Why Baudrillard hates postmodernism (1)
Mounard Le Fougueux
...
As long as art was making use of its own dissappearance and the
disappearance of its object, it was still a major enterprise. But art
trying to recycle itself by storming reality? The majority of
contemporary art has attempted to do prcisely that by confiscating
banality, waste and mediocrity as values and ideologies. These countless
installations and performances are merely compromising with the state of
things, and with all the past forms of art history. Raising banality,
originality and nullity to the level of values or even to perverse
aethetic pleasure.
Of course, all of this mediocrity claims to transcend itself by moving
art to a second, ironic level. But it is just as empty and insignificant
on the second as on the first level. The passage to the aesthetic level
salvages nothing; on the contrary, it is mediocrity squared. It claims
to be null - "I am null! I am null!" -- AND IT TRULY IS NULL.
Therein lies all the duplicity of contemporary art; asserting nullity,
insignificance, meaninglessness, STRIVING FOR NULLITY WHEN ALREADY NULL
AND VOID. Striving for emptyness when already empty. Claiming
superficiality in superficial terms.
Nullity, however is a secret quality that cannot just be claimed by
anyone. Insignificance - real insignificance, the victorious challange
to meaning, the shedding of sense, the art of the dissappearance of
meaning - is the rare quality of a few exceptional works that never
strive for it. There is an initiatory form of Nothingness, or an
initiatory form of Evil. And then there are the inside traders, the
counterfeiters of nullity, the snobs of nullity, and all those who
prostitute Nothingness to value, who prostitute Evil for useful ends.
THE COUNTERFEITERS MUST NOT BE ALLOWED FREE REIGN.
--------------------------------------------------
*Anarcissie*
On Jan 27, 11:33 am, Mounard Le Fougueux
<blinkingCur...@NonEventHorizon.com> wrote:
> [The Conspiracy of Art - 1996]
>
> ...
> As long as art was making use of its own dissappearance and the
> disappearance of its object, it was still a major enterprise. But art
> trying to recycle itself by storming reality? The majority of
> contemporary art
-
How can Baudrillard possibly know about "the majority of
contemporary art"? Probably millions of people were making
art on the day B. wrote those words. He seems to be talking
about a fashion in the upscale art markets of major Western
cities, already fading out in 1996, and irrelevant to most
people beyond the speculators and galleries who served them.
-
*Anarcissie*
> On Jan 27, 5:29 pm, "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 27, 11:33 am, Mounard Le Fougueux<blinkingCur...@NonEventHorizon.com> wrote:
> > > [The Conspiracy of Art - 1996]
> > How can Baudrillard possibly know about "the majority of
> > contemporary art"? Probably millions of people were making
> > art on the day B. wrote those words. He seems to be talking
> > about a fashion in the upscale art markets of major Western
> > cities, already fading out in 1996, and irrelevant to most
> > people beyond the speculators and galleries who served them.
-
> That hyper-literal understanding of yours always turns around to bite
> you in the end, doesn't it, Cissy Pants? How can you be either so
> disingenuous or silly (take your pick) as to suppose that commentary
> directed toward one thing cannot have relevance to another? Jesus
> Christ!
>
> One finds people arguing like this only when they're feeling defensive
> about something near and dear to their silly possessive hearts. It's
> kind of like poking one's fingers in the ears and screaming.
>
> And how is it even possible that a person exposed to the rigors of
> higher education can behave like this??? Give me a break! Get
> objective for the crissake. OR have your brains been scrambled so bad
> by the contemporary regime of a totally piss poor intellectual culture
> that you view such as an impossibility?
>
-
I gave up on your contribution when you said there was no
music in Hip-hop. Clearly, you have no idea what you're
talking about, and I've had quite enough babble lately.
As for Baudrillard, his maunderings about the art world
seem unsalvageable as well. We know the rich and their
servitors are largely vacuous -- so what else is new? I
just wanted to point out that there's another huge world
out there which B. and those who bother to read him
seem to be overlooking, incredible as it may seem, which
renders both his subject and his comments insignificant.
Yeah, I hate present-tense narrative too. But it isn't
because of its abandonment of the wonderful Indo-
European tense system, but because of its aura
of trite breathlessness borrowed from movie scripts.
It's a shame to see talented authors get sucked into
using it. It's just one of my cranks, though, I don't
have a theory about it.
I don't think Baudrillard's remarks have anything to
do with that, anyway.
-
> Take that drippy postmodern backward cap off your poor sad
> indoctrinated noggin and wash it in the pure waters of disinterested
> reason,
>
> Here is the only material relevant to this discussion extant as of
> yet. Let's see you show some sort of ostensible balls and deal with
> it . . .
>
> Oh well. In any case, what monsieur is saying extends just as well to
> literature, fashion and music. Has there ever been a better example of
> postmodernism in music, than from the music in which there is no
> music, namely "Hip Hop"?
>
> And fashion? Just look at the drab, artless manner in which people are
> dressing these days, for example: where is the meaning, or shall we
> say the *telos*, or purpose--what is the idea--in sleeves that are so
> long that they extend over the hands getting in the way of one's
> dexterity and movement? And trousers that drag under the heels of the
> wearer?
>
> During the modernist era, when you saw people who looked like that,
> you thought that maybe there'd been a wreck of the 'Special Ed' bus
> somewhere, and such people as were not meant to be out in public
> wandering around loose, actually were.
>
> And literature? We get the pomo fad of all this abysmally artless
> exposition in present tense, and it's like the difference between
> sketching in charcoal and painting in oil. Such prose doesn't touch
> reality which *is* tensed, nuanced with past motions and future
> intentions. It is irrational to attempt a description of events in
> 'real time' by such cretinously limited means as present tense, seeing
> that it might strenuously be argued, metaphysically, let alone quantum
> mechanically, if not relativistically that there is no such thing as
> the "present", just so surely as one never hears a voice, or sees a
> thing until it is in the past, after waves of light and sound have
> propagated. Everything we do is already done by the time anyone is
> made aware of it--even consciousness itself is delayed by the speed of
> synapse. We are always acting and responding to life in the past, we
> live after the fact in terms of intentions directed to the future.
>
> Prose exposition centered around past tense is the most rational,
> reality based form of the craft. And if any should doubt but that
> writing which involves a carefully crafted flux of all the tenses,
> past, present, perfect, subjunctive, imperfect, future and conditional
> can be up to the task of creating the hottest, freshest illusion of
> the 'now', they need only be exposed to how, ever so elegantly, it is
> actually being done by none but the finest craftsman extant in the
> art . . .
>
> http://vignettes-mackie.blogspot.com/
> "Private Eyes" a serial crime novel, presently in the act of being
> perpetrated.
> --
> Mackie
James Whitehead
"*Anarcissie*" <anarc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1169940593.8...@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> On Jan 27, 11:33 am, Mounard Le Fougueux
> <blinkingCur...@NonEventHorizon.com> wrote:
> > [The Conspiracy of Art - 1996]
> >
> > ...
> > As long as art was making use of its own dissappearance and the
> > disappearance of its object, it was still a major enterprise. But art
> > trying to recycle itself by storming reality? The majority of
> > contemporary art
> -
> How can Baudrillard possibly know about "the majority of
> contemporary art"? Probably millions of people were making
> art on the day B. wrote those words. He seems to be talking
> about a fashion in the upscale art markets of major Western
> cities, already fading out in 1996, and irrelevant to most
> people beyond the speculators and galleries who served them.
>
The millions of people who you think were probably making art on that day -
how do you know - is it a wild guess- but Baudillard isn't talking about
weekend watercolourists el al. Secondly what is generally considered
contemporary art these days since the 80s has become increasingly popular to
a general public - just because of the reasons he gives - its easy - as
elsewhere Matthew Collings has pointed out. Today (Sunday) Tate Modern on
the Thames will be packed with families enjoying the day out - whilst
further down the river the Dome - built and filled with stuff to entertain
the common man and co. is empty. Toddlers run around galleries of sliced
dead cows and infants with penis's for noses - its all such fun and
educational/cultural.
And... if we replace contemporary art with - "recent physics" well i dare
say you would argue the same - millions of people are probably doing physics
so how can anyone say modern physics looks stymied with brane theory or is
it M theory?
sirblob
On 28 jan, 09:43, "James Whitehead" <somewh...@overtherainbow.com>
wrote:
> "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1169940593.8...@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
as clueless as ever.
>
>
>
> > On Jan 27, 11:33 am, Mounard Le Fougueux
> > <blinkingCur...@NonEventHorizon.com> wrote:
> > > [The Conspiracy of Art - 1996]
>
> > > ...
> > > As long as art was making use of its own dissappearance and the
> > > disappearance of its object, it was still a major enterprise. But art
> > > trying to recycle itself by storming reality? The majority of
> > > contemporary art
> > -
ah mounard you good old chap, like with the nietszche and deleuze
reference, you forgot to mention what baudrillard thinks of modernITY
and postmodernITY. perhaps in (2)? the surfaces of objects, the murder
of reality, seduction... extreme phenomena...enjoy, my dear fougeux.
> > How can Baudrillard possibly know about "the majority of
> > contemporary art"? Probably millions of people were making
> > art on the day B. wrote those words. He seems to be talking
> > about a fashion in the upscale art markets of major Western
> > cities, already fading out in 1996, and irrelevant to most
> > people beyond the speculators and galleries who served them.The millions of people who you think were probably making art on that day -
> how do you know - is it a wild guess- but Baudillard isn't talking about
> weekend watercolourists el al. Secondly what is generally considered
> contemporary art these days since the 80s has become increasingly popular to
> a general public - just because of the reasons he gives - its easy - as
> elsewhere Matthew Collings has pointed out. Today (Sunday) Tate Modern on
> the Thames will be packed with families enjoying the day out - whilst
> further down the river the Dome - built and filled with stuff to entertain
> the common man and co. is empty. Toddlers run around galleries of sliced
> dead cows and infants with penis's for noses - its all such fun and
> educational/cultural.
how cute. whitehead, this comments lashes back on you like a
boomerang. the reason tate modern's gone the theme park way is because
it no longer recieves money from the national lottery. so its a case
of postmodernism being too difficult and boring to understand for the
masses, not the other way around. the tate's purely going back to
modernity's rules of commerce (and their climax in postmodernity's
hyperreality)..
James Whitehead
"sirblob" <sirb...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1169987201....@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
>
I never mentioned the national lottery - which part funded its building..
the Tate is funded from Government- The Department for Culture Media and
Sport to the tune of 29 million if i understand the accounts properly -
which i doubt. And thus gets its mission statement from New Labour. And
postmodernist art too difficult - dont think so - but remain open to being
shown otherwise.... the popularity of contempory art is seen not just @ the
tate but anywhere an urban redevelopment takes place a modern gallery is
de-rigour - as are waterside apartments - from the Baltic, Lowry, Walsall
...
Singles Night
A night of fun, laughter, music and romance and lots more
. Gorgeous glass of bubbly
. Sumptuous buffet
. Bar
. Mystery Love trail
. Prize draw
. DJ
. Live classical music
. Icebreaker game
. Latin Salsa taster
sirblob
On 28 jan, 15:35, "James Whitehead" <somewh...@overtherainbow.com>
wrote:
> "sirblob" <sirbl...@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1169987201....@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > > > How can Baudrillard possibly know about "the majority of
> > > > contemporary art"? Probably millions of people were making
> > > > art on the day B. wrote those words. He seems to be talking
> > > > about a fashion in the upscale art markets of major Western
> > > > cities, already fading out in 1996, and irrelevant to most
> > > > people beyond the speculators and galleries who served them.Themillions of people who you think were probably making art on that day -
>
>
>
> > > how do you know - is it a wild guess- but Baudillard isn't talking about
> > > weekend watercolourists el al. Secondly what is generally considered
> > > contemporary art these days since the 80s has become increasingly
> popular to
> > > a general public - just because of the reasons he gives - its easy - as
> > > elsewhere Matthew Collings has pointed out. Today (Sunday) Tate Modern
> on
> > > the Thames will be packed with families enjoying the day out - whilst
> > > further down the river the Dome - built and filled with stuff to
> entertain
> > > the common man and co. is empty. Toddlers run around galleries of
> sliced
> > > dead cows and infants with penis's for noses - its all such fun and
> > > educational/cultural.
>
> > how cute. whitehead, this comments lashes back on you like a
> > boomerang. the reason tate modern's gone the theme park way is because
> > it no longer recieves money from the national lottery. so its a case
> > of postmodernism being too difficult and boring to understand for the
> > masses, not the other way around. the tate's purely going back to
> > modernity's rules of commerce (and their climax in postmodernity's
> > hyperreality)..I never mentioned the national lottery - which part funded its building..
> the Tate is funded from Government-
no, that's precisely the point you see. the reason why tate's becoming
a theme park is because it's no longer funded by taxes but has to go
back into competition and capitalism's principles.
The Department for Culture Media and
> Sport to the tune of 29 million if i understand the accounts properly -
> which i doubt. And thus gets its mission statement from New Labour. And
> postmodernist art too difficult - dont think so -
course it is. that's why it's being left behind. cinemas, magazines
and tvs are all traditional consumerist narrative crap, keeping with
postmodernity. anyway, your point is flat-out wrong. you thought it
was postmodernism that was the tate modern, but no, that's the tate
modern going back to postmodernity, from where libtard conservatives
say it should never have left.
but remain open to being
> shown otherwise.... the popularity of contempory art is seen not just @ the
> tate but anywhere an urban redevelopment takes place a modern gallery is
> de-rigour - as are waterside apartments - from the Baltic, Lowry, Walsall
> ...
oh we all know that. the gay community love warhol's pics of marilyn
and it's all just decoration. we've already been through how hayek's
postmodern political economics absorb foucault's postmodernist musings
and heidegger's counterculture blends in nice and cozy in ikea. at
this rate, even the rotterdam film festival will wind up looking like
the BAFTAs.
> Singles Night
>
> A night of fun, laughter, music and romance and lots more
>
> . Gorgeous glass of bubbly
> . Sumptuous buffet
> . Bar
> . Mystery Love trail
> . Prize draw
> . DJ
> . Live classical music
> . Icebreaker game
> . Latin Salsa taster
what's that? a libtard convention?
James Whitehead
>
[...]
> > > how cute. whitehead, this comments lashes back on you like a
> > > boomerang. the reason tate modern's gone the theme park way is because
> > > it no longer recieves money from the national lottery. so its a case
> > > of postmodernism being too difficult and boring to understand for the
> > > masses, not the other way around. the tate's purely going back to
> > > modernity's rules of commerce (and their climax in postmodernity's
> > > hyperreality)
>..I never mentioned the national lottery - which part funded its building..
> > the Tate is funded from Government-
>
>
> no, that's precisely the point you see. the reason why tate's becoming
> a theme park is because it's no longer funded by taxes but has to go
> back into competition and capitalism's principles.
>
This doesnt follow the figures - trading generated 22,118,000 in 2005-2006
in 20,023,000 2002 - 20,277,000 in 2001 - and the proportion made from
trade doesnt seem to have changed since the Tate Modern opened. It is
still funded by taxation from government - the National Lottery was not Tax
revenue...
As for becoming a theme park it was from day 1 "the Tate Modern rejected any
conventional art-historical categories and hung an entire collection by
theme. It was gratuitously stupid, deliberately trying to do something
'approachable', that ordinary people would understand."
The recent re-hang has attempted (if anything) a move back to art historical
categories...though its still popular.. however its attendence figures have
dropped from the opening by about 1.2 million - but it still gets a good 4
mill...(3.9)
>
>
>
> The Department for Culture Media and
> > Sport to the tune of 29 million if i understand the accounts properly -
> > which i doubt. And thus gets its mission statement from New Labour. And
> > postmodernist art too difficult - dont think so -
>
>
> course it is. that's why it's being left behind. cinemas, magazines
> and tvs are all traditional consumerist narrative crap, keeping with
> postmodernity. anyway, your point is flat-out wrong. you thought it
> was postmodernism that was the tate modern, but no, that's the tate
> modern going back to postmodernity, from where libtard conservatives
> say it should never have left.
I've no idea what you mean above- but i await your interlectual defence of
post-modern ...ART
"Matthew Collings chooses several issues about art to discuss: Shock,
beauty, emptiness of meaning, ..."
no its an event -
Singles Night
A night of fun, laughter, music and romance and lots more
. Gorgeous glass of bubbly
. Sumptuous buffet
. Bar
. Mystery Love trail
. Prize draw
. DJ
. Live classical music
. Icebreaker game
. Latin Salsa taster
Wednesday 14 February 2007, 6pm - 10pm
Tickets £12 per person
Over 18s only
To book tickets phone 01922 654400 to call The New Art Gallery Walsall.
>
sirblob
On 28 jan, 18:04, "James Whitehead" <somewh...@overtherainbow.com>
wrote:
> "sirblob" <sirbl...@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1169996967....@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
>
> [...]
>
> > > > how cute. whitehead, this comments lashes back on you like a
> > > > boomerang. the reason tate modern's gone the theme park way is because
> > > > it no longer recieves money from the national lottery. so its a case
> > > > of postmodernism being too difficult and boring to understand for the
> > > > masses, not the other way around. the tate's purely going back to
> > > > modernity's rules of commerce (and their climax in postmodernity's
> > > > hyperreality)
> >..I never mentioned the national lottery - which part funded its building..
> > > the Tate is funded from Government-
>
> > no, that's precisely the point you see. the reason why tate's becoming
> > a theme park is because it's no longer funded by taxes but has to go
> > back into competition and capitalism's principles.This doesnt follow the figures - trading generated 22,118,000 in 2005-2006
> in 20,023,000 2002 - 20,277,000 in 2001 - and the proportion made from
> trade doesnt seem to have changed since the Tate Modern opened. It is
> still funded by taxation from government - the National Lottery was not Tax
> revenue...
>
> As for becoming a theme park it was from day 1 "the Tate Modern rejected any
> conventional art-historical categories and hung an entire collection by
> theme. It was gratuitously stupid, deliberately trying to do something
> 'approachable', that ordinary people would understand."
>
> The recent re-hang has attempted (if anything) a move back to art historical
> categories...though its still popular.. however its attendence figures have
> dropped from the opening by about 1.2 million - but it still gets a good 4
> mill...(3.9)
>
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1562918,00.html
''Welcome to the art world's most conspicuous success story. A decade
ago, the building was decaying and empty, a massive eyesore just
across the Thames from St. Paul's Cathedral. After a $200 million
overhaul, including a redesign by architects Herzog & de Meuron, Tate
Modern is now one of the city's must-see destinations, attracting more
than twice the 1.8 million annual visitors originally predicted. Last
July, the museum announced a $400 million expansion plan that it hopes
will increase its size by 60% by 2012.''
''Fueling the boom is a new savvy for the marketing and brand-building
techniques long employed by big business. For example, Tate Modern and
its sister museums (which also include London's Tate Britain - a
repository of historic and contemporary British art - as well as
outposts in Liverpool in England's northwest and St. Ives in the
southwest) recently marketed a line of wall paints through B&Q home-
improvement stores. "For a long time, the opinion toward marketing and
commercialism from curators was quite negative," says Paal Mork, head
of communications at the Norsk Folkemuseum in Oslo. That attitude, he
says, is now ancient history.''
''Some curators may still wish that great art didn't require a hard
sell, but a money crunch has done much to soften that attitude. Cash
from governments and foundations is dwindling, and that forces museums
to bring in more free-spending visitors to survive. The original Tate
Gallery - now Tate Britain - got approximately 90% of its revenues
from government funding 20 years ago. Now the group gets 40%. It's a
similar picture elsewhere in Europe. Corporate sponsorship has filled
some of the shortfall, but in return for their donations, companies
expect to see crowds. According to Johanna Waterous, a director of
McKinsey & Company's London office, which has worked with Tate Modern
since its conception, the new museum had not only to be a showplace of
great works, but "it was an imperative to make it a commercial
success." That it has been, without question. But how are Tate and
other museums staying competitive in this new era? Below, five
rules.''
anyway, read that article and learn to understand what you're talking
about before doing so.
>
>
> > The Department for Culture Media and
> > > Sport to the tune of 29 million if i understand the accounts properly -
> > > which i doubt. And thus gets its mission statement from New Labour. And
> > > postmodernist art too difficult - dont think so -
>
> > course it is. that's why it's being left behind. cinemas, magazines
> > and tvs are all traditional consumerist narrative crap, keeping with
> > postmodernity. anyway, your point is flat-out wrong. you thought it
> > was postmodernism that was the tate modern, but no, that's the tate
> > modern going back to postmodernity, from where libtard conservatives
> > say it should never have left.I've no idea what you mean above- but i await your interlectual defence of
> post-modern ...ART
>
> "Matthew Collings chooses several issues about art to discuss: Shock,
> beauty, emptiness of meaning, ..."
you learnt your definition of postmodernism and postmodernity from a
magazine. reductionism is just the tip of your cute iceberg. you can't
distinguish between the two, for starters, so how would you know i was
defending postmodernism if i did so? why don't you tell me what you
think postmodernism is and defend traditional mass culture, and i'll
see what i can do for you from there?
for all i know, you might want me to explain lynch's mullholland drive
to you.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > but remain open to being
> > > shown otherwise.... the popularity of contempory art is seen not just @
> the
> > > tate but anywhere an urban redevelopment takes place a modern gallery is
> > > de-rigour - as are waterside apartments - from the Baltic, Lowry,
> Walsall
> > > ...
>
> > oh we all know that. the gay community love warhol's pics of marilyn
> > and it's all just decoration. we've already been through how hayek's
> > postmodern political economics absorb foucault's postmodernist musings
> > and heidegger's counterculture blends in nice and cozy in ikea. at
> > this rate, even the rotterdam film festival will wind up looking like
> > the BAFTAs.
>
> > > Singles Night
>
> > > A night of fun, laughter, music and romance and lots more
>
> > > . Gorgeous glass of bubbly
> > > . Sumptuous buffet
> > > . Bar
> > > . Mystery Love trail
> > > . Prize draw
> > > . DJ
> > > . Live classical music
> > > . Icebreaker game
> > > . Latin Salsa taster
>
> > what's that? a libtard convention?no its an event -
James Whitehead
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1562918,00.html
So Time magazine as a source!
I'm talking about the lack of any interlectual meaning in post-modern art -
and thus its attractiveness to the general public - nothing your magazine
article contradicts this. Baudrillard has spotted the emptyness - but also
more importantly the critics and writers within the contemporary scene.
>
>
> > The Department for Culture Media and
> > > Sport to the tune of 29 million if i understand the accounts
properly -
> > > which i doubt. And thus gets its mission statement from New Labour.
And
> > > postmodernist art too difficult - dont think so -
>
> > course it is. that's why it's being left behind. cinemas, magazines
> > and tvs are all traditional consumerist narrative crap, keeping with
> > postmodernity. anyway, your point is flat-out wrong. you thought it
> > was postmodernism that was the tate modern, but no, that's the tate
> > modern going back to postmodernity, from where libtard conservatives
> > say it should never have left.I've no idea what you mean above- but i
await your interlectual defence of
> post-modern ...ART
>
> "Matthew Collings chooses several issues about art to discuss: Shock,
> beauty, emptiness of meaning, ..."
you learnt your definition of postmodernism and postmodernity from a
magazine.
No - i dont even take Time magazine....
reductionism is just the tip of your cute iceberg. you can't
distinguish between the two, for starters, so how would you know i was
defending postmodernism if i did so? why don't you tell me what you
think postmodernism is and defend traditional mass culture, and i'll
see what i can do for you from there?
I'm not talking about postmodernism - but post modern ART - that is the
traditional plastic Arts - you might like to try reading a BOOK-
start with Learning from Las Vegas .... the arts unlike philosophy
(particularly french - The postmodern condition... blah - blah) moved in a
quite different direction - towards popularism and empty irony.. As for
defining postmodernism we would need to be more specific - many of its key
authors seemed to even deny this term- and certainly arriving at a fixed
definition might be considered difficult... counter to some of novel themes
/ ideas or whatever..
www.jameswhitehead.org/p1.mp3
for all i know, you might want me to explain lynch's mullholland drive
to you.
Thats a popular film in the USA isnt it?
sirblob
On 28 jan, 19:35, "James Whitehead" <somewh...@overtherainbow.com>
wrote:
> "sirblob" <sirbl...@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1170005407.8...@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> On 28 jan, 18:04, "James Whitehead" <somewh...@overtherainbow.com>
> wrote:> "sirblob" <sirbl...@hotmail.com> wrote inmessagenews:1169996967....@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > [...]
>
> > > > > how cute. whitehead, this comments lashes back on you like a
> > > > > boomerang. the reason tate modern's gone the theme park way is
> because
> > > > > it no longer recieves money from the national lottery. so its a case
> > > > > of postmodernism being too difficult and boring to understand for
> the
> > > > > masses, not the other way around. the tate's purely going back to
> > > > > modernity's rules of commerce (and their climax in postmodernity's
> > > > > hyperreality)
> > >..I never mentioned the national lottery - which part funded its
> building..
> > > > the Tate is funded from Government-
>
> > > no, that's precisely the point you see. the reason why tate's becoming
> > > a theme park is because it's no longer funded by taxes but has to go
> > > back into competition and capitalism's principles.This doesnt follow thefigures - trading generated 22,118,000 in 2005-2006
>
>
>
> > in 20,023,000 2002 - 20,277,000 in 2001 - and the proportion made from
> > trade doesnt seem to have changed since the Tate Modern opened. It is
> > still funded by taxation from government - the National Lottery was not
> Tax
> > revenue...
>
> > As for becoming a theme park it was from day 1 "the Tate Modern rejected
> any
> > conventional art-historical categories and hung an entire collection by
> > theme. It was gratuitously stupid, deliberately trying to do something
> > 'approachable', that ordinary people would understand."
>
> > The recent re-hang has attempted (if anything) a move back to art
> historical
> > categories...though its still popular.. however its attendence figures
> have
> > dropped from the opening by about 1.2 million - but it still gets a good 4
> > mill...(3.9)http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1562918,00.html
no. you were saying postmodernism is what the middlebrow public like.
but the families flocking out to the tate modern on sundays don't do
so for postmodernism but rather for the same reason they've been
filling up the multiplex for the latest blockbuster for the last 100+
years; how masification always winds up absorbing postmodernism into
banality. you gave me some figures from 5 years ago to prove your
point, so i gave you the magazine article that disproves your point.
the only thing that can counter the useful objects of fashion and
capitalism's exchange values are loony millionaires giving out money
to useless artists and to a lesser extent, taxes. postmodernism is the
opposite of productive and consumerist. a bit like my home-grown
skunk.
Baudrillard has spotted the emptyness - but also
> more importantly the critics and writers within the contemporary scene.
>
the first time i read that article was in a sunday edition of my local
neoconservative paper years ago. and recently months ago. as i pointed
out to mounard here, it's very flimsy to only quote baudrillad in a
couple of paragraphs to prove a wishful point when what he has to say
about modernity, tradition and postmodernity is just as, if not far
more, hilarious. likewise, i won't find that paper quoting much of
baudrillard anytime soon. at least the one from a few months ago was
''vomiting over the sections that go on about transexuality'' while.
mounard just openly partially quotes.
and baudrillard is going after the hilarious economics of the art
scene, which he likens to fashion, a lot more than against bookworms
like foucault, kristeva or the art is language crowd from NYs 60s...
>
>
> > > The Department for Culture Media and
> > > > Sport to the tune of 29 million if i understand the accounts
> properly -
> > > > which i doubt. And thus gets its mission statement from New Labour.
> And
> > > > postmodernist art too difficult - dont think so -
>
> > > course it is. that's why it's being left behind. cinemas, magazines
> > > and tvs are all traditional consumerist narrative crap, keeping with
> > > postmodernity. anyway, your point is flat-out wrong. you thought it
> > > was postmodernism that was the tate modern, but no, that's the tate
> > > modern going back to postmodernity, from where libtard conservatives
> > > say it should never have left.I've no idea what you mean above- but iawait your interlectual defence of
>
> > post-modern ...ART
>
> > "Matthew Collings chooses several issues about art to discuss: Shock,
> > beauty, emptiness of meaning, ..."you learnt your definition of postmodernism and postmodernity from a
> magazine.
>
> No - i dont even take Time magazine....
>
> reductionism is just the tip of your cute iceberg. you can't
> distinguish between the two, for starters, so how would you know i was
> defending postmodernism if i did so? why don't you tell me what you
> think postmodernism is and defend traditional mass culture, and i'll
> see what i can do for you from there?
>
> I'm not talking about postmodernism - but post modern ART - that is the
> traditional plastic Arts - you might like to try reading a BOOK-
> start with Learning from Las Vegas .... the arts unlike philosophy
> (particularly french - The postmodern condition... blah - blah) moved in a
> quite different direction - towards popularism and empty irony..
no they didn't. postmodernism stayed where it started. be it
heidegger's postmodernist counterculture, foucault's postmodernist
it's all just power thing or lyotard's anemic cinema stayed in the
avant-garde (avant-loony) right there with modernism and romanticism.
with communication, traditionalism got back in line and that huge
marketing orgy known as the tate modern is the resulting amalgalm.
so now the postmodernist objects are back within the system as
decoration. it's happened before. no big deal. and, no, postmodernism
is not pluralism.
As for
> defining postmodernism we would need to be more specific - many of its key
> authors seemed to even deny this term- and certainly arriving at a fixed
> definition might be considered difficult... counter to some of novel themes
> / ideas or whatever..www.jameswhitehead.org/p1.mp3
wow thanks for that robot sleep inducing.. please dont do that.
>
> for all i know, you might want me to explain lynch's mullholland drive
> to you.
>
> Thats a popular film in the USA isnt it?
a postmodernist film (western, traditional, capitalist) hollywood code
viewers found very difficult to understand.
Erik A. Mattila
Barthes' *Change The Object Itself* in "Image/Music/Text" sort of points
to this emptyness also, IMO. He uses terms such as "stock of phrases;
catichistic declarations" to describe pomo in the street.
sirblob
On 28 jan, 20:57, "Erik A. Mattila" <e...@nospamimpix.com> wrote:
> James Whitehead wrote:
> > "sirblob" <sirbl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > more importantly the critics and writers within the contemporary scene.Barthes' *Change The Object Itself* in "Image/Music/Text" sort of points
> to this emptyness also, IMO. He uses terms such as "stock of phrases;
> catichistic declarations" to describe pomo in the street.
no surprise there. the same thing happened to romanticism. suddenly
everything was ''romantic''.
http://www.amazon.com/Romanticism-Icon-Editions-Hugh-Honour/dp/
0064300897/sr=1-1/qid=1170014508/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-4474963-3890265?
ie=UTF8&s=books
BIG_ONE
>> lynch's mullholland drive
...
>a postmodernist film (western, traditional, capitalist) hollywood code
>viewers found very difficult to understand.
I found it quite annoying ... it's an unfinished tv drama & soft porn
cutting room leftovers thrown together with StudioCanal cash into
something that not only may well be difficult to understand for most
... but probably isn't worth the effort for anyone.
sirblob
On 28 jan, 22:50, BIG_ONE <telavers...@fuckyou.co.uk> wrote:
> "sirblob" <sirbl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> lynch's mullholland drive
> ...
> >a postmodernist film (western, traditional, capitalist) hollywood code
> >viewers found very difficult to understand.I found it quite annoying ... it's an unfinished tv drama & soft porn
> cutting room leftovers thrown together with StudioCanal cash into
> something that not only may well be difficult to understand for most
> ... but probably isn't worth the effort for anyone
''unfinished''...''open-ended''...''dedramatised''... ''leftovers'',
more reasons why middlebrows find postmodernism too difficult..
Ned Ludd
"BIG_ONE" <telav...@fuckyou.co.uk> wrote in message
news:125qr2dr4clta5bqp...@4ax.com...
Only the last 20 minutes was 'real'. The rest was Diane's fantasy
of her Hollywood adventure.
Here's Vlad's explanation of the film...
-----
In Lynch's film, Diane, a stage-struck, small town girl, propelled by the
win of a Jitterbug contest and the inheritance of money, lands in Hollywood
to pursue an acting career. She falls hopelessly in love with Camilla, an
ambitious and successful actress who enjoys the lesbian sex, accommodates
it by helping Diane to get small movie parts, and then, when it becomes
socially awkward for her to continue the relationship, cruelly terminates
it. So much of Diane's ego-identity is invested in her faithless lover that
she cannot survive the rejection. She is devastated; and, since it is the
Shadow's function to protect the ego, her shadow rises violently to confront
her beautiful antagonist. Only she and a few "sensitives" can detect the
pheromones of this hideous bete noire. the spiritual odors linger in those
precincts in which the beast was commissioned to act. Diane's cause is
championed. Pandora's box is opened and the destructive evil escapes. The
inherited money will pay for Camilla's murder, yet it will be a Pyrrhic
satisfaction.
But this is no fit story to tell around a campfire. This tale does not do
Diane's imagined image justice. It must be rewritten. She was not the one
with paltry talent. No. Just like in the movies, when she got her chance to
audition for the professionals, she wowed them! And how else can she account
for Camilla's success but to attribute it to nefarious pressure: obviously
the Mafia coerced producers and directors into hiring her. And Diane was not
the dependent one. No. It was the other way around! From the outset, the
now-anonymous and helpless Camilla has needed Diane's support and
protection. Above all, Diane re-interprets her own character: she is the
ingénue, not the pathetic, cowardly villain of the piece. She is as generous
as she is blonde, as pure as she is selfless, an old fashioned girl with
solid American values.
To one degree or another, we are all Dianes composing self-serving scripts,
revising our character. We have an image to project - and we must conform
the appearance of our actions to accord with that image, enhancing our
qualities until we are in all ways admirable. We develop a convenient
amnesia and strike the word "hypocrisy" from our lexicons.
...
-----
Ned
sirblob
or l'aventura is worthless wank not worth the bother. but what isnt.
On 28 jan, 23:39, "Ned Ludd" <nedl...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> "BIG_ONE" <telavers...@fuckyou.co.uk> wrote in messagenews:125qr2dr4clta5bqp...@4ax.com...
*Anarcissie*
> > catichistic declarations" to describe pomo in the street.no surprise there. the same thing happened to romanticism. suddenly
> everything was ''romantic''.
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Romanticism-Icon-Editions-Hugh-Honour/dp/
> 0064300897/sr=1-1/qid=1170014508/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-4474963-3890265?
> ie=UTF8&s=books
I can see the situation is dire, what with the folk glomming
upon invalid nullity. What _shall_ we do, overthrow
capitalism? I'm kind of busy this weekend.
James Whitehead
No - I was saying post-modern ART has become popular with the middle
class - at least in the UK. That galleries are the new playgrounds where
they are to be found with their famillies...
> but the families flocking out to the tate modern on sundays don't do
> so for postmodernism but rather for the same reason they've been
> filling up the multiplex for the latest blockbuster for the last 100+
> years; how masification always winds up absorbing postmodernism into
> banality.
Dont know the social set which flock to the cinema - certainly your 100+
years seems odd? But cinema did go through a bad patch in the 60s / 70s with
TV.. its since recovered but i feel this might be a younger audience
>you gave me some figures from 5 years ago to prove your
> point,
i gave figures from when it opened and last year to show a slight increase
in money made from sales- and a drop in attendance - which ran counter to my
point.
>so i gave you the magazine article that disproves your point.
> the only thing that can counter the useful objects of fashion and
> capitalism's exchange values are loony millionaires giving out money
> to useless artists and to a lesser extent, taxes. postmodernism is the
> opposite of productive and consumerist. a bit like my home-grown
> skunk.
>
As far as i'm aware the Tate is still governed essentially by the
Government - in particular the Department of Culture Media and Sport - and
NOT the dept of Education and Science... its purpose is to serve as
entertainment - but i do have a feeling we might be in agreement to some
extent - but i dont think po-mo theory should be used to defend the
emptiness of contemporary art anymore than it can intellectualize Soap opera
/ Football or Hollywood films.
>
>
>
>
> Baudrillard has spotted the emptyness - but also
> > more importantly the critics and writers within the contemporary scene.
> >
>
>
> the first time i read that article was in a sunday edition of my local
> neoconservative paper years ago. and recently months ago. as i pointed
> out to mounard here, it's very flimsy to only quote baudrillad in a
> couple of paragraphs to prove a wishful point when what he has to say
> about modernity, tradition and postmodernity is just as, if not far
> more, hilarious. likewise, i won't find that paper quoting much of
> baudrillard anytime soon. at least the one from a few months ago was
> ''vomiting over the sections that go on about transexuality'' while.
> mounard just openly partially quotes.
>
> and baudrillard is going after the hilarious economics of the art
> scene, which he likens to fashion, a lot more than against bookworms
> like foucault, kristeva or the art is language crowd from NYs 60s...
>
[...]> >
> > I'm not talking about postmodernism - but post modern ART - that is the
> > traditional plastic Arts - you might like to try reading a BOOK-
> > start with Learning from Las Vegas .... the arts unlike philosophy
> > (particularly french - The postmodern condition... blah - blah) moved in
a
> > quite different direction - towards popularism and empty irony..
>
>
> no they didn't.
Oh yes they did - and said so - the YBas in particular courted the likes of
Saatchi and derided the idea of meaning and quality openly admitting to
wanting to pass off rubbish as valuable art... openly toyed with the popular
media to gain publicity - opened their own galleries in the first
instance....
>postmodernism stayed where it started. be it
> heidegger's postmodernist counterculture, foucault's postmodernist
> it's all just power thing or lyotard's anemic cinema stayed in the
> avant-garde (avant-loony) right there with modernism and romanticism.
>
Sure - but that was nothing to do with the art in the Tate modern - any
attempt to do so would be laughable- Tracey Emil did a night class in
philosophy you know - she tells everyone at parties..
> with communication, traditionalism got back in line and that huge
> marketing orgy known as the tate modern is the resulting amalgalm.
>
I think the current reply is "Whatever" - or warraeveer
> so now the postmodernist objects are back within the system as
> decoration. it's happened before. no big deal. and, no, postmodernism
> is not pluralism.
Look the post modern objects were designed for it - Koons puppy dog Emin's
Bed Ahhhhhhh Ughhhhhhhh there is the critique.
>
> As for
> > defining postmodernism we would need to be more specific - many of its
key
> > authors seemed to even deny this term- and certainly arriving at a fixed
> > definition might be considered difficult... counter to some of novel
themes
> > / ideas or whatever..www.jameswhitehead.org/p1.mp3
>
> wow thanks for that robot sleep inducing.. please dont do that.
>
your welcome -
>
>
> >
> > for all i know, you might want me to explain lynch's mullholland drive
> > to you.
> >
> > Thats a popular film in the USA isnt it?
>
>
> a postmodernist film (western, traditional, capitalist) hollywood code
> viewers found very difficult to understand.
>
If it makes a pretence at being an Art film but is in fact rubbish - then it
could be considered as a post modern object. Most cinema now is deeply
ironic - as why bother to go to a multiplex when you can stay home and watch
the dVD - i suspect its for the pop-corn. i.e. the act of going to the
cinema is separated from the film - which accounts for the rise of cinema
and football as identity providing activities. Only slobs stay in a watch
TV and Sport on TV - so there is a need for activities such as galleries
multiplex's football stadia to differentiate the middle class from the lower
...by physical not intellectual activity - as perhaps always - as you say...
mac_th...@bigstring.com
>
> I gave up on your contribution when you said there was no
> music in Hip-hop. Clearly, you have no idea what you're
> talking about, and I've had quite enough babble lately.
Oh! Would you just listen to that saggy-pants bunch of Hip Hop
"music" right there? Sure you've had "enough babble lately" -- from
that nasty rabble of Hip Hop you got slopping around in your
tragically taste-evacuated head.
And you say I don't know what I'm talking about when it comes to the
Hippy Hoop? Right, just as I wouldn't know what I'm talking about
when it comes to jumping around in public grabbing my crotch, or
picking up cigarette butts off the street, and clearly I would have no
idea what I'm talking about when it comes to the latest technology in
drive-by shootings. Right.
I know absolutely nothing about the Hippety Hype. Could it be that's
strictly because I do know what I'm talking about when it comes to
music? For example, if I do know something about the writing of
Fontane, Seigfried Sassoon and Waugh, it only stands to reason that I
would know nothing about Harry Potter-not even the name of its author.
So it goes with music; if it's music, I do know about, if not, I
don't. Not that studying it, listening to it, collecting it, playing
it, teaching it, and trading in it over these past fifty years should
have aught to do with knowing something about it.
But, I know you'll excuse me for this, if it just makes me downright
silly with glee to see you sit there in the pose of being an
aesthetically discerning person of somewhat literate interests, who
nevertheless gets caught, as we've just seen, with his cultural pants
down sitting there with his brain plugged into an iPod full of the
rottenest schlock of no-class, musically phony schtick ever to come
oozing out the butthole of the pop music industry into the public ear-
- -ever?
Sorry, m'lad but your credibility in the sight of *any* person of real
class or refined taste has just sunk beneath the nadir of all possible
redemption--short of an urgently necessary epiphany.
--
Mackie
http://vignettes-mackie.blogspot.com/
"Who Did the Dahlia?"
sirblob
On 29 jan, 08:04, "James Whitehead" <somewh...@overtherainbow.com>
wrote:
> "sirblob" <sirbl...@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1170014127.3...@a34g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On 28 jan, 19:35, "James Whitehead" <somewh...@overtherainbow.com>
> > wrote:
> > > "sirblob" <sirbl...@hotmail.com> wrote inmessagenews:1170005407.8...@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > On 28 jan, 18:04, "James Whitehead" <somewh...@overtherainbow.com>
> > > wrote:> "sirblob" <sirbl...@hotmail.com> wroteinmessagenews:1169996967....@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > > > [...]
>
> > > > > > > how cute. whitehead, this comments lashes back on you like a
> > > > > > > boomerang. the reason tate modern's gone the theme park way is
> > > because
> > > > > > > it no longer recieves money from the national lottery. so its a
> case
> > > > > > > of postmodernism being too difficult and boring to understand
> for
> > > the
> > > > > > > masses, not the other way around. the tate's purely going back
> to
> > > > > > > modernity's rules of commerce (and their climax in
> postmodernity's
> > > > > > > hyperreality)
> > > > >..I never mentioned the national lottery - which part funded its
> > > building..
> > > > > > the Tate is funded from Government-
>
> > > > > no, that's precisely the point you see. the reason why tate's
> becoming
> > > > > a theme park is because it's no longer funded by taxes but has to go
> > > > > back into competition and capitalism's principles.This doesnt followthefigures - trading generated 22,118,000 in 2005-2006
>
>
>
> > > > in 20,023,000 2002 - 20,277,000 in 2001 - and the proportion made
> from
> > > > trade doesnt seem to have changed since the Tate Modern opened. It
> is
> > > > still funded by taxation from government - the National Lottery was
> not
> > > Tax
> > > > revenue...
>
> > > > As for becoming a theme park it was from day 1 "the Tate Modern
> rejected
> > > any
> > > > conventional art-historical categories and hung an entire collection
> by
> > > > theme. It was gratuitously stupid, deliberately trying to do something
> > > > 'approachable', that ordinary people would understand."
>
> > > > The recent re-hang has attempted (if anything) a move back to art
> > > historical
> > > > categories...though its still popular.. however its attendence figures
> > > have
> > > > dropped from the opening by about 1.2 million - but it still gets a
> good 4mill...(3.9)http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1562918,00.html
> > no. you were saying postmodernism is what the middlebrow public like.No - I was saying post-modern ART has become popular with the middle
> class - at least in the UK. That galleries are the new playgrounds where
> they are to be found with their famillies...
you were saying postmodernist art is easier than traditional
conservative art, but that isn't true. the families in the tate modern
do not have hans haacke, sherrie levine and hal foster in mind, i can
assure you. they'll give gilbert n george a moment but that's about it
and cuz they're ''cute(?!)''.
>
> > but the families flocking out to the tate modern on sundays don't do
> > so for postmodernism but rather for the same reason they've been
> > filling up the multiplex for the latest blockbuster for the last 100+
> > years; how masification always winds up absorbing postmodernism into
> > banality.Dont know the social set which flock to the cinema - certainly your 100+
> years seems odd? But cinema did go through a bad patch in the 60s / 70s with
> TV.. its since recovered but i feel this might be a younger audience
well most of tv and cinema is traditional narratively-coded cinema.
inanely repetitive conservative and traditional approach to
aesthetics. they strike common inherited easily aquirable chords. and
multiplexes or churches are 10,000 times more popular/efficient than a
couple of galleries. where in the entertainment and communication
industry do you find the subtleties of a joseph kosuth, jeff wall,
robert ryman or daniel buren. only piero manzoni can make it to the 6
o clock news and that's cuz he deals in shit, something the common man
easily understands. the fhm readers, football lovers, tv audience
jennifer anniston admirers in the audience that every now and then
goes to the tate theme park might fleetingly misunderstand a cy
twombly painting but craig owens or benjamin buchloch are too
difficult because they deal in paradigms of perception that the
westernised career-driven world cannot allow for. no big deal. like in
guest house paradiso when adrian says welcome to the real world. ever
had a physics phd tell you they love baz luhrmann's romeo and juliet?
and if books (by owens or buchloch) are boring it's because we face
the end of books. they take too long to read and aren't worth the
bother, be them tolstoy, orhan pamuk or flaubert. does not matter.
just like if art is boring, it's because we're dealing with the end of
art. yup, whatever. so why not let's make it the beginning of art?
postmodernist mr foucault or deleuze inspire themselves in nietszche
and this one's into eternal return... i bet i can name-drop at a
greater rate if i try.
>
> >you gave me some figures from 5 years ago to prove your
> > point,i gave figures from when it opened and last year to show a slight increase
> in money made from sales- and a drop in attendance - which ran counter to my
> point.
lol well thanks
>
> >so i gave you the magazine article that disproves your point.
> > the only thing that can counter the useful objects of fashion and
> > capitalism's exchange values are loony millionaires giving out money
> > to useless artists and to a lesser extent, taxes. postmodernism is the
> > opposite of productive and consumerist. a bit like my home-grown
> > skunk.As far as i'm aware the Tate is still governed essentially by the
> Government - in particular the Department of Culture Media and Sport - and
> NOT the dept of Education and Science... its purpose is to serve as
> entertainment -
well as i said the funding went from 90 per cent to 40 in the last 20
years. taxes are on the downhill because the labour/tory voting
middlebrow public feel insulted by installations that only consist of
a light going on and off. i dont think there are any loony peggy
guggenheims left and the multinational corporations giving in money
now want crowds in return. even the taxes wanted socialist causes in
return but allowed for a number of delighfully useless ready-made
found-objects etc.
did you see julien schnabel's magnificient movie ''basquiat''? i'd say
it's just an entreched attitutde. but many of our daily activities
seamlessly fall into postmodernist or traditionalist activities. well
actually 90 per cent of what we do is traditionalist. i like to think
of postmodernism acting as a way of limiting the harm traditionalist
instrumental rationality can inflict on us, i guess. whereas going to
church or being efficient at your job is the extreme opposite of
postmodernism, there are a number of other activities that have
parellels with the attitudes found in many of the strands of
postmodernism.
but i do have a feeling we might be in agreement to some
> extent - but i dont think po-mo theory should be used to defend the
> emptiness of contemporary art anymore than it can intellectualize Soap opera
> / Football or Hollywood films.
if you just said you don't agree with postmodernism being used a
scapegoat responsbile for the hypothetical shortcomings of
contemporary art i couldn't agree more. mounard misquotes baudrillard
and baudrillard doesn't bother clarifying what he means. when you said
postmodernism was vacuous i thought you meant postmodernism, and not
postmodernism's absorption by postmodernity. this is really
baudrillard's concern. and he wasn't by far the first one to mention
it. he'd prolly just made a name for himself and delivered it in a
suficiently hyperbolic tone to get noticed. not to mention that
literature blaming postmodernism for this and that is very very
popular in daily newspapers with millions of consumerist loving family
members.
well i find postmodernism to be very rich, vast, difficullt to
appreciate, understand and remember. i'm far more amused by it than by
any billy wilder, eastwood, spielberg or roland emmerich neoclassical
crap i see from hollywood. not to mention the neoclassical twists and
turns that fill coronation street, countdown or the 6 o clock news on
tv.
and i took you for a classicist. you're probably a closet classicist
anyways. cuz all postmodernism is is a conflict with classicism. you
have to take sides. it's not enough to point out that a gallery only
has one author, with one idea. that's too easy. postmodernism's value
resides in how it can affect our own paintings or photos or whatever
when we leave the galleries compared to how it would if we left a
classical one. and when i finish a john ford pile of wank i'm
unamused. and i hear those leaving da vinci's sistine chapel have neck
problems. i guess a postmodernist would take a hilarious photo of the
tourists staring.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Baudrillard has spotted the emptyness - but also
> > > more importantly the critics and writers within the contemporary scene.
>
> > the first time i read that article was in a sunday edition of my local
> > neoconservative paper years ago. and recently months ago. as i pointed
> > out to mounard here, it's very flimsy to only quote baudrillad in a
> > couple of paragraphs to prove a wishful point when what he has to say
> > about modernity, tradition and postmodernity is just as, if not far
> > more, hilarious. likewise, i won't find that paper quoting much of
> > baudrillard anytime soon. at least the one from a few months ago was
> > ''vomiting over the sections that go on about transexuality'' while.
> > mounard just openly partially quotes.
>
> > and baudrillard is going after the hilarious economics of the art
> > scene, which he likens to fashion, a lot more than against bookworms
> > like foucault, kristeva or the art is language crowd from NYs 60s...
>
> [...]> >
> > > I'm not talking about postmodernism - but post modern ART - that is the
> > > traditional plastic Arts - you might like to try reading a BOOK-
> > > start with Learning from Las Vegas .... the arts unlike philosophy
> > > (particularly french - The postmodern condition... blah - blah) moved in
> a
> > > quite different direction - towards popularism and empty irony..
>
> > no they didn't.Oh yes they did - and said so - the YBas in particular courted the likes of
> Saatchi and derided the idea of meaning and quality openly admitting to
> wanting to pass off rubbish as valuable art... openly toyed with the popular
> media to gain publicity - opened their own galleries in the first
> instance....
>
> >postmodernism stayed where it started. be it
> > heidegger's postmodernist counterculture, foucault's postmodernist
> > it's all just power thing or lyotard's anemic cinema stayed in the
> > avant-garde (avant-loony) right there with modernism and romanticism.Sure - but that was nothing to do with the art in the Tate modern - any
> attempt to do so would be laughable- Tracey Emil did a night class in
> philosophy you know - she tells everyone at parties..
>
> > with communication, traditionalism got back in line and that huge
> > marketing orgy known as the tate modern is the resulting amalgalm.I think the current reply is "Whatever" - or warraeveer
>
> > so now the postmodernist objects are back within the system as
> > decoration. it's happened before. no big deal. and, no, postmodernism
> > is not pluralism.Look the post modern objects were designed for it - Koons puppy dog Emin's
> Bed Ahhhhhhh Ughhhhhhhh there is the critique.
LOL! but what were you expecting? the revolution? and what in the
history of art has been more worthwhile than romanticism, modernism
and postmodernism? it's not as if the suburban sprawls yuppy wankers
are a higher achievement than gaudi's wanking (or cicciolini's and
koons' and his dozens of puppies). i couldn't care either way. and i
prefer
http://www.pilhuhn.de/hwr/bilbao2004/IMG_3819.JPG
(that's revenge for the mp3...)
to this:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/41/BionicTower.jpg
the puppy's relaxing, like my home-grown skunk. the bionic tower's
depressing.
>
>
>
>
>
> > As for
> > > defining postmodernism we would need to be more specific - many of its
> key
> > > authors seemed to even deny this term- and certainly arriving at a fixed
> > > definition might be considered difficult... counter to some of novel
> themes
> > > / ideas or whatever..www.jameswhitehead.org/p1.mp3
>
> > wow thanks for that robot sleep inducing.. please dont do that.
>
> your welcome -
>
> > > for all i know, you might want me to explain lynch's mullholland drive
> > > to you.
>
> > > Thats a popular film in the USA isnt it?
>
> > a postmodernist film (western, traditional, capitalist) hollywood code
> > viewers found very difficult to understand.If it makes a pretence at being an Art film but is in fact rubbish - then it
> could be considered as a post modern object. Most cinema now is deeply
> ironic - as why bother to go to a multiplex when you can stay home and watch
> the dVD - i suspect its for the pop-corn. i.e. the act of going to the
> cinema is separated from the film - which accounts for the rise of cinema
> and football as identity providing activities. Only slobs stay in a watch
> TV and Sport on TV - so there is a need for activities such as galleries
> multiplex's football stadia to differentiate the middle class from the lower
> ...by physical not intellectual activity - as perhaps always - as you say...
well middle classes have some free time, not nearly as much as we like
to think. but some nevertheless. ''using it to feel superior to the
lower classes'' is a biased expression. as if the lower classes don't
have their tricks too...
im a lazy slob, hence blob, so i dont go to the cinema. but i guess
the only viable path to the cinema is the ridiculous quest for nookie.
like survival, totally pointless cuz we can masturbate but dont dare.
and activities are all conservative. and besides survival is an
illness. we're bloody mediocre, as george batailles put it. the
dodgiest ones are usually the health fanatics. ever read baudrillard
on the NY marathon? he's lame, but the marathoners are considerably
worse.
James Whitehead
>
> >
> > > no. you were saying postmodernism is what the middlebrow public
like.No - I was saying post-modern ART has become popular with the middle
> > class - at least in the UK. That galleries are the new playgrounds where
> > they are to be found with their famillies...
>
>
> you were saying postmodernist art is easier than traditional
> conservative art, but that isn't true. the families in the tate modern
> do not have hans haacke, sherrie levine and hal foster in mind, i can
> assure you. they'll give gilbert n george a moment but that's about it
> and cuz they're ''cute(?!)''.
>
Because post-modern art has emptied the idea of content in art - and
replaced it with personality - gilbert and george being good examples - all
art is thus emptied of its content - hans haacke etc. are no longer
serious - Rothkos are just 'a bit gloomy' ... but also cute. Opera is used
to sell football - Classic FM a very popular commercial radio station
releases another CD Comp - "Baroque and Roll". You are bang on the nail re
consumers - and once the consumer appears then everything's up for
consumption. This is why po-mo marks the end of the enlightenment - what is
haacke dong - exposing the corruption - well really everyone knows thats how
things work anyway... Saatchi never had planning permission for his first
gallery - broke the contractual details of the second - oh my...
>
on the nail again...
From "This is Modern Art" chapter titles
1. I am a Genius
2. Shock, Horror
3. Lovely Lovely
4. Nothing Matters
5. The Shock of the Now
>
>
> >
> > >you gave me some figures from 5 years ago to prove your
> > > point,i gave figures from when it opened and last year to show a
slight increase
> > in money made from sales- and a drop in attendance - which ran counter
to my
> > point.
>
>
> lol well thanks
>
> >
> > >so i gave you the magazine article that disproves your point.
> > > the only thing that can counter the useful objects of fashion and
> > > capitalism's exchange values are loony millionaires giving out money
> > > to useless artists and to a lesser extent, taxes. postmodernism is the
> > > opposite of productive and consumerist. a bit like my home-grown
> > > skunk.As far as i'm aware the Tate is still governed essentially by
the
> > Government - in particular the Department of Culture Media and Sport -
and
> > NOT the dept of Education and Science... its purpose is to serve as
> > entertainment -
>
>
>
> well as i said the funding went from 90 per cent to 40 in the last 20
> years. taxes are on the downhill because the labour/tory voting
> middlebrow public feel insulted by installations that only consist of
> a light going on and off. i
No that was back in the 60s and 70s - Jack the Dripper the Tate Bricks -
now the public expects to be "shocked" - such works identify themselves as
'modern art'. Now with CNN & the internet we can see far more shocking
events in real time - 3 years ago audiences watched iraq go up in flames
eating hot dogs and drinking beer in front of their TVs - its not 1968 - and
it never will be again -
>dont think there are any loony peggy
> guggenheims left and the multinational corporations giving in money
> now want crowds in return. even the taxes wanted socialist causes in
> return but allowed for a number of delighfully useless ready-made
> found-objects etc.
>
> did you see julien schnabel's magnificient movie ''basquiat''? i'd say
> it's just an entreched attitutde. but many of our daily activities
> seamlessly fall into postmodernist or traditionalist activities. well
> actually 90 per cent of what we do is traditionalist. i like to think
> of postmodernism acting as a way of limiting the harm traditionalist
> instrumental rationality can inflict on us, i guess. whereas going to
> church or being efficient at your job is the extreme opposite of
> postmodernism, there are a number of other activities that have
> parellels with the attitudes found in many of the strands of
> postmodernism.
>
One big difference is that US culture hasnt got the history to be
deconstructed - that and its church going
>
>
> but i do have a feeling we might be in agreement to some
> > extent - but i dont think po-mo theory should be used to defend the
> > emptiness of contemporary art anymore than it can intellectualize Soap
opera
> > / Football or Hollywood films.
>
>
> if you just said you don't agree with postmodernism being used a
> scapegoat responsbile for the hypothetical shortcomings of
> contemporary art i couldn't agree more. mounard misquotes baudrillard
> and baudrillard doesn't bother clarifying what he means. when you said
> postmodernism was vacuous i thought you meant postmodernism, and not
> postmodernism's absorption by postmodernity. this is really
> baudrillard's concern. and he wasn't by far the first one to mention
> it. he'd prolly just made a name for himself and delivered it in a
> suficiently hyperbolic tone to get noticed. not to mention that
> literature blaming postmodernism for this and that is very very
> popular in daily newspapers with millions of consumerist loving family
> members.
>
> well i find postmodernism to be very rich, vast, difficullt to
> appreciate, understand and remember. i'm far more amused by it than by
> any billy wilder, eastwood, spielberg or roland emmerich neoclassical
> crap i see from hollywood. not to mention the neoclassical twists and
> turns that fill coronation street, countdown or the 6 o clock news on
> tv.
>
you find it - but can you out any other value on it than what you find?
>
>
>
> and i took you for a classicist. you're probably a closet classicist
> anyways. cuz all postmodernism is is a conflict with classicism. you
> have to take sides. it's not enough to point out that a gallery only
> has one author, with one idea. that's too easy. postmodernism's value
> resides in how it can affect our own paintings or photos or whatever
> when we leave the galleries compared to how it would if we left a
> classical one. and when i finish a john ford pile of wank i'm
> unamused. and i hear those leaving da vinci's sistine chapel have neck
> problems. i guess a postmodernist would take a hilarious photo of the
> tourists staring.
>
Well no - the post modernist wouldn't start out like that at all - you first
get your gallery and circle of cool friends - go to a few parties and then
fill your first show - with whatever - best if its sensational - sexy dirty
etc. (You still seem to be trying to make a point.) From my point of view i
find the bars of hoxton - the ICA has a good bar also - and the food at Tate
Modern good, we particularly like having sunday lunch in the Tate Britain
Restaurant.
once upon a time... yes
sirblob
wrote:
>
> Well no - the post modernist wouldn't start out like that at all - you first
> get your gallery and circle of cool friends - go to a few parties and then
> fill your first show - with whatever - best if its sensational - sexy dirty
> etc.
sure. but that's communication. not postmodernism.
besides, it's always been like that.
i'll take robert ryman and cy twombly anyday over steven spielberg and
clint eastwood.
i prefer an emptiness that allows for everything to spill in than a
form that believes in order over chance.
and i never was expecting the author or the revolution from
aesthetics, so i dont have a problem with it.
anyway, ncie talking with you.
*Anarcissie*
> On 30 ene, 17:57, "James Whitehead" <somewh...@overtherainbow.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Well no - the post modernist wouldn't start out like that at all - you first
> > get your gallery and circle of cool friends - go to a few parties and then
> > fill your first show - with whatever - best if its sensational - sexy dirty
> > etc.
We have come a long way when the outraged maiden
aunt is put on in defense of Modernism. All those hardy
boho-macho guys who threw paint at the canvas must
be spinning in their graves like tops.
> sure. but that's communication. not postmodernism.
>
> besides, it's always been like that.
>
> i'll take robert ryman and cy twombly anyday over steven spielberg and
> clint eastwood.
>
> i prefer an emptiness that allows for everything to spill in than a
> form that believes in order over chance.
-
In that case, why go to an art gallery or a museum at all?
We have already had the shows where blank canvases or
empty frames were hung on the wall. Several times over --
it's a pretty obvious move.
As for Cy Twombly, I would like to know what you see in
his work. But perhaps it's _ineffable_.
-
James Whitehead
> On Jan 30, 5:32 pm, "sirblob" <sirbl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On 30 ene, 17:57, "James Whitehead" <somewh...@overtherainbow.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Well no - the post modernist wouldn't start out like that at all - you
first
> > > get your gallery and circle of cool friends - go to a few parties and
then
> > > fill your first show - with whatever - best if its sensational - sexy
dirty
> > > etc.
>
> We have come a long way when the outraged maiden
> aunt is put on in defense of Modernism. All those hardy
> boho-macho guys who threw paint at the canvas must
> be spinning in their graves like tops.
>
*Anarcissie*
> > > > Well no - the post modernist wouldn't start out like that at all - you
> first
> > > > get your gallery and circle of cool friends - go to a few parties and
> then
> > > > fill your first show - with whatever - best if its sensational - sexy
> dirty
> > > > etc.
>
>
> > We have come a long way when the outraged maiden
> > aunt is put on in defense of Modernism. All those hardy
> > boho-macho guys who threw paint at the canvas must
> > be spinning in their graves like tops.
On Jan 31, 11:08 am, "James Whitehead" <somewh...@overtherainbow.com>
wrote:
-
> Like Damien Hirst's spin paintings you mean...
-
No -- as far as I can tell Damien Hirst's stuff is just vacuous
crap, _overtly_ vacuous crap, like Jeff Koons's stuff. The old-
time boho-macho guys were doing _meaningful_work_, man.
sirblob
a lot lot more than what i find in john ford's or steven spielberg's
postclassicism. now, *you* might want to explain what you see in
spielberg or ford, but perhaps it's ineffable?
the behaviours of postmodernism remind me of those in hermeneutics;
interpreting has *always* been done, only before it was with the
pretence of objectivity. it's not postmodernism that's the end of the
enlightenment, it's the enlightenment ending itself. blaming
postmodernism with easy tricks learnt from the newspaper is tedious.
*Anarcissie*
That doesn't answer the question. A week ago I came across
a work of Cy Twombly only a few hundred feet from the likes
of Rembrandt and Titian in a prestigious museum. It was
essentially a large canvas with some scribbles on it. I want
someone to explain it to me, its existence, its situation. It
was quite mysterious to me.
But I don't have to explain what I see in Spielberg or Ford, since I
haven't been advertising them. Nothing, perhaps. Back to you.
> the behaviours of postmodernism remind me of those in hermeneutics;
> interpreting has *always* been done, only before it was with the
> pretence of objectivity. it's not postmodernism that's the end of the
> enlightenment, it's the enlightenment ending itself. blaming
> postmodernism with easy tricks learnt from the newspaper is tedious.
Well, I'm certainly not blaming postmodernism with anything.
I don't even think it exists. Postmodernity, maybe; but as I
said before about postmodernism, there's no there there. It
should probably always be presented in quotation marks --
maybe more than one set of quotation marks.
<<"'"Postmodernism"'">>
As for the Enlightenment, I think we're stuck with it.
Mounard Le Fougueux
I prefer the pretense of subjectivity, myself.
> It's not postmodernism that's the end of the
> enlightenment, it's the enlightenment ending itself. blaming
> postmodernism with easy tricks learnt from the newspaper is tedious.
Technological determinism has always caused the arts grief. new
developments in technology has always caused the existing artistic to go
through adaptation and change, in which
a. the new technology initially makes the previous art rediculous and
impotent
b. the old arts are reinterpreted in light of the new technology
c. the new techology is absorbed and its strengths are taken advantage
of to create new arts.
A classic example of this was the technology of photography, which was a
severe shock to the arts. On one hand, photography forced the exisiting
arts to be exaggerated versions of themself and on the other hand some
absorbed this new technology and created cinema. The initial commercial
success of photography was in the sales of photographs of freaks and
midgets.
Video tape was also a severe technological shock (Nam June Paik, steina
and woody vesulka, Marshal McLuhan). The present technological
convergence of computing, communications, entertainment, education and
commerce in the iphone and its successors has been much too rapid and
hasn't stabilized long enough for the arts to adjust. Only the young and
commerce is able to ride the technology. In fact, the pace of
technological change many never slow down enough for the arts to catch
up. So far, the arts are still stuck in the postmodernist equivalent of
selling photos of freaks and midgets.
Perhaps that is the role of contemporary philosophy (Bernard Stiegler,
Slavko Zizek) - to try to do remedial education to the arts on its own
culture.
Mounard Le Fougueux
[ Kirk Varnedoe: Cy Twombly: A Retrospective]
ILLUSTRIOUS AND UNKNOWN: this was what Degas aspired to be, and what Cy
Twombly has become. His imposing reputation has an aura of myth and
ambiguity, for reasons that have partly to do with the elusiveness of
the artist himself (residing abroad and protective of his privacy), but
more to do with the singularity of his art. Twombly first came to
prominence in the later 1950s, when his graffiti like pencilwork
appeared to subvert Abstract Expressionism. Yet he then sustained
painterly abstraction through a time in the 1960s when the imagery of
mass culture and the certainties of geometry seemed destined to kill it
off. While linked by generational ties and friendship to Robert
Rauschenberg and Jasper Johns, he has suffered from the fact that unlike
theirs, his work - with no bold graphic or photographic imagery - tells
little in reproduction, and provides no convenient entrance into Pop
art. The elements of ironic realism in their art have been considered
progressive and in tune with postmodern sensibilities, but Twombly's
unique combination of bare astringency and sensual indulgence has proved
harder to confine within such tidy generalizations. He has further
distanced himself from his contemporaries by embracing the classical
past and reaching for epic narrative in an era when such models appeared
wholly derelict. In addition, his work has often sought its own poetics
by invoking the heritage of literature, during a long period in which
"literary" was a term of condemnation. These commitments, and their
author, have never found a ready niche in accounts of the progress of
art since 1950. The countless paperbacks and catalogues that have
canonized the line of artists from Pollock to Warhol as the mainstream
of American art's postwar ascendancy have typically neglected Twombly
rather than contend with the ways his inclusion might disrupt that
story's flow. A fellow artist already saw the problem in 1955:
"[Twombly's] originality," he said, "is being himself. He seems to be
born out of our time, rather than into it."
That assessment cannot satisfy: no person has such autonomy, and clearly
Twombly's art is specifically contemporary. Efforts to link him to the
art of his time have left us, though, with an oddly piecemeal fabric of
interpretations - one which only now, in the mid 1990s, appears to be
assuming enough breadth and density to wrap the complex achievements of
the work itself Over almost three decades, Twombly has been repeatedly
"rediscovered" by American critics, in various ways. The white on grey
paintings he made in the late 1960s were welcomed as having an
anti-sensual, cerebral spareness that related them to Minimalism and
Conceptual art; and the fascination with linguistic models of criticism
focused special attention on the play of marking, writing, and schematic
figuration in his work. Then, more important, American awareness of
European contemporary art expanded: in the 1970s a sharpened focus on
the art of Joseph Beuys concerned with grand myth and history, but also
esoterically personal and tied to a bodily animism began a reorientation
that favored Twombly in other ways; and the advent of a new painterly
expressionism in the 1980s, in artists as diverse as Anselm Kiefer and
Francesco Clemente, further catalyzed a fresh assessment of his importance.
More recently a fraught concern with sexuality has appeared among
contemporary artists whose anti-formal expressivity and candor about the
body has opened still another avenue into Twombly's complex achievement.
As did the earlier frames of reference (Abstract Expressionism, Neo
Dada, Minimal and Conceptual art, Neo Expressionism, and so on), this
one can help us see valid aspects of the work. Taken in sequence,
however, each of these terms has tended to exclude or ignore the others,
and none accounts for the presence within Twombly's art of all these,
and more, contradictory climates of feeling. Offhand impulsiveness and
obsessive systems; the defiling urge toward what is base and the
complementary love for lyric poetry and the grand legacy of high Western
culture; written words, counting systems, geometry, ideographic signs,
and abstract fingerwork with paint all ask to be understood in concert.
In that complexity, this art has proved influential among artists,
discomfiting to many critics, and truculently difficult not just for a
broad public, but for sophisticated initiates of postwar art as well. It
will almost certainly continue to defy ready acceptance by a wide
audience, as its particular impact depends so strongly on the kind of
direct response to physical presence that is resistant to verbalization
and uncongenial to analysis. In the extensive literature on Twombly,
many sensitive writers and acute theoreticians have already grappled
with that difficulty, in efforts to capture poetically the seductive
force of his work, and to analyze its singular aesthetic structure...
Mani Deli
As I said before, if it needs a long convoluted sermon to proclaim
it's art is probably bullshit.
Mani Deli
<blinkin...@NonEventHorizon.com> wrote:
>Technological determinism has always caused the arts grief.
not true.
>new
>developments in technology has always caused the existing artistic to go
>through adaptation and change, in which
>a. the new technology initially makes the previous art rediculous and
>impotent
I suppose you think all great classical art is "ridiculous and
impotent."
>b. the old arts are reinterpreted in light of the new technology
>c. the new techology is absorbed and its strengths are taken advantage
>of to create new arts.
So is an engraving interpreted in terms of lithography? What ever that
means.
>A classic example of this was the technology of photography, which was a
>severe shock to the arts.
Modern art mythology, it did no such thing.
>On one hand, photography forced the exisiting
>arts to be exaggerated versions of themself and on the other hand some
>absorbed this new technology and created cinema. The initial commercial
>success of photography was in the sales of photographs of freaks and
>midgets.
Photography influenced some artwork that followed. It proved a useful
tool for many artists. Today the computer is the big technological
advance. I don't think that it worries too many artists.
Lauri Levanto
>
> Technological determinism has always caused the arts grief. new
> developments in technology has always caused the existing artistic to go
> through adaptation and change, in which
> a. the new technology initially makes the previous art rediculous and
> impotent
> b. the old arts are reinterpreted in light of the new technology
> c. the new techology is absorbed and its strengths are taken advantage
> of to create new arts.
>
"Give me an authentic baroque audience
and I play authentic baroque music"
Nigel Kennedy, violinist
-lauri
Mounard Le Fougueux
Kennedy plays the right notes in the right order (better then most, I
suppose) but has no sense of the extressive power of the violin as an
instrument different then, say the piano. He's all mindless vibrato and
left hand and no bow. The main problem with overuse of vibrato is that
it prevent you from hearing. He should practice completely without
vibrato in order to develop dynamics and the figurative aspects of
violin sound production.
Mounard Le Fougueux
[Thomas Mann: Death in Venice]
...
But is seems that a noble and active mind blunts itself against nothing
so quickly as the sharp and bitter irritant of knowledge. And certain it
is that the youth's constancy of purpose, no matter how painfully
conscientious, was shallow beside the mature resolution of the master of
his craft, who made a right-about-face, turned his back on the realm of
knowledge, and passed it by with averted face, lest it lame his will or
power of action, paralyse his feelings or his passions, deprive any of
thses of their conviction or utility.
...
sirblob
ok. well describe rembrandt's and titian's supposed greatness to me.
why do you think i have to answer your question?
im not being proud. dont even know what that is. it's just that that's
the kind of trick that leads to mani deli's lame claim,
''postmodernist art is crap cuz it explains itself too much''. why
should i explain twombly and you not feel the need to explain
rembrandt, titian, eastwood or ford? because you're a member of the
majority?
>
> > the behaviours of postmodernism remind me of those in hermeneutics;
> > interpreting has *always* been done, only before it was with the
> > pretence of objectivity. it's not postmodernism that's the end of the
> > enlightenment, it's the enlightenment ending itself. blaming
> > postmodernism with easy tricks learnt from the newspaper is tedious.
>
> Well, I'm certainly not blaming postmodernism with anything.
> I don't even think it exists. Postmodernity, maybe; but as I
> said before about postmodernism, there's no there there. It
> should probably always be presented in quotation marks --
> maybe more than one set of quotation marks.
>
> <<"'"Postmodernism"'">>
>
> As for the Enlightenment, I think we're stuck with it.
well the ''enlightenment'' you mean, you're stuck with ''modernity''?
what do you mean you don't think it exists? you mean you prefer jurgen
habermas' communicative reason over foucault's power thing, popper
over kuhn, john simon over roland barthes? in cinema does this mean
you prefer your local multiplex and the golden age of hollywood to the
postmodernist cinema of sokurov's days of the eclipse (jameson) or
that of john cassavetes (kouvaros)?
*Anarcissie*
I mentioned R. and T. because a wide variety of people
think their stuff is good, thus I had some hope of
establishing a sort of baseline. If you don't get anything
out of their work, though, any attempt on my part to
point it out or convey it would probably be in vain.
> why do you think i have to answer your question?
You don't, of course. I suggested the goodness of
Cy Twombly's work might be ineffable. You did sort
of advertise the goodness of Twombly's work, so I
thought you might have something to say about it.
I once got some people to expatiate upon the
spiritual qualities of Barnett Newman's paintings
quite vigorously -- one might even say hysterically.
In case you don't know, he's the fellow who painted
plain vertical stripes on large canvases, one or two
per canvas usually. Newman's work remains a
mystery to me, but now I feel assured that
_someone_ sees something in it somehow. In
the case of Twombly, I have seen many articles
_situating_ his work in some scheme of things,
or proclaiming its influence, but no one seems
to experience anything by looking at it, at least
not that they want to talk about. And this
corresponds with my experience. I see some
scribbles on a canvas, and not very arty scribbles,
either, unlike the arty scribbles of Matisse, say.
> im not being proud. dont even know what that is. it's just that that's
> the kind of trick that leads to mani deli's lame claim,
> ''postmodernist art is crap cuz it explains itself too much''. why
> should i explain twombly and you not feel the need to explain
> rembrandt, titian, eastwood or ford? because you're a member of the
> majority?
See above. I don't know what "majority" you're talking
about -- did you take a poll? Abstract expressionism is
sold in malls, you know. A lot of the folk seem to like
it as decor -- a role that has been conceded to it for a
long time.
> > > the behaviours of postmodernism remind me of those in hermeneutics;
> > > interpreting has *always* been done, only before it was with the
> > > pretence of objectivity. it's not postmodernism that's the end of the
> > > enlightenment, it's the enlightenment ending itself. blaming
> > > postmodernism with easy tricks learnt from the newspaper is tedious.
>
> > Well, I'm certainly not blaming postmodernism with anything.
> > I don't even think it exists. Postmodernity, maybe; but as I
> > said before about postmodernism, there's no there there. It
> > should probably always be presented in quotation marks --
> > maybe more than one set of quotation marks.
>
> > <<"'"Postmodernism"'">>
>
> > As for the Enlightenment, I think we're stuck with it.
>
> well the ''enlightenment'' you mean, you're stuck with ''modernity''?
> what do you mean you don't think it exists? you mean you prefer jurgen
> habermas' communicative reason over foucault's power thing, popper
> over kuhn, john simon over roland barthes? in cinema does this mean
> you prefer your local multiplex and the golden age of hollywood to the
> postmodernist cinema of sokurov's days of the eclipse (jameson) or
> that of john cassavetes (kouvaros)?
I think we're stuck with the Enlightenment not because of my
taste in philosophy and film, which you have sadly misjudged,
but because you can use science-technology-industrialism-
capitalism to kill or otherwise control millions of people and
get piles of stuff, and this is what people want to do. It's an
incomplete enlightenment, you might say.
As for "postmodernism", the _-ism_ implies some kind of
coherent philosophy or practice, which would be peculiar
to the postmodern era, or postmodernity. I don't see this.
For instance in painting, one can say "postmodern" meaning
"post-Modern", that is, coming after Modernism, but that
does not represent any particular style or approach. One
can even do abstract-expressionism and get into a gallery
with the right rap. The same goes for philosophy, politics,
fashion, and so on. So, as I say, there's no there there.
However, people defend the empty citadel, so maybe
eventually someone or something will move in.
sirblob
well take twombly as a revisited rembrandt meets john ford then. i
wont get into an exuberant defense of twombly because it doesnt make
sense for me to do so and because then it'll look as if postmodernism
has to explain itself a lot more than classicism does. that way so
many people can reduce it to being on the defensive or ''seeking to
shock''. perhaps if you told me what you find in classicism, i could
say where postmodernism stands. your description seems to take that
for granted; ''you don't see anything in twombly because you don't see
anyhing in twombly because you don't see anything in twombly etc'' and
i don't get to know why you enjoy rembrandt and titian (it seems
ineffable)
that's not good or large enough. nowhere near the credibility that's
given to classical reproduction. your majority has john ford high
above barnett newman. 99 per cent of the products consumed and social
contracts in our contemporary society are postclassicist.
no not really. it's more like about postmodernity being the
shortcomings of modernity. it's very plausible to place godard's a
bout de souffle' as postmodernist.
but that
> does not represent any particular style or approach. One
> can even do abstract-expressionism and get into a gallery
> with the right rap. The same goes for philosophy, politics,
> fashion, and so on. So, as I say, there's no there there.
>
> However, people defend the empty citadel, so maybe
> eventually someone or something will move in.
again, you emphasise it's ''empty''. just like economics? politics?
''no there there''? i'd go with zizek or baudrillard at this point,
ie, ''there's even more than there there''.
i take it as a behavioural thing. how many of our acts are modern,
traditional and classicist and how many are postmodernist.
James Whitehead
That was the point of my "joke" - they are dead and spinning - which is
Post-Modernism - they once were alive- and meaningful - but not now.
The enlightenment is over...
Anarcissie
wrote:
> "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > > "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@gmail.com>:
> > > > We have come a long way when the outraged maiden
> > > > aunt is put on in defense of Modernism. All those hardy
> > > > boho-macho guys who threw paint at the canvas must
> > > > be spinning in their graves like tops.
>
> > On Jan 31, 11:08 am, "James Whitehead" <somewh...@overtherainbow.com>
> > wrote:
> > -
> > > Like Damien Hirst's spin paintings you mean...
>
> > -
>
> > No -- as far as I can tell Damien Hirst's stuff is just vacuous
> > crap, _overtly_ vacuous crap, like Jeff Koons's stuff. The old-
> > time boho-macho guys were doing _meaningful_work_, man.
>
> That was the point of my "joke" - they are dead and spinning - which is
> Post-Modernism - they once were alive- and meaningful - but not now.
> The enlightenment is over...
They're spinning only in my banal trope, however. I do
think you are to be congratulated for managing to huff and
puff about the decline of values and meaning on behalf of
Modernism, though, just as it was likewise huffed and puffed
against Modernism in the old days, even if you had to put
irony additives in your gas.
The Enlightenment isn't over as long as guys in white coats
can scribble stuff on blackboards that blows up whole cities.
That is impressive juju and we will hear more from it.
Mani Deli
<some...@overtherainbow.com> wrote:
>
>That was the point of my "joke" - they are dead and spinning - which is
>Post-Modernism - they once were alive- and meaningful - but not now.
>The enlightenment is over...
>
Democratic political systems, modern science, de terming truth by
means of rationality instead of emotion, dealing with religion
rationally, etc. are all products of the enlightenment and still hold
major influence on all areas of the world that aren't tribal.
PM like other mystical creeds is,
anti-scientific, anti rational and consequently anti-empiricist. To
support these contentions it babbles about the unconscious, scientism,
Heidigger etc. I use the term babbles because no one agrees on what
any of this means.
PM is really ancient mystical stuff expressed in a new jargon. It
offers no substitute for science and logic other than cryptic slogans.
PM’s rational foundation is as tenuous as that of Christian Science.
Its half-life will be somewhat shorter. Eventually it will fade into a
newer fashion for the fickle irrationalist under another name for the
same old nonsense.
Most PM writing is about as stupid as the supposedly new art it
favors. It offers some new angles on mystical self delusion.
PM got a lot of its lingo from Artspeak. Read the FAQ for some neat
samples.
Mani Deli
unable to imitate the masterpieces and all of his admired technique is
merely proof of his inability. His apples are made of cement. The
paradox is that what is least admirable is most admired: nullity! What
a symbol for a period! On the pretext of the academic being
detestable, the worst in the class was made a hero! He opens the door
to the ethics of shit! Newness at whatever cost?and art becomes just a
latrine! The logic of this search for newness leads to the
glorification of total shit of which Cezanne is the high priest."
Dali "unspeakable Confessions"
sirblob
> On Fri, 2 Feb 2007 07:08:50 -0000, "James Whitehead"
>
>
> >That was the point of my "joke" - they are dead and spinning - which is
> >Post-Modernism - they once were alive- and meaningful - but not now.
> >The enlightenment is over...
>
> Democratic political systems,
consensus, every four years choose between two ''options''?
> modern science,
technogeek utilitarianism.
de terming truth by
> means of rationality instead of emotion,
wafer thin rhetoric.
dealing with religion
> rationally,
the claim and appropriation of the word ''reason'' is usually done by
the greatest and most dangerous phonies/idiots.
etc. are all products of the enlightenment and still hold
> major influence on all areas of the world that aren't tribal.
>
> PM like other mystical creeds is,
> anti-scientific,
you phony twirp.
>anti rational
that schtick's been around since ayn rand.
> and consequently anti-empiricist.
the phony popper-fanboys are still at it.
To
> support these contentions it babbles about the unconscious,
yeah i can see why freud still irritates you.
> scientism,
exactly. yours.
> Heidigger etc.
yeah i can see why heidegger's countercultural authentic whatever
would annoy you.
I use the term babbles because no one agrees on what
> any of this means.
no. you're just too stupid to understand it.
>
> PM is really ancient mystical stuff expressed in a new jargon.
no. *you* are.
It
> offers no substitute for science and logic
''logic''?
''science''?
''rationality''?
what on earth is this mystical cryptic creep babbling on bout?
other than cryptic slogans.
> PM's rational foundation is as tenuous as that of Christian Science.
your belief in progress is laughable.
> Its half-life will be somewhat shorter. Eventually it will fade into a
> newer fashion for the fickle irrationalist under another name for the
> same old nonsense.
you, on the other hand, will be hyperactive, efficient, productive and
engender further results of results.
>
> Most PM writing is about as stupid as the supposedly new art it
> favors.
ohhh, it dies. it's not productive. it's not consumerist. oh the
proof. the spoof?
It offers some new angles on mystical self delusion.
>
no. you do. you can't even understand kuhn. you can't even digest
cezanne and you're stuck with gk chesterton.
> PM got a lot of its lingo from Artspeak.
no. you got your doublespeak from power.
Read the FAQ for some neat
> samples.
why should he?
James Whitehead
"Anarcissie" <anarc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1170421240.5...@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I think you have me wrong - i'm not saying values have declined - or
meaning - just that the values are now different - and there isnt any
meaning. I've yet - i think to say this is good or bad - but what is bad is
to be in an epoch with the wrong set of values...
>
> The Enlightenment isn't over as long as guys in white coats
> can scribble stuff on blackboards that blows up whole cities.
But they dont anymore - and havent done so for - well at least 70 or more
years. But what we do have is guys in turbans messing up entire countries...
perhaps for good reason? The Koran currently is more powerful than the
theory of relativity. or the Principia ..... the enlightenment is
over...
> That is impressive juju and we will hear more from it.
>
No - the funding gets less for physics as they haven't come up with any
bigger bangs - and the bangs they have aren't much use - if so Iraq would be
a pushover...
James Whitehead
"Mani Deli" <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:bum6s2de9b9h6p119...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 2 Feb 2007 07:08:50 -0000, "James Whitehead"
> <some...@overtherainbow.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >That was the point of my "joke" - they are dead and spinning - which is
> >Post-Modernism - they once were alive- and meaningful - but not now.
> >The enlightenment is over...
> >
>
> Democratic political systems, modern science, de terming truth by
> means of rationality instead of emotion, dealing with religion
> rationally, etc. are all products of the enlightenment and still hold
> major influence on all areas of the world that aren't tribal.
Rubbish - Iraq was not a rational event
- gay rights in the US are opposed - on what grounds -
>
>
> PM like other mystical creeds is,
> anti-scientific, anti rational and consequently anti-empiricist. To
> support these contentions it babbles about the unconscious, scientism,
> Heidigger etc. I use the term babbles because no one agrees on what
> any of this means.
>
> PM is really ancient mystical stuff expressed in a new jargon. It
> offers no substitute for science and logic other than cryptic slogans.
> PM's rational foundation is as tenuous as that of Christian Science.
> Its half-life will be somewhat shorter. Eventually it will fade into a
> newer fashion for the fickle irrationalist under another name for the
> same old nonsense.
>
> Most PM writing is about as stupid as the supposedly new art it
> favors. It offers some new angles on mystical self delusion.
>
> PM got a lot of its lingo from Artspeak. Read the FAQ for some neat
> samples.
>
For someone who supports rational argument the above is a demonstration of
what is called a contradiction - and an argument from prejudice unsupported
by evidence or reason which cites a Use Group FAQ as a relevant source- i.e.
a demonstration of poor academic practice.
James Whitehead
of any worldly experience - he's just like meatloaf. They play meatloaf and
pin dali pic's on their lonely bedroom walls - so he has his place - he
demonstrates the obvious.
Wasn't there a bugs bunny cartoon set in a Dali landscape?
"Mani Deli" <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:1eo6s2tq3let5et3v...@4ax.com...
Don Tuite
<some...@overtherainbow.com> wrote:
>But no one thinks Dali is a good painter - well some adolescents for want
>of any worldly experience - he's just like meatloaf. They play meatloaf and
>pin dali pic's on their lonely bedroom walls - so he has his place - he
>demonstrates the obvious.
>
>Wasn't there a bugs bunny cartoon set in a Dali landscape?
>
Set to Rossini, IIRC.
Meatloaf : Tom Waits :: Dali : ??
Don
*Anarcissie*
wrote:
> "Anarcissie" <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Oh, I thought "meaninglessness" was supposed to be some
kind of deficit you were complaining about. But, then, how do
you know the folk aren't getting some kind of meaning out of
the cornucopia of art with which they're surrounded?
Yesterday as I trundled past BVLGARI, the jewelry store, on
Fifth Avenue or wherever it is, I noticed there was an enormous
sign on the front of it quoting a testimonial to Bulgari's artiness
by the noted dead White man Andy Warhol. I take it Bulgari
took it, and was letting it out, without a trace of irony or deceit,
reassuring the rich that they are not just vacuous dimwits and
parasites with big bank accounts after all. They're arty, and
who better to know than Andy Warhol, who is not only arty
and big-ticket but dead as well? So you see these, at least,
were getting _Meaning_ out of Art: they were getting SELF-
VALIDATION, and what greater Meaning could there be?
You just don't know what's going on, that's all.
>
> > The Enlightenment isn't over as long as guys in white coats
> > can scribble stuff on blackboards that blows up whole cities.
>
> But they dont anymore - and havent done so for - well at least 70 or more
> years. But what we do have is guys in turbans messing up entire countries...
> perhaps for good reason? The Koran currently is more powerful than the
> theory of relativity. or the Principia ..... the enlightenment is
> over...
>
> > That is impressive juju and we will hear more from it.
>
> No - the funding gets less for physics as they haven't come up with any
> bigger bangs - and the bangs they have aren't much use - if so Iraq would be
> a pushover...
-
You're quite wrong about that. Not only are there developments
in the physics and chemistry of exploding objects, both radioactive
and non-radioactive, but very interesting developments in such arcane
areas as genetics, communications, and computation. Even old-time
pharmacology is being updated and distributed. How did you like that
Russian guy being poisoned with a tasteless substance in an amount
the size of a dustmote in a cup of tea? The fact that Americans are
willing to terrorize themselves and to feed and feed on their own
terror
is simply to the advantage of their rulers and managers and is being
encouraged. It has nothing to do with the Koran.
sirblob
wrote:
> "Anarcissie" <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote in message
bullshit. conflating that cool-sounding word ''enlightenment'' with
the society of the spectacle one finds in the postmodernism of
baudrillard or debord is predictable from some idiot denying the
tribalism of colonialism, globalisation, imperialism and modernity's
technological power, domination and control. here, you're allowed to
ask one question, baldrick.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4TKTRV4HM0
oh and if in those two minutes your concentration fails try this:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0425/is_4_58/ai_59552694
that is, of course, if baudrillard fails to demonstrate the
transparency of your evil or you're incapable of understand cezanne or
pissarro
If T. J. Clark is right about modernism, then Farewell to an Idea:
Episodes from a History of Modernism is a very modern book. The
historical phenomenon of modernity, according to Clark (who is
borrowing a phrase from Weber's borrowing from Schiller), consists in
"the disenchantment of the world" over the past two hundred years or
so. Which is to say, it involves humanity's loss of its aptitude to
believe in the comforting totalities--religions, myths, and such--that
had served to explain the workings of the world during premodern days
of yore. The artistic movement of modernism, in turn, both relishes
and bemoans this historical breakdown. Clark's book finds itself
sharing certain characteristics with both modernity and modernism: it
repeatedly engineers its own incapacity to deliver on its promised
totalities, but maintains toward that circumstance a relatively
constant tone of anguished regret.
T. J. Clark. Farewell to an Idea: Episodes from a History of
Modernism. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1999. 451 pp., 92 color
ills., 160 b/w $45.
Advertisement
Promised totalities here take (at least) two forms. First, the flyleaf
text explicitly declares what the broad chronological and geographic
sweep of the project--with chapters on David, Pissarro, Cezanne,
Picasso, El Lissitzky, Pollock, and Abstract Expressionism--implies:
that Farewell to an Idea will serve as a grand summation of "the work
of a lifetime." This is an odd claim to make of a writer at mid-career
(Clark is in his mid-fifties), and it should not be too much to hope
for a continuing stream of provocative essays from this illustrious
and insightful scholar. Moreover, Clark attempts to incorporate his
own post as well as his future into the present of the book. As a
means of bridging the hundred-year gap yawning between the
revolutionary David discussed in Chapter 1 and late Pissarro treated
in Chapter 2, Clark, in his introduction, claims that the reader may
safely interpolate the author's earlier books on Courbet and Manet
into the narrative delivered here. This tactic effaces the distinct
progr ession--itself a telling index of broader methodological
developments over the past two decades--which can be mapped onto
Clark's corpus. In the twinned volumes The Absolute Bourgeois and
Image of the People, published in 1973 at a time when external
reference within the practice of the social history of art still
maintained relatively unproblematic purchase (such reference is
complex and multiform in early Clark, but always there), Courbet's
paintings at mid-century truly threatened to reveal to the citizens of
Besancon and Paris certain troubling truths about the rural
bourgeoisie. That the likes of emperor-to-be Louis-Napoleon managed to
pull an ideological veil over these uncomfortable truths, that the
revolutionary potential of Courbet's canvases failed to be realized,
lent to Clark's account the first instance of his oft-repeated
profound lament. By 1985 and the publication of The Painting of Modern
Life, the veil of false consciousness had annealed into the hegemony
of the society of spectacle, much be moaned by Clark. And, rather than
rending that veil asunder, Manet's paintings could do no more than
detect the traces of its distortions and repressions by emphasizing
the folds and flaws marking its reprehensible surface. [1] We may
attribute this shift from the first set of books to the second book
either to the ever-increasing commodification of French life from 1850
to 1870 or to Clark's more explicit recognition of the inherent
mediation of the visual sign. In either case, the moment when art
grasps truth by its short hairs had clearly been set at a further
remove. From the perspective of Farewell to an Idea, Manet's
predicament as recounted by the author a decade ago may well prove to
have been overly optimistic. In this latest volume, modern art forgoes
even the prospect of assured engagement with the accumulation of
society's other signs, let alone whatever social reality may subtend
them. The possibility of registering loss with any certainty has now
itself been lost. And with this gradual shift fro m nostalgia to a
type of "meta-nostalgia"--a regret that we can no longer be sure of
what we need regret--the prospect of a uniform and timeless analytical
totality named "T. J. Clark" crumbles as well.
Second, the scope of Farewell to in Idea, as its subtitle aptly
expresses, portends the totality of a "modernism' from which Clark's
wide-ranging "episodes" will be drawn. (Make no mistake: Clark locates
modernism unambiguously in a collection of cultural artifacts that
actually are conjoined in some coherent manner; it is no mere
analytical device imposed after the fact for the sake of making sense
of those artifacts.) "What is modernity; what is modernism; and what
is theft interrelation?" the book asks repeatedly throughout its four
hundred pages, as it queries artifacts spanning two centuries and two
continents. And Farewell to an Idea proposes to find a consistent,
unifying answer to that running interrogation. The underlying constant
of artistic modernism, maintains Clark, lies in the fact that no
sooner does some visual (or, for that matter, verbal) proposition
forward itself than it immediately generates its own refuting,
opposing claim. Farewell to an Idea overflows with such auto-
confounding contra ries. Modern art is inward-turning yet outward-
facing. It is an uninflected image yet bears the burdens of writing.
It is immediate yet discursive, nihilistic yet painstaking. It
searches for some solid bedrock for the sign yet insists on the sign's
social character. It plays with fantasy yet also strives for the real.
It is mere ground yet it also proffers the figure. It is flat yet
carves out an illusion in depth. And so forth. We might be tempted to
imagine some sort of straightforward analogy between these inevitable
ambivalences in art and the type of social contradictions that have
brought on "the disenchantment of the world." In this account, such
social contradictions take a variety of forms: conflicts between
classes or groups within classes; the staking out of antagonistic
positions within the political debates of fin-desiecle French
anarchism or early Soviet communism; and, above all else in these
pages, in the deceptions and bad faith brought into this world of
things by the metastasizing practice of commodification. This is
precisely the temptation in which the earlier books tended to indulge,
and with which Farewell to an Idea flirts during the introduction,
when Clark finds (and then immediately qualifies) significance in the
rough chronological congruence of modernism in art and socialism in
politics.
*Anarcissie*
wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Feb 2007 17:17:56 -0000, "James Whitehead"
>
> >But no one thinks Dali is a good painter - well some adolescents for want
> >of any worldly experience - he's just like meatloaf. They play meatloaf and
> >pin dali pic's on their lonely bedroom walls - so he has his place - he
> >demonstrates the obvious.
>
> >Wasn't there a bugs bunny cartoon set in a Dali landscape?
>
> Set to Rossini, IIRC.
>
> Meatloaf : Tom Waits :: Dali : ??
>
> Don
Duchamp
Ned Ludd
"*Anarcissie*" <anarc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1170466293.1...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>
>>>> "--Cezanne is the finest expression of this decadence. He was truly
>>>> unable to imitate the masterpieces and all of his admired technique
>>>> is merely proof of his inability. His apples are made of cement. The
>>>> paradox is that what is least admirable is most admired: nullity!
>>>> What a symbol for a period! On the pretext of the academic being
>>>> detestable, the worst in the class was made a hero! He opens the door
>>>> a latrine! The logic of this search for newness leads to the
>>>> glorification of total shit of which Cezanne is the high priest."
>>>> Dali "unspeakable Confessions"
>>>
>>> want of any worldly experience - he's just like meatloaf. They play
>>> meatloaf and pin dali pic's on their lonely bedroom walls - so he
>>> has his place - he demonstrates the obvious.
>>> Wasn't there a bugs bunny cartoon set in a Dali landscape?
>>
>> Set to Rossini, IIRC.
>> Meatloaf : Tom Waits :: Dali : ??
>> Don
>
> Duchamp
>
Oh thank you. Art as a latrine! Duchamp. Finally I get it.
Simpsons also did a Dali landscape (more than once). The Armory
Exhibition was a real breakthrough. But people really do need
to get periodically pissed off at art. I was reading today, or
rather mostly browsing through, a large book about John Singer
Sargeant. In 1892 at a Paris exhibition he showed a painting
called "Madame X". And the city went into an uproar. And it
lasted for weeks. And the painting itself is an interesting but
not too exceptional portrait. But the critics tore it to pieces...
Everything about it, and it was fueled in part by the woman
herself, who had a reputation for promiscuity.
And Sargeant could paint in any style, with any degree of
precision that he desired.
Anyway, in another excursion like the above I came across a
quote from Matisse, who referred to Cezanne as "the father of
us all".
Ned
Don Tuite
wrote:
>Duchamp
That's good.
It's interesting from a PM-culture standpoint that the urinal gets a
walk-on role in the Michael Dibdin Aurelio Zen book that's really
about Eco.
I mention the urinal because Ned Ludd invokes it in the post that's
parallel to this one in the thread. Why, I wonder, does the urinal
seem to overshadow "Staircase," or anything else fo Duchamps's?
Does Waits' vignette with Iggy Pop in "Coffee and Cigarettes" make him
more PM than Meatloaf?
Don
Don Tuite
"of Duchamp's"
James Whitehead
"*Anarcissie*" <anarc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1170438954.8...@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
I think for the "in crowd" the meaninglessness" is part of the irony - look
at the press getting all steamed up at this - and calling is worthless
crap - when thats just what it is... kinda thing... and the folk getting
some meaning out of it - how funny... but OK - but still funny .. as if its
important.
>
> Yesterday as I trundled past BVLGARI, the jewelry store, on
> Fifth Avenue or wherever it is, I noticed there was an enormous
> sign on the front of it quoting a testimonial to Bulgari's artiness
> by the noted dead White man Andy Warhol. I take it Bulgari
> took it, and was letting it out, without a trace of irony or deceit,
> reassuring the rich that they are not just vacuous dimwits and
> parasites with big bank accounts after all. They're arty, and
> who better to know than Andy Warhol, who is not only arty
> and big-ticket but dead as well? So you see these, at least,
> were getting _Meaning_ out of Art: they were getting SELF-
> VALIDATION, and what greater Meaning could there be?
> You just don't know what's going on, that's all.
>
Via andy - yes
The substance that killed the russian guy was polonium discovered by Marie
Curie in 1898 - and the reason seems to be a long tradition in russia for
poisoning... so there you go - i'm wrong again...
James Whitehead
"sirblob" <sirb...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1170457112.0...@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
bullshit.
is that directed at me? And what follows - a youtube snip and a book
advert?
...conflating that cool-sounding word ''enlightenment'' with
James Whitehead
"Don Tuite" <don_...@MAILNOTSAUSAGEhotlinks.com> wrote in message
news:pcf8s2l5sqd3u9m71...@4ax.com...
Its significance today is in its lack of seriousness -
Duchamps Fountain --> Nauman's fountain -
http://www1.uol.com.br/bienal/24bienal/nuh/images/enuhnauman01g.jpg the
"Top Man" Peter Davies The Hot One Hundred
http://www.saatchi-gallery.co.uk/imgs/artists/davies_peter/peter_davies_hot_hundred.jpg
*Anarcissie*
wrote:
> On 2 Feb 2007 17:31:33 -0800, "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Feb 2, 12:42 pm, Don Tuite <don_tu...@MAILNOTSAUSAGEhotlinks.com>
> >wrote:
> >> On Fri, 2 Feb 2007 17:17:56 -0000, "James Whitehead"
>
> >> <somewh...@overtherainbow.com> wrote:
> >> >But no one thinks Dali is a good painter - well some adolescents for want
> >> >of any worldly experience - he's just like meatloaf. They play meatloaf and
> >> >pin dali pic's on their lonely bedroom walls - so he has his place - he
> >> >demonstrates the obvious.
>
> >> >Wasn't there a bugs bunny cartoon set in a Dali landscape?
>
> >> Set to Rossini, IIRC.
>
> >> Meatloaf : Tom Waits :: Dali : ??
>
> >Duchamp
>
> That's good.
>
> It's interesting from a PM-culture standpoint that the urinal gets a
> walk-on role in the Michael Dibdin Aurelio Zen book that's really
> about Eco.
>
> I mention the urinal because Ned Ludd invokes it in the post that's
> parallel to this one in the thread. Why, I wonder, does the urinal
-
I wasn't thinking of the urinal much. I supposed that the
Meatloaf - Tom Waits comparison was between the less and
more (apparently) authentic. Dali's costume was disturber
of the commonplace in art; who really disturbed the common-
place? There are a lot of candidates among the Dadaists
and Surrealists, as well as other categories, but Duchamp
seems to have been the most seriously and profoundly
disturbing, and it seemed that he really worked at it, too.
Dali is rather the Norman Rockwell of surrealism, except
Rockwell was by far the better artist (in the sense of being
sensitive to and competent in the realm of formal qualities)
and could play in more keys.
The fascination with the urinal _is_ interesting. I suppose
people are drawn to what they most desire. Yet at the
recent comprehensive Dada show in New York, although
the famous urinal was placed in an altar-like setting, it
did not seem to draw much attention. People looked at
it, and looked away, even though it was the herald of the
destruction of Western Civilization. It is after all a rather
modest thing.
-
Mounard Le Fougueux
You know, I think the one thing that an artists hate the most is to be
ignored. They find it much preferrable to be torn to piece by a review.
Most preferable of all, for an artist, is to have ones work cause
everyone to get so upset that everyone empties out into the street, with
torches, guns and pitchforks and march to the museum and burn it down,
and to hunt down the artist and his girlfriend (never the long suffering
wife) and to string them up like Mussolini and to have that picture on
every front page and on newsreels till the end of time.
Now THATS a successful exhibit!
sirblob
wrote:
> "sirblob" <sirbl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
nope
> ...
>
> plus de détails »
sirblob
> On Jan 27, 11:33 am, Mounard Le Fougueux
>
> <blinkingCur...@NonEventHorizon.com> wrote:
> > [The Conspiracy of Art - 1996]
>
> > ...
> > As long as art was making use of its own dissappearance and the
> > disappearance of its object, it was still a major enterprise. But art
> > trying to recycle itself by storming reality? The majority of
> > contemporary art has attempted to do prcisely that by confiscating
> > banality, waste and mediocrity as values and ideologies. These countless
> > installations and performances are merely compromising with the state of
> > things, and with all the past forms of art history. Raising banality,
> > originality and nullity to the level of values or even to perverse
> > aethetic pleasure.
>
> Fine art and commercial art. Apples and oranges.
no difference. it's just reductionism that attempts to label
postmodernism as an elitist minority thing. in fact, only those
postmodernist strands of FATHER TED are worth the while. same goes for
all the rest of the media.
Mani Deli
wrote:
>The fascination with the urinal _is_ interesting. I suppose
>people are drawn to what they most desire. Yet at the
>recent comprehensive Dada show in New York, although
>the famous urinal was placed in an altar-like setting, it
>did not seem to draw much attention. People looked at
>it, and looked away, even though it was the herald of the
>destruction of Western Civilization. It is after all a rather
>modest thing.
>
Its always good to look at how people react to artwork. Its far more
important than the double-talk you can read on the matter because it
reveals the truth. The fact is that hardly any cares about the Duchamp
pisspot except artzy fartzies and guys who write long ponderous
theoretical stuff on modern art which hardly anyone reads.
Duchamp painted far better than Picasso but didn't choose to pursue
the matter. He called it right. The sort of art he declared dead is
indeed dead. However, it hasn't stopped Artspeaking blow-bags who run
the Academic system at the moment from endlessly talking about it to
each other.
Duchamp pisspot discussion reminds me of the guy who
once asked me to join his secret society. Among other things he told
me I would learn their secret handshake.
The fact was that except for members of his club no one really gave a
shit about these secrets and the only reason for them was that they
enhanced a feeling self importance of its members. Much modern art and
the pseudo philosophical gas which accompanies it is analogous here.
Duchamp’s urinal is just another Modern Art put-on. It is about as
important as last months horse racing sheet.
...Today's clown prince of art is Warhol not Duchamp.
Mani Deli
<blinkin...@NonEventHorizon.com> wrote:
>You know, I think the one thing that an artists hate the most is to be
>ignored. They find it much preferrable to be torn to piece by a review.
>
>Most preferable of all, for an artist, is to have ones work cause
>everyone to get so upset that everyone empties out into the street, with
> torches, guns and pitchforks and march to the museum and burn it down,
>and to hunt down the artist and his girlfriend (never the long suffering
>wife) and to string them up like Mussolini and to have that picture on
>every front page and on newsreels till the end of time.
>
>Now THATS a successful exhibit!
>
Yes, but it's never happened except in the dreams of artzy fartzies.
Mounard Le Fougueux
Are you accussing Mussolini, Hitler, Joan of Arc, Savaranola, Jesus, and
Spartacus of not being great artists? Are you mad?
Ned Ludd
"Dan Fox" <danfoxa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:20070203094951.573$g...@newsreader.com...
> "Ned Ludd" <ned...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> > Anyway, in another excursion like the above I came across a
> > quote from Matisse, who referred to Cezanne as "the father of
> > us all".
>
> antecedents.
>
I'm absolutely certain that it was Matisse. Maybe they
both said it.
Ned
Don Tuite
wrote:
Both Oedipal. Common in that generation. Contrast with Hussain on
"mother of battles."
Don
CB
Cheers;
CB
"Ned Ludd" <ned...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:hv6xh.20304$w91....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
CB
"Don Tuite" <don_...@MAILNOTSAUSAGEhotlinks.com> wrote in message
> On Sat, 03 Feb 2007 20:45:01 GMT, "Ned Ludd" <ned...@ix.netcom.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Dan Fox" <danfoxa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:20070203094951.573$g...@newsreader.com...
> >> "Ned Ludd" <ned...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Anyway, in another excursion like the above I came across a
> >> > quote from Matisse, who referred to Cezanne as "the father of
> >> > us all".
> >>
> >> Actually, Picasso made that remark, referring to cubism and its
> >> antecedents.
> >>
> >
> > I'm absolutely certain that it was Matisse. Maybe they
> >both said it.
> >
> Both Oedipal.
Why would you say that? Referring to some one as a father is hardly Oedipal,
any more than referring to someone or something as a mother is Electral
>Common in that generation.
And may others. Your point?
>Contrast with Hussain on
> "mother of battles."
C'mon, gove us a hint ....
Cheers;
CB
>
> Don
Ned Ludd
"CB" <caldwell...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:bR6xh.2025$R71....@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
>
>>>> Anyway, in another excursion like the above I came across a
>>>> quote from Matisse, who referred to Cezanne as "the father of
>>>> us all".
>>>
>>> Actually, Picasso made that remark, referring to cubism and
>>> its antecedents.
>>
>> I'm absolutely certain that it was Matisse. Maybe they
>> both said it.
>
> on "mother of battles."
> Don
> ---
> It's attributed to both (by Wikipedia, at least).
> Cheers;
> CB
>
Well, paternity used to be purely a matter of opinion. Until
DNA testing. Now it's all just facts.
Ned
Ned Ludd
"Mounard Le Fougueux" <blinkin...@NonEventHorizon.com> wrote in message
news:WqednaMmKN6tMVnY...@adelphia.com...
>
>> Oh thank you. Art as a latrine! Duchamp. Finally I get it.
>> Simpsons also did a Dali landscape (more than once). The Armory
>> Exhibition was a real breakthrough. But people really do need
>> to get periodically pissed off at art.
>
> You know, I think the one thing that an artists hate the most is
> to be ignored. They find it much preferrable to be torn to piece
> by a review.
> Most preferable of all, for an artist, is to have ones work cause
> everyone to get so upset that everyone empties out into the street,
> with torches, guns and pitchforks and march to the museum and burn
> it down, and to hunt down the artist and his girlfriend (never the
> long suffering wife) and to string them up like Mussolini and to
> have that picture on every front page and on newsreels till the
> end of time.
> Now THATS a successful exhibit!
>
Ah good, so there's something yet to be done. Though if Serrano's
"Piss Christ" didn't do it, I don't know what it will take. Maybe
something involving dead, aborted fetuses nailed to an American flag
draped over a naked statue of the Virgin Mary.
Hmm... where can I get one of those NEA grant forms?
Ned
Lee Rudolph
> Ah good, so there's something yet to be done. Though if Serrano's
>"Piss Christ" didn't do it, I don't know what it will take.
Speaking of DNA tests (as you were a while ago), I am astounded that
no one (except me, repeatedly; I can't seem to get anyone else to
care, tant pis) ever brings up the fact--so far as I can tell--that
there is NO FUCKING EVIDENCE that the liquid in "Piss Christ" is,
indeed, piss, or that, if it is, it is Serrano's piss. I mean,
why in the world should his claim that it is be taken at face
value? He's an artist!
>Maybe
>something involving dead, aborted fetuses nailed to an American flag
>draped over a naked statue of the Virgin Mary
fashioned of elephant dung. Or the commingled shit of several Republican
senators.
Yeah, that would do it.
Lee Rudolph
Mani Deli
I never mentioned these guys, however.
You might try organize a show THE MOMA SALON REFUSEES.
Instead of covering the Reichstag with toilet paper or taking paint
enemas and all that stuff ; which was already really boring by 1923
long before the Nazis blamed it all on Jews and Communists,
WHY NOT HAVE A GIANT DELIBERATE FORGERY AND IMITATION EXHIBITION. Here
artists can exhibit their Picasso, Matisse, Rothko, Mondrian, Hockney,
etc. imitations and forgeries.
We could then invite the critics who claim to be sensitive enough to
distinguish a high class schmier from a mere imitation to gas off
about in their most florid denigrating Artspeak and include an
Artspeak pavilion for conceptual art forgers and installation
imitators. We could even have mockstorm-troopers raid the place and
kick holes in the best imitations.
I submit that those too embarrassed to forge real signatures might
sign the paintings by changing the name slightly; like Harry Matisse
or Jockstrap Pollock, Andy Wartball, Twitly or Schlokny.
O course anyone who wants to forge Ingres, Leonardo, Van Eyke, Vermeer
or Rockwell etc. would also be welcome should the jury
decide that they are worthy of fooling the viewer.
Mani Deli
>Speaking of DNA tests (as you were a while ago), I am astounded that
>no one (except me, repeatedly; I can't seem to get anyone else to
>care, tant pis) ever brings up the fact--so far as I can tell--that
>there is NO FUCKING EVIDENCE that the liquid in "Piss Christ" is,
>indeed, piss, or that, if it is, it is Serrano's piss. I mean,
>why in the world should his claim that it is be taken at face
>value? He's an artist!
or that virgin Mary was really a virgin since there is no evedence
that anyone ever took a look.
>>Maybe
>>something involving dead, aborted fetuses nailed to an American flag
>>draped over a naked statue of the Virgin Mary
>
>fashioned of elephant dung. Or the commingled shit of several Republican
>senators.
>
>Yeah, that would do it.
>
>Lee Rudolph
The jist of all that crap was out of date by 1923. Try something
original.
Mani Deli
wrote:
> Ah good, so there's something yet to be done. Though if Serrano's
>"Piss Christ" didn't do it, I don't know what it will take. Maybe
>something involving dead, aborted fetuses nailed to an American flag
>draped over a naked statue of the Virgin Mary.
>
No a Fart Christ would be far more interesting and original. No Modern
Artzy Fartzy has yet exhibited the miasmal ethereal (POMOs take note),
No canvas, no frame and most important, no visibility or at most a
small asshole hidden behind an electrical fixture. Perfect for the
next important ism in the Modern sections of museums.
Just think of how much inflated Artspeak a really sensitive critic
could espouse about this in ArtForum.
sirblob
<blinkingCur...@NonEventHorizon.com> wrote:
> Ned Ludd wrote:
> > "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote in message
not at all. that's just a middlebrow myth from the majority just to
make themselves feel superior. an artist couldn't care less. if a piss
christ shocks, it's the problem of the middlebrows, not of the artist.
all this weak talk about shock is just middlebrow-centric doublespeak.
sirblob
> On 3 Feb 2007 06:30:13 -0800, "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >The fascination with the urinal _is_ interesting. I suppose
> >people are drawn to what they most desire. Yet at the
> >recent comprehensive Dada show in New York, although
> >the famous urinal was placed in an altar-like setting, it
> >did not seem to draw much attention. People looked at
> >it, and looked away, even though it was the herald of the
> >destruction of Western Civilization. It is after all a rather
> >modest thing.
>
> Its always good to look at how people react to artwork. Its far more
> important than the double-talk you can read on the matter because it
> reveals the truth. The fact is that hardly any cares about the Duchamp
> pisspot except
middlebrow people are very very interesting. i love your appeals to
higher authority.
artzy fartzies and guys who write long ponderous
> theoretical stuff on modern art which hardly anyone reads.
>
just because you're too thick to understand something and because
postmodernist always beat you at arguments does not mean ''they're
just theory''.
> Duchamp painted far better than Picasso but didn't choose to pursue
> the matter. He called it right. The sort of art he declared dead is
> indeed dead. However, it hasn't stopped Artspeaking blow-bags who run
> the Academic system at the moment from endlessly talking about it to
> each other.
>
> Duchamp pisspot discussion reminds me of the guy who
> once asked me to join his secret society. Among other things he told
> me I would learn their secret handshake.
>
> The fact was that except for members of his club no one really gave a
> shit about these secrets and the only reason for them was that they
> enhanced a feeling self importance of its members. Much modern art and
> the pseudo philosophical gas which accompanies it is analogous here.
> Duchamp's urinal is just another Modern Art put-on. It is about as
> important as last months horse racing sheet.
>
> ...Today's clown prince of art is Warhol not Duchamp.
romanticism, modernism and postmodernism already made a devastating
epistemological blow on your wafer-thin instrumental middlebrowcentric
rationality ages ago. now it's just a matter of how much and often you
make an ass out of yourself.
sirblob
wrote:
> "Don Tuite" <don_tu...@MAILNOTSAUSAGEhotlinks.com> wrote in message
>
> news:pcf8s2l5sqd3u9m71...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> > On 2 Feb 2007 17:31:33 -0800, "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > >On Feb 2, 12:42 pm, Don Tuite <don_tu...@MAILNOTSAUSAGEhotlinks.com>
> > >wrote:
> > >> On Fri, 2 Feb 2007 17:17:56 -0000, "James Whitehead"
>
> > >> <somewh...@overtherainbow.com> wrote:
> > >> >But no one thinks Dali is a good painter - well some adolescents for
> want
> > >> >of any worldly experience - he's just like meatloaf. They play
> meatloaf and
> > >> >pin dali pic's on their lonely bedroom walls - so he has his place -
> he
> > >> >demonstrates the obvious.
>
> > >> >Wasn't there a bugs bunny cartoon set in a Dali landscape?
>
> > >> Set to Rossini, IIRC.
>
> > >> Meatloaf : Tom Waits :: Dali : ??
>
> > >Duchamp
>
> > That's good.
>
> > It's interesting from a PM-culture standpoint that the urinal gets a
> > walk-on role in the Michael Dibdin Aurelio Zen book that's really
> > about Eco.
>
> > I mention the urinal because Ned Ludd invokes it in the post that's
> > parallel to this one in the thread. Why, I wonder, does the urinal
> > seem to overshadow "Staircase," or anything else fo Duchamps's?
>
> Its significance today is in its lack of seriousness -
and what for you is ''serious''?
>
> Duchamps Fountain --> Nauman's fountain -http://www1.uol.com.br/bienal/24bienal/nuh/images/enuhnauman01g.jpg the
> "Top Man" Peter Davies The Hot One Hundredhttp://www.saatchi-gallery.co.uk/imgs/artists/davies_peter/peter_davi...
sirblob
> On Sat, 03 Feb 2007 13:12:37 -0500, Mounard Le Fougueux
>
LOL! finally mani deli, you came out of the closet. ingres and
leonardo can go fuck themselves,as can all your painting du papá, du
qualité classical traditionalist realist mimetic piece of shit
''artists'' you certainly took a long time to finally mention.
sirblob
i thought i'd just celebrate mani deli's prose with a reproduction of
one of his idols's great paintings.
http://www2.oakland.edu/users/ngote/images-full/ingres-odalisque-louvre.jpg
there's more from where that came from.
what a master the neo-classicist ingres be. and so many people are
aware of such beauty. if only academics were. if only they listened to
us the middlebrows' appeals to higher authority. long live ingres!
long live ingres! long live ingres!
sirblob
> On Sat, 03 Feb 2007 10:37:19 -0500, Mounard Le Fougueux
>
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaah yes, the reason why agatha christie sells a lot more
than godard.
James Whitehead
"sirblob" <sirb...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1170563512.0...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com...[...]
> Its significance today is in its lack of seriousness -
and what for you is ''serious''?
For me? (why me?) nothing is serious.
When i was little i was taken to a news theatre which in actual fact showed
endless cartoons looped every 30 minutes - so at that young and very
impressionable age i was subjected to the Greatest Weight - the Eternal
Return of the Same - its only recently as the full meaning of this early
epiphany dawn upon my troubled mind.
James Whitehead
Duchamp LHOOQ before its time...
Ned Ludd
"Lee Rudolph" <lrud...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:eq38a4$gg3$1...@panix2.panix.com...
>
> Ned:
>> Ah good, so there's something yet to be done. Though if Serrano's
>> "Piss Christ" didn't do it, I don't know what it will take.
>
> Speaking of DNA tests (as you were a while ago), I am astounded that
> no one (except me, repeatedly; I can't seem to get anyone else to
> care, tant pis) ever brings up the fact--so far as I can tell--that
> there is NO FUCKING EVIDENCE that the liquid in "Piss Christ" is,
> indeed, piss, or that, if it is, it is Serrano's piss. I mean,
> why in the world should his claim that it is be taken at face
> value? He's an artist!
>
Well how about a performance piece where we kidnap Serrano,
take a blood sample, steal "Piss Christ" and do the test?
>> Maybe something involving dead, aborted fetuses nailed to an
>> American flag draped over a naked statue of the Virgin Mary
>
> fashioned of elephant dung. Or the commingled shit of several
> Republican senators.
> Yeah, that would do it.
> Lee Rudolph
>
Now THAT is inspired!
Ned
Ned Ludd
"sirblob" <sirb...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1170564279....@a34g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
>>> Republican senators.
>>> Yeah, that would do it.
>>> Lee Rudolph
>>
>> The jist of all that crap was out of date by 1923. Try something
>> original.
>
> i thought i'd just celebrate mani deli's prose with a reproduction of
> one of his idols's great paintings.
>
>
http://www2.oakland.edu/users/ngote/images-full/ingres-odalisque-louvre.jpg
>
> there's more from where that came from.
> what a master the neo-classicist ingres be. and so many people are
> aware of such beauty. if only academics were. if only they listened
> to us the middlebrows' appeals to higher authority. long live ingres!
> long live ingres! long live ingres!
>
Didn't some physician who was also an artist prove that there
are a few extra vertebrae in that spine?
Ned
Ned Ludd
"Mani Deli" <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:aoias2d5apvf2n3lc...@4ax.com...
Yes, a miasmal mist of mild hydrogen sulfide surrounding the
'Fetus Virgin' would be very effective and appropriate. (And I
don't want anyone telling me that smell-o-vision was introduced
by Hans Laube and Mike Todd, Jr. in 1960).
Ned
Mani Deli
>On 3 fév, 18:44, Mani Deli <m...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> On 3 Feb 2007 06:30:13 -0800, "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >The fascination with the urinal _is_ interesting. I suppose
>> >people are drawn to what they most desire. Yet at the
>> >recent comprehensive Dada show in New York, although
>> >the famous urinal was placed in an altar-like setting, it
>> >did not seem to draw much attention. People looked at
>> >it, and looked away, even though it was the herald of the
>> >destruction of Western Civilization. It is after all a rather
>> >modest thing.
>>
>> Its always good to look at how people react to artwork. Its far more
>> important than the double-talk you can read on the matter because it
>> reveals the truth. The fact is that hardly any cares about the Duchamp
>> pisspot except
>
>
>middlebrow people are very very interesting. i love your appeals to
>higher authority.
>
Glad you love it, I find certain breeds of phonies very interesting.
> artzy fartzies and guys who write long ponderous
>> theoretical stuff on modern art which hardly anyone reads.
>>
>
>
>
>just because you're too thick to understand something and because
>postmodernist always beat you at arguments does not mean ''they're
>just theory''.
>
When someone has little more to say other than that he beat you in an
argument, it more often reveals that he lost.
>
>
>
>> Duchamp painted far better than Picasso but didn't choose to pursue
>> the matter. He called it right. The sort of art he declared dead is
>> indeed dead. However, it hasn't stopped Artspeaking blow-bags who run
>> the Academic system at the moment from endlessly talking about it to
>> each other.
>>
>> Duchamp pisspot discussion reminds me of the guy who
>> once asked me to join his secret society. Among other things he told
>> me I would learn their secret handshake.
>>
>> The fact was that except for members of his club no one really gave a
>> shit about these secrets and the only reason for them was that they
>> enhanced a feeling self importance of its members. Much modern art and
>> the pseudo philosophical gas which accompanies it is analogous here.
>> Duchamp's urinal is just another Modern Art put-on. It is about as
>> important as last months horse racing sheet.
>>
>> ...Today's clown prince of art is Warhol not Duchamp.
>
>
>
>romanticism, modernism and postmodernism already made a devastating
>epistemological blow on your wafer-thin instrumental middlebrowcentric
>rationality ages ago. now it's just a matter of how much and often you
>make an ass out of yourself.
Try writing for an artzy fartzy magazine.
Mani Deli
>
>LOL! finally mani deli, you came out of the closet. ingres and
>leonardo can go fuck themselves,as can all your painting du papá, du
>qualité classical traditionalist realist mimetic piece of shit
>''artists'' you certainly took a long time to finally mention.
Sounds like low-life.
James Whitehead
Lee Rudolph
>"sirblob" <sirb...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1170564279....@a34g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
...
>> there's more from where that came from.
>> what a master the neo-classicist ingres be. and so many people are
>> aware of such beauty. if only academics were. if only they listened
>> to us the middlebrows' appeals to higher authority. long live ingres!
>> long live ingres! long live ingres!
>>
>
> Didn't some physician who was also an artist prove that there
>are a few extra vertebrae in that spine?
Is that like Spinal Tap going to 11, and all?
Lee Rudolph
CB
Nah, more like a no-life; low-lifes even when not intelligent tend to be
interestingly cunning. Given this guy's lack of skill, knowledge,
imagination, and his reliance on a few tired phrases endlessly repeated I'd
hazard he's probably a Microsoft Helpdesk type....
CB
sirblob
> "Mani Deli" <m...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
LOL! given your track record in admitting you can't understand
''french philosophy'', any reception of ''skill, knowledge,
imagination and heterogeneity of perception' on your part would, in
fact, imply a lack of skill, knowledge, imagination and heterogeneous
perception capacities on my part. every bit as explainable as the
shortcomings of the pre-20th century art history you revere and the
middlbrow crap you pretend you don't have to defend today.
and even if you were competent, your sentences wouldn't count since
your ideology is just as thin and twisted as that of mani deli's. so,
really, no need for all the adjectives, decoration and rhetoric just
to hide the fact you were rooting for the likes of ingres all this
time.
tell me more about that zero sum equation you found so hard to
understand. maybe i can help you out. and you're allowed to ask one
question, balders:
sirblob
wrote:
> "sirblob" <sirbl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1170563512.0...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
> On 3 fév, 12:38, "James Whitehead" <somewh...@overtherainbow.com>
> [...]
>
> > Its significance today is in its lack of seriousness -
>
> and what for you is ''serious''?
>
> For me? (why me?) nothing is serious.
and that's precisely what postmdernism has done, take away the
seriousness from the conservative traditional paradigm of art-as-
mimesis-and-commerce. the only rhetorical tool these very conservative
traditionalists have left is to use the very techniques duchamp and
warhol already used to ridicule them.
sirblob
it's very easy to understand and, upsettingly, unempowering for you
middlebrows. with division and labour and specialisation, middlebrows
are just robots subjected to whatever instrumental rationality's in
fashion. and if artists have gone in ways you don't understand it's
simply because exposed to more art, they're better than you at
perception. tough luck.
James Whitehead
On 4 fév, 10:58, "James Whitehead" <somewh...@overtherainbow.com>
wrote:
> "sirblob" <sirbl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1170563512.0...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
> On 3 fév, 12:38, "James Whitehead" <somewh...@overtherainbow.com>
> [...]
>
> > Its significance today is in its lack of seriousness -
>
> and what for you is ''serious''?
>
> For me? (why me?) nothing is serious.
and that's precisely what postmdernism has done,
and there was me - blaming it on the boogie......
take away the
seriousness from the conservative traditional paradigm of art-as-
mimesis-and-commerce. the only rhetorical tool these very conservative
traditionalists have left is to use the very techniques duchamp and
warhol already used to ridicule them.
do they?
Mani Deli
sirblob
wrote:
> "sirblob" <sirbl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1170623612.3...@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> On 4 fév, 10:58, "James Whitehead" <somewh...@overtherainbow.com>
> wrote:
>
> > "sirblob" <sirbl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:1170563512.0...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
> > On 3 fév, 12:38, "James Whitehead" <somewh...@overtherainbow.com>
> > [...]
>
> > > Its significance today is in its lack of seriousness -
>
> > and what for you is ''serious''?
>
> > For me? (why me?) nothing is serious.
>
> and that's precisely what postmdernism has done,
>
> and there was me - blaming it on the boogie......
no. beckham takes himself very seriously.
>
> take away the
> seriousness from the conservative traditional paradigm of art-as-
> mimesis-and-commerce. the only rhetorical tool these very conservative
> traditionalists have left is to use the very techniques duchamp and
> warhol already used to ridicule them.
>
> do they?
well, my darling james, there is one difference. duchamp and cezanne
were charming and efficient in their ridicule. the response from the
ingres crowd is just amusing simulation.
sirblob
> On Mon, 5 Feb 2007 16:18:16 -0000, "James Whitehead"
>
>
> >"sirblob" <sirbl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:1170623612.3...@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >On 4 fév, 10:58, "James Whitehead" <somewh...@overtherainbow.com>
> >wrote:
> >> "sirblob" <sirbl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:1170563512.0...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
> >> On 3 fév, 12:38, "James Whitehead" <somewh...@overtherainbow.com>
> >> [...]
>
> >> > Its significance today is in its lack of seriousness -
>
> >> and what for you is ''serious''?
>
> >> For me? (why me?) nothing is serious.
>
> >and that's precisely what postmdernism has done,
>
> >and there was me - blaming it on the boogie......
>
> > take away the
> >seriousness from the conservative traditional paradigm of art-as-
> >mimesis-and-commerce. the only rhetorical tool these very conservative
> >traditionalists have left is to use the very techniques duchamp and
> >warhol already used to ridicule them.
>
> >do they?
and here's the example that proves my point; a speechless found object
from the post-object-of-ridicule