Surreal Awe - ANGRY RESPONSE
Noumenon
> Plagiarism more like Dodge keep it up, at least it's original!
Originality in art is the lowest priority of all - in true art.
It's a pathetic argument pulled for and by good-fo-nothing people, neither
knowledgeble no skillfull.
Finger painting (with faeces) and pissing at work for original patterns in
fresh paint
(like Pollock did, for example) can be regarded as damn original approach!
For example, I have seen pieces of pork lard glued to canvases - they slowly
melted and stunk.
Huray! - what an original art! Very fresh look (not to say about fresh
odour)!
Very b-b-b-i-ggggg idea was hidden in it, no doubt, I could feel it!...
I just fail(ed) to see ART in it. Because there isn't any.
-+- Usually it looks like this:
No ideas, no conceptions (and no skills to deliver them), zero knowledge and
a huge abyss of ignorance (amply compensated by huge pile of arrogance and
groundless mabitions), and (probably) slight touch of wacky madness - these
are features of a typical looser striving to be "original" (yeah, yeah!) and
producing worthless "art".
Usually it is just a deplorable agony to be "original" - but cheap buffonery
as a result...
---------------------------
> Guessing that you are not that old, more to come and develope your style. Very much
> looking forward to more of your work.
It's NOT my work, I just posted link to the web site.
---------------------------
Weaving the Conundrum
-=| NOUMENON |=-
Noumenon
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com
Think of it this way.
Some young - superior intelligent - child art lovers - mistook your posting
as an example of your work and proceeded to complement you on being a
leading edge artist.
They even assume your youth and look foreword to viewing your future work.
This is a con-artist's dream come true.
If you lived in Toronto you could photograph the piles of garbage - before
the strike ends - or - grab some of the rotting garbage - put it in shadow
boxes with backgrounds of expensive leather - take photographs of it and
open an exhibition of your work.
You can say it exemplifies our wasteful society - we kill animals - we kill
plants - we kill the land - we kill the air - we kill the water - we kill
everything before us. You could include a poison water fountain as part of
your exhibit. You could add canned rotting garbage air from the Toronto
garbage strike of 2002
Just to show you how kind and benevolent a person I am - I won't charge you
for these ideas.
You have to act quickly before the strike ends.
keith (winner of the Mani Artspeak Award)
Noumenon <ArtE...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:3D2913E7...@concentric.net...
mdeli
>keith (winner of the Mani Artspeak Award)
Come off it Keith, you never got an Artspeak award from me. Your
Artspeak is as pathetic as your artwork. I'll rate you according to
the rules using the art school grades you are accustomed to and add
some helpful hints.
It is the job of the modern art critic by means of Artspeak is to:
-make stupidity seem profound
(F) -Although you write a noticeable amount of stupidity, it is so
convoluted that I never noticed anything that seemed make it sound
profound.
-make incompetence seem philosophical
(F)
-excuse mediocrity by claiming it is something utterly new
(incomplete)
The major rules for writing Artspeak are roughly speaking:
--use at least two hundred words where you could have used ten.
(C) At least you try.
---use obscure terms especially when writing esoteric theory.
(F) Read the dictionary.
---when stating your subjective opinion make it sound like it is
universally accepted as unquestionable truth.
(F) Check out Strickland for some hints.
---drop names of famous people wherever possible. This advertises that
you are well read.
(F) Try mentioning James Joyce, Gertrude Stein, Rilke, Heidigger and
Hegel for starters. I'm sure this will improve your grades.
--humor should sound obscure, even grave. (Later modern Artspeak does
contain a bit of humor.)
(C) Read more Duchamp and Post Modern Doubletalk.
---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.
(F) Can't help you on this one.
For general improvement in Modern Academic Artspeak subscribe to
Artforum magazine and read it religiously. Although you might feel
that I'm slightly condescending about your Artspeak I'm hope you will
appreciate my helpful hints which should improve your grades in this
matter with some effort on your part.
Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com
award that you posted to this news group but, I will not let your hog town
manners affect my balanced view.
After a profound review of your writings I have come to the conclusion that
your artspeak theory is wrong.
I present to you my artspeak theory which I call keith-speak - the correct
theory - not the irrational gobble gook that you preach.
It is:
Make the profound seem stupid (you're better than the real thinkers)
Make the philosophical incompetent ( you're also better than them)
Claim the utterly new to be mediocre (that way your above it and better than
them)
Use 10 words where 200 would make sense.(keep it simple)
Use simple terms to explain the unexplainable (can't be explained anyway)
When stating unquestionable truth make it subjective (in case it's wrong)
Don't name drop - (makes you sound like that's all you know)
Add humour to your artspeak (gives it the new folksy appeal)
Read Dilbert to understand the world of art
When writing a long 10,000 word statement write it in point form (makes it
impressive)
Subscribe to : Dilbert and the Darwin awards for ideas
Since I am a man of integrity - as opposed to yourself , who gives and takes
away - I will, with much sadness, return your artspeak award - which, I
will always remember you having given me in a posting above - and to show
that I hold no grudges I will accept in it's place your artspeak failure
award.
keith (winner of the mani artspeak failure award) and (inventor of
keith-speak)
mdeli <n...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:3d29b9d4...@news1.on.sympatico.ca...
mdeli
Most locations here exhibit some of the finest museum quality
Installations I have yet seen. Toronto is at this evocative moment an
Installation experience accompanied by an occasional "Happening."
Inspiration, self-expression, sensibility, tension and compression,
juxtaposition!
Calling it a garbage strike is nothing more than a blatant
misunderstanding of the Language of Modern Art, an insult to anyone
with artistic abilities.
I suggest that Welch and Raimes our installation mavens get here
immediately if not sooner..
A REVIEW OF THE SHOW.
The Toronto Installation exhibition brings to resolution strenuous
doing and undoing, while displaying a density of reference more often
encountered in poetry. Measuring approximately the size of the city it
is small by comparison to today's standards but conforming to the
conception of aesthetic space the work is eternally limitless. Its
shapes, crowding invention and effluvial inspiration confine
themselves to the city surface or recede behind it and carry on a
continual delving or "excavating" as the self expression edges into
itself.
Rimbaud believed that he could evoke new flowers , new stars, new
flesh out of his sorcery of vowels and consonants. By an analogous
magic this installation willed the spontaneous manifestation of all
man through the discharges of waste and energy.
Precisely at this point this particular installation moved to
dissociate itself from pure abstraction to formulate the conviction
that the glory of western art lay in its physicality, human gesture
and carries us back to the primitive root of the symbolism of
Mallarme'.
In the efforts of purists to liberate garbage to what it can
theoretically be we detect a kernel of tyranny. Thus an installation
can become an ideal reality on the basis of which an aesthetic can be
formulated in advance of the garbage itself. The result is to make the
creation subservient to theory. Let us denounce both mathematics and
theosophy in art and pledge ourselves to discards and concrete. With a
deep respect for the corporeal, for the fact, for the instant, let us
not just romanticize the gutter but let its attributes connect us with
the vulgarity of flesh in its tension, compression and vigorous
polemic juxtaposition. Etc.
To all the philistines here I offer the immortal words of Strickland,
"Prove it isn't art."
Lets hope it doesn't turn into a Biennale.
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com
You are the master of artspeak
keith (the artspeak failure)
mdeli <n...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:3d29e8cf...@news1.on.sympatico.ca...
Brandon Freels
little, especially those held within the realm of artism (the commodifying
museum/gallery system where aesthetic snobbery meets bourgeois elitism).
If you're truly tired of modern art, why do you continue to play the game?
The problem with "modern art" is attached to the system/game that governs
it. If you're truly tired of modern art subvert the art community.
After looking over your website I find much of your opinions to be
counter-revolutionary, and elitist: "And I regard anyone claiming to produce
artwork whose product shows that he lacks fundamental artistic skills (no
matter how brilliant at other things) as a STUPID ARTIST." You appear to be
just another conservative fundementalist posing as a radical reformist,
throwing out ideas of good and evil in support of so-called art specialists.
"mdeli" <n...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:3d29e8cf...@news1.on.sympatico.ca...
john adams
point. It isn't really that art should be the declared mortal enemy, but our own conceptions of
it that hold it captive to its more infantile states. At its best we may find great joy, liberation and beauty
at its creation, inspiration and provocation in its communication. I don't think you would disagree
with that, however the anti-art wording might need to be somewhat re-calculated in order to express
your intentions better, without giving the wrong impression. Unless you feel artist creation is really that
useless.
-john
"Brandon Freels" <brandon...@aaahawk.com> wrote in message news:agd0o6$flu$1...@news.chatlink.com...
Brandon Freels
I have nothing against the art object and don't see it as the "mortal
enemy". I just feel its important to keep the art object away from the
gilded pedestal. Its the creative process that's important, and the
socially-conditioned "skills" (that mdeli and aesthetic elitists support)
are the enemy of true, untainted creativity. The discharge is secondary, and
the only use of exhibiting the discharge is to find others who share the
same creative impulses as you.
Andrew D
<brandon...@aaahawk.com> wrote:
+Yeah, John, to re-word/re-calc:
+
+I have nothing against the art object and don't see it as the "mortal
+enemy". I just feel its important to keep the art object away from the
+gilded pedestal. Its the creative process that's important, and the
+socially-conditioned "skills" (that mdeli and aesthetic elitists support)
+are the enemy of true, untainted creativity. The discharge is secondary, and
+the only use of exhibiting the discharge is to find others who share the
+same creative impulses as you.
So would you apply this same logic to all creative work - even writing?
Presumably, you would consider any writing constrained by
socially-conditioned "skills" like spelling, grammar, syntax or semantics,
to be elitist writing and unable to qualify as "great"? In that case, I
offer the following for your edification and critique:
sSs34454d sddff77 ddtssf摧牬叴叴创轄櫒悹弿煙td焔r┅,, ;;"dfd?;;[{ fasdf
dasfasd
fasdfddtg tryghghtyugg bb
gyhyyuyggd12123343346435rgwrty346765tyhdrghghrthgfsdgsgfgdgdfgsdfgegf
fghsertghsdfgdrthghgjrエ柈澯斵ù記釉潹枿記釉釉暃釉佑蜗浲敍臀嫌窉钒枙ㄔ釉聴帳鸥426937洈挝锨鬃椏槸聴�
I hope you can understand what I was attempting to say. If not, then
please feel free to interpret it as you choose. Believe me, I was writing
with a great deal of conviction. I honestly believe it is my most
creative piece to date - it is certainly a new avenue for me. I will also
point out that it bears some superficial resemblance to a work my two year
old created when she was allowed near the keyboard one day (not that I
seek to influence your assessment). Oh and yes, it is copyright.
My apologies for using a lot of traditional Arabic charcters and the
occasional use of conventional word spacing and carriage returns, but
keyboards are so limiting when you're trying to write creatively. I tried
to write outside the bounds of the text screen, but that proved impossible
as the words always wrapped to the next line. I hope this doesn't reduce
your enjoyment too much.
My apologies also for writing everything else in a conventional style, but
there are so many Philistines on this group that I felt I had to include
something they could understand - if only to prove that I do have some
skill and knowledge and that my creative work was a result of choice, not
ignorance.
Andy D. (or WW#5466dswitdddn if you prefer)
"I'm a great speller - but a hopless tpyist!"
mdeli
>Mani you disappoint me. I thought you had integrity - you're denying me my
>award that you posted to this news group but, I will not let your hog town
>manners affect my balanced view.
Keith, I never offered you an award of any sort. However, I can well
understand why you are disappointed and you have my deepest sympathy.
>keith (winner of the mani artspeak failure award) and (inventor of
>keith-speak)
Nor are you competent enough to even be considered for the far higher
Artspeak Failure Award; an award which I have yet to part with.
However, if you make an effort and show me proof that you have taken
a University Artspeak course and manage to write a 10,000 word
desertation which Dan Fox would consider acceptable, I can offer you
the possibility of a booby prize.
For a large fee I can teach you how to write acceptable Artspeak in
one easy lesson. For a smaller fee I will ghost write Artspeak of any
length which I guarantee will impress your friends.
Brandon Freels
> So would you apply this same logic to all creative work - even writing?
Yes.
> Presumably, you would consider any writing constrained by
> socially-conditioned "skills" like spelling, grammar, syntax or semantics,
> to be elitist writing and unable to qualify as "great"?
Sorry, I don't make such judgements as "good" or "bad". I simply don't care
enough. I only know what I like. But, as surrealist art goes, creation is an
art of dialogue within the self, so it needs some kind of language, but this
poetic language of the mind works on a very loose template with very few
rules. If we all wrote like we were taught to in grammar school (with all
its surplus repressions) this world would be an extremely boring place. This
internal dialogue, the driving force for surrealist creation, should be able
to develop free from the interference of cultural bullshit and overkill, so
that desire can speak freely. Anything less is internal censorship.
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com
thought that discourages compliance with the traditional social system as
threatening the entire social system; human beings after all were born to
obey the rules of the social system.
Brandon on the other hand displays the traditional Celtic individualism of
the free thinker who believes that rules are made to support freedom.
I admit that coming from a Celtic tradition does bias my choice between the
two. Give me freedom or give me death is the romantic battle cry of my soul.
keith
Andrew D <right@the_end.of.my_tether> wrote in message
news:right-09070...@i204-123.nv.iinet.net.au...
> In article <agd5ts$6q7$1...@news.chatlink.com>, "Brandon Freels"
> <brandon...@aaahawk.com> wrote:
>
> +Yeah, John, to re-word/re-calc:
> +
> +I have nothing against the art object and don't see it as the "mortal
> +enemy". I just feel its important to keep the art object away from the
> +gilded pedestal. Its the creative process that's important, and the
> +socially-conditioned "skills" (that mdeli and aesthetic elitists support)
> +are the enemy of true, untainted creativity. The discharge is secondary,
and
> +the only use of exhibiting the discharge is to find others who share the
> +same creative impulses as you.
>
> So would you apply this same logic to all creative work - even writing?
>
> Presumably, you would consider any writing constrained by
> socially-conditioned "skills" like spelling, grammar, syntax or semantics,
> to be elitist writing and unable to qualify as "great"? In that case, I
> offer the following for your edification and critique:
>
> sSs34454d sddff77 ddtssfЄщ Є.Є.ЄЄЄщ T╗░ ▐▐YYtdYgr╘╘,, ;;"dfd?;;[{ fasdf
> dasfasd
> fasdfddtg tryghghtyugg bb
> gyhyyuyggd12123343346435rgwrty346765tyhdrghghrthgfsdgsgfgdgdfgsdfgegf
>
fghsertghsdfgdrthghgjr╔╗-ў²с"ч╗ЄЧас>ст²╗-╗с>стст.>стссно>м">мносЇ'Ї╟-.╗тстб-
Zєе╦426937>"нногвв-©~╞б-╦
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com
keith
mdeli <n...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:3d2a5fcd...@news1.on.sympatico.ca...
mdeli
>Well done. Mani, you are indeed the king of artspeak (or the queen, since
>we know neither your gender nor sexual preference). I'm sure the editor of
>Artforum will be calling you soon. We can say we knew you when.
I'm delighted that you at least recognize one of my talents. You may
think that I picked this up after by reading about forty years of
Artspeak babble by your favorites. However, I really learned the
fundamentals by sneaking into the advanced Artspeak class at the
Bauhaus Academy which expelled me for this and many other reasons.
I would have asked you to refer me to Artforum but I realize that you
don't have the necessary clout.
Andrew D
[snip
+Andrew D <right@the_end.of.my_tether> wrote in message
+news:right-09070...@i204-123.nv.iinet.net.au...
+> In article <agd5ts$6q7$1...@news.chatlink.com>, "Brandon Freels"
+> <brandon...@aaahawk.com> wrote:
+>
+> +Yeah, John, to re-word/re-calc:
+> +
+> +I have nothing against the art object and don't see it as the "mortal
+> +enemy". I just feel its important to keep the art object away from the
+> +gilded pedestal. Its the creative process that's important, and the
+> +socially-conditioned "skills" (that mdeli and aesthetic elitists support)
+> +are the enemy of true, untainted creativity. The discharge is secondary,
+and
+> +the only use of exhibiting the discharge is to find others who share the
+> +same creative impulses as you.
+>
+> So would you apply this same logic to all creative work - even writing?
+>
+> Presumably, you would consider any writing constrained by
+> socially-conditioned "skills" like spelling, grammar, syntax or semantics,
+> to be elitist writing and unable to qualify as "great"? In that case, I
+> offer the following for your edification and critique:
+>
+> sSs34454d sddff77 ddtssfЄщ Є.Є.ЄЄЄщ T╗░ ▐▐YYtdYgr╘╘,, ;;"dfd?;;[{ fasdf
+> dasfasd
+> fasdfddtg tryghghtyugg bb
+> gyhyyuyggd12123343346435rgwrty346765tyhdrghghrthgfsdgsgfgdgdfgsdfgegf
+>
+fghsertghsdfgdrthghgjr╔╗-ў²с"ч╗ЄЧас>ст²╗-╗с>стст.>стссно>м">мносЇ'Ї╟-.╗тстб-
+Zєе╦426937>"нногвв-©~╞б-╦
+>
+> I hope you can understand what I was attempting to say. If not, then
+> please feel free to interpret it as you choose. Believe me, I was writing
+> with a great deal of conviction. I honestly believe it is my most
+> creative piece to date - it is certainly a new avenue for me. I will also
+> point out that it bears some superficial resemblance to a work my two year
+> old created when she was allowed near the keyboard one day (not that I
+> seek to influence your assessment). Oh and yes, it is copyright.
+>
+> My apologies for using a lot of traditional Arabic charcters and the
+> occasional use of conventional word spacing and carriage returns, but
+> keyboards are so limiting when you're trying to write creatively. I tried
+> to write outside the bounds of the text screen, but that proved impossible
+> as the words always wrapped to the next line. I hope this doesn't reduce
+> your enjoyment too much.
+>
+> My apologies also for writing everything else in a conventional style, but
+> there are so many Philistines on this group that I felt I had to include
+> something they could understand - if only to prove that I do have some
+> skill and knowledge and that my creative work was a result of choice, not
+> ignorance.
+I don't think this argument is ever going to resolve itself.
Not if you refuse to answer questions it won't. One day you're telling one
person they need to learn more about composition, the next you're saying
adults are too stifled by rules and that kids are the only ones who truly
understand creative freedom. Make your mind up. Surely adult concepts of
composition are exactly the same as demands for colouring within the
lines.
+Andrew sees any
+thought that discourages compliance with the traditional social system as
+threatening the entire social system; human beings after all were born to
+obey the rules of the social system.
I ask a question or two - and you decide it's easier to categorise me than
help me out.
Again. Do the rules of spelling, syntax, grammar or semantics apply to
creative writing or do children write better than rule-stifled, forgetful
adults?
Elsewhere you said I should learn to play. Well, I played above and sought
your input - something you're normally eager to give - but you ignored it.
Thanks. You don't have to like it, but I'd appreciate your critical
analysis (see I do pay attention) of it.
+Brandon on the other hand displays the traditional Celtic individualism of
+the free thinker who believes that rules are made to support freedom.
+I admit that coming from a Celtic tradition does bias my choice between the
+two. Give me freedom or give me death is the romantic battle cry of my soul.
But you can't/won't answer my questions.
Andy D.
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com
me are aware that in my mind today's reality is not tomorrows. My ideas are
constantly in a state of flux from minute to minute day to day etc. Friends
have told me that they could not live in such a state of uncertainty - they
need the security of believing in one thing.
With that in mind I will continue to babble on.
Above all else art is essentially a system of relationships. That idea has
been consistent in my mind for decades. If you accept that premise it
becomes a matter of defining those relationships.
Relationships can be seen in the tectonic forces that shape the earth in
bent twisted broken exposed rock formations. The clouds that wind pulls and
pushes across the sky creates tears in the clouds that the eye can link up
into a related system of shapes that contain aspects that are both similar
and different.
Thus related shapes have been formed into patterns by the earth's natural
forces. When we look at nature we recognise these natural patterns. We
imitate these patterns in constructing artworks that depend upon nature for
source material. This is where the problem begins.
Is absolute imitation of nature the goal of art?
If you say yes then you belong to the imitative school and that's the end of
our discussion.
If you say no then you take the position that not only can nature create
patterns but artists can also create patterns.
But the problem does not end here because you can make a rule that the
artist's patterns must appear to look like natures. This allows the artist a
bit more creative freedom. You will note that I take the position that human
beings in a position of power can make rules that are imposed on others and
that becomes a form of reality.
Some artists will require more creative freedom and break out of the imposed
constraints. This results in the creation of patterns that do not have the
appearance of nature's patterns but those more abstract patterns exist in
nature hidden from the average viewer.
I am getting tired - it's late so I will raise the following point:
I include medieval painting in the category of objects titled art. Remember
that medieval painting does not include the so called scientific theories of
perspective, lighting, anatomy etc.
If you agree with my argument to this point let me know and I will continue
other wise it is pointless for me to go on. I am off to bed.
I will try getting back to this today but tomorrow is my day at the National
Gallery and Friday I am leaving for the weekend so it may be next week
before I get back to this posting. But if you disagree with my argument my
posting ends here so let me know - you can send an email.
(good night) keith
Andrew D <right@the_end.of.my_tether> wrote in message
news:right-10070...@i172-053.nv.iinet.net.au...
Andrew D
+I agree that what I say may be interpreted a inconsistent
"Interpreted"??? One day you say "learn composition" and the next you say
"rules stifle creativity" and you think it requires interpretation to see
the inconsistency??? All it needs is a basic understasnding of English.
+ - people who know
+me are aware that in my mind today's reality is not tomorrows. My ideas are
+constantly in a state of flux from minute to minute day to day etc. Friends
+have told me that they could not live in such a state of uncertainty - they
+need the security of believing in one thing.
Then perhaps you should not preach your beliefs so dogmatically. And if
you aren't even sure if you believe your own beliefs, then stop dismissing
or labelling others who dare to question you about them.
+With that in mind I will continue to babble on.
[snip]
And so you did. But you didn't answer any of my questions so please do
continue and I'll see if I can find the answers as you procede.
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com
questions in my statements. Your kidding.
Oh Andy do you think I have the right ideas - please tell me where I am
wrong.
Ha Ha Ha Ha
that will be a frosty Friday you fucking idiot (keith)
Andrew D <right@the_end.of.my_tether> wrote in message
news:right-11070...@i160-006.nv.iinet.net.au...
Morpheal
All of Toronto is one massive installation.
Nothing ever happens there, purely by chance.
R.M.