laura and art
Martha Hughes
all about feelings. It's about the emotions and reactions all of us have
everyday.
In her black and white world, there is no place for feelings. I doubt
she knows anything about what is good art and bad art.
It really peeves me when people talk about art, modern or otherwise,
when they know nothing about art or art history. I started out in
college as an art major and I still try to keep up with artists and
exhibits.
It's like great music, such as opera, if you know nothing about it, shut
the hell up, go study it and then come back for an intelligent
discussion.
Jbkred
>From: Martha Hughes <bast...@pacbell.net>
>Date: Tue, 05 October 1999 08:39 PM EDT
>Message-id: <37FA9A...@pacbell.net>
Dr. Laura's idea of art is probably a Precious Moments figurine. <snerk>
Golightly Grrl
Randomity
>>all about feelings. It's about the emotions and reactions all of us have
>>everyday.
>>
>>In her black and white world, there is no place for feelings. I doubt
>>she knows anything about what is good art and bad art.
>>
>>It really peeves me when people talk about art, modern or otherwise,
>>when they know nothing about art or art history. I started out in
>>college as an art major and I still try to keep up with artists and
>>exhibits.
>>
>>It's like great music, such as opera, if you know nothing about it, shut
>>the hell up, go study it and then come back for an intelligent
>>discussion.
>>
>
>
>Golightly Grrl
I would think the heroic art of 1940's Germany would fit her tastes better.
Precious moments don't convey tough love well enough.
Going without a clever sig since early November.
Randomity
Eric Cole
can safely assume you've created God in your own image when it turns out
that God hates all the same people you do"). The art Laura hates, by
remarkable coincindence, also happens to be the art she finds immoral. What
a shocker. People can have their own preferences, but if you can say that
you *categorically* hate modern art, then it's pretty safe to say that you
don't like art at all.
I'd like to see her response if somebody suggested to her that it was
"stealth art!"
e.
Dr. John
rand...@aol.comdropdead (Randomity) wrote:
I suspect she is also partial to paintings of Elvis (on black velvet, of
course) and those of dogs playing poker. The refrigerator door is
inevitably covered with Deryk's artwork.
Cheers,
Dr. John
--
"In 48 hours I'll be deader than a Saturday night in Salt Lake City!"
--Dave Lister
Victoria
They are beautiful art, I presume. DL is a hunk o burnin white trash with
money.
kelly england
Dr. John <drj...@spam.spam.spam.concentric.net> wrote in message
news:drj2000-ya0230800...@news.concentric.net...
| In article <19991005222522...@ng-bd1.aol.com>,
| rand...@aol.comdropdead (Randomity) wrote:
|
| > >>It's no wonder that "dr" laura doesn't like modern art. Modern art is
| > >>all about feelings. It's about the emotions and reactions all of us
have
| > >>everyday.
| > >>
| > >>In her black and white world, there is no place for feelings. I doubt
| > >>she knows anything about what is good art and bad art.
| > >>
| > >>It really peeves me when people talk about art, modern or otherwise,
| > >>when they know nothing about art or art history. I started out in
| > >>college as an art major and I still try to keep up with artists and
| > >>exhibits.
| > >>
| > >>It's like great music, such as opera, if you know nothing about it,
shut
| > >>the hell up, go study it and then come back for an intelligent
| > >>discussion.
| > >>
| > >
<snerk>
| > >
| > >Golightly Grrl
| >
| > I would think the heroic art of 1940's Germany would fit her tastes
better.
| > Precious moments don't convey tough love well enough.
| >
| >
| > Going without a clever sig since early November.
| > Randomity
|
| I suspect she is also partial to paintings of Elvis
That's a "Velvis"
(on black velvet, of
| course) and those of dogs playing poker. The refrigerator door is
| inevitably covered with Deryk's artwork.
|
|
We know she doesn't have one of those lighted Jesus pictures...
kel
EMF1947
>course) and those of dogs playing poker. The refrigerator door is
>inevitably covered with Deryk's artwork.
>
>
>
>
>Dr. John
According to an impeccable source, the character of Overton on "Living Single"
those paintings of dogs playing poker are a parody of a serious painting of a
group of men playing cards.
Ellen
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens.
Eric da Red
Martha Hughes <bast...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>It's no wonder that "dr" laura doesn't like modern art. Modern art is
>all about feelings. It's about the emotions and reactions all of us have
>everyday.
Modern art is 'about' a lot of things, including feelings. Some modern
art, like apparently the items in the Brooklyn museum show, takes time to
learn and understand the artists' meanings. To appreciate it requires
some effort and is not likely to happen if someone is seeking instant
gratification.
Probably the fact that some modern art (not to mention good ol' fashioned
art) asks the observer to shift perspectives is one of the reason that it
bothers DL so much - if you already have the perfect perspective, why
shift?
>In her black and white world, there is no place for feelings. I doubt
>she knows anything about what is good art and bad art.
She probably gets off on pictures of clowns and birch trees that are sold
in shopping mall 'art shows.'
--
Historical Revelation Of The Week: In 1938, the 27-year-old actor [Ronald
Reagan] announced he wanted to signup. The [Communist Party] conducted an
investigation, said Fast, and "word came back he was a flake ... who
couldn't be trusted with a political opinion for more than 20 minutes."
Weltanscha
>Modern art is 'about' a lot of things, including feelings. Some modern
>art, like apparently the items in the Brooklyn museum show, takes time to
>learn and understand the artists' meanings. To appreciate it requires
>some effort and is not likely to happen if someone is seeking instant
>gratification.
Yeah. On the other hand (I really shouldn't admit this) it does make me laugh
when she says "It isn't art if *I* can do it."
- Dr. Tom
For a great set of links about "Dr." Laura "I'm a priest and my mission is to
help God perfect the world" Schlessinger, please visit:
Neutrodyne
>From: Martha Hughes bast...@pacbell.net
>Date: Tue, 05 October 1999 08:39 PM EDT
>Message-id: <37FA9A...@pacbell.net>
>
>all about feelings. It's about the emotions and reactions all of us have
>everyday.
>
>she knows anything about what is good art and bad art.
>
>when they know nothing about art or art history. I started out in
>college as an art major and I still try to keep up with artists and
>exhibits.
>
>It's like great music, such as opera, if you know nothing about it, shut
>the hell up, go study it and then come back for an intelligent
>discussion.
I'll get killed for this, but I'm used to it. I think Raymond Loewy, Virgil
Exner and other art-deco designers are going to be remembered among the truly
great artists of this centurey, once a couple of centuries of perspective go
by. The 1949 Ford, the Fada "bullet" radio, any of a number of steam and diesel
railroad locomotives - These are works of art that not only evoke, but define
their times and which will linger. Even the Edsel (which was condemned for it's
covert resembalance to a certain female anatomy item) captures & personifies a
moment in time. The "artsy" crowd wanted to call it the "Utilitarian
Turtletop", which might have been cool in a way, because there might still be
new ones left over for sale today...
Just my unacredited opinion.
Neutrodyne
I know What I Like and almost everthing I Like tastes good, moves, glows,
heats up, makes noise or blows up at some point in normal operation.
gregory...@webtv.net
>I'll get killed for this,
Oh, NO, you won't!
>I think Raymond Loewy, Virgil Exner and
>other art-deco designers are going to be
>remembered among the truly great
>artists of this centurey, once a couple of
>centuries of perspective go by.
They're well regarded now, and in 50 years or less, they'll get their
due. These guys (Norman Bel Geddes, too, and others) had a _vision_ of
how everyday industrial products should embody the spirit of an era --
speed, motion, elegant graphics, good design -- everything from a Lucky
Strike packet to Electrolux vacuum cleaners to those streamlined
locomotives (why can't they make locomotives like that now??).
>The 1949 Ford, the Fada "bullet" radio,
>any of a number of steam and diesel
>railroad locomotives - These are works
>of art that not only evoke, but define their
>times and which will linger.
The Exner -- designed 1957 Chrysler Corporation line, the Boeing 707
(including the Loewy-designed JFK -- era Air Force One), Douglas DC-8
and Convair 880-990 jetliners...too bad there will only be a few
examples of these things left (if any)...
>Even the Edsel (which was condemned
>for it's covert resembalance to a certain
>female anatomy item) captures &
>personifies a moment in time. The "artsy"
>crowd wanted to call it the "Utilitarian
>Turtletop", which might have been cool in
>a way,
IIRC, wasn't it "Utopian Turtletop", so named by New England poet
Marianne Moore? FoMoCo asked artists, writers, etc. to contribute names
for the car -- can you imagine that now??
>because there might still be new ones
>left over for sale today...
Well, for better or worse, we're reduced to thumbing through
HEMMING'S...
>Just my unacredited opinion.
>Neutrodyne
>I know What I Like and almost everthing
>I Like tastes good, moves, glows, heats
>up, makes noise or blows up at some
>point in normal operation.
You don't happen to read COLLECTIBLE AUTOMOBILE, do you?
(presently looking at my framed 1956 DeSoto 2X3' sales folder
("Designed for the superhighway age!") above the teevee).
Best
Greg
Martha Hughes
>
> In article <37FA9A...@pacbell.net>,
> Martha Hughes <bast...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> >all about feelings. It's about the emotions and reactions all of us have
> >everyday.
>
> art, like apparently the items in the Brooklyn museum show, takes time to
> learn and understand the artists' meanings. To appreciate it requires
> some effort and is not likely to happen if someone is seeking instant
> gratification.
Good point, thanks for making it.
>
> Probably the fact that some modern art (not to mention good ol' fashioned
> art) asks the observer to shift perspectives is one of the reason that it
> bothers DL so much - if you already have the perfect perspective, why
> shift?
Besides, if she changed her opinion about art started liking it and
actually tried to shift her perspective when she looked at artwork, she
may learn to realize how wrong about everything she's been...again! I
don't think she could handle it...major breakdown time.
>
> >In her black and white world, there is no place for feelings. I doubt
> >she knows anything about what is good art and bad art.
>
Gary DeWaay
> In article <37FA9A...@pacbell.net>,
> Martha Hughes <bast...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> >It's no wonder that "dr" laura doesn't like modern art. Modern art is
> >all about feelings. It's about the emotions and reactions all of us have
> >everyday.
>
>
> Modern art is 'about' a lot of things, including feelings. Some modern
> art, like apparently the items in the Brooklyn museum show, takes time to
> learn and understand the artists' meanings. To appreciate it requires
> some effort and is not likely to happen if someone is seeking instant
> gratification.
>
Taken from a person who painted a lot of modern art during and after
college, and who has met many people who considered themselves modern
artists, this is the true meaning of modern art: people fuking around.
> Probably the fact that some modern art (not to mention good ol' fashioned
> art) asks the observer to shift perspectives is one of the reason that it
> bothers DL so much - if you already have the perfect perspective, why
> shift?
>
>
> >In her black and white world, there is no place for feelings. I doubt
> >she knows anything about what is good art and bad art.
>
>
> She probably gets off on pictures of clowns and birch trees that are sold
> in shopping mall 'art shows.'
>
Hehe, I can't help but think of that wacko dictator in "The Inlaws" with
the black velvet paintings.
Gary
Offered and turned down an art scholarship.
(Dr. DeWaay)
Beauty is in the eye of the beer holder.
Purveyor of degenerates (now offseason).
Required ARTD-L reading:
FAQ: http://extra.newsguy.com/~satire/faq.html
(thanx to Hell Toupee)
CAL: http://extra.newsguy.com/~satire/Corpus.htm
(thanx to Dr. Charlie)
Neutrodyne
>From: gregory...@webtv.net
>Date: Wed, 06 October 1999 06:54 PM EDT
>Message-id: <12856-37...@newsd-262.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
I can't afford collectable automobiles (I had a '49 Stude for a long time but
couldn't ever do much with it), but I do radios. Same general contraversies -
restore with only NOS parts, versus restore with whatever works and is
available versus just chrome the metal ones and paint the wood ones any way
that pleases you. Of course, the collectors curse the speculators & Ebay.
Neutrodyne
kelly england
Gary DeWaay <waay2...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.12651d45a...@news.newsguy.com...
| Eric da Red wrote...
| > In article <37FA9A...@pacbell.net>,
| > Martha Hughes <bast...@pacbell.net> wrote:
| >
| > >It's no wonder that "dr" laura doesn't like modern art. Modern art is
| > >all about feelings. It's about the emotions and reactions all of us
have
| > >everyday.
| >
| >
| > Modern art is 'about' a lot of things, including feelings. Some modern
| > art, like apparently the items in the Brooklyn museum show, takes time
to
| > learn and understand the artists' meanings. To appreciate it requires
| > some effort and is not likely to happen if someone is seeking instant
| > gratification.
| >
|
|
| Taken from a person who painted a lot of modern art during and after
| college, and who has met many people who considered themselves modern
| artists, this is the true meaning of modern art: people fuking around.
I agree....most of the time that is true. My son being an artist and myself
(graphic) I find many sincere people out there just wanting to express
themselves through modern art. In art school, though, many were just there
because mommie and daddie thought their drawings were just soooo good. It
was an easy out.
It was sad that my son, not having the financial means to finish could not
go on and do what he really loves, while others on mommie and daddy's free
ride, with NO talent, now have punched tickets.
(In Dallas, you can get a job ANYWHERE if you've finished the Art Institute)
|
|
| > Probably the fact that some modern art (not to mention good ol'
fashioned
| > art) asks the observer to shift perspectives is one of the reason that
it
| > bothers DL so much - if you already have the perfect perspective, why
| > shift?
| >
| >
| > >In her black and white world, there is no place for feelings. I doubt
| > >she knows anything about what is good art and bad art.
| >
| >
| > She probably gets off on pictures of clowns and birch trees that are
sold
| > in shopping mall 'art shows.'
| >
|
| Hehe, I can't help but think of that wacko dictator in "The Inlaws" with
| the black velvet paintings.
I remember they sold those on the street corners....they now sell a bit more
tasteful things, but still street corner art.
fre...@juno.com
welta...@aol.comsnipthis (Weltanscha) wrote:
> berg...@drizzle.com (Eric da Red) wrote:
>
> >Modern art is 'about' a lot of things, including feelings. Some modern
> >art, like apparently the items in the Brooklyn museum show, takes time to
> >learn and understand the artists' meanings. To appreciate it requires
> >some effort and is not likely to happen if someone is seeking instant
> >gratification.
>
> Yeah. On the other hand (I really shouldn't admit this) it does make me laugh
> when she says "It isn't art if *I* can do it."
I once saw an exhibit in the National Museum in Jerusalem. It had traveled
all the way from the US. This was during the Warhol-soup can era, and one
of the pieces consisted of a Gaulois package carfully unwrapped and spread
out on the canvas. Now, I am willing to entertain the notion that some kind
of artistic statement can be made by such a work. What I will never fully
comprehend, boor that I am, is that if the museum had saved shipping charges
by unwrapping their own cigarette package, that the artistic value would be
somehow less. *I* couldn't do it, because I would probably rip the paper,
but somebody could. Is there artistic value in being able to say, "I'm
the first person to think of unwrapping a cigarette package"?
Martha Hughes
That's an excellent question. When I visit the SF Museum of Modern Art,
there are some pieces that I wonder about. They had a feminist exhibit
there a few months ago that I went to see and some of the work was so
anti-male to the point of offensiveness. But, I would still fight for
its right to be there. The bank that I work for buys millions of dollars
in artwork, and the pieces are scattered throughout my office building.
I like all the works, except for one. The one on my floor, the 7th is
really horrid and I can't imagine anyone saying this is a great work of
art. But someone must have, and maybe I'm just missing what the meaning
of it is.
Pogo Possum, Ph.D.
fre...@juno.com wrote in message ...
The question isn't whether you or anyone else could do it, but whether
you did do it. The artist did and you guys in the audience didn't.
That it looks easy after the fact isn't the point. The point is that
the artist had the idea and carried it out and no one else did the
same thing.
In psychology there's a phenomenon called "hindsight bias," a term
that refers to a person's feeling that they knew all along something
that has just been announced as a discovery. If people knew it all
along, why didn't they say so? When you have people make predictions
ahead of time, you see that they don't really know it all along --
they just feel that way upon recognizing an obvious truth. A lot of
art is that way -- it looks simple until you try to do it yourself and
then you find out it isn't simple to do at all. I do agree that the
hardest part may be getting others to accept that such a construction
is art, pay money for it, and exhibit it as such. But could you
really accomplish that?
fre...@juno.com
Ph.D." <pogo...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> fre...@juno.com wrote in message ...
>
> >What I will never fully comprehend, boor that I am, is that if the museum
> >had saved shipping charges by unwrapping their own cigarette package, that
> >the artistic value would be somehow less. *I* couldn't do it, because I
> >would probably rip the paper, but somebody could. Is there artistic value
> >in being able to say, "I'm the first person to think of unwrapping a
> >cigarette package"?
>
> The question isn't whether you or anyone else could do it, but whether
> you did do it. The artist did and you guys in the audience didn't.
> That it looks easy after the fact isn't the point. The point is that
> the artist had the idea and carried it out and no one else did the
> same thing.
I agree with that, in general. What I don't know is whether, if I *did*
do it after the fact, any art critic in the world could tell the valuable
original from the cheap knockoff. The greatest living painter couldn't
fool them into accepting his Rembrandt imitation, because there is always
too much of the artist in the work.
>
> In psychology there's a phenomenon called "hindsight bias," a term
> that refers to a person's feeling that they knew all along something
> that has just been announced as a discovery. If people knew it all
> along, why didn't they say so? When you have people make predictions
> ahead of time, you see that they don't really know it all along --
> they just feel that way upon recognizing an obvious truth. A lot of
> art is that way -- it looks simple until you try to do it yourself and
> then you find out it isn't simple to do at all.
I admit unreservedly that even if I had had the idea first, I probably
wouldn't have thought to call it art. As I said, I'm willing to concede
that some artistic statement was intended, but not every work of art is
equal in depth and profundity.
> I do agree that the hardest part may be getting others to accept that
> such a construction is art, pay money for it, and exhibit it as such.
> But could you really accomplish that?
But that's marketing, not art. Were the Monkees considered serious musicians?
Pogo Possum, Ph.D.
There are two wonderful explorations of this point. One is the movie
by Orson Welles, "F is for Fake" about art forgery in general and the
Clifford Irving fraud. The other is a novel by Charles Willeford
called "The Burnt Orange Heresy." They both question the role of
critics in establishing the value of art and ask whether it matters
whether a painting is a forgery or not if it is of high quality or
gives the viewer the expected experience. There has always been the
dual problem of the art world as economic enterprise versus the art
world as aesthetic experience. It gets confusing to confuse one with
the other.
Eventually. I like Michael Naismith's songs on Elephant Parts. But
don't ask me about Milli Vanilli.