Primer on post-modern [SUCK] art/artifacts
DNALJM
Objects:
Why do modern objects suck? First of all they contain "built in
obsolescence" meaning that they are built to break. This ensures that the
economy keeps going because you have to buy a new thing to replace the broken
one as well as giving people who manage landfills jobs. The second reason
objects suck is that they are built by a slave colony of the modern world, Red
Star China. Someone building something for pennies a day and suffering from
benzene poisoning will not care about poor craftsmanship.
Sometimes people try to pass off crumbling crap on E bay or in flea
markets, here is a lexicon of "objectspeak":
"shabby chic": I found this piece of crap in the trash, it is
peeling lead paint and rusting. Note also the wire/pot metal shoddy
construction. People can also paint the thing icing pink or white too. This
will make it look less like you can catch a disease from it.
"vintage": This is something that dates from the 1950s-1980s,
containing yellowing and brittle bits of plastic. When plastic deteriorates it
can also become gummy and nasty. Obviously I do not want this thing in my
house so I will see if I can con someone into paying money for it! Examples
include brown/tan clothing, first time lava lamps, Van Briggle pottery plaques
of mermaids with pink hair, etc. It can be something fairly recent too, like a
Garfield comic alarm clock.
"style": Another hit from China, this means that it is a fake
reproduction. Majolica pottery, rocking horses, vintage glasses are all cheap
to mimic with our modern factories. Close inspection will reveal that the poor
quality is the product of someone working without education, artistic
knowledge, or pride. The "made in [insert Asian country here] is also a dead
giveaway.
Art:
In our modern age, being ignorant about art, materials, and skills is an
asset! People brag about it, it is very trendy.
"outsider": Everyone is jumping on this bandwagon-what a shame for
people like Henry Darger who toiled in obscurity while working with conviction
and humility. People do not make great epics like that which was found in his
apartment anymore. They will badly render a cat, angel, or other shallow bit
of crap that they think will sell. Bright colors, LSD swirls, and cartoonish
eyes help to obscure the fact that the person is too LAZY to go to art school
and is just trying to make a fast buck!!
"neo": whatever. Often people will be a "neo-cubist" or
"neo-conceptualist," using fragmented shapes and lightbulbs to hide the fact
that they cannot draw. However, they often sneak in a body or some form of
representation which looks like it was made of sausage links, probably to
escape the vapid nature of what they do. Then, perhaps racked with guilt or
shame, go back to painting blobs, buying lightbulbs, or lines. Even if you
call them on their poor draftsmanship, they will say that they used it as a
"point of departure." But you're not sure what they're departing from, as it
is obvious they couldn't draw the human form to save their lives to begin with.
Kind of like writing a novel by banging your head on the keyboard because you
are illiterate.
"crapceptual": Some of these people were thinking it is true. But the
days of high consideration and moving conceptual art are gone-enter
"crapcecptual" knock-offs. The Crapceptual lives in art colleges across
America, Canada, and the UK. Since they cannot get a grant or scholarship and
usually have poor test scores they are there racking up loans or tearing
through some poor parent's bank account. They often abuse drugs, shove bits of
metal through their bodies, and loiter on the steps of the college. When it
comes to doing something for credit, they will staple their tampon to the wall
or put a pile of used tissues on the table so they don't actually have to do
anything but come up with some artspeak.
"artspeak": Can be used to defend any of the above. The point of artspeak
is to make the marginal monumental, the obvious obtuse, and the cheap and quick
monumental and sustaining. The first thing the artspeakist does is circle the
work with some polysyllabic words, describing it. [big words=smart] "The
playful swirls of color around the angel cat's head give it a corporeal
presence, while it paradoxically maintains its connection to the spiritual
realm." The next thing that the artspeakist does is to tie the work to
society, and the last thing is to talk about how it is novel and
groundbreaking. "Nobody in the entire history of art has used real cat piss on
a cat angel painting, making it glow under a black light. This makes us think
about how technology moves us both closer and farther away from God-another
paradox." The point of artspeak is to divorce people from their original
impression, that the "art" is really garbage!!
Jane
http://www.geocities.com/teslathemothgod
mar...@myrealbox.com
On 08 Dec 2003 08:16:10 GMT, dna...@aol.com (DNALJM) wrote:
>http://www.geocities.com/teslathemothgod
Contains such gems as:
"I've decided to make a cartoon when something makes me angry to keep
my blood pressure low. You know, for health reasons."
and
"Cartoons and collages coming soon-when I get them scanned."
Come on, this is not rocket science... :-)
>The Crapceptual lives in art colleges across
>America, Canada, and the UK. Since they cannot get a grant or scholarship
Perhaps you should look at the real problem which is of the lack of
government funding for further education and especially of art.
>They often abuse drugs, shove bits of
>metal through their bodies, and loiter on the steps of the college.
Oh, dear. Are you the type who's always rushing around, rather than
talking to your friends ("loitering")...? Or, do you have any, with
this kind of attritude?
Erik A. Mattila
> Primer on post-modern [SUCK] art/artifacts
>
>
> Objects:
>
> Why do modern objects suck? First of all they contain "built in
> obsolescence" meaning that they are built to break. This ensures that the
> economy keeps going because you have to buy a new thing to replace the broken
> one as well as giving people who manage landfills jobs. The second reason
> objects suck is that they are built by a slave colony of the modern world, Red
> Star China. Someone building something for pennies a day and suffering from
> benzene poisoning will not care about poor craftsmanship.
Whoa...you're starting your essay off with its conclusion. You're
asking your readers to accept a truism: Modern objects suck. Then,
"modern objects" is a huge, broad generalization, to which you assign
specific characteristics: planned obsolescence, jobs for landfill
workers, built in a slave economy. Now honestly...how many "modern
objects" fit that bill? 5%? 1%?
Thus you ask your readers to accept the legitimacy of a peculiar trope:
the part (rightly) stands for the whole, or Synecdoche. But you haven't
made a convincing argument that it is true. For example, metal hub-cap
collectors would disagree with your claim.
>
> Sometimes people try to pass off crumbling crap on E bay or in flea
> markets, here is a lexicon of "objectspeak":
>
> "shabby chic": I found this piece of crap in the trash, it is
> peeling lead paint and rusting. Note also the wire/pot metal shoddy
> construction. People can also paint the thing icing pink or white too. This
> will make it look less like you can catch a disease from it.
>
> "vintage": This is something that dates from the 1950s-1980s,
> containing yellowing and brittle bits of plastic. When plastic deteriorates it
> can also become gummy and nasty. Obviously I do not want this thing in my
> house so I will see if I can con someone into paying money for it! Examples
> include brown/tan clothing, first time lava lamps, Van Briggle pottery plaques
> of mermaids with pink hair, etc. It can be something fairly recent too, like a
> Garfield comic alarm clock.
>
> "style": Another hit from China, this means that it is a fake
> reproduction. Majolica pottery, rocking horses, vintage glasses are all cheap
> to mimic with our modern factories. Close inspection will reveal that the poor
> quality is the product of someone working without education, artistic
> knowledge, or pride. The "made in [insert Asian country here] is also a dead
> giveaway.
Read Roland Barthes "The Advertising Message." After suffering two
centuries of mass media, most of us already "know" what any advertisment
will state, and that is "buy this product" or "this products is good."
All other language associated with advertising is simply manipulative.
To propose a "style" for kitsch enhances its value. No object's
"meaning" in culture is independent of language. "Collectable" is the
case in point.
>
> Art:
>
> In our modern age, being ignorant about art, materials, and skills is an
> asset! People brag about it, it is very trendy.
But it's a topic that seldom arises in conversation, except among a very
tiny minority of people in the modern industrial state, i.e. artists,
collectors, students etc. And we have Anhauser Busch telling us "Why
ask Why? But your's is an interesting statement. There's a lot of
overt skill exhibited in your work, for example. Some (not me,
necessarily) would say "an ostentatious display of skill" or "skill for
skill's sake." But what's interesting to me is that the concept of
"skill" can't exist without the concept of "unskilled." So if part of
your own advertising package is the overt display of skill, your
artistic discourse then occupies that polar measure of skill/unskill,
and that becomes your "painter's problem". To me, that's rather
restrictive, but I realize that it's perfectly satisfactory for many
artists, and patrons. Personally, I expect more from a work of art.
>
> "outsider": Everyone is jumping on this bandwagon-what a shame for
> people like Henry Darger who toiled in obscurity while working with conviction
> and humility. People do not make great epics like that which was found in his
> apartment anymore. They will badly render a cat, angel, or other shallow bit
> of crap that they think will sell. Bright colors, LSD swirls, and cartoonish
> eyes help to obscure the fact that the person is too LAZY to go to art school
> and is just trying to make a fast buck!!
But the art market is just that, a market. It will reach out transform
anything it can into a commodity for the goal of profit. "Outsider art"
has indeed become 'cliche' because it originally worked for selling art,
and in the rush to the market place many artists jumped onto the
bandwagon. It will pass, just as "naive art" and "folk art" have passed
- "passed" that is, in the advertising jargon. The objects themselves
maintain a wonderful uniformity...you know, if Grandma Moses hit the
market today she would be discribed as an "Outsider" artist.
But look, a majority of the artists who had produced comix, psychodelic
posters and bright colors did study art formally, were not lazy at all,
but rather cashed in on a trend that existed at the time. Now there
work is collectible. It's just another dimension of art along with
easel painting etc.
> "neo": whatever. Often people will be a "neo-cubist" or
> "neo-conceptualist," using fragmented shapes and lightbulbs to hide the fact
> that they cannot draw. However, they often sneak in a body or some form of
> representation which looks like it was made of sausage links, probably to
> escape the vapid nature of what they do. Then, perhaps racked with guilt or
> shame, go back to painting blobs, buying lightbulbs, or lines. Even if you
> call them on their poor draftsmanship, they will say that they used it as a
> "point of departure." But you're not sure what they're departing from, as it
> is obvious they couldn't draw the human form to save their lives to begin with.
> Kind of like writing a novel by banging your head on the keyboard because you
> are illiterate.
Yes, Renaissance art in Italy is known as "neoclassical." There's
nothing in the term that can be strictly contemporary. "Neo" has become
so cliche that it's original meaning and intent have fallen to mythology.
> "crapceptual": Some of these people were thinking it is true. But the
> days of high consideration and moving conceptual art are gone-enter
> "crapcecptual" knock-offs. The Crapceptual lives in art colleges across
> America, Canada, and the UK. Since they cannot get a grant or scholarship and
> usually have poor test scores they are there racking up loans or tearing
> through some poor parent's bank account. They often abuse drugs, shove bits of
> metal through their bodies, and loiter on the steps of the college. When it
> comes to doing something for credit, they will staple their tampon to the wall
> or put a pile of used tissues on the table so they don't actually have to do
> anything but come up with some artspeak.
Not a strong argument, Jane. Why not just write "crapceptual" without
any commentary on the category? You haven't added to the negative
assessment at all. But it's confusing what you mean. Do you mean all
of "conceptual art" or just some imitations of it? It's such a broad
category anyway. About a third of paleolithic cave art is "conceptual"
for example. If you're referring to the "movement" of the seventies,
that's also very broad - but the key definitions are "anti-format" and
"form is secondary to content."
> "artspeak": Can be used to defend any of the above. The point of artspeak
> is to make the marginal monumental, the obvious obtuse, and the cheap and quick
> monumental and sustaining. The first thing the artspeakist does is circle the
> work with some polysyllabic words, describing it. [big words=smart] "The
> playful swirls of color around the angel cat's head give it a corporeal
> presence, while it paradoxically maintains its connection to the spiritual
> realm." The next thing that the artspeakist does is to tie the work to
> society, and the last thing is to talk about how it is novel and
> groundbreaking. "Nobody in the entire history of art has used real cat piss on
> a cat angel painting, making it glow under a black light. This makes us think
> about how technology moves us both closer and farther away from God-another
> paradox." The point of artspeak is to divorce people from their original
> impression, that the "art" is really garbage!!
That's complete nonsense, Jane. The point of "artspeak", as you use the
term, is to create "value" for a particularly work of art, style of art,
and so on, and it's trajectory aims at the market (considering that art
criticism, theory, history and production conjoin into one grand social
machine, which we might call "the art world."
But it's good to note that all art, regardless of antiquity and style is
ultimately valued by "artspeak" in the final analysis. And then
"artspeak" itself has its own "form" which becomes the basis of fashion
systems and style which in turn creates the opportunity for completely
vacuous writing that is self-conscious and empty. It's just a problem
with hyperbole, and as history goes through its selection function
meaningless writing about art will simply vanish (unless it is collected
as examples of hyperbole or something, of course).
> Jane
>
> http://www.geocities.com/teslathemothgod
Nice essay, Jane...to a point. Why don't you compare it to this:
http://www.flatblacknova.com/buszek/PoMoSeminar/PoMoReadings/GrnbrgKitsch.pdf
Erik
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
G*rd*n
> >The Crapceptual lives in art colleges across
> >America, Canada, and the UK. Since they cannot get a grant or scholarship
> Perhaps you should look at the real problem which is of the lack of
> government funding for further education and especially of art.
> ...
It seems to me that if people produce bad art (== art you
don't like) without government money they will continue to
produce it _with_ government money, only there will be more
of it, because they won't have to knock off producing bad
art to go waitress or lawyer or whatever they have to do for
their day job.
--
(<><>) /*/
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
{ http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 1/19/03 <-adv't
DNALJM
>
>Come on, this is not rocket science... :-)
>
Well, to quantify, the problem is that I do not own a scanner, not that I
am incapable of getting one to work. I use the one at the mail place I use and
usually do it as a total trip when I have something to send. You know, snow,
no car, etc.
>Perhaps you should look at the real problem which is of the lack of
>government funding for further education and especially of art.
I can understand why grant money dries up when the art world is such a
mess. Honestly, would you rather pay someone for an original painting or to
tell you why they made a ziggurat of tissues on a table?
>Oh, dear. Are you the type who's always rushing around, rather than
>talking to your friends ("loitering")...? Or, do you have any, with
>this kind of attritude?
In college I went out for a beer or some coffee with a few like-minded
people, but I worked every day in that studio like it was a job that I took
very seriously.
Jane
Chris
<mar...@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:a1k8tv8kk9lb87vhr...@4ax.com...
>
> Perhaps you should look at the real problem which is of the lack of
> government funding for further education and especially of art.
>
The issue isn't so much the funding as the funding per student - and the
easiest way to deal with that is simply to keep the funding level steady and
start restricting admissions to people who show some chance of success, and
failing out people who don't feel like making the effort. Then there's be
lots more $$ for the students who apply themselves to the work. (FWIW - its
the same story in the broad liberal arts as well as the sciences - publicly
funded schooling in particular is appears to be turning into a massive
daycare center/finishing school system).
For a good example of what happens when schools don't make those decisions,
take a look at the offering of artrant's "Byzantine style blah blah" where
the artist they are flogging seems to know as little about icon painting as
they do about basic drawing. (The fact the artist can't even charicature SM
says alot). Yet she's a grad from one of the really upscale intitutes (Cal
Arts); all I can say is I hope she didn't waste public or CalArts bursary
money on her education.
Cheers;
Chris
Lippy Zaner
says...
>Yet she's a grad from one of the really upscale intitutes (Cal
>Arts); all I can say is I hope she didn't waste public or CalArts bursary
>money on her education.
>
>Cheers;
>
>Chris
Methinks you're much too quick to believe
what some total stranger posts to this forum.
I certainly doubt that anyone who draws
as badly as this person could conceivably
have any sort of art education, much less
the power of observation of the average hobby
artist.
Dilettante
This rant represents a hopeful progression for you. You have advanced
from the depressing aimlessness exhibited in your artwork to a
literary statement showing energy and fire. This piece is a good
starting point for an article, that a publisher would accept, or even
a book if you exanded it. A devil's dictionary of art.
There are couple of points however, on which you will be pinioned or
at least tacitly ignored by history:
However, they often sneak in a body or some form of
> representation which looks like it was made of sausage links, probably to
> escape the vapid nature of what they do.
Maybe you are too lazy to take an English class or two. Here you mean
hide not escape.
As you may recall, conceptualism was invented by Duchamp, posing as
"R. Mutt." A form of it was practiced to good effect by Claes
Oldenburg.
You keep attacking your straw men for not doing what you think is
drawing, although drawing has not been required to make fine art since
photography arrogated realism. Consider Klee and Hofmann.
You have wasted so much of your own life learning how to draw, yet you
are not able to produce anything that gives people any hope or any joy
or awe or that can even make them laugh.
Since they cannot get a grant or scholarship and
> usually have poor test scores they are there racking up loans or tearing
> through some poor parent's bank account. They often abuse drugs, shove bits of
> metal through their bodies, and loiter on the steps of the college.
Your head is apparently still stuck in college perhaps because you
feel, like so many bourgeois children, it was the most important event
in your life. Why don't you raise your sites a little and do something
positive with the skills that you have.
As far as the drug reference is concerned, Jean-Michel Basquiat took
drugs and just one of his paintings eats your entire oeuvre for
breakfast.
You say people don't go to "art school" because they are lazy. There
may be another reason for it. Let's take one of your favorites on this
forum, Erik Mattila:
He tries to have discussions by not saying anything, then if he gets
called on it immediately becomes personally insulting to the poster.
Here's an example of how Mattila reacts:
"I have no idea what you are discussing, Dildotantte. Seems to me
you're
just getting your rocks off pretending to be a bad guy."
Yet, incredibly, this guy still thinks it's ok to respond to, and
engage in dialog with people he has spoken to like this.
And, guess what, this guy is art school teacher. This type of
offensive obtuse behavior and stupidity is typical of his ilk. Mattila
is so stupid he hasn't figured out when to go away, or maybe he has
and won't, which makes him sadistic. Avoiding people like this is one
good reason for not going to art school not attributable to laziness.
So let's dispense with that readimade rationale for the conduct of
anyone you don't like.
Finally, your draftsmanship may be cute from the standpoint of
cartoons, but it doesn't set the world on fire.
Dilettante
DNALJM
>what some total stranger posts to this forum.
>I certainly doubt that anyone who draws
>as badly as this person could conceivably
>have any sort of art education, much less
>the power of observation of the average hobby
>artist.
I can believe it. Art schools will be happy to take anyone's money. In
my art school [not Cooper, the Academy I went to for two years before] I would
say a good third of the people graduated not learning anything, ie their skill
level remained the same and they produced art at the same level and style as
they did before they got there. Which is fine, it's not studying to gaurd ICBM
missile silos or anything but still you wonder why they go?? I hold the
insitution responsible becuase their greed makes those who graduate and work
hard's degree worthless.
I would also say there were three people who did not belong there because
they needed to be in a psychiatric ward of a hospital with art therapy. Lest
you think that I am an ogre trying to deprive a talented, learning differenced
person higher education one of these people pulled a gun in the registrar's
office and they couldn't draw or paint at all! My bf and I were working in the
offices and he came in, we could have been shot to hell but he didn't want to
pull his gun, he wanted to talk about art. "Last night" he begins, "I drew MY
SHOE in the middle of a sheet of paper. Nothing was on that paper but a highly
rendered [snigger yeah right I've seen his "renderings"] SHOE in the
whiteness." Then he left to go kill or maim someone I assume, leaving us to
exchange glances.
There was one autistic girl whom I assume the parents were using the place as
a day care for. I don't think she was dangerous but she was disruptive in that
she asked questions for the entire three hour period. ie "Would Picasso use
cadmium yellow?"
I mean, there were two people who were out of their goddamn minds but they
were very talented and with one of them I swapped modeling and went out to eat
every week. The other one was a talented sculptor but did wind up costing her
parents even more money when she, for example, put a trash can through the 7th
floor window.
There's an illustrated novel by Daniel Clowes called Ghost World which is
very funny and makes fun of art school. The people who go to masturbate in the
bathroom to the nude models, people who come in with shit glued to a paper
plate, one person he satires makes a painting of themselves in their underwear
that could scare roaches out of your apartment. The movie is good too, it's
about a talented girl who documents her life through her sketchbook and is
ruined by some Crapceptual joke of a teacher.
Jane
DNALJM
>asking your readers to accept a truism: Modern objects suck.
Although intending to be mostly humorful, I think, and it's been a while
since I've been in school, that you start your essay with an assertion and then
provide supportive examples? I mean, it would be impossibe to go through
*every* modern object. Speaking in broad generalizations, I would say that
most of them do. Walking through rows and rows of blister packs in superstores
like Wal-Mart I'll bet you could grab anything at random and find its suckiness
evident. Poorly made, made to break, and also harmful when it breaks down.
The worst of everything.
>For example, metal hub-cap
>collectors would disagree with your claim.
Dare I ask? Well, someone I know is decorating their tree with their
"beer can collection" so I guess there are hub-cap collectors too.
>There's a lot of
>overt skill exhibited in your work, for example. Some (not me,
>necessarily) would say "an ostentatious display of skill" or "skill for
>skill's sake."
Certianly you don't find my work to be technical exercises of fruit bowls
and models on stands at some art center? They are narratives of my life.
> But what's interesting to me is that the concept of
>"skill" can't exist without the concept of "unskilled."
I certianly wouldn't mind if everyone were skilled, I don't think that
using people who totally lack any skill to make my own efforts look better is
necessary. Everyone who becomes a doctor has a high level of skill in
chemistry, anatomy, and pathology, but it doesn't demean my estimation of them
because there isn't a group of doctors running around who suck.
>But the art market is just that, a market. It will reach out transform
>anything it can into a commodity for the goal of profit.
What I make and sell after adjusting for labor and materials I am
essentially giving away. However, I cannot seem to stop or even want to. I
would like to get better prices but charging thousands of dollars for a
painting is kind of obscene I think.
>Not a strong argument, Jane. Why not just write "crapceptual" without
>any commentary on the category?
I was trying to seperate the original conceptual artists from what it has
degenerated to now-redundancies and ways to skate through art school without
learning anything or having a job. Joseph Beuys was a great artist IMO. That
work meant something about his life and experience and used genuine skill as a
starting point. But now, to bring in a paper plate to class to comment on the
banality of paper plates when it just echos the vapidness of the thing it is
commenting on after fifty years of people bringing in paper plates, what a
joke, what an insult to real artists like JB.
>But it's good to note that all art, regardless of antiquity and style is
>ultimately valued by "artspeak" in the final analysis.
I think you're confusing artspeak with legitimate criticism. One serves to
inflate the value of something that sucks, the other discusses the value of
something that has established value all on its own.
>http://www.flatblacknova.com/buszek/PoMoSeminar/PoMoReadings/GrnbrgKits
ch.pdf
Will read it, thanks.
Jane
DNALJM
>hide not escape.
Yes, there is a syntax problem, a dubious use of vocabulary, and one
punctuation error. Sorry.
>You have wasted so much of your own life learning how to draw, yet you
>are not able to produce anything that gives people any hope or any joy
>or awe or that can even make them laugh.
"Lauren, it is probably inappropriate for me to use this word at my age but
I can't think of any other, it is AWESOME."
"When I went home for my birthday, I had dinner and opened gifts with Lisa and
my family. Everything was done and I went out of the room to come back to your
drawing on the mantle. I stopped dead in my tracks and was blown away. . ."
"I love it. . ."
". . .made me cry"
etc.-real e mails from real people who really bought my work. Not the curator
at the Met for sure but I feel good about it.
>As far as the drug reference is concerned, Jean-Michel Basquiat took
>drugs and just one of his paintings eats your entire oeuvre for
>breakfast. . .>Finally, your draftsmanship may be cute from the standpoint of
>cartoons, but it doesn't set the world on fire.
Basquiat slept in dumpters and spray painted on the sides of buildings
and painted fleas on stacks of tires. Certainly you're not attacking me for
drawing cartoons, are you?
Jane
Thur
"Dilettante" <hu...@myself.com> wrote in message
news:ba63903f.03120...@posting.google.com...
> snipped<
> You keep attacking your straw men for not doing what you think is
> drawing, although drawing has not been required to make fine art since
> photography arrogated realism. Consider Klee and Hofmann.
> snipped<
>
> Dilettante
I wonder if you really wanted to defend word for word the above, or
did you let your emotions get the better of you?
As I am sure you will admit, photography has not replaced fine art,
and artists still require, amongst many skills, drawing.
Why consider just Klee and Hoffmann rather than all the rest?
Thur
Erik A. Mattila
>>Whoa...you're starting your essay off with its conclusion. You're
>>asking your readers to accept a truism: Modern objects suck.
>
>
> Although intending to be mostly humorful, I think, and it's been a while
> since I've been in school, that you start your essay with an assertion and then
> provide supportive examples? I mean, it would be impossibe to go through
> *every* modern object. Speaking in broad generalizations, I would say that
> most of them do. Walking through rows and rows of blister packs in superstores
> like Wal-Mart I'll bet you could grab anything at random and find its suckiness
> evident. Poorly made, made to break, and also harmful when it breaks down.
> The worst of everything.
Indeed. I had to take upper-division composition because I flopped the
test, and then, before graduation, I was told that I had to take it
AGAIN if I didn't pass the test. So I took the test again. A short
essay on a paragraph we were given. 3/4 of the way through I realized I
wasn't even making sense...but, I passed. I got the statement - body -
conclusion just right. To hell with content.
>>For example, metal hub-cap
>>collectors would disagree with your claim.
>
> Dare I ask? Well, someone I know is decorating their tree with their
> "beer can collection" so I guess there are hub-cap collectors too.
Sure there are. Also automobile emblems, door knobs, ice-cream sticks,
gum wrappers: it's as if everything is ultimately collectable. A couple
of years ago I stumbled across a Barbie Doll Conservation web site.
Personally, I've been fascinated with the "collection impulse" for a
number of years. I took a stab at researching it while attending an Art
Museum Curatorial Practice seminar - but the paper got out-of-hand very
quickly. It's a bottomless pit...our modern art museum, or any modern
museum, stems from collections such as the early modern "Wumderkammern"
which featured really bizarre collections - almost free form - of
shells, monkey mummies, butterfly wings, works of art, a splash of
cuniaform tablets and what not. And all that got translated into art
museums by the application of taxonomy, when objects were "classified"
along the lines of the emerging scientific systems. I started the paper
talking about nature's great collector, the Australian Bower Birds.
Right away I discovered that only a small percentage of Bower Birds
actually build bowers, but all the species collect - raising the
question why are they not called "Collector Birds?" Well, I'm sure you
can see how it got out-of-hand. When I then discovered that the only
thing that distinguishes a Bower Bird from a Bird of Paradise was the
length of the middle toe, I threw in the towel.
>>There's a lot of
>>overt skill exhibited in your work, for example. Some (not me,
>>necessarily) would say "an ostentatious display of skill" or "skill for
>>skill's sake."
>
> Certianly you don't find my work to be technical exercises of fruit bowls
> and models on stands at some art center? They are narratives of my life.
No, I don't see your work that way, and I was commenting more on your
essay, anyway. To tell you the truth, if it were not for the essay, I'm
not sure that the idea of "skill for skill's sake" would dawn on my by
viewing your work. As I look at what you have on your web site, I think
you've struck a nice balance. I'm just saying that displaying skill can
overtake a work of art, and deaden it. That really addresses your essay
more than your art.
>>But what's interesting to me is that the concept of
>>"skill" can't exist without the concept of "unskilled."
> I certianly wouldn't mind if everyone were skilled, I don't think that
> using people who totally lack any skill to make my own efforts look better is
> necessary. Everyone who becomes a doctor has a high level of skill in
> chemistry, anatomy, and pathology, but it doesn't demean my estimation of them
> because there isn't a group of doctors running around who suck.
But it's a conceptual problem. There cannot be any sense to the concept
of "high level" without a concept of a "low level." I saw an old Fibber
McGee & Molly flick once where Fibber was searching for the "average
man." Everyone he interviewed described themselves as "slightly above
average" so he concluded that there actually was no "average man."
So in art, if every artist was skilled (by any measure, as there are
several approaches to the idea of skill) some would be "more skilled"
and the scale would just slide up a bit, and we would have the same
argument - "why are these unskilled artists grabbing so much attention?"
>>But the art market is just that, a market. It will reach out transform
>>anything it can into a commodity for the goal of profit.
> What I make and sell after adjusting for labor and materials I am
> essentially giving away. However, I cannot seem to stop or even want to. I
> would like to get better prices but charging thousands of dollars for a
> painting is kind of obscene I think.
But why do you think it's "obscene?" It's such a curious thing. Look
at how we accept the huge prices doctors charge on the basis that they
had to study so long in medical school. Artists typically study just as
hard, whether in formal training or just in studio agony.
Besides, we live in a consumer, and we hold dear those things that cost
more. Why do you think those conservative evangelicals display their
personal wealth so ostentatiously as they pass the tithing basket. The
more successful they appear, the more change they rake in. (Hey, come
to think of it, that is sort of "obscene." Maybe you're right.)
>>Not a strong argument, Jane. Why not just write "crapceptual" without
>>any commentary on the category?
>
> I was trying to seperate the original conceptual artists from what it has
> degenerated to now-redundancies and ways to skate through art school without
> learning anything or having a job. Joseph Beuys was a great artist IMO. That
> work meant something about his life and experience and used genuine skill as a
> starting point. But now, to bring in a paper plate to class to comment on the
> banality of paper plates when it just echos the vapidness of the thing it is
> commenting on after fifty years of people bringing in paper plates, what a
> joke, what an insult to real artists like JB.
I misunderstood you. I thought that your use of "crapceptual" was
directed at "conceptual art" per se.
>>But it's good to note that all art, regardless of antiquity and style is
>>ultimately valued by "artspeak" in the final analysis.
>
> I think you're confusing artspeak with legitimate criticism. One serves to
> inflate the value of something that sucks, the other discusses the value of
> something that has established value all on its own.
The term "artspeak" is bantered about on this group quite a bit, and
it's meaning isn't that explicit. It would be interesting to attempt a
collective definition, because I think I could find comparable examples
from the past. So it's true, my tendency to to regard "artspeak" simply
as writings about art - say from Plato forward.
It's all so ambiguous, anyway. I recall a manuscript from 4th Century
Constantinople praising a new mosaic of the Virgin that had been placed
in an Apse of Hagia Sophia. Words such as "The image is so real that
you can feel the Virgin's breathe on your face as you look at it."
What's strange is that the city was full of classical Greek and Roman
art, with all that anatomical precision we see in that work - next to
the clunky, almost cartoonish descriptive quality of a mosaic. So
"artspeak" has always existed in a symboitic relation to the work of art.
Erik
Neil Maxwell
>Dilettante
Why does the image of an angry puppy attacking a pack of jackals come
to mind?
Neil Maxwell - I don't speak for my employer
Chris
> You have wasted so much of your own life learning how to draw, yet you
> are not able to produce anything that gives people any hope or any joy
> or awe or that can even make them laugh.
>
Well, that seems to more your problem than hers - how can you say how others
do (or don't) react to it? There are parts of her work I find quite
beautiful; others that evoke a strong emotinal response because they bring
to mind certain aspects of life; and some parts that are just entrancingly
curious. You seem to have a preference for more distant work - I wouldn't
consider Klee or Hofman (I take it you mean Hans) as painters with any sense
of emotional contact.. Certainly they can be very pretty, but
"life-affirming" or emotionally engaging in any serious way? I don't think
so....
>
> As far as the drug reference is concerned, Jean-Michel Basquiat took
> drugs and just one of his paintings eats your entire oeuvre for
> breakfast.
>
LOL; Basquiat's work above all is the product of a spoiled middle class kid
who tried to reinvent himself as hip and edgy. You want to fall for it, good
for you. He fell for it though (and look what happened). It plays well in
the 'burbs though...
> You say people don't go to "art school" because they are lazy. There
> may be another reason for it. Let's take one of your favorites on this
> forum, Erik Mattila:
>
> He tries to have discussions by not saying anything, then if he gets
> called on it immediately becomes personally insulting to the poster.
> Here's an example of how Mattila reacts:
>
>
> "I have no idea what you are discussing, Dildotantte. Seems to me
> you're
> just getting your rocks off pretending to be a bad guy."
>
But Dildorant, what if he's just being honest, and he's actually right?
Seems pretty accurate to me, ou have a tendency to be all over the map
(argumentatively) and have yet to put forward anything constructive. We are
still waiting for the great works of art, BTW....
> Yet, incredibly, this guy still thinks it's ok to respond to, and
> engage in dialog with people he has spoken to like this.
>
> And, guess what, this guy is art school teacher. This type of
Uh-oh, did you make a grammatical error? seems like you need an English
course yerself...
> offensive obtuse behavior and stupidity is typical of his ilk. Mattila
> is so stupid he hasn't figured out when to go away, or maybe he has
> and won't, which makes him sadistic. Avoiding people like this is one
> good reason for not going to art school not attributable to laziness.
> So let's dispense with that readimade rationale for the conduct of
> anyone you don't like.
>
> Finally, your draftsmanship may be cute from the standpoint of
> cartoons, but it doesn't set the world on fire.
>
No, it smolders. Much more interesting :) (Watch those drapes though..)
Chris
Mani Deli
<emat...@oco.net> wrote:
>DNALJM wrote:
>> Primer on post-modern [SUCK] art/artifacts
>>
>> "artspeak": Can be used to defend any of the above. The point of artspeak
>> is to make the marginal monumental, the obvious obtuse, and the cheap and quick
>> monumental and sustaining. snip--
>
>That's complete nonsense, Jane. The point of "artspeak", as you use the
>term, is to create "value" for a particularly work of art, style of art,
>and so on, and it's trajectory aims at the market (considering that art
>criticism, theory, history and production conjoin into one grand social
>machine, which we might call "the art world."
Jane is describing the point of what for a nit picker like you should
be called Modern Artspeak.
It is the job of the modern academic art critic by means of Artspeak
to:
-make stupidity seem profound
-make incompetence seem philosophical
-excuse mediocrity by claiming it is something utterly creative and
new
The major rules for writing Artspeak are roughly speaking:
--use at least two hundred words where you could have used ten.
---use obscure terms especially when writing esoteric theory.
---when stating your subjective opinion make it sound like it is
universally accepted as unquestionable truth.
---drop names of famous people wherever possible. This advertises that
you are well read.
--humor should sound obscure, even grave. (Later modern Artspeak does
contain a bit of humor.)
---when writing a long statement that means practically nothing, use
your skills to construct it in such a way that it never occurs to
your reader to analyze it.
"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are
conservative." -John Stuart Mill
Tired of Modern Art? check
http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
Mani Deli
> I certianly wouldn't mind if everyone were skilled, I don't think that
>using people who totally lack any skill to make my own efforts look better is
>necessary. Everyone who becomes a doctor has a high level of skill in
>chemistry, anatomy, and pathology, but it doesn't demean my estimation of them
>because there isn't a group of doctors running around who suck.
There are. Someone has an appointment with the wold's worst doctor,
tomorrow.
> I would like to get better prices but charging thousands of dollars for a
>painting is kind of obscene I think.
>
Why?
>>Not a strong argument, Jane. Why not just write "crapceptual" without
>>any commentary on the category?
>
> Joseph Beuys was a great artist IMO.
He's as phoney as what you complain about.
Lippy Zaner
>A couple
>of years ago I stumbled across a Barbie Doll Conservation web site.
God forbid we ever have an "intellectual"
discussion on "that" phenom! Talk about opening
Pandora's box...
Don't you know that there are certain women
who think they are the epitomy of Barbie?
And I'm sure there are probably men who
idolize Ken too - shudder at the thought!
I may have mentioned in this forum in the
past that I shared a 30 minute segment on
TV with Philip Glass, and a woman who painted
paintings in which she declared the "Barbie"
images to be self-portraits. My ten
minutes was in the middle of those two extremes!
Erik A. Mattila
Mani Deli wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 10:42:36 -0800, "Erik A. Mattila"
> <emat...@oco.net> wrote:
Yes, Mani, we're well aware of your views on "artspeak" - for several
years now. I'm happy to see your viewes have not changed.
Erik
Erik A. Mattila
Lippy Zaner wrote:
> In article <3FD62579...@oco.net>, emat...@oco.net says...
>
>
>>A couple
>>of years ago I stumbled across a Barbie Doll Conservation web site.
>
>
> God forbid we ever have an "intellectual"
> discussion on "that" phenom! Talk about opening
> Pandora's box...
You've caught my imagination, Jack. Let'er rip. (Ripper, Jack). But
seriously, the rubber these creatures are made from "weep" some sort of
toxic ooze over time, giving them blotches (kind of like old-age). I
was "on guard" when someone suggested soaking them in Johnny Walker
Black Label (which works wonders with my own blotches). Heheheh...an
ethnic "Scot" Barbie. I'm joking, of course. But they are serious
about it. I guess a 1950 #1 Pony Tail job is worth 5/10 grand today.
Spine chilling, ain't it?
> Don't you know that there are certain women
> who think they are the epitomy of Barbie?
> And I'm sure there are probably men who
> idolize Ken too - shudder at the thought!
Norman Mailer wrote a very interesting critique of "Playboy" several
years ago. Essentially, he was saying that "Playboy" asked its readers
to live their lives in the third-person singular, rather than the
first-person singular. The core problem with role models. You can
extend the same to Barbie fetishes, I suppose. Once again, life mimics
art, eh?
> I may have mentioned in this forum in the
> past that I shared a 30 minute segment on
> TV with Philip Glass, and a woman who painted
> paintings in which she declared the "Barbie"
> images to be self-portraits. My ten
> minutes was in the middle of those two extremes!
Let me guess, Jack. You played Yankee Doodle on the drums? Seriously
(again), I'm curious. What did you talk about?
Erik
>
>
Lauri Levanto
> It's all so ambiguous, anyway. I recall a manuscript from 4th Century
> Constantinople praising a new mosaic of the Virgin that had been placed
> in an Apse of Hagia Sophia. Words such as "The image is so real that
> you can feel the Virgin's breathe on your face as you look at it."
> What's strange is that the city was full of classical Greek and Roman
> art, with all that anatomical precision we see in that work - next to
> the clunky, almost cartoonish descriptive quality of a mosaic. So
> "artspeak" has always existed in a symboitic relation to the work of art.
>
> Erik
>
I'm not good in memorizing exact timings. maybe I'm wrong as usual
but isn't 4th century AD pretty close to hellenistic influence, especially
in Constantinopole and Near East. The mosaic art was lively
before Byzantic.
One must remember too that mosaic art provided much more vivid colors than were
possible
with paints of that era.
-lauri
Lippy Zaner
>Let me guess, Jack. You played Yankee Doodle on the drums? Seriously
>(again), I'm curious. What did you talk about?
>
>Erik
ART BEAT:
The PBS station in San Antonio carries (or carried)
a weekly half hour program on local arts events of
all kinds. Normal format was to allot ten minutes
to each "guest" or event. My ten minutes was devoted
to showing the works included in my forthcoming local
month-long exhibit with voice-overs by both the
interviewer and interviewee (me). Nothing very
earth shaking. But the program was very well done at
that time and an excellent way to gain local exposure.
Niall Smyth
Ahh I will check out rec arts fine,
Its been a year since I frequented it
Nice to see that the group has disapperared
up its own arse.
Perhaps a rename to arts.bitch.lip_service.tired_argument.not so fine
I used to view interesting threads about
styles, technique and other such,
Of course Mani Deli was always here
bitching about anyone, anything and everything
and now he has an army of stooges!
Bring Back Fox!
Niall
"Chris" <n...@this.address> wrote in message
news:6QqBb.1823$tk1.4...@news20.bellglobal.com...
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.550 / Virus Database: 342 - Release Date: 09/12/2003
Neil Maxwell
wrote:
>In article <3FD62579...@oco.net>, emat...@oco.net says...
>
>>A couple
>>of years ago I stumbled across a Barbie Doll Conservation web site.
>
>God forbid we ever have an "intellectual"
>discussion on "that" phenom! Talk about opening
>Pandora's box...
I went through a Barbie period (urgh! sounds messy!) where I put
together a number of assemblages and dioramas based on Barbies. Some
used Barbies as representations/models for other people, and others
were focused on some aspect of the Barbie essence. All were very
popular.
One plus of using Barbies is that they carry a lot of emotional and
conceptual baggage, both positive and negative, and it's easy to get a
response from just about anybody with a bit of inspiration and
perspiration. Some call it intellectually lazy, but I call it
standing on the shoulders of giants!
They're difficult material to work with, since few adhesives stick
well to them, and the soft plastic is not a stable base for much of
any colorant. Lots of diffusion and flex, and very poor lifetime for
hacks and mods, all related to the conservation issues Eric referred
to.
>Don't you know that there are certain women
>who think they are the epitomy of Barbie?
>And I'm sure there are probably men who
>idolize Ken too - shudder at the thought!
I knew a woman like this; the daughter of the girlfriend of my buddy.
She had actually been chosen as a spokes-Barbie by some industry
association, and briefly made quite a good living at it. She was very
into it, but it's the essence of 15 minutes of fame (and not even
under your own name!), since that pulchritudinous Barbieness is a
relatively short-lived thing.
Dilettante
>
> Basquiat slept in dumpters and spray painted on the sides of buildings
> and painted fleas on stacks of tires.
Since you can't judge a painting you attack a painter with a comment
like this. If you want to see a Basquiat:
http://www.broadartfoundation.org/collection/basquiat.html
Certainly you're not attacking me for
> drawing cartoons, are you?
>
You are the one who attacks others for their lack of draftsmanship,
yet this is what you produce.
> Jane
Dilettante
> did you let your emotions get the better of you?
> As I am sure you will admit, photography has not replaced fine art,
> and artists still require, amongst many skills, drawing.
> Why consider just Klee and Hoffmann rather than all the rest?
> Thur
I wonder if you really wanted to say this or did you let lack of
thought and hasty reading get the better, or the worse, of you. Next
time please try responding to what I said if you are going to respond
to me at all and not to what you think or wish I had said. And, no
realist drawing is no longer a requirement, which you might figure out
if you reviewed the last hundred years or so.
D
Dilettante
> On 9 Dec 2003 08:23:00 -0800, hu...@myself.com (Dilettante) wrote:
>
> >Dilettante
>
> Why does the image of an angry puppy attacking a pack of jackals come
> to mind?
Because you are a drunk. I was responding to only one jackal.
>
>
>
> Neil Maxwell - I don't speak for my employer
Because he wisely prohibits it.
D
Flying_Naked_People
neil.m...@nospam.intel.com says...
> I went through a Barbie period (urgh! sounds messy!)
>
Huh - I thought you were a GUY. (?)?)?)?)?)?)?)?)?)
Erik A. Mattila
Good call, Lauri. Hagia Sophia wasn't built until 532, so I'm at least
two centuries off the mark. But the point remains in tact: "reality" is
ambiguous and ideological. Good colors aside, there is no way you could
claim that a mosaic was "more realistic" than, say, a marble bust of
Constantine by our standards today.
But in my defense, there was a certain Chinese historian who would write
things like "Huang Le, who lived in the sixth century, or perhaps it was
the eighth century, or maybe the seventh, was known to....."
Erik
>
>
Neil Maxwell
furiously, then whined:
>Neil Maxwell <neil.m...@nospam.intel.com> wrote in message news:<1ndctvk6gr4p2228b...@4ax.com>...
>> On 9 Dec 2003 08:23:00 -0800, hu...@myself.com (Dilettante) wrote:
>>
>> >Dilettante
>>
>> Why does the image of an angry puppy attacking a pack of jackals come
>> to mind?
>
>Because you are a drunk. I was responding to only one jackal.
I ran this through my BowLingual (http://www.thedogtranslator.com),
and it came out "Yap! Yapyapyipyip! (SMACK!) whiiine..."
It's a wondrous device. Very useful on newsgroups.
Neil Maxwell
Diversity!
Lippy Zaner
http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl/email.htm says...
>Huh - I thought you were a GUY. (?)?)?)?)?)?)?)?)?)
What's being a "guy" got to do with anything
nowadays. Or being a "gal" for that matter.
That "guy" who just won the Turner prize comes
to mind. And you can take your pick of "gals"
who wear Jockey shorts and combat boots. Once
upon a time the USA could lay claim to being
a "melting pot." I think that term more aptly
applies to gender blending nowadays!
Hey, MY favorite color is PINK!
Lippy Zaner
>Good colors aside, there is no way you could
>claim that a mosaic was "more realistic" than, say, a marble bust of
>Constantine by our standards today.
Ohhhh, I don't know about that Eric.
I once had the good fortune to view some
truly outstanding mosaics in Sicily, at
an old Roman bath house that was undergoing
discovery/restoration. There in the tile
paving of the baths were these wondrous
nymphs - bath house girls? - in BIKINIS!
I'm not kidding. Bikinis were an invention
of Roman bath house girls! Of course they
couldn't hold "a candle" to the mosaic
depictions of oversized penises on men
that adorn some of those old Roman baths
and villas in places like Pompei! And who's
caring if it's a painted or mosaic depiction!!
G*rd*n
> ...
> She had actually been chosen as a spokes-Barbie by some industry
> association, and briefly made quite a good living at it. She was very
> into it, but it's the essence of 15 minutes of fame (and not even
> under your own name!), since that pulchritudinous Barbieness is a
> relatively short-lived thing.
Doesn't seem like true Barbieness to me, which has a very
strong dose of explicit artificiality -- a triumph of the
will, akin to the triumph of drag queens over nature.
So. I suppose they should hire drag queens (if they're
_good_) to represent Barbie.
--
(<><>) /*/
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
{ http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 1/19/03 <-adv't
DNALJM
>buildings
>> and painted fleas on stacks of tires.
>
>Since you can't judge a painting you attack a painter with a comment
>like this. If you want to see a Basquiat:
>http://www.broadartfoundation.org/collection/basquiat.html
>
You've totally missed my point: you attack me for producing cartoons and
being pedestrian but laude Basquiat, who also did pedestrian "lower" forms of
markmaking like spraypainting.
>Certainly you're not attacking me for
>> drawing cartoons, are you?
>>
>
>You are the one who attacks others for their lack of draftsmanship,
>yet this is what you produce.
>
To reduce something to black and white is to make some very careful
editing decisions; sometimes you can bluff on drawing and anatomy with a
painting but it will become painfully obvious if you try it with a drawing.
You must follow the form exactly. I'm not one of the people doing it best at
this time-but it is to my credit that it looks effortless.
Jane
http://www.geocities.com/teslathemothgod
Neil Maxwell
>Neil Maxwell <neil.m...@nospam.intel.com>:
>> ...
>> I knew a woman like this; the daughter of the girlfriend of my buddy.
>> She had actually been chosen as a spokes-Barbie by some industry
>> association, and briefly made quite a good living at it. She was very
>> into it, but it's the essence of 15 minutes of fame (and not even
>> under your own name!), since that pulchritudinous Barbieness is a
>> relatively short-lived thing.
>> ...
>
>Doesn't seem like true Barbieness to me, which has a very
>strong dose of explicit artificiality -- a triumph of the
>will, akin to the triumph of drag queens over nature.
Ah! You're looking more deeply than official Barbiedom is willing to.
They're interested in the surface, the first impression, the top
layer, and it has to be stable, which is why these women are
interchangeable. They are the mirror of their symbol - they don't
want critical thought, only admiration. The 6 am stubble of even the
prettiest drag queen is not an acceptable alternative.
When it comes to culture hacking as art, the real challenge in
deconstructing Barbie becomes where to stop, rather than where to
start.
>So. I suppose they should hire drag queens (if they're
>_good_) to represent Barbie.
They don't have that much sense of humor or irony. That's also part
of their essence.
"A pedestal is as much a prison as any small space." - Gloria Steinem
G*rd*n
> ...
> of their essence.
Who, drag queens, Barbies, or Mattel?
Neil Maxwell
>Neil Maxwell <neil.m...@nospam.intel.com>:
>> ...
>> They don't have that much sense of humor or irony. That's also part
>> of their essence.
>> ...
>
>Who, drag queens, Barbies, or Mattel?
Mattel and their corporate minions, of course. All the drag queens I
know have fine senses of both humor and irony; it seems to go with the
turf.
Barbie's always got that little smile, but I don't know if she's
laughing at us or with us.
http://www.markryden.com/paintings/one/barbie.html
Lippy Zaner
neil.m...@nospam.intel.com says...
>Barbie's always got that little smile, but I don't know if she's
>laughing at us or with us.
Groan! What ever happened to Mrs. Cabbage Patch?
Or Raggedy Ann, for that matter?
Or even better, those inflatable 'women?'
Neil Maxwell
wrote:
>In article <olshtvsvrd4o0p7vi...@4ax.com>,
21st century, dude!
Ewart Shaw
...
> be called Modern Artspeak.
>
> It is the job of the modern academic art critic by means of Artspeak
> to:
>
> -make stupidity seem profound
> -make incompetence seem philosophical
> -excuse mediocrity by claiming it is something utterly creative and
> new
>
> The major rules for writing Artspeak are roughly speaking:
>
> --use at least two hundred words where you could have used ten.
> universally accepted as unquestionable truth.
> ---drop names of famous people wherever possible. This advertises that
> you are well read.
> --humor should sound obscure, even grave. (Later modern Artspeak does
> contain a bit of humor.)
> your skills to construct it in such a way that it never occurs toÂÂ
> your reader to analyze it.
>
>
> "Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are
> conservative." -John Stuart Mill
>
> Tired of Modern Art? check
> http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
It occurred to me to analyse the obscure humour in the above subjective
opinions. Bonus points for having read John Stuart Mill (or at least
a dictionary of quotations), but unfortunately your essay barely reached
150 words. No verbosity no artspeak. Must try harder - grade B+.
Happy Christmas.
-- Ewart Shaw.
NightMist
Or alternatively for those who are nervous around women:
http://www.paramountpleasures.co.uk/ms_eva.html
Barbara
--
My karma ran over my dogma
max
C. Zun Skretene
says...
>That's baaaad!
>
>max
Reminds me of an old joke.
Farmer to hired hand: Don't plow under that tree. It's sacred to me.
Hired hand: Okay, but can you tell me why?
Farmer: Because I got my first piece of ass under that tree
while the mother stood there watching us.
Hired hand: She did? What did she say?
Farmer: (you guessed it) "Baaaaaaa!"