High art, Low art, Pop art
Renoma360
destroy the barriers between high and low art?
Or even a general definition between high and low art and how Pop art
fits into either category.
Thanks! Please email me at Reno...@hotmail.com!
Val N. Tyne
reno...@hotmail.com says...
Let's now see who will be willing to help
her try to make that 'A' on her term paper assignment.
RBrac53660
>>
>>Can anyone email me some info. or opinions about how Pop art helped to
>>destroy the barriers between high and low art?
>>Or even a general definition between high and low art and how Pop art
>>fits into either category.
>>Thanks! Please email me at Reno...@hotmail.com!
>
>Let's now see who will be willing to help
>her try to make that 'A' on her term paper assignment.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Andrew Werby
"Renoma360" <reno...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:319481bc.02020...@posting.google.com...
[What the heck is "low art"? Could I have missed a movement somehow? I
remember Arte Povera, Art Brut, and Bad Painting, but this rings no bells.
Now "High Art" I remember- sort of....]
Andrew Werby
http://unitedartworks.com
Val N. Tyne
>How about "The Brillo Boxes" by Andy Warhol, eh?
How about them? Do you rate them as
more or less important than the Campbell Soup
cans? Myself, I think the Marilyn works are
his greatest contributions! But then I'm old
enough to actually REMEMBER Maryilyn - MONROE
that is! Sorry if I had you excited there
for a moment, Marilyn...
Renoma360
Excuse me, but it's not a term paper. I'm not in college.
gaynorgallagher
please forgive me if I have left anything out.
high art refers to fine art or beaux-art where the 'refined' work is/was
expressed in 'fine art' materials and requires intelligence and education in
order to appreciate it. low art is mass culture, popular taste and
kitsch.often using materials of mass production.
Andy Warhol has become the symbol for the final breaking of this
distinction. for example he takes the brillo box out of it's normal context
for use as fine art.
but this process had begun with cubism especially Picasso's 'still life with
chair caning'
see
http://www.usc.edu/schools/annenberg/asc/projects/comm544/library/images/263
.html
and dada when duchamp made his gesture with the urinal.
warhol was not the only one to blur the boundaries. others were Richard
Hamilton (collage of popular magazine pictures) and lichtenstein (oil
paintings of comic book images) who used other methods of bring imagery of
mass culture into fine art. this is what we now call pop art.
you could say that the paradox is that pop art has now become 'high art' and
is as inaccessible as fine art was at the height of modernism.
gaynor
Erik A. Mattila
"Modern Art and Popular Culture: Readings in High and Low Art"
Kirk Varnedoe and Adam Gopnik, MOMA:NY 1990
You're probably right about Pop Art, but I wouldn't claim that any
"barriers" were broken. It's just that pop-culture objects made it to
the art gallery. You know, a Warhol Brillo Box isn't a real Brillo Box.
BTW, the book cited above spends a lot of time with Phillip Guston's
abandonment of abstract expressionsim in favor of cartooning on canvas.
Erik Mattila
Val N. Tyne
> BTW, the book cited above spends a lot of time with Phillip Guston's
>abandonment of abstract expressionsim in favor of cartooning on canvas.
BAD cartooning at that!
Had Guston begun producing cartoons in the
usual cartoon sense, he might not have garnered
the same attention.
Renoma360
Does anyone have any ideas on how Pop Art affected average Americans, if at all?
Thanks.
Peter H.M. Brooks
"Dan Fox" <danf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> As far as I know, neither Pop Art nor any other form of fine art has
ever
> affected the average American in any way.
>
LOL! You took the words out of my mouth.
To be fair, though, that is true of the average person anywhere.
--
That, if I then had waked after long sleep,
Will make me sleep again; and then, in dreaming,
The clouds methought would open, and show riches
Ready to drop upon me, that when I waked
I cried to dream again.
- Caliban, The Tempest.
silverpoint
"Dan Fox" <danf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:20020209202907.812$2...@newsreader.com...
> As far as I know, neither Pop Art nor any other form of fine art has ever
> affected the average American in any way. They may be vaguely aware of the
> few fine artists with name recognition, such as Warhol and Picasso, but
> regard them as kooks or cynical charlatans.
>
> A few Americans are aware of illustrators like Rockwell or schlock
> commercial artists like Peter Max, but I doubt that their work affect the
> average person. I'd be interested to hear other opinions on this.
Nik Maack
Dan Fox wrote:
> > > As far as I know, neither Pop Art nor any other form of fine art has
> > ever
> > > affected the average American in any way.
Peter Brooks wrote:
> > LOL! You took the words out of my mouth.
> > To be fair, though, that is true of the average person anywhere.
The one true responsibility of an artist is, of course, to look down on
the rest of humanity for lacking talent and imagination. Even as we
starve to death because no one will buy our work, we have the
satisfaction of knowing we are better than the great unwashed. While
they toil in factories, offices, and farms, wasting their lives, we do
something meaningful -- we smear paint around on a stretched piece of cloth.
Idiots! Those dreary people are totally unchanged by the works we
produce. Can you believe it? It's almost as if the world of art is
some passing fancy, some whimsical plaything, just another form of
entertainment. Philistines! Average, everyday people don't revel in
art like we artists do. Instead, they hold meaningless jobs, trying to
provide for their families, only occasionally looking at art. Their
bourgeois attitudes make me gag on my martini's pearl onion.
That's why I paint colourful, explosive portraits by the way. Not for
the sheer pleasure of it. Hell, you think this is fun? No! It's
painful, serious work. Every brush stroke is torture to me! But I
create art, every day, in a desperate attempt to improve humanity. Each
of my paintings is an attempt to totally change the world, a letter to
the human soul that reads, "Stop being so stupid, you bourgeois pig!"
Honest.
Erik A. Mattila
Yes, as Mark Twain wrote: "If we had some eggs, we could have ham and
eggs, if we had some eggs."
EAM
Val N. Tyne
>Honest.
>
> Nik
> http://www.nikart.com
Everyone needs a Nik-knack shelf, doncha think?
I'll look at your web site next in hopes of
reading more gems like this. You do write
for publication, don't you?
Nik Maack
"Val N. Tyne" wrote:
> I'll look at your web site next in hopes of
> reading more gems like this. You do write
> for publication, don't you?
Yes. Sort of. I send material to literary magazines and they reject it
because I'm not pretentious enough. Or so I like to think, anyway. The
real problem is that I can't find any literary magazines or journals I
enjoy reading, so writing for them is a waste of time. (I believe in
the philosophy of writing for a publication you respect.)
What I see in the literary scene, mostly, is pretentious university
students trying to contort every sentence into a thing of beauty.
They're read by an audience slightly larger than zero.
So, yes, there is a writing section on my web site, as well as lots of
paintings. Hell, I even write little histories for each of my paintings.
Val N. Tyne
>
>Agreed. But having dealt with philistine americans my entire life, I
>naturally think of them first!
The question that begins this thread is,
"Does anyone have any ideas on how Pop Art affected average Americans?"
So you answered appropriately and with reasoned
thoughts. I agree that MOST Americans give little
if any thought to art or artists on a daily basis,
unless you want to carry over into the music field.
Most of us listen to our favorite music on a daily
basis. And certainly everyone has a favorite
movie star (performing artist).
It used to be, when Rockwell was the
cover artist for the weekly Sat Eve Post, that
MOST Americans thought of him as America's foremost
visual artist. I have no idea who would fill that niche
today. One way to find out is to stop people on the
street and ask. Anyone live in a big USA city where
they would care to do that as a project? It would
be of interest here for sure.
My guess is that the answers would still favor
Rockwell, followed by Andrew Wyeth. Maybe Disney
would win out. I'm just not sure. You'd have to
be sure and specify VISUAL artist, otherwise you're
going to get answers that name popular singers or
music groups.
On the other hand, if you narrowed it down to
the foremost LIVING visual artist, I suspect you'll
come away with mostly blanks.
Peter H.M. Brooks
"Nik Maack" <nikm...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>
> What I see in the literary scene, mostly, is pretentious university
> students trying to contort every sentence into a thing of beauty.
> They're read by an audience slightly larger than zero.
>
infinitely greater than nought.
Val N. Tyne
>Yes. Sort of. I send material to literary magazines and they reject it
>because I'm not pretentious enough. Or so I like to think, anyway. The
>real problem is that I can't find any literary magazines or journals I
>enjoy reading, so writing for them is a waste of time. (I believe in
>the philosophy of writing for a publication you respect.)
Gotcha. Rejection is part of the game in
every field of art unfortunately. At least
until such time that one gains name
recognition in their field. I don't know
the answer to the current dirth of literary
publications. I can only guess that lack
of reading comprehension in the general
population makes it impossible to sell
printed products today. And people I know hate
reading long dissertations on the computer.
If it's not on the boob tube they're not
going to see it, and even then it has to be
in simplistic soap opera format to garner much
attention.
Val N. Tyne
>So, yes, there is a writing section on my web site, as well as lots of
>paintings. Hell, I even write little histories for each of my paintings.
>
> Nik
> http://www.nikart.com
Great. I like it when I'm right. And you are
good, if my valuation is of any value. Your
obsession with faces is another matter. But,
if Chuck Close successfully obsesses, who's to
say nay. But back to your writing...
I especially could relate to the encounter
with the gallery owner/dealer. His advice is sound,
but I also know there is a little "luck cloud" that
seems to favor hovering over the heads of a certain
few. Not that they don't have some modicum of
talent to begin with, but "mother luck" bestows
her little cloud on some and not others - others
who are maybe far more talented than the lucky few.
I know a few of the lucky ones. They're the ones
who can't seem to fail no matter how hard they try.
Who ever said life was fair.
I know other artists in my own community
who actually make their living from their art.
But they do it by continually pumping gas into the faux
cloud they create to call attention to themselves.
That gas is called "self-promotion." I often wonder
when they find time to actually create, much less
find time to think about the process. Having a
devoted and able helpmate is often a factor.
I wish I had my dad's penchant for selling. He not only
knew everyone in town on sight, he remembered their
names! Selling was all he knew, and he did that full
time, all day and into the late evenings. He was
also a joiner - he joined all the fraternal organizations
you can think to name in order to sell what he
sold - life insurance! Yep. Devoted his life to it.
In other words, my dad looked at the odds and decided
that the more of the business men in the community
he got to know, the greater his chance of finding
a few who might buy what he had to sell. And it worked.
His other secret to success - he liked people.
Couldn't stand to not be around other people.
Marilyn
Nik Maack wrote:
Why worry about "the average person?" Since in a recent man-on-the-street
survey, the 'average person' walking the streets of New York City didn't
know who Dick Cheney was. Here's a man who is making legislation
which will directly affect their lives in so many ways. Why should they
care about someone who blurred the line between fine art and low art
like Andy Warhol.
The way I look at it, Art was profoundly affected by the events of WWII and
could not be approached without irony afterwards. And to mix that irony with
a consumer culture with its barrage of advertising to please a growing
middle class we had the gift of Andy Warhol (among others).
Your last paragraph ties in with what Marshal McLuhan says:
"And it is here that the artists can show us how to
'ride with the punch' instead of 'taking it on the chin.'
It can only be repeated that human history is a record of
'taking it on the chin.'
(Challenge and Collapse: The Nemesis of Creativity)
If you have seen some of the artwork produced in the wake of 11Sept. you
can see what he means. There's one of two columns of of the word UNREAL.
UNREAL UNREAL
UNREAL UNREAL etc.
with just a little pastel in black and red within the columns.
It's by Andrea Arroyo and is among 2,600 pieces in the Exit
Gallery after an email call for art. It's a call to 'roll with the
(unreal) punches.'
MW
Erik A. Mattila
Why do you think there is a 'dirth [sic] of literary publications? I
think the opposite trend is going on. People are reading more these
days. I mean, we have a whole new industry, e-publishing, that requires
its consumers to read, and I believe it is doing quite well.
Erik Mattila
Val N. Tyne
>Why do you think there is a 'dirth [sic] of literary publications? I
>think the opposite trend is going on.
I was addressing the USA population in a general
sense. Where do you live? Perhaps you'd care
to refer us to your favorite literary tomes so that
we can all give them a fair trial. Myself, I just
let lapse my subscription to New Yorker mag. In
my humble opinion it has gone rapidly downhill ever
since it lost Tina Brown as editor. I would welcome
any suggestions for replacement periodicals.
And as I said in my previous post, to which you've
responded, I know of few people who enjoy reading
online. I happen to be one of those. Participation
in a forum such as this is about as intensive as
I care to get when it comes to reading time online.
We should take a vote to see just how many do
their reading from a monitor - which is what I
assume you mean by "e-publishing."
mdeli
>The one true responsibility of an artist is, of course, to look down on
>the rest of humanity for lacking talent and imagination. Even as we
>starve to death because no one will buy our work, we have the
>satisfaction of knowing we are better than the great unwashed. While
>they toil in factories, offices, and farms, wasting their lives, we do
>something meaningful -- we smear paint around on a stretched piece of cloth.
--and complain why your a starving artist.
>Idiots! Those dreary people are totally unchanged by the works we
>produce. Can you believe it? It's almost as if the world of art is
>some passing fancy, some whimsical plaything, just another form of
>entertainment. Philistines!
The old frustrated failure mantra-- "philistines
>That's why I paint colourful, explosive portraits by the way. Not for
>the sheer pleasure of it. Hell, you think this is fun? No! It's
>painful, serious work.
I'm sure its painful to produce such crap.
> Every brush stroke is torture to me!
Another masochist!
> But I
>create art, every day, in a desperate attempt to improve humanity. Each
>of my paintings is an attempt to totally change the world, a letter to
>the human soul that reads, "Stop being so stupid, you bourgeois pig!"
>
This guy has ego elephantiasis. Check out his web site and give us
your opinion on how fast the WORLD will change.
...no skill no art "The Emperor's New Clothes aren't clothing you stupid little girl. They are Body
Installations containing invisible Color Fields."
Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page UPDATED November, 01!
New address- http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli
bob_d
The very purpose of Warhol's "art" was basically to point out how
stupid the average American is. Thus I don't see that the average
American is going to get much out of it.
silverpoint
everyone bring their own stories, there's some real jaw-droppers here)
"bob_d" <bob_dav...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6ecf1cf6.02021...@posting.google.com...
bob_d
> Good point, but this is still deserving of another thread (65 miles long,
> everyone bring their own stories, there's some real jaw-droppers here)
I have more comments.
A lot of this is about class distinctions. The book "Class" by Paul
Fussell is a great book that everybody should read. And it's real
funny too. Half of it is humor, and the other half is serious
commentary about Class in America that few other people have written
about.
The upper classes go though a lot of effort to distinguish themselves
from the lower classes. One of the ways they so distinguish
themselves is through appreciation of "high culture", and being that
high culture is really the creation of a value system by high class
people to give them more "class", this means that (1) a lot of it is
just made up and there is no absolute Truth in any of it; and (2) the
average person isn't ever going to get it or appreciate because it's
raison d'etre is to exclude the average person.
Erik A. Mattila
> In article <3C66DDE1...@oco.net>, emat...@oco.net says...
>
>
>>Why do you think there is a 'dirth [sic] of literary publications? I
>>think the opposite trend is going on.
>>
>
> I was addressing the USA population in a general
> sense. Where do you live? Perhaps you'd care
> to refer us to your favorite literary tomes so that
> we can all give them a fair trial. Myself, I just
> let lapse my subscription to New Yorker mag. In
> my humble opinion it has gone rapidly downhill ever
> since it lost Tina Brown as editor. I would welcome
> any suggestions for replacement periodicals.
What do you mean by "a fair trial?" Yes, I live in California and I see
an increase in reading by the public going on. Try looking it up on the
net, you'd be surprised. But "The New Yorker" is not a literary
publication - I believe it's called a "commentary." Nor is it a decent
guage into public reading trends, since it set itself up in the first
place as an 'elitist' publication, and even now it's circulation is only
around 800,000 (compared to Reader's Digest's 51 million, for example.)
>
> And as I said in my previous post, to which you've
> responded, I know of few people who enjoy reading
> online. I happen to be one of those. Participation
> in a forum such as this is about as intensive as
> I care to get when it comes to reading time online.
And that would not be 'literary' either, although reading is reading.
I'm only begging this point because the thread is dealing with "high and
low" art, which comes from the old "high-brow" and "low-brow"
devisiveness of the 30s and 40s when the test was whether one was
reading Chas. Dickens or Popeye for entertainment.
> We should take a vote to see just how many do
> their reading from a monitor - which is what I
> assume you mean by "e-publishing."
No, I don't mean that at all. "E-publishing" is what book publishers
do, i.e. publish in an electronic format. It's a fledgling industry,
and the lion's share of the profits being earned now in this field are
for custom book publishing (very limited edition reprints, specialized
text books, tech books etc.) Additionally, there is the huge repository
of free electronic texts available from orgs. such as Project Gutenberg.
Erik
Nik Maack
doesn't understand when I'm being ironic. It's no wonder you hate
modern art so much -- you lack the nerve endings necessary to see when
someone is pulling your leg.
Nik
mdeli
wrote:
>Thank you for making me laugh. There's nothing funnier than someone who
>doesn't understand when I'm being ironic. It's no wonder you hate
>modern art so much -- you lack the nerve endings necessary to see when
>someone is pulling your leg.
>
> Nik
Glad to hear that your paintings are just a joke. The are a pretty
poor joke in all respects. Try working on your sense of humor and
perhaps with some added skill even others might catch on.
Happy starving!
Val N. Tyne
>most Americans don't know who Dick Chaney is.
ummmm, it's Cheney I think...
Val N. Tyne
>
>Thank you for making me laugh. There's nothing funnier than someone who
>doesn't understand when I'm being ironic. It's no wonder you hate
>modern art so much -- you lack the nerve endings necessary to see when
>someone is pulling your leg.
>
> Nik
You have to make allowances for poor Mani. He
is still struggling to graduate from grade school,
or whatever elementary school is called in Canada.
He has the mentality of a nine year old, and
that is giving him credit for more than I should.
I think it's called "arrested development" in
psychologist circles.
Val N. Tyne
>>Perhaps you'd care
>> to refer us to your favorite literary tomes so that
>> we can all give them a fair trial.
>
Poor choice of words? You are dodging the issue.
You are the one who needs to put up or shut up.
You refer to "literary publications" and I want
you to name them so that I can try and find them.
What's wrong with that? I will give them a "fair
trial" by reading whatever you suggest might
satisfy my literary yearnings.
>But "The New Yorker" is not a literary
>publication - I believe it's called a "commentary."
By whom? Other than you, that is?
>Nor is it a decent
>guage into public reading trends
>(compared to Reader's Digest's 51 million, for example.)
You have the audacity to compare Reader's Digest
to the New Yorker? I guess I need to exit this
discussion and get on with my own search for
intellectual and unbiased reading matter. I
don't seem to be getting any assistance from you.
>Additionally, there is the huge repository
>of free electronic texts available from orgs. such as Project Gutenberg.
Which means you either read them on a monitor
of some sort or you print them out on paper.
Why would anyone bother when they can go to
their library and check out books in good
old-fashioned hardback book format?
RBrac53660
>> ummmm, it's Cheney I think...
>
No Dan it was Haliburton and he lived down the street from me. for the record
I think he is a pig.
Erik A. Mattila
> In article <3C67DA0C...@oco.net>, emat...@oco.net says...
>
>>>Perhaps you'd care
>>>to refer us to your favorite literary tomes so that
>>>we can all give them a fair trial.
>>>
>>What do you mean by "a fair trial?"
>>
>
> Poor choice of words? You are dodging the issue.
> You are the one who needs to put up or shut up.
> You refer to "literary publications" and I want
> you to name them so that I can try and find them.
> What's wrong with that? I will give them a "fair
> trial" by reading whatever you suggest might
> satisfy my literary yearnings.
Which issue am I dodging? The "issue" was whether or not people read
more or less. And what's this "put up or shut up" rule you are citing?
But sure, I can give you some of my favorite literary tomes, bearing
in mind that a "tome" is defined as a book, usually a large, scholarly
work (unless you're using the archaic sense, in which case you would be
talking about a rotulus.)
I think my favorite literary work is François Rabalaise' "Gargantua and
Pantrugal", for starters. But if you are refering to 'tomes' about
literary works, or literary criticism, I like Hayden White, Frederic
Jamison, Roland Barthes, Edward Said, Michel Foucault. Top dawg among
these of course is Georges Bataille, who is often my favorite.
That's good for starters. You may now give these a fair trial.
If it's magazines your after, well...I would have to stick to journals
to keep in literary. Say, "Yale French Studies", "Diacritics,"
SemioText, and so on.
>>But "The New Yorker" is not a literary
>>publication - I believe it's called a "commentary."
>>
>
> By whom? Other than you, that is?
You can begin by searching in google for "literary magazines" and you
will not find The New Yorker listed on any roster. (or at least most
rosters.) Amazon.com, for example, lists The New Yorker in "News &
Politics" and offers this editorial review:
----------------------begin quote--------------------
Amazon.com
Founded in 1925, The New Yorker hardly changed for its first 60 years,
both in its dry, type-heavy design and in its reputation as a writer's
and reader's haven. In 1987 it was on only its second editor when
management decided to shake things up. A rocky decade ensued, but The
New Yorker is now back at the top of its game under David Remnick's
editorship. Each issue offers commentaries and reporting on politics,
culture, and events, with a focus that's both national and
international; humor and cartoons; fiction and poetry; and reviews of
books, movies, theater, music, art, and fashion. Several times a year
special issues focus on a theme--music, fashion, business...
------------------------end quote-----------------------
>>Nor is it a decent
>>guage into public reading trends
>>(compared to Reader's Digest's 51 million, for example.)
>>
>
> You have the audacity to compare Reader's Digest
> to the New Yorker? I guess I need to exit this
> discussion and get on with my own search for
> intellectual and unbiased reading matter. I
> don't seem to be getting any assistance from you.
Now there's a good word..."audacity." There is nothing bold or insolent
about comparing circulation figures between the two magazines,
especially when the context is the issue of people's reading habits.
But the review above makes the point that the New Yorker is getting back
on course from it's dip into pop-culture under the helm of that woman
from Vanity Faire. Maybe you should look for something even less
'literary' than the New Yorker, since that seems to be what you are
feeling a sense of loss about. Without sarcasm, though, if you want
smarts and objectivity, try some British pubs - BBC News gets
international gold stars for depth and objectivity, for example.
>>Additionally, there is the huge repository
>>of free electronic texts available from orgs. such as Project Gutenberg.
>>
>
> Which means you either read them on a monitor
> of some sort or you print them out on paper.
> Why would anyone bother when they can go to
> their library and check out books in good
> old-fashioned hardback book format?
No, actually the two factors that have inhibited e-publishing is the
expense and aesthetics of the 'readers.' The trend is that they are
getting cheaper and the display that mimics the look of a printed page
is developing nicely.
No one who studies this form of publishing is claiming that e-books will
replace the printed book. It will just not happen.
The quality of libraries varies considerably from place to place, as I'm
sure you know. The ability to download electronic texts from all over
the globe in a few minutes is astonishing in the respect of public
access to information. Good libraries, especially academic libraries
that offer large collections of obscure material, are becoming less and
less publically accessable, as the economics of education continue to
inflate. When I was a kid in Berkeley I had a library card and could
check out books from any of the Campus' libraries. Around 1970 this
privelege ended, and a non-student could purchase a card at a specific
library for around 50 bucks. This privilege ended around 1980, when the
public was simply expunged from the UC libraries as well as the State
College libraries. Simultaneously with this decline in access, the
public library system was hit hard with inflation and dwindling budgets,
and holdings were reduced and many local libraries were closed.
So if you are living out in Podunk Junction, Kansas, try getting a copy
of Burton's "Arabian Nights" or Balzac's "Droll Stories" from the
bookmobile that passes through town once a week. Or, go to Project
Gutenberg and download them for free.
But anyway, my point still stands. People are reading more these days -
actually, among the groups that I've seen that read less than average
are plastic artists. Strange, isn't it? I mean, even Picasso read Einstein!
Erik
Nikolaus Maack
> Now there's a good word..."audacity." There is nothing bold or insolent
> about comparing circulation figures between the two magazines,
> especially when the context is the issue of people's reading habits.
Let's compare numbers then. How many read "Hustler" compared to "The
Bible"? How many read "TV Guide" instead of road maps? How many read
their horoscopes instead of the instructions on their medication? "Guns
and Ammo" instead of "War and Peace"? Harlequin Romance instead of "How
to be a Better Lover"?
> The quality of libraries varies considerably from place to place, as I'm
> sure you know.
The library in my town has a single book on its shelves. It's a novel
from 1955. No one knows what the title is, as the cover and first five
pages are missing. I'm on the waiting list to read the book -- they tell
me I might get to read it sometime in 2004.
There are rumours that budget cuts might hurt the library even more.
They're going to tear another five pages out of the book.
> People are reading more these days -
> actually, among the groups that I've seen that read less than average
> are plastic artists. Strange, isn't it? I mean, even Picasso read
> Einstein!
44% of all American adults do not read one book in the course of a year.
[http://main.nc.us/literacy/statistics.html]
Nik
Val N. Tyne
>But anyway, my point still stands. People are reading more these days -
>actually, among the groups that I've seen that read less than average
>are plastic artists. Strange, isn't it? I mean, even Picasso read Einstein!
Cutting to the meat of this argument, you are
obviously an astute aesthete, and I am sure
in the circles you go around in the people are
of your well-read character. I think they would
hardly be representative of the general population.
I am the first to claim my lack of intellectual
prowess - I couldn't come close to graduating
cum laude in anything. So I defer to your superior
knowledge of things intellectual.
HOWEVER, I have read, listened to and otherwise
absorbed countless news stories on the degradation
of American education. I know of few people in
MY CIRCLES who can write an intelligible email.
And many won't even try for fear of emabarrassing
themselves. So I think that if I were to take
a poll of educators I'd find that they agree
with my presumptions regarding the great masses
of Americans who don't even know who Dick Cheney
is, much less that New Mexico is one of the
United States.
On the other hand, many of my friends now have
computers and I presume they are doing as anyone
does when they browse, email etc - and that is
getting back to doing what TV couch potatoism
has kept people from for several generations now.
And as computers are more available in schools,
I further presume young people are also getting
back to basics.
In any event, I bow out of this discussion because
I have no interest in pursuing research to
prove or disprove either of our positions.
Cheers.
Val N. Tyne
says...
>44% of all American adults do not read one book in the course of a year.
>[http://main.nc.us/literacy/statistics.html]
>
> Nik
Thanks. I've not enough interest in this matter
to do the research one way or another. But I
do think Erik has a point IF you consider the
impact computers, PDAs and such are having on
the general American population. Not sure about
you guys closer to the frozen North. As it
becomes de riqueur for everyone to have an internet
account in order to keep up with the Joneses,
I presume reading from a monitor and typing and
other nearly-lost skills are undergoing a
renaissance of sorts.
Erik A. Mattila
> "Erik A. Mattila" (emat...@oco.net) writes:
>
>>Now there's a good word..."audacity." There is nothing bold or insolent
>>about comparing circulation figures between the two magazines,
>>especially when the context is the issue of people's reading habits.
>>
>
> Let's compare numbers then. How many read "Hustler" compared to "The
> Bible"? How many read "TV Guide" instead of road maps? How many read
> their horoscopes instead of the instructions on their medication? "Guns
> and Ammo" instead of "War and Peace"? Harlequin Romance instead of "How
> to be a Better Lover"?
But to what purpose, Nik? That is the question. Since we were talking
about The New Yorker's circulation being an indicator of reading trends,
to compare its circulation of 800k with Reader's Digest's of 51 million
is a meaningful comparison which suggests that The New Yorker isn't a
good indicator. Am I not right?
BTW, you didn't give any numbers under the heading "Let's compare
numbers then."
>>People are reading more these days -
>>actually, among the groups that I've seen that read less than average
>>are plastic artists. Strange, isn't it? I mean, even Picasso read
>>Einstein!
>>
>
> 44% of all American adults do not read one book in the course of a year.
> [http://main.nc.us/literacy/statistics.html]
>
> Nik
But as dismal as that may sound, it doesn't say anything about an
increase or decrease in reading habits. Let's say it's a 1990 stat.
What would the same 1980 stat say. It's difficult, because there have
been no comparable studies over time, except in public school systems.
So you can see that reading performance has slightly increased in 9, 13,
and 17 year olds since 1960. So it's really a question of identifying
the proper indicators that would interpolate into a realistic assessment
of adult reading trends. For example, in the example you cite, what
other reading material besides a book could be studied in order to
decide if people read more or less in 2002 than they did in 1960?
I would think that a hard look at commercial publishing numbers would be
reliable. For example, if more copies of Lord of the Rings were
published in 2002 than in 1968, proportioned to population increase, it
could indicate an increasing trend in reading. Or does the very
presence of the internet, which is largely a reading medium, cause that
percentage of people who use it to read more than they would otherwise?
Erik
Nik Maack
"Erik A. Mattila" wrote:
[a cloud of smug, humourless fog]
Until you find yourself naked and crying, holding a potted cactus,
wishing your mother was a firefighter, never speak to me again.
Nik
Erik A. Mattila
Nik Maack wrote:
Jeeze, Nik, I was on best behavior. What got you all crankied-up? And
how do you know that my smog is fumorless and hug?
Erik
Nik Maack
"Erik A. Mattila" wrote:
> Jeeze, Nik, I was on best behavior.
Perhaps that's the problem. Take off your tie. This is not a job
interview; this is real life.
>What got you all crankied-up?
Why is it that when I tell people that I no longer wish to speak to
them, they assume I'm speaking from anger? There are other emotions
that might cause someone to say such a thing. It's even possible to say
it while in a state of pure emotionless calm.
> And
> how do you know that my smog is fumorless and hug?
I said, "Let's compare the number of people who read HUSTLER to how many
read The Bible, how many read TV Guide instead of the instructions on
their medication."
You said, to what end? What does this have to do with our conversation
about The New Yorker? Where are your numbers?
So you can see (or fail to see) my problem.
"Why did the chicken cross the road?"
"The question, in itself is somewhat ludicrous, given the current state
of barnyard foul. Ordinarily kept in cages, or 'coops', chickens do not
find themselves with the freedom to attempt crossings of major highways,
or even country lanes. Unless we are discussing free-range poultry --
you failed to specify, I'm afraid. But even free-ranged chickens are
penned to some extent. A farmer would be extremely derelict in his
duties if a chicken found herself with the opportunity to cross a road.
So I am afraid that the question you pose is one that, while perhaps
ironic, fails to hold up to logic. Oh, wait! Perhaps this very state
of irony makes what you're saying a joke, gag, or, to categorize it more
simply, 'humour'. If this is the case, perhaps you'd care to state the
question with some sort of preface -- explaining how the chicken found
herself in these extreme circumstances."
The chicken crossed the road to get away from this conversation.
Nik
Meghan
> ever
> > affected the average American in any way.
> >
>
> To be fair, though, that is true of the average person anywhere
I don't agree that pop art has not effected American's lives. In fact
if you look at any form of advertising, you will see a form of pop art
that effects you greatly. Colors, forms, ratios of shapes and sizes
are all analyzed by advertisers to please the eye of the average
American. Advertisers are the pop artists of our decade. They look for
what is shocking and though provoking, pushing limits the same way
Warhol did.
Meghan
Meghan
RBrac53660
Erik A. Mattila
>
> "Erik A. Mattila" wrote:
>
>>Jeeze, Nik, I was on best behavior.
>>
>
> Perhaps that's the problem. Take off your tie. This is not a job
> interview; this is real life.
Let me get this straight...you're claiming that usenet is 'real
life'....hmmmm.
>
>>What got you all crankied-up?
>>
>
> Why is it that when I tell people that I no longer wish to speak to
> them, they assume I'm speaking from anger? There are other emotions
> that might cause someone to say such a thing. It's even possible to say
> it while in a state of pure emotionless calm.
It doesn't make any difference what the truth is, Nik. The only thing
important is what is communicated in a message, regardless of your
intent. I can write "You lousy gob of spit scum-sucking pig" in humor,
seriousness or what ever, and you, the reader, will do with it as you
choose.
And there's context.
>>And
>>how do you know that my smog is fumorless and hug?
>>
>
> I said, "Let's compare the number of people who read HUSTLER to how many
> read The Bible, how many read TV Guide instead of the instructions on
> their medication."
>
> You said, to what end? What does this have to do with our conversation
> about The New Yorker? Where are your numbers?
>
> So you can see (or fail to see) my problem.
The only problem I can see is that you are dipping in and out of a
conversation, or even a debate. You're taking your shots, then coping
out to the idea of fiction disguised as humor when faced with any
rejoinder. In short, you are 'insubstantial.'
>
> "Why did the chicken cross the road?"
>
> "The question, in itself is somewhat ludicrous, given the current state
> of barnyard foul. Ordinarily kept in cages, or 'coops', chickens do not
> find themselves with the freedom to attempt crossings of major highways,
> or even country lanes. Unless we are discussing free-range poultry --
> you failed to specify, I'm afraid. But even free-ranged chickens are
> penned to some extent. A farmer would be extremely derelict in his
> duties if a chicken found herself with the opportunity to cross a road.
> So I am afraid that the question you pose is one that, while perhaps
> ironic, fails to hold up to logic. Oh, wait! Perhaps this very state
> of irony makes what you're saying a joke, gag, or, to categorize it more
> simply, 'humour'. If this is the case, perhaps you'd care to state the
> question with some sort of preface -- explaining how the chicken found
> herself in these extreme circumstances."
>
> The chicken crossed the road to get away from this conversation.
>
> Nik
The most effective way to get away from this conversation is to simply
not engage in it, Nik. Since you are not doing this, the inescapable
conclusion is that you are a willing participant. Therefore, when you
wimper about not wanting to be in this conversation, you are being
disingenuine. That's OK, btw. Even historical to a degree. Consider
this Icelandic aphorism:
"A man loves the smell of his own farts!"
Erik
Val N. Tyne
>[a cloud of smug, humourless fog]
><br>Aren't 'cloud' and 'fog' the same thing?
Having one's head in a cloud usually leads
to delusions of grandeur and a feeling of
superiority, not uncommon in artist circles.
Unfortunately, it seems that the majority of
artists walk around in a fog most of the time,
not knowing where they are or where they are
going.
Val N. Tyne
> you are being
>disingenuine.
Oh my! Aesthete hoisted by his on petard!
Could you possibly have meant "disingenuous?"
I'm becoming disinfatuated...
Erik A. Mattila
No - I needed a word that characterized voluntarily participation in an
act and that you complain about - the implication is that you really do
enjoy it. "Disingenuous" obviously doesn't fit. So I inadvertently
invented one that did.
But I don't think you're fitting the rest of your post correctly:
Aesthete - one who has or effects sensitivity to the beautiful or art?
hoist with one's own petard - victimized by one's own scheme?
How are you putting that together?
Maybe the Icelandic proverb distracted you.
Erik
Val N. Tyne
>How are you putting that together?
>
>Maybe the Icelandic proverb distracted you.
>
>Erik
Nah... I was just retaliating for some misspelling
you corrected me on way back up the thread somewhere.
Trying to recall the word but can't. I don't use
a spell-check - not available with this bare-bones
newsreader I use, so I use that as an excuse for
any mistakes I make <g>.
Erik A. Mattila
Val N. Tyne wrote:
It was "dirth" - I remember because I had to look it up. Probably not
as great a crime as inventing words. But it always amazes me how the
mind works when it searches for words.
Erik
Erik A. Mattila
Dan Fox wrote:
> "Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@oco.net> wrote:
>
>>>>you are being
>>>>disingenuine.
>>>>
>
>
> Erik - You must have meant, 'disingenue' as in 'the older actress was a
> disingenue.'
You're going to have to spell it out for me, Dan (little pun there). I
can't find 'disingunue' in the dictionary, and I'm trying to figure out
if you're constructing a pun that is over my head. Oh, wait a minute!
Do you mean like:
SnoopDog is dissing you!
In my case it would be "dissing you wine!" (I know I shudda kept that
T-Bird bottle in the brown paper sack.)
Erik