What I realized about traditionalism...
Jason A. Hutto
Greetings fellow beings. Long time, etc.
I was reading through some of these posts about old art being
dead art and all that and I was reminded of a sensation I experienced
while wandering through the last museum I visited (Birmingham AL Museum of
art, Early Oct)
I don't know or care if the old art in question is or isn't alive.
The problem I had, suddenly, was that old art is just plain boring.
That was the sensation I got. It was alarming at first because I was
so accustomed to considering all of it important and good just because it
was in a museum. I suppose it was my education keeping its grip tight
around my throat that made me think of museums as warehouses full of
significant cultural artifacts.
The truth is that these 'traditional' pieces are not as much
worthy art pieces as they are antiques. I think many of the works in
museums are there because they are old and not because the painter was
profound or talented. Without mentioning any names, mostly because I
didn't bother to remember them, I will say in short that some of the works
displayed at that particular museum were no better than some old geezer
could whip out after watching a year of Bob Ross programs. The works
rarely stood out at all. All of the works tended to resemble one another.
A landscape is a landscape is a landscape, in terms of the 'traditional'
way of seeing them. I found myself demanding to know where the life was in
these works. Where was the soul?
Before I continue I will discount a few works as being outstanding
or memorable...A couple of the works were Sergents. They were decent,
but not the best. I noticed maybe one work done by an artist of whom I had
never heard that displayed a bit more than plain technical skill, but the
rest of the bunch was drab at best.
How many times does a painter (the general painter) have to paint
the grand canyon before we will admit that it is there, it is wide and
it sometimes looks sort of orange and go on to pursue other sources
imagery? How many farms, how many flowers, how many god-awful still-life
arrangements, how many forests far off in the distance do we need to
prove to the future that we had these things and that we knew not only
what they looked like, but how to paint them as well?
This type of work is indeed dead in terms of 'it is without life
and without substance'. Old art, or at least old traditional art is
painfully trite, and therefore hideous to look at. On the other hand of
that particular point, what in the world isn't trite? Who knows, but why
not let's find out instead of repeatedly bowing down to things which have
already been accepted as typical?
The mental contrast for me went this way:
I saw a landscape with precisely rendered clouds, grass and trees.
The work could have been from life, from a photo, or from imagination. It
was nearly 'flawless'. In my mind, I saw a Van Gogh. Let's use one of the
peach orchard pieces. I contrasted the two. There is nothing left to be
said. Van Gogh was and is superior. Another example. I saw in the
museum a stark oil portrait of a big-fat man. It was probably a
commissioned piece by a self-worshipping business type or politician (Not
that either are bad, or that commissioning portraits isn't a good thing to
do) The portrait is perfectly rendered and the man's features are without
blemish. In the mind's eye sat a gangly woman painted by Schiele. Again,
the latter case was superior. The traditional is boring to the point of
tears.
When an artist only represents is that artist an artist by
true definition, or is that painter merely a human camera? If so, isn't
the painting about as valuable as a snapshot? What is the value of
accurately representing a common object? To an artist, that technical
ability is important - To technique...But as artists, are we not obligated
to take that technique and apply it to things other than a bowl of fruit?
Are we not expected to rise above the level of plain old excersize?
I am inclined to believe we are. A real artist does not and will not rely
solely upon what was done centuries ago. The creative act is not about
history, it is about the present and the future. To continually try to
repeat what was done in the past is a waste of time. What was valid years
ago is not likely to be valid today in terms of the message in and behind
what we do. Or are we to hide symbolism in our works about the whig party
or the policies of George III?
Of course, the symbolism involved with making political statements
is only a simple gimmick here...Very few decent artists even bother
with political messages...And only very good artists can create
significant works involving same...Much more about the creative act is
negated by the continual repetition of what is now gone.
Picasso said something to the effect: It is not wrong to copy others, but
it is wrong to copy yourself. This can be looked upon from different
points of view. Let's say 'copying yourself' refers to the general or
universal 'You' meaning all of us, or humanity. If we continue to put the
art of 'The Masters' upon such a high and mighty pedastel, are we not, in
effect, bowing down to the tradition of copying things already done or
ways already tried? Do we not need to grow forward instead? If something
or someone was great long ago, why not leave that fact there in the
histories? Why pretend that the same forces will make us great today by
doing or being the same way now, in a completely different and new world?
A point as yet unmentioned is the absolute truth of the creative
act: Everything has been done already. This is a fact in the figurative
sense. How else could the cliche 'history repeats itself' be even remotely
true? We are bound to the commonality of the human experience. Things and
events and ideas are recycled. The point and the power of newness comes
not from the ideas per se, but the way in which we, individually, choose
to execute those ideas. If we look in the textbooks and the museums at the
work of 'The Greats', and decide to do things just as they did, we are not
contributing to growth. To the contrary, we are helping to stagnate the
increasingly weak 'art world'.
I firmly believe that if we are to survive here in this plane as true
artists, we need to return to the roots of art. We need to remember why
artists create in the first place. We must regain the fanatical spirit
we lost somewhere along the way. We lack the art-as-religion attitude.
Lately, this has been replaced by the art-of-religion mindset once again.
This is not the middle ages. This is not the victorian era. This age will
never be anything like either. I really do not think I even needed to
mention that. The point was, though, that this is not a world in
need of seeing angels. This is a world hell-bent on living 10 years ahead
of the clock. Nostalgia today means remembering how we thought the Apple
IIe was a cool computer back in the early 80s. The farthest back we ever
need look to see the modern truth might be futurism, but even that is too
far gone to be pertinent to modern times (But at least that school had
some sort of vision, unlike the early American vomit mentined previously).
Examine the last 120 years. Which artists made huge impacts on
their society? Which artists made huge amounts of money? (Some of them
were poor as dirt all their lives, but were still groundbreaking) Which
artists made artwork that has intrigued countless numbers of
people around the world and has lasted until now. Were these artists the
ones who sat quietly in their masters' studio, aching to hear and obey
every word off the masters' lips? Were these artists the traditionalists
who painted in virtual paint-by-number styles? No. They were those who sat
in their classes (for as long as they could stand the academic
gobbledigook), took the knowledge gained and spewed their souls onto
whatever surface upon which they were working. They had their own
rules, they did things their own way and they spoke of the masters as an
afterthought. Matisse, Picasso, Van Gogh, Gauguin, Lautrec, etc etc etc.
These artists, at different levels, were knowledgeable of and even
inspired by 'The Masters' and many of them reflected the value of their
artistic foundations, but none of them had altars to them as we seem to
have today. These were artists who looked at what was going on, what was
new in their own time, and were inspired by that more than anything.
Lautrec painted with an intense desire to impress Degas, his idol. Van
Gogh was a 'pupil' of Gaugin, who he longed to be 'like'...These people
used one another's energies to fuel themselves. They didn't dig up graves
to find the answers, the looked to the living, and the surrounding spice
of life.
I believe that if your mentors are covered with dust, so then
will you be,as well as everything you produce as fruit from the withered
tree of yesterday.
With a resounding bleep I hereby end this post.
Looking forward to any comments,
Jason
--
-----------j-a-h-1-0-@-i-s-i-s-.-m-s-s-t-a-t-e-.-e-d-u------------
<a href=http://www.wsnet.com/~alphabet><b>Brother Alphabet</b></a>
---------------------a-d-d----t-h-i-s----l-i-n-k------------------
David Harleyson
In article <54onun$f...@Isis.MsState.Edu>, ja...@Ra.MsState.Edu says...
>Greetings fellow beings. Long time, etc.
Yes, it has been and welcome back to the inner-sanctum of art
speakmaniacs.
> I was reading through some of these posts about old art being
>dead art and all that and I was reminded of a sensation I experienced
>while wandering through the last museum I visited (Birmingham AL Museum of
>art, Early Oct)
Your self-awakening/enlightening dialogue is very interesting reading, and I
can't find much to debate with. I would like to say though that using the
Birmingham, AL MOA as an example is probably the reason you feel as
you do. I don't know much about their permanent collection -- I assume the
art you refer to as "old art" is their permanent collection -- but I can well
imagine that it does NOT include very many works in the "masterpiece"
category. I have been to that museum, and other than the magnificent
park-like setting it is in, there was nothing else memorable about my visit.
I do not remember a single work of art from there -- nothing stood out.
On the other hand, I can mention dozens of museums that I have had the
good fortune to visit, with permanent collections, that have works that
stand out in my memory. You are right when you say that there is simply
too much ORDINARY work out there that passes as "remarkable" only
because it is now antigue. I have no idea how many "icons" I have viewed
over the years -- in permanent collections like that of the KRESS collection.
They all blend together in my memory -- with only a handful remembered
as exceptional. But virtually all are considered priceless by the museums
where they are displayed -- because they are irreplaceable.
I hope that you will have the opportunities to visit
the major art museums around the world, and see what makes a
masterpiece (consensus) worth the trouble of seeking out. I have many
favorite artists -- and favorite works of art -- all for different reasons and
all from different seasons. I hope with time you will "own" a similar
collection of memorable works from all eras.
Good to have you back, D.H.
Mdeli
ja...@Ra.MsState.Edu (Jason A. Hutto) wrote:
>The problem I had, suddenly, was that old art is just plain boring.
>--- All of the works tended to resemble one another.
>A landscape is a landscape is a landscape, in terms of the 'traditional'
>way of seeing them. I found myself demanding to know where the life was in
>these works. Where was the soul?
If its soul your looking for go to church perhaps
you’ll find one in your pew.
>How many times does a painter (the general painter) have to paint
>the grand canyon before we will admit that it is there, it is wide and
>it sometimes looks sort of orange and go on to pursue other sources
>imagery? How many farms, how many flowers, how many god-awful still-life
>arrangements, how many forests far off in the distance do we need to
>prove to the future that we had these things and that we knew not only
>what they looked like, but how to paint them as well?
Yes, stick to de Kooning’s cat vomit and Mondrian
stripes to warm the cockles of your soul. Of course
there is no repetition here.
>When an artist only represents is that artist an artist by
>true definition, or is that painter merely a human camera?
The usual Modern Academic line--- all realism is only
just like a photograph. He supposes that Leonardo and
Vermeer are worthless in the light of the modern
camera. Show us a photo that looks like a Dali or a
Rockwell.
>To continually try to
>repeat what was done in the past is a waste of time.
No piece of fine contemporary work would be mistaken
for something out of the past. Not even Hockney’s
swimming pools or Picasso’s portraits.
>What was valid years
>ago is not likely to be valid today in terms of the message in and behind
>what we do.
>It is not wrong to copy others, but it is wrong to copy yourself.
>This can be looked upon from different
Nonsense. Abstract Expressionism didn’t do more than
recopy a set gimmik. I wouldn’t even object to that if
the gimmick weren’t such crap.
>I firmly believe that if we are to survive here in this plane as true
>artists, we need to return to the roots of art.
Survival? The roots of Art?
>We need to remember why
>artists create in the first place. We must regain the fanatical spirit
>we lost somewhere along the way. We lack the art-as-religion attitude.
>Lately, this has been replaced by the art-of-religion mindset once again.
>This is not the middle ages. This is not the victorian era. This age will
>never be anything like either. I really do not think I even needed to
>mention that. The point was, though, that this is not a world in
>need of seeing angels. This is a world hell-bent on living 10 years ahead
>of the clock. Nostalgia today means remembering how we thought the Apple
>IIe was a cool computer back in the early 80s. The farthest back we ever
>need look to see the modern truth might be futurism, but even that is too
>far gone to be pertinent to modern times (But at least that school had
>some sort of vision, unlike the early American vomit mentined previously). ETC. ETC.
This is the stuff of art school lectures by teachers
who don’t know their craft. An Artspeak pep talk. Well,
you can’t say this guy doesn’t have religion
Mani DeLi
---no skill no art
Bruce Attah
In article <54onun$f...@Isis.MsState.Edu>, ja...@Ra.MsState.Edu (Jason A.
Hutto) wrote:
> The problem I had, suddenly, was that old art is just plain boring.
Some of it is, but if you think all of it is, that is your problem, not a
problem with the art.
> ...I was
> so accustomed to considering all of it important and good just because it
> was in a museum.
A lot of people think new art is good for the same reason.
> ...I think many of the works in
> museums are there because they are old and not because the painter was
> profound or talented...some of the works
> displayed at that particular museum were no better than some old geezer
> could whip out after watching a year of Bob Ross programs. The works
> rarely stood out at all.
I've been to provincial museums where there were most of the work on
display was unexceptional. An interesting case in point is Wolverhampton
Art Gallery, because they have a very poor collection of 18th and 19th
century art, and an unusually good (for such a small municipal gallery)
collection of new work. You'd have thought, if that gallery were your
only resource, that art today was generally much better than the stuff of
previous centuries.
> A landscape is a landscape is a landscape, in terms of the 'traditional'
> way of seeing them.
If the landscapist is average.
> How many times does a painter (the general painter) have to paint
> the grand canyon before we will admit that it is there, it is wide and
> it sometimes looks sort of orange and go on to pursue other sources
> imagery? How many farms, how many flowers, how many god-awful still-life
> arrangements, how many forests far off in the distance do we need to
> prove to the future that we had these things and that we knew not only
> what they looked like, but how to paint them as well?
A couple of points:
(1) This stuff was meant, for the most part, for people's homes, not museums.
(2) Landscape and still-life (and portraiture) were generally considered
minor forms of art until the beginning of modernism.
(3) Nevertheless, there are some landscapes and still-lifes that are
extraordinarily beautiful.
> I saw a landscape with precisely rendered clouds, grass and trees.
> The work could have been from life, from a photo, or from imagination. It
> was nearly 'flawless'. In my mind, I saw a Van Gogh. Let's use one of the
> peach orchard pieces. I contrasted the two. There is nothing left to be
> said. Van Gogh was and is superior.
Who was the artist? When was the work painted? What was the reputation
of the artist at the time? If you are comparing Van Gogh with a very
minor painter in order to contrast two styles, you are being unfair to one
of the styles, surely?
> Another example. I saw in the
> museum a stark oil portrait of a big-fat man....The portrait is perfectly
> rendered and the man's features are without
> blemish. In the mind's eye sat a gangly woman painted by Schiele. Again,
> the latter case was superior. The traditional is boring to the point of
> tears.
Same problem again.
In any case, who has been arguing that Van Gogh and Egon Schiele are not
artists deserving of the name? As far as I know, one individual posted an
article saying that Van Gogh's image of himself as a misunderstood artist
was a romantic delusion. The poster was correct about that (though not
about the thinking Van Gogh was the first to fall for this fantasy).
No-one, as far as I know has said that Van Gogh's or Schiele's paintings
are worthless rubbish. As for contrasting them with the "traditional",
they are quite traditional, as far as I am concerned. Van Gogh's impastos
are no more opposed to the tradition than are Ingres' subtly surreal
distortions and heightened local colour. Indeed, there were salon
painters in the 1860s using a style that would strongly remind you of Van
Gogh, if you were to see their works. Nor is Schiele's nervous line any
less a part of the Renaissance tradition of painting than Michelangelo's
hypertrophy and contraposto.
> But as artists, are we not obligated
> to take that technique and apply it to things other than a bowl of fruit?
Not if we don't want to. There are still-life painters even today doing
very fine work with essentially traditional subject-matter. If that work
does not appeal to your temperament, so be it, but do not be so silly as
to imagine that what you are looking at is merely a
> ...plain old excersize?...
That would be missing the point.
> A real artist does not and will not rely
> solely upon what was done centuries ago.
Everybody knows that. Who are you telling?
The creative act is not about
> history, it is about the present and the future.
A very fine sentiment, with which I agree wholeheartedly. So, on the
basis of this, let us dismiss all those would-be Duchamps whose sole focus
is on flogging dead conceptual horses and pulling down walls of tradition
that were never there in the first place.
> Picasso said something to the effect: It is not wrong to copy others, but
> it is wrong to copy yourself. This can be looked upon from different
> points of view. Let's say 'copying yourself' refers to the general or
> universal 'You' meaning all of us, or humanity. If we continue to put the
> art of 'The Masters' upon such a high and mighty pedastel, are we not, in
> effect, bowing down to the tradition of copying things already done or
> ways already tried?
Wait a minute: Picasso said, you report, that it is wrong to copy
yourself. That is not the same thing as saying it is wrong to copy the
Old Masters. If you are going to quote someone in order to support your
argument, you should not twist what they say into its opposite.
> Do we not need to grow forward instead?
The Pre-Raphaelites rejected the influence of all artists from Raphael
onwards, and took the painters of the early Rennaisance as their guides.
By so doing, they created a surprisingly radical and modern style of art.
Paradox? Maybe.
Let people imitate whom they choose. Just demand that what they do as a
result is good.
If something
> or someone was great long ago, why not leave that fact there in the
> histories?
Because the objects they made still exist, and are therefore part of the
modern world. It is open to all of us to take any aspect of the world
that catches our fancy, and include it in our art. That includes the art
of every era and every nation.
> A point as yet unmentioned is the absolute truth of the creative
> act: Everything has been done already. This is a fact in the figurative
> sense.
What do you mean? Only a small fraction of what can be done has been done.
> Examine the last 120 years. Which artists made huge impacts on
> their society?
None.
> Which artists made huge amounts of money?
Pretty much all of the famous ones, except those who died early or the
ones who refused to sell their work.
> Lautrec painted with an intense desire to impress Degas, his idol. Van
> Gogh was a 'pupil' of Gaugin, who he longed to be 'like'...These people
> used one another's energies to fuel themselves. They didn't dig up graves
> to find the answers, the looked to the living, and the surrounding spice
> of life.
> I believe that if your mentors are covered with dust, so then
> will you be,as well as everything you produce as fruit from the withered
> tree of yesterday.
My advice to artists: imitate whoever and whatever you want (commercial,
"high", your own country, other countries, your own generation, other
generations). Mix together any influences you choose. It is nobody's
business to tell you who you cannot copy. Jason Hutto's talk of "withered
trees" is superstitious, high-flown bollocks, designed to limit you. The
works are not covered with dust, because the museum curators take care to
clean them. Take from them whatever you want. They are yours.
Bruce Attah.
JKearman
>.
>
> I was reading through some of these posts about old art being
>dead art and all that and I was reminded of a sensation I experienced
>while wandering through the last museum I visited (Birmingham AL Museum
of
>art, Early Oct)
> I don't know or care if the old art in question is or isn't alive.
>The problem I had, suddenly, was that old art is just plain boring.
> ...
>With a resounding bleep I hereby end this post.
>Looking forward to any comments,
>
>Jason
>
Save your money and go to New York, Boston, Philadelphia, etc. If you're
still bored, call the undertaker.
Jim Kearman
W.S. Parker
Jason A. Hutto wrote:
>
> The truth is that these 'traditional' pieces are not as much
> worthy art pieces as they are antiques. I think many of the works in
> museums are there because they are old and not because the painter was
> profound or talented.
One thing I haven't seen mentioned much here is that museums are club
houses where rich people try to gain immortality in death and status in
life by donating the art they bought. They get the tax benefit ofcourse
but more impt. they get social status amongst themselves. Better parties
and richer "friends." That's A *major* reason museums exist you know?
The motives of the board are totally disconnected from the visitors and
cost-of-admission supporters.
> rarely stood out at all. All of the works tended to resemble one another.
> A landscape is a landscape is a landscape, in terms of the 'traditional'
> way of seeing them. I found myself demanding to know where the life was in
> these works. Where was the soul?
You should go through the graduate if not post-grad level and study
landscape tradition
and I guarentee those things you see will mean a great deal more to you.
You may see them as mediocre then, sure but at least you will be
reaching an informed conclusion. Also If I were to spend years studying
something even the worst examples would mean a great deal to me. The
more you know the more you can appreciate. Why does the museum have to
have only acccessible, or famous works on display? Also, the emphasis
of their collection may be such that only scholars in certain areas may
be interested. Is that a reason to have a museum open to the public?
> How many times does a painter (the general painter) have to paint
> the grand canyon before we will admit that it is there, it is wide and
> it sometimes looks sort of orange and go on to pursue other sources
> imagery?
Sorry but how many pictures of the Grand Canyon have you *studied*? Have
you spent enough time with the genre make discernments? They don't all
look alike, do they?
> This type of work is indeed dead in terms of 'it is without life
> and without substance'. Old art, or at least old traditional art is
> painfully trite, and therefore hideous to look at.
It is all perspective, you are having a bad experience, and are beside
yourself and looking to spread it around. You may have a little idea
about what you are looking at; but you make dangerous generalizations
about it. Sounds like parts of this newsgroup
> When an artist only represents is that artist an artist by
> true definition, or is that painter merely a human camera? If so, isn't
> the painting about as valuable as a snapshot? What is the value of
> accurately representing a common object?
Back then the painted portrait was considered a status symbol. The
working class couldn't afford them. But when the tintypes became cheap
families could at last have a visual heritage, like the rich with their
portrait painter-artists.
To an artist, that technical
> ability is important - To technique...But as artists, are we not obligated
> to take that technique and apply it to things other than a bowl of fruit?
> Are we not expected to rise above the level of plain old excersize?
> I am inclined to believe we are. A real artist does not and will not rely
> solely upon what was done centuries ago. The creative act is not about
> history, it is about the present and the future. To continually try to
> repeat what was done in the past is a waste of time. What was valid years
> ago is not likely to be valid today in terms of the message in and behind
> what we do.
It would be very hard to find someone who disagrees with what you say
here. But they do it anyway. Why on earth people still paint? Because
they don't mind that what they do will only be important to themselves
and their families and their friends. There is private thinking and
public thinking.
> A point as yet unmentioned is the absolute truth of the creative
> act: Everything has been done already. This is a fact in the figurative
> sense. How else could the cliche 'history repeats itself' be even remotely
> true? We are bound to the commonality of the human experience. Things and
> events and ideas are recycled.
That is because the "creative unconscious" of human beings stays the
same. Our subconscious mythologies do not vary from time to time and
culture to culture. That is why you can't say that Native american art
is more important, more enduring, more human, than the best creations to
come out of the Renaissance.
The form of the stories changes to mesh better with the cultural
changes, but the content remains the same. The same stories retold. Get
used to it. The Latest Development in the arts was to show this was true
and intractable and, then shove it down your throat to make avant
art-making impossible: it was called Postmodernism.
I firmly believe that if we are to survive here in this plane as
true
> artists, we need to return to the roots of art. We need to remember why
> artists create in the first place. We must regain the fanatical spirit
> we lost somewhere along the way.
Usually it is the loudest, most visible who are the phoniest. Like
Christo, or Avedon.
> I believe that if your mentors are covered with dust, so then
> will you be,as well as everything you produce as fruit from the withered
> tree of yesterday.
Long live Marcel Duchamp!! He's the only artist we got who makes it
possible for everyone to be their own "art movement!"
W.S. Parker
Jason A. Hutto wrote:
>
> Greetings fellow beings. Long time, etc.
>
> I was reading through some of these posts about old art being
> dead art and all that and I was reminded of a sensation I
OOps, in the universe I inhabit there is no such thing as "boring!" You
can be tired or distracted but we do not experience boredom.
Vela Press
a sensation I experienced
while wandering through the last museum I visited (Birmingham AL Museum of
art, Early Oct)
I don't know or care if the old art in question is or isn't alive.
The problem I had, suddenly, was that old art is just plain boring.
simply "art". There is no such thing as "modern" art... it is a
misnomer....it should be referred to as "contemporary" art. Consider that
the art you today call "modern"...what will people 100 years from now call
it? Certainly not "modern". As to your lengthy and BORING commentary about
your worst sin..critical analysis of "generalizations"... I believe your
eyes and bored mind would find them to be awaken by a visit to the Prado
to see the Velasquez'( don't bother trying to judge artworks from art book
reproductions) and the Ruben's and then go to the Kunshistoriches museum
to see the Brueghels and one of the most dynamic paintings of all time,
his "hunters in the snow", go to the Sistine chapel and marvel at
Michelangelo, Go to Dresden and then to the fabulous collection at Berlin
at the Dahlem, stop by at the Statliches Museen in Frankfort to see the
Vermeer and the Rembrandt and the Caravaggio not to miss the wonderful
Palma Veccio, Run to the Louvre to feast on the little Vermeer lacemaker
and the Rubens', Peasant Dance, and if you are still standing with clear
eyes and mind, take the treak toColmar to see the Isenheim Alter by
Gruenwald. Of course you should visit Antwerp and slowly pass through the
Rubens house, then the State Museum and the Fabulos church with one of
Ruben's finest..you can also go to Harlem to see the Franz Has Museum,
which has one of the most magnificent group portraits painted by the
infirm resident of the poorhouse, 80 year old Frans Hals..shimmering,
quivering, imprssionistic.... I could go on...I have stood before all of
these...several times..I will return..and I would not cross the street top
see so much of the mediocre work painted by todays "moderns" ( who will be
forgotten within the coming generations)...Bored with the greatest of old
masters and their greatest artworks? No way!
Brother Alphabet
Bruce Attah wrote:
> Some of it is, but if you think all of it is, that is your problem, not a
> problem with the art.
Most of it is. Not all of it, surely...but you must concede to most.
> A lot of people think new art is good for the same reason.
As I have noticed in many Chicago galleries these days...But that's another
matter...
> You'd have thought, if that gallery were your
> only resource, that art today was generally much better than the stuff of
> previous centuries.
Me personally? Probably not. I lived almost my entire life in a town with no
art resources other than a library which had only a few art books. People do
travel, you realize... I never made the statement: "Because I didn't like
what I saw in the Birmingham Museum, I think all traditional art is bad"...
I said I came to that conclusion while visiting that museum, also stating
that it was the latest museum I had visited. On that particular trip, the
Birmingham museum was the seventh in a row.
> If the landscapist is average.
Painting landscapes IS average if you're trying to merely represent
things people see every single day of every single year of our lives.
There is no art left to be experienced in that. The traditional style
is far beyond plain, boring, limited and trite. It borders on obnoxious.
To create is the objective, not to photocopy.
> A couple of points:
> (1) This stuff was meant, for the most part, for people's homes, not museums.
So why does it continually appear in museums instead of antique shops?
Are museum curators incapable of refusing works from an estate? If the work
is invalid artistically, as far as being from a 'minor painter' or if the
work is just plain bad, why does it get such a lofty position for eternity?
> (2) Landscape and still-life (and portraiture) were generally considered
> minor forms of art until the beginning of modernism.
So thats why no artist alive did nothing but until after modernism?
What else is left to go in the 'major' category?
> (3) Nevertheless, there are some landscapes and still-lifes that are
> extraordinarily beautiful.
Depends on how one defines beauty.
> Who was the artist? When was the work painted? What was the reputation
> of the artist at the time? If you are comparing Van Gogh with a very
> minor painter in order to contrast two styles, you are being unfair to one
> of the styles, surely?
OK I will admit that the comparison of names is perhaps unfair, but I did so
more to make the stylistic comparison more so than to name-drop. A person can
easily visualize a landscape done in the traditional way...So I used Van-Gogh
as a comparison of style...Mention Van Gogh, and instantly they stylistic
comparison is there...Call him billy-bob if you want to.
> Same problem again.
Same reason again.
> In any case, who has been arguing that Van Gogh and Egon Schiele are not
> artists deserving of the name?
No one, and that isn't the point. The style is the issue here.
> No-one, as far as I know has said that Van Gogh's or Schiele's paintings
> are worthless rubbish.
A fortunate circumstance.
> As for contrasting them with the "traditional",
> they are quite traditional, as far as I am concerned.
And now you redefine what I was saying to begin with.
Traditionalism here is defined as the realistic representation of a thing,
place or person. Plain and simple.
> Nor is Schiele's nervous line any
> less a part of the Renaissance tradition of painting than Michelangelo's
> hypertrophy and contraposto.
Oh, how often have I been reminded of Michelangelo while studying Shiele...
I couldn't begin to count how many times I have been unable to tell the
difference between the two. Gee, you're right.
> Not if we don't want to.
I'm not recommending the use of force...No one has to paint any certain thing
if they don't want to...But there lies the difference between an artist and a
hobbyist. Paint all the magnolia blossoms and kittens in baskets you want to,
just don't pretend to be an artist.
> There are still-life painters even today doing
> very fine work with essentially traditional subject-matter. If that work
> does not appeal to your temperament, so be it, but do not be so silly as
> to imagine that what you are looking at is merely a
>
> > ...plain old excersize?...
>
> That would be missing the point.
No, it would be right on the point. Painting still life objects, and drawing
them is 'practice'...It isn't work to be placed into the open market...Still
life is to stretching as creation is to running a marathon. The final product
depends upon the efficiency of the preparation, but the preparation isn't
worthy of artistic merit, regardless of the way in which society responds to
it. The practice work is what people want to put on the kitchen wall...and if
those people happen to have enough money, their collections of practice work
ends up in the permanent collection of a museum somewhere.
> Everybody knows that. Who are you telling?
There is nothing that 'everybody knows'. Everybody knows that.
> A very fine sentiment, with which I agree wholeheartedly. So, on the
> basis of this, let us dismiss all those would-be Duchamps whose sole focus
> is on flogging dead conceptual horses and pulling down walls of tradition
> that were never there in the first place.
You apparently haven't had much trouble finding a decent market for your
artwork lately. Might you paint little pink flowers? There are indeed walls
in place, and very thick ones at that. I won't sit here and claim that I'm an
underappreciated super-talent, but I will say that I know exactly why I have
had minimal luck selling my own work in the cities in which I have lived:
People don't buy ideas around here...people don't want to think, or to wonder
what things mean, people want to look at something pretty, and that's all
that matters. A fine tradition which fills hack galleries full of trite
garbage while talented artists work at fast food restaurants.
> Wait a minute: Picasso said, you report, that it is wrong to copy
> yourself. That is not the same thing as saying it is wrong to copy the
> Old Masters. If you are going to quote someone in order to support your
> argument, you should not twist what they say into its opposite.
I stated as much when i related the statement...I twisted it on purpose.
I questioned what was meant by 'copying yourself'...It is the same as copying
the old masters...It regenerates what has already been said and done...
> Let people imitate whom they choose.
As I said, I wouldn't encourage the use of force, but
what people choose to do will determine where they stand when the beans are
counted. If a person desires to ever be significant in terms of art, spending
time on old hats is pointless.
> Just demand that what they do as a
> result is good.
That's a given.
> Because the objects they made still exist, and are therefore part of the
> modern world.
Er. Ok. I'll take the Harvard School of Medicine, you go root out a witch
doctor and let's get sick and test that theory.
> It is open to all of us to take any aspect of the world
> that catches our fancy, and include it in our art. That includes the art
> of every era and every nation.
I don't see how believing that the world is flat will help the future of art.
There are definite limits on taking and using what was real and true in the
past. Modern technology and artistic technique are far beyond what the past
could ever hope to teach us, we have carried with us the important rules and
laws, color theory, perspective, material rendering and manufacture, and so
on, but what does subject matter have to do with any of that? Why should the
style of ages past have anything to do with what we paint today? Our
symbolisms are only remotely similar, our societies are far different, even
our religions are alien to the world that was...What are we going to do about
tomorrow and three hundred thousand tomorrows after that? Continue to spin
our creative wheels in honor of the dead and buried?
> What do you mean? Only a small fraction of what can be done has been done.
Hmm. What then, are you doing promoting the idea of living in the artistic
past? If there are so many tasks ahead, why not let's pursue these things?
I'd also like to know what possibilities we haven't seen come into
reality...Can you list a few?
> > Examine the last 120 years. Which artists made huge impacts on
> > their society?
> None.
None? So how did today's art get to this point?
> > I believe that if your mentors are covered with dust, so then
> > will you be,as well as everything you produce as fruit from the withered
> > tree of yesterday.
>
> My advice to artists: imitate whoever and whatever you want (commercial,
> "high", your own country, other countries, your own generation, other
> generations). Mix together any influences you choose. It is nobody's
> business to tell you who you cannot copy.
But, It's Bruce Attah's business to tell you who can't tell you things.
My advice to artists is this:
Stay inside your own heads, and see what you can force out. If, by chance you
have absorbed something from predecessors, or from your environment,
assimilate, don't duplicate. The Old Masters are just that, OLD. Who cares if
you can paint like Michelangelo? He's dead! He can't paint at all! I only
want to see if an artist can paint like him or herself.
> Jason Hutto's talk of "withered trees" is superstitious, high-flown
> bollocks, designed to limit you.
Bruce equates being yourself to being limited. You must have an interesting
psychological profile.
> The works are not covered with dust, because the museum curators take care > to clean them.
What an bland way to foul up a metaphor.
> Take from them whatever you want. They are yours.
'Be a Xerox machine', says Bruce.
If they are mine, I want them taken down and put in the basement, the
traditional stuff, and the Warhols too. In the basement.
Be true to who and what you are and nothing more. Nothing more is necessary.
Hutto
Brother Alphabet
Mdeli wrote:
> If its soul your looking for go to church perhaps
> youšll find one in your pew.
I'm not looking for -A- soul...
I asked, "Where is the soul in the 'traditional' artwork?"
Where is the drama, passion, life...?
> Yes, stick to de Kooningšs cat vomit and Mondrian
> stripes to warm the cockles of your soul.
The appearance of the work is all you judge. I have much greater respect for
the types of artists who made artworks because they wondered what it would
look like, or felt compelled to try painting in a new way. Traditionalists of
old did the work that sits crustily in museums today because they were
expected to. That's a sad waste of life, and of wallspace.
> The usual Modern Academic line--- all realism is only
> just like a photograph.
I didn't say 'just like'...In many cases I would rather have a photo than the
work of some of these painters...What I meant by 'human camera' was to ask
why not just TAKE a picture of the thing rather than waste good materials
trying to paint it?
> He supposes that Leonardo and
> Vermeer are worthless in the light of the modern
> camera.
No, I suppose they are worthless because they are ancient relics who can show
us nothing new. Davinci only made 17 paintings. What a career. He is more
useful to science than art. Vermeer, while not untalented still pales in
comparison to modern painters who have superior skill, and more guts. I know
many, many painters today who can and do render flawless figures, etc, but
who recognize such work as practice for true creation.
> Show us a photo that looks like a Dali or a
> Rockwell.
Rockwell? What is the purpose of this statement? It doesn;t seem to hit any
of various targets.
> No piece of fine contemporary work would be mistaken
> for something out of the past. Not even Hockneyšs
> swimming pools or Picassošs portraits.
Picasso's work isn't contemporary. In case you hadn't noticed, he died in the
seventies. Contemporary art is the art happening tomorrow.
> Nonsense. Abstract Expressionism didnšt do more than
> recopy a set gimmik. I wouldnšt even object to that if
> the gimmick werenšt such crap.
What gimmick?
I think it's funny how you seem to be able to draw a line at which point
significance ends. Look at the multitudinous panel remnants we were left by
our fine friends in the Renaissance. I imagine all of that is just an
artistic orgasm for you, even though the artisans hadn't the talent of a slab
of cement...No concept of perspective, no grasp on the play of light, just a
bunch of sheet-white Marys with gold-leafed haloes around their
heads...'Don't worry about the blank space Maestro, i'll fill it in with more
gold-leaf.....' And you never seem to mention that most of these GREATS
didn't do much of the work themselves after they were patronized by the
aristocrats...
On down the timeline, when a man or woman decides to see what would happen if
they smeared the paint onto the canvas instead of placing the pigments in a
precise order, you call it gimmicky crap.
> Survival? The roots of Art?
Yeah.
> This is the stuff of art school lectures by teachers
> who donšt know their craft. An Artspeak pep talk.
It's funny how my art history teacher didn't say these things at all. In
fact, o purveyor of all things non-academic Mani Deli, he tried to force the
nonsense you holler down my throat. You shouldn't try so hard to be
non-academic, because you'll fail no matter what. You might not be with
today's consensus, but last century you'd have been right in line with the
status quo, and why should we want to abide by the norms of last century?
> ---no skill no art
I've always liked this sig...
Hutto
Brother Alphabet
Vela Press wrote: A lot of misspelled words and a list of places to o
and look at old art.
Well so what, Vela Press?
How do you know I haven't been to every place on your list 100 times?
Everyone in response to my post has completely missed what I said.
I didn't say that ALL old art was BAD...
I said that LOOKING to TRADITIONAL art in MODERN times was POINTLESS.
And I say it once again, you AOL twit.
Hutto.
JKearman
In article <32791B...@ra.msstate.edu>, Brother Alphabet
<ja...@ra.msstate.edu> writes:
>I didn't say that ALL old art was BAD...
>I said that LOOKING to TRADITIONAL art in MODERN times was POINTLESS.
>
>And I say it once again, you AOL twit.
>
>
Aha, the man breaks down under the stress. Naughty, naughty. In these
modern times, we celebrate diversity. You should welcome us AOLers, as we
are the vanguard of the new millenium. Please try to control your bigotry!
Jim Kearman
Not ashamed to pay my own way onto the Internet
Bruce Attah
In article <327918...@ra.msstate.edu>,
Jason Hutto a.k.a. "Brother Alphabet", ja...@ea.msstate.edu
wrote:
[...a lot of extremely stupid remarks that don't even merit an answer...]
> It's funny how my art history teacher didn't say these things at all. In
> fact...he tried to force the nonsense you holler down my throat.
Perhaps that is because your art history teacher was not an art-hating
philistine like yourself.
Brother Alphabet
Bruce Attah wrote:
> [...a lot of extremely stupid remarks that don't even merit an
> answer...]
Ah. So in other words, you cannot dispute my correctness in any other way
but to try to push my words off as 'stupid'. How typically defeated you
seem. Why not continue the debate? You haven't established yourself as
anything but contrary. Why not get around to making a point?
> Perhaps that is because your art history teacher was not an art-hating
> philistine like yourself.
Exactly how have I portrayed myself as an 'art hater'? If I were a hater
of art, why would I be concerned about its future in the slightest? And
Why on earth would I have dedicated my life to its creation? Certainly a
hater of art could find more gainful employ?
And to try to label me as a 'philistine' is absolutely ridiculous. I
wonder if you understand the term at all, Bruce. A philistine is more
accurately defined as one who scoffs at change, newness, progression, and
rebirth...Not someone like myself, who yearns for the explosion of the new
artistic era. If you want to point fingers at philistines, try people
like Mdeli, who haven't even the meekest ability to comprehend anything
that's happened in the last 100 years of art's evolution.
I think we have witnessed in this last post the loss of Attah final
marble.
Hutto
Brother Alphabet
JKearman wrote:
>
> Aha, the man breaks down under the stress. Naughty, naughty. In these
> modern times, we celebrate diversity. You should welcome us AOLers, as we
> are the vanguard of the new millenium. Please try to control your bigotry!
As if this has anything to do with anything...nevertheless...
I pray daily that what you say isn't true...
I hope to see AOL nose-dive anytime now...
I also don't think it makes me bigoted to despise a company, but whatever you
believe is fine with you.
Here speaks the vanguard:
'My friend told me I should try America Online...
And I said 'Why? I have a computer'......
This is our future, ladies and gentlemen...people who don't know the
difference between their previously owned machines and the 'Internet'...
And, to top it all off, when they subscribe to AOL, they STILL don't know,
and they pay an average of 85 bucks a month for the ignorance! HA!
(Based on one hours use per day I might add)
> Jim Kearman
> Not ashamed to pay my own way onto the Internet
Neither am I, but I prefer to get it free.
Kajojacobs
In article <327FAE...@ra.msstate.edu>, Brother Alphabet
<ja...@ra.msstate.edu> writes:
>This is our future, ladies and gentlemen...people who don't know the
>difference between their previously owned machines and the 'Internet'...
>And, to top it all off, when they subscribe to AOL, they STILL don't
know,
>and they pay an average of 85 bucks a month for the ignorance! HA!
>(Based on one hours use per day I might add)
Eighty-five bucks a month? Who? Not me - and I'm spending way too many
hours in front of the internet screen as it is (I do have a life.) Never
more than $19.95 which gives me 20 hours now and unlimited hours as of
December.
I fail to understand the mentality that says, in effect, if you wear green
clothes and I don't like green - you are dumb. What kind of kindergarden
intellegence is that? And where does that kind of "future, ladies and
gentlemen," lead us? Geez! Get a real cause!
(and one other thing I don't understand is why I let these jerks needle me
like this!)
~Karen Jacobs~
JKearman
>
>This is our future, ladies and gentlemen...people who don't know the
>difference between their previously owned machines and the 'Internet'...
>And, to top it all off, when they subscribe to AOL, they STILL don't
know,
>and they pay an average of 85 bucks a month for the ignorance! HA!
>(Based on one hours use per day I might add)
>
>
You're incredibly naive and, yes, you're bigoted. You think you're a
better person because you're able to get free Internet access. That's
bigotry, sonny, but Mississippi is no stranger to that activity, is it?
The days of the computer geek are over. Computers are now as mainstream as
automobiles and televisions. I fix my own car, television (I've never had
to buy one) and computer, but that doesn't make me any better than people
who can't. They have talents and abilities denied to me. Variety is what
makes the world interesting.
Furthermore, AOL now offers flat-rate, unlimited-access billing, just like
the local internet servers. You're going to see a lot more of us in the
future. Get used to it.
Cheers,
Jim Kearman
jkea...@AOL.com
1972 MGB, 1977 RCA TV, 1996 Pentium
Jason A. Hutto
Kajojacobs <kajoj...@aol.com> wrote:
>Eighty-five bucks a month? Who? Not me - and I'm spending way too many
>hours in front of the internet screen as it is (I do have a life.) Never
>more than $19.95 which gives me 20 hours now and unlimited hours as of
>December.
Wow. The person who wrote the article comparing all the online services in
the issue of PC magazine I was reading must have been lying. Or, perhaps
his/her bar chart contained a typo. The article rated AOL as second only
to GNN, which is the same company anyway. GNN was average cost 87.50, AOL
was 85.00...If I still had the magazine Id give you a quote, but I never
expected to have to care about it again, so I threw it away. Anyhow, what
ONE person pays is not what ALL people pay. The word 'Average' des have a
definition. Why don't you go look it up?
>I fail to understand the mentality that says, in effect, if you wear green
>clothes and I don't like green - you are dumb.
I fail to understand that as well.
>What kind of kindergarden intellegence is that?
No idea. I like green clothes.
> And where does that kind of "future, ladies and gentlemen," lead us?
> Geez! Get a real cause!
If I had a cause it wouldn't have anything to do with America Online. It's
just such an easy target I can't pass it up when it's presented.
>(and one other thing I don't understand is why I let these jerks needle me
>like this!)
Must be because you're weak and spineless. Or because you know you're a
moron for using AOL and hate being laughed at.
Jason A. Hutto
JKearman <jkea...@aol.com> wrote:
>You're incredibly naive and, yes, you're bigoted.
Oops. Darn.
>You think you're a
>better person because you're able to get free Internet access.
No, I think I'm a smarter person because I'm able to recognize that there
is a difference between internet access and America Online.
>That's
>bigotry, sonny, but Mississippi is no stranger to that activity, is it?
Is bigotry an activity where you come from?
I don't think any state, or country or race is a stranger to bigotry.
I love to see people display their ignorance by trying to pin the entire
scope of hate or predjudice on southern states. I can assure you that
however often you pretend to live in a fantasy world, the reality is that
racism comes with humanity, not geogrpahy, idiot.
>The days of the computer geek are over.
Computer geek? Sounds like a hostile and predjudiced remark based on
lifestyle/occupation to me.
>Computers are now as mainstream
Mainstream? What were they before? Cosmic?
>as automobiles and televisions.
Poor people still can't afford these either....Whats your point?
>I fix my own car, television (I've never
>had to buy one)
He's never bought a TV and thinks that's a positive, yet he pays through
the nose for internet, oops, make that AOL access.
>and computer, but that doesn't make me any better than people
>who can't.
Er, this comparison is somewhat empty considering its way off point.
I don't think I'm better than anyone.
>They have talents and abilities denied to me. Variety is what
>makes the world interesting.
No it isn't.
>Furthermore, AOL now offers flat-rate, unlimited-access billing, just like
>the local internet servers. You're going to see a lot more of us in the
>future. Get used to it.
Oh, I am...When I worked in sales for one of the locals that AOL is
somehow supposed to be 'just like' 60% of our new customers were refugees
of the AOL fraud. Many spent in the hundreds per month. I'm quite used to
AOL users.
Internet access should be as close to free as possible.
It should be part of standard phone service.
BTW, since I'm so naive, I shouldn't know this, but the access you think
of as 'Free', namely Edu access, isn't free. Tuition pays for it.
Thank you for your reposnse.
>Jim Kearman
>jkea...@AOL.com
>1972 MGB, 1977 RCA TV, 1996 Pentium
Is this your usual sig tat you send to everyone?
Why not get rid of the pentium and hack into a TRS80?
Vela Press
You called me a derogatory name ...you called me a "TWIT". I was 8 years
old when a
white girl aged 10 , called me right to my face, a "chocolate
drop"..because I was of
Mexican descent. I didn't ask to be born into the wonderful ethnic group
of Mexicans,
rich with an ancient culture and history, but I am happy I was, and there
she was, at 10..a
racist, prejudiced, hateful, small minded person, lashing out with
derogatory
names..THEN, in 1964 I went to the Army where in Basic training, I was
called the
foulest names you could imagine..right to my face by hatemongers, facists
and persons
who hate the USA...I served honorably as an M.P. and a Paratrooper, still
hearing
derogatory names,because of what I was, an American soldier.... THEN in
1968, I
became a police officer where I was spat in my face and called more foul
names by
persons, right to my face...criminals afoul of the law, ignorant, crooked,
vile, .. THEN for
the next 16 years I worked as a criminal investigator with the D.A.'s
office, still with
exposure to more criminals...calling me foul names right to my face
because of what I
stood for...sure a job I chose, but one which I proudly served with
honesty and integrity
and some bravery . Now, along comes you...a coward..because you don't dare
call me
names directly to my face, but hide behind the faceless internet.
ANALYSIS: Your
original post indicates a few things that can be safely deducted as
accurate. #1: You
believe yourself to be a misunderstood and unappreciated and unrecognized
artistic
GENIUS. You see yourself as a victim of arrogant, corrupt, ignorant,
narrow minded
nincompoops - never mind that this group is made up millions, I repeat ,
millions of well
educated persons who value and treasure the masterworks of the masters.
#2: You have
received some sound advice and arguments disproving your premises, and the
evidence
you present in support of your premises and the invalid conclusions you
reach. Your
reasoning is fallacious. It is far from cogent. YOUR manifesto , "Be true
to who and what
you are and nothing more. Nothing more is necessary" adds up to ...
NOTHING. I have
reached the conclusion that rationally discussing, or debating the subject
of art with you
is pointless, because of your fallacious and defective reasoning ...not to
mention that you
like to call persons, derogatory names ..like TWIT. Dont bother to
respond, I will not read your unrational commentary.
Joseph P. Befumo
I really hate to fuel this kind of off-subject banter, but have to observe
that whenever such things surface, there appears to be a ".aol" behind it.
I know it's unfair to paint with such a wide brush, but one need only
puruse the spam content of your favorite newsgroup and note the high
percentage of ".aol" origins to realize why anti-aol-mania is such a
growing mindset. For some sober observations, visit:
http://www.en.com/users/tfinley/
This page contains numerous detailed reports of AOL abuses, as well as an
intersting article by one of the internet's developers, who no longer uses
it, but says "Maybe I'd start reading it again if they kept the AOL people
out,"
This probably sums it up best. Maybe all of the serious folks will just
have to go back to private bulletin boards & leave the AOL-potatoes with
nobody to spam but each other.
Kajojacobs
In article <55qou1$d...@Isis.MsState.Edu>, ja...@Ra.MsState.Edu (Jason A.
Hutto) writes:
(...playground rudeness snipped...)
'nuff said - you've proven my point.
Roll Tide
~Karen Jacobs~
David Harleyson
In article <55r0lm$d...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, vela...@aol.com says...
>like to call persons, derogatory names ..like TWIT. Dont bother to
>respond, I will not read your unrational commentary.
I'll apologize for Jason -- he's still suffering growing pains.
On the other hand, you are overly sensitive and as such you
probably should not be responding to Internet postings if you
are not willing to suffer the consequences of speaking to silly
nitwits, like me. D.H.
JKea...@aol.com
In article <55r0lm$d...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, vela...@aol.com (Vela
Press) writes:
>You called me a derogatory name ...you called me a "TWIT".
Look, you're an AOLer, get it? Never mind how these so-called artists
scream about their liberal attitudes and their celebrations of diversity.
You're so out of it you have to _pay_ to gain internet access. You are
obviously a second-class citizen. Only the elite academics and people who
abuse their companies' internet connections are worthy of representing
themselves here. Haven't you figured that out yet? The only way to keep
the internet pure is to purge it of AOL subscribers, a la ethnic
cleansing.
Why, I'll bet you're paying $85 a month for your access! Isn't that what
_he_ said? You and others like you are responsible for all the spamming
and lousy ideas that infest this paradise of virtue, common sense and
tolerance we call the internet.
Sign up with Netcom or some outfit like that, and then your ideas will
count. Your alias is more important than anything you could possibly have
to say.
Jim Kearman
Kajoj...@aol.com
In article <01bbcc42$c3ccb020$ee40...@jbefumo.worldnet.att.net>, "Joseph
P. Befumo" <jbe...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
>This probably sums it up best. Maybe all of the serious folks will just
>have to go back to private bulletin boards & leave the AOL-potatoes with
>nobody to spam but each other.
>
>
May I please have permission to stay with this newsgroup? I promise not
to spam or behave in a manner that would embarass the *intelligencia*.
~Karen Jacobs~
David Harleyson
In article <19961107143...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, JKea...@aol.com says...
> Haven't you figured that out yet? The only way to keep
>the internet pure is to purge it of AOL subscribers, a la ethnic
>cleansing.
You gest, of course, but you may find it interesting that
there is afoot a movement to form a NEW INTERNET so
that all the academics and intellectuals who used to own
this one will once again have their own domain in which
to exchange profound thoughts. The NEW INTERNET will
be exclusive -- as opposed to this one which is the
epitomy of democratic process -- for now. D.H.
jkea...@aol.com
In article <562445$c...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>, no...@email.com (David
Harleyson) writes:
>You gest, of course, but you may find it interesting that
>there is afoot a movement to form a NEW INTERNET so
>that all the academics and intellectuals who used to own
>this one will once again have their own domain in which
>to exchange profound thoughts. The NEW INTERNET will
>be exclusive -- as opposed to this one which is the
>epitomy of democratic process -- for now. D.H.
>
>
>------------------- Headers --------------------
>Path:
>newsbf05.news.aol.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!portc01.blue.aol.com!news-pee
r.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!howland.erols.net!cs.utexas.edu!geraldo.cc.utexas.ed
u!usenet
>From: no...@email.com (David Harleyson)
Check out the return address. Jay Elless (or whatever his (?) real name
is) returns in a new disguise! This person has more aliases than John
Dillinger.
Still, the concept of a new, exclusive, internet is appealing. Most of the
good info on the 'net comes from people outside academia anyway.
Cheers,
Jim Kearman
Jason A. Hutto
<JKea...@aol.com> wrote:
>Look, you're an AOLer, get it? Never mind how these so-called artists
>scream about their liberal attitudes and their celebrations of diversity.
Some perhaps. I remain refreshingly non-liberal. But, if you are bigoted
against liberals, why would you want to read a newsgroup full of artists
to begin with?
>You're so out of it you have to _pay_ to gain internet access.
Not if you're using AOL. You would be paying to pretend to have internet
access. Jim-bob, you're acting as if I've never used AOL. I wouldn't just
make statements based on some idea I had...I used it, hated it, and was
glad it was a friend's account.
>You are obviously a second-class citizen. Only the elite academics and
>people who abuse their companies' internet connections are worthy of
>representing
What's elite about going to a computer lab on a college campus?
You're bigoted against smart people, aren't you?
>The only way to keep
>the internet pure is to purge it of AOL subscribers, a la ethnic
>cleansing.
Hehehe....hahaha.....hehehehhehehhe.....
You make me LAUGH jkea...@aol.com. Why do you have AOL if you already
have a computer? Oh...it's a race issue...America Online subscribers are
now an ethnic group Hehehehehehee! Good one.
>Why, I'll bet you're paying $85 a month for your access! Isn't that what
>_he_ said?
That's what _he_ quoted from PC magazine.
>You and others like you are responsible for all the spamming
>and lousy ideas that infest this paradise of virtue, common sense and
>tolerance we call the internet.
Yep. Just this past week, I have gotten 11 (Jim, thats one finger more
than you have, I hope) unsolicited frigging ads from MAI...@AOL.COM
I swear I wish I could reply to just ONE of them. I have a zipped copy of
Beowulf Id love to send, duplicated many many times.
>Sign up with Netcom or some outfit like that, and then your ideas will
>count. Your alias is more important than anything you could possibly have
>to say.
Netcom isn't free, Jim.
Isn't that an elitist suggestion you just made?
Netcom is way different than AOL. The access is actually access.
rho...@silcom.com
And this thread is related to fine art in What way?
Robert