hi there to all
John Deal
I am John Deal
here is my web site
www3.sympatico.ca/mrdeal
I am the director of a gallery in Hamilton, Ontario Canada
here is the gallery's web site
www.geocities.com/gagthegallery
Please feel free to paruse these sites.
I am constantly accepting proposals for exhibitions
and applications for studio space
If you live in the Hamilton or Toronto area, please stop by
our next exhibition will be
Education Imitates Art
artwork by the John Howard Society, Youth Services Canada participants
May 23rd from 7pm to 11pm
thanks
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.476 / Virus Database: 273 - Release Date: 4/24/03
Paul Mesken
wrote:
>I would like to introduce myself
>I am John Deal
>here is my web site
>www3.sympatico.ca/mrdeal
"The web site you are trying to access has exceeded its allocated data
transfer."
YAHOOOOOOO!!!!!
Dr. Slick
> I would like to introduce myself
> I am John Deal
> here is my web site
> www3.sympatico.ca/mrdeal
> I am the director of a gallery in Hamilton, Ontario Canada
> here is the gallery's web site
> www.geocities.com/gagthegallery
I like the one painting that says: "I Want a Million Dollars for this
Painting!"
Great! So would i!
Paul Mesken
Ofcourse you have to be dead before people are willing to pay such a
sum for your work :-) I don't know of any _living_ painters who get a
million for a painting. OTOH I do know of a lot of dead painters whose
work does several millions.
Dr. Slick
> >
> > I like the one painting that says: "I Want a Million Dollars for this
> >Painting!"
> >
> > Great! So would i!
>
> Ofcourse you have to be dead before people are willing to pay such a
> sum for your work :-) I don't know of any _living_ painters who get a
> million for a painting. OTOH I do know of a lot of dead painters whose
> work does several millions.
Of course, people don't appreciated you until after you are gone.
Andy Warhol once made the record for the highest paid sum for a
work of art by a LIVING artist...I forget the actual sum, but it was
up there. I don't know if anyone has broken his record.
Hey, an unknown like me would be ecstatic to get 10k for one of
their works... you don't have to even get close to a Mil!
The point is that it's a bit funny when ultra-rich people spend so
much money on a painting. To be able to throw a million dollars or
two at a painting borders on the ridiculous...but it would be
something to brag about if you had the fu**ing Mona Lisa hanging in
your living room! ha!
I remember wondering why the poorer citizens of Thailand didn't
seem bitter about all the comparatively richer foreigners who visited
their country...and then it hit me: They are actually laughing at the
rich visitors who spend ridiculously inflated prices for beer, food,
hotels, and souvenirs. And they are usually making money off the
tourism too, so they just snicker to themselves.
In a similar way, me as a poor person who cannot spend $950,000 on
a single painting, am laughing in the same way at those who can afford
to throw that kind of money around.
People buy art for different reasons... but if it's a way to
display wealth and show-off that you can out-bid everyone else, that's
a joke to me. Investment purposes is more understandable, but if i
could ever treat a million dollars like spare change in my pocket...
I'm still gonna buy a painting with it only if i really love the art.
But it's still funny to blatantly ask for a million right on the
canvas!
Dr. Slick
Hans Awn
says...
>I don't know of any _living_ painters who get a
>million for a painting.
You're referring to USA dollars? Or Euros?
Say this slowly - J-a-s-p-e-r J-o-h-n-s. The
highest paid 'living' artist, to my knowledge.
And there are certainly onthers who have
commanded comparable prices, if you consider
the overall 'art' scene. Dale Chihuly comes
immediately to mind. I wonder if there is
any definitive info on a web site somewhere
about the subject? I know there was an
article not too long ago about auction prices
for 'living artists' and although I don't
recall the highest priced ones, they were
up there close to - if not over - the
million USA dollar mark.
Paul Mesken
>In article <ham9cvsl6kabdi2h6...@4ax.com>, usu...@euronet.nl
>says...
>
>>I don't know of any _living_ painters who get a
>>million for a painting.
>
>You're referring to USA dollars? Or Euros?
They're worth about the same :-)
>Say this slowly - J-a-s-p-e-r J-o-h-n-s. The
>highest paid 'living' artist, to my knowledge.
The "flag" guy. A lot of his work is mostly schmiers of paint though.
I guess those abstract painters have better pr :-)
Paul Mesken
>Paul Mesken <usu...@euronet.nl> wrote in message news:<ham9cvsl6kabdi2h6...@4ax.com>...
>> >
>> > I like the one painting that says: "I Want a Million Dollars for this
>> >Painting!"
>> >
>> > Great! So would i!
>>
>> Ofcourse you have to be dead before people are willing to pay such a
>> sum for your work :-) I don't know of any _living_ painters who get a
>> million for a painting. OTOH I do know of a lot of dead painters whose
>> work does several millions.
>
>
> Of course, people don't appreciated you until after you are gone.
>
> Andy Warhol once made the record for the highest paid sum for a
>work of art by a LIVING artist...I forget the actual sum, but it was
>up there. I don't know if anyone has broken his record.
>
> Hey, an unknown like me would be ecstatic to get 10k for one of
>their works... you don't have to even get close to a Mil!
>
> The point is that it's a bit funny when ultra-rich people spend so
>much money on a painting. To be able to throw a million dollars or
>two at a painting borders on the ridiculous...but it would be
>something to brag about if you had the fu**ing Mona Lisa hanging in
>your living room! ha!
Personally I think it's an almost criminal waste of money. If I had a
million to throw at something then I would throw it at some schools in
Africa or something, take a photograph of the children getting a good
education there and hang it on my wall. Knowing that your money makes
a change for the better for people sure beats the mysterious smile of
the Mona Lisa :-)
There's ofcourse nothing wrong with being a mecenas but spending such
quantities of money at paintings of artists already gone serves no
purpose whatsoever (copyrights is a different story ofcourse :-)
> I remember wondering why the poorer citizens of Thailand didn't
>seem bitter about all the comparatively richer foreigners who visited
>their country...and then it hit me: They are actually laughing at the
>rich visitors who spend ridiculously inflated prices for beer, food,
>hotels, and souvenirs. And they are usually making money off the
>tourism too, so they just snicker to themselves.
That reminds me of the Masai in Africa (I think it was the Masai).
When the tourists come along they do their tribal dances and stuff but
at night they step in their cars and drive back to their air
conditioned homes :-)
> In a similar way, me as a poor person who cannot spend $950,000 on
>a single painting, am laughing in the same way at those who can afford
>to throw that kind of money around.
>
> People buy art for different reasons... but if it's a way to
>display wealth and show-off that you can out-bid everyone else, that's
>a joke to me.
No amount of money can ever make up for a disfunctional penis ;-)
>Investment purposes is more understandable, but if i
>could ever treat a million dollars like spare change in my pocket...
>I'm still gonna buy a painting with it only if i really love the art.
>
> But it's still funny to blatantly ask for a million right on the
>canvas!
Who knows? Perhaps a humorous millionaire completes the joke by
actually paying it ;-)
Hans Awn
says...
>The "flag" guy. A lot of his work is mostly schmiers of paint though.
>I guess those abstract painters have better pr :-)
Since no other critic has ever been able to
classify Johns's works, I certainly am not
about to try. But if you've never seen his
work up close and personal, you need to be
more reserved in forming an opinion. If you
HAVE seen a lot of his work, then you need
to let us know why you consider it abstract.
Abstract in what sense? 'Schmiers of paint'
is not a very succinct interpretation of
his works, IMO.
Paul Mesken
IMO it is mostly schmiers of paint (I do like his "flag" though) and I
don't have to travel all over the world to see his complete body of
work in person before I feel entitled to have an opinion about it.
All works of art can be called abstract and all work of arts can be
called realistic (even if it only expresses a color). The attribution
is given based upon convention and not formal definition.
To defends one's own opinion based on taste or the boundaries of a
slippery concept like "abstract" is merely an excercise in futility.
Moreover : I don't feel any urge to defend my own taste on someone
else's terms.
Mike Stengl
Abstract in the sense you must look at his work and wonder what the
f*** was this guy trying to do and then again to yourself, why the
f*** am I bothering to figure this sh** out? And then one recalls, OH,
cause he's rich and popular... Not my cup of tea. This is all of
course IMHO.
Hans Awn
eatn...@humboldt1.com says...
>Abstract in the sense you must look at his work and wonder what the
>f*** was this guy trying to do and then again to yourself, why the
>f*** am I bothering to figure this sh** out? And then one recalls, OH,
>cause he's rich and popular... Not my cup of tea. This is all of
>course IMHO.
You'll notice I have NOT given MY opinion of
Johns's work. It would be an exercise in
triviality for me to do so. He has made his
mark in Art History - writ HUGE - and it sure
wasn't due to anything I had to say about
his art.
Unlike so many who post to this forum, I try
to keep an open mind and learn when confronted
with someone like Johns. And I have learned to
appreciate all sorts of art that I personally
don't find 'my cuppa tea.' But I appreciate it
for what the artist accomplished or is accomplishing
in making a mark for themself in the world.
And while the non-at world berates these world
reknowned artists, I'm sure they simply laugh
themselves silly all the way to the bank.
Hans Awn
According to this article, Jasper Johns is now
a 'has-been' as the world's most expensive artist:
LONDON Gerhard Richter now stands as the world’s most expensive living artist,
a status confirmed and consecrated by the current retrospective at New York’s
Museum of Modern Art. Just as his reputation has risen steadily since he
arrived in West Germany in 1961, so has the value of his work, which with
barely a hiccup has climbed steadily: slowly at first, but then with a great
leap at the end of the 1990s. Today a major work can command over $9 million,
and MoMA itself recently spent some $15 million acquiring the October series.
You can read the full article at:
http://www.theartnewspaper.com/news/article.asp?idart=9091
Anyhow, I hope I've made my point in response to the
person who never heard of any living artist commanding
a 'million' (dollars, Euros, Yen...??) for their work.
Dr. Slick
> There's ofcourse nothing wrong with being a mecenas but spending such
> quantities of money at paintings of artists already gone serves no
> purpose whatsoever (copyrights is a different story ofcourse :-)
>
But it's funny that it does happen, and that kind of shows you
how fanatical the hype of the art world can be.
> >
> > People buy art for different reasons... but if it's a way to
> >display wealth and show-off that you can out-bid everyone else, that's
> >a joke to me.
>
> No amount of money can ever make up for a disfunctional penis ;-)
>
I would rather be poor with a large, functional penis, than rich
with
very small, always flacid genitalia! :^}
How could you enjoy the Mona Lisa hanging in your living room if
you couldn't bang gorgeous women while looking at it?
> >
> > But it's still funny to blatantly ask for a million right on the
> >canvas!
>
> Who knows? Perhaps a humorous millionaire completes the joke by
> actually paying it ;-)
That would be a really funny, but only slighty more so because
the artist isn't famous.
I'd love to find a rich art patron to crack jokes with....
DrSlick.org
Mike Stengl
> Johns's work. It would be an exercise in
> triviality for me to do so. He has made his
> mark in Art History - writ HUGE - and it sure
> wasn't due to anything I had to say about
> his art.
Most of what goes on in this forum with the exception of specific
information and experience shared, is an act of triviality. Let's face
it, every time someone, especially a person who creates art, looks at
anothers' creation it is automatically and systematically judged by
our minds. Whether you choose to voice your opinion or not is up to
you. I find it perfectly fair to talk about a successful person's work
than to criticize a nobody trying to find their way...
Unlike so many who post to this forum, I try
> to keep an open mind and learn when confronted
> with someone like Johns. And I have learned to
> appreciate all sorts of art that I personally
> don't find 'my cuppa tea.'
I enjoy many styles of painting, sculpture etc that is very different
from what I do just as I enjoy music from many different genres, but
within those styles and genres I find there is usually 90% garbage and
10% honest work. These breakdowns are found everywhere, politicians,
restaurants, movies, books, magazines, news sources...most of it is
crap and the little bit that is vital needs to be supported, the other
9/10ths you can do what you want with it. If you can look at the flag
guy's work and find something nutritive for your own work or life,
then hey that's great. I'd like to see it.
>But I appreciate it
> for what the artist accomplished or is accomplishing
> in making a mark for themself in the world.
Like Michael Jackson? He's apparently accomplished a lot...
> And while the non-at world berates these world
> reknowned artists, I'm sure they simply laugh
> themselves silly all the way to the bank.
And that's why I can criticize their work. I'm not talking sour
grapes: they're successful, look at me and how hard I've worked; hell,
that's the luck of the draw if you ask me. They've got the lime light
and some times it shows the warts or the make up that has been applied
too thickly...
Lauren Foster-MacLeod
>
> I enjoy many styles of painting, sculpture etc that is very different
> from what I do just as I enjoy music from many different genres, but
> within those styles and genres I find there is usually 90% garbage and
> 10% honest work. These breakdowns are found everywhere, politicians,
> restaurants, movies, books, magazines, news sources...most of it is
> crap and the little bit that is vital needs to be supported, the other
> 9/10ths you can do what you want with it. If you can look at the flag
> guy's work and find something nutritive for your own work or life,
> then hey that's great. I'd like to see it.
I have come to the conclusion that I am entitled to my own opinion about
art. I'm ready to look at anything, but it either works for me or it
doesn't. What I like best are pieces that really excite and influence me.
I like to think, "now, that's a great way that the artist did that...."
But, if a piece or body of artwork does nothing for me, I'm not going to
say that it's crap, but rather, it's just not my cup of tea, but perhaps
it turns someone else's crank. I think that's fair.
I attended artschool back in the '70's, when a lot of art was backed up by
lots of talk and "philosophy." To become a successful artist, it helped to
be articulate. I think that this is reality for doing well in the art
world, even today; perhaps, esp. today.
As for Jasper Johns and his flag paintings, he did them way back in the
'60's, as I remember learning about them in art history classes in the
'70's. I am not familiar with what he has done since, but I certainly hope
he has gone on to other images. I think he was classified (don't you just
hate how artists get put into boxes?) as a pop artist.
Lauren
--
THE BLESSED BEE
www.blessedbee.com
samples/subscription info:
in...@blessedbee.com
Paul Mesken
>In article <45dd5dd.03051...@posting.google.com>,
>eatn...@humboldt1.com says...
>
>>Abstract in the sense you must look at his work and wonder what the
>>f*** was this guy trying to do and then again to yourself, why the
>>f*** am I bothering to figure this sh** out? And then one recalls, OH,
>>cause he's rich and popular... Not my cup of tea. This is all of
>>course IMHO.
>
>You'll notice I have NOT given MY opinion of
>Johns's work. It would be an exercise in
>triviality for me to do so. He has made his
>mark in Art History - writ HUGE - and it sure
>wasn't due to anything I had to say about
>his art.
>
>Unlike so many who post to this forum, I try
>to keep an open mind and learn when confronted
>with someone like Johns.
YOU ARROGANT SON OF....
[hitting brakes, shifting back to "controlled mode"]
First impressions also count for something. More often than not our
first impressions are justified and aid us in quickly filtering out
the uninteresting from the interesting.
An open mind, when taken too seriously, can waste a lot of valuable
resources. Time is not on our side. Jasper Johns work has hardly
anything interesting to say. It doesn't provoke interesting thoughts
and the technique doesn't invite closer scrutiny. Why would his work
be interesting? Because the artzy fartzy scene says so?
Art is the cultivation of the senses. As such, the first impression is
the most important one. Only when our attention is seized by it an art
work can be possibly good. Artists doing advertisements, comics,
"illustration" and stuff know this and their art gives us insight in
how the human psyche works. They're not concerned by the "Holy Grail"
the artzy fartzy scene wants us to believe in, they simply want their
art to be effective and of human measure.
Hans Phul
says...
>What if art is not judgeable except on a personal scale?
>What if all the art critics are just waffle, and each work of
>art has a value dependant only on the individual viewer's
>experience?
>What if the price of the latest favourite's work has no relation
>to it's value?
And what if the earth were square instead of flat?
>I have as yet found no answers to any of these questions in this
>thread, but I will keep on reading.
>Thur
You'll not be holding your breath while continuing
to read, I hope...
Hans Phul
>Most of what goes on in this forum with the exception of specific
>information and experience shared, is an act of triviality.
Well, that's a point we can agree on then!
>I find it perfectly fair to talk about a successful person's work
>than to criticize a nobody trying to find their way...
Especially in the USA, you have a constitutional guarantee
of your right to speak your mind about EITHER person.
Of course, they have a right to take you to court for libel or
slander in a civil suit if you name names....
>I find there is usually 90% garbage and
>10% honest work.
Garbage is a rather polarizing term. Surely there
are works that fall mid-range in your judgement.
My own take on the subject is that there are less
than ONE percent who can claim mastery of their
craft and the rest all fall to mediocrity of one
degree or another - with some/much(?) of the mediocre
being relegated to the garbage heap of history.
>Like Michael Jackson? He's apparently accomplished a lot...
Indeed he has, musically. But Jackson's accomplishments have been
overshadowed by his notoriety. I don't really equate
"notoriety" with "masterliness." History books are
full of those who were notorious in their lifetime,
but few if any were noted for their accomplishments.
>They've got the lime light
>and some times it shows the warts or the make up that has been applied
>too thickly...
Sometimes it's simply no fun at all being in the limelight.
Ask anyone who has instant public recognition who would
just as soon enjoy their privacy...
Erik A. Mattila
> I have come to the conclusion that I am entitled to my own opinion about
> art. I'm ready to look at anything, but it either works for me or it
> doesn't. What I like best are pieces that really excite and influence me.
> I like to think, "now, that's a great way that the artist did that...."
> But, if a piece or body of artwork does nothing for me, I'm not going to
> say that it's crap, but rather, it's just not my cup of tea, but perhaps
> it turns someone else's crank. I think that's fair.
Lauren, just for the fun of it, "who" would be doing the "entitlement"?
The Ministry of Opinion? That's what I like about the passive voice -
you get to ask those sorts of silly questions.
The more serious question is "is your opinion really your own, or a
manifestation of the cultural machine?" Ooops - that goes to you other
comments about "philosophy." Nevertheless, it's a provocative question.
Erik
Erik A. Mattila
> Garbage is a rather polarizing term.
Er, not in the trash bag industry.
Erik
Paul Mesken
TOP POSTING IS BAD! ;-)
>What if art is not judgeable except on a personal scale?
We should take this one step at a time. Firstly, we have the
attribution part : to judge whether someting _is_ art. And secondly,
the appreciation part : whether something is "good" art. I believe
both can be judged on bigger scales than the personal (= taste).
ART, THE ATTRIBUTION
I think "art" should be taken as a word just as "tool", "building",
etc. It is used for some product and indicates its intended purpose.
Art is the cultivation of the senses (an expression so good that this
is the second time I used it this day, I got it from R.Arnheim's
"Visual Thinking" :-)
This is a little bit broad ofcourse. Think of a roller coaster, is
that a work of art as well? According to the above definition it
actually is.
Some believe art is considered to arouse something more than an
adrenaline or endorphin rush. The problem lies in narrowing the broad
definition down. Is art only art when it addresses deep existentialist
issues? Should it involve a lot of skill? Is it a stamp of "high
quality"?
Art also means technique ("the art of cooking", etc.), this points to
its product nature. A product made with an intention (this rules out
shit, which is a Good Thing :-) but the very concept of "intention" is
a fuzzy one. Are humans the only intentional agents? We surely are the
only ones calling something "art".
Art also means beauty in that it is used when pointing out aesthetic
qualities. It doesn't mean all art should be beautifull but it does
mean that art needs to be made with the intention to arouse certain
feelings, either good or bad. It shouldn't leave the beholder unmoved.
But the one that rules out the roller coaster is that art should
express something else than itself (ceci n'est pas un pipe). It is
symbolic in nature and thus a form of language. A story is more than
just a bunch of words, it aims to create a world in the mind of the
reader other than those words on paper. It is our skills with symbols
that makes art possible. The form of these symbols might be quite
remote from the real thing (like abstract art or corporate logos) and
only understandable within a culture or they might be very close to
the real thing (like a play).
So there you have it, art is something made :
1 - For the senses
2 - To arouse feelings and thinking
3 - To express something else than itself
It should be noted however that this definition, like with all formal
definitions, is an after thought meant to find rules believed to be
governing what people typically call art. People are ofcourse not
governed by rules that can be put down in language so some art might
be excluded by this definition and some things not being art might be
included (also check Gödel :-)
Furthermore : there might be overlap with other categories. Is figure
skating a sport or an art? It hangs uncomfortably between both. That's
why points are given to both the artistic part and the execution (or
technique) part. Both the control over and power of the human body
(sport part) AND the aesthetic qualities of the dance itself (art
part) are judged because it's not clear which is the more important
one. Industrial design is also a border case. Some of it is so great
that its utilitarian function is overshadowed by its aesthetic one. In
the end, it is all in the eye of the beholder.
For art itself the skill part should not take too much precedence.
It's not a requirement that making art should be hard to do but it is
judged how _effective_ art is in accomplishing it goals. Effectiveness
involves skill (mostly of judgement) but it is not necessarily hard to
pull off in a physical way.
ART APPRECIATION
Now we come to the appreciation part of art. IMO it is possible to
appreciate art even if we exclude personal taste for its
effectiveness. In order to be effective in arousing feelings, thinking
and expressing something else than the work itself there are systems,
rules, etc. Effectiveness is above personal taste and IMO the most
important part of a work of art. All elements in a work of art should
add to its effectiveness. I'll restrict the following to painting and
drawing in my examples but it goes for all art.
- the use of established, cultural systems
A painter might opt to represent space in her flat painting by
utilizing linear perspective. This is a well known system of
projection which can be easily understood and judged. The proper use
of the simple line is also well established, a single line can have
only one meaning :an outline in which the side of the form outlined is
always on the same side of the line, it's either an "inside
cornerline" or an "outside cornerline" (convex or concave ridge), a
hatch line, etc. The use of end points, T junctions, how false
junctions should be avoided etc. There are ways to define shape with
flat forms (by shading for example or by using curves and straight
lines, shadows, etc.). There's a plethora on rules and systems which
were developed to have visual marks like lines, points and areas
represent something.
The point is that cultural methods are chosen to represent something
(art is representational according to my definition). Their origin is
biological but they're sublimated into schematas and symbols. The
execution of the chosen methods can be judged separately. Ofcourse, it
should be clear which method was chosen. Also the very choice of the
methods and how they are interacting might be judged. The intention of
the work of art should be clear as well.
- the use of contrasts
Art which doesn't employ contrasts is meaningless since something can
only have a meaning when related to something else. The very choice of
that "something else" might influence the meaning of the subject
strongly. We could opt to compare the USA to Iran and an image of the
USA (as compared to Iran) will be established. If we would compare the
USA to Denmark then another image of the USA will be established (a
less favourable perhaps than the image resulting from the comparison
with Iran).
Showing the softness of the skin of a beautifull woman can only be
done effectively when set against the opposite. If a painter were to
make a painting of such a woman pressed against a man care should be
taken to render the man's body as differently from the woman's as the
style allows.The man's body might be rendered with a broader range of
strong colors, sharp transitions in value and hue, coarse texture,
lots of strongly set lines, bones showing, muscles like plates, the
anatomy below the skin clearly showing through. The woman on the other
hand might be rendered in a single pale color (lately I've replaced my
use of yellow ochre with buff titanium for this purpose) smoothly
going through a less broader range of values, a very fine texture as
opposed to the coarse one of the man. Her flesh following the forms
its pressed against as opposed to the man's rigid body. Etc.
It's this kind of contrast establishing techniques that can be judged
and ofcourse whether it was right to establish them in the first place
in view of the intention of the work. A relation typically has two
poles and these poles are contrasts (straight vs curved, light vs
dark, far vs. near, etc.). But this is not the whole story. It's not
that binary, there's also the question of strength, how great we want
to make the difference. Is the right strength chosen?
- distribution of attention
Some points deserve more attention in the light of intention than
others. These are the ones which are put down stronger, of which
dissonance or contrast are greater than elsewhere. Attention should
not be distributed to thinly over the work. It should have some clear
highlights. Some points get typically more attention than others and
this can be cleverly used. Take for example the eyes. Humans are
always attracted to eyes (we even have an entire part of our visual
system which is concerned with nothing else but the perception of
gaze). If we want to render someone who is thinking deeply (and thus
turns his attention inwards) then we can occlude the eyes by shadows.
By taking the eyes away we can have the attention of the onlooker
focus on something else more easily. All things being equal, attention
also goes to the middle of the painting. Attention tracks along
contours (either implied or put down explicitly) and focuses on small
areas of "activity" (contrasts).
Considering what we know about attention guiding we can judge a work
of art by how it serves this in light of the intention.
- balance and symmetry
Being upright bipeds who also judge health and beauty by symmetry of
the body, balance and symmetry are important in a work of art. We are
very sensitive to it and it should be used properly. It's not wrong to
make something unbalanced but it does require justification since it
is immediately noted and since a work of art is perceived as something
having an intention the inbalance is perceived as meaningfull for that
intention. Weight plays a role as well. An area which is strongly
saturated with hue of texture is perceived as heavier than the same
area of much paler color or less texture. People experience paintings
the same way they experience the world with gravity.
- Positioning and sizing
Empty space gets meaning from the occupied space. If one was to take a
figure of a human facing right then the empty space would take on a
different meaning if the figure is placed on the far right of the
painting or the far left. The question arises what the empty space
means. In the far right scenario the painting shows what the figure
leaves behind (since the figure's back faces it), in the far left
scenario what the figure is going at. What does it mean when the
figure is very small? If only the upper half of the face shows and the
figure seems to "drown"? We could opt to show only the eyes for strong
focus on emotion, or only the face which gives away more information
but lowers the intensity of emotion if we would only show the eyes.
The absolute size of a painting is also important. A piece of 8x5 feet
gives off a different impression that the same one at 8x5 inches.
Choices made by the artist considering positioning and sizing can also
be easily judged (but are hard to make :-)
- Not making stupid mistakes
Anatomy, drawing systems, abhorrence of unique viewing points,
ambiguity, false junctions, etc. A good work of art shouldn't contain
beginner's errors. "Solid drawing" is a prerequisite for good art (if
the art is drawing or painting ofcourse).
I could think of a few departments more but this will suffice for my
point that art can be judged independent of personal taste.
>What if all the art critics are just waffle, and each work of
>art has a value dependant only on the individual viewer's
>experience?
Depends on the value. If it should have finacial value I would go for
Rembrandt, if I need to like it I would go for Vargas :-)
>What if the price of the latest favourite's work has no relation
>to it's value?
A work of art can have "hype" value, this is not directly connected to
the work of art on itself ofcourse. As Slick outlined, a work of art
can also be of "bragging" value if it's unique and has an enormous
price tag connected to it.
>What purpose would it be to share our thoughts on art if none
>of them are based upon the same values?
I believe the problem is that our thoughts on the appreciation of art
are for the most part based on personal taste but are perceived as if
they should have universal validity. This is ofcourse not the case.
Personally, I've always believed the greatest function of this group
is to share knowledge (of technique, art history, etc.).
However, people have an uncanny urge to vent their opinions and
establish their attitude. This serves their identity both on the
individual level as group level.
>When reading some of the contributors to this ng, they
>seem to suggest that there is only one view, and that belongs
>to them.
I think this group read easier when you think "IMHO" as a prefix to
all articles :-)
>How do we 'know' for example that a Kinkaid is not art?
>(I do, but I can't tell you how)
I don't know this Kinkaid
>I have as yet found no answers to any of these questions in this
>thread, but I will keep on reading.
If you finished up here then you've read quite a bit :-)
Paul Mesken
It's both ofcourse. The individual within the cultural machine. For
example : I hate Pollock's work. For a small part because it doesn't
push my buttons (the individual part) but for the major part because a
lot of people think he's the greatest thing since sliced bread and pay
huge sums for his drip work (the cultural part).
Furthermore : living in the Netherlands I can't escape Calvinistic
views. No matter how often I tell to myself that art doesn't need to
be hard to make I keep feeling that a piece of art which involved a
lifetime of study and lots of sweat and tears is better than a piece
of art which was made in a day without the need of lots of study.
Paul Mesken
>x-no-archive: yes
>Thanks very much. I will have to digest all this, but I can see
>that you have taken a lot of trouble.
>Sorry about the top postings. it's habit, and there are some
>reasons, but I wont waste your time with them.
>Thur
Hehe, it was a joke. I wrote "top posting is bad" but I top posted the
remark myself (haha, I'm such a funny guy ;-) I visited some groups
where it was considered a sin and that's what prompted me to write it.
Personally I don't care whether something is top, bottom, inbetween or
otherwise posted.
Paul Mesken
wrote:
Oh wait, now I see. It's the "Creosius guy" :-) It might not be
everyone's cup of tea but it's good art if taste is taken out of the
equation. Technically it's pretty good, treatment of light (although
I'm not too sure about the beams of light coming out of the windows),
atmospheric perspective. It appeals to quite sentimental emotions
ofcourse : warmth, cozyness, perhaps a little bit of melancholy. There
are better ones however that don't need that level of detail to evoke
the same feelings and this makes them probably stronger but I believe
it was also the goal of the artist to create another world. An
imagined world can only be made more tangible by maximum amount of
detail. Compare for example Tolkien's Middle Earth (or better : Arda
for the picky ones since Middle Earth is only part of Arda). Tolkien
made his world more believeable by inventing languages for it, a
history, creation tale, entire bloodlines of important families, etc.
Paul Mesken
wrote:
>ahha! Another Tolkienite! I still read rabt and aft, but never post
>anymore. Too much of the same old same old, especially so since the
>movies came out.
The movies don't follow the books completely (Tom Bombadil fans were
probably dissapointed) which isn't necessary ofcourse but I felt that
the atmosphere was off quite a bit. Tolkien gave quite a deal of
attention to stuff like the weather and surrounding nature (and food!
reading about butter, bread and honey always made me hungry :-)
But that opening scene with Sauron slinging his war hammer was
fabulous. I wonder if the Hobbit and perhaps some stories of the
Silmarillion will be made into movies. Would be great to see Sauron's
boss Melkor and dragons :-)
Dr. Slick
> >
> >You'll notice I have NOT given MY opinion of
> >Johns's work. It would be an exercise in
> >triviality for me to do so. He has made his
> >mark in Art History - writ HUGE - and it sure
> >wasn't due to anything I had to say about
> >his art.
> >
But YOU can still have an opinion, long after he is dead, no
matter
how old his works are. No matter how unknown YOU are and how
rich/famous he is, you will still have a opinion.
And I have an opinion. Jasper Johns was overrated. The Flags
didn't
do much for me. Neither did his other stuff.
His overlaid roman numerals were kind of cool, though.
> >Unlike so many who post to this forum, I try
> >to keep an open mind and learn when confronted
> >with someone like Johns.
>
> YOU ARROGANT SON OF....
>
> [hitting brakes, shifting back to "controlled mode"]
>
> First impressions also count for something. More often than not our
> first impressions are justified and aid us in quickly filtering out
> the uninteresting from the interesting.
>
>
> Art is the cultivation of the senses. As such, the first impression is
> the most important one. Only when our attention is seized by it an art
> work can be possibly good. Artists doing advertisements, comics,
> "illustration" and stuff know this and their art gives us insight in
> how the human psyche works. They're not concerned by the "Holy Grail"
> the artzy fartzy scene wants us to believe in, they simply want their
> art to be effective and of human measure.
SHUT UP AND PAINT YOUR CANVAS! (Play on Frank Zappa) :)
[didn't hit the brakes soon enough to show proper respect to one
of the very few insightful individuals in this NG!]
Thanks Paul.
Slick
Hans Phul
says...
>YOU ARROGANT SON OF....
You sheepish imitation of a Mani Deli disciple....
Hans Phul
Oh come on Erik! If you're 'in the industry'
you're certainly 'polarized' or else you're
biting the hand that feeds you.
Paul Mesken
wrote:
What? WHAT?! AN IMITATION?!?! I AM THE REAL DEAL! #$%&*^!!!
Seagull Manager
"Hans Awn" <ha...@dontemailme.com> wrote in message
news:3ec5...@news.zianet.com...
> In article <ham9cvsl6kabdi2h6...@4ax.com>,
usu...@euronet.nl
> says...
>
> >I don't know of any _living_ painters who get a
> >million for a painting.
>
> You're referring to USA dollars? Or Euros?
>
> Say this slowly - J-a-s-p-e-r J-o-h-n-s. The
> highest paid 'living' artist, to my knowledge.
>
Some living painters who had one of their works sell for more than a million
US dollars in 2002:
Ed Ruscha (3 200 000)
Wayne Thiebaud (2 800 000)
David Hockney (2 600 000)
Robert Ryman (1 800 000)
Claudio Bravo (1 300 000)
Dozens of painters can command more than half a million per work (think of
any well known painter who's been famous for 25 years or more - by famous, I
mean, gets a namecheck in coffee table books on contemporary art, and it is
easy to obtain books about the artist or reproductions of their work at your
local high street).
Seagull Manager
"Thur" <a@spamless.z> wrote in message
news:IWHxa.7305$Mu3.1...@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net...
> x-no-archive: yes
> How do we 'know' for example that a Kinkaid is not art?
> (I do, but I can't tell you how)
It is art, it is just not to your taste.
Seagull Manager
"Dr. Slick" <radi...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1d15af91.03051...@posting.google.com...
> Paul Mesken <usu...@euronet.nl> wrote in message
news:<l02bcvk70rhqqo28h...@4ax.com>...
>
>
> > There's ofcourse nothing wrong with being a mecenas but spending such
> > quantities of money at paintings of artists already gone serves no
> > purpose whatsoever (copyrights is a different story ofcourse :-)
> >
>
> But it's funny that it does happen, and that kind of shows you
> how fanatical the hype of the art world can be.
Spending millions on a work by a famous artist is not tantamount to throwing
it away. On the contrary, it is probably a wise investment. On the other
hand, spending several thousand on a "limited edition print" that is
actually limited to many thousands of copies is probably money down the
drain.
Seagull Manager
> On 17 May 2003 16:55:43 -0600, ha...@dontemailme.com (Hans Awn) wrote:
>
> Jasper Johns work has hardly
> anything interesting to say. It doesn't provoke interesting thoughts
> and the technique doesn't invite closer scrutiny.
It is a simple joke, turning on the fact that a realistic painting of a flag
can look like an abstract painting. It is also ostensibly cool and
emotionless, like most abstract art, but the US flag is very evocative to
the American collectors who buy his work. Some people find this "deep". I
don't.
Nor do I find the conceptualist jokes of the Oldenburgs and the Christos
deep. They are at about the same level as Johns. They probably appeal to the
kind of person who's impressed by philosophy, but has never given much time
to serious philosophical thought. To me, it seems rather sad that anyone
should stretch such simple ideas over entire careers lasting several
decades.
Thur
tell me what it contains that makes it 'art'.
I do not have a thing against people who like it, but as ever, I
an trying to see if there is anything that we can agree on.
Reading some of the interesting statements, (mixed in with others)
on a number of other threads, it seems to me that this ought to be
included in the FAQs:-.
"1) Art is .....
2) Art is not...."
3) A Glossary of arty(artzy) farty(fartzy) buzz words and their possible
meanings.
The underlying threads in the above statements seem to be
"I am God and my view on Art is the Word"
" I went to Art School/College or gained a degree in Art therefore
No-one, but no-one is correct but me."
"I am a professional in Art. Therefore No-one has any right to express
a differing opinion to mine, and I will argue till the sun goes down with
others who are also professionals, but no-one else"
" I am bored, so let's provoke Mani"
Thur
"Seagull Manager" <seagull...@afang.nospamthanks.demon.co.uk> wrote in
message news:bal7rc$jb1$1$8302...@news.demon.co.uk...
Erik A. Mattila
But I think you're missing the point. Abstract Expressionism was never
intended to be "deep" either in the artist's intent or the critic's
assessment. Just the opposite, since the objective of non-objectivity
was to eliminate the object. Why would one object to this? (just
kidding). So the work of art is trying to have no meaning at all, and
to counter and resist the viewer's tendency to ascribe meaning to
everything she/he sees.
What's "deep" is that this would become a practice in art. But that's
not in the artist, or in the work of art. It belongs to the so-called
"art world" we have been talking about.
Collecting is a very quirky business. Just think about it. A pair of
Jockey shorts with Tom Cruise' skid-marks is very valuable - while mine
are just trash. So this depth you speak of is a collection of history,
biography, social movements and so on...the work of art itself, on it's
own terms, is relatively unimportant.
Erik
Paul Mesken
Heh! Like a haiku, it invites to finding its "deeper" meaning but
there's no deeper meaning at all. But that defeats the very nature of
art (my definition of it anyway) since art is made with an intention
and that intention gives it the meaning. IOW it's meant to be not art
at all (anti art) and showcasing it in a museum as if it is art is
merely a joke.
Paul Mesken
>"I am God and my view on Art is the Word"
Ah, you finally figured out my true identity ;-)
Hans Klapeen
seagull...@afang.nospamthanks.demon.co.uk says...
Oddly I got no response by clicking on either
version on the opening page. Anyone else
try and succeed?
Dr. Slick
> > how fanatical the hype of the art world can be.
>
> Spending millions on a work by a famous artist is not tantamount to throwing
> it away. On the contrary, it is probably a wise investment. On the other
> hand, spending several thousand on a "limited edition print" that is
> actually limited to many thousands of copies is probably money down the
> drain.
I agree with this, but isn't the art work a bit funny that way?
That the hype of an artist can lift the price of one painting so
ridiculously high?
Slick
Hans Klapeen
seagull...@afang.nospamthanks.demon.co.uk says...
>To me, it seems rather sad that anyone
>should stretch such simple ideas over entire careers lasting several
>decades.
So what do YOU think of the life's works of
one James Turrell? and especially what do
you think about his going on 3 decades of
construction on his Rodin Crater project?
Paul Mesken
Mani Deli
<emat...@oco.net> wrote:
> Abstract Expressionism was never
>intended to be "deep" either in the artist's intent or the critic's
>assessment.
Well after reading forty years of critical pseudo-philosophical
Artspeak bullshit I can't agree. Depth is its major pretence.
> So the work of art is trying to have no meaning at all, and
>to counter and resist the viewer's tendency to ascribe meaning to
>everything she/he sees.
Dada
>What's "deep" is that this would become a practice in art. But that's
>not in the artist, or in the work of art. It belongs to the so-called
>"art world" we have been talking about.
?
>Collecting is a very quirky business. Just think about it. A pair of
>Jockey shorts with Tom Cruise' skid-marks is very valuable - while mine
>are just trash. So this depth you speak of is a collection of history,
However this sort of crap unlike the stripes drips and schmiers that
inhabit museums doesn't pretend to be art.
>biography, social movements and so on...the work of art itself, on it's
>own terms, is relatively unimportant.
>
Agreed, and it is very temporary and of little public interest beyond
the fulfillment of the price tag.
...no skill no art!
Want to get away from the indecipherable imbecilities and absurd pretensions of the modern art establishment?
Check out my web page http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
Seagull Manager
Kind of, but you can ask similar questions about equities and even gold
bullion. They only retain their monetary value as long as people believe in
them.
Seagull Manager
in
> message news:bal7rc$jb1$1$8302...@news.demon.co.uk...
> >
> > "Thur" <a@spamless.z> wrote in message
> > news:IWHxa.7305$Mu3.1...@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net...
> > > x-no-archive: yes
> >
> > > How do we 'know' for example that a Kinkaid is not art?
> > > (I do, but I can't tell you how)
> >
> > It is art, it is just not to your taste.
> >
"Thur" <a@spamless.z> wrote in message
news:8Buza.11256$Mu3.2...@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net...
>
> Very well then, if you want to pick it up and run with it, then
> tell me what it contains that makes it 'art'.
It has been made with craft, intelligence, imagination, and a sense of
beauty, successfully, with the intention that it should be liked or loved
for that reason. You may question the *degree* of craft, intelligence or
imagination; you may question the taste. But there's certainly some, and
there is certainly success. So it is, in my view, art.
Seagull Manager
"Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@oco.net> wrote in message
news:3ECE7F5B...@oco.net...
> Seagull Manager wrote:
> > "Paul Mesken" <usu...@euronet.nl> wrote in message
> > news:6bvecv4gqo2jivia5...@4ax.com...
> >
> to counter and resist the viewer's tendency to ascribe meaning to
> everything she/he sees.
Perhaps. But that is neither a laudable nor an achievable aim.
> Collecting is a very quirky business. Just think about it. A pair of
> Jockey shorts with Tom Cruise' skid-marks is very valuable - while mine
> are just trash. So this depth you speak of is a collection of history,
> biography, social movements and so on...the work of art itself, on it's
> own terms, is relatively unimportant.
Yes, collectors are mad.
BTW, I didn't mention Abstract Expressionism or discuss its goals.
Seagull Manager
"Hans Klapeen" <ha...@dontemailme.com> wrote in message
news:3ece...@news.zianet.com...
I've no idea what the dude is trying to do, so I have no opinion to express
on the work.
Dr. Slick
> Jockey shorts with Tom Cruise' skid-marks is very valuable - while mine
> are just trash. So this depth you speak of is a collection of history,
> biography, social movements and so on...the work of art itself, on it's
> own terms, is relatively unimportant.
>
> Erik
LOL very loudly! This is the funniest thing i have read on a NG
in quite a while!
I should hope MY sh** stained underwear could someday fetch $10 at
Sotheby's!
One can always dream....HA!
Dr. Slick
Paul Mesken
Hehe, you shit yourself that often? OTOH it also depends on what you
eat. I still remember vividly the day I'd apparantly suffered mild
food poisoning of which I wasn't aware. I went to the toilet, started
to pull down my pants and somewhat relaxed my rectum (normal procedure
before taking a shit) and WOOSH! The whole liquid load was unleashed
in a fraction of a second, right down in my pants.
It was a sobering experience for it is at times like those that I
doubt the elevatedness of human existence.... :-)
Hans Klapeen
seagull...@afang.nospamthanks.demon.co.uk says...
>I've no idea what the dude is trying to do, so I have no opinion to express
>on the work.
Do you have access to the latest (May, 2003) issue
of Smithsonian Magazine? Or if you are anywhere
near Pittsburgh, PA, USA there is currently a
retrospective of his 'light' works on view until
the end of June at the Mattress Factory. Or
you might simply visit the web site of:
CORRECTION: I was spelling it 'Rodin' but it's 'Roden.'
So now I'm in a quandary because I'd assumed it
was named for the sculptor and it's obviously
named for some other 'diety.'
Erik A. Mattila
True. I extrapolated - would you like to state that you do in fact find
A&E "deep?"
eam
>
>
>
Seagull Manager
> Seagull Manager wrote:
> > "Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@oco.net> wrote in message
> > news:3ECE7F5B...@oco.net...
> >
> A&E "deep?"
No, thank you very much.
Dr. Slick
LOL. Well, "skidmarks" are actually not really shitting on
yourself per se. Rather leaving a brown smear line in your underwear,
but a far cry from taking a dump in your pants!
I wouldn't mind seeing the US switching over to the Thailand
system of a sprayer in the better places instead of toilet tissue: you
get much cleaner, and it's really like a second shower.
> It was a sobering experience for it is at times like those that I
> doubt the elevatedness of human existence.... :-)
Even Einstein and every other genius on the planet had to take a
shit. They also had to fuck and masterbate too, so don't feel bad.
Slick
Seagull Manager
I guess it's being embarrassed about it that makes us "elevated".
Erik A. Mattila
> "Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@oco.net> wrote in message
> news:3ED04F51...@oco.net...
>
>>Seagull Manager wrote:
>>
>>>"Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@oco.net> wrote in message
>>>news:3ECE7F5B...@oco.net...
>>>
>>
>>True. I extrapolated - would you like to state that you do in fact find
>>A&E "deep?"
>
>
> No, thank you very much.
Then what was your point? That I had overstepped boundaries by
extrapolating?
eam
>
>
>
Paul Mesken
> Even Einstein and every other genius on the planet had to take a
>shit. They also had to fuck and masterbate too, so don't feel bad.
What?! Masturbation?! That's a heathenish practice which can make a
man go mad or blind (or both) Besides :
http://www.boners.com/grub/787375.html
Think of the kittens! ;-)
Dr. Slick
> > shit. They also had to fuck and masterbate too, so don't feel bad.
> >
>
> I guess it's being embarrassed about it that makes us "elevated".
This Sex-is-Evil attitude is a big part of what is wrong with
the whole Judeo-Christian Puritanical Ethics.
I don't think it's "elevated" to be embarrassed about your
natural bodily functions.
Slick
Dr. Slick
>>
> What?! Masturbation?! That's a heathenish practice which can make a
> man go mad or blind (or both) Besides :
>
> http://www.boners.com/grub/787375.html
>
> Think of the kittens! ;-)
I'd rather help the humane society with population control...
:^o
Slick
Paul Mesken
Oh no! You're not trying to talk me into getting a vasectomy like Jack
did, are you? ;-)
Neil Maxwell
> I should hope MY sh** stained underwear could someday fetch $10 at
>Sotheby's!
Alas! I was looking for a link to the amusing Stuckist painting by
Thomson showing Sir Nicholas Serota of the Tate standing behind a pair
of red knickers, thinking "Is it a genuine Emin ($10,000), or a
worthless fake?". (Note - that should be pounds, but I don't have a
pound sign on my keyboard).
The images seem to have disappeared, but the concept will be with us
always. If you get famous enough, selling your stained skivvies will
be a cakewalk. Remember the little people when you get there.
Neil Maxwell - I don't speak for my employer
Dr. Slick
>
> The images seem to have disappeared, but the concept will be with us
> always. If you get famous enough, selling your stained skivvies will
> be a cakewalk. Remember the little people when you get there.
>
>
Why don't we forget the underwear and go straight to the sh**!
If authenticity could be proven, i wonder how much a pile of
Jesus Christ's shit would be worth?
Dr. Slick
Erik A. Mattila
Slick, you may be unduly concentrating on shit, per se. Skid marks are
also caused, on occassion, by particularly dense farts of sufficient
velocity. Now, on the auction block, would actual skid marks be more
valuable than rectane traces? I don't know, but we have to acknowledge
both.
Erik
>
>
> Dr. Slick
>
> http://www.drslick.org/
Mike Stengl
Sh** loads!!
Neil Maxwell
> Why don't we forget the underwear and go straight to the sh**!
>
> If authenticity could be proven, i wonder how much a pile of
>Jesus Christ's shit would be worth?
Sorry, too late. $52k for 30 grams of artist's feces...
http://www.cbc.ca/artsCanada/stories/canned_crap020702
Seagull Manager
> "Seagull Manager" <seagull...@afang.nospamthanks.demon.co.uk> wrote
in message news:<bar4ia$mot$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk>...
> > "Dr. Slick" <radi...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:1d15af91.03052...@posting.google.com...
> > >
> > > Even Einstein and every other genius on the planet had to take a
> > > shit. They also had to fuck and masterbate too, so don't feel bad.
> > >
> >
> > I guess it's being embarrassed about it that makes us "elevated".
>
>
> This Sex-is-Evil attitude is a big part of what is wrong with
> the whole Judeo-Christian Puritanical Ethics.
Poo is sex where you come from?
>
> I don't think it's "elevated" to be embarrassed about your
> natural bodily functions.
Maybe it's having the *capacity* to be embarrassed that makes us "elevated",
then.
Dr. Slick
> >
> > I don't think it's "elevated" to be embarrassed about your
> > natural bodily functions.
>
> Maybe it's having the *capacity* to be embarrassed that makes us "elevated",
> then.
Europeans are not as anal about pornography as the US. They have
topless beaches and such. I believe they are more elevated than we
are in this respect.
Slick
Neil Maxwell
They also have topless ads on billboards. This would cause traffic
jams, picket lines, and millions of words of editorial give-and-take
in the US, due to our excessive capacity for embarassment about
nudity. We must be quite elevated indeed.
Erik A. Mattila
Methinks a useful definition of "pornography" is needed before this
discussion continues *(but beware, it isn't easy).
Erik
Seagull Manager
I didn't mean that being embarrassed about bodily functions, or sex, or
nudity, or female breasts, makes us "elevated", but rather that we are able
to be embarrassed makes us elevated (special, relative to other animals),
quite regardless of what we happen to be embarrassable about.
Neil Maxwell
<emat...@oco.net> wrote:
>
>Methinks a useful definition of "pornography" is needed before this
>discussion continues *(but beware, it isn't easy).
It's just like Art - I know it when I see it!
Paul Mesken
I believe one could savely define it as a kind of fetishism in which
the human body and the mere act of copulation are fetishized (is that
a word?). It's not about human beings, only about their bodies in the
act of sex.
Paul Mesken
It's a purely social emotion ofcourse, other social animals have it as
well (but exhibit it for different reasons ofcourse). One is never
embarassed when alone. It's a really interesting emotion and very hard
to surpress (blushing). I wonder why it should be so evident, for all
to see. What could be the evolutionary advantage in not being able to
surpress one's shame?
Is this still about art? What is art anyway? Does it matter? ;-)
Paul Mesken
All beaches in the Netherlands are topless, we also have public nude
beaches (not that it is a particular good idea to visit them, there
are sights there that will be burned on your retina and leave you
impotent for a full 3 months ;-)
Seagull Manager
> On Fri, 30 May 2003 23:28:25 +0100, "Seagull Manager"
> <seagull...@afang.nospamthanks.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
have it as
> well ...
Do they? All of them? Or which ones?
Paul Mesken
<seagull...@afang.nospamthanks.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"Paul Mesken" <usu...@euronet.nl> wrote in message
>news:54ufdvgjpejsaemlo...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 30 May 2003 23:28:25 +0100, "Seagull Manager"
>> <seagull...@afang.nospamthanks.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> [Embarrassment]'s a purely social emotion ofcourse, other social animals
>have it as
>> well ...
>
>Do they? All of them? Or which ones?
>
Not all of them ofcourse (at least not to my knowledge), some of them.
Chimps have it, dogs, etc. Shame, guilt, embarrasment are so called
"moral emotions", exhibited when someone/thing has done something
"wrong". "Wrong" here is ofcourse about externally imposed ethics and
empathy which have only meaning within a society or other social
structure (a pack or pride for instance).
Linda Hand
>> They also have topless ads on billboards. This would cause traffic
>> jams, picket lines, and millions of words of editorial give-and-take
>> in the US, due to our excessive capacity for embarassment about
>> nudity. We must be quite elevated indeed.
>>
>> Neil Maxwell - I don't speak for my employer
>
>Methinks a useful definition of "pornography" is needed before this
>discussion continues *(but beware, it isn't easy).
>
>Erik
I don't think there is a need to define 'nudity' though,
and the poster is correct, IMO, in stating that
Americans are still prudes when it comes to public
displays of nudity - sadly!
Linda Hand
says...
>One is never
>embarassed when alone. It's a really interesting emotion and very hard
>to surpress (blushing). I wonder why it should be so evident, for all
>to see.
>Is this still about art? What is art anyway? Does it matter? ;-)
In keeping with a need to find something 'arty' in the
discussion, I'll embarrass myself by relating something
that happened to me two weekends ago. I get my primary
aerobic workout bicycling. There was an outdoor artist
event. I rode my bike there. As I walked up to a group
that included acquaintances of mine, one of the lady
artists commented for all to hear, "You'd make a great
nude model with your legs." Now, I'm don't consider
myself a prude - unless it involves my own body! My
reply was, "You wouldn't say that if you could see the
rest of me!" And knowing my propensity for blushing in
even lesser instances, I can imagine my face matched
the red of the shirt I was wearing...
Seagull Manager
>
> Alas! I was looking for a link to the amusing Stuckist painting by
> Thomson showing Sir Nicholas Serota of the Tate standing behind a pair
> of red knickers, thinking "Is it a genuine Emin ($10,000), or a
> worthless fake?". (Note - that should be pounds, but I don't have a
> pound sign on my keyboard).
Here's a link:
http://www.stuckism.com/thomson/SerotaKnickers.html#PicTop