New Century - New Art (Musea E-mail Club #361)
musea
arts and we have an art revolution! It's due.
I sent this letter to the Dallas alt , Dallas Observer, but I could
just as easily send it to the daily news, PBS, or any major outlet that
covers the arts. Basic message: new century - new art:
Dear Observer,
Hey its a new century! Did anyone mention it to you guys?
How about some coverage of the arts that is not from the
last century? There are a lot of progressive changes in the arts -
big changes; yet, no one at the Observer seems to know about them.
In the 40's and 50's the media talked about abstract expressionism.
Back then they TALKED about new art.
In the 50's and 60's the media talked about rock and roll.
Back then they TALKED about new art.
But in the new century, the Observer doesn't talk about
anything progressive in any art. Not art, music, lit, nothing.
And its been 6 years into this century!
Below are some topics happening now*. (and they all have a Dallas
component!). Where are you guys? Does your ivory tower have an
exit door? Did you all graduate Provincial U. Do you think that just
because you live in Dallas you have to be conservative about art too?
Does your cutting edge even lean TOWARD this new century?
I don't expect that the Observer will cover anything progressive on a
regular
basis - but hey how about ONE issue in the entire YEAR of 2007 where
you
talk about some NEW development in the arts.
All you Dinosaurs and Grannies -
give up your column space to something new ONCE in the next 52 weeks of
coverage.
Is that still too much to ask for?
__________
In MUSIC there's post-bands or anti-band music, the first new music
in 40 years. Some pioneering musicians have gotten off the 'band'wagon
but PBS is still interviewing bands as if 40 years of that sameness,
was cutting edge.
In ART there is a movement against the abuses of Modern art - which
hasn't
been modern in about 50 years. This culminated in the 2002 conceptual
art event in Dallas that suggested an end to modern art and a beginning
of a back-to-basics are movement.
In Lit the novel is out and the zine is in - but even that is old hat.
Though PBS
doesn't talk about the thousands of writers of zines, there already is
a
Zine Hall of Fame.
There are even new ways to review art ( a Review services that is open
to all
artists in every field - and everyone gets the same fair chance.).
Paul Slocum
media, among other things) 3 times this year. Once with a full page
article and pictures. The Observer really isn't that bad for arts
coverage IMO.
And IIRC they have published one of your letters and gone to your
performances before. Seems odd for you to target them...
Do *you* go to any of the galleries in Dallas? There are 4 major
galleries that opened this year, and you haven't written anything about
any of them.
-paul
In article <1163124398.6...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
tomhend...@cs.com says...
musea
> Actually the Observer has covered our gallery (which is doing new
> media, among other things) 3 times this year. Once with a full page
> article and pictures. The Observer really isn't that bad for arts
> coverage IMO.
I didn't say arts coverage, I said NEW arts coverage -
and if you are in a gallery its not new - I've outlined new ways of
showing and selling art that oppose galleries.
They talk about mod art - the cutting edge of 1910
They talk about groups - the cutting edge of 1963
What they don't talk about is anything new from this century -
a new century - new arts.
>
> And IIRC they have published one of your letters and gone to your
> performances before. Seems odd for you to target them...
They are provincial and stuck in old ways. There is nothing wrong
with liking the art you like - but don't call it new - that's just
lying.
It hasn't been new in decades.
New centurey - new arts. For those who are ready for
a change.
>
> Do *you* go to any of the galleries in Dallas? There are 4 major
> galleries that opened this year, and you haven't written anything about
> any of them.
Galleries are not new - there are IMO better ways to show and sell art.
and I've outlined them in issues of Musea.
Paul Slocum
without seeing it. You are a very lazy revolutionary.
Generally people who vehemently oppose "galleries" just don't
understand the art world very well, or make bad work and are pissed
because nobody's showing it. Non-profits, online galleries, trunk
shows, etc. all have their own issues, which many times are worse.
-paul
In article <1163609460....@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
tomhend...@cs.com says...
pst...@hotmail.com
wrote:
>It's absurd for you to judge the work we and other galleries show
>without seeing it. You are a very lazy revolutionary.
>
>Generally people who vehemently oppose "galleries" just don't
>understand the art world very well, or make bad work and are pissed
>because nobody's showing it. Non-profits, online galleries, trunk
>shows, etc. all have their own issues, which many times are worse.
>
>-paul
>
In deed Tom does come across as a legend in his own mind.
musea
> It's absurd for you to judge the work we and other galleries show
> without seeing it. You are a very lazy revolutionary.
If its in a gallery then it isn't a new way to show art.
Galleries are not a new way of showing art.
Do you think they are?
>
> Generally people who vehemently oppose "galleries" just don't
> understand the art world very well, or make bad work and are pissed
> because nobody's showing it. Non-profits, online galleries, trunk
> shows, etc. all have their own issues, which many times are worse.
>
> -paul
Again I'm talking about NEW art and NEW ways to show art.
Galleries are not a NEW way of showing art.
Why are you so opposed to having anyone have an alternative
idea about the arts. If I suggest a new way to show and sell ar
why do you get upset? Why are you opposed to new art ideas?
Do you want to outlaw anyone with a new idea?
pst...@hotmail.com
"He is a self-made man and worships his creator."
- John Bright
Paul Slocum
> Galleries are not a new way of showing art.
> Do you think they are?
I never said it was a new WAY to show art. But just because it's in a
gallery doesn't mean the art cannot be new or currently relevant.
> Why are you so opposed to having anyone have an alternative
> idea about the arts. If I suggest a new way to show and sell ar
> why do you get upset? Why are you opposed to new art ideas?
> Do you want to outlaw anyone with a new idea?
I didn't say any of that, just that other methods of showing art often
have *similar* problems. I'm upset because you make judgements about
the galleries without seeing them. And it sounds like you've just made
up your mind to never go to any of them no matter what. That's some
great support for the arts in Dallas.
-paul
Harvey.Mi...@saint.alphonso.pancake.breakfast.net
news:MPG.1fcbe20c6...@news.airband.net:
Yet again ending another short chapter in the continuing saga of the
suitably entitled, "Questionably Heterosexual Moments".
lmao
Bill Gross
driven thing. The Beatles didn't sit around Liverpool and say, "It's
time for show music and big bands to die." They came up with a style
of music that people liked so much so that it drove the others out of
the market.
Last time I checked the Nanny State (take your pick secular or
religious) had not issued an edict on what form of music shall be
popular. The market place of ideas rules in this case. That market
place has not yet tired of the current form of popular music.
Complaining that it should pick up new ideas is one's right. Expecting
such complaints to achieve anything is, as they say in Oz, "like
farting against thunder."
musea
How upset? You want to make a law that no one can show art in
anyway except a gallery? That no new way of showing art is
to be allowed in Dallas? How far do you want to go to oppose
anything new in the way people are showing art?
Do you think everyone should display art in only one way -
the way you want?
Harvey.Mi...@fag.jews.r.us.net
news:cn06m2l7tu8dbvib7...@4ax.com:
Besides, primarily MTV [worldwide] controls the noxious mass market of
that domain and the rubbish that it spreads is masterminded by a pack of
insidious, elitist New York JEW$ with nearly unlimited funding.
Bill Gross
Paul Slocum
> anyway except a gallery? That no new way of showing art is
> to be allowed in Dallas? How far do you want to go to oppose
> anything new in the way people are showing art?
> Do you think everyone should display art in only one way -
> the way you want?
You've lost your mind -- I never said anything like that. I'm for any
way of showing art that does it without compromising the work, be it a
gallery, online, or whatever. But my preference is for spaces that are
a cross between commercial galleries and artist-run spaces.
-paul
fla...@verizon.net
On 22-Nov-2006, Harvey.Mi...@Fag.Jews.R.Us.net wrote:
> Bill Gross <bgross@_REMOVE_airmail.net> wrote in
> news:cn06m2l7tu8dbvib7...@4ax.com:
> > Last time I checked the Nanny State (take your pick secular or
> > religious) had not issued an edict on what form of music shall be
> > popular. The market place of ideas rules in this case. That market
> > place has not yet tired of the current form of popular music.
> > Complaining that it should pick up new ideas is one's right. Expecting
> > such complaints to achieve anything is, as they say in Oz, "like
> > farting against thunder."
>
> Besides, primarily MTV [worldwide] controls the noxious mass market of
> that domain and the rubbish that it spreads is masterminded by a pack of
> insidious, elitist New York JEW$ with nearly unlimited funding.
Even if this were true, it would prove only that bigots are too stupid
to change the channel, and prefer to blame others for their stupidity.
Susan
Bill Gross
author of the stupid paragraph. It was posted by some moron who was
replying to me.
fla...@verizon.net
On 23-Nov-2006, Bill Gross <bgross@_REMOVE_airmail.net> wrote:
> Please do be careful in selecting material to reply to. I was not the
> author of the stupid paragraph.
I know that, and the attributions show it clearly.
Susan
bro...@peacock.net
intelligent parts of his posts. He plans ahead for the lonely
imaginary day in the far future when that may come true.