Alan's blog--a beaut.
Jackson Pillock
Beauty is nature's front. Faces and flowers are beautiful; intestines and
roots are ugly. Hannah Arendt wrote that natural things present themselves.
If you look at the presented thing, you see beauty. If you look beneath,
inside or behind it, you find ugliness. Which is not to deny the fascination
ugliness inspires. A sculptor works near here, making large stone forms
reminiscent of dividing cells, tangled worms, pupae. It is all profoundly
ugly, yet compels you to look.
Hippolyte Lizard
Is that what you're saying about Alan's blog? That it's profoundly
ugly, yet you are compelled to look? The French have a word for that,
especially with regards to women. But it's in French, so I don't know
it.
hl
William Starr Moake
What's so ugly about intestines? They are brightly colored and have a
smooth serpentine shape. You're thinking about what is INSIDE
intestines.
Alan Hope
>Jackson Pillock wrote:
The term is "jolie-laide" -- pretty/ugly. A good example is Charlotte
Gainsbourg (http://tinyurl.com/on83). The term will need no
explanation for women, who have always been able to be attracted to
men whose charms are not, shall we say, in keeping with classic
notions of physical perfection.
--
AH
Alan Hope
>Alan, I hope you don't mind me posting to your blog.
>Beauty is nature's front. Faces and flowers are beautiful; intestines and
>roots are ugly.
I profoundly disagree. There's nothing whatever ugly about a tree-root
or a length of glistening intestine. Everything ugly is mad-made.
>Hannah Arendt wrote that natural things present themselves.
>If you look at the presented thing, you see beauty. If you look beneath,
>inside or behind it, you find ugliness. Which is not to deny the fascination
>ugliness inspires. A sculptor works near here, making large stone forms
>reminiscent of dividing cells, tangled worms, pupae. It is all profoundly
>ugly, yet compels you to look.
It's quite possible for a sculpture to be ugly, even intentionally so.
I'm also with you on the fascination of the ugly. In the art on cows
exhibition to which I presume you're alluding, the more the art was in
keeping with cowness, the more attractive I found it, or the more it
resonated. Less successful were the instances where the cowness of the
cow was either ignored (the cow-as-canvas) or overturned (the
anthropomorphic cows).
So, if you like, the art was beautiful to the extent that it was
cow-like, in direct proportion. Where a man-made aspect impinged,
ugliness intruded.
I'm trying to imagine someone in the future pulling this post up out
of context of the blog of the exhibition. "Notions of cowness in Art
first made themselves felt in the early years of the century ... "
--
AH
Looney
"Alan Hope" <ah...@skynet.be> wrote in message
news:pf36nvodvvotaqpld...@4ax.com...
> Jackson Pillock goes:
>
> >Alan, I hope you don't mind me posting to your blog.
>
> >Beauty is nature's front. Faces and flowers are beautiful; intestines and
> >roots are ugly.
>
> I profoundly disagree. There's nothing whatever ugly about a tree-root
> or a length of glistening intestine. Everything ugly is mad-made.
Ugh... Soooo, Alan, how 'bout the Lokeren side? Almost pulled it out
against Man. City, no?
--
Looney
------------------------------------------------------------
Find me a sig - $1.83 Reward
Stan (the Man)
Alan Hope wrote:
> Jackson Pillock goes:
>
>
>>Alan, I hope you don't mind me posting to your blog.
>
>
>>Beauty is nature's front. Faces and flowers are beautiful; intestines and
>>roots are ugly.
>
>
> I profoundly disagree. There's nothing whatever ugly about a tree-root
> or a length of glistening intestine. Everything ugly is mad-made.
Possum.
--
Stan
<http://www.tocquevillian.com>
William Penrose
> Alan, I hope you don't mind me posting to your blog.
>
> Beauty is nature's front. Faces and flowers are beautiful; intestines and
> roots are ugly. Hannah Arendt wrote that natural things present themselves.
> If you look at the presented thing, you see beauty. If you look beneath,
> inside or behind it, you find ugliness.
Not true.
Intestines or roots or worms may look ugly, but in fact they are
fabulous and complex little mechanisms. They are endlessly ingenious
products from the studios of God (or Darwin, whatever your
philosophy). A chunk of guts contains devices that secrete chemical s
to break down coarse food and turn it into fuel to run the rest of the
organism. Fats in the guts are packaged up in little microscopic
globules that can pass safely through the bloodstream without gumming
up the works. The whole thing is regulated by a complex web of nervous
and chemical signals.
There is real beauty here. You have to look very hard to see it,
that's all. And behind that beauty is a different kind of beauty, the
mathematical kind that governs the workings of the atoms and electrons
that make up the chunk of guts.
Or to put it another way: Take out the ugly part. Remove the guts and
innards, so only the superficially beautiful remains, and what do you
have left?
Bill Penrose
Pat Marcello
"Jackson Pillock" <Jac...@splatter.com> wrote in message
news:bkt9r5$bcc$1...@hercules.btinternet.com...
And so it would.
I always found Hieronymus Bosch's paintings fascinating for those reasons.
You never can tell where one of those blasted homunculi will show up doing
what or a partial homunculi two or bleeding fruit and other weird stuff.
His paintings can be quite ugly, yet I can't seem to look away from them.
They draw me into their tale.
--
Pat M. Themindofaninsaneperson.
Jackson Pillock
"Stan (the Man)" <sk...@optonlineNOSPAM.net.INVALID> wrote in message
news:2nFcb.9428$XF.71...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
:
:
Good one. TS Eliot often employed profoundly ugly imagery, particularly
during the Pound years. "Bats with baby faces," for instance, or "Like a
patient etherised upon the table."
N.B. Paula, I think you can get the beanies for these.
Jackson Pillock
:
: >Alan, I hope you don't mind me posting to your blog.
:
: >Beauty is nature's front. Faces and flowers are beautiful; intestines and
: >roots are ugly.
:
: I profoundly disagree. There's nothing whatever ugly about a tree-root
: or a length of glistening intestine. Everything ugly is mad-made.
Word. There is so much man made ugly it fucks up your visual discrimination
because each object is camoflauged in the general ugliness. Are regular
geometric shapes ugly? I'm not sure, otherwise I'd venture to say that
everything man made is ugly.
:
: >Hannah Arendt wrote that natural things present themselves.
: >If you look at the presented thing, you see beauty. If you look beneath,
: >inside or behind it, you find ugliness. Which is not to deny the
fascination
: >ugliness inspires. A sculptor works near here, making large stone forms
: >reminiscent of dividing cells, tangled worms, pupae. It is all profoundly
: >ugly, yet compels you to look.
:
: It's quite possible for a sculpture to be ugly, even intentionally so.
: I'm also with you on the fascination of the ugly. In the art on cows
: exhibition to which I presume you're alluding, the more the art was in
: keeping with cowness, the more attractive I found it, or the more it
: resonated. Less successful were the instances where the cowness of the
: cow was either ignored (the cow-as-canvas) or overturned (the
: anthropomorphic cows).
Um. Is this a Devon joke or did you really go to an "art on cows" exhibit?
(In fact there is an event going on a few miles away from me called "Art
Farm.")
:
: So, if you like, the art was beautiful to the extent that it was
: cow-like, in direct proportion. Where a man-made aspect impinged,
: ugliness intruded.
I'd say that's generally true. I appreciate all kinds of art, but only
consider as beautiful that art that most closely imitates nature. Also, I
find a certain psychic cleanness in the most abstract art, the kind that
makes you see a painting as paint on wood, or a sculpture as carved stone.
Some abstract art succeeds in being an object in itself. I like that; it
sort of gives the brain's associative function a rest.
:
: I'm trying to imagine someone in the future pulling this post up out
: of context of the blog of the exhibition. "Notions of cowness in Art
: first made themselves felt in the early years of the century ... "
Though references date back at least to Marvell's "To His Cow Mistress."
DO NOT PUN-HIJACK ANY THREAD EVER! It's ugly.
:
:
: --
: AH
Alan Hope
>"Alan Hope" <ah...@skynet.be> wrote in message
>news:pf36nvodvvotaqpld...@4ax.com...
>: Jackson Pillock goes:
>: >Alan, I hope you don't mind me posting to your blog.
>: >Beauty is nature's front. Faces and flowers are beautiful; intestines and
>: >roots are ugly.
>: I profoundly disagree. There's nothing whatever ugly about a tree-root
>: or a length of glistening intestine. Everything ugly is mad-made.
>Word. There is so much man made ugly it fucks up your visual discrimination
>because each object is camoflauged in the general ugliness. Are regular
>geometric shapes ugly? I'm not sure, otherwise I'd venture to say that
>everything man made is ugly.
Geometric shapes are not man-made.
>: >Hannah Arendt wrote that natural things present themselves.
>: >If you look at the presented thing, you see beauty. If you look beneath,
>: >inside or behind it, you find ugliness. Which is not to deny the
>fascination
>: >ugliness inspires. A sculptor works near here, making large stone forms
>: >reminiscent of dividing cells, tangled worms, pupae. It is all profoundly
>: >ugly, yet compels you to look.
>: It's quite possible for a sculpture to be ugly, even intentionally so.
>: I'm also with you on the fascination of the ugly. In the art on cows
>: exhibition to which I presume you're alluding, the more the art was in
>: keeping with cowness, the more attractive I found it, or the more it
>: resonated. Less successful were the instances where the cowness of the
>: cow was either ignored (the cow-as-canvas) or overturned (the
>: anthropomorphic cows).
>Um. Is this a Devon joke or did you really go to an "art on cows" exhibit?
>(In fact there is an event going on a few miles away from me called "Art
>Farm.")
You titled a thread "Alan's Blog", I took that to mean you'd read my
blog, and quite frankly I took extraordinary measures to fit your
wandering, diffuse, half-baked thoughts into the framework of my blog,
which may have inspired them. If that's not the case, then I'm free to
say you were waffling meaninglessly, and while I have no objection to
you doing that, I'd rather you did it on your own account, instead of
trying to ride my coat-tails. Title your next thread, "Jackson's
Thoughts" and see how far you get.
>: So, if you like, the art was beautiful to the extent that it was
>: cow-like, in direct proportion. Where a man-made aspect impinged,
>: ugliness intruded.
>I'd say that's generally true. I appreciate all kinds of art, but only
>consider as beautiful that art that most closely imitates nature.
I didn't say that.
>Also, I
>find a certain psychic cleanness in the most abstract art, the kind that
>makes you see a painting as paint on wood, or a sculpture as carved stone.
>Some abstract art succeeds in being an object in itself. I like that; it
>sort of gives the brain's associative function a rest.
Oh. Fed up with you now. Goodbye.
--
AH
Jackson Pillock
: Jackson Pillock goes:
WTF? How far am I supposed to get? I post and people either reply or they
don't. I reply to what takes my fancy. Same as anyone else. You're being
kind of weird, Alan.
You have a blog? I was calling misc.writing your blog, because you posted to
the effect that you like the "tidy confines of usenet" or however you
phrased it. UV's link to you goes to a Google search on your name. You also
posted, "I thought we were supposed to bring something new to the table,"
meaning here. So I did, hence your name. I was following a blog-thread on
beauty, so trying to bring two things together.
:
: >: So, if you like, the art was beautiful to the extent that it was
: >: cow-like, in direct proportion. Where a man-made aspect impinged,
: >: ugliness intruded.
:
: >I'd say that's generally true. I appreciate all kinds of art, but only
: >consider as beautiful that art that most closely imitates nature.
:
: I didn't say that.
So? I did.
:
: >Also, I
: >find a certain psychic cleanness in the most abstract art, the kind that
: >makes you see a painting as paint on wood, or a sculpture as carved
stone.
: >Some abstract art succeeds in being an object in itself. I like that; it
: >sort of gives the brain's associative function a rest.
:
: Oh. Fed up with you now. Goodbye.
And I never even saw his face.
ing
> "Alan Hope" <ah...@skynet.be> wrote in message
> news:pkt6nvkmjn0jkuq5h...@4ax.com...
> : Jackson Pillock goes:
> :
> : >Um. Is this a Devon joke or did you really go to an "art on cows"
> exhibit?
> : >(In fact there is an event going on a few miles away from me called "Art
> : >Farm.")
> :
> : You titled a thread "Alan's Blog", I took that to mean you'd read my
> : blog, and quite frankly I took extraordinary measures to fit your
> : wandering, diffuse, half-baked thoughts into the framework of my blog,
> : which may have inspired them. If that's not the case, then I'm free to
> : say you were waffling meaninglessly, and while I have no objection to
> : you doing that, I'd rather you did it on your own account, instead of
> : trying to ride my coat-tails. Title your next thread, "Jackson's
> : Thoughts" and see how far you get.
>
> WTF? How far am I supposed to get?
Not far, as it turns out.
> I post and people either reply or they
> don't. I reply to what takes my fancy. Same as anyone else.
Um. Apparently not. Most of us take the time to read through the threads
to which we respond so we know what all we're responding to -- you seem
to differ.
> You're being
> kind of weird, Alan.
Actually, I think he's responding quite naturally.
> You have a blog?
Duh. You YOURSELF took part in a thread titled "For those about to blog"
... in which Mr. Hope ANNOUNCED his "alter ego's" blog along with the
URL. One can only assume, (me being generous here and giving you the
benefit of the doubt and it's just a bit of a strain, I gotta tell ya)
that you missed ALL the other folks commenting on his announcement in
*that* thread. Stooooopid silly dopey ill-informed you.
> I was calling misc.writing your blog, because you posted to
> the effect that you like the "tidy confines of usenet" or however you
> phrased it.
Pull the other one, ducks.
> UV's link to you goes to a Google search on your name. You also
> posted, "I thought we were supposed to bring something new to the table,"
> meaning here. So I did, hence your name. I was following a blog-thread on
> beauty, so trying to bring two things together. >
> : ... Fed up with you now. Goodbye.
>
> And I never even saw his face.
<Eye-rolling thingy>.
ing
ing
>
>
> Alan Hope wrote:
>> I profoundly disagree. There's nothing whatever ugly about a tree-root
>> or a length of glistening intestine. Everything ugly is mad-made.
>
>
> Possum.
I think possums are kind of cute actually - we found one in my back yard
Christmas Day, 1995, I got pictures of it! Snarly little thing, but it
had a cute little pink hairless tail, pointy pink nose with whiskers ...
we didn't kill it since we already had a turkey in the oven, just shooed
it away -- they're good to eat, I heard, but you'd probably know better
than me, about that.
ing
Dr Zen
> "Alan Hope" <ah...@skynet.be> wrote in message
> news:pf36nvodvvotaqpld...@4ax.com...
> > Jackson Pillock goes:
> >
> > >Alan, I hope you don't mind me posting to your blog.
>
> > >Beauty is nature's front. Faces and flowers are beautiful; intestines and
> > >roots are ugly.
> >
> > I profoundly disagree. There's nothing whatever ugly about a tree-root
> > or a length of glistening intestine. Everything ugly is mad-made.
>
> Ugh... Soooo, Alan, how 'bout the Lokeren side? Almost pulled it out
> against Man. City, no?
For those who speak UK English, that was insufferably hilarious. We
have an image of the Lokeren side waggling their doodles at the Sky
Blues. Mind you, the equivalent UK English phrase is "pull it off"!
Zen
Stan (the Man)
ing wrote:
> Stan (the Man) wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Alan Hope wrote:
>
>
>
>>> I profoundly disagree. There's nothing whatever ugly about a tree-root
>>> or a length of glistening intestine. Everything ugly is mad-made.
>>
>>
>>
>> Possum.
>
>
> I think possums are kind of cute actually - we found one in my back yard
> Christmas Day, 1995, I got pictures of it! Snarly little thing, but it
> had a cute little pink hairless tail, pointy pink nose with whiskers ...
Just proves the adage, one man's shit's another woman's ice cream.
> we didn't kill it since we already had a turkey in the oven, just shooed
> it away -- they're good to eat, I heard, but you'd probably know better
> than me, about that.
Jesus, just the thought! I'd sooner...just about anything!
--
Stan
<http://www.tocquevillian.com>
Stan (the Man)
Looney
He's a bearded lady.
--
Looney
------------------------------------------------------------
This space for rent - inquire within
Looney
"Dr Zen" <gol...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5e7da04d.03092...@posting.google.com...
LOL...Well, after minute 78, that would have been about as effective as
anything else they did.
I almost changed the wording with that worry, then thought, "Hell, who's
gonna be so obtuse?" Glad you got a chuckle...
Ultraviolet
news:g7Ocb.4705$PT3.6...@news20.bellglobal.com:
> Jackson Pillock wrote:
<>
> Duh. You YOURSELF took part in a thread titled "For those about to
> blog" ... in which Mr. Hope ANNOUNCED his "alter ego's" blog along
> with the URL. One can only assume, (me being generous here and giving
> you the benefit of the doubt and it's just a bit of a strain, I gotta
> tell ya) that you missed ALL the other folks commenting on his
> announcement in *that* thread. Stooooopid silly dopey ill-informed
> you.
He got confused, ing. BFD. Doesn't mean he's "stooooopid." I thought you
didn't do the nasty stuff like otter peeps here?
>> UV's link to you goes to a Google search on your name.
Yeah, cuz I was commenting on AH generally as a froupie. His actual post
re blogging hadn't been Googlated yet. I wasn't referencing the cow art.
Catalina Island off of California has buffalo art, if anyone cares:
--
UV
Alan Hope
>"Stan (the Man)" <sk...@optonlineNOSPAM.net.INVALID> wrote in message
>news:2nFcb.9428$XF.71...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
>: Alan Hope wrote:
>: > Jackson Pillock goes:
>: >>Alan, I hope you don't mind me posting to your blog.
>: >>Beauty is nature's front. Faces and flowers are beautiful; intestines
>and
>: >>roots are ugly.
>: > I profoundly disagree. There's nothing whatever ugly about a tree-root
>: > or a length of glistening intestine. Everything ugly is mad-made.
>: Possum.
>Good one. TS Eliot
Good one.
But I suspect he was actually thinking of Dame Edna.
>often employed profoundly ugly imagery, particularly
>during the Pound years. "Bats with baby faces," for instance, or "Like a
>patient etherised upon the table."
>N.B. Paula, I think you can get the beanies for these.
They have an ointment for that.
--
AH
Alan Hope
>And so it would.
Which part of "Everything ugly is mad-made" are people not getting?
>--
>Pat M. Themindofaninsaneperson.
Bosch was a good deal less insane than you, I'd wager. If you knew
what he was doing, you'd realise he knew what he was doing.
--
AH
Robert McClelland
"Stan (the Man)" <sk...@optonlineNOSPAM.net.INVALID> wrote in message
Shouldn't that be, "speak American wanker"?
--
Visit my blahg site.
GO NOW DAMMIT!
http://myblahg.blogspot.com/
Looney
"Robert McClelland" <robert.m...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:xg0db.13678$yD1.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
Cause that's called "speaking Canadian" and, well, that just doesn't
interest anyone.
--
Looney
-----------------------------------------------------------
Some people just don't know how to drive.
I call these people "Everybody but Me."
Robert McClelland
Don't you have any material of your own?
Looney
LOL... good one. I love irony.
Robert McClelland
See. Did you pay to use someone else's material?
gekko
> Jackson Pillock wrote:
>
> > "Alan Hope" <ah...@skynet.be> wrote in message
> > news:pkt6nvkmjn0jkuq5h...@4ax.com...
> > : Jackson Pillock goes:
>
> > :
> > : >Um. Is this a Devon joke or did you really go to an "art on cows"
> > exhibit?
> > : >(In fact there is an event going on a few miles away from me called "Art
> > : >Farm.")
> > :
> > : You titled a thread "Alan's Blog", I took that to mean you'd read my
> > : blog, and quite frankly I took extraordinary measures to fit your
> > : wandering, diffuse, half-baked thoughts into the framework of my blog,
> > : which may have inspired them. If that's not the case, then I'm free to
> > : say you were waffling meaninglessly, and while I have no objection to
> > : you doing that, I'd rather you did it on your own account, instead of
> > : trying to ride my coat-tails. Title your next thread, "Jackson's
> > : Thoughts" and see how far you get.
> >
> > WTF? How far am I supposed to get?
>
> Not far, as it turns out.
Congratulations, Pillock. You've earned "idiot" status, it would
appear.
How cool is that?
> > I post and people either reply or they
> > don't. I reply to what takes my fancy. Same as anyone else.
>
> Um. Apparently not. Most of us take the time to read through the threads
> to which we respond so we know what all we're responding to -- you seem
> to differ.
??
> > You're being
> > kind of weird, Alan.
>
> Actually, I think he's responding quite naturally.
>
> > You have a blog?
>
>
> Duh. You YOURSELF took part in a thread titled "For those about to blog"
> ... in which Mr. Hope ANNOUNCED his "alter ego's" blog along with the
> URL. One can only assume, (me being generous here and giving you the
> benefit of the doubt and it's just a bit of a strain, I gotta tell ya)
> that you missed ALL the other folks commenting on his announcement in
> *that* thread. Stooooopid silly dopey ill-informed you.
I'm thinking he's playing "disingenuous" because it's funnier.
Anyhoo, you wanted me (and others) to point out places where you
were "nasty", and, well, here's one.
> > I was calling misc.writing your blog, because you posted to
> > the effect that you like the "tidy confines of usenet" or however you
> > phrased it.
>
> Pull the other one, ducks.
>
>
> > UV's link to you goes to a Google search on your name. You also
> > posted, "I thought we were supposed to bring something new to the table,"
> > meaning here. So I did, hence your name. I was following a blog-thread on
> > beauty, so trying to bring two things together. >
>
> > : ... Fed up with you now. Goodbye.
>
> >
> > And I never even saw his face.
>
>
> <Eye-rolling thingy>.
Same here.
Um, inggers? GF? I've noticed this little pattern of you
going for the juggler [(c) 2003 Zero] when you think someone's
being mean to poor Alan.
It's very sweet. :-)
Hey, yo, Pastorio! Add this one to my Deja-Mountain of Meanness, k?
--
gekko
If a turtle doesn't have a shell, is he homeless or naked?
gekko
I thought he was an ass.
Looney
At least I had the sense to borrow from someone more talented than I.
Might do you some good...
--
Looney
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hot 'Pies - Go Collingwood!
Looney
"gekko" <ge...@lutz.kicks-ass.org.invalid> wrote in message
news:slrnbn9ehp....@enews2.newsguy.com...
Ass as in donkey, or ass as in arse?
I prefer bearded ladies.
Jackson Pillock
"gekko" <ge...@lutz.kicks-ass.org.invalid> wrote in message
: Skip this part. It's only an attribution telling you that ing
<ing.b...@sympatico.ca> wrote in
<g7Ocb.4705$PT3.6...@news20.bellglobal.com>:
: > Jackson Pillock wrote:
:
: Congratulations, Pillock. You've earned "idiot" status, it would
: appear.
:
: How cool is that?
It's sweet to be an idiot.
:
:
Jackson Pillock
"ing" <ing.b...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:g7Ocb.4705$PT3.6...@news20.bellglobal.com...
I fucked up. I thought "Alan's Blog" was a running joke because I'd never
seen a link, except UV's, and I misread Alan as making anti-blog noises.
You, on the other hand, tried to get nasty. Against Jackson Pillock, who
always does his utmost to be cool. How far did you get, and who was
clutching at Alan's coat-tails?
We can still be friendsters though, maybe even blog-buddies.
:...
Alan Hope
>Ass as in donkey, or ass as in arse?
Do I have to choose? Can't I be both?
--
AH
Pat Marcello
Well, of course, I'm insane, twit.
However, seems mad-made is not mad-made. Part of the fascination.
--
Pat M. Youjustdon'tgeit. OK, fine.
Looney
> Looney goes:
>
> >Ass as in donkey, or ass as in arse?
>
> Do I have to choose? Can't I be both?
A bearded female donkey's arse? I dunno, Alan, sounds like a tall
order...
--
Looney