pre raphaelite women
Ciara Victoria Solheim
were sexist and condscending?
Ciara
fried
wrote:
>Anyone think that the pre raphaelites paintings and portrayals of women
>were sexist and condscending?
Not sure. I particularly remember a picture of some girls in an Autumn
field, possibly called "The Gleaners" by Millet in the National Gallery. I
immediately fell in love with one of them and felt very sad that she was
just frozen in eternity like that, long dead.
They were obviously onto something. Know anything about them?
Julian
>
>Ciara
>
C. A. Owens
Ciara Victoria Solheim wrote:
>
> Anyone think that the pre raphaelites paintings and portrayals of women
> were sexist and condscending?
No. Why do you ask?
Chris Owens
fried
I don't know why Ciara asks, but I am aware of a considerable degree of bad
behaviour, sad stories and objectification of women in the private lives of
some of the pre-raphaelites. I also would be interested to know.
Julian
>
>Chris Owens
Ciara Victoria Solheim
That is pure coinsidence. The pre raphaelite painters wanted to paint beauty
and they did not want to follow the rigid rules og the Art Academy during the
Victorian period. Some painted also according to the romantic poets of the
period.
Women that were models for these artists.....that have sad stories does not
have to fo to the fact of painters portrayals of them.
I thought that if someone believed them to be sexist......because of some of
the paintings titles and portrayals of women...then I would have a ball with
them...It would be so rediculous if they thought them to be sexist...
Ciara
fried
wrote:
>
>
>That is pure coinsidence. The pre raphaelite painters wanted to paint beauty
>and they did not want to follow the rigid rules og the Art Academy during the
>Victorian period. Some painted also according to the romantic poets of the
>period.
Well, if I recollect correctly, one of the best of the poets was the wife of
one of them who had Dante as part of his name (sorry, names are not my my
strong point :-)) and some of her poetry came out of suffering.
>Women that were models for these artists.....that have sad stories does not
>have to fo to the fact of painters portrayals of them.
Well there you repeat a philosophy that the art object has its own intrinsic
worth, and that its creator and their life is not germane, which I do not
readily subscribe to.
>I thought that if someone believed them to be sexist......because of some of
>the paintings titles and portrayals of women...then I would have a ball with
>them...It would be so rediculous if they thought them to be sexist...
If being on this newsgroup has done anything to me, it is to induce a
loathing of presentday sexism. But I think when sexist beliefs are imbued in
a society as they were then, another more approriate term needs to be
applied. The drowned Ophelia represents a stereotype of womanhood which
still exercises its allure. But equally, Millet could have taken Hamlet as
his subject and given an eternal emblem of male tragedy. The tragedy of life
seen for so long almost exclusively through the eye of the male beholder is
that we have few clear and sympathetic visions of the fragility and
desirability of men.
Julian
>
>Ciara
>
Society
I don't understand what is meant by "objectification of
women" in any sense other than what a photographer,
painter, or sculptor of images of women does -- but that's
a trivial meaning of the term. Pop feminists use the term
but upon close examination their meaning is incoherent.
It's always interesting to compare and contrast the biographical
details of an artist or thinker with that person's work. But it's
often misleading to impute the work itself with meanings
drawn outside the context of the work itself. Historian Paul
Johnson wrote a collection of biographies of people whose
ideas have gravely affected 20th century Western societies,
_Intellectuals_. (They turn out to be very unsavory people in
their private lives.)
Ciara Victoria Solheim
well....i think that the pre raphaelites wanated to paint beauty and what more
beautiful can it be than a women and her mysticism as well as her cynisism.
Ciara
C. A. Owens
Ciara Victoria Solheim wrote:
>
> well....i think that the pre raphaelites wanated to paint beauty and what more
> beautiful can it be than a women and her mysticism as well as her cynisism.
A flower? A really good scenic? A baby? LOTS of things, Ciara; beauty
being in the eye of the beholder, as it were.
Chris Owens
averti
Indeed, most PR (not Puerto Rican) paintings WERE about flowers,
scenery, AND beautiful people. This was loosely a part of the
whole fascination with ''design'' and ''function'' that
fed into the later Art Noovoh and Craftsman movements.
Harumph harumph 8).
Symbolist paintings and allegories generally have to
be explained to the viewer 8). Fortunately the PRs by
and large were educated and verbal folks, so they came right'out and
TOLD the viewer what they should think they saw. So when
Ophelia floats down the stream on her back, looking not only
not dead and drowned but somewhat pleased by the whole
thing, chances are the intent is to ''paint beauty'' and not'
to comment on Shakespeare and irony and tragedy and stuff.
I'd way rather be ''exploited'' as a decorative object by
a competent painter--models are objects, after all, not
people, not by the time their likeness appears on the
canvas. But I will be most grateful to anybody who can
find much ''cynicism'' in a PR painting. Unless there is
a sub-school of cynical flower arranging or cynical
tapestry weaving that just snuck by me.
Best go back to being ignorant and confused by topics other
than the arts, Ciara.
>
> Chris Owens
--
Shut up, he explained.
averti
>
> On Tue, 12 Jan 1999 10:45:40 -0500, "C. A. Owens"
> >> were sexist and condscending?
> >
> >No. Why do you ask?
>
> I don't know why Ciara asks, but I am aware of a considerable degree of bad
> behaviour, sad stories and objectification of women in the private lives of
> some of the pre-raphaelites.
''According to my own, 20th century revisionist standards'' I'm sure
you meant to say 8).
At the time, much of the art world and art patron world thought PR art
was TOO explicit, emotionally frank, and woman-oriented.
Bad behavior, or ''Bad Behavior'', is not about the art that was
produced, but about the people who did the work, no? It appears
mostly to be in late 20th century America that any substantial
body of people seem to think that what somebody does when they are
not making art somehow impinges on the quality or characteristics
of the art itself.
But then, there are people who STILL won't buy Volkswagens,
even those made in South America, because of bitter memories
from 50 or 60 years ago.
Perhaps all the wealthy collectors should turn back in their
Van Goghs and Picasso's. After all, lunatics, cocksmen, and
egotists can't possibly produce ''decent'' art.
>I also would be interested to know.
>
> Julian
fried
>fried wrote in message <369b984b...@usenet.force9.net>...
>>On Tue, 12 Jan 1999 10:45:40 -0500, "C. A. Owens"
>><cao...@redsuspenders.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>Ciara Victoria Solheim wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Anyone think that the pre raphaelites paintings and
>>>> portrayals of women were sexist and condscending?
>>>
>>>No. Why do you ask?
>>
>>I don't know why Ciara asks, but I am aware of a considerable
>>degree of bad behaviour, sad stories and objectification of women
>>in the private lives of some of the pre-raphaelites. I also would
>>be interested to know.
>
>
>I don't understand what is meant by "objectification of
>women" in any sense other than what a photographer,
>painter, or sculptor of images of women does -- but that's
>a trivial meaning of the term.
I hope you haven't got it in for me Society ;-)) Yes, this meaning of
objectification seems pretty near the mark, trivial as it may sound. It
means seeing women for their surface beauty rather than their character and
abilities, quite a frustrating experience I should imagine for anyone, man
or woman, born beautiful but with an urge to be more than a mere wallflower.
>Pop feminists use the term
>but upon close examination their meaning is incoherent.
Just tell me when I'm supposed to take something personally.
>It's always interesting to compare and contrast the biographical
>details of an artist or thinker with that person's work. But it's
>often misleading to impute the work itself with meanings
>drawn outside the context of the work itself.
Too true. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. For instance walking around
the Palace of Versailles I was amazed how extraordinary wealth could get so
many craftsmen working for years on gilded trash, not all of it mind, but it
reminded me of Imelda Marcos's shoes.
>Historian Paul
>Johnson wrote a collection of biographies of people whose
>ideas have gravely affected 20th century Western societies,
>_Intellectuals_. (They turn out to be very unsavory people in
>their private lives.)
What all of them? As a matter of course?
Come on Society, let's have a decent discussion here.
Julian
>
>
fried
>fried wrote:
>> >Ciara Victoria Solheim wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Anyone think that the pre raphaelites paintings and portrayals of women
>> >> were sexist and condscending?
>> >
>> >No. Why do you ask?
>>
>> I don't know why Ciara asks, but I am aware of a considerable degree of bad
>> behaviour, sad stories and objectification of women in the private lives of
>> some of the pre-raphaelites.
>
>''According to my own, 20th century revisionist standards'' I'm sure
>you meant to say 8).
Hi, Onion Face, I'm getting quite fond of you %)). No, I didn't mean to say
that. I think she committed suicide. The Pre-Raphaelites were in any case
intellectuals, fairly determined to live outside a lot of the norms of their
society.
>
>At the time, much of the art world and art patron world thought PR art
>was TOO explicit, emotionally frank, and woman-oriented.
>
>Bad behavior, or ''Bad Behavior'', is not about the art that was
>produced, but about the people who did the work, no?
Oh yes, tell that to Dorian Gray. Stop lecturing, or hectoring, or whatever
it is you are doing. Art is not just one thing, but some people put
themselves into their work. Any objections?
>It appears
>mostly to be in late 20th century America that any substantial
>body of people seem to think that what somebody does when they are
>not making art somehow impinges on the quality or characteristics
>of the art itself.
Is it? Well, you obviously know best.
>But then, there are people who STILL won't buy Volkswagens,
>even those made in South America, because of bitter memories
>from 50 or 60 years ago.
Tell you what, let's compartmentalise everything. So much tidier.
>Perhaps all the wealthy collectors should turn back in their
>Van Goghs and Picasso's. After all, lunatics, cocksmen, and
>egotists can't possibly produce ''decent'' art.
No, I've got a better idea, let's all fawn over them, worship their cocks,
and raise them on a pedestal.
Julian
>>I also would be interested to know.
>>
Ciara Victoria Solheim
I have found cynisism existing in PR.
1. Unconscious Rivals by Sir Lawrence Alma Tadema
2.La Belle Dame Sans Merci by Frank Cadogan Cowper
And most of the PR potrayals of young men being summoned by mermaids..or just women
that are painted according to one of Keats poems..(i think it was Keats).....
And what about the Lady of Shalott.
So Chris Owens.....do not speak of ignorance. I may not be all omniscient in ART but I
know enough to say that everyone has there impression of according and that is
according there life experience and backround.
Ciara
C. A. Owens
Ciara Victoria Solheim wrote:
>
> I have found cynisism existing in PR.
>
> 1. Unconscious Rivals by Sir Lawrence Alma Tadema
> 2.La Belle Dame Sans Merci by Frank Cadogan Cowper
>
> And most of the PR potrayals of young men being summoned by mermaids..or just women
> that are painted according to one of Keats poems..(i think it was Keats).....
>
> And what about the Lady of Shalott.
Why do you find these images cynical?
> So Chris Owens.....do not speak of ignorance.
I neither spoke nor wrote of it. You might want to learn how to follow
attributions; you were responding to Averti's post.
Chris Owens
Ciara Victoria Solheim
Sorry chris Owens.
Chris have you seen these paintings?
http://nouveaunet.com/prbpassion/images/labelle.jpg (La Belle Dame Sans Merci)
That painting at that adress. Is cynical because as I have interoreted it...she is
putting in a pin in which she has used to kill the Soldier. Need I say more. All sorts of
connotations can come out of this painting.......like necrophilia, "black widow", femme
fatale...............
Then 'Unconscious Rivals'......portrays to women who are unconsciously competeing. Like
most women.....can do. The woman that is sitting seems quite picaresque and looks as if
she is plotting something.....seems as if she uses her wit. The other girl with the red
hair seems the type to compete with her vanity.....
.http://metalab.unc.edu/cjackson/alma/p-alma12.htm (Unconscious Rivals)
Ciara
averti
>
> Sorry chris Owens.
Without punctuation I can't tell if you are expressing remorse
or indentifying Chris as a sorry person 8).
>
> Chris have you seen these paintings?
> http://nouveaunet.com/prbpassion/images/labelle.jpg (La Belle Dame Sans Merci)
>
> That painting at that adress. Is cynical because as I have interoreted it...
Tee hee!! In the face of that, what can we say. I gues that
makes Ciara a maroon--more than one person has ''interoreted''
her as being so 8).
>she is
> putting in a pin in which she has used to kill the Soldier. Need I say more.
No, never again, on any subject.
You MIGHT take moment to research the story behind the picture.
>All sorts of
> connotations can come out of this painting.......
Imagaine that.
>like necrophilia, "black widow", femme
> fatale...............
I never heard of a necrophile who stuck pins in people to make
them dead so that she would have somebody to date, but whatever.
The rest of your associations are some 100 years later,
culturally--or 150 years: it would be a real feat of magic,
this ability of victorian painters to predictively insert
subtext aimed at 21st century viewers.
>
> Then 'Unconscious Rivals'......portrays to women who are unconsciously competeing.
Stunning.
>Like
> most women.....can do. The woman that is sitting seems quite picaresque and looks as if
> she is plotting something.....seems as if she uses her wit. The other girl with the red
> hair seems the type to compete with her vanity.....
None of which has much to do with cynicism.
> .http://metalab.unc.edu/cjackson/alma/p-alma12.htm (Unconscious Rivals)
>
> Ciara
You might, as I say, look into the historical context of this
school (loosely interpreted) of art. It's pretty darn
interesting and complex in a number of ways that were
everyday topics among Victorians, but have largely been
lost in modern times.
--
Mugwump--one who sits on the fence
with his mug on one side and his wump on the other.
averti
>
> Ciara Victoria Solheim wrote:
> >
> > I have found cynisism existing in PR.
> >
> > 1. Unconscious Rivals by Sir Lawrence Alma Tadema
> > 2.La Belle Dame Sans Merci by Frank Cadogan Cowper
> >
> > And most of the PR potrayals of young men being summoned by mermaids..
I can think of many interpretations, but it never dawned
on me that there could be cynical mermaids. I mean, they're
so OBVIOUS.
>or just women
> > that are painted according to one of Keats poems..(i think it was Keats).....
> >
> > And what about the Lady of Shalott.
>
The Aurthurian legends are a lot of things, but cynical is
not one of them. Please feel free to attempt to demonstrate
otherwise--hopefully rising above ''Because I say so'' and
''It's obvious, doody head.'' if you can.
> Why do you find these images cynical?
>
> > So Chris Owens.....do not speak of ignorance.
>
> I neither spoke nor wrote of it. You might want to learn how to follow
> attributions; you were responding to Averti's post.
Maybe she's pleading with you to not speak of her ignorance
_generally_.
>
> Chris Owens
averti
>
> I have found cynisism existing in PR.
>
> 1. Unconscious Rivals by Sir Lawrence Alma Tadema
> 2.La Belle Dame Sans Merci by Frank Cadogan Cowper
>
> that are painted according to one of Keats poems..(i think it was Keats).....
>
> And what about the Lady of Shalott.
To say nothing of the Gurl of Leeks or the Bimbo of
Scallions.
>
> So Chris Owens.....do not speak of ignorance. I may not be all omniscient in ART but I
> know enough to say that everyone has there impression of according and that is
> according there life experience and backround.
_I_ don't even know enough to say that. If I could figger out
what it means.
>
> Ciara
fried
wrote:
>
>
>Sorry chris Owens.
>
>Chris have you seen these paintings?
>http://nouveaunet.com/prbpassion/images/labelle.jpg (La Belle Dame Sans Merci)
>
>That painting at that adress. Is cynical because as I have interoreted it...she is
>putting in a pin in which she has used to kill the Soldier. Need I say more. All sorts of
>connotations can come out of this painting.......like necrophilia, "black widow", femme
>fatale...............
>
>Then 'Unconscious Rivals'......portrays to women who are unconsciously competeing. Like
>most women.....can do. The woman that is sitting seems quite picaresque and looks as if
>she is plotting something.....seems as if she uses her wit. The other girl with the red
>hair seems the type to compete with her vanity.....
>.http://metalab.unc.edu/cjackson/alma/p-alma12.htm (Unconscious Rivals)
So these artists were informed by......and in some senses encoded within
their paintings the obseessive and sometimes inwarding-turning qualities of
their own personal lives - delving into their own humanity, asking or
confronting people with hard questions, which seem to have quite a lot of
contemporary relevance.
I am doing just the same thing by making perhaps unwarranted assertions
about them in their lives and paintings, as a handle for my own meditations
- fascinating post Ciara by the way. There is a world of difference between
faithfully representing your own life in a book or image, and extrapolating
insights or fictional alternative views.
Of course we all then read things into this. You read cynicism, I think I
read sadness or nostalgia, a sort of timelessness. Either way, the paintings
are thick with emotional expressiveness, almost demanding to be interpreted.
What I like is that the pre-raphaelites were painting in an age when there
was a crisis of self-confidence among artists, because of the advent of
photography. So they did something which photography couldn't do, or which,
if it could do it, they could probably do better........and they did it in a
photographic manner, yet not so. They had a fairly profound insight which is
fresh today, in the same way....
Julian
>
>Ciara
>
>
averti
> >> >Ciara Victoria Solheim wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> were sexist and condscending?
> >> >
> >> >No. Why do you ask?
> >>
> >> I don't know why Ciara asks, but I am aware of a considerable degree of bad
> >> behaviour, sad stories and objectification of women in the private lives of
> >> some of the pre-raphaelites.
> >
> >''According to my own, 20th century revisionist standards'' I'm sure
> >you meant to say 8).
>
> Hi, Onion Face, I'm getting quite fond of you %)).
Does that affect how you treat and respect other people?
>No, I didn't mean to say
> that. I think she committed suicide.
Alexa Wilding? Dunno. Chatterton committed suicide, but he was
a pre-Raphealite _subject_, not a card-carrying member.
>The Pre-Raphaelites were in any case
> intellectuals,
Um, I'll give you that, though by the standards of the day,
their independence came more from having the money to be
eccentric than it did from having any kind of formal
''intellectual'' status. Blake, for example, worked pretty
close to the same side of the street in many areas, and
he was perceived as an impecunious nutcase.
>fairly determined to live outside a lot of the norms of their
> society.
Yep. Polyamory hadn't been codified, so sharing wives and
girl friends was called just that 8).
> >
> >At the time, much of the art world and art patron world thought PR art
> >was TOO explicit, emotionally frank, and woman-oriented.
> >
> >Bad behavior, or ''Bad Behavior'', is not about the art that was
> >produced, but about the people who did the work, no?
>
> Oh yes, tell that to Dorian Gray.
Huh? There never has been such a person. Do you imply that
there is something artistically ''wrong'' with Wildes'
writing because he had a flaky private life and served
a stretch in jail? I can't follow your train of thought
here.
>Stop lecturing, or hectoring, or whatever
> it is you are doing.
You first. I suspect you feel hectored quite often, when you
say something irritatingly clueless and somebody replies
in a more fact-oriented manner.
>Art is not just one thing, but some people put
> themselves into their work. Any objections?
No.
>
> >It appears
> >mostly to be in late 20th century America that any substantial
> >body of people seem to think that what somebody does when they are
> >not making art somehow impinges on the quality or characteristics
> >of the art itself.
>
> Is it? Well, you obviously know best.
>
Maturity wins the day, then.
> >But then, there are people who STILL won't buy Volkswagens,
> >even those made in South America, because of bitter memories
> >from 50 or 60 years ago.
>
> Tell you what, let's compartmentalise everything. So much tidier.
>
> >Perhaps all the wealthy collectors should turn back in their
> >Van Goghs and Picasso's. After all, lunatics, cocksmen, and
> >egotists can't possibly produce ''decent'' art.
>
> No, I've got a better idea, let's all fawn over them, worship their cocks,
> and raise them on a pedestal.
Well, that's it for me.
>
> Julian
>
> >>I also would be interested to know.
> >>
> >> Julian
> >> >
> >> >Chris Owens
> >
> >--
> >Shut up, he explained.
> >
> >
--
fried
>> >> I don't know why Ciara asks, but I am aware of a considerable degree of bad
>> >> behaviour, sad stories and objectification of women in the private lives of
>> >> some of the pre-raphaelites.
>> >
>> >''According to my own, 20th century revisionist standards'' I'm sure
>> >you meant to say 8).
>>
>>No, I didn't mean to say
>> that. I think she committed suicide.
>
>Alexa Wilding? Dunno. Chatterton committed suicide, but he was
>a pre-Raphealite _subject_, not a card-carrying member.
The one who was **** Dante **** something's woman and a poet. Chatterton's
dates: 1752-70, unless we are talking about a different one. Pre-Raphaelites
active mid-19th century.
>
>>The Pre-Raphaelites were in any case
>> intellectuals,
>
>Um, I'll give you that, though by the standards of the day,
>their independence came more from having the money to be
>eccentric than it did from having any kind of formal
>''intellectual'' status. Blake, for example, worked pretty
>close to the same side of the street in many areas, and
>he was perceived as an impecunious nutcase.
Blake: 1757-1827, contemporary of Shelley, participant in the same sort of
Gothicky culture, tinged with religion, not at all the same thing.
>
>>fairly determined to live outside a lot of the norms of their
>> society.
>
>Yep. Polyamory hadn't been codified, so sharing wives and
>girl friends was called just that 8).
or kept fairly quiet.....days and nights steeped in passion, painting models
in studios, or far away in rural idylls.....usual pattern.
>
>> >
>> >At the time, much of the art world and art patron world thought PR art
>> >was TOO explicit, emotionally frank, and woman-oriented.
>> >
>> >Bad behavior, or ''Bad Behavior'', is not about the art that was
>> >produced, but about the people who did the work, no?
>>
>> Oh yes, tell that to Dorian Gray.
>
>Huh? There never has been such a person. Do you imply that
>there is something artistically ''wrong'' with Wildes'
>writing because he had a flaky private life and served
>a stretch in jail? I can't follow your train of thought
>here.
>
I simply meant that to the fictitious Dorian Gray, his painting was the
undisguised horror of his personality, and Oscar Wilde, incidentally,
shortly post-dated the pre-raphaelites..... oh it's bad "behaviour"
hacktually.
>>Stop lecturing, or hectoring, or whatever
>> it is you are doing.
>
>You first. I suspect you feel hectored quite often, when you
>say something irritatingly clueless and somebody replies
>in a more fact-oriented manner.
Well, you got the facts now, didn't get to this bit, honest, before I wrote
them. Hi Hector, meet Hector. I wouldn't mind so much if you didn't lecture
poor sweet, innocent Norwegian girls on their English spelling, just because
they have the audacity to enter into a subject area you know something
about.
>
>>Art is not just one thing, but some people put
>> themselves into their work. Any objections?
>
>No.
>>
>> >It appears
>> >mostly to be in late 20th century America that any substantial
>> >body of people seem to think that what somebody does when they are
>> >not making art somehow impinges on the quality or characteristics
>> >of the art itself.
>>
>> Is it? Well, you obviously know best.
>>
>
>Maturity wins the day, then.
A whiff of sulphur. Anyway, what I meant to say is that this statement by
you is just......well......bites his tongue......I mean when you look at the
pre-raphaelites, it is just singularly inappropriate.
It is a dead interesting subject actually, and I would love it if you told
us more about what you know about it.
Julian
Ciara Victoria Solheim
You both lecture too much. I enjoy the art....without haveing to base all my
enjoyment on the facts although i seek info when i really like the painting.
Relax peoples ...and even though I may live in lala land with my enjoymnet in
seeking aesthetic pleasure......I am not ignorant.
Noa
you dont know how much you right
Ciara Victoria Solheim כתב בהודעה <369A4F51...@dph.no>...
>Anyone think that the pre raphaelites paintings and portrayals of women
>were sexist and condscending?
>
>
cao...@redsuspenders.com
Yes, I am familiar with the paintings.
> http://nouveaunet.com/prbpassion/images/labelle.jpg (La Belle Dame Sans Merci)
>
> That painting at that adress. Is cynical because as I have interoreted
it...she is
> putting in a pin in which she has used to kill the Soldier. Need I say more.
All sorts of
> connotations can come out of this painting.......like necrophilia, "black
widow", femme
> fatale...............
In point of fact, the Belle Dame sans Merci is the prototypical femme fatale
in european culture. In the legend from which this painting derives, the man
dies of a broken heart. But, you still haven't explained how this is
cynical.
> Then 'Unconscious Rivals'......portrays to women who are unconsciously
competeing. Like
> most women.....can do. The woman that is sitting seems quite picaresque and
looks as if
> she is plotting something.....seems as if she uses her wit. The other girl
with the red
> hair seems the type to compete with her vanity.....
And, this is cynical how?
Chris Owens
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
averti
>
> You both lecture too much.
Who both?
And you started it. If you want to unilaterally babble out
your opinions with nobody replying, go talk into the
mirror 8).
>I enjoy the art....without haveing to base all my
> enjoyment on the facts although i seek info when i really like the painting.
Seems both reasonable and effective.
> Relax peoples ...
Seems NEITHER reasonable nor effective.
>and even though I may live in lala land with my enjoymnet in
> seeking aesthetic pleasure......I am not ignorant.
No, I suppose not. You appear to believe and espouse a
remarkable number of ignorant-sounding things, though.
Here is my (unrequested) take: You are using the group to
practice (a) your english, and (b) your thinking ability.
You're kind of not very good at either, which puts you
in the position of being an unfunny standup comedian
on open mike night. If you want to be respected instead
of heckled, FIRST work up your act into some reasonably
respectable shape, and THEN step into the spotlight.
--
Quick as you can, pebble, hand the
grasshopper from my snatch.
fried
>Ciara Victoria Solheim wrote:
>>
>> You both lecture too much.
Fair point, but it's fun :-)). I try not to.
>
>Who both?
Who what where's it gone......come out now you naughty thing
>
>And you started it. If you want to unilaterally babble out
>your opinions with nobody replying, go talk into the
>mirror 8).
>
>>I enjoy the art....without haveing to base all my
>> enjoyment on the facts although i seek info when i really like the painting.
>
>Seems both reasonable and effective.
>
>> Relax peoples ...
>
>Seems NEITHER reasonable nor effective.
>
>>and even though I may live in lala land with my enjoymnet in
>> seeking aesthetic pleasure......I am not ignorant.
>
>No, I suppose not. You appear to believe and espouse a
>remarkable number of ignorant-sounding things, though.
>
Here the irrepressible transatlantic urge to point out the obvious has
obviously taken over.
>Here is my (unrequested) take: You are using the group to
>practice (a) your english, and (b) your thinking ability.
>You're kind of not very good at either, which puts you
>in the position of being an unfunny standup comedian
>on open mike night.
That's nice of you to say so Averti.
>If you want to be respected instead
>of heckled, FIRST work up your act into some reasonably
>respectable shape, and THEN step into the spotlight.
I don't really see any other way of working up a newsgroup act apart from
diving in.
Julian
Ciara Victoria Solheim
cao...@redsuspenders.com wrote:
How?.........Women can be cynical by using there vanity and social wit.
Ciara Victoria Solheim
fried wrote:
> I do not care for respect here. Dogmatic people as youselves would ofcourse not
> see things the way I do.
You are too conservative and pragmatic..-------Ciara Victoria
Ciara Victoria Solheim
Noa wrote:
Noa...you think that they are sexist?
>
> >
fried
wrote:
>> I do not care for respect here. Dogmatic people as youselves would ofcourse not
>> see things the way I do.
>
>You are too conservative and pragmatic..-------Ciara Victoria
>
You think........?
Julian
Ciara Victoria Solheim
fried wrote:
Yes I do. Do you in social gatherings make a strenuous effort of being looked as
intellectual?......My sister does this and she can never relax and gets tired too
fast.
Ciara
fried
wrote:
Methinks you are an ill judge of character <grin>. In a social gathering I
would be more likely to get pissed and make a fool of myself. I really have
the reverse of a desire to make myself look intellectual. You show naivety,
what you perceive as dogmatism is in fact (for the other person you refer to
too probably) position statements leading to discussion.....not that
dissimilar from your own. But you seem to blend your views of people into
each other, as though they were not individuals.
Think again.......
Julian
>Ciara
ave...@hotmail.com
Ciara Victoria Solheim <sol...@dph.no> wrote:
[....]
''And the vocabulary words for today are: ''conservative'' and
''pragmatic.'' Use them in a sentence.''
> You are too conservative and pragmatic..-------Ciara Victoria
>
>
Hey, I'm downright nihilistic and orthogonal.
averti1
Ciara Victoria Solheim wrote in message <36A09442...@dph.no>...
>
>
>fried wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 16 Jan 1999 03:37:25 +0100, Ciara Victoria Solheim
<sol...@dph.no>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> I do not care for respect here. Dogmatic people as youselves would
ofcourse not
>> >> see things the way I do.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Julian
>
>Yes I do. Do you in social gatherings make a strenuous effort of being
looked as
>intellectual?......My sister does this and she can never relax and gets
tired too
>fast.
Words (nearly) fail me. How the HELL does somebody go about
trying to be looked (at) as being ''intellectual?'' Carry around
an encyclopedia?
>
>Ciara
>
>
Ciara Victoria Solheim
averti1 wrote:
> >With your knowledge that you presume to be so worldy....Why can't you
> stop fixating yourself on my english and use a little imagination and wit
> so as to decipher what I mean with what I say.
A person can be go on about trying to be an intellectual It has nothing to
do with an encyclopedia.............but being seudo, quasi.......
fried
>>Yes I do. Do you in social gatherings make a strenuous effort of being
>looked as
>>intellectual?......My sister does this and she can never relax and gets
>tired too
>>fast.
>
>Words (nearly) fail me. How the HELL does somebody go about
>trying to be looked (at) as being ''intellectual?'' Carry around
>an encyclopedia?
>
Wearing glasses.
Julian
>>
>>Ciara
>>
>>
>
>
C. A. Owens
Noa wrote:
>
> well totally yes!
> you dont know how much you right
So, Noa, just HOW are the pre-raphaelite paintings and portrayals of
women sexist?
Chris Owens
C. A. Owens
Ciara Victoria Solheim wrote:
>
> How?.........Women can be cynical by using there vanity and social wit.
Which does not explain how the paintings in question are cynical,
Ciara. Try again.
Chris Owens
C. A. Owens
Ciara Victoria Solheim wrote:
>
> Yes I do. Do you in social gatherings make a strenuous effort of being looked as
> intellectual?
Well, no. I AM an intellectual; it takes no effort to appear to be
one. YOU, OTOH, do not seem to have grasped the essential concept that
being an intellectual requires that one have acquired a body of
knowledge, AND reflected upon it sufficiently to have formed syntheses,
AND be able to express these ideas coherently, concisely, and
substantitatively.
Chris Owens
C. A. Owens
Ciara Victoria Solheim wrote:
>
> > Words (nearly) fail me. How the HELL does somebody go about
> > trying to be looked (at) as being ''intellectual?'' Carry around
> > an encyclopedia?
> >
> > >With your knowledge that you presume to be so worldy....Why can't you
> > stop fixating yourself on my english and use a little imagination and wit
> > so as to decipher what I mean with what I say.
Because language is a precision tool, which you are using as a
sledgehammer. Personally, I don't think it is that you can't
communicate clearly in English; I don't think you can communicate
clearly at all.
> A person can be go on about trying to be an intellectual It has nothing to
> do with an encyclopedia.............but being seudo, quasi.......
Ciara, you are a PERFECT example of a pseudo-intellectual. You assert
positions, then fail to support them.
Chris Owens
averti
>
> Ciara Victoria Solheim wrote:
> >
> > Yes I do. Do you in social gatherings make a strenuous effort of being looked as
> > intellectual?
>
> Well, no. I AM an intellectual; it takes no effort to appear to be
> one.
Oh, I dunno. Sometimes I wear an Einstein mask; to change off
from my Moe Howard mask 8).
> YOU, OTOH, do not seem to have grasped the essential concept that
> being an intellectual requires that one have acquired a body of
> knowledge, AND reflected upon it sufficiently to have formed syntheses,
> AND be able to express these ideas coherently, concisely, and
> substantitatively.
A little respect, please. Its no small thing to ''speak''
six languages and communicate in none.
>
> Chris Owens
averti
[..]
>With your knowledge that you presume to be so worldy....Why can't you
> > stop fixating yourself on my english and use a little imagination and wit
> > so as to decipher what I mean with what I say.
An unusual approach to communication, as I may have
said before. I'm not in the business of decryptation when the
decoded message STILL may not make sense.
It's not your English so much as your sloppy thinking.
>
> A person can be go on about trying to be an intellectual It has nothing to
> do with an encyclopedia.............but being seudo, quasi.......
Well, I have a seude jacket, and your posts often make me
quasi-comatose, so maybe we are getting somewhere.