"Tumbling Woman" Art Shocks NYers
Frank Warner
> "Tumbling Woman" is on display in Rockefeller Center's
> Lower Concourse.
> A violently disturbing sculpture popped up last week in the middle of
> Rock Center's busy underground concourse - right in front of the
> ice-skating rink. It depicts a naked woman, limbs flailing, face
> contorted, at the exact moment her head smacks pavement following her
> leap from the flaming World Trade Center.
No wonder they fly airplanes into our buildings.
Frank Warner
Henry
Frank Warner wrote:
Normal people simply ignore works of art they don't like.
Henry
--
And the star spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O’er the land of the free, and the home of the brave!
Francis Scott Key
YupYup
accurate remberance. The only problem might be that she is nude. I don't
know if any of them stripped before jumping.
"Frank Warner" <waki...@ptd.net> wrote in message
news:c4cba10b.02091...@posting.google.com...
Jim Kennemur
the beholder.
Conservatives want all art to be Norman Rockwell paintings of Elvis done in
velvet.
JK
"eweRN" <ew...@ss.com> wrote in message
news:vgckou88lu0bbsjqe...@4ax.com...
> Americans have to believe that everyone died a Hero. That way, they
> don't have to accept that lives were needlessly snuffed out. Since
> when does being murdered make you a hero? A martyr is more like it.
> But the poor people are still as dead. For them, silly worries like
> that are over. This statue shows the full horror of terrorism. And
> people would rather change to the Disney Channel. Poor self-deluded
> Americans. American civilians don't want to pay the price for
> freedom, they want a bargain.
Andrew Carol
Kennemur <jek...@swbell.net> wrote:
> Robert Mapplethorpe, Piss Christ, Tumbling Woman ... Art is in the eyes of
> the beholder.
>
> Conservatives want all art to be Norman Rockwell paintings of Elvis done in
> velvet.
>
> JK
Artists have the freedom to make it. Conservatives have the freedom to
bitch about it. Of course that means you also get to bitch about them.
I think a lot of conservatives would be happy if the State simply
stayed out of it. Art should not be censured, but likewise tax dollars
should not fund it. It should be a private activity participated in by
anybody and any corporation and any organization that desired to.
Want to make a "Piss Christ"? Convince people to sponser you.
Want to paint family pictures of cute kids? Convince people to sponser
you.
--- Andy
YupYup
calls "art" as long as I do not have to pay for something I do not like!
For the betterment of our society as a whole, we should be given "line item
veto" on where my tax dollars go. I should not be forced to support
something I dislike or am offended by. Neither should ayone else.
"Andrew Carol" <aaca...@coastside.net> wrote in message
news:190920022238484946%aaca...@coastside.net...
Dennis Tetreault
wrote:
>Robert Mapplethorpe, Piss Christ, Tumbling Woman ... Art is in the eyes of
>the beholder.
>
>Conservatives want all art to be Norman Rockwell paintings of Elvis done in
>velvet.
>
Wow. You got that all wrong.
While art can be used to shock, to anger, to irritate, and to provoke,
it can also be used to entice, to create warmth, to inspire, to
glorify the world around us.
I (a conservative) had no issue with Mapplethorpe. I didn't care for
his gay pictures, but the photos of flowers were an incredible work.
Piss Christ I hated. There is no artistic value in it, imho.
Tumbling woman (I've only seen the photos) has a beauty to it, and
it's tragic. I think of it came out 3 years from now it would have
been more easily accepted by the public.
Yes, art is what you make of it. And if all you want is to see the
shit of the world, then all you will create is the shit of art, like
Piss Christ or Tumbling Woman.
Rockwell never did it for me. And certainly not "Elvis".
I pefer Monet, Piccaso, Klempt, Renoir, Escher, Carracci, Reubens,
Gaugin, Debuffet, Smithson, DeStael, Hans Hofman, and Jackson Pollock.
==============
9-11-01
Never forget!!
"Let's Roll!"
John LaVoy
The vast majority of art is created in exactly this way. However, since
there were societies at all, they have sponsored the creaztion of art.
Much of what we know about some societies comes from their public art.
And much of the art we consider touchstones was created under
sponsorship of public bodies.
John LaVoy
YupYup wrote:
>
> I am probably more conservative than most and I don't care what someone
> calls "art" as long as I do not have to pay for something I do not like!
>
> For the betterment of our society as a whole, we should be given "line item
> veto" on where my tax dollars go. I should not be forced to support
> something I dislike or am offended by. Neither should ayone else.
This is, of course, nuts.
>
>
Henry
John LaVoy wrote:
Couldn't we hire some unemloyed characters from the former Soviet Union, those NKVD
people to check out and censor art whenever it "offends the public decency"? After
all the Soviets kept their art away from the decadent West:-
YupYup
support, how about sending me a couple thousand?
"John LaVoy" <jla...@pobox.upenn.edu> wrote in message
news:3D8B4408...@pobox.upenn.edu...
Jim Kennemur
>
>
> Andrew Carol wrote:
> >
> > In article <2hyi9.20139$SF.150...@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>, Jim
> > Kennemur <jek...@swbell.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Robert Mapplethorpe, Piss Christ, Tumbling Woman ... Art is in the
eyes of
> > > the beholder.
> > >
> > > Conservatives want all art to be Norman Rockwell paintings of Elvis
done in
> > > velvet.
> > >
> > > JK
> >
> > Artists have the freedom to make it. Conservatives have the freedom to
> > bitch about it. Of course that means you also get to bitch about them.
> >
> > I think a lot of conservatives would be happy if the State simply
> > stayed out of it. Art should not be censured, but likewise tax dollars
> > should not fund it. It should be a private activity participated in by
> > anybody and any corporation and any organization that desired to.
I feel the same way about religion.
> > Want to make a "Piss Christ"? Convince people to sponser you.
> > Want to paint family pictures of cute kids? Convince people to sponser
> > you.
>
> The vast majority of art is created in exactly this way. However, since
> there were societies at all, they have sponsored the creaztion of art.
> Much of what we know about some societies comes from their public art.
> And much of the art we consider touchstones was created under
> sponsorship of public bodies.
Which hasn't changed since the Middle Ages in Europe or even before that
time in Asia.
JK
Jim Kennemur
"YupYup" <y...@yup.tv> wrote in message
news:nuFi9.75600$TX5.2...@news1.east.cox.net...
> I am probably more conservative than most and I don't care what someone
> calls "art" as long as I do not have to pay for something I do not like!
I feel the same way about the Separation of Church and State.
> For the betterment of our society as a whole, we should be given "line
item
> veto" on where my tax dollars go. I should not be forced to support
> something I dislike or am offended by. Neither should ayone else.
That would be a Direct Democracy.
It doesn't work for large countries.
Or so James Madison and Alexander Hamilton thought.
JK
Wabert Wabo
The only reason they do this is because of they have no technical ability.
Even alot of the rock and roll bands nowadys have absolutly no talent or
singing abilty.
So, they rap and scream and make faces.
Many of the upcoming American and British artists paint with shit and
piss.Their art has only shock value.They aren't artists, they're toiletbowl
cleaners.
Soon they'll make art using puke, or perhaps dead bodies(one of the idiots
is doing that now).
But of course, liberals say that conservatives don't get it, as that dine on
shit with a staute molded in shit with a crucible of piss(no that's poetic)
on their dinning room table, and stare up at a painting made in cow dung.
The only people they are able to impress are other liberals.
Wabert Wabo
"Jim Kennemur" <jek...@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:2hyi9.20139$SF.150...@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
> Robert Mapplethorpe, Piss Christ, Tumbling Woman ... Art is in the eyes of
> the beholder.
>
The phrase is 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder'. Mapplethorpe has such
little imagination.Like his art , he steals from others and claims it as his
own.
Look mom, Im an artist...as I pointed to the toilet bowl before
flushing.
Mom didn't think it was art (fart) , so I 've been telling her that art is
in the eye of the beholder. I've been telling her for 30 years now as I live
in her basement. She knows I'm a liberal. Every day I show her the bowl .One
day she'll believe me.
Henry
Wabert Wabo wrote:
I'm sure that 30 years or 300 no amount of intellect will penetrate the mind of
Wabert Wabo because he "knows" the truth.
YupYup
absolute truth, that my truth and your truth may be different and both are
"truth". Just exactly how can any liberal ever challenge anything that
anyone else has to say without going against that liberal's own "truth"?
"Henry" <her...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3D8BB2E4...@mindspring.com...
Wabert Wabo
years and the truth is, that I am not very good. I do have some talent and I
do know that technique is extremely important.
I guess that you're one of those people that would be impressed if I took
a crap on a bannana peel and stuck it on a canvas. I'm sure that you'd find
the truth some where in it. I'm sure that if it were hung in the NY muse of
fine arts...you'd be extremely impressed.I'm sure you'd want you're hard
earned taxes to subsidize my poop-art.
"Henry" <her...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3D8BB2E4...@mindspring.com...
>
>
Xombi13
"Wabert Wabo" <twow...@videotron.ca> wrote in message
news:CaOi9.27640$3F1.5...@weber.videotron.net...
Yea I know its hard to call some things "art" because someone says it is, I
point to Britney Spears and the Boy Band craze myself. But no matter how
repug-nant it is to write, say, sing, act out, paint, sculpt (or howl like a
dog, see britney) it is a basic first amendment right to do so. No matter
how disgusting it is. Personally I would love to go to a N'suck concert and
lob a hand gernade onstage.
Bad Guy
> The truth is that I am a painter. I do it as a hobbie. I've done it for many
> years and the truth is, that I am not very good. I do have some talent and I
> do know that technique is extremely important.
> I guess that you're one of those people that would be impressed if I took
> a crap on a bannana peel and stuck it on a canvas. I'm sure that you'd find
> the truth some where in it. I'm sure that if it were hung in the NY muse of
> fine arts...you'd be extremely impressed.I'm sure you'd want you're hard
> earned taxes to subsidize my poop-art.
>
And the truth is WW has a shit fixation . . .
Wabert Wabo
Try reading my post again...it's based on these so called artists that our
tax money goes to support.One of em put a crucifix in a beeker of piss and
another made a picture of the virgin Mary using cow dung. But I guess your
mommie doesn't let you watch complicated thing like the news. Only cartoons.
"Bad Guy" <bad_guy@bad_guy.ca> wrote in message
news:3D8BCC15.5F847FBF@bad_guy.ca...
Wabert Wabo
"Xombi13" <war...@psln.com> wrote in message
news:uonglo7...@corp.supernews.com...
Some of these liberals fart and call it art.Farting for a liberal is
free speech but i draw the line when they try to tell us that it;s art.It
isn't art , it's just a fart.
Wabert Wabo
on the corridor wall. There were about 15 murals. My was of Jesus. A bunch
of students freaked out and complained. The art teacher,Gunter Nolte(the
best art teach I ever had) told them that the painting would stay. I got
88/100 for the mural.The following year it was painted over, along with some
of the others.
"Xombi13" <war...@psln.com> wrote in message
news:uonglo7...@corp.supernews.com...
>
Wabert Wabo
Price Monroe
We can survive Hallmark cards, Thomas Kincaid, and Peggy Noonan - so we can
survive this assault on good taste too.
Though I know it seems hard to believe.
>
>Frank Warner
Jim Kennemur
For all you younger Usenet readers Peggy Noonan was one of Ronnie Raygun's
chief lie spinners.
Imagine Ann Coulter only more extreme and clueless.
JK
"Price Monroe " <nos...@UCLA.edu> wrote in message
news:amiar...@enews3.newsguy.com...
John Starrett
>
> BTW, it was done in oil paint....no dung at all was used.
Then by definition, it's not art ;7)
--
John Starrett
John Starrett
>
> Bad-guy, you ever make it to kindergarden?
> Try reading my post again...it's based on these so called artists that our
> tax money goes to support.One of em put a crucifix in a beeker of piss and
> another made a picture of the virgin Mary using cow dung. But I guess your
> mommie doesn't let you watch complicated thing like the news. Only cartoons.
Sooo... you might not think much of this:
http://www.jtwine.com/manzoni.htm
The Tate museum of modern art in London paid $35,000 for one
of these. Who do you think knows better, the curator of one
of the finest art museums in the world, or you? Hmmmmf! I
thought so.
--
John Starrett
Price Monroe
>Many people question that we did survive Peggy Noonan.
>
>For all you younger Usenet readers Peggy Noonan was one of Ronnie Raygun's
>chief lie spinners.
She was fine then.
In fact, she was fine so long as she was in the sex-need market. But then she
got married, had the kid, got divorced and seems to no longer be on the make.
I think that's what went wrong with her.
So that despite her former good writing, now she writes just utterly banal
crap, like God sending the dolphins to save Elian, the smile with the black
driver on the Brooklyn Bridge - all us racial Americans can smile and get
behind our fabulous President Bush tripe.
I think she needs a referral from Madonna about that Latin stud who serviced
her for the baby.
Then maybe she can relearn how to write.
My two cents.
Wabert Wabo
"John Starrett" <jsta...@carbon.cudenver.edu> wrote in message
news:3D8CD9B2...@carbon.cudenver.edu...
Hey John,
You're actually telling me that the curator at the tate museum paid 35,000
for a beeker of piss.And I don't know better that this guy. I've got a
bucket of shit to sell to this guy.I'll take 10,000.And I guess when he
gives it to me, you'll claim my bucket of shit is art because the curator at
the tate gave me 10,000.Also, it must be less art that the beeker of
piss,15000$ lesser art.
John Starrett
> > Sooo... you might not think much of this:
> > http://www.jtwine.com/manzoni.htm
> >
> > The Tate museum of modern art in London paid $35,000 for one
> > of these. Who do you think knows better, the curator of one
> > of the finest art museums in the world, or you? Hmmmmf! I
> > thought so.
> >
> > --
> > John Starrett
>
> Hey John,
> You're actually telling me that the curator at the tate museum paid 35,000
> for a beeker of piss.And I don't know better that this guy. I've got a
> bucket of shit to sell to this guy.I'll take 10,000.And I guess when he
> gives it to me, you'll claim my bucket of shit is art because the curator at
> the tate gave me 10,000.Also, it must be less art that the beeker of
> piss,15000$ lesser art.
No, he paid $35,000 for a can of shit, so you're out of luck
there. What I thought was so cool is that the artist who
canned the shit said that the point of this project was that
an artist could label anything as art and some sucker would
pay money for it. And he was right! Delicious turnaround.
Well, maybe "delicious" is not quite the word to use...
--
John Starrett
Wabert Wabo
why not get together with some of your friends fil up a bunch of
cans.At 35,000$ a shot, you could never have to work again in your life.
I've got some ideas: eat plenty of bran; a can of that stuff would make a
really profound statement about todays society and many of those so called
'admirers of modern art' could stand around and anal-yse the work in
amazment.
Swallowing balloons filled with white powder would give amazing results.
As would a couple of pounds of ex-lax.
A bunch of small pointed children's toys would make a wonderous statement.
Perhaps a buch of CPU's from old computers...that would really stun them and
could possibly bring in 100,000$.
Adding a little used toilet paper would just top it off.
"John Starrett" <jsta...@carbon.cudenver.edu> wrote in message
news:3D8E3AA6...@carbon.cudenver.edu...
Wabert Wabo
Alot of people seemed to have thought that it was crap:does that count?
:)
John LaVoy
YupYup wrote:
>
> as are you. Since you enjoy throwing your money away on things you do not
> support, how about sending me a couple thousand?
Given the likelihood that you exist on a monthly welfare stipend, I am
sure I do already. But seriously folks, it's a basic civics lesson, much
like the one George Bush wants to be taught more often in schools. We
all pay for things we personally do not approve of. That is so other
people will also pay for things we approve of and they do not. In order
to decide what gets paid for an what does not, we elect representatives.
That is how America was created, not as a direct democracy but as a
republican representative democracy. Your argument is not with how
money gets spent: your argument is with the very nature of America.
But I do like the line item veto idea for tax dollars: that way we could
all veto all our lines and live in a state of anarchy.
Wabert Wabo
>
>
> YupYup wrote:
> >
snip>
We all pay for things we personally do not approve of. That is so other
> people will also pay for things we approve of and they do not.
Most of these things (waste of taxpayers money) like buying 'crappie art' is
done
by bureaucratic lunatics.They are not elected. Most citizens think that
supporting
artists with taxpayer money is ok.The politician comes out in support of
this idea or against it.We vote for the side we believe in.(most of the time
these smaller issues get lost in the shuffle)The problem arises when the
bureaucrates show their incompetence.
Like paying 2,000,000,000$ for military toothpicks.or 35,000$ for 'crap
art'.
John LaVoy
Wabert Wabo wrote:
>
> Most of these things (waste of taxpayers money) like buying 'crappie art' is
> done
> by bureaucratic lunatics.They are not elected. Most citizens think that
> supporting
> artists with taxpayer money is ok.The politician comes out in support of
> this idea or against it.We vote for the side we believe in.(most of the time
> these smaller issues get lost in the shuffle)The problem arises when the
> bureaucrates show their incompetence.
> Like paying 2,000,000,000$ for military toothpicks.or 35,000$ for 'crap
> art'.
The 2 billion dollar toothpick is incompetence. Buying "crap" art is
matter of taste. Most of the things funded by public dollars are, in my
judgement, crap. But they are crap becuase they are too accetable, too
inoffensive. You might think the opposite. I don't complain about the
Norman Rockwell crap that gets purchased specifically so that some more
challenging art gets purchased.
In teh case of the falling woman, I think it was a fine piece, and it
was NOT inappropriate. What's inappropriate is failing to have a
reminder of that day out there to see. Forgetting is a lot riskier than
remembering.
YupYup
"Wabert Wabo" <twow...@videotron.ca> wrote in message
news:kS_j9.7420$Cg5.3...@wagner.videotron.net...
YupYup
Also - what makes you think that I "exist on a monthly welfare stipend".
You are a little too quick to jump to conclusions.
But what else can anyone expect of you if you really believe the crap you
spew?
"John LaVoy" <jla...@pobox.upenn.edu> wrote in message
news:3D908198...@pobox.upenn.edu...
John LaVoy
YupYup wrote:
>
> double negatives - interesting.
>
> Also - what makes you think that I "exist on a monthly welfare stipend".
Your inability to address the issue at hand combined with your humor
deficit disorder. These things almost always lead one to public
assistance.
> You are a little too quick to jump to conclusions.
It would seem that way to one who is too slow to draw conclusions at
all.
> But what else can anyone expect of you if you really believe the crap you
> spew?
Seeing as you haven't addressed any of the issues, no one is likely to
know what you are talking about. So how about it? Is a difference in
artistic taste a sign of incompetence? Should all art bought with public
funds have to be acceptable to each and every citizen? And most
importantly, do you think it is better to remember the agony of
September 11th or to have reminders hidden away or sugar coated so as
not to offend anyone?
John LaVoy
Jim Kennemur wrote:
>
>
> Imagine Ann Coulter only more extreme and clueless.
Sorry, I tried but I just couldn't do it.
>
YupYup
Each artist or student thereof should pay their own way or find a sponsor
who will support and fund them in whatever they are trying to express.
Such things are not required to support the nations and I doubt the founding
fathers ever dreamed about taxing the people to pay some jerk to can his own
waste and call it art.
If you are so set on these things, keep at it but you had best stop slamming
folks you do not know the way you have been.
As for me, you have just joined the other idiots in my ignore list.
So go away! I am all done with you and your garbage.
"John LaVoy" <jla...@pobox.upenn.edu> wrote in message
news:3D90A595...@pobox.upenn.edu...
Wabert Wabo
I think it's not a bad looking statue. But why would someone a create statue
of a woman crashing face first into the ground. I watched in horror as
people were jumping from twc.
After contemplating on why they were doing this , I tried placing myself in
their position.I know that I can't feel what they really felt but I tried to
imagine it. First of all
they must have been suffocating, or burning. They grasped at a few more
seconds of life.They knew they were dying as they fell.
They probably placed their souls in the hands of their God and lept to
their death.
Now, getting back to motive for the statue. The artist must have know that
it would cause controversy, especially such a short time after the horrific
events of 911.The artist must have contemplated on the(her) creation for
some time.Why on earth would one create such a shocking piece of art?
I don't see too many conclusions that one can come to.It isn't possible
in my mind that she didn't realize the shocking effect it would have.Was
part of the reason, for it's shock value?
"John LaVoy" <jla...@pobox.upenn.edu> wrote in message
news:3D908198...@pobox.upenn.edu...
Henry
government offices in Moscow and everything that resembles beauty,beautiful
architecture,stamps,Post Offices etc. should be artless.
How dull and boring.
YupYup wrote:
--
Henry
posts concerning it indicates that it has an impact on you as a viewer.
Wabert Wabo wrote:
--
YupYup
Just watch - I bet this "artist" gets a bucket of cash for this thing, plus
the talk show circuit, and all the rest.
"Wabert Wabo" <twow...@videotron.ca> wrote in message
news:LR6k9.15013$aQ2.3...@weber.videotron.net...
YupYup
indirectly - the publicity alone is worth millions.
Doesn't matter if he has it entombed with him when he dies, the world now
knows more of him, so there will be more cash coming into him.
"Marilyn Welch" <mwe...@islandnet.com> wrote in message
news:3D91113A...@islandnet.com...
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> YupYup wrote:
>
> > I believe the reason was the one we all know...MONEY!
>
> WRONG.
> The statue was on loan to Rockefeller Center.
>
> >
> >
> > Just watch - I bet this "artist" gets a bucket of cash for this thing,
plus
> > the talk show circuit, and all the rest.
> >
>
> You could have saved yourself the trouble of this ill-informed post
> by a Google search:
>
> http://www.ericfischl.com/
>
> Fischl is an internationally known artist, with a brilliant body of work
> behind him. His work is collected by major galleries and museums.
>
>
>
> > "Wabert Wabo" <twow...@videotron.ca> wrote in message
> > news:LR6k9.15013$aQ2.3...@weber.videotron.net...
> > > I am very suspicious of the motive behind the 'falling woman'.First of
> > all,
> > > I think it's not a bad looking statue. But why would someone a create
> > statue
> > > of a woman crashing face first into the ground. I watched in horror as
> > > people were jumping from twc.
>
> The artist Eric Fischl watched too and wrote a poem on the base of the
> statue,
>
> "We watched,
> disbelieving and helpless,
> on that savage day.
> People we love
> began falling
> helpless and in disbelief."
>
> The statue was an expression of his witnessing the horror
> and distilling it into one intense image. It was his memorial
> to those who fell. But maybe the timing was wrong, as
> many people were not receptive.
>
> >
> > > After contemplating on why they were doing this , I tried placing
myself
> > in
> > > their position.I know that I can't feel what they really felt but I
tried
> > to
> > > imagine it. First of all
> > > they must have been suffocating, or burning. They grasped at a few
more
> > > seconds of life.They knew they were dying as they fell.
> > > They probably placed their souls in the hands of their God and lept
to
> > > their death.
> > > Now, getting back to motive for the statue. The artist must have
know
> > that
> > > it would cause controversy, especially such a short time after the
> > horrific
> > > events of 911.
>
> http://www.ericfischl.com/
>
> Eric Fischl is not a stranger to controversy.
>
> > The artist must have contemplated on the(her) creation for
> > > some time.Why on earth would one create such a shocking piece of art?
>
> Because he was memorializing an intensely shocking event such
> as the United States has never known before. He was there when
> it happened, saw the people jumping with his own eyes.
>
> >
> > > I don't see too many conclusions that one can come to.It isn't
possible
> > > in my mind that she didn't realize the shocking effect it would
have.Was
> > > part of the reason, for it's shock value?
> > >
> >
>
> The artist is male.
> Before doing a critique on a work of art, you might want to know what
> you are talking about by doing a search on the artist who is very well
> known.
>
> http://www.ericfischl.com/
>
> MW
>
coyotes rand mair fheal
<y...@yup.tv> wrote:
> NONE of the "art" should be bought or supported with public funds.
the people decide what is done with public funds
> Such things are not required to support the nations and I doubt the founding
> fathers ever dreamed about taxing the people to pay some jerk to can his own
> waste and call it art.
in their time it was expected the rich would fund a rich arts culture
for the benefit of the entiure society
John LaVoy
YupYup wrote:
>
> NONE of the "art" should be bought or supported with public funds.
The people should decide what is done with public funds: they have and
will support public art expenses.
> Each artist or student thereof should pay their own way or find a sponsor
> who will support and fund them in whatever they are trying to express.
This is your opinion regarding public art. It has no more validity than
any other opinion. Seeing as you have chosen to avoid engagin in an
actual discussion of the subject, it does not seem to be a partcularly
well supported opinion.
> Such things are not required to support the nations and I doubt the founding
> fathers ever dreamed about taxing the people to pay some jerk to can his own
> waste and call it art.
But I doubt they imagined an artless, drab public culture either. I am
quite certain they imagined, for example, cities with public parks and
gardens, public sculptures, etc. I am equally certain they imagined
public buildings as highly artistic enterprises.
> If you are so set on these things, keep at it but you had best stop slamming
> folks you do not know the way you have been.
If you are so thin-skinned you had best avoid the give and take of
usenet. Alternately, engage the issues rather than issue opinions.
> As for me, you have just joined the other idiots in my ignore list.
This from a guy named Yup-Yup? Your response is all too typical of
those who have an artless view of society, i.e., ignore anybody who has
a more sophisticated view of the world.
>
John LaVoy
Wabert Wabo wrote:
>
> I am very suspicious of the motive behind the 'falling woman'.First of all,
> I think it's not a bad looking statue. But why would someone a create statue
> of a woman crashing face first into the ground. I watched in horror as
> people were jumping from twc.
> After contemplating on why they were doing this , I tried placing myself in
> their position.I know that I can't feel what they really felt but I tried to
> imagine it. First of all
> they must have been suffocating, or burning. They grasped at a few more
> seconds of life.They knew they were dying as they fell.
> They probably placed their souls in the hands of their God and lept to
> their death.
> Now, getting back to motive for the statue. The artist must have know that
> it would cause controversy, especially such a short time after the horrific
> events of 911.The artist must have contemplated on the(her) creation for
> some time.Why on earth would one create such a shocking piece of art?
> I don't see too many conclusions that one can come to.It isn't possible
> in my mind that she didn't realize the shocking effect it would have.Was
> part of the reason, for it's shock value?
I recall very vividly the dispute generated by teh Viet Name Veteran's
Memorial. It was a travesty. A shock. Disrespectful. Disgusting. You
name it. It is now universally acclaimed as one of the most moving and
dramatic pieces of public art and memorial anywhere in the world. Even
my younger kids, who saw it this summer for the first time, were moved
by it. And they know nothing of Viet Nam. This is one thing public art
is supposed to do: help us remember not just the news story, but the
emotional imapct of the event.
What you feel as "shocking" isn't shock. What you are feeling is the
impact of the work. It has already caused you to recall what you saw and
how you felt. That's its purpose. If we don't have that kind of
powerful art to remind us of 9-11, we will turn 9-11 into another
memorial day. If you want 9-11 to end up as just another three day
weekend, fine. Hide away the things that have an impact. But if you want
to remember it for what it was and what it should mean, you will need
pieces of art like that.
Is it too soon? No! We have already started to forget.
>
AntisDoLie
> Conservatives want all art to be Norman Rockwell paintings of Elvis done in
> velvet.
Nah, its just that Conservatives don't see how the First Amendment
guarantees a government paycheck to piss-poor artists that can't sell
their "art" or get someone to sponsor it.
Jim
AntisDoLie
> YupYup wrote:
> >
> > as are you. Since you enjoy throwing your money away on things you do not
> > support, how about sending me a couple thousand?
>
> Given the likelihood that you exist on a monthly welfare stipend, I am
> sure I do already. But seriously folks, it's a basic civics lesson, much
> like the one George Bush wants to be taught more often in schools. We
> all pay for things we personally do not approve of.
Yeah, but we are SUPPOSED to pay only for things that the Constitution
authorizes the government to do.
Last time I checked, giving money to non-marketable artists so they
don't have to work at McDonalds to buy their own SuperSculpy wasn't an
authorized power.
Jim
AntisDoLie
> > For the betterment of our society as a whole, we should be given "line
> > item veto" on where my tax dollars go. I should not be forced to support
> > something I dislike or am offended by. Neither should ayone else.
> That would be a Direct Democracy.
>
> It doesn't work for large countries.
>
> Or so James Madison and Alexander Hamilton thought.
Yeah, but they certainly didn't grant authority to the fed government
to give tax money to people so they can make "art" that nobody wants
to buy.
Jim
Henry
AntisDoLie wrote:
Why is it we see tons of beautiful National Parks still being enjoyed by generations of Americans that were built by
CCC, WPA and other projects that you would have considered " government paycheck to piss-poor workers".
Henry
French, German, English and other artists have talent and value?
AntisDoLie wrote:
--
coyotes rand mair fheal
> > > item veto" on where my tax dollars go. I should not be forced to support
> > > something I dislike or am offended by. Neither should ayone else.
>
> > That would be a Direct Democracy.
no it would be nondemocracy
the community as whole pools together resources
and the community as a whole decides what to do with them
a few people are disgruntled
but the majority are getting what they want
YupYup
"coyotes rand mair fheal" <mair_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:mair_fheal-25...@c78.ppp.tsoft.com...
AntisDoLie
> > Nah, its just that Conservatives don't see how the First Amendment
> > guarantees a government paycheck to piss-poor artists that can't sell
> > their "art" or get someone to sponsor it.
> Why is it we see tons of beautiful National Parks still being enjoyed by
> generations of Americans that were built by CCC, WPA and other projects that
> you would have considered " government paycheck to piss-poor workers".
Workers? Where did I say workers?
Tell me, do you NOT see a differance between someone being paid by the
government to do something and someone getting a government subsidy to
produce non-marketable garbage for the sole benefit of uplifting his
self-esteem?
Jim
AntisDoLie
> So you think that American artists are crap and belong slinging hash in
> McDonalds but imported French, German, English and other artists have talent
> and value?
Um, no, but I'd be interested in knowing how you drew that conclusion
from what I said.
Was is LSD?
A serious head injury?
Perhaps you are a student of Mitch?
Jim
Henry
AntisDoLie wrote:
Maybe I got the idea from your exact quote Jim "Yeah, but they certainly didn't grant
authority to the fed government to give tax money to people so they can make "art" that
nobody wants to buy."
Jim
>
>
Henry
AntisDoLie wrote:
Or maybe your exact quote Jim "Tell me, do you NOT see a differance between someone being
paid by the government to do something and someone getting a government subsidy to produce
non-marketable garbage for the sole benefit of uplifting his self-esteem?"
>
>
AntisDoLie
> > > So you think that American artists are crap and belong slinging hash in
> > > McDonalds but imported French, German, English and other artists have
> > > talent and value?
> > Um, no, but I'd be interested in knowing how you drew that conclusion
> > from what I said.
> >
> > Was is LSD?
> > A serious head injury?
> > Perhaps you are a student of Mitch?
> Maybe I got the idea from your exact quote Jim "Yeah, but they certainly
> didn't grant authority to the fed government to give tax money to people so
> they can make "art" that nobody wants to buy."
You haven't answered the question. I can understand why.
How about this:
Why, exactly, does an artist need tax money? Can't he get a sponsor
or sell his art to make a living?
The answer, of course is:
Sure he can, if he can find people willing to buy his art. If not, he
finds the nearest lib-dem politician and gets on the public dole.
Jim
AntisDoLie
> > Um, no, but I'd be interested in knowing how you drew that conclusion
> > from what I said.
> >
> > Was is LSD?
> > A serious head injury?
> > Perhaps you are a student of Mitch?
>
> Or maybe your exact quote Jim "Tell me, do you NOT see a differance between
> someone being paid by the government to do something and someone getting a
> government subsidy to produce non-marketable garbage for the sole benefit of
> uplifting his self-esteem?"
Once again you haven't anwered the question. The first, nor that one
for the matter.
I shall assume LSD until otherwise notified.
But, tell me, how long have you been a psychic? I mean, you made a
(false) determination based on something I hadn't even said at the
time.
Amazing.
Jim
Wabert Wabo
in a continuous motion, claiming to be a work of art and claiming to be a
memorial to the victims of the wtc tragedy.
And if you criticized it, i'd just say"The fact that you are fascinated by
the artwork and have written many posts concerning it indicates that it has
an impact on you as a viewer.
Duh!
"Henry" <her...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3D90FFAA...@mindspring.com...
Henry
Wabert Wabo
"Henry" <her...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3D939333...@mindspring.com...
al953
"John Starrett" <jsta...@carbon.cudenver.edu> wrote in message
news:3D8CD9B2...@carbon.cudenver.edu...
> Wabert Wabo wrote:
> >
> > Bad-guy, you ever make it to kindergarden?
> > Try reading my post again...it's based on these so called artists that
our
> > tax money goes to support.One of em put a crucifix in a beeker of piss
and
> > another made a picture of the virgin Mary using cow dung. But I guess
your
> > mommie doesn't let you watch complicated thing like the news. Only
cartoons.
> <snip>
>
> Sooo... you might not think much of this:
> http://www.jtwine.com/manzoni.htm
>
> The Tate museum of modern art in London paid $35,000 for one
> of these. Who do you think knows better, the curator of one
> of the finest art museums in the world, or you? Hmmmmf! I
> thought so.
>
> --
If the curator of thr Tate museum paid $35,000 for a can of shit, he's an
asshole who should be fired or demoted to toilet cleaner.
> John Starrett