content from execution. I love humorous writing. Really
fine humor takes as much effort to write as anything on a more serious
subject. Badly executed poetry of any genre will, most likely, be
identified as such here.
> I just take offense to the condescending attitude of many of the "critics"
> here. I don't mind them saying a poem sucks (I usually agree), but to say
> one is "not well read enough" or to tell people "this is not a poem" is just
> WRONG...there is no way of judging one's background based on a crappy
> poem...I have written MANY and I hope that I am relatively well read
> (thinking back on college).
Telling someone to read is not an insult. Carefully reading good poetry
(in whatever genre you may be working) is one of the best ways to
identify why your own efforts fall flat. If you're not interested in
discovering why your poems (humorous or otherwise) don't work, again,
you're out of your element.
>I just don't write well (enough for some).
Skill is not the issue. Look around - there are many thriving and
enthusiastic beginners here. Attitude is everything. An interest in
learning how to improve your writing is far more important than
experience.
-Lorinda
Mike Billard
>
> I just take offense to the condescending attitude of many of the "critics"
> here. I don't mind them saying a poem sucks (I usually agree), but to say
> one is "not well read enough" or to tell people "this is not a poem" is
just
> WRONG...there is no way of judging one's background based on a crappy
> poem...
One can judge a poet's background in acquiring the skills necessary to write
competent verse based on a crappy poem. If the poem shows no skill, the poet
obviously has not acquired any.
> I have written MANY and I hope that I am relatively well read
> (thinking back on college).
If you have to "think back" to any prior time to determine whether or not
you're well read enough, you're not. If you're not reading *now*, you're not
well read enough. *Now* is when you are writing, why is *now* not when you
are reading?
Bobby Adams
bobby adams
House of Chards <chards...@home.com> wrote in message
news:384AB464...@home.com...
> Bobby Adams wrote:
> >
> > It was my mistake, I have since read the faq and watched for the tone of
> > this newsgroup, and I realize I'm not so much the type of person wanted
> > around here. I am not serious enough about my poetry.
>
> sure that you don't confuse gravity of subject matter with degree of
> effort. What people are most likely to respond negatively to is someone
> who posts poems that are not "serious" enough to be candidates for
> revision - occasional light-verse quickies excepted. There is nothing
> more annoying than spending your time trying to help someone iron out
> the wrinkles in their poem only to be told, "sod your opinion, I would
> never revise this, it doesn't matter that much." It's like going to a
> mechanic's convention despite the fact you've no interest in fixing
> cars. If you're content to write poems that sputter and belch down the
> road, you're right: this is a hostile environment for that attitude.
>
> >
to
> > share it...just for that ONE person who might find it enjoyable. This
> > newsgroup makes poems that I find mildly humorous even funnier when I
read
> > other poems that, to me, are DREADFULLY serious.
>
> fine humor takes as much effort to write as anything on a more serious
> subject. Badly executed poetry of any genre will, most likely, be
> identified as such here.
>
"critics"
> > here. I don't mind them saying a poem sucks (I usually agree), but to
say
> > one is "not well read enough" or to tell people "this is not a poem" is
just
> > WRONG...there is no way of judging one's background based on a crappy
> > poem...I have written MANY and I hope that I am relatively well read
> > (thinking back on college).
>
> (in whatever genre you may be working) is one of the best ways to
> identify why your own efforts fall flat. If you're not interested in
> discovering why your poems (humorous or otherwise) don't work, again,
> you're out of your element.
>
>
Bobby Adams
> >
> > I just take offense to the condescending attitude of many of the
"critics"
> > here. I don't mind them saying a poem sucks (I usually agree), but to
say
> > one is "not well read enough" or to tell people "this is not a poem" is
> just
> > WRONG...there is no way of judging one's background based on a crappy
>
>
> One can judge a poet's background in acquiring the skills necessary to
write
> competent verse based on a crappy poem. If the poem shows no skill, the
poet
> obviously has not acquired any.
>
>
>
> > (thinking back on college).
>
> you're well read enough, you're not. If you're not reading *now*, you're
not
> well read enough. *Now* is when you are writing, why is *now* not when you
> are reading?
>
>
remembering the mountains of books and sleepless nights...(you are right, I
don't read as much now as I did then...perhaps I WILL try to read more
now...)
Thanks for the input...i appreciate it.
bobby adams