What artistic period are we in?
R Blanchard
Lorri Barman wrote:
>
> I am teaching an adult drawing class who wanted to know what artistic period we are in.
This one.
--
Rick Blanchard
Tommy
Lorri....@f1.n379.z1.fidonet.org (Lorri Barman) wrote:
>I am teaching an adult drawing class who wanted to know what artistic period
>we are in. I told them that I felt it was one where anything goes.
>However, there is a strong trend back to basic realism.
>May I have some opinions on this.
IMHO
In some instances, the larger picture takes precedence over anything
else. We are currently in the information age, or period. Technology
(like the WWW) is influencing art. Artists are currently struggling
between the computer as tool, and the computer as foe.
--
Tommy
eksa...@execpc.com
http://www.execpc.com/~eksaminc
I draw, therefore I am.
G*rd*n
Lorri....@f1.n379.z1.fidonet.org (Lorri Barman) wrote:
| >I am teaching an adult drawing class who wanted to know what artistic period
| >we are in. I told them that I felt it was one where anything goes.
| >However, there is a strong trend back to basic realism.
|
| >May I have some opinions on this.
eksa...@execpc.com (Tommy):
| In some instances, the larger picture takes precedence over anything
| else. We are currently in the information age, or period. Technology
| (like the WWW) is influencing art. Artists are currently struggling
| between the computer as tool, and the computer as foe.
Artistic periods are mostly constructions after the fact;
it's hard to see one from inside, unless, of course, one
deliberately makes one up for ideological reasons, for
instance Modernism. However, given our imperfect view of
things, I'd vote for neo-Baroque. That is, intellectual
concerns predominate over concerns about form, emotion,
situation, and so on. We may be stuck there, given
postmodern polymorphism -- there's always more stuff to
deal with, which excites that intellection.
If "anything goes", then of course Realism goes, but it
is no longer taken as seriously as when it was king.
--
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ gcf<at>panix.com }"{ //www.etaoin.com }"{
G*rd*n
| >If "anything goes", then of course Realism goes, but it
| >is no longer taken as seriously as when it was king.
no...@email.com (David Harleyson):
| Think of Realism as you would a necklace. It is the thread
| on which the other "ism" baubles are strung. D.H.
Too stylized. Also it should have showed up sooner if
it was going to do string duty. Lascauxian cave painters,
American Indian potters, and African icon carvers alike
seem to have been uninterested in it.
--
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ gcf @ panix.com }"{
Charles Eicher
In article <55ifd7$g...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>, no...@email.com (David
Harleyson) wrote:
> In article <55frd6$1...@panix2.panix.com>, +@+.+ says...
>
> >If "anything goes", then of course Realism goes, but it
> >is no longer taken as seriously as when it was king.
>
> Think of Realism as you would a necklace. It is the thread
> on which the other "ism" baubles are strung. D.H.
One of my art history professors used to say we are in a period of post
'ism'-ism.. But that was about 20 years ago. If we were beyond the need for
'isms' as far as 20 years ago, I can't imagine why we'd need to be
discussing this question now.
| Charles Eicher |
| -=- |
| cei...@inav.net |
G*rd*n
+@+.+ says...
| > >If "anything goes", then of course Realism goes, but it
| > >is no longer taken as seriously as when it was king.
no...@email.com (David Harleyson) wrote:
| > Think of Realism as you would a necklace. It is the thread
| > on which the other "ism" baubles are strung. D.H.
cei...@inav.net (Charles Eicher):
| One of my art history professors used to say we are in a period of post
| 'ism'-ism.. But that was about 20 years ago. If we were beyond the need for
| 'isms' as far as 20 years ago, I can't imagine why we'd need to be
| discussing this question now.
Contemporary ismism is a marketing device, similar to the
production of genres in popular music, fashions in clothing
and automotive design, and so on.
jennifer
The naming of a period tends to be the privilege of those who consider
it history, barring any self-naming movements.
jennifer
Brother Alphabet
Tommy wrote:
> Artists are currently struggling
> between the computer as tool, and the computer as foe.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Do people still worry about this?
I used to hear a lot of here and there about the way machines were going
to ruin art as we knew it and all that...
I even argued against certain aspects of technology invading
art-production.
I think the scope of technological influence was drastically overblown.
As we all can tell, the most obvious art-related change has been in
advertising and graphic media...very little fine art has been affected,
other than the addition of generally accepted mediums...electronic
imaging and interactive illusion-like installations once in a while.
Is anyone still feeling threatened by machines?
Hutto
Erik Johnson
Well, I for one am at this very second NOT doing art but newsgrouping.
Computers can really suck up a lot of time that might be better spent
productively doing other things. And when I do use the computer for
creative endeavors more often than not, a feel that the computer and
I are working at cross-purposes. I certainly don't feel *threatened*
by computers as computer programming is how a get money.
-Erik Johnson
er...@phidias.colorado.edu
http://phidias.colorado.edu/vgallery.html
Brother Alphabet
Charles Eicher wrote:
>
> One of my art history professors used to say we are in a period of
> post 'ism'-ism.. But that was about 20 years ago. If we were beyond
> the need for
> 'isms' as far as 20 years ago, I can't imagine why we'd need to be
> discussing this question now.
Because your history teacher wasn't infallible?
I don't think schools of thought or discipline went away 20 years ago.
If anything faded, it was the ability of true artists to keep a firm
grasp on what was going on around them. This has been caused by the
strange ability of anyone in the world to be an artist just because they
claim that they are an artist. So much crap-art has been produced that
we have become an over-arted society - and we appreciate and listen to
the wrong people.
As is our general civilization, our art is more about trends than truth.
There could be a commune of 600 painters hidden in the hills of Arkansas
working on the greatest artistic revelation ever seen, but if it is
discovered that they went to college it wont be anything but 'Art
burdened by education' as the definition of 'Outsider Art' states. Some
goon in some Museum or Gallery or on the staff of some minimally
important art magazine said that Elmo Dog-Face Smith really knew how to
glue wood chunks together and "Folk' or "Primitive" art, that had rarely
exceeded the level of mere county-fair crafts, suddenly became
'Visionary" and "Outsider" and these morons were as profound as manna
from heaven. All it is is a trend - A little art fad for the sellers to
make money from, and lucky for them, their 'artists' are
ill-educated...what a great opportunity to score more in commission.
Meanwhile, in mainstream USA at least, there's an art-fair on every
corner and a society for this and that and a guild here and galleries
out the left ear...Too much art...too many people getting away with
faux-painting...
We are in the age of Hacks
This is is the Poser Period - Made possible by the likes of YOU who
teach adult drawing classes....But it isn't your fault...you have to
eat...and there's a demand....For some reason there is a demand...How is
it possible that every joe bob and his mother get old and all come to
the same conclusion: "I always wanted to be an artist"??
This is the era of annoying old ladies making 7000 bucks painting
despicable flowers in buckets- The cheap oil paint still wet on the 9x12
Fredericks Canvas board.
This is the age of cultural idiocy and tasteless general populaces who
want only pretty things without being expected to think about anything
more complex than WHATS FOR DINNER?
The Sublime has gone away, friends...
The dreams of the many involve Barbiedoll livelihoods while the very few
still dream of legacies or posterity...
Who are we going to put in the books ?
Everyone...The art history books of tomorrow will look like the New
Orleans white pages....if everyone who says they are, truly are artists.
This is the age of despair. There is no America left. The media rabbits
gobbled it up.
This is the age of nonsense.
This is the age of worthlessness.
This is the age of The Nightly News at 5, 5 after 5, 6, Half past 6, 10
and 11.
This is the age of wishing there were and age to pretend to be a part
of.
I don't know. I really don't have an opinion on the matter.
Hutto
Christoph Hollender
> [lots of people wrote lots of things, Brother Alphabet some of the
> finest, in spite of profound pessimism; I don't know to whom I would
> attribute a price for sarcasm, there are certainly several serious
> competitors]
There have always (well, at least during the last couple of
centuries in the Western world) been lots of people prefering to go
along with old styles and customs when something new came into being.
Especially in fields like art, where there is almost always something
new, and relatively often something radically new around. And this
kind of sticking to the familiar (which may be conservative,
nostalgic, reactionary, the result of a limited mind-set or whatever)
is found with artists (self-styled as well as formally trained
artists) as well as with buyers, collectors, critics and the general
public. E.g. mid-19th century academic painting in Europe.
This is something that has often met remarkable economic and social
success. But my point is, that this is not what defines a period.
Or, rather, it may define an age in social etc. terms. But it does not
define an artistic period -- nor an art historical period, at least
if you consider art history as the succession of developments in art,
not as the history of social and commercial successes.
My point is, that an artistic period is always defined by some sort of
development in art, i.e., by some sort of change vis-a-vis the past,
by something that is in some way new. (Now of course not everything
that's new will "make" a period of art; some things / new developments
do, some others don't. But it's a far more difficult thing to define
what, in general, should be considered as an artistic period.)
As for the present period, within my (specific though not strictly
personal) horizon, site specific art, institutional critique, and
art-as-social-activity are still appropriating a lot of interest, and
a lot of creative energy, with performance and installation being
among the most important "media". (institutional critique has now
entered a kind of paradoxical phase, where large and well-of
institutions sponsor artists who go on making critical work / artistic
comments about these self-same institutions; and I wonder if it will
be able to survive this kind of paradoxical tension for more than a
couple of years. -- Read all about paradoxical phases,
post-paradoxical phases and so on in Thomas Pynchon's *Gravity's
Rainbow*; a great book if there ever has been one.)
In a more generalizing manner of speaking, one might say that a lot of
interesting things going on in art today could be subsumed under the
heading of neo-conceptualism.
On Tue, 05 Nov 1996 15:57:53 -0600,
Brother Alphabet <ja...@ra.msstate.edu> wrote:
>Charles Eicher wrote:
>
>>
>> One of my art history professors used to say we are in a period of
>> post 'ism'-ism.. But that was about 20 years ago. If we were beyond
>> the need for
>> 'isms' as far as 20 years ago, I can't imagine why we'd need to be
>> discussing this question now.
>
>Because yoArticle Unavailable
W.S. Parker
Brother Alphabet wrote:
>
>
> If anything faded, it was the ability of true artists to keep a firm
> grasp on what was going on around them. This has been caused by the
> strange ability of anyone in the world to be an artist just because they
> claim that they are an artist. So much crap-art has been produced that
> we have become an over-arted society - and we appreciate and listen to
> the wrong people.
I am glad to meet you. I have been saying similarly for my past twenty
postings. There are no standards of performance. Even the highly
educated are suspect.
It is the postmodern era where merely asking a question reveals the
presumptuousness of the asker and thus makes any answer corrupt. Do you
like how I put that?
Everything is turned in on itself. I remember when the NEA was actually
functioning "nicely." The educated elite were deciding whom among their
colleagues were most likely to do significant work with the grant money.
If they weren't ready right now there would be "next year, we urge you
to apply again, won't you please."
That left out the Native American Indian who did not go to Cornell. Left
out some grafitti vandal/criminal. Great!
That's all changed, for the popular, for the sexually contraversial, for
the marginal. Who needed that elitism anyway? Every aspect of society
should be dumber!
>
> As is our general civilization, our art is more about trends than truth.
Sorry, there is no such real word "truth" it designates very little;
only useful in formal logic.
Art museums, galleries, Hollywood movies, great artists, a great actor
like Sylvester Stallone. Sleep with someone to get the part, sleep with
someone to get the show. Sleep with the person and pay them.
Generation X even believes that "everyone has their price" so why not
name your price up front?! Selling out is what people do -- just do it!
Did you know Madonna is a feminist! Sure she is, but the definition of
the word has changed. We are dumb losers and that makes us winners:
Forrest Gump! Christo!
> exceeded the level of mere county-fair crafts, suddenly became
> 'Visionary" and "Outsider" and these morons were as profound as manna
> from heaven. All it is is a trend - A little art fad for the sellers to
> make money from, and lucky for them, their 'artists' are
> ill-educated...what a great opportunity to score more in commission.
>
Good ole fashioned enterprise/exploitation, justified by the
sophisticated dealer thinking, "they don't need alot of money (split
sales 90% to %10). Alot of money will upset their creative processes,
plus they will be exploited if they have too much money."
>
> We are in the age of Hacks
We are in the age of "try-to-become-a-good-editor" Dedicate your life
to letting go of your modernist assumptions of the way art should be.
> This is is the Poser Period - Made possible by the likes of YOU who
> teach adult drawing classes....But it isn't your fault...you have to
> eat...and there's a demand....For some reason there is a demand...How is
> it possible that every joe bob and his mother get old and all come to
> the same conclusion: "I always wanted to be an artist"??
Nothing wrong with people trying to live a full life. At least a form of
creativity is attempted and demonstrated.
>
> This is the era of annoying old ladies making 7000 bucks painting
> despicable flowers in buckets- The cheap oil paint still wet on the
Let go of it! The idea that intergity, art and money can coexist
generally. Forget trying to make money off of it. If you make money of
of it you are probably not doing what you think you are doing.
> This is the age of cultural idiocy and tasteless general populaces who
> want only pretty things without being expected to think about anything
> more complex than WHATS FOR DINNER?
>
What's new here? What is new is that this facet of society, the ones
with no formal education (for example) has gotten and indirect but
significant say in how things are run in the art world.
It DOESN't matter: even the educated ones have run themselves and art
into a corner!
Native American Indian art is probably suffering from all the exposure!
> This is the age of wishing there were and age to pretend to be a part
> of.
You are exactly right: continue to pretend, this is the age of
pretension!
"That kinda helps me understand, Socrates."
TRL
Brother Alphabet wrote:
>
> This is is the Poser Period - Made possible by the likes of YOU who
> teach adult drawing classes....But it isn't your fault...you have to
> eat...and there's a demand....For some reason there is a demand...How is
> it possible that every joe bob and his mother get old and all come to
> the same conclusion: "I always wanted to be an artist"??
>
> Fredericks Canvas board.
>
I was thinking that at the end of the semester, I would gesso over the
canvas I have used, so that I could use them again next semester. Then
I thought I might sell them for their material worth at a street fair so
I could buy new stuff, and the folks who would buy the canvases might
find some enjoyment in them.
Then again, if they are not sold, I'll simply gesso them over and reuse.
G*rd*n
Brother Alphabet wrote:
| > This is is the Poser Period - Made possible by the likes of YOU who
| > teach adult drawing classes....But it isn't your fault...you have to
| > eat...and there's a demand....For some reason there is a demand...How is
| > it possible that every joe bob and his mother get old and all come to
| > the same conclusion: "I always wanted to be an artist"??
| >
| > This is the era of annoying old ladies making 7000 bucks painting
| > despicable flowers in buckets- The cheap oil paint still wet on the 9x12
| > Fredericks Canvas board.
t...@no.place.like.home:
| I was thinking that at the end of the semester, I would gesso over the
| canvas I have used, so that I could use them again next semester. Then
| I thought I might sell them for their material worth at a street fair so
| I could buy new stuff, and the folks who would buy the canvases might
| find some enjoyment in them.
|
| Then again, if they are not sold, I'll simply gesso them over and reuse.
It's no use. Everything has gone to the dogs. Haven't you
been reading this newsgroup?
And the dogs don't want your gessoed canvas, unless they can
eat the gesso.
Erik Johnson
W.S. Parker wrote:
> <snip>
> Even if you make art for yourself, it has to be self-evident that you
> have to be content pretending to be doing something you're not. No
> matter: you are re-inventing the wheel! Setting up elaborate schemes to
> avoid the inevitable: the "indivdual" and "creativity" and "unique
> personality" are all myths. This makes art making, in its "finest"
> sense, impossible.
> <snip>
> It hasn't gone to the dogs! It has been shaken, scrubbed and washed,
> hung out to dry and may be heading for the trash anyway!
Cheer up W.S. It isn't *that* bad. There are still artists
out there doing as artists always have. You just have to
look a little harder to find them in this information
overloaded chaos we live in. Current and future artists are
not relegated to an eternity reinventing the wheel, as you
say, but benefit from all those past 'wheels' and other parts
to invent something wholy new that reuses parts of the past
to create the future in a new way. Why reinvent a wheel
when you can invent a car? Though I suppose there is still
a place in the world for wheel makers.
W.S. Parker
Erik Johnson wrote:
> Cheer up W.S. It isn't *that* bad. There are still artists
> out there doing as artists always have. You just have to
> look a little harder to find them in this information
> overloaded chaos we live in.
Thanks, I appreciate the reminder. I get carried away maybe.
May I say I would never put an *individual* down for making their art;
no matter how, god forbid, uninspired they seemed to be. In person, I am
very,supportive and encouraging to people doing it. I am happy that
more people think artmaking is a good thing to do. I try to be
encouraging to individual's engaging the processes of self expression. I
sincerely do care about people doing humanistic things.
On the other hand I am very tough on myself:
I demand a level of self criticism wherein I ask routinely: "Am I
really doing the best I can?" "Is there something I am assuming which
isn't based on facts or good judgement?" "Why should gallery shows,
public opinion mean anything to me at all?" "Have I been doing my
research?" "Am I making myself as smart as I can be about all aspects of
this artmaking?" "What am I excluding from my view because of my own
insecurities which result in Willful Ignorance?"
Sorry for all the ranting; I hope it somewhat "interesting" to people
here.
BTW never use "interesting" whe you describe someone's work, it is the
*lowest* form of aesthetic experience!
Jon Bradley
Well, according to my watch we are just arriving at the next era of neo
post-romanticism..
--
Jon Bradley
Think Ahead..!
Mike Lattis
Folks, it is my humble opinion that all art in the history of humanity
has been part of a collective and unfortunate Realism. Granted, the
"isms" of this period and that all bear their own unique elements but
the bottom line is that they are all subdivisions of a larger casualty
of the human experience. Art exists only in the form of Realism
because we are real in every respect and, since we are the only
practitioners of this "art", it, too, is inherently real. Both
aesthetic and conceptual concerns deal with each individual's
PERCEIVED-REALITY SYSTEM (pronounced in most circles, "reality"). Art
has been and continues to be an elaborate venture in the name of
understanding ourselves and our place in reality. Activist art of all
forms does this blatantly. Art is a means of aquiring and sharing
knowledge which can be used to our advantage, for the betterment of
ourselves and our society. And as such, art exists merely as another
mechanism for survival (akin to breathing, eating, and procreating)
which serves only to suit the needs of the individual and, ultimately,
the species. Therefore, it is my contention that all art is "realist"
art. And I was horrified to discover this fact. I had grown up all
along believing art to be a diversion from our basic, necessary
biological drive to survive. It seems now that all "art" has failed
to serve that purpose. I've now relegated myself to the fact that all
art to this point (while wonderful in many ways and on many levels) is
useless as a diversion from our inherent reality. Thus, the only
option now is an irrational art. The goal (an impossible one, by the
way) is to shed all consciousness of being--to simply not exist (and
thus escape the boundaries of our preceived-reality system). The
value of irrational art then lies in the fact that A)we are at last
acknowledging the failure of existing art to to be anything other than
a necessary survival mechanism; and B)we are actively considering the
limits of reality and are experiencing the process of escaping them
(which is our only hope for diversion).
What do y'all think?
Michael L.
PS--it is not my intent to be antagonistic, but, rather, to state one
student's lowly opinion and submit it for debate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Lattis
lume...@udel.edu
========================
Your mamma's avant-garde
========================
vela...@aol.com
Thank you for a very enlightening statement. Very well put. An interesting
intellectual thesis supported by credible and well expressed premises. In
a less academic manner, I have thought the same...that art is art. we
humans prize creativity. creativity is dynamic, while our collective
knowledge is static ( strict duplication is static)
...creativity...creates NEW things to behold. Example: imagine if you had
died before Rembrandt had lived his life. You never would have had the
opportunity to have EXPERIENCED all of his wonderfully new REALISTIC
creations. True, you would have experienced all the wonderful REALISTIC
style type paintings from before his life, say Da Vinci, Raphael,Bosch and
others. The point is, that a creative person can create something
NEW...regardles of whatever we wish to call the style..isms etc. This
creativity and creation of something new and original does not get its
strength or value from ...the style...but rather from the emotional and
intellectual source of the creator. Thanbk you for the fine thesis and
presentation of your reasoning. - louis
wsparker
Mike Lattis wrote:
>
> Folks, it is my humble opinion that all art in the history of humanity
> has been part of a collective and unfortunate Realism.
Both
> aesthetic and conceptual concerns deal with each individual's
> PERCEIVED-REALITY SYSTEM (pronounced in most circles, "reality"). Art
> has been and continues to be an elaborate venture in the name of
> understanding ourselves and our place in reality.
Though I don't equate an individual's "system of beliefs" with
"reality." The second half of the above quoted thought looks pretty good
until you get to the undefined word at its end.
I know what "Realism" is but I am not sure what "reality" is. I'm
serious. I challenge anyone here to define "reality." So, if we do not
clearly know what reality is how can we discuss it without getting into
trouble?
> Art is a means of aquiring and sharing
> knowledge
of which there are several types
> which can be used to our advantage, for the betterment of
> ourselves and our society. And as such, art exists merely as another
> mechanism for survival (akin to breathing, eating, and procreating)
> which serves only to suit the needs of the individual and, ultimately,
> the species.
I love that idea; good work.
Therefore, it is my contention that all art is "realist"
> art. And I was horrified to discover this fact. I had grown up all
> along believing art to be a diversion from our basic, necessary
> biological drive to survive. It seems now that all "art" has failed
> to serve that purpose.
Maybe, but what purpose _has_ it (our art) served? All art?! Pretty big
thing to generalize about... but perhaps.
Are their any forms of aboriginal (small "a") art that serve this
purpose and sucessfully?
I've now relegated myself to the fact that all
> art to this point (while wonderful in many ways and on many levels) is
> useless as a diversion from our inherent reality.
How have you arrived at the conclusion that art is based on diversion?
What does it divert us from, again? Why is it necseeary or beneficial
to be diverted? Why is diversion in this context so important? What does
art promise here and fail to deliver?
This is difficult to follow because "reality" is almost impossible to
define.
Thus, the only
> option now is an irrational art. The goal (an impossible one, by the
> way) is to shed all consciousness of being--to simply not exist (and
> thus escape the boundaries of our preceived-reality system).
Though I an enthused about the irrational in art...,
Please explain... I am lost.
The
> value of irrational art then lies in the fact that A)we are at last
> acknowledging the failure of existing art to to be anything other than
> a necessary survival mechanism;
Okay, yes, an irrational art is definitely necessary for psychic
survival..
and B)we are actively considering the
> limits of reality and are experiencing the process of escaping them
> (which is our only hope for diversion).
Escape the "limits of reality?"... humm..., I need that definition!
Do you mean dadaesque processes? Have you convinced yourself that the
only worthwhile diversion, the only one that works, would be by this
undefined suggested path? What path are you suggesting again... ?
> PS--it is not my intent to be antagonistic, but, rather, to state one
> student's lowly opinion and submit it for debate.
This isn't antagonistic, there's nothing "lowly" about what you think at
this time (nor, chances are good, anytime ). Consider the debate
underway...
Brother Alphabet
Reality:
1a. The current individually inferred surface-level state of being - The
way things events, or people seem - The commonly accepted,
minimally disputed 'way things are'.
1b. Reality is similar but different to 'truth'.
Truth:
1a. What lies hidden in cracks and underneath surfaces - A universal
undeniable circumstance or condition - A commonly ignored,
widely disputed 'opinion' or 'belief' - A state of faith
rarely considered fact - A commonality among all life
forms sentient or otheriwse, and of all non-life forms
inanimate/organic, or machine/synthetic.
1b. Truth is often passed off as closed-mindedness or as a matter
of individual perception - However, this is only applicable
to 'Reality'. Truth is absolute.
Hutto.
wsparker
Brother Alphabet wrote:
>
> Reality:
>
> 1a. The current individually inferred surface-level state of being - The
> way things events, or people seem - The commonly accepted,
> minimally disputed 'way things are'.
One point at a time:
"The commonly accepted, minimally disputed 'way things are'."
Okay,... so "minimally disputed" means at least a few people don't
agree. Okay, then for those whom do not agree: there is no reality.
*That* doesn't make any sense... .
All the rest may be seriously flawed too!
I'll be baaack.
David Harleyson
In article <3291F9...@wsnet.com>, alph...@wsnet.com says...
>Reality:
Define reality in the absence of life -- like
the tree that falls in the forest, if no one is
around to hear, does it make a sound?
Is there reality without consciousness?
Or is reality the existence of a universe
regardless of consciousness? Deep space?
Black holes? Dumb-de-dumb dumb . . . D.H.
wsparker
I like your poetry. The otto-motto-pee-a is a dumbfounding punt.
I _still_ don't know what "reality" means when people talk about it!
Not a very useful word it seems.
Brother Alphabet
wsparker wrote:
> One point at a time:
>
> "The commonly accepted, minimally disputed 'way things are'."
>
> Okay,... so "minimally disputed" means at least a few people don't
> agree. Okay, then for those whom do not agree: there is no reality.
And for those people, there are special homes.
Hutto
wsparker
No, not at all!
Maybe the only reason an (able-bodied) person should belong in a
"special home" is if he were incapable of putting on his pants and going
to work in the morning!
I still don't know what "reality" means... .