Newsgroups on Visual Art
Lauren Foster-MacLeod
I wandered into this newsgroup just last week, and have a few queries:
I realize that is is unmoderated, but is it the norm that most of the
posts are not art-related?
(About 1/2 the threads seem arts-related, but the responses to the non-arts
topics are more numerous.)
Also -- do you know of other Arts newsgroups or e-lists that discuss art,
esp. opinions and techniques of visual art?
Thanks,
Lauren
--
THE BLESSED BEE
www.blessedbee.com
samples/subscription info:
in...@blessedbee.com
Paul Mesken
Foster-MacLeod) wrote:
>Just wondering....
>
>I wandered into this newsgroup just last week, and have a few queries:
>
>I realize that is is unmoderated, but is it the norm that most of the
>posts are not art-related?
Well, normally it's relatively quiet here (about 10 posts a day or so)
but lately two flame wars are raging over r.a.f. It happens all the
time on usenet.
>Also -- do you know of other Arts newsgroups or e-lists that discuss art,
>esp. opinions and techniques of visual art?
Check out www.wetcanvas.org it has a number of forums
Paul Mesken
wrote:
>On 26 Mar 2003 19:27:42 GMT, dz...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Lauren
>Foster-MacLeod) wrote:
>
>>Just wondering....
>>
>>I wandered into this newsgroup just last week, and have a few queries:
>>
>>I realize that is is unmoderated, but is it the norm that most of the
>>posts are not art-related?
>
>Well, normally it's relatively quiet here (about 10 posts a day or so)
>but lately two flame wars are raging over r.a.f. It happens all the
>time on usenet.
>
Ah, I just read the flame wars are over. This ng will in no time be
back to normal operation.
Tina Mammoser
it's www.wetcanvas.com, not org. :)
Tina.
--
********************
--Colorist expressionist contemporary landscapes direct from the artist!--
HTTP://WWW.TINA-M.COM
mailto:ti...@tina-m.com
-----Limited editions and original prints from London artists!-----
HTTP://WWW.BRIGHTNEWART.COM
mailto:ti...@brightnewart.com
********************
Paul Mesken
wrote:
>Paul Mesken wrote:
>
>> On 26 Mar 2003 19:27:42 GMT, dz...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Lauren
>> Foster-MacLeod) wrote:
>>
>> >Just wondering....
>> >
>> >I wandered into this newsgroup just last week, and have a few queries:
>> >
>> >I realize that is is unmoderated, but is it the norm that most of the
>> >posts are not art-related?
>>
>> Well, normally it's relatively quiet here (about 10 posts a day or so)
>> but lately two flame wars are raging over r.a.f. It happens all the
>> time on usenet.
>>
>> >Also -- do you know of other Arts newsgroups or e-lists that discuss art,
>> >esp. opinions and techniques of visual art?
>>
>> Check out www.wetcanvas.org it has a number of forums
>
>it's www.wetcanvas.com, not org. :)
>
Oops, sorry :-)
C. Enna
says...
>Well, normally it's relatively quiet here (about 10 posts a day or so)
AFAIAC'd, there are still less than 10 a
day that I read. The flame wars, non-art
posts and trolls go un-opened by this reader.
It's too bad this newsgroup has become so
subverted by all the non-art blathering.
It's always been a problem - screening the posts
by the obnoxious from the posts by those
who have some genuine interest in art
discussions. It's simply gotten worse now
that this has become a forum for arguing
world affairs rather than remaining focused
on art discussions.
Paul Mesken
>In article <9g448vce8lgfkjb7n...@4ax.com>, usu...@euronet.nl
>says...
>
>
>>Well, normally it's relatively quiet here (about 10 posts a day or so)
>
>AFAIAC'd, there are still less than 10 a
>day that I read. The flame wars, non-art
>posts and trolls go un-opened by this reader.
>It's too bad this newsgroup has become so
>subverted by all the non-art blathering.
Mea Culpa! Mea Culpa! ;-)
You're right ofcourse. It's gotten quite out of hand lately. This ng
is more about war, Bush and "Nilging" than arts. Personally I'd like
to partake in technical discussions (about oil painting) but it starts
to look as if this ng is mostly avoided by artists/artisans. I can't
blame them ofcourse looking at the enormous amount of drivel.
Lauren Foster-MacLeod
> On 26 Mar 2003 17:04:05 -0700, ce...@noemailever.com (C. Enna) wrote:
>>AFAIAC'd, there are still less than 10 a
>>day that I read. The flame wars, non-art
>>posts and trolls go un-opened by this reader.
>>It's too bad this newsgroup has become so
>>subverted by all the non-art blathering.
>
> is more about war, Bush and "Nilging" than arts. Personally I'd like
> to partake in technical discussions (about oil painting) but it starts
> to look as if this ng is mostly avoided by artists/artisans. I can't
> blame them ofcourse looking at the enormous amount of drivel.
From my experience on other non-art newsgroups, this happens at many
unmoderated newsgroups. I would think (silly me!) that there enough other
newsgroups to discuss non-art stuff on. :)
Actually, technical discussions on oil painting would be exactly what I'm
looking for. I have decided to return to painting with oils after a hiatus
of at least 15 years. I am busy reading books (Ralph Mayer, etc.) on the
physical make up of oils, etc. Something we didn't really do in artschool.
Amazing how one can do a four year degree and NOT learn that stuff! I
figure it's time to do so now. I am also curious to see what condition my
oil paints are in after sitting around (in their case) for so long. From
past experience, they seem to last fairly well. A nice change from how
acrylics dry up!
Chris
"C. Enna" <ce...@noemailever.com> wrote in message
news:3e82...@news.zianet.com...
But isn't this only true if you feel that art is divorced from everyday
life, including the politics that affet it? Certainly that is a valid way to
approach it, but it is hardly the only way. I personallydon't see them as
orthogonal in that the same philosophical issues that lie at the heart of
one's assessment of whether we should be at war in Iraq also form a basis
for how one draws a figure, or where one stands with respect to
representational versus abstract art. Consider, for example, many (not all)
fundamentalist religions forbid the represetation of the human figure. Is
there a philosophical link between that, and the apparent fact that up
through maybe a decade ago there was a strong move away from intelligible
figurative work in Western art, combined with a tendency to lean heavily
towards group-think cultures (like all the ism's)? Who knows....I guess is
that what I'm trying to say is that for many, politics is just art carried
out by other means....
Chris
Chris
The best group with respect to technical issues is the cowdisley group on
yahoo. It's a conservative group with respect to art, but they do know their
paint chemistry. It's at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cowdisley/
There's another one called "Materials and techniques" :
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/materialsandtechniques/
which can be informative, but it is pretty low volume. Not a bad thing that,
though.
With respect to Mayer, I really like the book (I have 5th edition), but
there have been some serious concerns raised about changes made by the new
editors. I can't remember who brought it up here, but maybe they will again.
Chris
"Lauren Foster-MacLeod" <dz...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:b5tob4$rne$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
Tina Mammoser
> Lauren,
>
> The best group with respect to technical issues is the cowdisley group on
> yahoo. It's a conservative group with respect to art, but they do know their
> paint chemistry. It's at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cowdisley/
>
> There's another one called "Materials and techniques" :
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/materialsandtechniques/
>
>
The cowdisley group is great, and can get very technical but always
informative. Hadn't found that materials and techniques group, thanks Chris!
The Oil Painting forum on wetcanvas.com will probably be up your street Lauren.
It's quite a busy forum but a mix of technical discussions and people posting
their artwork for unstructured critiques. Basically, there was a time when they
thought of splitting out the critiques but the oil forum regulars preferred to
keep it all together. It's a nice group there. :) There can be some heated
discussions (especially if you mention the word 'liquin' or ask about brands of
paint! haha!).
Dr. Slick
> > It's always been a problem - screening the posts
> > by the obnoxious from the posts by those
> > who have some genuine interest in art
> > discussions. It's simply gotten worse now
> > that this has become a forum for arguing
> > world affairs rather than remaining focused
> > on art discussions.
>
>
> But isn't this only true if you feel that art is divorced from everyday
> life, including the politics that affet it? Certainly that is a valid way to
> approach it, but it is hardly the only way. I personallydon't see them as
> orthogonal in that the same philosophical issues that lie at the heart of
> one's assessment of whether we should be at war in Iraq also form a basis
> for how one draws a figure, or where one stands with respect to
> representational versus abstract art. ....I guess is
> that what I'm trying to say is that for many, politics is just art carried
> out by other means....
>
I'd agree with this. Dali was very political in what he painted
sometimes (Lenin, Hilter, etc).
Of course, Hitler was an artist as well. And look at all those
propaganda posters done for the SS.
And look at all the war films that Hollywood spits/spitted out
during ALL the wars it could comment on to help influence public
opinion? So the idea that directors like Michael Moore should keep
their political opinions to themselves is a joke.
Thank God we don't have newgroup cops telling us what to talk
about, although some people DO try to do this.
Don't get me wrong, sometimes it's good to take a break from all
the war news and such, but...
Bush is bombing the sh** out of another country, people are
dying, so maybe you could put your paintbrush down for a while and
talk about something infinitely more important than "how long my
painting is going to last."
Slick
Lauren Foster-MacLeod
>> by the obnoxious from the posts by those
>> who have some genuine interest in art
>> discussions. It's simply gotten worse now
>> that this has become a forum for arguing
>> world affairs rather than remaining focused
>> on art discussions.
>
> But isn't this only true if you feel that art is divorced from everyday
> life, including the politics that affet it? Certainly that is a valid way to
> approach it, but it is hardly the only way. I personallydon't see them as
> orthogonal in that the same philosophical issues that lie at the heart of
> one's assessment of whether we should be at war in Iraq also form a basis
> for how one draws a figure, or where one stands with respect to
> representational versus abstract art. Consider, for example, many (not all)
> fundamentalist religions forbid the represetation of the human figure. Is
> there a philosophical link between that, and the apparent fact that up
> through maybe a decade ago there was a strong move away from intelligible
> figurative work in Western art, combined with a tendency to lean heavily
> towards group-think cultures (like all the ism's)? Who knows....I guess is
> that what I'm trying to say is that for many, politics is just art carried
> out by other means....
> Chris
Gee, Chris,
Your post here does remind me of the kind of discussion/explanations I
heard in artschool. :)
Perhaps we need 2 different arts newsgroups; one specifically on art
techniques and CLOSELY-related discussion, and one for "life as art", or
something like that.... But, I can live with having two parallel groups on
one newsgroup, as that seems to be what we have.
The discussion thing about politics happens elsewhere; I haven't the
time to read the threads on here and see if they differ from how other
newsgroups discuss newsgroups, so don't see any arts-relationship. I'll
jsut continue to choose the threads that interest me. Thanks for your input.
Lauren Foster-MacLeod
> With respect to Mayer, I really like the book (I have 5th edition), but
> there have been some serious concerns raised about changes made by the new
> editors. I can't remember who brought it up here, but maybe they will again.
Thanks for the info on the 2 yahoogroups; I'll check them out.
I have the 3rd edition of The Artist's Handbook, by Mayer, as well as
another one he did called The Painter's Craft (1979 edition). I also have
the revised edition of The Materials of the Artist & Their Use in
Painting, by Max Doerner, which was highly recommended by one of my
favourite art teachers in college. These books should keep me busy for a
while! :)
Lauren Foster-MacLeod
> (snip) There can be some heated
> discussions (especially if you mention the word 'liquin' or ask about
brands of
> paint! haha!).
Thanks, Tina!
Actually, I don't know what you mean by "liquin." Perhaps you can
enlighten me as to what it means before I approach theis group. :)
Also, regarding paint brands, for me it has much to do with what is
available here where I live. (Ottawa, Ontario, Canada) We have about 4
different and good art supply stores. One particular one is artist-run,
and they carry brands that they can recommend from personal use, which I
like for referrals. Also, Montreal is only 2 hours away if I want to find
more sources of art materials.
Lauren Foster-MacLeod
> Bush is bombing the sh** out of another country, people are
> dying, so maybe you could put your paintbrush down for a while and
> talk about something infinitely more important than "how long my
> painting is going to last."
Well, beyond life on this NG, many of us ARE aware of the current
political/world situation AND are discussing it, ad nauseum.
But, life goes on, work must be done, and for some of us, that includes
discussing such mundane topics as art techniques.
G*rd*n
| > Bush is bombing the sh** out of another country, people are
| > dying, so maybe you could put your paintbrush down for a while and
| > talk about something infinitely more important than "how long my
| > painting is going to last."
dz...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Lauren Foster-MacLeod):
| Well, beyond life on this NG, many of us ARE aware of the current
| political/world situation AND are discussing it, ad nauseum.
|
| But, life goes on, work must be done, and for some of us, that includes
| discussing such mundane topics as art techniques.
Exactly. If you're ever going to talk about art techniques,
you're going to have to compartmentalize to some extent
because otherwise there's always going to be some overriding
issue that is more important to somebody. I can and do
froth vigorously about Monkey Boy and his evil works, but
I've been trying to avoid doing it this newsgroup.
--
(<><>) /*/
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
{ http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 1/19/03 <-adv't
Paul Mesken
Foster-MacLeod) wrote:
>Tina Mammoser (time...@mac.com) writes:
>> (snip) There can be some heated
>> discussions (especially if you mention the word 'liquin' or ask about
>brands of
>> paint! haha!).
>
>Thanks, Tina!
> Actually, I don't know what you mean by "liquin." Perhaps you can
>enlighten me as to what it means before I approach theis group. :)
http://www.saumag.edu/art/studio/chalkboard/p-medium.html
>Also, regarding paint brands, for me it has much to do with what is
>available here where I live. (Ottawa, Ontario, Canada) We have about 4
>different and good art supply stores. One particular one is artist-run,
>and they carry brands that they can recommend from personal use, which I
>like for referrals. Also, Montreal is only 2 hours away if I want to find
>more sources of art materials.
Note that you also might grind your own paint. It's not hard at all
and it's much cheaper than buying tubes. You also get far more control
since you can decide what vehicle to use (I've even done things like
grinding with only venetian turpentine :-) The paint also looks much
fresher.
Paul Mesken
Foster-MacLeod) wrote:
>"Chris" (n...@this.address) writes:
>> With respect to Mayer, I really like the book (I have 5th edition), but
>> there have been some serious concerns raised about changes made by the new
>> editors. I can't remember who brought it up here, but maybe they will again.
>
>Thanks for the info on the 2 yahoogroups; I'll check them out.
>
>I have the 3rd edition of The Artist's Handbook, by Mayer, as well as
>another one he did called The Painter's Craft (1979 edition). I also have
>the revised edition of The Materials of the Artist & Their Use in
>Painting, by Max Doerner, which was highly recommended by one of my
>favourite art teachers in college. These books should keep me busy for a
>while! :)
Doerner's is quite great. Ofcourse it is also quite old (was written
in the time when titanium white just hit the market and was still
frowned upon because it was unstable :-)
Paul Mesken
Foster-MacLeod) wrote:
>Dr. Slick (radi...@aol.com) writes:
>> Bush is bombing the sh** out of another country, people are
>> dying, so maybe you could put your paintbrush down for a while and
>> talk about something infinitely more important than "how long my
>> painting is going to last."
>
>Well, beyond life on this NG, many of us ARE aware of the current
>political/world situation AND are discussing it, ad nauseum.
>
>But, life goes on, work must be done, and for some of us, that includes
>discussing such mundane topics as art techniques.
Yes, I very much agree with you.
This group would serve the art community far better by being about
experiences and knowledge about art than by being about opinions about
the war, Bush, programming computers, social theories, etc. It would
also reduce the chance of flame wars as we have experienced in the
last 4 weeks. Also, the rants about what is "art" are hardly usefull.
I don't think the group should be split up in something like
"materials", "techniques", "history", "general". We already have far
too few artists/artisans on usenet to populate such groups.
This ng should be meant to *help* artists/artisans make (and sell)
art. Only as such can it be usefull to others. If we could turn it
into one then maybe we could attract some "new blood" instead of
scaring them off.
Paul Mesken
>Dr. Slick (radi...@aol.com) writes:
>| > Bush is bombing the sh** out of another country, people are
>| > dying, so maybe you could put your paintbrush down for a while and
>| > talk about something infinitely more important than "how long my
>| > painting is going to last."
>
>dz...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Lauren Foster-MacLeod):
>| Well, beyond life on this NG, many of us ARE aware of the current
>| political/world situation AND are discussing it, ad nauseum.
>|
>| But, life goes on, work must be done, and for some of us, that includes
>| discussing such mundane topics as art techniques.
>
>Exactly. If you're ever going to talk about art techniques,
>you're going to have to compartmentalize to some extent
>because otherwise there's always going to be some overriding
>issue that is more important to somebody. I can and do
>froth vigorously about Monkey Boy and his evil works, but
>I've been trying to avoid doing it this newsgroup.
You're absolutely right
The war might be infinitely more important than painting but so is
good food or safety procedures while repairing electrical devices. It
simply doesn't make r.a.f. a platform for discussing those things.
People don't visit r.a.f. to learn about other people's opinions about
the war but to learn about art.
Luckily, Monkey Boy is gone and I hope he'll never return (although
his 10 year record at Google indicates differently).
He's a text book example of how r.a.f. can be destroyed by off topic
drivel that he believed was on-topic. I believe that if he returns we
need to ignore him completely. We might want to follow up on the
advise given by Heathfield (rjh) and put him in our kill files.
http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl
news:fea68vond7j8avcrb...@4ax.com...
> On 27 Mar 2003 09:37:40 -0500, g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
> >Exactly. If you're ever going to talk about art techniques,
> >you're going to have to compartmentalize to some extent
> >because otherwise there's always going to be some overriding
> >issue that is more important to somebody. I can and do
> >froth vigorously about Monkey Boy and his evil works, but
> >I've been trying to avoid doing it this newsgroup.
>
> Luckily, Monkey Boy is gone and I hope he'll never return (although
> his 10 year record at Google indicates differently).
"Monkey Boy" is G*rd*n's repeated description of the president. AFAIK, Bush
has Never posted to r.a.f.
Dr. Slick
> |
> | But, life goes on, work must be done, and for some of us, that includes
> | discussing such mundane topics as art techniques.
>
> Exactly. If you're ever going to talk about art techniques,
> you're going to have to compartmentalize to some extent
> because otherwise there's always going to be some overriding
> issue that is more important to somebody. I can and do
> froth vigorously about Monkey Boy and his evil works, but
> I've been trying to avoid doing it this newsgroup.
This is understood, and i agree that some of these threads are
really just two or three people going at it, some of them seeming to
believe that the rest of us actually care about their flaming.
These very personal diatribes should be done via e-mail or
something, but i don't have a problem with a political discussion in
which many readers are discussing a current issue. You do talk about
other things in your art classes, don't you?
This is similar to going into the Computers chat-room only to
find everyone spouting about the latest basketball game. The
difference is that you can choose to ignore or feed an argument. It
seems that most newsgroups eventually settle back down into the main
topic anyhow.
If you want a particular topic or discussion, just post a main
message like you have, and ignore the rest like you have been doing.
The posts pass by quickly.
Much better to let nature take it's course than over-policing.
Slick
G*rd*n
| > >Exactly. If you're ever going to talk about art techniques,
| > >you're going to have to compartmentalize to some extent
| > >because otherwise there's always going to be some overriding
| > >issue that is more important to somebody. I can and do
| > >froth vigorously about Monkey Boy and his evil works, but
| > >I've been trying to avoid doing it this newsgroup.
"Paul Mesken" <usu...@euronet.nl> wrote in message
| > Luckily, Monkey Boy is gone and I hope he'll never return (although
| > his 10 year record at Google indicates differently).
"http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl" <http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl>:
| "Monkey Boy" is G*rd*n's repeated description of the president. AFAIK, Bush
| has Never posted to r.a.f.
That's okay. It's a "free signifier" -- free of charge, and
free of permanent attachment to any particular object. Monkey
Boy there, Monkey Boy there, there's always a Monkey Boy
somewhere. If Ed's someone's Monkey Boy, so be it.
Leo Papandreou
> Bush is bombing the sh** out of another country, people are
> dying, so maybe you could put your paintbrush down for a while and
> talk about something infinitely more important than "how long my
> painting is going to last."
I haven't seen one dead body on CNN yet. I fear you have been trolled.
--
Leo Papandreou
<http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/gulfwar2/22march-ap.jpg>
Erik A. Mattila
> g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
> | > >Exactly. If you're ever going to talk about art techniques,
> | > >you're going to have to compartmentalize to some extent
> | > >because otherwise there's always going to be some overriding
> | > >issue that is more important to somebody. I can and do
> | > >froth vigorously about Monkey Boy and his evil works, but
> | > >I've been trying to avoid doing it this newsgroup.
>
> "Paul Mesken" <usu...@euronet.nl> wrote in message
> | > Luckily, Monkey Boy is gone and I hope he'll never return (although
> | > his 10 year record at Google indicates differently).
>
> "http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl" <http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl>:
> | "Monkey Boy" is G*rd*n's repeated description of the president. AFAIK, Bush
> | has Never posted to r.a.f.
>
> That's okay. It's a "free signifier" -- free of charge, and
> free of permanent attachment to any particular object. Monkey
> Boy there, Monkey Boy there, there's always a Monkey Boy
> somewhere. If Ed's someone's Monkey Boy, so be it.
Oh, man...this is getting good.
Presidentress Laura to George: "You may be a putty-brain, but you'll
always be my special little Monkey Boy." Her Jack-o-lantern smile just
glowed.
Do you remember that on Alt.pm? (Maybe you wrote it) quite a while
back. "Jack-o-lantern" smile. I thought it was creative, poetic and
funny. I'm still laughing.
>
Erik A. Mattila
>
> Much better to let nature take it's course than over-policing.
>
> Slick
Author! Author! Obviously as a R.A.F. criminal, I agree with you.
But I look at it this way. You and I had a very good exchange of
political views recently, and I thought it was worthwile. Not only did
I my sense of your personhood grow, but I kept thinking about your
snarling dog painting, which is much less puzzling to me now than it was
when I first viewed it.
Everything just deepens, expands, spreads out.
Now this - when I was 17 this crazy proto-hippy nut case genius mountain
climbing mathematics wizard I know introduced me to Go game. I liked it
from the get Go (ha ha ha) because the only thing around for aspiring
pseudo-intellectual San Francisco college kids was chess, which I have
no aptitude for (some sort of conceptual bad-wiring I think.) But Go was
so visual, and the sound of the stones slapping down on wood was
aesthetically thrilling (I never did get good at it, but I just enjoyed it.)
So I went down to Takahashi's and bought my own set. It was made in
Japan. I got it home and opened it up and there was an instruction book
there. When I opened it the first sentence was:
"This book is written for rule-keeping Westerners."
I thought that was a riot, and I laughed out loud, along with my two
room mates. Well, you know...we were peyote-eating mystic teenagers who
mourned the death of the Beatniks the year before we were old enought to
be one. But our teacher, mentioned above, had taught us enough that we
new Go was it's own cosmos that generated a very finite set of
possibilities - something that rule keeping could only obscure.
I liked that passage in Casteñada where the Yaqui Svengali talks about
one's "cubic centimeter of chance." Especially artists, it would seem
to me, should be "at ready" to seize all opportunities as they arise -
in this case opportunities for visions, understanding, ideas, plastic
consciousness.
I just don't think you can do that if you individually or collectively
set out a system of rules about how people interact with each other
within the constraints of something like the Internet. The more
tight-assed the rules become, the more your cubic centimeter of chance
shrinks. You end up cheating yourself.
Anyway, I'm with you on this. Artist's attitude about war or any other
topic is important. Those of you who enjoy repression, you are free to
oppress yourselves - by all means. Limit your horizons. Avoid your
opportunities. Who knows, the archival properties of paper clips may be
humanities' most important challenge. It's just that an exploration of
your political self could be your greatest adventure, with a bigger
pay-off than, even, technical expertise (which you only get by handling
paint anyway).
Erik
G*rd*n
| > | > >Exactly. If you're ever going to talk about art techniques,
| > | > >you're going to have to compartmentalize to some extent
| > | > >because otherwise there's always going to be some overriding
| > | > >issue that is more important to somebody. I can and do
| > | > >froth vigorously about Monkey Boy and his evil works, but
| > | > >I've been trying to avoid doing it this newsgroup.
"Paul Mesken" <usu...@euronet.nl> wrote in message
| > | > Luckily, Monkey Boy is gone and I hope he'll never return (although
| > | > his 10 year record at Google indicates differently).
"http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl" <http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl>:
| > | "Monkey Boy" is G*rd*n's repeated description of the president. AFAIK, Bush
| > | has Never posted to r.a.f.
G*rd*n:
| > That's okay. It's a "free signifier" -- free of charge, and
| > free of permanent attachment to any particular object. Monkey
| > Boy there, Monkey Boy there, there's always a Monkey Boy
| > somewhere. If Ed's someone's Monkey Boy, so be it.
| Oh, man...this is getting good.
|
| Presidentress Laura to George: "You may be a putty-brain, but you'll
| always be my special little Monkey Boy." Her Jack-o-lantern smile just
| glowed.
|
| Do you remember that on Alt.pm? (Maybe you wrote it) quite a while
| back. "Jack-o-lantern" smile. I thought it was creative, poetic and
| funny. I'm still laughing.
According to Google groups, you may be doing a collage, or
maybe it's a montage -- something with a French suffix:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=74v8op%24i2r%40panix2.panix.com
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=01be6dc6%24b1a22ba0%24d9401382%40DFB0ws01.comp.pge.com
Actually, though, I can't find Jack-o-lantern and Monkey Boy
combined verbally, although they have certainly come together
in fact behind exalted podia more than a time or two in recent
memory.
Dr. Slick
> radi...@aol.com (Dr. Slick) wrote in message news:<1d15af91.0303...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > Bush is bombing the sh** out of another country, people are
> > dying, so maybe you could put your paintbrush down for a while and
> > talk about something infinitely more important than "how long my
> > painting is going to last."
>
> I haven't seen one dead body on CNN yet. I fear you have been trolled.
Maybe you should get your news from other sources other than CNN.
They sanitize their coverage so you don't have to see dead Americans
and Iraqis alike. Maybe the "great TV" wouldn't be so great anymore.
Slick
Dr. Slick
> >
> > Much better to let nature take it's course than over-policing.
> >
> > Slick
>
> Author! Author! Obviously as a R.A.F. criminal, I agree with you.
>
Have you been dubbed a criminal? By whom?
Thou Shalt Not Judge.
"It's Judgement that destroys us." - Col. Kurzt
> But I look at it this way. You and I had a very good exchange of
> political views recently, and I thought it was worthwile. Not only did
> I my sense of your personhood grow, but I kept thinking about your
> snarling dog painting, which is much less puzzling to me now than it was
> when I first viewed it.
>
One learns a lot from people on the internet. I'm selling that
painting this week! First officially sold painting...too emotionally
attached to my art until now, maybe you know what i mean.
>
> I liked that passage in Casteñada where the Yaqui Svengali talks about
> one's "cubic centimeter of chance." Especially artists, it would seem
> to me, should be "at ready" to seize all opportunities as they arise -
> in this case opportunities for visions, understanding, ideas, plastic
> consciousness.
>
As most of us know, in Jazz, it's called improvisation.
> I just don't think you can do that if you individually or collectively
> set out a system of rules about how people interact with each other
> within the constraints of something like the Internet. The more
> tight-assed the rules become, the more your cubic centimeter of chance
> shrinks. You end up cheating yourself.
>
> Anyway, I'm with you on this. Artist's attitude about war or any other
> topic is important. Those of you who enjoy repression, you are free to
> oppress yourselves - by all means. Limit your horizons. Avoid your
> opportunities. Who knows, the archival properties of paper clips may be
> humanities' most important challenge. It's just that an exploration of
> your political self could be your greatest adventure, with a bigger
> pay-off than, even, technical expertise (which you only get by handling
> paint anyway).
>
Absolutely agreed. If you can't take the heat, get out of the
thread.
Or start your own posts.
When you read a newpaper, do you have to read the whole thing?
No. Just read the articles that interest you.
No one is forcing you to read anything.
But if you absolutely cannot resist posting a follow-up to
something someone has written, then maybe you are just as
sick/insecure/foolish/bored as they are.
It's STILL the Wild-West editorially in most parts of the
internet, and i like to speak/write my mind like any good American.
Garvin Yee
Erik A. Mattila
> According to Google groups, you may be doing a collage, or
> maybe it's a montage -- something with a French suffix:
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=74v8op%24i2r%40panix2.panix.com
> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=01be6dc6%24b1a22ba0%24d9401382%40DFB0ws01.comp.pge.com
>
> Actually, though, I can't find Jack-o-lantern and Monkey Boy
> combined verbally, although they have certainly come together
> in fact behind exalted podia more than a time or two in recent
> memory.
Well, I remember it was just after the election, but I suppose it could
have been another ng. Maybe I dreamt it (that's been happening a lot
lately). Naw, it had to be apm. I cruise by there from time to time
looking for the (rare) political discussions, and that was one of those
times.
Erik
>
Leo Papandreou
But what about Paula Zahn? She is chipper, then so sad - then chipper once
again! I could never cheat on Paula, which is what you are suggesting, not
even if you got me veh veh drunk and whispered things inside my ear.
CNN is a de facto organ of the state: its lipstick journalists regurgitate
government spokespeople; its anchors read government press releases; and its
complicit, compliant management does not produce or commission investigative
documentaries. It does not fulfill the role of the press in a democratic
society: a cantankerous, obstinate and ubiquitous press that must be suffered
by those in authority. I watch CNN for entertainment, FOX to wax my scorn for
the contemptible kriegcunts. For the news, I chase links on news.google.com.
Erik A. Mattila
> CNN is a de facto organ of the state: its lipstick journalists regurgitate
> government spokespeople; its anchors read government press releases; and its
> complicit, compliant management does not produce or commission investigative
> documentaries. It does not fulfill the role of the press in a democratic
> society: a cantankerous, obstinate and ubiquitous press that must be suffered
> by those in authority. I watch CNN for entertainment, FOX to wax my scorn for
> the contemptible kriegcunts. For the news, I chase links on news.google.com.
I sure was pleased that Sy Hersh is still operational, Leo. Greg Palast
said he was the last great investigative reporter left in North America.
Perle's recent resignation is testimony to that. I hope he motivates
the up-and-commings to be agressive. But as you imply, there's a
poverty of work out there for this sort of thing. Obviously, we're
going to have to look for the best on the Internet, the last bastion of
freedom. Only, there we have the opposite problem - lack of constraints
which can also co-opt truth. But what I see rising to the top on the
web looks pretty good to me. The Blogosphere is promising too - some
excellent.
Speaking of which, Bartcop published one of my photo-edits satire today.
http://www.bartcop.com
Scroll halfway down to the big pix of Busholeon. I feel like I made it
to the cover of the rolling stones. Like the genius that I am, I didn't
sign it, or put my web address on it. Is that kewl or what? I'm
thinking "what" but he said send him some more so I'll have a second
chance). If you don't get there today, he has a "previous issue" link
at the bottom of the page. His blog gets about a hundred thousand hits
per day. (I don't know that...why did I say it? sheesh.)
Erik
Humbert_Campbell
seriously interested in discussing theory, technique and just good art
in general. I like swapping stories of recent shows and in particular
going over theory. Unfortunately a lot of people care more about
nitpicing and bandying back and forth clever quick quips delightfully
rendered and served with a twist of irony.
Regardless of all that if you have soemthing worth while to write or
care to talk shop feel free to post and wade through the rest of the
floatsome. I would be greatly happy to see some good solid writing for
a change.
HC
Lauren Foster-MacLeod
> *** post for FREE via your newsreader at post.newsfeed.com ***
>
>
>>radi...@aol.com (Dr. Slick) wrote in message news:<1d15af91.0303...@posting.google.com>...
>>
>>> Bush is bombing the sh** out of another country, people are
>>> dying, so maybe you could put your paintbrush down for a while and
>>> talk about something infinitely more important than "how long my
>>> painting is going to last."
>
> do enjoy seeing the US military shoot the shit out of arabs. They blow
> up real good.
I probably should have skipped reading this post. You can't be serious...
or are you really such a shallow and bigotted person? Do you live in some
non-multicultural place, and not actually know anyone who is Arabic?
Perhaps you should travel more and open your eyes a bit.
Also, I think to make "good art" it helps to have a good heart and open mind.
Newt Gray
says...
>My paintings are infinitely more important to me than the war, but I
>do enjoy seeing the US military shoot the shit out of arabs. They blow
>up real good.
Typical STUPID retort from the King of Stupid
in these newsgroups - Richard the Stupid rules!
Dr. Slick
> Richard (koola...@1850.com) writes:
> > *** post for FREE via your newsreader at post.newsfeed.com ***
> >
> >
> >>radi...@aol.com (Dr. Slick) wrote in message news:<1d15af91.0303...@posting.google.com>...
> >>
> >>> Bush is bombing the sh** out of another country, people are
> >>> dying, so maybe you could put your paintbrush down for a while and
> >>> talk about something infinitely more important than "how long my
> >>> painting is going to last."
> >
> > My paintings are infinitely more important to me than the war, but I
> > do enjoy seeing the US military shoot the shit out of arabs. They blow
> > up real good.
>
Your paintings ain't worth shit. I'd like to see your painting
studio blown up with you in it. THAT would make a nice painting...
> I probably should have skipped reading this post. You can't be serious...
> or are you really such a shallow and bigotted person? Do you live in some
> non-multicultural place, and not actually know anyone who is Arabic?
> Perhaps you should travel more and open your eyes a bit.
> Also, I think to make "good art" it helps to have a good heart and open mind.
>
Lauren, i'm not sure how much "good" is in the world these
days.
Slick
Neil Maxwell
Foster-MacLeod) wrote:
>I probably should have skipped reading this post. You can't be serious...
>or are you really such a shallow and bigotted person? Do you live in some
>non-multicultural place, and not actually know anyone who is Arabic?
>Perhaps you should travel more and open your eyes a bit.
>Also, I think to make "good art" it helps to have a good heart and open mind.
>
Richard's just another of our resident trolls. Don't worry, he's not
dangerous to anyone but himself.
Neil Maxwell - I don't speak for my employer
Peter H.M. Brooks
"Neil Maxwell" <neil.m...@nospam.intel.com> wrote in message
news:1dcs8v46mv2fudicf...@4ax.com...
--
The story of the human race is war. Except for brief and precarious
interludes there has never been peace in the world; and long before history
began murderous strife was universal and unending." - Winston Churchill
Erik A. Mattila
> Lauren, i'm not sure how much "good" is in the world these
> days.
Just to be opptomistic, Slick, I would say plenty- or at least enough to
go around. It's always there for the use of anyone interested in using it.
I studied art at San Francisco City College in the early sixties - the
department was under the direction of an artist named Evans Eckke. He
had the curriculum battened down pretty tight - I mean a formula
approach to teaching art. We had assignments to mix a color by
Hue/value/chroma numerical values, and even a numbers based "quality of
shape" (Q-factor), and six or seven categories of composition etc. It
was all about "certainty" as opposed to "relativity." Of course we (us
students) hated it, but my experience later shows that it was very
valuable as an art foundation experience.
Eckke also had 5 or 6 categories of art itself, and I can't remember
them all. There was "kinesthetic" for one, and, and...well, the only
other I remember was his last category, which he called "Man's
inhumanity to Man." An interesting category since it didn't seem to fit
that well with the rest of his categories. Or did it?
My experience has been that it is the most difficult category to
pull-off successfully. The other categories, which appeal to any or a
combination of the viewer's senses, are easy by comparison. It's just
so difficult to address the topic of "Man's inhumanity to Man" without
being pedantic, cliché ridden, prosaic and so on.
Obviously, Richard's comment about being entertained by exploding Arabs
is an example of this subject, albeit not an example of a work of art.
In a way, it is the embodiment of the "mean spirit" that has been
marketed so successfully by the Republicans.
Anyway, I think this is a good time to bring up the topic of "war art"
or "Man's inhumanity to Man" art, or whatever we want to call it. There
are so many examples in art history to draw from. And also from art
history, there are an abundance of examples of artists who chose to
plant their heads in the sand instead of addressing this difficult topic.
Erik
.
Lauren Foster-MacLeod
>
> Anyway, I think this is a good time to bring up the topic of "war art"
> or "Man's inhumanity to Man" art, or whatever we want to call it. There
> are so many examples in art history to draw from. And also from art
> history, there are an abundance of examples of artists who chose to
> plant their heads in the sand instead of addressing this difficult topic.
Well, for one, we are all pretty bombarded with what is happening in Iraq
just about everywhere we go in our daily lives. In the newspapers, on the
radio, on the TV. Most of us are discussing it outside of this newsgroup,
with our friends and families. SO, why continue doing so here? Well, if
you want to, go ahead. Those of us who don't want to, will just go to the
next post.
Also, regarding art about war -- we now how more visual images around than
artists even 50 years ago had. What, with embedded journalists with
cameras, way more than I want to see; possibly way more than is good for
our North American society, who tend to overdo it with "reality tv" to
begin with. Where can it go from here?
Erik A. Mattila
> "Erik A. Mattila" (emat...@oco.net) writes:
>
>>Anyway, I think this is a good time to bring up the topic of "war art"
>>or "Man's inhumanity to Man" art, or whatever we want to call it. There
>>are so many examples in art history to draw from. And also from art
>>history, there are an abundance of examples of artists who chose to
>>plant their heads in the sand instead of addressing this difficult topic.
>
>
> Well, for one, we are all pretty bombarded with what is happening in Iraq
> just about everywhere we go in our daily lives. In the newspapers, on the
> radio, on the TV. Most of us are discussing it outside of this newsgroup,
> with our friends and families. SO, why continue doing so here? Well, if
> you want to, go ahead. Those of us who don't want to, will just go to the
> next post.
Er, the topic is art, not the war in Iraq. But of course you're free to
bury your head in the sand on that one also. As I said, it is a
difficult art subject. You know, compare Goya's "Disasters of War"
paintings with, say, British History Painting. Compare Leon Golub's
migthy paintings with Normal Rockwell's political pastische. (bias alert!)
> Also, regarding art about war -- we now how more visual images around than
> artists even 50 years ago had. What, with embedded journalists with
> cameras, way more than I want to see; possibly way more than is good for
> our North American society, who tend to overdo it with "reality tv" to
> begin with. Where can it go from here?
Well, there's always Walter and Margaret Keene to fall back on. But
whoever said that art should be so "sweet"?
Erik
Paul Mesken
<emat...@oco.net> wrote:
>Lauren Foster-MacLeod wrote:
>> "Erik A. Mattila" (emat...@oco.net) writes:
>>
>>>Anyway, I think this is a good time to bring up the topic of "war art"
>>>or "Man's inhumanity to Man" art, or whatever we want to call it. There
>>>are so many examples in art history to draw from. And also from art
>>>history, there are an abundance of examples of artists who chose to
>>>plant their heads in the sand instead of addressing this difficult topic.
>>
>>
>> Well, for one, we are all pretty bombarded with what is happening in Iraq
>> just about everywhere we go in our daily lives. In the newspapers, on the
>> radio, on the TV. Most of us are discussing it outside of this newsgroup,
>> with our friends and families. SO, why continue doing so here? Well, if
>> you want to, go ahead. Those of us who don't want to, will just go to the
>> next post.
>
>Er, the topic is art, not the war in Iraq. But of course you're free to
>bury your head in the sand on that one also.
Hmm, do I sense some hostility in your voice Erik? It seems the war in
Iraq generates quite some heat in this group. I think Lauren is quite
right for saying "Well, if you want to, go ahead. Those of us who
don't want to, will just go to the next post.".
How about artists who only paint flowers? They simply want to paint
flowers, not inhumanities, it has nothing to do with "planting their
heads in the sand". There's no obligation whatsoever for an artist to
render inhumanities like war any more than an obligation to paint
flowers.
As a matter of fact : I might be accused of planting my head in the
sand in respect to flowers (never done them). I did do a lot of
inhumanities though :-)
Erik A. Mattila
>>Er, the topic is art, not the war in Iraq. But of course you're free to
>>bury your head in the sand on that one also.
>
>
> Hmm, do I sense some hostility in your voice Erik? It seems the war in
> Iraq generates quite some heat in this group. I think Lauren is quite
> right for saying "Well, if you want to, go ahead. Those of us who
> don't want to, will just go to the next post.".
Not hostility, Paul. Just calling a spade a spade.
> How about artists who only paint flowers? They simply want to paint
> flowers, not inhumanities, it has nothing to do with "planting their
> heads in the sand". There's no obligation whatsoever for an artist to
> render inhumanities like war any more than an obligation to paint
> flowers.
I thought it would be an interesting topic. And it wasn't the "war in
Iraq" - only that the ugly wraith of war has risen in our lives, which
makes that part of art that deals with this somehow relevant.
> As a matter of fact : I might be accused of planting my head in the
> sand in respect to flowers (never done them). I did do a lot of
> inhumanities though :-)
Bad analogy, I think. Flower painting is not much of a moral issue,
while insulating oneself against reality by flower painting might be.
But even that is tenuous - it really is a matter of the legitimacy of a
topic that artists are discussing on a newsgroup that is at issue. Now,
if you go back to my posts and read them without spinning them to your
particular agenda, you can see I wrote "history is full of examples of
artists sticking their heads in the sands." I was actually thinking of
Jaques Louis David when I wrote that, in relation to his "Raft of the
Medusa" which was clearly a political protest against the Bourbons, but
he denied it for all of his life.
Lauren's response was defensive, and unnecessarily so, since I really
wasn't saying "raf people are sticking their heads in the sand." See
how everything is getting spun? Functional literacy may be impossible
to attain, but we never-the-less should keep striving for it. (That's
my spin on Gorbachev's statement, actually..."True communism may be
impossible to attain....) ;-)
Erik
>
Lauren Foster-MacLeod
> Lauren Foster-MacLeod wrote:
>> "Erik A. Mattila" (emat...@oco.net) writes:
>>
>>>Anyway, I think this is a good time to bring up the topic of "war art"
>>>or "Man's inhumanity to Man" art, or whatever we want to call it. There
>>>are so many examples in art history to draw from. And also from art
>>>history, there are an abundance of examples of artists who chose to
>>>plant their heads in the sand instead of addressing this difficult topic.
>
> Er, the topic is art, not the war in Iraq. But of course you're free to
> bury your head in the sand on that one also. As I said, it is a
> difficult art subject. You know, compare Goya's "Disasters of War"
> paintings with, say, British History Painting. Compare Leon Golub's
> migthy paintings with Normal Rockwell's political pastische. (bias alert!)
Okay, you have your opinion. Perhaps you are doing art about war. Good for
you. I'm not, but in no way in my head in the sand. Heck, my son is in the
army reserves. There's a good dose of reality.
> Well, there's always Walter and Margaret Keene to fall back on. But
> whoever said that art should be so "sweet"?
Not me, my dear. Here in Canada, we have a tradition of war artists.
Artists go to where the war is, observe it (in a kind of "embedded" way)
and do sketches, studies, later made into paintings. This was done in the
2 World wars, and has also been done recently. Does the U.S. do that?
Paul Mesken
<emat...@oco.net> wrote:
>Paul Mesken wrote:
>
>>>Er, the topic is art, not the war in Iraq. But of course you're free to
>>>bury your head in the sand on that one also.
>>
>>
>> Hmm, do I sense some hostility in your voice Erik? It seems the war in
>> Iraq generates quite some heat in this group. I think Lauren is quite
>> right for saying "Well, if you want to, go ahead. Those of us who
>> don't want to, will just go to the next post.".
>
>Not hostility, Paul. Just calling a spade a spade.
>
>> How about artists who only paint flowers? They simply want to paint
>> flowers, not inhumanities, it has nothing to do with "planting their
>> heads in the sand". There's no obligation whatsoever for an artist to
>> render inhumanities like war any more than an obligation to paint
>> flowers.
>
>I thought it would be an interesting topic. And it wasn't the "war in
>Iraq" - only that the ugly wraith of war has risen in our lives, which
>makes that part of art that deals with this somehow relevant.
Yes, the category of inhumanities your professor talked about. I think
it's interesting as well, Lauren OTOH indicates she doesn't like doing
art about it but thought it was fine for others to do so. That's a
matter of taste and interest. I don't think she plants her head in the
sand because of that.
>> As a matter of fact : I might be accused of planting my head in the
>> sand in respect to flowers (never done them). I did do a lot of
>> inhumanities though :-)
>
>Bad analogy, I think. Flower painting is not much of a moral issue,
>while insulating oneself against reality by flower painting might be.
That's my whole point. Some artists simply aren't interested in
addressing moral issues. That doesn't mean they are planting their
heads in the sand (which has a negative ring to it). Artists aren't
morally obliged to address moral issues nor are morals the overriding
principle, after all : we're only talking art here.
>But even that is tenuous - it really is a matter of the legitimacy of a
>topic that artists are discussing on a newsgroup that is at issue. Now,
>if you go back to my posts and read them without spinning them to your
>particular agenda, you can see I wrote "history is full of examples of
>artists sticking their heads in the sands." I was actually thinking of
>Jaques Louis David when I wrote that, in relation to his "Raft of the
>Medusa" which was clearly a political protest against the Bourbons, but
>he denied it for all of his life.
Hehe, I'm not spinning anything to my hidden agenda (yet ;-)
Anyway, you're talking two different things here. If you say that
there are artists who stuck their head in the sand accompanied by your
example of Jaques Louis David then I might agree with you. We're
talking art history in that case.
However, you suggested that Lauren might want to stick her head in the
sand regarding the category of inhumanities. That's not art history,
that smells remarkably much like a personal attack on one's morals
which I thought was quite hostile and undeserved. Lauren didn't say
that r.a.f. shouldn't be discussing such things, she simply stated
that it was not her cup of thea.
Chris
"Lauren Foster-MacLeod" <dz...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:b6p6p6$s6u$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> Not me, my dear. Here in Canada, we have a tradition of war artists.
> Artists go to where the war is, observe it (in a kind of "embedded" way)
> and do sketches, studies, later made into paintings. This was done in the
> 2 World wars, and has also been done recently. Does the U.S. do that?
>
Yeah they do, though in WWII for example, the most remembered American war
artists at least of the (Second WW, and later) were cartoonists and
cinematographers, but there's no shortage of painters and sketchers. Here's
two quick finds on the internet:
WWII:
http://www.brown.edu/Facilities/University_Library/exhibits/Artists/files/Ar
tists.html
and WWI:
http://www.worldwar1.com/dbc/artists.htm
are some places to start. And of course you can't ignore the contribution of
Matthew Brady (or his associates) who brought the Civil War home to the
North. I don't know whether he had any formal attachment to the military at
the time, though.
Chris
Dr. Slick
> Dr. Slick wrote:
>
> > Lauren, i'm not sure how much "good" is in the world these
> > days.
>
>
> Just to be opptomistic, Slick, I would say plenty- or at least enough to
> go around. It's always there for the use of anyone interested in using it.
>
places/positions of power.
>
> Obviously, Richard's comment about being entertained by exploding Arabs
> is an example of this subject, albeit not an example of a work of art.
> In a way, it is the embodiment of the "mean spirit" that has been
> marketed so successfully by the Republicans.
>
Not just the republicans, but America in general. Look at
Hollywood films/TV. We've been trained to be so "mean spirited" that
we kill each
other! (Columbine, Waco, Oklahoma City, Washington D.C. Snipers,
Unabomber, etc.,etc...)
> Anyway, I think this is a good time to bring up the topic of "war art"
> or "Man's inhumanity to Man" art, or whatever we want to call it. There
> are so many examples in art history to draw from. And also from art
> history, there are an abundance of examples of artists who chose to
> plant their heads in the sand instead of addressing this difficult topic.
>
Lauren Foster-MacLeod
> On Sat, 05 Apr 2003 23:00:18 -0800, "Erik A. Mattila"
> <emat...@oco.net> wrote:
>>I thought it would be an interesting topic. And it wasn't the "war in
>>Iraq" - only that the ugly wraith of war has risen in our lives, which
>>makes that part of art that deals with this somehow relevant.
>
> Yes, the category of inhumanities your professor talked about. I think
> it's interesting as well, Lauren OTOH indicates she doesn't like doing
> art about it but thought it was fine for others to do so. That's a
> matter of taste and interest. I don't think she plants her head in the
> sand because of that.
Lauren here. Nope, I don't. Actually, IF I wanted to express myself in
some way regarding the present war in Iraq, I would choose another medium
from visual art. First choice is discussion with intelligent friends.
Second choice is singing about it. Third choice would be writing something
in my journal. BUT, it is utterly okay for others to make art about it --
really!!
>>> As a matter of fact : I might be accused of planting my head in the
>>> sand in respect to flowers (never done them). I did do a lot of
>>> inhumanities though :-)
>>
>>Bad analogy, I think. Flower painting is not much of a moral issue,
>>while insulating oneself against reality by flower painting might be.
>
> That's my whole point. Some artists simply aren't interested in
> addressing moral issues. That doesn't mean they are planting their
> heads in the sand (which has a negative ring to it). Artists aren't
> morally obliged to address moral issues nor are morals the overriding
> principle, after all : we're only talking art here.
>
>>But even that is tenuous - it really is a matter of the legitimacy of a
>>topic that artists are discussing on a newsgroup that is at issue. Now,
>>if you go back to my posts and read them without spinning them to your
>>particular agenda, you can see I wrote "history is full of examples of
>>artists sticking their heads in the sands." I was actually thinking of
>>Jaques Louis David when I wrote that, in relation to his "Raft of the
>>Medusa" which was clearly a political protest against the Bourbons, but
>>he denied it for all of his life.
Wasn't Jacques Louis David painting under a patron, ie. Napoleon? If so,
he kinda had to deal with "what side of the bread the butter was on," so
to speak. Considering Goya was also painting for the court, he got away
with murder, as the royalty was too stupid to notice what he was doing.
> Anyway, you're talking two different things here. If you say that
> there are artists who stuck their head in the sand accompanied by your
> example of Jaques Louis David then I might agree with you. We're
> talking art history in that case.
I guess J.L. David liked the comforts he grew accustomed to, eh? If he'd
been more outspoken, I suppose that we wouldn't have all those big
paintings of his around.
> However, you suggested that Lauren might want to stick her head in the
> sand regarding the category of inhumanities. That's not art history,
> that smells remarkably much like a personal attack on one's morals
> which I thought was quite hostile and undeserved. Lauren didn't say
> that r.a.f. shouldn't be discussing such things, she simply stated
> that it was not her cup of thea.
... tea? Actually, I'm drinking Chai tea today, thanks. :)
Still no sand in my hair; thanks for caring.
Cheers,
Dr. Slick
>
> Well, for one, we are all pretty bombarded with what is happening in Iraq
> just about everywhere we go in our daily lives. In the newspapers, on the
> radio, on the TV. Most of us are discussing it outside of this newsgroup,
> with our friends and families. SO, why continue doing so here? Well, if
> you want to, go ahead. Those of us who don't want to, will just go to the
> next post.
>
Lauren, with all due respect, you should then be skipping this
thread completely. But you can't really resist reading it, can you?
> Also, regarding art about war -- we now how more visual images around than
> artists even 50 years ago had. What, with embedded journalists with
> cameras, way more than I want to see; possibly way more than is good for
> our North American society, who tend to overdo it with "reality tv" to
> begin with. Where can it go from here?
>
You are a paganist, right? I would think you would disagree
with censorship in the media.
Lynchings/guillotine used to be public displays. Why not now?
We SHOULD see what we are doing, what our army/government is
doing, in full gory detail. Executions (gas chamber, etc.) should be
on T.V. (imagine THOSE ratings). You think people don't want to see
it? Ha, why do you think the ratings for the Academy Awards was the
lowest it has ever been in years? Because they were tuned into the
war! Why do you think Jerry Springer's ratings jumped way up when his
guests started fighting?
Why not televise death? Are you saying it's morally ok to kill
people, as long as we do it behind closed doors? See No Evil, Speak
No Evil.....?
This is a weak argument. We would be a better country if we
each had to kill the meat that we eat at McDonalds.
We should see the Truth, and if it bothers us, we should change
our capitol punishment laws. Apparently, this is the beginning of how
the guillotine was phased out of France: one lady, unlike most
persons about to die, was absolutely hysterical, screaming, and
fearful of death. The crowd of people who saw her die were suddenly
struck by the cruelty of their system, and changed was initiated.
Dr. Slick
WoN ereH
What cave have you been hiding in? That is how most guys are -- in ALL parts
of the world throughout history to present time -- driven by testosterone.
(Except perhaps French men.) ;) When you read the sports section of any
newspaper, you get *war* jargon: "They slaughtered the opponent!" or "They
stomped on the opposition." Guys like to fight. Can't change that unless you
change the animal. Probably not a good idea.
Debra
Paul Mesken
Ah yes, the nature of the beast. It is very true that aggression comes
natural to mankind. You only have to look at this group which is
supposed to be a platform for exchanging ideas about art. One might be
tricked into the idea that this would be a peacefull process in which
teaching and learning would alternate in a harmonious an respectfull
fashion. The truth is ofcourse that it's a good thing that we only
have words to sling at each other ;-)
Newt Gray
says...
>Yeah they do, though in WWII for example, the most remembered American war
>artists at least of the (Second WW, and later) were cartoonists and
>cinematographers, but there's no shortage of painters and sketchers. Here's
>two quick finds on the internet:
Well, since you qualified that by saying "the most
remembered" I can't verify your claim. But one of
the most noteable in his day, who actually PAINTED (full color)
battle scenes in the South Pacific, was an artist
whose work was an inspiration to me as a youth since
he is from my hometown of El Paso, TX. His name
is Tom Lea. He authored several very popular books
too - the best of which was The Brave Bulls, subsequently
made into a movie. Tom Lea died at age 93 almost
exactly one year ago today. His oeuvre was generally
western and southwestern (USA) imagery. His WWII
battle scenes were regularly published in Life Magazine,
which in those days was a weekly news photo magazine
found in virtually every home in the USA.
http://www.elpasoinc.com/Archive/01_02_11/week.html
Another neighbor of mine died even more recently.
His name was Bill Mauldin - cartoonist who drew
the Willie and Joe cartoons that were such a great
portrayal of the 'average G.I.' during WWII.
Erik A. Mattila
> "Erik A. Mattila" (emat...@oco.net) writes:
>
>>Lauren Foster-MacLeod wrote:
>>
>>>"Erik A. Mattila" (emat...@oco.net) writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Anyway, I think this is a good time to bring up the topic of "war art"
>>>>or "Man's inhumanity to Man" art, or whatever we want to call it. There
>>>>are so many examples in art history to draw from. And also from art
>>>>history, there are an abundance of examples of artists who chose to
>>>>plant their heads in the sand instead of addressing this difficult topic.
>>>
>>>next post.
>>
>>Er, the topic is art, not the war in Iraq. But of course you're free to
>>bury your head in the sand on that one also. As I said, it is a
>>difficult art subject. You know, compare Goya's "Disasters of War"
>>paintings with, say, British History Painting. Compare Leon Golub's
>>migthy paintings with Normal Rockwell's political pastische. (bias alert!)
>
>
> Okay, you have your opinion. Perhaps you are doing art about war. Good for
> you. I'm not, but in no way in my head in the sand. Heck, my son is in the
> army reserves. There's a good dose of reality.
I'm just saying, more or less, "if the shoe fits, wear it," Lauren. I
think you need to ask yourself why you are personalizing this. Again, I
was talking about art history, not RAF.
>>Well, there's always Walter and Margaret Keene to fall back on. But
>>whoever said that art should be so "sweet"?
>
>
> Not me, my dear. Here in Canada, we have a tradition of war artists.
> Artists go to where the war is, observe it (in a kind of "embedded" way)
> and do sketches, studies, later made into paintings. This was done in the
> 2 World wars, and has also been done recently. Does the U.S. do that?
Canada's position is commendable on this issue, in my opinion. But
nothing you have written says anything about the topic of "man's
inhumanity to man" as a major art theme, or whether or not it is a
worthy topic to discuss in RAF.
Erik
Erik A. Mattila
>>I thought it would be an interesting topic. And it wasn't the "war in
>>Iraq" - only that the ugly wraith of war has risen in our lives, which
>>makes that part of art that deals with this somehow relevant.
>
> Yes, the category of inhumanities your professor talked about. I think
> it's interesting as well, Lauren OTOH indicates she doesn't like doing
> art about it but thought it was fine for others to do so. That's a
> matter of taste and interest. I don't think she plants her head in the
> sand because of that.
So I make a post to Slick talking about an art history issue, and I get
a defensive response that says more or less "I have a right not to
address "Man's inhumanity to Man."" Well, fine...but it is really not
responsive. And I have to ask myself "why?" such a response was offered
at all. Why is an issue that is clearly "out there in historical space"
and relatively unpersonal" personalized?
>>>As a matter of fact : I might be accused of planting my head in the
>>>sand in respect to flowers (never done them). I did do a lot of
>>>inhumanities though :-)
>>
>>Bad analogy, I think. Flower painting is not much of a moral issue,
>>while insulating oneself against reality by flower painting might be.
>
> That's my whole point. Some artists simply aren't interested in
> addressing moral issues. That doesn't mean they are planting their
> heads in the sand (which has a negative ring to it). Artists aren't
> morally obliged to address moral issues nor are morals the overriding
> principle, after all : we're only talking art here.
The whole point of what, Paul? Your argument or mine? Mine is that
it's a major theme in art history, and some artists have not had the
wherewithal to deal with it. You know, it's a "Nero fiddled while Rome
burned" type of thing. Your point seems to be that Nero has an
inalienable right to fiddle. I can't find anything wrong with that
idea, actually. So I'm agreeing with you - yet it's obvious that Nero
fiddled. Why try to gloss that over?
>>But even that is tenuous - it really is a matter of the legitimacy of a
>>topic that artists are discussing on a newsgroup that is at issue. Now,
>>if you go back to my posts and read them without spinning them to your
>>particular agenda, you can see I wrote "history is full of examples of
>>artists sticking their heads in the sands." I was actually thinking of
>>Jaques Louis David when I wrote that, in relation to his "Raft of the
>>Medusa" which was clearly a political protest against the Bourbons, but
>>he denied it for all of his life.
>
> Hehe, I'm not spinning anything to my hidden agenda (yet ;-)
I think you are, Paul. Precisely, you are bending my words to suit your
particular interests - which seem to be that it's OK to ignore the
present political realities as if they weren't really there, affecting
everyone. I have no particular challenge to that sentiment. But to try
to spin it back to my agenda, I would say that in 200 years from now it
could well be a worthy topic of arttalk.
> Anyway, you're talking two different things here. If you say that
> there are artists who stuck their head in the sand accompanied by your
> example of Jaques Louis David then I might agree with you. We're
> talking art history in that case.
Which I was talking about with my post to Slick that started this
conversation.
> However, you suggested that Lauren might want to stick her head in the
> sand regarding the category of inhumanities. That's not art history,
> that smells remarkably much like a personal attack on one's morals
> which I thought was quite hostile and undeserved. Lauren didn't say
> that r.a.f. shouldn't be discussing such things, she simply stated
> that it was not her cup of thea.
Considering her inappropriate and defensive response, it may well be
something that she is wrestling with. I don't really know - I just
cataloged a possibility. Lauren is the person who personalized the
discussion, not I. To be candid with you, I thought it was a good topic
to present here so that war issues could be discussed in the context of
art and art history, without falling outside the guidelines of this news
group.
Erik
Erik A. Mattila
> "Lauren Foster-MacLeod" <dz...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
> news:b6p6p6$s6u$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
>
>>Not me, my dear. Here in Canada, we have a tradition of war artists.
>>Artists go to where the war is, observe it (in a kind of "embedded" way)
>>and do sketches, studies, later made into paintings. This was done in the
>>2 World wars, and has also been done recently. Does the U.S. do that?
>>
> Yeah they do, though in WWII for example, the most remembered American war
> artists at least of the (Second WW, and later) were cartoonists and
> cinematographers, but there's no shortage of painters and sketchers. Here's
> two quick finds on the internet:
Oh, yeah, that's a bit nostalgic. While in Vietnam I came across an
announcement urging "Soldier Artist's" to apply for a dream assignment:
"One week in the field making sketches, and three weeks in Honolulu
turning them into paintings, for your entire tour of duty." I freaked
out - and decided to apply. It took me about three weeks to get slides
together for a portfolio (a requirement) and then I went to HQ to fill
out a 1049 - request for change of duty. The form had printed in bold
letters accross the top: "All blanks on this form must be filled in!"
Then, on line one, was another note: "Do not fill in this blank." The
next question was "Under what authority do you submit this request." I
asked a clerk what that meant, and he said I had to have the Order
number for the advertised position. He said he didn't have it, and
after about 3 or 4 days going to office to office I finally found the
place where they kept these sorts of Orders. A sergeant found the
appropriate order, and brought it to the counter: "But this order has
expired, so you won't be able to apply." When I checked the expiration
date, it turned out it had expired a month before the position was
announced.
And I thought Heller's "Catch 22" was a work of fiction.
Erik
Erik A. Mattila
> Paul Mesken (usu...@euronet.nl) writes:
> I guess J.L. David liked the comforts he grew accustomed to, eh? If he'd
> been more outspoken, I suppose that we wouldn't have all those big
> paintings of his around.
See, now we're getting somewhere. Actually, I blew it, as I meant
Delacroix, not David. You know, there is a huge set of Delacroix'
diaries - 20 volumes or so - in the libraries. But if you read them, he
doesn't show that he had a political bone in his body.
And I cited the wrong painting when I wrote "Raft of the Medusa," by the
way. That was Gericault's salon piece, which Delacroix assisted with
two years before he painted his salon piece, "Dante and Virgil in Hell."
"Raft of the Medusa" was a flagrant piece of political satire against
the the Bourbon Monarchy. The history was that the wreck of the ship
Medusa was well known to have been an example of Bourbon incompetence,
because the Monarch had give the commission to captain the ship to a
political hack with no naval experience, and he ran the ship aground and
most of the crew drowned. But Gericault proudly proclaimed his political
intent, making no effort to hide it. And this was an important part of
Delacroix apprenticeship, and it was intrinsically political.
Two years later Delacroix painted his piece, which "naively" appeared to
be a simple illustration of an episode in the Divine Comedy. But it you
trace down the specific canto, and then do some basic research on
Dante's political life (which explains why he wrote the Commedia), and
go further and consult Virgil's "Aeneid" which contains the original
model of "Hell" that Dante and Delacroix used, it becomes clear that the
painting is also a political strike against the Bourbons. There's
really no doubt about it, but you can't make a credible art historical
argument since his diaries complete discount any political orientation.
It's a strange quirk in the art history "authorities" system - if he
hadn't written the diaries, the argument could be made.
So the few historians who have noticed this political content have made
the argument, however, that the painting is anti-bourbon, but not
politically motivated, but a personal issue. Delacroix' father was an
official in the Napoleon administration, and the Bourbon contenders
spread the rumor in Paris that Eugene was the bastard son of the senior
Delacroix. It was speculated that Eugene carried this stigma all his
life, and was very resentful. But that argument, which might be true,
doesn't account for Gericault's overt political nature, which Delacroix
was intimately privvy to.
Erik
Lauren Foster-MacLeod
I'm a bit rusty (well, a lot rusty) on that art history, though I have a
fair amount of artbooks about that period. I find that Delacroix and
Gericault had similar styles, but very differnt POV and attitudes, as you
say. Delacroix was into all that exotic stuff, if I recall. And, of
course, Liberty Leading the People. His "Bark of Dante" was a very early
work, his first (and accepted) entry into the Paris Salon in 1822. (yes, I
pulled one of the books out)
I remember Gericault's work, The Raft of the Medusa, as well as those
beautitine.
Paul Mesken
<emat...@oco.net> wrote:
>Paul Mesken wrote:
>
>>>I thought it would be an interesting topic. And it wasn't the "war in
>>>Iraq" - only that the ugly wraith of war has risen in our lives, which
>>>makes that part of art that deals with this somehow relevant.
>>
>> Yes, the category of inhumanities your professor talked about. I think
>> it's interesting as well, Lauren OTOH indicates she doesn't like doing
>> art about it but thought it was fine for others to do so. That's a
>> matter of taste and interest. I don't think she plants her head in the
>> sand because of that.
>
>So I make a post to Slick talking about an art history issue, and I get
>a defensive response that says more or less "I have a right not to
>address "Man's inhumanity to Man."" Well, fine...but it is really not
>responsive. And I have to ask myself "why?" such a response was offered
>at all. Why is an issue that is clearly "out there in historical space"
>and relatively unpersonal" personalized?
I didn't read that at all in Lauren's post, that you don't have the
right to address man's inhumanity to man. Let's see it again :
Erik :
"Anyway, I think this is a good time to bring up the topic of "war
art"or "Man's inhumanity to Man" art, or whatever we want to call it.
There are so many examples in art history to draw from. And also from
art history, there are an abundance of examples of artists who chose
to plant their heads in the sand instead of addressing this difficult
topic."
Lauren :
"Well, for one, we are all pretty bombarded with what is happening in
Iraq just about everywhere we go in our daily lives. In the
newspapers, on the radio, on the TV. Most of us are discussing it
outside of this newsgroup, with our friends and families. SO, why
continue doing so here? Well, if you want to, go ahead. Those of us
who don't want to, will just go to the next post."
That's not a personal attack but a simple misunderstanding. Now, as
context info, Lauren is concerned about the content of the posts here
in r.a.f. :
"I wandered into this newsgroup just last week, and have a few
queries: I realize that is is unmoderated, but is it the norm that
most of the posts are not art-related?"
That was an earlier post. However you raised the issue of man's
inhumanity to art which ofcourse is on topic.
You justly pointed that out to her :
"Er, the topic is art, not the war in Iraq."
But then continued with :
" But of course you're free to bury your head in the sand on that one
also."
Now, that's not very nice by any stretch of imagination which I
thought was quite odd coming from you.
>>>>As a matter of fact : I might be accused of planting my head in the
>>>>sand in respect to flowers (never done them). I did do a lot of
>>>>inhumanities though :-)
>>>
>>>Bad analogy, I think. Flower painting is not much of a moral issue,
>>>while insulating oneself against reality by flower painting might be.
>>
>> That's my whole point. Some artists simply aren't interested in
>> addressing moral issues. That doesn't mean they are planting their
>> heads in the sand (which has a negative ring to it). Artists aren't
>> morally obliged to address moral issues nor are morals the overriding
>> principle, after all : we're only talking art here.
>
>The whole point of what, Paul? Your argument or mine? Mine is that
>it's a major theme in art history, and some artists have not had the
>wherewithal to deal with it. You know, it's a "Nero fiddled while Rome
>burned" type of thing. Your point seems to be that Nero has an
>inalienable right to fiddle. I can't find anything wrong with that
>idea, actually. So I'm agreeing with you - yet it's obvious that Nero
>fiddled. Why try to gloss that over?
No, that's not my point. Nero was emperor and his capital was burning,
he could have done something more sensible. My point also has nothing
to do with rights.
Nor do I attack your point that man's inhumanity to man is a major
part in art history. As a matter of fact : I already pointed out how I
think this is an interesting thing.
My point is that if one chooses to ignore making or discussing art
about man's inhumanity to man (or the war in Iraq) then that doesn't
mean that one sticks one's head in the sand. "Sticking one's head in
the sand" is a negative attribution and I don't want to give it to
people who don't want to make or discuss art about MITM (that's short
for "man's inhumanity to man).
>>>But even that is tenuous - it really is a matter of the legitimacy of a
>>>topic that artists are discussing on a newsgroup that is at issue. Now,
>>>if you go back to my posts and read them without spinning them to your
>>>particular agenda, you can see I wrote "history is full of examples of
>>>artists sticking their heads in the sands." I was actually thinking of
>>>Jaques Louis David when I wrote that, in relation to his "Raft of the
>>>Medusa" which was clearly a political protest against the Bourbons, but
>>>he denied it for all of his life.
>>
>> Hehe, I'm not spinning anything to my hidden agenda (yet ;-)
>
>I think you are, Paul. Precisely, you are bending my words to suit your
>particular interests - which seem to be that it's OK to ignore the
>present political realities as if they weren't really there, affecting
>everyone. I have no particular challenge to that sentiment. But to try
>to spin it back to my agenda, I would say that in 200 years from now it
>could well be a worthy topic of arttalk.
Your fear of me makes you paranoid Erik, don't worry, you're not on my
hitlist ;-)
>> However, you suggested that Lauren might want to stick her head in the
>> sand regarding the category of inhumanities. That's not art history,
>> that smells remarkably much like a personal attack on one's morals
>> which I thought was quite hostile and undeserved. Lauren didn't say
>> that r.a.f. shouldn't be discussing such things, she simply stated
>> that it was not her cup of thea.
>
>Considering her inappropriate and defensive response, it may well be
>something that she is wrestling with. I don't really know - I just
>cataloged a possibility. Lauren is the person who personalized the
>discussion, not I. To be candid with you, I thought it was a good topic
>to present here so that war issues could be discussed in the context of
>art and art history, without falling outside the guidelines of this news
>group.
Well, that's the whole issue. You think you were under attack but I
only see a misunderstanding.
Dr. Slick
> >
>
> Ah yes, the nature of the beast. It is very true that aggression comes
> natural to mankind. You only have to look at this group which is
> supposed to be a platform for exchanging ideas about art. One might be
> tricked into the idea that this would be a peacefull process in which
> teaching and learning would alternate in a harmonious an respectfull
> fashion. The truth is ofcourse that it's a good thing that we only
> have words to sling at each other ;-)
Giggling... yeah, very true indeed, Paul.
Ok, let's give ourselves some credit here. Sometimes it is
peaceful and respectful and harmonious, just not all the time.
"Too many cooks spoils the soup." But too many editors spoils the
paper? Maybe not, because this is the internet's egalitarianism
("advocating full political equality for all") at it's finest
(lowest?).
Slick
Erik A. Mattila
> But then continued with :
>
> " But of course you're free to bury your head in the sand on that one
> also."
>
> Now, that's not very nice by any stretch of imagination which I
> thought was quite odd coming from you.
Wait a minute...are you claiming that Fresian's haven't discovered irony
yet? :-)
> My point is that if one chooses to ignore making or discussing art
> about man's inhumanity to man (or the war in Iraq) then that doesn't
> mean that one sticks one's head in the sand. "Sticking one's head in
> the sand" is a negative attribution and I don't want to give it to
> people who don't want to make or discuss art about MITM (that's short
> for "man's inhumanity to man).
Well, I haven't made any MITM art myself, and I think it is because I'm
sticking my head in the sand. I don't see it as so negative. As a
matter of fact, sometimes it seems completely dreamlike to me that life
goes on in its mundane fashion here while the invasion of Baghdad is
happening. It really brings to mind Orwell's ideas.
>>I think you are, Paul. Precisely, you are bending my words to suit your
>>particular interests - which seem to be that it's OK to ignore the
>>present political realities as if they weren't really there, affecting
>>everyone. I have no particular challenge to that sentiment. But to try
>>to spin it back to my agenda, I would say that in 200 years from now it
>>could well be a worthy topic of arttalk.
>
> Your fear of me makes you paranoid Erik, don't worry, you're not on my
> hitlist ;-)
I've always feared you, Paul. You should realize that. After doing my
geneological research and discovering that I am a descendent of Hengist
himself, I know that my ancestors feared yours also. BTW, didn't I ask
you once if you knew of any family or place (possibly the Fresian
islands) with a name like "Ogle" or "Ohghul"? (this apparently was
Hengist's clan, and some people think they might have originated in your
neighborhood instead of Angles or Saxony.)
> Well, that's the whole issue. You think you were under attack but I
> only see a misunderstanding.
I didn't think I was under attack. I thought they were bringing me freedom.
Erik
>
Paul Mesken
<emat...@oco.net> wrote:
>Paul Mesken wrote:
>
>> But then continued with :
>>
>> " But of course you're free to bury your head in the sand on that one
>> also."
>>
>> Now, that's not very nice by any stretch of imagination which I
>> thought was quite odd coming from you.
>
>Wait a minute...are you claiming that Fresian's haven't discovered irony
>yet? :-)
Frysians, Frysians, Frysians
Anyway, we actually did discover it (a few years ago during
excavations of an old Roman bath house in Maastricht) but we always
add an emoticon to it for the ones who don't get it :-)
>> My point is that if one chooses to ignore making or discussing art
>> about man's inhumanity to man (or the war in Iraq) then that doesn't
>> mean that one sticks one's head in the sand. "Sticking one's head in
>> the sand" is a negative attribution and I don't want to give it to
>> people who don't want to make or discuss art about MITM (that's short
>> for "man's inhumanity to man).
>
>Well, I haven't made any MITM art myself, and I think it is because I'm
>sticking my head in the sand. I don't see it as so negative. As a
>matter of fact, sometimes it seems completely dreamlike to me that life
>goes on in its mundane fashion here while the invasion of Baghdad is
>happening. It really brings to mind Orwell's ideas.
I think the mere presence of Milosevic only a mere 100 mile from where
I live is quite dreamlike :-)
Newt Gray
>And I thought Heller's "Catch 22" was a work of fiction.
>
>Erik
Nah...you were just dealing with the usual
military doctrine of "if anything can be
fucked up it will be" or however that old
cliche goes. Sadly, nothing seems to have
changed in that regard - just gotten higher-tech
so that presumably, if it can be fucked up
it will be really fucked up now and human
error can be minimized as the cause...
Erik A. Mattila
It seems that way, doesn't it? Since Afghanistan there seems to have
been an over-abundance of serious accidents. I don't know if I'm just
"misunderestimating," but I don't think the military had that much
serious fuck-ups 40 years ago - you know, newsworthy stuff like shooting
down British warplanes, or MISSING IRAQ completely with Tomahawk
missles! Christ, how do you miss a country?
But one funny story I read a few years back involved NATO pilots buying
those anti-cop "Radar Dectectors" that are advertized in magazines and
carrying the aloft during war games with the Russians, becuause the 2
million dollar units in their jets seldom worked.
Erik
>
Newt Gray
>But one funny story I read a few years back involved NATO pilots buying
>those anti-cop "Radar Dectectors" that are advertized in magazines and
>carrying the aloft during war games with the Russians, becuause the 2
>million dollar units in their jets seldom worked.
Hmmmm. Raises a question in my mind about
those multi-thousand dollar toilet seats
we all heard about some time back. Is
gold-plated easier on the derriere than
plain old white plastic?
Erik A. Mattila
No, it's just easier to clean off the rim-shots.
Erik
>
Dr. Slick
>
> But one funny story I read a few years back involved NATO pilots buying
> those anti-cop "Radar Dectectors" that are advertized in magazines and
> carrying the aloft during war games with the Russians, becuause the 2
> million dollar units in their jets seldom worked.
>
As an RF (Radio Frequency) engineer, i've heard this story too.
Apparently used as a redundancy just in case the main radar detection
equipment failed.
If my life counted on it, i would use anything that works as
extra insurance too.
Slick