Democratic Art Worl Movement (was FuckArtCritics.com)
Christian Tangoe
> Thanks to everyone who has contributed down the line so far.
>
> May I please ask you not to get lost in etither the definition on Art
> (as I do myself by the end of this post) or personal mud-trhowing in
> this thread. PLEASE !
>
> Now first of all thankss to Seagull, who in the very first answer to
> my posting initiated the idea that "Art could be democratic".
>
> This is a very strong statement, and I惴 really trhilled and
> thankfull, that it was put forward.
>
> FIRST: An immense number of people will have to admit, that art today
> is NOT GOVERNED BY DEMOCRACY.
>
> SECONDLY: It is very hard these days to defend that any part of the
> society is NOT governed by democracy.
>
> Anybody opposed to the "DEMOCRACY IN ART MOVEMENT" - which I惴 hereby
> suggesting and vision to become a world movement - NO I惴 not kidding
> - will have a hard time, at least in the western world.
>
> Now, just like some postings here, I initaitally had my first doubts
> too. But really, there are no excuses.
>
> DEMOCRACY means much more than just "voting about what art-piece
> should be bought".
> It involves a great number of processes like a constitution, a free
> (but citical) press, freedom of speach, openness in decisive and
> controlling institutions, parting of the power and much more.
>
> It would be very nice to have some constructive analysis of these
> democratic pillars as applied to art.
>
> IF I ANYWAY SHOULD MAKE THE SILLY MOVE, to jump into the "ART" thing,
> I惻l say this:
>
> If there should be a thing like a "constitution" for democratic
> art-world, one of the paragraphs should go like this:
>
> "Anybody is privileged to suggest - and acutally label - any object,
> happening phenomena or what ever "ART". This right is exclusive, and
> cannot be contradicted per definition. HOWEVER the RELEVANCE and the
> aestecics, the moral implications, ethics, skill in execution,
> intention and so on may be debated to any extend.
> No group or Institution shall alter this basic principle, and any
> group or Institution that promotes a certain definition on "ART"
> and/or do not respect this privilledge is considered undemocratic"
>
> Please comment. Please expand or clarify.
>
> Please notice, that THIS IS NOT A "DEFINITION". THIS IS NOT to explain
> "WHAT ART IS". This is like the "freedom of speech"-amendment, it
> democrates or liberalize the right to "LABEL" something "ART".
>
> So in reality this doesnt say much and still it says everything: It
> says, that nobody can "MONOPOLIZE" the expression "ART". This is not
> the same as "Everything can be art" or that quality-demands can not be
> debated.
>
> This "constitutional paragraph" is actually a reversed gurantee not to
> be runned down by conseptual establishment: What establishment does
> is, that it will not accept anything else to be art apart from what it
> "likes" or defines itself.
>
> To say "This is Art" - which by the way often isn愒 said but elsehow
> postulated in nonverbal form - doesn愒 blueprint anything. Remebember
> a qustion like "IS this really art" will still be appropriate, as will
> a question like "why do you consider this to be art ?".
>
> You could say that this is like a "artisitc" version of the freedom of
> religion. Now if I say that my God is a pile of old porn-magazines in
> my corner that I worship every day, you are not supposed to be
> blasfemish about that. You still might want to wonder what kind of a
> sick guy i would be thoug...
>
> Now I扉e written far too much, but I felt that it was importwant to
> really elaborate on this, thus minimizing the possiblities of
> misunderstanding.
>
> Christian Tangoe
>
> (selfelected chairman of the Universal Democratic Art Movement UDAM
> :-)
Neil Maxwell
>To avoid the thread getting blown by offstray comment I hereby repropose my posting
>
So, with the exception of getting to vote on art somehow, isn't this
how it is now?
Anyone can call anything art. People discuss it endlessly, and are
unable to force anyone to change their opinion. Anyone can display
art, sell art, or open a gallery. Anyone can publish anything they
want (within certain cultural limits, which would presumably not go
away) regarding art.
The power will always collect around money, regardless of the system,
unless you're able to vote money and power away from unpopular
minorities, which is a Bad Thing, IMO.
If you mean a true democracy, where the majority vote rules, would
they vote on what's displayed in the museum downtown, and where the
money goes?
I don't actually think this would be very good. In the US (which is
not a democracy, but a constitutional republic), our most democratic
institutions are those where the masses vote with their wallets daily.
As a result, we have McDonalds, Walmart, Starbucks, and other
institutions that cater to the masses. There's nothing wrong with
these places, if they serve your needs, but imagine the art-world
equivalent. There are very good reasons we're not a true democracy,
and I'm happy that we're not.
I'd be curious how the voting part would work.
Neil Maxwell - I don't speak for my employer
Mike Stengl
I'd like to propose that this forum become illustrated, that way, when
threads like these lose my interest half way through my morning cup of
tea, I could look at the pictures. I think that's why I find myself a
painter these days because I always preferred to look at the pictures.
Could also be why everyone else on this sight is so much more informed
than I am about art history/theory etc, I musta spent too much time
lookin at the pictures...
Chris
"Christian Tangoe" <ma...@tangoe.dk> wrote in message
news:92189330.03060...@posting.google.com...
> To avoid the thread getting blown by offstray comment I hereby repropose
my posting
>
> > is NOT GOVERNED BY DEMOCRACY.
> >
> > SECONDLY: It is very hard these days to defend that any part of the
> > society is NOT governed by democracy.
> >
> > suggesting and vision to become a world movement - NO I´m not kidding
> > - will have a hard time, at least in the western world.
> >
[blah blah blah snipped]
Why should art be governed by anyone? With apologies to Pierre Trudeau, "The
state has no business in the studios of the nation".
Chris
Christian Tangoe
> threads like these lose my interest half way through my morning cup of
> tea, I could look at the pictures. I think that's why I find myself a
> painter these days because I always preferred to look at the pictures.
> Could also be why everyone else on this sight is so much more informed
> than I am about art history/theory etc, I musta spent too much time
> lookin at the pictures...
Now I´m in no way responsible for the posting delay on 3- 9 hours and
the timedifference, that makes my posting appear at you fck...teacups.
However, I suggest you use your sarcasme constructivly in your
art-work or stick to the subject.
There is proably just as much use for your oppinion as for anybody
else, but of course, nobody can force you to read on beyeond your
poersonal state of boredom.
Tangoe
Hadley
Tangoe, it seems to me that Mike Stengl is the sort with a cute
deprecating sense of humour...don't think he was mocking your ideas.
Christian Tangoe
catches a chance here to fusion art and this kind of "intellectual
quarreling" as displayed in this group and acutally participate in
forming a "world movement" to democratize art.
Im sincerly suggesting that we try to outline what could be a
foundation for a common, sommonsense and global agreement how things
could turn better.
I have heard noone here say, that they are satisfied with the Power
Structure of the art world. Everybody have so far agreed (if I惴 not
mistaken?) that the diffenrece between the "taste of the art-jury" and
the "puplic oppinion" is out of proportion.
Now from any point of view - including mass media coverage - this is a
heck of an idea, it愀 really fantastic, if vairous internation artists
form a congregation to reform the artworld.
Of course one can allways laugh at such attempts, as one can doubt,
that anything will REALLY change in the end. That like life. The
paradox is, that we are all going down there 6 feet under. Syill we
strive everyday to do better paintings, make money, survive, make love
and whatever.
Christian Tangoe
(I give up the chairmanship)
Neil Maxwell
>Im sincerly suggesting that we try to outline what could be a
>foundation for a common, sommonsense and global agreement how things
>could turn better.
Global agreement? Hrrm... Seems a bit unlikely.
>I have heard noone here say, that they are satisfied with the Power
>Structure of the art world. Everybody have so far agreed (if I´m not
>mistaken?) that the diffenrece between the "taste of the art-jury" and
>the "puplic oppinion" is out of proportion.
I can only assume that one power structure would be replaced by a
different one, with different downtrodden, different outcasts,
different pedestals, and different lions.
How could it be any other way?
christian tangoe
<neil.m...@nospam.intel.com> wrote:
>On 5 Jun 2003 11:50:42 -0700, ma...@tangoe.dk (Christian Tangoe) wrote:
>>Im sincerly suggesting that we try to outline what could be a
>>foundation for a common, sommonsense and global agreement how things
>>could turn better.
>
>Global agreement? Hrrm... Seems a bit unlikely.
>
You are ignorant and arrogant. In all other matters throughout legal
life there are democratic principals that are globally accepted.
You sound like a bitter old man, who would rather spoil any attempt to
change something by messing it up in sarcasm than contributing to
creation.
>>I have heard noone here say, that they are satisfied with the Power
>>Structure of the art world. Everybody have so far agreed (if I´m not
>>mistaken?) that the diffenrece between the "taste of the art-jury" and
>>the "puplic oppinion" is out of proportion.
>
>I can only assume that one power structure would be replaced by a
>different one, with different downtrodden, different outcasts,
>different pedestals, and different lions.
>
Basically you are right, this is why once in a generation or so there
is a new revolution going on. I just thought you would be smart enough
to be part of this one...
>How could it be any other way?
>
>
It can be changed into a more democratic (in all respect of this
expression). Hawe you also given up in advance the idea that thre can
be democracy in Iraq ?
>
>Neil Maxwell - I don't speak for my employer
¨
Well, I´m employed by God, and I do speak in favor of Him....
Seagull Manager
"Neil Maxwell" <neil.m...@nospam.intel.com> wrote in message
news:9oe9evs8o0698t0rl...@4ax.com...
If democracy were introduced to purchasing, commissioning, and showing, with
some sort of PR ("proportional representation"), it would be hard to see how
anyone could justly call themselves "downtrodden" if their work is not
chosen.
> How could it be any other way?
I wonder. Let's make no attempt to improve the current system, then.
Erik A. Mattila
What horseshit. If the 'polis' determined what art is, we would have,
by definition, mediocracy. But on the other hand, that's what you're
after, isn't it?
Erik
>
>
Neil Maxwell
wrote:
>On Mon, 09 Jun 2003 09:57:03 -0700, Neil Maxwell
><neil.m...@nospam.intel.com> wrote:
>
>>On 5 Jun 2003 11:50:42 -0700, ma...@tangoe.dk (Christian Tangoe) wrote:
>>>Im sincerly suggesting that we try to outline what could be a
>>>foundation for a common, sommonsense and global agreement how things
>>>could turn better.
>>
>>Global agreement? Hrrm... Seems a bit unlikely.
>
>You are ignorant and arrogant. In all other matters throughout legal
>life there are democratic principals that are globally accepted.
>You sound like a bitter old man, who would rather spoil any attempt to
>change something by messing it up in sarcasm than contributing to
>creation.
Your attack on me does not address the concern, however, it does
appear you have the political approach down. I am attempting to work
through this logically. I believe art and logic often don't mix, but
systems and infrastructure certainly need logic, particularly if
you're proposing them for public funding.
My concern (which was not sarcasm, btw) is that I don't believe there
is a global common sense agreement possible in much of anything
(taking "global" at face value). Some cultures believe it's important
to destroy art that they don't like. Others feel that women's faces
or breasts shouldn't be seen in public, or that touching someone with
your left hand is an insult, or women shouldn't be allowed to drive,
or killing certain people is not a problem, or that burning pieces of
colored cloth should be illegal... You expect global agreement on
art?
As I stated in an earlier post, democracy is a worrisome thing; the
"two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner" problem.
If I want to see art that's popular with the masses, I know where to
go. I don't go there often, though, as my favorite art is not what
the masses pursue.
Regardless, you have the right to display your art as you see fit
(speaking of the USA, here). You may not have the right to put it in
other people's galleries or museums, but I don't believe you would
under your democratic system either, unless you want the majority to
have the ability to take resources from those who have them.
"In a pure democracy 51 beats 49[%]. In a democracy there is no such
thing as a significant minority: there are no minority rights except
civil rights (privileges) granted by a condescending majority...
Simply stated, a democracy is a dictatorship of the majority.
Socrates was executed by a democracy: though he harmed no one, the
majority found him intolerable. " - William R. Thornton
>>>I have heard noone here say, that they are satisfied with the Power
>>>Structure of the art world. Everybody have so far agreed (if I´m not
>>>mistaken?) that the diffenrece between the "taste of the art-jury" and
>>>the "puplic oppinion" is out of proportion.
>>
>>I can only assume that one power structure would be replaced by a
>>different one, with different downtrodden, different outcasts,
>>different pedestals, and different lions.
>>
>Basically you are right, this is why once in a generation or so there
>is a new revolution going on. I just thought you would be smart enough
>to be part of this one...
I have other issues more pressing to me than an art world power
structure revolution. Just because my self-interests don't coincide
with yours doesn't make me more or less smart. I'm getting more and
more worried about this majority rule idea, though, as I'm seeing
signs that I might be purged to Siberia ;-).
>>How could it be any other way?
>>
>It can be changed into a more democratic (in all respect of this
>expression). Hawe you also given up in advance the idea that thre can
>be democracy in Iraq ?
Are you saying that democratic governments don't have groups that
control the power and are infested with self-interest, similar to the
art-world power structure? My comment is that you are replacing one
self-serving power group with another. This would happen just as
surely in the art world as it will happen in Iraq, IMO, unless there
was no money involved. If you can explain why you think that this
would not happen (rather than throwing stones), I'd love to hear it.
>
>>Neil Maxwell - I don't speak for my employer
>
>Well, I´m employed by God, and I do speak in favor of Him....
Indeed. I trust this is the global, common-sense god, that everyone
the world around agrees on? Will he be having a say in what art is
acceptable? (That was sarcasm, BTW).
Scriptures, n. The sacred books of our holy religion, as distinguished
from the false and profane writings on which all other faiths are
based. - Ambrose Bierce
christian tangoe
<emat...@oco.net> wrote:
>
>
>Seagull Manager wrote:
>> "Neil Maxwell" <neil.m...@nospam.intel.com> wrote in message
>> news:9oe9evs8o0698t0rl...@4ax.com...
>>
NOPE: I NEVER WROTE THIS, THIS IS A FALSUM
>>>On 5 Jun 2003 11:50:42 -0700, ma...@tangoe.dk (Christian Tangoe) wrote:
>>>
>>>I can only assume that one power structure would be replaced by a
>>>different one, with different downtrodden, different outcasts,
>>>different pedestals, and different lions.
>>
>>
>> If democracy were introduced to purchasing, commissioning, and showing, with
>> some sort of PR ("proportional representation"), it would be hard to see how
>> anyone could justly call themselves "downtrodden" if their work is not
>> chosen.
>>
>>
>>>How could it be any other way?
>>
>>
>> I wonder. Let's make no attempt to improve the current system, then.
>
This discussion is - as for many other discussions in the usenet -
gone totally out of thread.
>What horseshit. If the 'polis' determined what art is, we would have,
>by definition, mediocracy. But on the other hand, that's what you're
>after, isn't it?
>
If you care to go back and read my original posting with the
suggestion to form a DAWM you would see, that there would be no "one"
to define art or art qualities for that matter. Neither "polis" the
population as such. I have never advokated for a peoples right to vote
on what is art or somethng that stupid. What I´m suggest is, that the
BASIC PRINCIPLES of democracy such as freedom of speach, diversing of
the power, public insights into desicions and economics, fairness in
competitions and cenored exhibitions AND a better general correlation
between what "people" and the "academy" calls art.
Now, if you just take my last statement, i agree, that one can get
into mediocracy. But the intention was this:
If there is a public work, any artist should have the right to suggest
a work. The "academy" may state their oppinion, but the people - who
actually pays for the shit - should vote what artwork they want.
As it is now, we get the mediocracy from the "academy".
Christian Tangoe
-No democracy - no art.
-Still in doubt ? Go to Iraq and search for artists apart from
Saddam-portraiters...
Neil Maxwell
<seagull...@afang.nospamthanks.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"Neil Maxwell" <neil.m...@nospam.intel.com> wrote in message
>news:9oe9evs8o0698t0rl...@4ax.com...
>> On 5 Jun 2003 11:50:42 -0700, ma...@tangoe.dk (Christian Tangoe) wrote:
>>
>> I can only assume that one power structure would be replaced by a
>> different one, with different downtrodden, different outcasts,
>> different pedestals, and different lions.
>
>If democracy were introduced to purchasing, commissioning, and showing, with
>some sort of PR ("proportional representation"), it would be hard to see how
>anyone could justly call themselves "downtrodden" if their work is not
>chosen.
The same way that they do now. "Those fools don't recognize True Art
when they see it!" This mantra has been chanted by countless artists
through the ages, regardless of the system. Logic has no place in it.
As I asked before (but got no reply), how would the voting and
selection work? This might answer how unpopular or controversial
artists would could their work displayed. If they can't, well, I
don't think I'm interested, but I'm a fringer, and I'm used to being
excluded by popular culture. The way it is now, anyone can display
anything they want (within certain cultural bounds, which presumably
would not change).
I believe art chosen on a purely democratic system would resemble the
fare we see on TV and hear on commercial radio. If you truly want
democratic art selection, you could try to convince me otherwise, as
that's how democratic decisions are made. Either that or by rolling
over the minority by the majority.
>> How could it be any other way?
>
>I wonder. Let's make no attempt to improve the current system, then.
The point was that you are replacing one self-serving power structure
with another. This is only an improvement if it's your side that's in
power.
I'm not the one complaining about the system, and I am reasonably
happy with the museums and galleries I go to. I don't like everything
I see there, but I learn something new whenever I go. If they looked
like the tourist galleries over by the seashore that are popular with
the masses, I'd quit going, and I believe that this is what would
happen.
I may be wrong; how would you see it as working?
Anyone is welcome to change the system, however. You can start on
this right now. Get a bill passed to provide public art funding based
on democratic input.
christian tangoe
<neil.m...@nospam.intel.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 09 Jun 2003 21:36:15 +0200, christian tangoe <ma...@tangoe.dk>
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 09 Jun 2003 09:57:03 -0700, Neil Maxwell
>><neil.m...@nospam.intel.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On 5 Jun 2003 11:50:42 -0700, ma...@tangoe.dk (Christian Tangoe) wrote:
>>>>Im sincerly suggesting that we try to outline what could be a
>>>>foundation for a common, sommonsense and global agreement how things
>>>>could turn better.
My point is simply, that if you don´t have anything to contribute to
the subject, why do you bother to comment ?
You cant beat the idea of democracy by repeating all its failures, or
turn down an idea of a "world agreement" by repeating mankinds many
stupid mistakes.
Let me once again quote Ghandi, who - when asked about his opinion
about western civilisation said - "I think it would be a nice
idea".....
My point is - as it has been all the way through - that the idea of
formulating the democratic principles could be a clarifation for
everybody who participated.
Finally I - agreed - made the mistake, not expressingly to state - in
the western - or democratic world. Democratic art in China, Tibet or
Iraq probably doesn´t give much sense at the moment.
Christian
(former chairman of World Democratic Art Movement)
G*rd*n
democratic art (http://www.diacenter.org/km/index.html).
--
(<><>) /*/
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
{ http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 1/19/03 <-adv't
Neil Maxwell
wrote:
>My point is simply, that if you don´t have anything to contribute to
>the subject, why do you bother to comment ?
But I AM contributing to the subject. I just don't necessarily agree
with your conclusions! I am capable of changing my mind, however,
when plied with logic and reason.
>You cant beat the idea of democracy by repeating all its failures, or
>turn down an idea of a "world agreement" by repeating mankinds many
>stupid mistakes.
Not so much it's failures, but it's shortcomings. The problem I see
is that there is no perfect system, and the current one is born of
capitalism, which needs a good bit of democracy to thrive. I'm not
sure you could come up with a more democratic system, but I'm open.
>Let me once again quote Ghandi, who - when asked about his opinion
>about western civilisation said - "I think it would be a nice
>idea".....
>
>My point is - as it has been all the way through - that the idea of
>formulating the democratic principles could be a clarifation for
>everybody who participated.
And I'd love to see some details. How do you vote, and how are the
votes apportioned? How is the artwork presented for voting? Who
decides what art makes it on the ballot? How is the money collected
and distributed? Do large cities get more money? Can I vote on
what's shown in Paris, or in Washington, or in San Jose, or only at my
neighborhood mall?
There's a good start at a constitution already, but then what?
>Finally I - agreed - made the mistake, not expressingly to state - in
>the western - or democratic world. Democratic art in China, Tibet or
>Iraq probably doesn´t give much sense at the moment.
They're the ones who need it most, of course. It should automatically
follow with a democratic republic.
Neil Maxwell
>We mustn't forget Komar and Melamid's adventure in
>democratic art (http://www.diacenter.org/km/index.html).
Heh!
I rest my case!
Fascinating site. I'm fond of some of their work, but I'd never seen
this site. You could apply the individual preference results to crank
out tailored hits for target audiences. Of course, that's what people
have been doing for ages, just with intuition rather than science.
Erik A. Mattila
>>What horseshit. If the 'polis' determined what art is, we would have,
>>by definition, mediocracy. But on the other hand, that's what you're
>>after, isn't it?
>>
> If you care to go back and read my original posting with the
> suggestion to form a DAWM you would see, that there would be no "one"
> to define art or art qualities for that matter. Neither "polis" the
> population as such. I have never advokated for a peoples right to vote
> on what is art or somethng that stupid. What I´m suggest is, that the
> BASIC PRINCIPLES of democracy such as freedom of speach, diversing of
> the power, public insights into desicions and economics, fairness in
> competitions and cenored exhibitions AND a better general correlation
> between what "people" and the "academy" calls art.
>
> Now, if you just take my last statement, i agree, that one can get
> into mediocracy. But the intention was this:
>
> If there is a public work, any artist should have the right to suggest
> a work. The "academy" may state their oppinion, but the people - who
> actually pays for the shit - should vote what artwork they want.
>
> As it is now, we get the mediocracy from the "academy".
>
>
> Christian Tangoe
Christian, the threads get pretty confusing, especially when
participants just keep adding on to existing text. For clarification, I
was responding to S&M's comment about "democratic" art selection, and
nothing that you had written in the course of this thread.
That said, I must say that I strongly disagree with you, and others, who
have imagined this so-called "academy" which allegedly enforces it's
taste and bias on everyone. There is no such thing. True, one could
attack and criticize a specific "art council" or specific museum
curatorial agency on specific issues (for example, a critic in the
Village Voice criticized the Guggenheim curators for agreeing to exhibit
Norman Rockwell recently) but to expand that out into a grand
conspiratorial theory is just nonesense. You only have to visit the web
site of any public art funding agency, read their annual report, to see
that a broad spectrum of art projects are traditionally funded, and
purposefully designed to reach the broad spectrum of public tastes.
What I'm hearing here (and not necessarily from you) is a prescription
for mediocrity. This was an issue taken-up years ago in the U.S. with
regard to public television and radio. Both Orsen Welles and Edward R.
Murrow, who lobbied for public TV, both stated that the commericial
media system guaranteed mediocrity, because ultimately programing was
based on polls, and the economics of broadcasting meant that the most
people had to be drawn to a broadcast in order to have a marketable
venue for advertising. Murrow and Welles both argued that the public,
given the opportunity to experience higher class art forms via
non-commercial media, would respond favorably. They also argued that a
significant audience existed that wanted higher class forms.
So I would argue that we have a perfect example of "democratic"
selection, and that is commercial media. So comming in October -
American Idol will exhibit at the Met, and MoMA will have a special
"Matrix" retrospective.
But I'm not saying that you are advocating this sort of thing, really.
Erik
Erik A. Mattila
> The point was that you are replacing one self-serving power structure
> with another. This is only an improvement if it's your side that's in
> power.
This is where I think the topic is on shakey grounds. I really don't
see these "self-serving" power structures. Even the museum
block-buster, which has had a lot of criticism over the years, is based
on an idea tha curators have about what can be popularized to the degree
that tens of thousands of vistors come to a museum, pay the fee, and
grok the art. I thought the first "blockbuster" was the traveling Van
Gogh exhibit in 1959, which put the Dutchman "on the map" in the public
mind. But I recently realized that the Nazi's "Degenerate Art" exhibits
of the 30s has to be credited with the invention of the blockbuster.
But on the other hand I do see "Art" as part and parcel of a hegemonic
power sturcture - it's just that I don't see it in terms of a duped
public and evil orchestrators. It's culture - and culture can be a
piece of crap as well as a piece of cake.
> I'm not the one complaining about the system, and I am reasonably
> happy with the museums and galleries I go to. I don't like everything
> I see there, but I learn something new whenever I go. If they looked
> like the tourist galleries over by the seashore that are popular with
> the masses, I'd quit going, and I believe that this is what would
> happen.
I'm amazed by the people here on this ng who go to the museum and see
paintings that the museum has rejected as part of their plot against the
public.
> I may be wrong; how would you see it as working?
>
> Anyone is welcome to change the system, however. You can start on
> this right now. Get a bill passed to provide public art funding based
> on democratic input.
It's already happened. If you compare the projects funded in 1968 with
projects funded today, you'll see what I mean. Public agencies have had
to retreat into a 'safe haven' because of public criticism, and as a
result we have the expected grey mayonaise art to look at. Personally,
I think being pissed-off that some guy got 50K to put giant socks on the
foot of the Rockies is more life-affirming.
Erik
Mani Deli
<emat...@oco.net> wrote:
> If the 'polis' determined what art is, we would have,
>by definition, mediocracy. But on the other hand, that's what you're
>after, isn't it?
>
I the polls determined what isn't art, we would have a lot less of
your sort of mediocrity
...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/
Erik A. Mattila
> On Mon, 09 Jun 2003 13:58:09 -0700, "Erik A. Mattila"
> <emat...@oco.net> wrote:
>
>
>> If the 'polis' determined what art is, we would have,
>>by definition, mediocracy. But on the other hand, that's what you're
>>after, isn't it?
>>
>
> I the polls determined what isn't art, we would have a lot less of
> your sort of mediocrity
My, what a clever reply.
Neil Maxwell
<emat...@oco.net> wrote:
>Neil Maxwell wrote:
>
>> The point was that you are replacing one self-serving power structure
>> with another. This is only an improvement if it's your side that's in
>> power.
>
>This is where I think the topic is on shakey grounds. I really don't
>see these "self-serving" power structures. Even the museum
>block-buster, which has had a lot of criticism over the years, is based
>on an idea tha curators have about what can be popularized to the degree
>that tens of thousands of vistors come to a museum, pay the fee, and
>grok the art. I thought the first "blockbuster" was the traveling Van
>Gogh exhibit in 1959, which put the Dutchman "on the map" in the public
>mind. But I recently realized that the Nazi's "Degenerate Art" exhibits
>of the 30s has to be credited with the invention of the blockbuster.
>
>But on the other hand I do see "Art" as part and parcel of a hegemonic
>power sturcture - it's just that I don't see it in terms of a duped
>public and evil orchestrators. It's culture - and culture can be a
>piece of crap as well as a piece of cake.
Yes, I'd agree with this; I wasn't very specific there. I don't
believe there's a single self-serving power structure that somehow
orchestrates what's shown everywhere; rather, that most groups that
control large fund pools automatically turn into self-serving power
structures, regardless of their intentions or goals. The "conspiracy"
rarely extends past their own walls, and the public at large is
generally unaware of it (which would contribute to the failure of
democratic art processes).
There are many exceptions to this, of course, since art curatorship is
very much a top-down process, and inspired leadership can transcend
the money politics. Our little museum in downtown San Jose has a
nicely eclectic collection that rotates regularly, and quit charging
admission a few years back. It makes for a perfect lunch stop.
G*rd*n
> >We mustn't forget Komar and Melamid's adventure in
> >democratic art (http://www.diacenter.org/km/index.html).
Neil Maxwell <neil.m...@nospam.intel.com>:
> Heh!
>
> I rest my case!
>
> Fascinating site. I'm fond of some of their work, but I'd never seen
> this site. You could apply the individual preference results to crank
> out tailored hits for target audiences. Of course, that's what people
> have been doing for ages, just with intuition rather than science.
Be sure to read the _Nation_ article:
http://www.diacenter.org/km/nation.html
Unfortunately they seem to have deleted the message I sent
them, once posted on their site, in which I accused them of
bourgeois decadence, or I would point you to that as well.
Mike Stengl
Umm...they're all dead. We figgered anyone that would paint a picture
of that evil man had to be a bad apple so we clusterbombed their
house. Bombing the world in the name of art...
Seagull Manager
>
> The problem I see
> is that there is no perfect system...
But some systems are better than others. And there might yet be a perfect
system devised, some day in the future.
> and the current one is born of capitalism
What, state-run museums and public art funding? You're kidding, surely!
> capitalism, which needs a good bit of democracy to thrive.
Capitalism doesn't need democracy. Indeed, unchecked capitalism can
undermine democracy very quickly.
> I'm not sure you could come up with a more democratic system, but I'm
open.
Let all public art commissions be voted on by the public: if the commission
is for a civic building, exhibit the submissions for all voters in the
locality to see and vote on them. If it is for works to be installed in a
museum, let all visitors to the museum see the submissions and place their
votes. If it is for an office building, let all users of the office building
see the submissions and vote. When criteria for a commission are drawn up,
let the draught be published, so the local people can debate it and vote on
any proposed changes. When a museum is given money to buy art, let the
public nominate works or artists, and let there be a vote. Let proportional
representation prevail, when there are many purchases to be made.
Tell me how this would be infeasible, or bad for art, or bad for the
would-be-voters, or bad for public participation in art, because I cannot
see it, myself.
> And I'd love to see some details. How do you vote,
By ticking a box, perhaps.
> and how are the
> votes apportioned?
Equally, between eligible voters.
> How is the artwork presented for voting?
In much the same way as submissions are already presented for viewing by
committees, except the public are invited. Or, perhaps, on the web.
> Who
> decides what art makes it on the ballot?
Two possibilities immediately present themselves:
(a) The artists nominate themselves, in response to advertisements, by
offering submissions, or samples of their work.
(b) Members of the public nominate whoever they like, and the ones with the
most nominations by a certain date then become candidates for the vote.
Doubtless, other possibilites exist.
> How is the money collected
> and distributed?
How is it collected and distributed now?
> Do large cities get more money?
Do they now?
> Can I vote on
> what's shown in Paris, or in Washington, or in San Jose, or only at my
> neighborhood mall?
Do you vote on who gets to be mayor in Paris?
Seagull Manager
"Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@oco.net> wrote in message
news:3EE4F4E1...@oco.net...
>
> What horseshit. If the 'polis' determined what art is, we would have,
> by definition, mediocracy. But on the other hand, that's what you're
> after, isn't it?
We have mediocracy now, in case you haven't visited any state-run galleries
or museums of "contemporary art" recently. But if mediocre art is what the
public want, why should the state, using the money it collected from them in
taxes, which it owes as a duty to use only in serving their best interest,
try to force on them something different?
That there are some who presume that they are entitled to use the state's
money to foist their presumed lofty taste on the public is a hangover from
the Napoleonic era. Those presumptious individuals should be disabused of
their arrogant notions, and the institutions turned over to the public on
whose behalf they are supposedly run.
Seagull Manager
"Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@oco.net> wrote in message
news:3EE513BE...@oco.net...
> christian tangoe wrote:
>
> Both Orsen Welles and Edward R.
> Murrow, who lobbied for public TV, both stated that the commericial
> media system guaranteed mediocrity, because ultimately programing was
> based on polls, and the economics of broadcasting meant that the most
> people had to be drawn to a broadcast in order to have a marketable
> venue for advertising. Murrow and Welles both argued that the public,
> given the opportunity to experience higher class art forms via
> non-commercial media, would respond favorably. They also argued that a
> significant audience existed that wanted higher class forms.
The public consume both "high" and "low" culture with great voracity. The
one does not preclude the other.
>
> So I would argue that we have a perfect example of "democratic"
> selection, and that is commercial media.
TV is not all that democratic. At the same time as aiming for the "lowest
common denominator" (which, incidentally, is presumptious - clever,
well-made TV, when it occurs, is often enormously popular), it also does
something that the demos would not choose for itself: namely, flood homes to
the maximum of human forbearance with advertisements. Furthermore, it
censors itself to please, not the viewing public, but advertisers. This,
again, is not democratic, but antidemocratic.
> So comming in October -
> American Idol will exhibit at the Met, and MoMA will have a special
> "Matrix" retrospective.
The Matrix, aside from being good as melodrama, deals in a reasonably
sophisticated and entertaining way with metaphysical ideas. Philosophy profs
have taken to using it as illustration in their courses. I have no less a
source than A. C. Grayling to attest that the Matrix is good philosophy.
(Dunno about the sequel, though.)
Erik A. Mattila
Seagull Manager wrote:
> "Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@oco.net> wrote in message
> news:3EE4F4E1...@oco.net...
>
>>What horseshit. If the 'polis' determined what art is, we would have,
>>by definition, mediocracy. But on the other hand, that's what you're
>>after, isn't it?
>
>
> We have mediocracy now, in case you haven't visited any state-run galleries
> or museums of "contemporary art" recently. But if mediocre art is what the
> public want, why should the state, using the money it collected from them in
> taxes, which it owes as a duty to use only in serving their best interest,
> try to force on them something different?
I have, and I like it. I'm especially pleased, for example, that the
National Gallery was the first, outside NL, to collect M. C. Escher.
And I've always enjoyed the Bouguereau's at the Palace of the Legion of
Honor have always delighted me, as well as the Puvis de Chavannes there.
And, oh yes, I've enjoyed the Warhol's at SFMoMa also, as well as the
Rivera's.
> That there are some who presume that they are entitled to use the state's
> money to foist their presumed lofty taste on the public is a hangover from
> the Napoleonic era. Those presumptious individuals should be disabused of
> their arrogant notions, and the institutions turned over to the public on
> whose behalf they are supposedly run.
You should really go to the NEA site and read their last's years Annual
Report, to see what they have funded - that you might be able to blow
substantive air out of your ass, at least. "Tilted Arc" is history.
Erik
>
>
Seagull Manager
> On Mon, 9 Jun 2003 21:06:41 +0100, "Seagull Manager"
> <seagull...@afang.nospamthanks.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >If democracy were introduced to purchasing, commissioning, and showing,
with
> >some sort of PR ("proportional representation"), it would be hard to see
how
> >anyone could justly call themselves "downtrodden" if their work is not
> >chosen.
>
> The same way that they do now. "Those fools don't recognize True Art
> when they see it!" This mantra has been chanted by countless artists
> through the ages, regardless of the system. Logic has no place in it.
I said, "justifiably".
> As I asked before (but got no reply), how would the voting and
> selection work?
My answer was proportional representation - i.e., less popular artists still
get bought, but proportionately less.
> I believe art chosen on a purely democratic system would resemble the
> fare we see on TV and hear on commercial radio. If you truly want
> democratic art selection, you could try to convince me otherwise, as
> that's how democratic decisions are made. Either that or by rolling
> over the minority by the majority.
TV and commercial radio are not shaped primarily by the public, but by
advertisers.
> >I wonder. Let's make no attempt to improve the current system, then.
>
> The point was that you are replacing one self-serving power structure
> with another. This is only an improvement if it's your side that's in
> power.
Democracy serves more selves, and leaves fewer unserved, than does the
present top-down system.
I don't know it it would serve me better, except that I *think* I would see
less conceptualism in public art galleries.
> I'm not the one complaining about the system, and I am reasonably
> happy with the museums and galleries I go to. I don't like everything
> I see there, but I learn something new whenever I go. If they looked
> like the tourist galleries over by the seashore that are popular with
> the masses, I'd quit going, and I believe that this is what would
> happen.
I'm willing to gamble that it wouldn't.
> Get a bill passed to provide public art funding based on democratic
input.
Most MPs can't get their bills passed, never mind the rest of us, but, hey,
we can try.
Seagull Manager
"G*rd*n" <g...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:bc2vbf$c7h$1...@panix3.panix.com...
> We mustn't forget Komar and Melamid's adventure in
> democratic art (http://www.diacenter.org/km/index.html).
But they produced deliberately bad paintings that conformed to the literal
understandings of the results of their arguably slanted polls. Very good
paintings could have been produced to fulfill the requirements given, but if
that had been done, Komar & Melamud's project would have failed as dada.
Erik A. Mattila
> "Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@oco.net> wrote in message
> news:3EE513BE...@oco.net...
>
>>christian tangoe wrote:
>>
>> Both Orsen Welles and Edward R.
>>Murrow, who lobbied for public TV, both stated that the commericial
>>media system guaranteed mediocrity, because ultimately programing was
>>based on polls, and the economics of broadcasting meant that the most
>>people had to be drawn to a broadcast in order to have a marketable
>>venue for advertising. Murrow and Welles both argued that the public,
>>given the opportunity to experience higher class art forms via
>>non-commercial media, would respond favorably. They also argued that a
>>significant audience existed that wanted higher class forms.
>
>
> The public consume both "high" and "low" culture with great voracity. The
> one does not preclude the other.
I disagree. Have you ever read Guy Debord's works on the spectacle.
But I'll grant you one thing, the concept of "High" has certainly been
dragged down severel notches by mass media.
>>So I would argue that we have a perfect example of "democratic"
>>selection, and that is commercial media.
>
> TV is not all that democratic. At the same time as aiming for the "lowest
> common denominator"
Sure it is. How much more democratic can one get than conducting polls
and ratings, and responding to them one-on-one by redesigning the
product? Fortunately there are niches and micro-markets for guys like
Spike Lee and Jim Jarmusch. They don't expect the 85 million on the
first weekend - they expect to make a superior product.
(which, incidentally, is presumptious - clever,
> well-made TV, when it occurs, is often enormously popular), it also does
> something that the demos would not choose for itself: namely, flood homes to
> the maximum of human forbearance with advertisements.
Well, that was Orson Welles argument for Public Broadcasting (made
before Congress). That the public would respond to the "High" given the
opportunity. Another powerhouse in that debate was Richard Boone, I
just remembered. Boone did some of the best early TV work ever. So you
have to ask yourself what happened to it?
Furthermore, it
> censors itself to please, not the viewing public, but advertisers. This,
> again, is not democratic, but antidemocratic.
Advertisers exert pressure to protect their branding schemes, so
effectively they are the censors, not the producers. The bone of
contention is always whether more or less viewers will receive the
advertising message due to controversy. But then, instutions like FOX
do in fact censor for political reasons - but it is exceptional.
>> So comming in October -
>>American Idol will exhibit at the Met, and MoMA will have a special
>>"Matrix" retrospective.
>
> The Matrix, aside from being good as melodrama, deals in a reasonably
> sophisticated and entertaining way with metaphysical ideas. Philosophy profs
> have taken to using it as illustration in their courses. I have no less a
> source than A. C. Grayling to attest that the Matrix is good philosophy.
> (Dunno about the sequel, though.)
Grayling thought the second was pretentious. In fact, he said that the
first "used" some philosophical ideas, but did not discuss them, which
wouldn't qualify as "good philosophy" by a long shot. The second, he
said, discusses them, but it was very pretentious. The Wachowski Bros
have some studying to do...but not really, they're only interested in
recycling spectacle for profit. It you want to call that "philosophy,"
or even "art" then be my guest. It just illustrates the point I am
making. Another point Grayling makes is that "Minority Report" uses
philosophical ideas and discusses them on a sophisticated level - but
that's the difference between Spielberg and the Wachowski boys.
Erik
>
>
Anastasia
> "Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@oco.net> wrote in message
> news:3EE513BE...@oco.net...
> > christian tangoe wrote:
> >
> > Both Orsen Welles and Edward R.
> > Murrow, who lobbied for public TV, both stated that the commericial
> > media system guaranteed mediocrity, because ultimately programing was
> > based on polls, and the economics of broadcasting meant that the most
> > people had to be drawn to a broadcast in order to have a marketable
> > venue for advertising. Murrow and Welles both argued that the public,
> > given the opportunity to experience higher class art forms via
> > non-commercial media, would respond favorably. They also argued that a
> > significant audience existed that wanted higher class forms.
>
> The public consume both "high" and "low" culture with great voracity. The
> one does not preclude the other.
Welles was coming from a radio background. Television was a relatively
new medium which he thought would be advanteagous to the propogation
of elitist aesthetics. Those "high class art forms" he advocated did
not include the opinions of the easily manipulated general public. In
no way was he advocating democracy; however I suspect that what he
realised that Television (as radio) would soon be dominated by
corporations who determine exactly what people see.
> >
> > So I would argue that we have a perfect example of "democratic"
> > selection, and that is commercial media.
>
> TV is not all that democratic. At the same time as aiming for the "lowest
> common denominator" (which, incidentally, is presumptious - clever,
> well-made TV, when it occurs, is often enormously popular), it also does
> something that the demos would not choose for itself: namely, flood homes to
> the maximum of human forbearance with advertisements. Furthermore, it
> censors itself to please, not the viewing public, but advertisers. This,
> again, is not democratic, but antidemocratic.
That's funny. Television isn't "democratic" in any sense of the word,
but as you say the anthesis of democracy. In no way does anything
shown on TV ever represent the general population. German TV might not
have US regulations controlling what their population sees, but
definitely TV in the US is a strictly censored affair backed up by all
the right advertisers and conglomorates.
> > So comming in October -
> > American Idol will exhibit at the Met, and MoMA will have a special
> > "Matrix" retrospective.
>
> The Matrix, aside from being good as melodrama, deals in a reasonably
> sophisticated and entertaining way with metaphysical ideas. Philosophy profs
> have taken to using it as illustration in their courses. I have no less a
> source than A. C. Grayling to attest that the Matrix is good philosophy.
> (Dunno about the sequel, though.)
As cute as the writer who wrote the first script of the Matrix was, in
all honesty, I think if some professor in southern California decides
to use the Matrix as an example of "metaphysical ideas in philosophy"
that mainly he/she is attempting to make an easy analogy from popular
culture that their students would be familar with if their readings in
Descartes, Kant, Hume and Chisolm prove too difficult for their
comprehension.
Regards,
Hadley
Neil Maxwell
<seagull...@afang.nospamthanks.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"Neil Maxwell" <neil.m...@nospam.intel.com> wrote in message
>news:lj0aevck8k0ptt68o...@4ax.com...
>>
>> The problem I see
>> is that there is no perfect system...
>
>But some systems are better than others. And there might yet be a perfect
>system devised, some day in the future.
And here we come to that wide gulf between marching with signs that
read "Power to the People!" and actually coming up with a workable
system. If the goal is to say "Wouldn't it be cool if...", then
you're there. If you want to actually model a workable system,
there's quite a bit of skull sweat that needs to be applied.
Since this is all blue-sky proposal, it doesn't seem worth the effort
to me, but some of you may feel strongly enough to do it. Someone has
to, if it's going to happen.
>> and the current one is born of capitalism
>
>What, state-run museums and public art funding? You're kidding, surely!
No, the art system in general, which heavily influences the
government-funded system, since the whole thing is rather inbred.
>> capitalism, which needs a good bit of democracy to thrive.
>
>Capitalism doesn't need democracy. Indeed, unchecked capitalism can
>undermine democracy very quickly.
I'd strongly argue that, but it sounds like a different thread, and a
different group.
>> I'm not sure you could come up with a more democratic system, but I'm
>open.
>
>Let all public art commissions be voted on by the public: if the commission
>is for a civic building, exhibit the submissions for all voters in the
>locality to see and vote on them. If it is for works to be installed in a
>museum, let all visitors to the museum see the submissions and place their
>votes. If it is for an office building, let all users of the office building
>see the submissions and vote. When criteria for a commission are drawn up,
>let the draught be published, so the local people can debate it and vote on
>any proposed changes. When a museum is given money to buy art, let the
>public nominate works or artists, and let there be a vote. Let proportional
>representation prevail, when there are many purchases to be made.
Where do you display the works? I'd think there would be far more
works than space available, assuming an open submission process. It
sounds like voting would be limited to people who actually use the
space, rather than those who pay for it, under these scenarios. While
this is not bad, it's certainly not democratic.
I'd like to see the idea tested with public art works, as we have a
fairly poor history with them in San Jose, and there would be little
to lose, but I'm not holding my breath.
>Tell me how this would be infeasible, or bad for art, or bad for the
>would-be-voters, or bad for public participation in art, because I cannot
>see it, myself.
I think it could be very good, if you could make a workable system.
Infeasible is the problem, though, as the devil is in the details.
>> And I'd love to see some details. How do you vote,
>
>By ticking a box, perhaps.
And what could be simpler? How do you distribute and collect the
ballots? How do you avoid fraudulence (assuming you care about
accountability)? What's the time frame for voting? One day, one
week, one month?
Where I live, a city-wide vote costs several hundred thousand dollars,
and this is without glossy pictures of art. Regardless of the system,
it will cost money, possibly a lot of money. Would this come out of
the art budget? I'd rather see another Joan Brown in the permanent
collection.
You could piggyback on the existing voting system to reduce costs, but
you'd still have the problem of creating and distributing the
materials, and would automatically limit the vote to a single day.
>> and how are the
>> votes apportioned?
>
>Equally, between eligible voters.
Who are eligible voters? Taxpayers, users of the space, adults over
18, people with internet access, people who care enough to come to the
place where the voting is held and have the resources to get there?
>> How is the artwork presented for voting?
>
>In much the same way as submissions are already presented for viewing by
>committees, except the public are invited. Or, perhaps, on the web.
Let's say you get 1000 entries for a museum acquisition proposal (I
believe you'd easily get far more, if there was much money involved).
Are they printed up in glossy pamphlets, or limited to those with web
access? How big do you make the presentation material? Do you charge
for copies, or make people use it on the spot? Who supplies the
images? Do you have funding for artists who can't afford professional
imaging to avoid marketing distortion?
Also, can any artist worldwide submit works, or just those in the
locality/state/country/whatever? I can foresee a deluge of
submissions...
>> Who
>> decides what art makes it on the ballot?
>
>Two possibilities immediately present themselves:
>(a) The artists nominate themselves, in response to advertisements, by
>offering submissions, or samples of their work.
Which would result in vast numbers of applications; not necessarily a
bad thing, but you'd need infrastructure to deal with it for storage,
viewing, etc.
>(b) Members of the public nominate whoever they like, and the ones with the
>most nominations by a certain date then become candidates for the vote.
So you'd limit it to the top X many nominations? How do you avoid
fraud in the nomination process? What is the nomination process?
Paper ballots, online voting, filling out a pile of paperwork? At
this point, it's no longer democracy, but closer to a representational
republic.
>Doubtless, other possibilites exist.
Doubtless.
>> How is the money collected
>> and distributed?
>
>How is it collected and distributed now?
I dunno. Our local museum has many corporate, foundation, and
individual sponsors, as well as the NEA, the City of San Jose, the
California Arts Council, and more. Would the private/foundation
contributions be exempt, and only the taxpayer dollars be subject to
voting? Would city residents vote on the city's portion of the
funding, national residents on the NEA portion, and so on?
I could see ending up with a Curator's Gallery and a People's Gallery;
one funded in the traditional way, the other by popular vote. I'd
certainly visit both, but I believe (based on experience) that I'd get
more out of the Curator's Gallery.
>> Do large cities get more money?
>
>Do they now?
That is to say, do cities get funded proportionally according to their
tax contributions or voter population, or do all cities/towns/villages
who want funding get an equal amount? Do people nationwide vote on
who gets the NEA funds, for instance? Does New York get more than
Lodi?
>> Can I vote on
>> what's shown in Paris, or in Washington, or in San Jose, or only at my
>> neighborhood mall?
>
>Do you vote on who gets to be mayor in Paris?
The original proposal I replied to was for a global democracy, later
amended to a western world democracy. This is a logical outshoot of
this. Regardlss, I do vote for people in my school district (a few
dozen square miles), my city, my county, my state, and my country.
Would the voting on art extend similarly? For instance, would NEA
dollars be apportioned per a national vote?
We'd end up with the government funding Thomas Kinkade instead of
Andres Serrano, I believe. I think that would be a bad thing, but
YMMV.
Neil Maxwell
<seagull...@afang.nospamthanks.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"Neil Maxwell" <neil.m...@nospam.intel.com> wrote in message
>news:f4r9ev85sfgetkgst...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 9 Jun 2003 21:06:41 +0100, "Seagull Manager"
>> <seagull...@afang.nospamthanks.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> >
>> >If democracy were introduced to purchasing, commissioning, and showing,
>with
>> >some sort of PR ("proportional representation"), it would be hard to see
>how
>> >anyone could justly call themselves "downtrodden" if their work is not
>> >chosen.
>>
>> The same way that they do now. "Those fools don't recognize True Art
>> when they see it!" This mantra has been chanted by countless artists
>> through the ages, regardless of the system. Logic has no place in it.
>
>I said, "justifiably".
There are some who would argue that the current complainers are not
justified either.
>> As I asked before (but got no reply), how would the voting and
>> selection work?
>
>My answer was proportional representation - i.e., less popular artists still
>get bought, but proportionately less.
>
This is how it works with music, but I need to listen to
non-commercial stations to hear what I'm interested in. The moment
you start catering strictly to popular taste, the 5% of
art/music/books/whatever I'm interested in falls completely off the
radar. I have no reason to believe it would be different under this
scheme.
>> I believe art chosen on a purely democratic system would resemble the
>> fare we see on TV and hear on commercial radio. If you truly want
>> democratic art selection, you could try to convince me otherwise, as
>> that's how democratic decisions are made. Either that or by rolling
>> over the minority by the majority.
>
>TV and commercial radio are not shaped primarily by the public, but by
>advertisers.
The advertisers are basing their push on public response to programs.
Ineffective campaigns and unpopular TV have extremely short
half-lives. People watch TV for the show content, not the ad content,
and advertisers adjust their targets for the demographic profile of
the audience. It ultimately comes down to being driven by public
popularity.
>> >I wonder. Let's make no attempt to improve the current system, then.
>>
>> The point was that you are replacing one self-serving power structure
>> with another. This is only an improvement if it's your side that's in
>> power.
>
>Democracy serves more selves, and leaves fewer unserved, than does the
>present top-down system.
But this is not a critical area, like food and housing, where it's
important to serve the largest groups. Rather, it's an area where the
offerings would become mostly bland and homogenous if the only goal
were serving the masses, similar to the bulk of popular music. This
is the ultimate problem with democracy - the smallest minorities are
supported at the whim of the majority, which is fickle.
>I don't know it it would serve me better, except that I *think* I would see
>less conceptualism in public art galleries.
But you don't have to go see that, do you? Surely there are museums
and galleries that have works you want to see, and you can just walk
quickly past the works you don't like. What about people who do want
to see it? Should it not be available because you or the masses don't
like it?
>> I'm not the one complaining about the system, and I am reasonably
>> happy with the museums and galleries I go to. I don't like everything
>> I see there, but I learn something new whenever I go. If they looked
>> like the tourist galleries over by the seashore that are popular with
>> the masses, I'd quit going, and I believe that this is what would
>> happen.
>
>I'm willing to gamble that it wouldn't.
I see no evidence of this in other art forms driven by popular
consumption, but it's always worth a try.
>> Get a bill passed to provide public art funding based on democratic
>input.
>
>Most MPs can't get their bills passed, never mind the rest of us, but, hey,
>we can try.
I don't believe the public would care enough, to be honest, unless it
were on the heels of a funding scandal or just after the Turner
prize...
Seagull Manager
>
> And here we come to that wide gulf between marching with signs that
> read "Power to the People!" and actually coming up with a workable
> system.
No, it is the gulf between saying "There's something badly wrong with the
current system - I think this is direction in which we ought to change it in
order to make it better", and saying "All systems are flawed anyway,
changing things won't do any good, we might as well sit back and do nothing
because we know (a priori!) that the status quo, though it may stink, is as
good as it gets."
> >What, state-run museums and public art funding? You're kidding, surely!
>
> No, the art system in general, which heavily influences the
> government-funded system, since the whole thing is rather inbred.
The art system "in general" includes Thomas Kincaid, and people who collect
ancient Chinese art, exclusively. I doubt you're really casting your net
that broadly. Rather, you'd be thinking of the state system and those who
cosy up to it (or try to).
> >> capitalism, which needs a good bit of democracy to thrive.
> >
> >Capitalism doesn't need democracy. Indeed, unchecked capitalism can
> >undermine democracy very quickly.
>
> I'd strongly argue that, but it sounds like a different thread, and a
> different group.
Probably, but I cannot resist reminding you of the fact that Hong Kong has
never been a democracy, despite being one of the most successful centres of
capitalism during the past century or so.
> Where do you display the works?
If there are to be large numbers of submissions, let the works be displayed
on the web.
> It
> sounds like voting would be limited to people who actually use the
> space, rather than those who pay for it, under these scenarios. While
> this is not bad, it's certainly not democratic.
It is democratic. Those who use the space are the relevant constituency -
they are the ones for whom the right to vote makes sense. Those who do not
use the space are not part of that constituency - there's no good reason to
give them the vote. Same as when people vote in local elections in towns
where they live, clubs of which they are members, etc., and not in towns
where they don't live, or clubs of which they are not members.
> I think it could be very good, if you could make a workable system.
> Infeasible is the problem, though, as the devil is in the details.
Well, I think it is highly feasible, on the face of it. Enough to justify
going forward with the idea. You've not come up with any show-stopping
objection.
>
> >> And I'd love to see some details. How do you vote,
> >
> >By ticking a box, perhaps.
>
> And what could be simpler? How do you distribute and collect the
> ballots? How do you avoid fraudulence (assuming you care about
> accountability)? What's the time frame for voting? One day, one
> week, one month?
How is this done in thousands of elections of numerous kinds all over the
world every day? There are organizations (in Britain, the Electoral Reform
Society) who specialize in helping ensure that elections are free and fair,
and secure against fraud. Once the idea is accepted that public art should
be chosen by the public, such organizations can be consulted when it comes
to sorting out the details of the actual voting and counting process.
> Where I live, a city-wide vote costs several hundred thousand dollars,
> and this is without glossy pictures of art.
Let the voters *buy* the glossy pictures of art, if they want hard copies of
them. They are, after all, the much same people as those who buy exhibition
catalogues, so there's a good chance they will.
> Regardless of the system,
> it will cost money, possibly a lot of money. Would this come out of
> the art budget?
It might. So long as it was, say, less than a tenth of the total purchase
budget, it would probably be worthwhile.
> Who are eligible voters? Taxpayers, users of the space, adults over
> 18, people with internet access, people who care enough to come to the
> place where the voting is held and have the resources to get there?
>
> >> How is the artwork presented for voting?
> >
> >In much the same way as submissions are already presented for viewing by
> >committees, except the public are invited. Or, perhaps, on the web.
>
> Let's say you get 1000 entries for a museum acquisition proposal (I
> believe you'd easily get far more, if there was much money involved).
> Are they printed up in glossy pamphlets, or limited to those with web
> access? How big do you make the presentation material? Do you charge
> for copies, or make people use it on the spot? Who supplies the
> images? Do you have funding for artists who can't afford professional
> imaging to avoid marketing distortion?
The answers to all these questions are likely to depend on the individual
cases. When there are large numbers of submissions, a web display is the
default answer. Everyone has web access, except in poor countries. Those who
don't have computers at home can come to the municipal building and browse
on a screen made available to them.
> Also, can any artist worldwide submit works, or just those in the
> locality/state/country/whatever? I can foresee a deluge of
> submissions...
Better a deluge of submissions than cronyism.
>
> >> Who
> >> decides what art makes it on the ballot?
> >
> >Two possibilities immediately present themselves:
> >(a) The artists nominate themselves, in response to advertisements, by
> >offering submissions, or samples of their work.
>
> Which would result in vast numbers of applications; not necessarily a
> bad thing, but you'd need infrastructure to deal with it for storage,
> viewing, etc.
Not necessarily. The infrastructure requirements could be farmed out to a
third party. And electronic submissions exist as a possible economic
alternative.
> >(b) Members of the public nominate whoever they like, and the ones with
the
> >most nominations by a certain date then become candidates for the vote.
>
> So you'd limit it to the top X many nominations? How do you avoid
> fraud in the nomination process? What is the nomination process?
> Paper ballots, online voting, filling out a pile of paperwork? At
> this point, it's no longer democracy, but closer to a representational
> republic.
See my remarks about Electoral Reform Society, above.
>
> >Doubtless, other possibilites exist.
>
> Doubtless.
Doubtless we agree on this.
>
> >> How is the money collected
> >> and distributed?
> >
> >How is it collected and distributed now?
>
> I dunno. Our local museum has many corporate, foundation, and
> individual sponsors, as well as the NEA, the City of San Jose, the
> California Arts Council, and more. Would the private/foundation
> contributions be exempt, and only the taxpayer dollars be subject to
> voting? Would city residents vote on the city's portion of the
> funding, national residents on the NEA portion, and so on?
Why would you wish to know more detail about a proposal in its germinal
stages than about the system that you live with now?
> I could see ending up with a Curator's Gallery and a People's Gallery;
> one funded in the traditional way, the other by popular vote. I'd
> certainly visit both, but I believe (based on experience) that I'd get
> more out of the Curator's Gallery.
I'm proposing the abolition of the curatorial role in the acquisition of new
public art, and the total abolition of "traditional" state funding of art.
So, what you foresee has nothing to do with what is currently under
discussion here.
>
> >> Do large cities get more money?
> >
> >Do they now?
>
> That is to say, do cities get funded proportionally according to their
> tax contributions or voter population, or do all cities/towns/villages
> who want funding get an equal amount? Do people nationwide vote on
> who gets the NEA funds, for instance? Does New York get more than
> Lodi?
This is all irrelevant. Assuming money is available, the public should vote
on what art is acquired with that money for public consumption. That's my
proposal. We could get into separate proposals about how funding should be
collected locally or nationally, by subscription or taxes, but they would be
*separate* proposals. They are separate issues. Inequalities between
districts is not what the democratization of purchasing is intended to
solve, but rather the fact that state money is often spent on art for the
public that the public does not want, and does not believe serves it any
purpose.
>
> >> Can I vote on
> >> what's shown in Paris, or in Washington, or in San Jose, or only at my
> >> neighborhood mall?
> >
> >Do you vote on who gets to be mayor in Paris?
>
> The original proposal I replied to was for a global democracy, later
> amended to a western world democracy.
No, it was for a "global agreement how things could turn better". Not a
global agreement about what art will be installed in the town square in San
Jose, but a global agreement about how the art regime could be improved.
This is a logical outshoot of
> this. Regardlss, I do vote for people in my school district (a few
> dozen square miles), my city, my county, my state, and my country.
> Would the voting on art extend similarly? For instance, would NEA
> dollars be apportioned per a national vote?
Perhaps you could vote on what gets purchased for your national gallery,
without living near it, but it would be unreasonable to expect to vote on
local issues in an area with which you have no connection.
> We'd end up with the government funding Thomas Kinkade instead of
> Andres Serrano, I believe. I think that would be a bad thing, but
> YMMV.
You *might*. But I bet you wouldn't. And if you did, one would be no worse
than the other.
Seagull Manager
> Seagull Manager wrote:
> > "Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@oco.net> wrote in message
> > news:3EE513BE...@oco.net...
> >
mass media.
And by the representatives of "high" art, such as the Tate, trying to
maximise crowds by dint of PR gimmicks and fairground attraction art.
> Sure it is. How much more democratic can one get than conducting polls
> and ratings, and responding to them one-on-one by redesigning the
> product?
If the audience demand a documentary attacking Coca-Cola, or a satire of
General Motors, they ain't gonna get it.
TV (despite its enslavement to advertisers), is given a worse rap than it
deserves. 90% of TV is crap, but 90% of everything is crap. But if you turn
on the TV at the wrong moment, the percentage rises to 100%. If you randomly
went into a section of a bookshop, and opened the pages of all the books in
front of you, that would be the equivalent experience. You'd find that 100%
of books seem to be crap, also.
> Advertisers exert pressure to protect their branding schemes, so
> effectively they are the censors, not the producers.
But that censorship (huge no-go areas that create a sense of reluctance to
take creative risks) is a major reason why TV is regarded as crap.
> Grayling thought the second was pretentious. In fact, he said that the
> first "used" some philosophical ideas, but did not discuss them, which
> wouldn't qualify as "good philosophy" by a long shot.
It counts as good storytelling ("show, don't tell"), and good *illustration*
of philosophical concepts. His main criticism of the sequel was that it did
a good deal of needless telling.
> The second, he
> said, discusses them, but it was very pretentious. The Wachowski Bros
> have some studying to do...but not really, they're only interested in
> recycling spectacle for profit.
They are reportedly obsessive comic book fans. I would speculate that they
do it because they love it, and they want to make it "great" by their own
(comic book and arcade game) standards, and it is rather incidental to them
that they make money out of these movies.
> It you want to call that "philosophy," or even "art" then be my guest.
I'm not calling it philosophy, but I don't see why it cannot be called art,
even if it is clearly not great art.
> It just illustrates the point I am
> making. Another point Grayling makes is that "Minority Report" uses
> philosophical ideas and discusses them on a sophisticated level - but
> that's the difference between Spielberg and the Wachowski boys.
You want to call that kitschmonger Spielberg an "artist" now, do you? Well,
I've no objection, but I don't see why the Brothers Wachowski can't be
called artists also.
Seagull Manager
>
>
> Seagull Manager wrote:
> > "Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@oco.net> wrote in message
> > news:3EE4F4E1...@oco.net...
> >
> >>What horseshit. If the 'polis' determined what art is, we would have,
> >>by definition, mediocracy. But on the other hand, that's what you're
> >>after, isn't it?
> >
> >
> > We have mediocracy now, in case you haven't visited any state-run
galleries
> > or museums of "contemporary art" recently. But if mediocre art is what
the
> > public want, why should the state, using the money it collected from
them in
> > taxes, which it owes as a duty to use only in serving their best
interest,
> > try to force on them something different?
>
> I have, and I like it. I'm especially pleased, for example, that the
> National Gallery was the first, outside NL, to collect M. C. Escher.
Lucky you. The Tate has not yet deigned to acquire any Eschers, as far as I
know.
> And I've always enjoyed the Bouguereau's at the Palace of the Legion of
> Honor have always delighted me, as well as the Puvis de Chavannes there.
Were those acquired after WWI, or before?
> "Tilted Arc" is history.
I'd like to think so.
Neil Maxwell
<seagull...@afang.nospamthanks.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>"Neil Maxwell" <neil.m...@nospam.intel.com> wrote in message
>news:5oieev03ffo5l9d76...@4ax.com...
>> And here we come to that wide gulf between marching with signs that
>> read "Power to the People!" and actually coming up with a workable
>> system.
>
>No, it is the gulf between saying "There's something badly wrong with the
>current system - I think this is direction in which we ought to change it in
>order to make it better", and saying "All systems are flawed anyway,
>changing things won't do any good, we might as well sit back and do nothing
>because we know (a priori!) that the status quo, though it may stink, is as
>good as it gets."
As I stated before, I have no problem with the current system, and no
particular desire to change it. My limited time and money go to other
goals that are more important to me. The only public displays I put
works in are based on anarchy rather than democracy, and I do it for
personal gratification, not money. The one time the organizers
suggested something I made should not be displayed, at the behest of a
vocal, emotional group, I ignored them after determining their points
were invalid. Worked for me.
If you are truly interested in creating such a system (though it seems
Christian has dropped out to tilt at other windmills), write it up,
plan the details, lobby the politicians, push for implementation
someplace receptive. Be sure to document the costs, infrastructure
requirements, and resources required. It may be you'd get picked up
by the media and actually get a chance to try it, assuming you can
make it feasible, but it would have to be very well planned.
As I'm sure you're aware, saying "Something ought'a be done!" rarely
results in something getting done. Talk is fine; I'm quite fond of
it, but it doesn't change anything.
Seagull Manager
>
> There are some who would argue that the current complainers are not
> justified either.
For my own part, I have no truck with artists who complain about being
neglected, whatever their genre.
> This is how it works with music, but I need to listen to
> non-commercial stations to hear what I'm interested in. The moment
> you start catering strictly to popular taste, the 5% of
> art/music/books/whatever I'm interested in falls completely off the
> radar. I have no reason to believe it would be different under this
> scheme.
This isn't art for the home, we're talking about, this is art for public
places. Enjoy any minority taste you like at home, but if it is public money
in a public place for public appreciation, let it reflect public taste.
> The advertisers are basing their push on public response to programs.
And on an impulse to censor, that always assumes the worst.
> People watch TV for the show content, not the ad content,
Most US ads are cheap. But there are ads that people look out for, even
there.
> But this is not a critical area, like food and housing, where it's
> important to serve the largest groups.
In that case, why is the government involving itself at all?
> This
> is the ultimate problem with democracy - the smallest minorities are
> supported at the whim of the majority, which is fickle.
As I see it, the problem with democracy is that the demos has a tendency to
abdicate (e.g., by voting in a Fascist demagogue or an Islamic system of
rule), and then wish it hadn't done.
> But you don't have to go see that, do you?
No, I don't have to go to see that, but
> Surely there are museums
> and galleries that have works you want to see
No, there aren't. Not new stuff, anyway. If I'm lucky, a commercial gallery
will be showing something of interest, but it's hard to know what all the
galleries are doing all the time, and there's stuff I would love to have
access to any time I wanted to see it, but can't, because some pile of
bricks or other crap is in the state-run gallery in its stead.
> What about people who do want to see it?
They are relatively few. Let them suffer, I say.
> Should it not be available because you or the masses don't like it?
It should not be crowding out the stuff that the masses prefer, at the
masses' expense.
> I see no evidence of this in other art forms driven by popular
> consumption, but it's always worth a try.
Since only the best stuff (by vote, of course), in open competition, would
be acquired, the art would be of a higher standard overall than any tourist
gallery could probably afford, though, yes, the taste would probably tend to
the conservative side. Not exactly the same taste as in the tourist
galleries, because the demos is somewhat different. Also, people like stuff
that they wouldn't buy for their own homes, and they would vote such stuff
in as well.
>
> >> Get a bill passed to provide public art funding based on democratic
> >input.
> >
> >Most MPs can't get their bills passed, never mind the rest of us, but,
hey,
> >we can try.
>
> I don't believe the public would care enough, to be honest, unless it
> were on the heels of a funding scandal or just after the Turner
> prize...
Part of the art of politics is timing.
Erik A. Mattila
> Since this is all blue-sky proposal, it doesn't seem worth the effort
> to me, but some of you may feel strongly enough to do it. Someone has
> to, if it's going to happen.
Neil, this thread keeps reminding me of Luis Buñuel's "Viridiana." Did
you ever see it? An idealistic wealthy young woman (Viridiana)
bombs-out at the Convent, so decides to dedicate her life to helping the
poor. But they turn out to be just as selfish and insensitive as the
rich. And all the time her cousin is trying to get into her pants.
There was a classic scene in the movie that mimics Leonardo's "Last
Supper" - with all the beggars in the appropriate poses, only flashing
the camera etc. Great Flick.
I'm beginning to feel like an elitist, of course, but God, please don't
let my neighbors choose what's displayed in art museums. Please,
please...:-)
Erik
Erik A. Mattila
> "Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@oco.net> wrote in message
> news:3EE68E9C...@oco.net...
>
>>Seagull Manager wrote:
>>
>>>"Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@oco.net> wrote in message
>>>news:3EE513BE...@oco.net...
>>>
>>
>>the concept of "High" has certainly been dragged down severel notches by
>
> mass media.
>
> And by the representatives of "high" art, such as the Tate, trying to
> maximise crowds by dint of PR gimmicks and fairground attraction art.
Not even logical, my friend. Those hegemons who decree the "high" of
art can't bring it down, can they? You should shoot for consistency in
your fictions.
>>Sure it is. How much more democratic can one get than conducting polls
>>and ratings, and responding to them one-on-one by redesigning the
>>product?
>
> If the audience demand a documentary attacking Coca-Cola, or a satire of
> General Motors, they ain't gonna get it.
Wel, I'm sure we could imagine all sorts of hypothetical conundrums if
we wished. But let's talk about how it really works.
> TV (despite its enslavement to advertisers), is given a worse rap than it
> deserves. 90% of TV is crap, but 90% of everything is crap. But if you turn
> on the TV at the wrong moment, the percentage rises to 100%. If you randomly
> went into a section of a bookshop, and opened the pages of all the books in
> front of you, that would be the equivalent experience. You'd find that 100%
> of books seem to be crap, also.
I don't get it. What are you fantasizing about now?
>>Advertisers exert pressure to protect their branding schemes, so
>>effectively they are the censors, not the producers.
>
> But that censorship (huge no-go areas that create a sense of reluctance to
> take creative risks) is a major reason why TV is regarded as crap.
The "no go areas" are conceived on the belief that the public will not
be interested, or the public will be offended etc. Not always right,
but that's the basis. Colgate would gladly sponsor "Springtime in
Germany" if it looked like an extra few million will see their
toothpaste message.
>>Grayling thought the second was pretentious. In fact, he said that the
>>first "used" some philosophical ideas, but did not discuss them, which
>>wouldn't qualify as "good philosophy" by a long shot.
>
> It counts as good storytelling ("show, don't tell"), and good *illustration*
> of philosophical concepts. His main criticism of the sequel was that it did
> a good deal of needless telling.
Nevertheless, not "good philosophy" as you claimed.
>>The second, he
>>said, discusses them, but it was very pretentious. The Wachowski Bros
>>have some studying to do...but not really, they're only interested in
>>recycling spectacle for profit.
>
> They are reportedly obsessive comic book fans. I would speculate that they
> do it because they love it, and they want to make it "great" by their own
> (comic book and arcade game) standards, and it is rather incidental to them
> that they make money out of these movies.
Sure.
>>It you want to call that "philosophy," or even "art" then be my guest.
>
> I'm not calling it philosophy, but I don't see why it cannot be called art,
> even if it is clearly not great art.
Ok, it's mediocre art. But that's what I said originially, and that's
what the Lumpin Proletariate would vote for.
>> It just illustrates the point I am
>>making. Another point Grayling makes is that "Minority Report" uses
>>philosophical ideas and discusses them on a sophisticated level - but
>>that's the difference between Spielberg and the Wachowski boys.
>
> You want to call that kitschmonger Spielberg an "artist" now, do you? Well,
> I've no objection, but I don't see why the Brothers Wachowski can't be
> called artists also.
Yeah, I think Spielberg is way up on the scale of greatness in film
making. I think "Empire of the Sun" was among the top ten films of all
time. But I can call the Wachowski's artists. What's the problem?
Erik
>
>
>
Erik A. Mattila
I wouldn't know without checking the museum acquisition records, but my
guess is before. It was built in 1920 by Alma de Bretteville Spreckles
to promote French art in California, and dedicated to California GIs who
died in Europe during WWI. It was originally built to house a huge
Rodin collection, and I wouldn't be surprised if the bulk of the French
painting in the collection came there initially.
Erik
Seagull Manager
> Seagull Manager wrote:
> > "Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@oco.net> wrote in message
> > news:3EE68E9C...@oco.net...
> >
> >>Seagull Manager wrote:
> >>
> >>>"Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@oco.net> wrote in message
> >>>news:3EE513BE...@oco.net...
> >>>
> >>
> >>the concept of "High" has certainly been dragged down severel notches by
> >
> > mass media.
> >
> > And by the representatives of "high" art, such as the Tate, trying to
> > maximise crowds by dint of PR gimmicks and fairground attraction art.
>
> Not even logical, my friend. Those hegemons who decree the "high" of
> art can't bring it down, can they? You should shoot for consistency in
> your fictions.
Not me that's being illogical, but the representatives of "high" art. The
problem is that they don't have a clear idea of what is "high" in art - just
so long as it issues from them and is *somehow* distinguishable from "low"
art, that's good enough for them. That makes it possible for them to issue
jejune pap as art, and present it in the same colourful ways that are
usually associated with the very lowest of low art.
> The "no go areas" are conceived on the belief that the public will not
> be interested, or the public will be offended etc.
There's a big difference between finding out what the people will accept,
and assuming you know. One is democratic, and the other is not.
> Nevertheless, not "good philosophy" as you claimed.
Illustrations are a part of philosophy, formal argument is another part.
Good illustrations that make the various positions clear are a valuable part
of philosophy. To that extent, the Matrix is good philosophy.
> Ok, it's mediocre art. But that's what I said originially, and that's
> what the Lumpin Proletariate would vote for.
But the lumpen proletariat vote for Spielberg first, and Wachowski &
Wachowski a distant second.
> Yeah, I think Spielberg is way up on the scale of greatness in film
> making. I think "Empire of the Sun" was among the top ten films of all
> time. But I can call the Wachowski's artists. What's the problem?
Oops! The lumpen proletariat voted for great art. What went wrong?
Neil Maxwell
<emat...@oco.net> wrote:
>Neil Maxwell wrote:
>
>> Since this is all blue-sky proposal, it doesn't seem worth the effort
>> to me, but some of you may feel strongly enough to do it. Someone has
>> to, if it's going to happen.
>
>Neil, this thread keeps reminding me of Luis Buñuel's "Viridiana." Did
>you ever see it? An idealistic wealthy young woman (Viridiana)
>bombs-out at the Convent, so decides to dedicate her life to helping the
>poor. But they turn out to be just as selfish and insensitive as the
>rich. And all the time her cousin is trying to get into her pants.
>There was a classic scene in the movie that mimics Leonardo's "Last
>Supper" - with all the beggars in the appropriate poses, only flashing
>the camera etc. Great Flick.
I haven't seen it for 20-odd years now, but that scene is etched in my
memory. I don't suppose they'll have it at Blockbuster... I try to
keep my idealism intact, but it's got a lot of layers of scar tissue
on it.
I'd really love to see the experiment take place. I have a pretty
good idea of the results (and the furor that would ensue), but I've
been wrong before. Proof's in the pudding, and all that.
>I'm beginning to feel like an elitist, of course, but God, please don't
>let my neighbors choose what's displayed in art museums. Please,
>please...:-)
Did I say I wanted to see it happen? On a small scale, of course,
just to see. Maybe the People's Art Party can whip up a web-based
experiment. Should be easy, eh? Get the Nilg-person to do the
programming, to help Stick It To The Man!
Mani Deli
Whats wrong with Kinkade?
I like Kinkade because he sells his work for lots of money, because he
bugs Artzy fartzies no end, he knows his craft and his work is more
original than the miles of schmiery contemporary impressionism which
Artzy fartzies can still tolerate, depending where it hangs.
His work ranks with a fair illustrator. I don't care for his subject
matter but I respect anyone who knows his craft whether or not I like
his work.
Check it out. Ask yourself whethernyou have that degree of skill.
http://www.thomaskinkade.com/magi/servlet/com.asucon.ebiz.home.web.tk.HomeServlet
Neil Maxwell
wrote:
>
>Whats wrong with Kinkade?
>
There's nothing wrong with him, of course. He makes art, sells it to
people who like it, and makes a pot of money in the process. You
could argue against mass-production of art, but that's common with
acknowledged artzy-fartzy types too.
He makes safe, pleasant, popular, competent, non-challenging art that
goes well with many people's decor. I don't care for it, but
fortunately, the art world isn't a democracy.
Mani Deli
<neil.m...@nospam.intel.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 12 Jun 2003 13:02:16 -0400, Mani Deli <ma...@sympatico.ca>
>wrote:
>>
>>Whats wrong with Kinkade?
>>
>There's nothing wrong with him, of course. He makes art, sells it to
>people who like it, and makes a pot of money in the process. You
>could argue against mass-production of art, but that's common with
>acknowledged artzy-fartzy types too.
>
>He makes safe, pleasant, popular, competent, non-challenging art that
>goes well with many people's decor.
Unlike the Modern Academics who make safe, unpleasant, unpopular,
incompetent, non-challenging art that goes well to cover large walls
in museums and richy palaces.
Mani Deli
wrote:
>In article <fpbhevco9la9hgd1r...@4ax.com>,
>ma...@sympatico.ca says...
>>
>> Whats wrong with Kinkade?
>I sometimes wonder if he's some sort of highly covert conceptualist (the
>schlocky giftwrap-style paintings aren't the product, the money is).
Its better than the modern crap in museums where all that counts is
the signature.
>Sooner or later he's going to spring it on us,
He's done that long ago. He makes artzy fartzies weep
> I just know it. Jeff
>Koons better watch out!
christian tangoe
wrote:
>
I AM SO HAPPY that you finally found something you like out there....
And yes, wow, it
is....dfeeep....amaziniiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiing.....realyyy
breathhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhtaking.....and exiting, new, an
owerwhelming....
I acutally think it sellllllllllllllllllllls pretty wellllllllllll
ltooooooooooooooooo
It is the perfect example of how something can be EXTREMELY skillfull
done, and still completely.....would I dare to say MILES away from art
?
Chris Tango
a guy who now at this moment is not yet contradicted to a statement
about Art, the very word...(check that posting)
christian tangoe
<neil.m...@nospam.intel.com> wrote:
Luckily the art world that mr.. K operates in IS a kind of democracy.
It the democracy called Capitalism, which is: most money wins. And I
could be concinced that he愀 doing ok there.
But, right, say if its true what Dandy suggests, the guy is a phony
covered up terrorist of a kind, who suddenly is flashing a series of
very anti-everything paintings, just to tell the world, that he was
really ironic, satiric and "oppposite" by his paintings...
I悲 say WHATCH OUT for that mr. K
Tangoe
Wynne Ean-Hand
>I like Kinkade
Sez it all...why say more?
Erik A. Mattila
>>I'm beginning to feel like an elitist, of course, but God, please don't
>>let my neighbors choose what's displayed in art museums. Please,
>>please...:-)
>
>
> Did I say I wanted to see it happen? On a small scale, of course,
> just to see. Maybe the People's Art Party can whip up a web-based
> experiment. Should be easy, eh? Get the Nilg-person to do the
> programming, to help Stick It To The Man!
I should have wrote more better. My appeal was addressed to God, not
you. See, I AM an elitist.
Erik
Erik A. Mattila
James Baldwin wrote "Letter from a Region in My Mind" in the "New
Yorker", November 17, 1962. The essay is also included in his 1963
book, "The Fire Next Time" with the title "Down at the Cross: Letter
from a Region in My Mind." I'm not sure if the book version is the same
as the original "New Yorker" essay, or if it is expanded or edited. But
the "New Yorker" essay created a huge sensation - perhaps the biggest in
the newly emerging civil rights literature. Personnally, I think the
essay is a milestone in American literature generally.
But in reviews I've never heard it mentioned that Baldwin wrote an
astounding critique on "sentimentality." He was addressing the impact
of Harriet Beecher Stowe (Uncle Tom's Cabin) on American Negros, but in
the upshot he wrote a theory that could be applied to "sentimental" art
generally. It's been years since I read this essay (1962, in fact - a
Xeroxed copy, since the "New Yorker" issue sold-out and was impossible
to get.)
As I recall - and everyone should read the essay for themselves - that
Baldwin essentially took sentimentality to be a cover-up, an alibi, for
someting very dark and evil that lies beneath the construction. It's a
gloss. Of course this is easily understood with "Uncle Tom's Cabin" but
the question is could it extend to Kincaid? I think so.
Erik
Mani Deli
wrote:
Because I have more to say then you.
Mani Deli
wrote:
>>Check out my web page http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
> I AM SO HAPPY that you finally found something you like out there....
Yes, for a jerk like you that's all I like.
>
>And yes, wow, it
>is....dfeeep....amaziniiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiing.....realyyy
>breathhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhtaking.....and exiting, new, an
>owerwhelming....
>
>I acutally think it sellllllllllllllllllllls pretty wellllllllllll
>ltooooooooooooooooo
Sounds like we have a new asshole on the block.
>It is the perfect example of how something can be EXTREMELY skillfull
>done, and still completely.....would I dare to say MILES away from art
>?
>
>Chris Tango
>
>a guy who now at this moment is not yet contradicted to a statement
>about Art, the very word...(check that posting)
?
Mani Deli
>x-no-archive: yes
>It fascinates me that Kinkade has any artist's support,
>however limited.
>I had only seen the "cottage in the country wrapped
>impossibly in flowers" set, and the American flag picture
>was new to me.
Is it any more stupid than Jasper Johns' schmiery American flags?
>I wonder if when you see some image that is designed to
>appeal or "cash in" of current sentiment, if the artist is
>genuine or completely cynical?
Who knows. I admire any charlatan who can get people to part with
there money by painting nothings. No matter how bad his artwork. It
always reminds me of all the incompetents out there who can't make a
dime.
>My take on it is the cynical one.
Mine isn't exactly the opposite.
>I know I could be wrong, as patriotism is a different ball-game
>in USA than my own country.
That's also a cry by charlatans to bilk the herd. However I don't
admire this dangerous lot in the same way as the big money art type.
>I did take the trouble to view some of his works on the web,
>and they seem to lack a tonal balance.
They are as mediocre as most average Impressionism. No worse.
>The flowers(always the flowers) seem to be too intense, even
>when they sit in middle ground.
>The overall look of some of them seems poor, although a few
>seem better.
True, but its the big money that pisses off artzy fartzies. Especially
the starving variety.
>I don't know the words, but when looking at a work of art, I am
>looking for something, - as well as skill - that the artist has put
>into the picture, that in my mind makes it a work of art.
>I cannot 'see' anything in his works, they seem entirely mechanical.
>The titles are really something you should read before you eat.
>Sweetheart Gazebo, Hometown Christmas, Hometown Pride,
>etc.
You are just offended by his subject matter. Its clawing sentimental
stuff for the average American boobeoisie. I find it no lees stupid
than Picasso's painting of his son or portrait of Stalin or Matisse's
idiotic Dancers or interiors. Non of which is as well exicuted as that
of Kinkade.
>
>
>"Mani Deli" <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>news:ukthevo05afgdlohp...@4ax.com...
Dr. Slick
> >
> >I acutally think it sellllllllllllllllllllls pretty wellllllllllll
> >ltooooooooooooooooo
>
> Sounds like we have a new asshole on the block.
>
To join the ones we already have, eh?
Slick
Dr. Slick
> On 12 Jun 2003 16:42:14 -0600, ha...@dontemailme.com (Wynne Ean-Hand)
> wrote:
>
> >In article <fpbhevco9la9hgd1r...@4ax.com>, ma...@sympatico.ca
> >says...
> >
> >>I like Kinkade
> >
> >Sez it all...why say more?
>
> Because I have more to say then you.
>
>
Kinkade's "painter of light" is actually trademarked?
Isn't this the same bullshit you rile against, Mani?
Slick
Paul Mesken
> Kinkade's "painter of light" is actually trademarked?
"Painter of light" trademarked? Surely it must be "Kinkade, painter of
light" that is trademarked. OTOH one can trademark almost anything in
the USA, it's stupid. Besides : everyone knows Vermeer was the painter
of light :-)
Hmm, I wonder : is "no-skill-realism" trademarked or can it be used
freely without asking Deli first? ;-)
Mani Deli
Never said he wasn't full of shit. He's a PR expert like most big
money modern academic charlatans. If being full of shit leads to big
money I'm all for it. Kinkade just paints somewhat better.
Being full of shit and how you paint are two different things. I'm
sure Matilla can add a long theoretical explanation of this amazing
phenomenon.
Mani Deli
wrote:
>Hmm, I wonder : is "no-skill-realism" trademarked or can it be used
>freely without asking Deli first? ;-)
Its a phenomenon.
s van der velde
>
> I like Kinkade because he sells his work for lots of money, because he
> bugs Artzy fartzies no end, he knows his craft and his work is more
> original than the miles of schmiery contemporary impressionism which
> Artzy fartzies can still tolerate, depending where it hangs.
There's nothing more trite and boring than his saccharine pastoral
technique.
Seagull Manager
"christian tangoe" <ma...@tangoe.dk> wrote in message
news:48uhevc6ekdf96joq...@4ax.com...
> It is the perfect example of how something can be EXTREMELY skillfull
> done, and still completely.....would I dare to say MILES away from art
So speaks the man who says that everyone is entitled to call himself an
artist, and that to argue against such an entitlement is "immoral".
When are you going to start being consistent, Mr. Tangoe?
Dr. Slick
> >
> Never said he wasn't full of shit. He's a PR expert like most big
> money modern academic charlatans. If being full of shit leads to big
> money I'm all for it. Kinkade just paints somewhat better.
>
Somewhat... But the subject matter puts me to sleep...
i guess i should turn the bullshit factory on, in need the $$!
Slick
Mani Deli
Sure, try it!
What the starving artist always fails to understand is that big money
Modern Academic Art requires, talent skill, at big time bullshit.
Dr. Slick
> >
> > Somewhat... But the subject matter puts me to sleep...
> >
> > i guess i should turn the bullshit factory on, in need the $$!
> >
>
> Sure, try it!
> What the starving artist always fails to understand is that big money
> Modern Academic Art requires, talent skill, at big time bullshit.
Well, you can sell the sizzle, but make sure you've got a good
steak behind the sizzle.
Great art speaks for itself, and doesn't need excess bullshit.
Dr. Slick
Seagull Manager
"s van der velde" <mind...@netonecom.net> wrote in message
news:3eeb35c2$0$61634$45be...@newscene.com...
>
> There's nothing more trite and boring than his saccharine pastoral
> technique.
Perhaps he can't be surpassed in boringness and triteness, but he can
certainly be equalled, and is routinely by conceptualists, minimalists and
abstractionists in the thousands.
Cu Chullain
> technique.
if one can't stand whatshisfuck kincaid check out "kevin kencaid's"
paintings on artnet.com. He's a good painter.
Cu Chullain
> There's nothing more trite and boring than his saccharine pastoral
> technique.
aw fuck, his gallery site is down, i checked, nevermind. he's still a
good painter but you've got to take my word for now.
cm
Jaime
wrote:
>On 12 Jun 2003 16:42:14 -0600, ha...@dontemailme.com (Wynne Ean-Hand)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <fpbhevco9la9hgd1r...@4ax.com>, ma...@sympatico.ca
>>says...
>>
>>>I like Kinkade
>>
>>Sez it all...why say more?
>
>Because I have more to say then you.
Nothing worth listening to however.
*plonk*
Flobby Bischer
he has a lack of sensitivity and vision and perception that contradicts his
apparent
goal of figuration...it's visual redundancy, cheap tricks, easy ways around
tricy problems.
his color usage is mundane, vulgar, trivial, kindergartenish, same for his
composition.
He's like the back street boys of painting, it has it's place, but compared
to great classical music it's really cheapo pulp
"Jaime" <swim...@hotNOSPAMmail.com> wrote in message
news:0hvqqvcifb8fv988t...@4ax.com...
Jaime
<blube...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>it's fine you like him,
I never claimed *I* liked Kincade. Mani did.
Go reread the thread.
> we are entitled to opinions, but since you ask
>
>he has a lack of sensitivity and vision and perception that contradicts his
>apparent
>goal of figuration...it's visual redundancy, cheap tricks, easy ways around
>tricy problems.
>his color usage is mundane, vulgar, trivial, kindergartenish, same for his
>composition.
>
>He's like the back street boys of painting, it has it's place, but compared
>to great classical music it's really cheapo pulp
I also did not ask but you are entitled to your opinions.
Mani Deli
>it's fine you like him, we are entitled to opinions, but since you ask
>
>he has a lack of sensitivity and vision and perception that contradicts his
>apparent goal of figuration...it's visual redundancy, cheap tricks, easy ways around
>tricy problems.
>his color usage is mundane, vulgar, trivial, kindergartenish, same for his
>composition.
Gee, sounds just like Picasso etc..
"we are entitled to opinions"
Tired of Modern Art? check
http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/