My Personal Biases Are True
Nikolaus Maack
can stick fruit in it when it's done, it's a basket, and a basket
isn't art.
That's not art, that's a fractal. And a fractal is math. And if
there's one thing I know, math isn't art. See, that's why math class
and art class happened in two different rooms. Remember?
That's not art! That's a mess. It took you, what? Maybe ten minutes
to do that? You threw paint at the canvas, smeared it around a bit.
A child could paint that! A monkey could paint it! And you're trying
to tell me that it's art? I don't think so.
That's not art. Those are just abstract shapes. Triangles and
squares and lines... It's cold and it's meaningless and it's
definitely not art. Art comes from the heart. This came from the
brain.
That's not art, either. It's depressing. Dark and gloomy and
miserable. Why the heck did you put THAT on canvas? It's an
abomination. It goes against my favorite religion. It's ugly. Art
is never ugly.
That's definitely not art. That's pornography. If it makes my
naughty parts drool, it can't be art. Get it down off the wall before
a child sees it. How did you get a woman to pose like that anyway,
you pervert?
That's not art. You used tinfoil and bits of garbage and... Is that
a piece of steak? What's this? Granola? No, no, no. Art is made
out of paint, marble, clay, or brass. And not all at once, moron!
NOW! Finally! That's art! Some grass, a bunch of trees, a lake, and
a guy and a girl standing there. Look, she's even holding a bowl of
fruit! About time. Cripes, man, I thought I was going to spend all
day walking through this art gallery, without seeing a single piece of
art. What is this world coming to?
Nik
PS.
Everything is art. Shut up.
---
The Nik Maack Art Gallery
http://www.chat.carleton.ca/~mrtribe
Outsider art for outsiders.
Alison A Raimes
<ac...@freenet.carleton.ca> writes
>NOW! Finally! That's art! Some grass, a bunch of trees, a lake, and
>a guy and a girl standing there. Look, she's even holding a bowl of
>fruit! About time.
LOL .. you've been looking at Chris Brobeck's website ;-)
--
Alison
Charles Eicher
says...
>
>Everything is art. Shut up.
You first.
Cher Ayde
>Everything is art. Shut up.
And you are the artful dodger for sure!
Bravo and Ole!!
Paul Mesken
Maack) wrote:
[ snip ]
Excellent! :-)
Art of Europe
'everything' is art
then everything is
and nothing is
in particular
you are welcome to giime some words
should you so wish
thank you
Jeremiah
> NOW! Finally! That's art! Some grass, a bunch of trees, a lake, and
> a guy and a girl standing there. Look, she's even holding a bowl of
> fruit! About time. Cripes, man, I thought I was going to spend all
> day walking through this art gallery, without seeing a single piece of
> art. What is this world coming to?
>
> Nik
>
> PS.
>
> Everything is art. Shut up.
> ---
> The Nik Maack Art Gallery
> http://www.chat.carleton.ca/~mrtribe
> Outsider art for outsiders.
--
the pictures, the poetry...
Charles Eicher
>
>Bravo and Ole!!
>
What bullshit. If everything is art, then nothing is art. Art is inherently
precious, it is the peak of human intellectual achievement. You insult artists
to insist that their activities are as meaningless as the splashes of mud on the
side of a car.
mark webber
> What bullshit. If everything is art, then nothing is art. Art is inherently
> precious, it is the peak of human intellectual achievement. You insult artists
> to insist that their activities are as meaningless as the splashes of mud on the
> side of a car.
Surprised - but then not really - that you have this inacurate statement
again, Charly.
Art is not inherently precious. Great art is.
Art is not the peak of human intellectual achievement. Great art isn't
really either. One doesn't have to be an intellectual to make a terrific
painting. But great art is the peak of human achievement in general.
And once and for all, (although if you haven't gotten it yet I doubt you
will anytime soon) anything someone wishes to call art is art. That
doesn't make it great art, so relax. That simple.
Webber
Nikolaus Maack
<not.t...@obviously.com> wrote:
>I'm sorry to be pedantically philosophical but if
>'everything' is art
>then everything is
>and nothing is
>in particular
I'm going to get mystical. Brace yourself.
The buddhists say that all is illusion. By this, I believe they mean
that all we have of the world is perception. We never see the
so-called "objective reality" beneath it all.
Objective reality is a myth. We pretend to strive for it, but we
never, ever can grasp it. Science is only an approximation, and in
its tendency to isolate, analyse, and experiment, it loses a grasp on
the whole, and understands only parts. But it's the WHOLE that's
beautiful. On a good day, science gets a glimpse of that.
The illusion that is everything is beautiful. (Yes, if everything is
beautiful, the word "beautiful" becomes meaningless. Oh well.) All
that we perceive is art. A raindrop can be as grand as a Vincent Van
Gogh. Can be. It depends on how and when the raindrop is perceived.
Everything is art, but not all of the art is equal. Not all of the
art is of value to us. Sometimes a raindrop is just an irritation
dribbling down your nose. Other times, it's everything. The drop
hits, and it hits at exactly the perfect moment, and you feel its icy
chill in every single bone of your body. It brings back two dozen
memories all at once, and you want to laugh, cry, or maybe wet your
pants.
A raindrop can be better than all other art. A dead cat by the side
of the road can be moving. Everything is, potentially, art. That
being the case, everything is art, to someone.
And therefore, everything is art.
Many people get angry when I say this. That's because they're boring,
and they like other people to be boring. They insist that we all be
logical and sane. I high recommend not listening to them.
Nik
---
The Nik Maack Art Gallery
http://www.chat.carleton.ca/~mrtribe
A whole whack 'o faces wanna stare at you.
Charles Eicher
says...
>
>On Tue, 05 Oct 1999 22:42:18 -0700, Art of Europe
><not.t...@obviously.com> wrote:
>
>>I'm sorry to be pedantically philosophical but if
>>'everything' is art
>>then everything is
>>and nothing is
>>in particular
>
>I'm going to get mystical. Brace yourself.
I'm hunting for my barf bag right now..
>The buddhists say that all is illusion.
They do? That's news to me, and I am a buddhist (I just realized, I converted
almost exactly 10 years ago).
>By this, I believe they mean
>that all we have of the world is perception. We never see the
>so-called "objective reality" beneath it all.
You understand incorrectly. Buddhists often say that all our perceptions are
delusions, however, this neatly avoids any issues of the exact nature of
reality. But if you REALLY want to know the Buddhist scheme of reality, you
should study the "10 factors" which are appearance, nature, entity, power,
influence, internal cause, relation, latent effect, manifest effect, and
consistency from end to end. Note that perception is only contained in
"appearance" which is only a small part of this scheme.
>Objective reality is a myth. We pretend to strive for it, but we
>never, ever can grasp it. Science is only an approximation, and in
>its tendency to isolate, analyse, and experiment, it loses a grasp on
>the whole, and understands only parts. But it's the WHOLE that's
>beautiful. On a good day, science gets a glimpse of that.
I haven't heard such rubbish since the heyday of Werner Erhard. By any chance,
did you ever take an EST Seminar?
>The illusion that is everything is beautiful. (Yes, if everything is
>beautiful, the word "beautiful" becomes meaningless. Oh well.) All
>that we perceive is art. A raindrop can be as grand as a Vincent Van
>Gogh. Can be. It depends on how and when the raindrop is perceived.
No, the illusion is that there is something other than ourselves. We, in and of
ourselves, are beautiful and ugly, it is our relation to our ourselves (that is,
our environment, which IS us) that determines our perceptions to a large degree.
>Everything is art, but not all of the art is equal. Not all of the
>art is of value to us. Sometimes a raindrop is just an irritation
>dribbling down your nose. Other times, it's everything. The drop
>hits, and it hits at exactly the perfect moment, and you feel its icy
>chill in every single bone of your body. It brings back two dozen
>memories all at once, and you want to laugh, cry, or maybe wet your
>pants.
More pop psychology drivel. Where IS my barf bag?
>A raindrop can be better than all other art. A dead cat by the side
>of the road can be moving. Everything is, potentially, art. That
>being the case, everything is art, to someone.
>
>And therefore, everything is art.
In addition to your mistaken concepts about buddhism, I will add your complete
inability to comprehend simple logical constructs such as the syllogism.
>Many people get angry when I say this. That's because they're boring,
>and they like other people to be boring. They insist that we all be
>logical and sane. I high recommend not listening to them.
You can't have it both ways, constructing a logical syllogism to "prove" that
everything is art, then insisting that logic is worthless.
It is worthless to argue with someone who can offer nothing but vague opinions
backed by fuzzy illogic. As Kurt Vonnegut wrote, "opinions are like assholes,
everybody has one." And therefore, everyone's anus is art, right? Gimme a break.
Paul Mesken
If the buddhists have a scheme of reality than the buddhists haven't
paid enough attention in their Zen class (perhaps they should be more
agnostic). We call reality the source of our perception but this
perception consists of models, mental representations upon which we
base our behaviour. We have ideas about reality but we shouldn't
mistake these ideas for the real thing. Actually, it doesn't really
matter for that what we call "we" is also part of reality (notice that
"part" is also an artificial thing that is an expression of our ideas
of reality)
Ofcourse it really pays off to be able to perceive reality in the way
we do. But statements about reality are only true within our formal
system of perception. They may not be valid in other systems which
also perceive reality. All of our ideas and experience is restricted
within the terms of this perceptual system, we cannot think of
something that isn't covered by it (the question "Like what?" is
ofcourse senseless :-)
>>The illusion that is everything is beautiful. (Yes, if everything is
>>beautiful, the word "beautiful" becomes meaningless. Oh well.) All
>>that we perceive is art. A raindrop can be as grand as a Vincent Van
>>Gogh. Can be. It depends on how and when the raindrop is perceived.
>
>No, the illusion is that there is something other than ourselves. We, in and of
>ourselves, are beautiful and ugly, it is our relation to our ourselves (that is,
>our environment, which IS us) that determines our perceptions to a large degree.
>
Yeah, what was it? Solipsism or something? You're not real, you're an
illusion, I'm the only viewer, etc. Any such idea cannot be proven
wrong (we could all be in the "Matrix", cool movie BTW). Perhaps I
only think I'm real. Such theories might be interesting and even serve
as a worldview but they can't be usefull in any other way.
Our perception of reality is not an illusion, it's a description and
any description is restricted by the formal system it is made in. It
is true that this statement can be contradicted by other statements
like the solipstic one. There's no system that can prove itself as the
only valid one (except reality itself but that's not a system) and our
perceptual system is a good example of that.
>>Everything is art, but not all of the art is equal. Not all of the
>>art is of value to us. Sometimes a raindrop is just an irritation
>>dribbling down your nose. Other times, it's everything. The drop
>>hits, and it hits at exactly the perfect moment, and you feel its icy
>>chill in every single bone of your body. It brings back two dozen
>>memories all at once, and you want to laugh, cry, or maybe wet your
>>pants.
>
>More pop psychology drivel. Where IS my barf bag?
>
Be a man! Just swallow it back in :-)
I don't believe everything should be called art (and certainly not
raindrops unless painted and subscripted with "Ceci n'est pas un
raindrop" :-) Art is that what is made with the intention to be art
and to be experienced by others as such. That is certainly not
equivalent with everything (at least that's my theory about its
definition)
The problem with this definition of art is that it is not dependant
upon physical properties but upon the intentions of its maker which
cannot be proven. Infering the intentions from the observation of the
object can be hard. It gives rise to doubt, does the artist really
intended this to be art or is it an easy money making scheme?
This way the artist needs to back it up with reason, an artist
statement, etc. It's the "bullshitism" of Deli. If the execution of
the art work was hard (very realistic paintings for example) then
we're more inclined to call it art even if we don't like it. After
all, the artist doesn't go through all those troubles in order to make
not art.
>>A raindrop can be better than all other art. A dead cat by the side
>>of the road can be moving. Everything is, potentially, art. That
>>being the case, everything is art, to someone.
>>
>>And therefore, everything is art.
>
>In addition to your mistaken concepts about buddhism, I will add your complete
>inability to comprehend simple logical constructs such as the syllogism.
>
Me thinks you're kinda harsh on him. Let's all be friends (the evil
agitator said ;-)
>>Many people get angry when I say this. That's because they're boring,
>>and they like other people to be boring. They insist that we all be
>>logical and sane. I high recommend not listening to them.
>
>You can't have it both ways, constructing a logical syllogism to "prove" that
>everything is art, then insisting that logic is worthless.
>
Depends on how you read it. I don't read in it that he insists logic
is worthless. Just that he thinks people who want other people to
emphasize on "cold ground" logic (the "Spock" version) and the
mainstream notion of sanity are considered boring by him.
I have my objections against this piece as well, namely that he states
that people who don't agree with him and get angry as a result are
boring people who impose "logical and sane" behaviour upon others.
>It is worthless to argue with someone who can offer nothing but vague opinions
>backed by fuzzy illogic. As Kurt Vonnegut wrote, "opinions are like assholes,
>everybody has one." And therefore, everyone's anus is art, right? Gimme a break.
Great Scott! I always thought Kurt was such a decent fellow :-)
Nikolaus Maack
In all seriousness, the following post in not meant to start a battle
of wills. I'm trying to communicate with you. The reason I mention
this, up front, is because your style is one of pure antagonism.
Which bores me. It's an attitude all over usenet, and it's tiresome.
I hope you can drop it. I doubt that you can. This genuinely saddens
me. I suspect, even as you read these words, you think I'm some
flakey, liberal, squishy-headed twit. Which saddens me further.
I'd like to communicate, however, so here's a go at that.
Me:
>>I'm going to get mystical. Brace yourself.
You:
>I'm hunting for my barf bag right now..
I love an open mind.
I said:
>>The buddhists say that all is illusion.
You said:
>They do? That's news to me, and I am a buddhist (I just realized, I converted
>almost exactly 10 years ago).
You go on to say:
>You understand incorrectly. Buddhists often say that all our perceptions are
>delusions, however, this neatly avoids any issues of the exact nature of
>reality.
So let me get this straight...
"All is illusion."
"Our perceptions are delusions."
So where, exactly, is our disagreement?
You then start lecturing me:
>But if you REALLY want to know the Buddhist scheme of reality, you
>should study the "10 factors" which are appearance, nature, entity, power,
>influence, internal cause, relation, latent effect, manifest effect, and
>consistency from end to end. Note that perception is only contained in
>"appearance" which is only a small part of this scheme.
If I can list off the ten commandments, quote bible scripture, and
name all the saints and angels, does that make me a Christian? No.
So why are you trying to prove to me you're a buddhist, by listing off
buddhist concepts?
>I haven't heard such rubbish since the heyday of Werner Erhard. By any chance,
>did you ever take an EST Seminar?
Not that I'm aware of.
>No, the illusion is that there is something other than ourselves. We, in and of
>ourselves, are beautiful and ugly, it is our relation to our ourselves (that is,
>our environment, which IS us) that determines our perceptions to a large degree.
Right. Which is what I said, is it not? There is no objective
reality. I left out the part of there also being no subjective
reality. To say a rather blank and mystical statement, there is no
me, there is no you, there just *is*.
Bet that one pisses you off too. Tee hee!
I was going to say that when we perceive reality, we can choose
whether or not to see everything as beautiful or ugly. Seemed like an
unnecessary complication at the time, mentioning that choice.
Instead, I decided to say that everything is beautiful, even though
that means the word beautiful is meaningless.
>More pop psychology drivel. Where IS my barf bag?
Evidently you've hollowed out your heart and have been vomitting in
there.
If I may be so presumptuous to ask, why are you so angry? Several of
your posts in this group come across as dripping with fermented rage.
Are you okay? I'm serious, Charles. Are you all right?
>In addition to your mistaken concepts about buddhism, I will add your complete
>inability to comprehend simple logical constructs such as the syllogism.
Evidently you missed the part of my post where I said, more or less,
"Fuck logic". Intuition is fun. I enjoy it.
>You can't have it both ways, constructing a logical syllogism to "prove" that
>everything is art, then insisting that logic is worthless.
I can have it anyway I like. Are you going to stop me? You seem to
want to. Why? To what end? Because I don't conform to your opinions
of what a person is supposed to be?
Remember what the subject of this post is? "My Personal Biases Are
True". I meant this to be an ironic statement. People in this
newsgroup are thrusting their opinions forward and calling them fact.
That strikes me as a ridiculous exercise.
>It is worthless to argue with someone who can offer nothing but vague opinions
>backed by fuzzy illogic. As Kurt Vonnegut wrote, "opinions are like assholes,
>everybody has one." And therefore, everyone's anus is art, right? Gimme a break.
Seeing as how you ackowledge that opinions are assholes, I am left
wondering why you're thrusting your asshole into my face and calling
it "The Truth". Admittedly, your shit seems well organized, but it's
still your shit, not mine.
Cher Ayde
webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU says...
>And once and for all, (although if you haven't gotten it yet I doubt you
>will anytime soon) anything someone wishes to call art is art. That
>doesn't make it great art, so relax. That simple.
And I'll add to that -- Lighten up Charles!
Or better yet, get a 'sense of humor.'
Cher Ayde
>Many people get angry when I say this. That's because they're boring,
>and they like other people to be boring. They insist that we all be
>logical and sane. I high recommend not listening to them.
"Many people" includes Eicher may I presume?
Cher Ayde
says...
>Seeing as how you ackowledge that opinions are assholes, I am left
>wondering why you're thrusting your asshole into my face and calling
>it "The Truth". Admittedly, your shit seems well organized, but it's
>still your shit, not mine.
>
> Nik
Geez Nik, what a breath of fresh fecal tainted air you
are. Where have you been lurking all these years?
Hope you stick around for the millenium...
Paul Mesken
Maack) wrote:
>Evidently you've hollowed out your heart and have been vomitting in
>there.
>Seeing as how you ackowledge that opinions are assholes, I am left
>wondering why you're thrusting your asshole into my face and calling
>it "The Truth". Admittedly, your shit seems well organized, but it's
>still your shit, not mine.
>
Well, I (aka the-one-who-is-right) might not agree with you nor Eicher
but I love your imagery :-)
Nikolaus Maack
wrote:
>Well, I (aka the-one-who-is-right) might not agree with you nor Eicher
>but I love your imagery :-)
Interestingly enough, I would much rather have someone enjoy my
writing than agree with my opinions. Is this the curse of the artist?
I recall an anthropology essay I wrote in first year university. I
hated anthropology. The professor was a year away from retiring, and
it showed. He came to each class with all the enthusiasm of a doctor
dragged out of bed at 4am to come see the perfect example of an
ingrown toenail. The professor spoke in a blurry voice, his words all
getting caught in the long gray moustache that hung over his mouth.
His eyes never opened beyond slits. Most of the real work for the
course was assigned to an army of teaching assistants.
When I sat down to write my essay, I had an enthusiasm level equal to
the professor. I did zero research. I spent maybe two hours taking
the same three ideas I'd made up, and spinning them slightly in place.
The teaching assistant who marked the paper wrote a comment that I
adored: "This is a very well written essay that doesn't say
anything."
She gave the paper a D minus.
It made me very happy.
jcab
Nikolaus Maack wrote:
>
>
> Interestingly enough, I would much rather have someone enjoy my
> writing than agree with my opinions. Is this the curse of the artist?
>
>
Okay, Nik...
In my opinion, your opinions are a bunch of crap.
But the writing! Wow! You have really expressed yourself with a fine
hand and an obvious command of language. And versus what mostly appears
on this news group, you ought to get some kind of prize. [This is only
partly tongue in cheek. I was a newspaper and news magazine reporter
for a number of years, and editor for a number more, and a speech writer
for still more -- hey, a guy's got to make a living -- and I believe I
know a good sentence when presented with one.]
Actually, I don't know if your opinions are a bunch of crap. I didn't
really read all of that stuff, especially the one on one with Charles
Eicher, who forces me to remind myself that there is room here for
everyone.
But I did read the original "My Personal Biases Are True" and the irony
did not escape me. I knew in the reading that this would tweak some
toenails, and sure enough, some o'these folks who never got a joke in
their lives got riled. I'd have thought "boring artist" would be some
kind of oxymoron, but I guess not. Incidentally, to all those who refer
to themselves as "artists," may I point out that Leonardo never made
that claim for himself. He never went beyond "painter." Preferred to
let others decide whether it was art.
Regards, Nik, 'til next time.
Joe Bennett
C
Jenn
>can stick fruit in it when it's done, it's a basket, and a basket
>isn't art.
And this is the reason why patchworks are still not ecepted into many
gallerys in the US as art.
Since when is a urinal art?.... oh thats right... when a 'male' artist says
it is.
If your making something with the intention of putting fruit in it then its
probably not art, but if your making something with the intention of it
being art and it just happens to also make a nice fruit holder, then its
art.
Nikolaus Maack wrote in message <37f9a02a....@news.ncf.carleton.ca>...
>That's not art, that's a fractal. And a fractal is math. And if
>there's one thing I know, math isn't art. See, that's why math class
>and art class happened in two different rooms. Remember?
Since when? If we all start thinking like that, cutting off the posibilites
how are we ever to progress? Maths is in everything. And if someone wants to
work with a combination of maths and art... great!
Look at Escher! Very mathmatical art. If fact he said:
"In mathematical quarters, the regular division of the plane has been
considered theoretically . . . Does this mean that it is an exclusively
mathematical question? In my opinion, it does not. (Mathematicians) have
opened the gate leading to an extensive domain, but they have not entered
this domain themselves. By their very nature thay are more interested in the
way in which the gate is opened than in the garden lying behind it. "
>That's not art! That's a mess. It took you, what? Maybe ten minutes
>to do that? You threw paint at the canvas, smeared it around a bit.
>A child could paint that! A monkey could paint it! And you're trying
>to tell me that it's art? I don't think so.
And how many artists spend their entire lives TRYING to paint like a child
again? *grin*
Kristina
Jenn <devi...@sydneyoffice.com> wrote in message
news:7uggmb$57i$1...@seagoon.newcastle.edu.au...
> >That's not art, that's craft! Craft is definitely not art. If you
> >can stick fruit in it when it's done, it's a basket, and a basket
> >isn't art.
>
> And this is the reason why patchworks are still not ecepted into many
> gallerys in the US as art.
> Since when is a urinal art?.... oh thats right... when a 'male' artist
says
> it is.
> If your making something with the intention of putting fruit in it then
its
> probably not art, but if your making something with the intention of it
> being art and it just happens to also make a nice fruit holder, then its
> art.
what are you actually saying here Jenn....can you be more specific?
Kristina.
Jenn
the work that makes it art or craft or design etc. If the artist is
'intending' it to be art, then it is. If they are intending to promote a
product or display fruit.. then its not.
Kristina wrote in message <7ugm2v$9h0$1...@the-fly.zip.com.au>...
Nikolaus Maack
<devi...@sydneyoffice.com> wrote:
>If the artist is
>'intending' it to be art, then it is. If they are intending to promote a
>product or display fruit.. then its not.
I intend all my work to be the follow things:
1. It is art.
2. It is craft.
3. It is a complex mathematical equation, possibly a fractal.
4. It is morally repugnant, and causes nuns to pee in their habits,
and gives monks painful erections. Sin made of paint, that's my art.
5. It is meant to promote the Coca-Cola Company and all their fine
products. The clever part is that I manage to promote their drinks
without once mentioning Coke in any of my paintings. I do portraits,
but I *intend* each face to look as though it is thirsty. More
specifically, just by looking at them you can tell they are thirsty
for that sweet, delicious, and always refreshing taste of Coca-Cola.
Coke adds life, and everyone wants a little life.
6. Each painting is a super powerful mind control ray designed to
hypnotically cause men and women to expose themselves in public. I
throw this into every painting just for the hell of it. The world
needs more nudity.
As you can see, my intentions are somewhat complicated and
contradictory. But because my intentions define my work, I'm safe in
the knowledge that all of these things are in fact there, for all to
see. Have a look at my web page. There's no denying that I am one
ultra-skilled, kick-ass, obscene painter dude.
Nik
---
The Nik Maack Art Gallery
http://www.chat.carleton.ca/~mrtribe
Now with exciting TEXT explaining why
each painting should not be burned.
Kristina
> Not really *grin* Just rambling. As far as Im concerned its the intention
of
> 'intending' it to be art, then it is. If they are intending to promote a
> product or display fruit.. then its not.
Okay so in essence you are saying it basically comes down to the intent of
the artist. Okay, I see your point. Thanks.
Kristina.
Paul Mesken
Maack) wrote:
>5. It is meant to promote the Coca-Cola Company and all their fine
>products. The clever part is that I manage to promote their drinks
>without once mentioning Coke in any of my paintings. I do portraits,
>but I *intend* each face to look as though it is thirsty. More
>specifically, just by looking at them you can tell they are thirsty
>for that sweet, delicious, and always refreshing taste of Coca-Cola.
>Coke adds life, and everyone wants a little life.
>
Ah! Sublimal messages cleverly hidden in paintings. While the mind
focuses on details, the subconscious sees that the particular
constellation of these details make up the Coca Cola logo :-)
Ed Weber
spelling class. Who's making up these rules for you two anyway? Yes, craft
is an art form in itself. Not a "Fine Art" form, but an art none the less.
And as for throwing paint at the canvas...depending how you throw it and
which colors you apply, when and where, it can be art; abstract, but art.
Good or quality art? It takes a trained eye to help determine that, which
takes years.
Just a suggestion...open your minds just a little more and go to as many
galleries and museums as possible. The education and enlightenment is worth
it.
caio
Jenn <devi...@sydneyoffice.com> wrote in message
news:7uggmb$57i$1...@seagoon.newcastle.edu.au...
> >That's not art, that's craft! Craft is definitely not art. If you
> >can stick fruit in it when it's done, it's a basket, and a basket
> >isn't art.
>
> And this is the reason why patchworks are still not ecepted into many
> gallerys in the US as art.
> Since when is a urinal art?.... oh thats right... when a 'male' artist
says
> it is.
> If your making something with the intention of putting fruit in it then
its
> probably not art, but if your making something with the intention of it
> being art and it just happens to also make a nice fruit holder, then its
> art.
>
Jenn
Nikolaus Maack wrote in message <380bc274....@news.ncf.carleton.ca>...
>On Tue, 19 Oct 1999 13:53:09 +1000, "Jenn"
><devi...@sydneyoffice.com> wrote:
>>If the artist is
>>'intending' it to be art, then it is. If they are intending to promote a
>>product or display fruit.. then its not.
>
>I intend all my work to be the follow things:
>
>1. It is art.
>
>2. It is craft.
>
>3. It is a complex mathematical equation, possibly a fractal.
>
>4. It is morally repugnant, and causes nuns to pee in their habits,
>and gives monks painful erections. Sin made of paint, that's my art.
>
>5. It is meant to promote the Coca-Cola Company and all their fine
>products. The clever part is that I manage to promote their drinks
>without once mentioning Coke in any of my paintings. I do portraits,
>but I *intend* each face to look as though it is thirsty. More
>specifically, just by looking at them you can tell they are thirsty
>for that sweet, delicious, and always refreshing taste of Coca-Cola.
>Coke adds life, and everyone wants a little life.
>
Gunvor Waller
really liked your text but personally i have problems with "the intention of
the artist", i believe the interesting thing is the impression/experience of
the beholder (reader, listener &c). if s/he enjoys, it is enjoyable. if s/he
feels it is art, it is art. if s/he puts fruit in it, as you say, it also
makes a nice fruitholder.... also: if the basket is made as craft with the
sole intention of holding fruit, and the observer experiences it as
beautiful and soulmoving and what have you, it is art!
karin jsw
Nikolaus Maack
<ovi...@tninet.se> wrote:
>really liked your text but personally i have problems with "the intention of
>the artist", i believe the interesting thing is the impression/experience of
>the beholder (reader, listener &c). if s/he enjoys, it is enjoyable. if s/he
>feels it is art, it is art.
As a beholder of great worth, the only thing I consider art are car
accidents. Everything else is crap. Paintings are an old mode.
Passe. Throw them on the fire and dance as the flames rise up.
Sculpture? Fruit baskets? Film? All of it is crap. Burn it all.
Car accidents are the only true art form. Go out and drive like a
maniac right now. Plow into a school bus full of children. Make
yourself an artist.
Gunvor Waller
people can't argue anymore (could they ever??), only ironize.
you're very clever.
a little lacking in originality though (only my impression as reader, you
might think you're a genius and that's probably true in your world).
have a nice day :-)
karin jsw
Nikolaus Maack
<ovi...@tninet.se> wrote:
>people can't argue anymore (could they ever??), only ironize.
>you're very clever.
Argument is futile. I much prefer communication. Unfortunately,
communication is impossible -- no one seems able to agree on what
words mean. The dictionary is merely a list of suggestions. I
therefore settle for play. I toss up a word, someone tosses it back.
We don't get much achieved this way, but at least we enjoy ourselves.
>you
>might think you're a genius and that's probably true in your world).
I know that I am a fool. Would that all fools were so lucky.
Kristina
Kristina.
Ed Weber <ed...@dellnet.com> wrote in message
news:7ujdgf$ptm$1...@news01.arb1.te.uudial.us.uu.net...
> > Nikolaus Maack wrote in message
Gunvor Waller
we do, don't we...
karin jsw
John Haber
>Argument is futile. I much prefer communication.
Naaaah. RESISTANCE is futile.
John
Cher Ayde
says...
>As a beholder of great worth, the only thing I consider art are car
>accidents. Everything else is crap.
You must care a great deal then for the sculptures by
John Chamberlain...