Why are french artists so good?
Richard
I have noticed that the majority of my favorite artists are french.
They have excellent skills plus a great flair for beauty, style, and
liveliness in their paintings. I also like french music. I'm
officially a francophile now.
-----= Posted via Newsfeed.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeed.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== 100,000 Groups! - 19 Servers! - Unlimited Download! =-----
UBUjean-jacques.viala
wrote:
>*** post for FREE via your newsreader at post.newsfeed.com ***
>
>
>I have noticed that the majority of my favorite artists are french.
>They have excellent skills plus a great flair for beauty, style, and
>liveliness in their paintings. I also like french music. I'm
>officially a francophile now.
>
>
thanks.
call me during your next trip in france, you could have a look to the
works of:
http://oxana.yambykh.free.fr
typical french new artist.
UBU
Tout appel à la reflexion nous irrite, et nous avons
horreur des arguments non familiers, qui ne cadrent
pas avec ce que nous voudrions croire.
Schumpeter
William Palmer
> *** post for FREE via your newsreader at post.newsfeed.com ***
>
>
> I have noticed that the majority of my favorite artists are french.
> They have excellent skills plus a great flair for beauty, style, and
> liveliness in their paintings. I also like french music. I'm
> officially a francophile now.
I certainly agree with you when it comes to 19th
century French art. Though I enjoy the art of many
countries, there is not one country--including
England--that produced as many awesomely-talented
artists as France did in the 19th century. Further,
I generally feel the same way about poetry and
literature, and, yes, music too. The only place
where I differ from you is that in my view it seems
to be the Nineteenth century where France was really
a "worldbeater" when it came to culture. While
they excelled in art, music, poetry, and literature
during other centuries as well, I don't think they
outshined other cultures anytime as much as in the
19th Century. Why, I don't know. The ripple
effects of the revolution could have had something
to do with it, but I am sure there must have been
many reasons. a.g.b-p.
Erik A. Mattila
The only place
> where I differ from you is that in my view it seems
> to be the Nineteenth century where France was really
> a "worldbeater" when it came to culture.
Are you referring to Africa and Indochina? The French certainly beat
the shit out of the cultures there in the 19th century.
Erik
William Palmer
Why don't you do everyone a favor and take your
politically correct twaddle to alt.politically.
correct or to some other whiners' group? The
fact is, there is little that the French
government engaged in the 19th century that
all powerful countries of the same historical
period did not themselves engage in one way or
another. Further, while Europe in those days
was pretty racist by today's standards, France
was less racist than many countries. Yes, they
had a bias in favor of their culture, but they
would accept educated citizens of color. They
weren't fixated on skin hue, the way some
cultures were back then. With that in mind, I
must say you strike me as a bit self-righteous
and generally uninformed. Are you suggesting
that it is wrong to appreciate the art of
any colonial culture? If that is your point,
well, you had better stick with contemporary
art museums, because you won't find a whole
lot of "safe" art in major museums. a.g.b-p
John Ng
saying this -- that the best artists are French. I think the reason
is probably because of patrons like Napolean and Louis XIV. It is the
same case as the fact that the best art are Italian in the 16C.
However, the modern French are the exact reverse in that they are
really bad artists... probably because of the art-renewal movement
during the turn of last century.
Where good art is concerned, the English are runners-up. The
difference between the English and the French is that the English
don't forget their good works. They still have books on
Pre-Raphalites and other great Victorian painters. It is not very
hard to get information of British 19C painters. But for the French,
they threw their best out the window... all is forgotten except for
pointless paintings by Cezanne and Mondrain. Try getting information
on Emile Munier, Eugen de Blaas, and Bouguereau... NOTHING. Just bear
in mind that Bouguereau was about the biggest thing in art in the
19C... and today? NOTHING... thanks to the French.
John
ART RENEWAL ADVOCATE
http://community.webshots.com/user/pigsmayfly
Nerd Gerl
Americans, and Indians made some kick-ass art too.
===============
Naked Angel Art
http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl
Richard <cool_a...@z.com> wrote in message news:<sgdssukt18r4m3086...@4ax.com>...
Erik A. Mattila
> "Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@oco.net> wrote in message news:<3DCECAC5...@oco.net>...
>
>>William Palmer wrote:
>>The only place
>>
>>>where I differ from you is that in my view it seems
>>>to be the Nineteenth century where France was really
>>>a "worldbeater" when it came to culture.
>>
>>Are you referring to Africa and Indochina? The French certainly beat
>>the shit out of the cultures there in the 19th century.
>>
>>Erik
>
>
> Why don't you do everyone a favor and take your
> politically correct twaddle to alt.politically.
> correct or to some other whiners' group?
He says, then going into his own political twaddle. LOL
The
> fact is, there is little that the French
> government engaged in the 19th century that
> all powerful countries of the same historical
> period did not themselves engage in one way or
> another.
Hmmm. How many 19th century Romanian colonies can you name, for example"
Further, while Europe in those days
> was pretty racist by today's standards, France
> was less racist than many countries.
Interesting: Where are you reading your history - Readers Digest?
"The evils of the Jews do not stem from individuals but from the
fundamental nature of this people." [From Napoleon's Reflections, and
from speeches before the Council of State on April 30 and May 7, 1806]"
"By 1815, he performed his now infamous dissection of the South African
woman known as the "Hottentot Venus" to solve once and for all the
mysteries of the renowned genatalia. Cuvier always referred to her as
"Vénus Hottentotte" -- emphasized her sexuality."
"1815 Henri-Marie Ducrotay de Blainville (1777-1850), professor at the
Muséum d'Histoire Naturelle in the Jardin du Roi, set out his purposes
in observing the "Hottentot Venus": "(1) to provide a detailed
comparison of this woman with the lowliest race of humans (the Negro)
and the highest type of apes (the orangutan); (2) to provide the most
complete possible description of the anomalies of her genitalia""
"1828 Duchess Du Barry held a ball in Paris showcasing his very own
naked "Hottentot Venus" as his main attraction."
"1855 Arthur Joseph de Gobineau (1816-1882) : a Frenchman in 1854 who
published "Essay on the Inequality of Human Races" in which he used
anthropology, linguistics and history to formulate a theory in which
race explained virtually everything in the human experience. The
decisive events of history are determined by the iron law of race, he
asserted, and human destiny is decreed by nature and expressed in race.
He saw the typical Aryan tall, blond-haired, blue-eyed, fair-skinned
were cultural people superior due to Social Darwin.
Also suggested these people to avoid cross-breed or race-mixing in order
to maintain survival. Suggested that the rise and fall of civilization
was in correlations to "Caucasian" blood."
"1859 Pierre Paul Broca, (1824-1880): 1859, founded the Anthropological
Society formed the core of scientific racism;Attempted to quantify
differential worth. He advanced the science of cranial anthropometry to
new heights, by developing many new types of measuring instruments
(craniometers) and numerical indices. He was very interested in the
relation between anatomical features of the brain and mental
capabilities, such as intelligence.
"When confronted with craniometric data that suggested that Germans were
relatively larger-brained - and therefore superior - than the French,
corrected the data for body size and other factors that ultimately put
the French craniometrically ahead of the Germans."
"1866 Larousse dictionary of entry on blacks stated that their lesser
intelligence resulted from a smaller brain size."
"1886 Edouard Drumont (1844–1917) anti-Semitic tract, "La France Juive",
went through 114 editions in one year and paved the way for large-scale
anti-Semitic propaganda. Drumont, too, contrasted the greedy, mercantile
Jew with the heroic and trusting Aryan."
Yes, they
> had a bias in favor of their culture, but they
> would accept educated citizens of color. They
> weren't fixated on skin hue, the way some
> cultures were back then.
Ever read Edward Said's "Orientalism" my friend?
The French Empire of the 19th Century was, in fact, a site of large
scale immigration, expecially as industrialization grew in the second
half of the centry. But the immigrants were not from the colonies, they
were from Belgium, Spain and Italy primarily. And about half of these
Europeans immigrated to Algeria, not European France. The French were
extremely fixated on skin color, as a matter of fact.
With that in mind, I
> must say you strike me as a bit self-righteous
> and generally uninformed.
Name one thing I am misinformed on, you pompous ass. We'll have a good
go at it. I'm looking forward to it. "Self-righteous." Of course I
am. I am the center of my universe. How about you?
Are you suggesting
> that it is wrong to appreciate the art of
> any colonial culture?
France isn't (wasn't) a "colonial culture," genius. There's no such
thing as a "colonial culture," as a matter of fact. 19th Century France
was a +Colonizing+ culture.
If that is your point,
> well, you had better stick with contemporary
> art museums, because you won't find a whole
> lot of "safe" art in major museums. a.g.b-p
You seem concerned with 'safety' in art. Personally, I like the
marginal and dangerous far and beyond the burgeois spectacle of 19th C.
French painting. Thank God for the Impressonists attack on idealism.
Take Delacroix for example. His Salon piece, "Dante and Virgil in Hell"
was a political satire. But he hid that fact all his life, covering it
up out of fear of retribution from that "grand culture" you cite. I
can't blame him - he didn't want to suffer the consequeces.
Erik
Erik A. Mattila
> Where good art is concerned, the English are runners-up. The
> difference between the English and the French is that the English
> don't forget their good works. They still have books on
> Pre-Raphalites and other great Victorian painters. It is not very
> hard to get information of British 19C painters. But for the French,
> they threw their best out the window... all is forgotten except for
> pointless paintings by Cezanne and Mondrain. Try getting information
> on Emile Munier, Eugen de Blaas, and Bouguereau... NOTHING. Just bear
> in mind that Bouguereau was about the biggest thing in art in the
> 19C... and today? NOTHING... thanks to the French.
Geez, John, try Google:
Emile Munier - 1,770 hits
Eugen de Blaas - 421 hits
Bouguereau - 24,800 hits
You almost broke my heart in pity there for a moment.
Erik
John Ng
> Geez, John, try Google:
>
> Emile Munier - 1,770 hits
> Eugen de Blaas - 421 hits
> Bouguereau - 24,800 hits
There is a lot of interest in the last decade on Salon painters...
thanks to people like Fred Ross etc, but the fact remains that the
French really didn't do much to preserve their biographies. It is
less than 100 years since the greatest painter died and there is not
much information about Bouguereau except those bits dug up by the
Yanks!
By the way, Erik, you must tell me how you get the "hits" information?
Erik A. Mattila
> "Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@oco.net> wrote in message news:<3DCF5829...@oco.net>...
>
>
>>Geez, John, try Google:
>>
>>Emile Munier - 1,770 hits
>>Eugen de Blaas - 421 hits
>>Bouguereau - 24,800 hits
>
>
> There is a lot of interest in the last decade on Salon painters...
> thanks to people like Fred Ross etc, but the fact remains that the
> French really didn't do much to preserve their biographies. It is
> less than 100 years since the greatest painter died and there is not
> much information about Bouguereau except those bits dug up by the
> Yanks!
>
> By the way, Erik, you must tell me how you get the "hits" information?
Right at the top of a Google page - on the right there is a line of text
in a blue bar: "Results 1 - 10 of about 48,000. Search took 0.17 seconds."
Of course, they're not all what you want - like I'm sure some of the 24K
hits are for Freddy Bouguereau's Dog Haircut parlor, or some such things.
Erik
William Palmer
> William Palmer wrote:
> > "Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@oco.net> wrote in message news:<3DCECAC5...@oco.net>...
> >
> >>William Palmer wrote:
> >>The only place
> >>
> >>>where I differ from you is that in my view it seems
> >>>to be the Nineteenth century where France was really
> >>>a "worldbeater" when it came to culture.
> >>
> >>Are you referring to Africa and Indochina? The French certainly beat
> >>the shit out of the cultures there in the 19th century.
> >>
> >>Erik
> >
> >
> > Why don't you do everyone a favor and take your
> > politically correct twaddle to alt.politically.
> > correct or to some other whiners' group?
>
> He says, then going into his own political twaddle. LOL
>
> The
> > fact is, there is little that the French
> > government engaged in the 19th century that
> > all powerful countries of the same historical
> > period did not themselves engage in one way or
> > another.
>
> Hmmm. How many 19th century Romanian colonies can you name, for example"
Big deal. Romania in those days was more or less a
patchwork of miserable little fiefdoms where the
majority of people inhabiting them would have likely
been better off as a native of a British or French
colony.
>
> Further, while Europe in those days
> > was pretty racist by today's standards, France
> > was less racist than many countries.
>
> Interesting: Where are you reading your history - Readers Digest?
Listen, you braying ass: Had you any real grasp
of French history you would never make a remark that
stupid. For instance, in Germany and England it would
have been impossible for a person of color to have been
a high-ranking general in the military. I don't care
if the person spoke perfect German or English and was
far more accomplished than other candidates. His skin
color would have kept him out in Germany, and in England
would have relegated him to the special "native" divisions
of the military. Yet, I am sure it will come as a
surprise to you that General Dumas, father of
Alexandre the elder, the author of many distinguished
novels, was made a very high ranking officer in
Napoleon's army. Dumas was of Carribean ancestry,
and--I have seen his portraits--would have been
called a Black or African American in the parlance
of America today. And--I hasten to add--this
was regular French military, not some special,
segregrated, subordinate branch for "natives."
So right there, General Dumas has stepped in and
made a liar of you--and should you desire to
quibble or argue, I will be willing to cite many
references to futher expose your great ignorance.
You see, the French, as a people, simply did not
have the hang up about skin color that many
European countries did. Yes, the French could
be bigoted, but it was more a cultural bigotry.
A person with dark skin who spoke exellent French
and knew the ins and outs of French culture, would
be much more acceptable to society than a white
skinned "Vrenchman" who didn't know the language.
>
> "The evils of the Jews do not stem from individuals but from the
> fundamental nature of this people." [From Napoleon's Reflections, and
> from speeches before the Council of State on April 30 and May 7, 1806]"
Actually, he was less bigoted than most Europeans
of that day. Napoleon proved that he was willing
to work with Jewish people when it suited his
purposes. He never showed any Nazi-like zeal
to exterminate people simply because they happened
to be Jewish. If you knew history better, you would
realize that the French were just emerging from the
rule of the monarchy at that time. Of course
there was all sorts of ignorance and prejudice
loose in the land, just there was in every other
country in 1806, last I heard.
>
> "By 1815, he performed his now infamous dissection of the South African
> woman known as the "Hottentot Venus" to solve once and for all the
> mysteries of the renowned genatalia. Cuvier always referred to her as
> "Vénus Hottentotte" -- emphasized her sexuality."
>
> "1815 Henri-Marie Ducrotay de Blainville (1777-1850), professor at the
> Muséum d'Histoire Naturelle in the Jardin du Roi, set out his purposes
> in observing the "Hottentot Venus": "(1) to provide a detailed
> comparison of this woman with the lowliest race of humans (the Negro)
> and the highest type of apes (the orangutan); (2) to provide the most
> complete possible description of the anomalies of her genitalia""
>
> "1828 Duchess Du Barry held a ball in Paris showcasing his very own
> naked "Hottentot Venus" as his main attraction."
Do you really think our readers do not realize
that someone could present a rather good sized
book here, if he or she decided to list all the
recorded examples European ignorance, bigotry,
and general foolishness from past times. You
are talking about people who had no idea what
a germ was, let alone a virus, for pity's sake.
Exactly how much racial enlightenment do you
expect?
>
>
> "1855 Arthur Joseph de Gobineau (1816-1882) : a Frenchman in 1854 who
> published "Essay on the Inequality of Human Races" in which he used
> anthropology, linguistics and history to formulate a theory in which
> race explained virtually everything in the human experience. The
> decisive events of history are determined by the iron law of race, he
> asserted, and human destiny is decreed by nature and expressed in race.
> He saw the typical Aryan tall, blond-haired, blue-eyed, fair-skinned
> were cultural people superior due to Social Darwin.
You had racists in most countries in those days. As
far as our own disagreement goes, you are begging the
question too. I certainly did not either state or
imply, "Out of the millions of 19th Century French,
there were NO racists." That was not at all my
point. My point was that, taken as a culture,
the French were not as skin-culture obsessed as
some other European cultures of the day.
>
> Also suggested these people to avoid cross-breed or race-mixing in order
> to maintain survival. Suggested that the rise and fall of civilization
> was in correlations to "Caucasian" blood."
>
> "1859 Pierre Paul Broca, (1824-1880): 1859, founded the Anthropological
> Society formed the core of scientific racism;Attempted to quantify
> differential worth. He advanced the science of cranial anthropometry to
> new heights, by developing many new types of measuring instruments
> (craniometers) and numerical indices. He was very interested in the
> relation between anatomical features of the brain and mental
> capabilities, such as intelligence.
>
> "When confronted with craniometric data that suggested that Germans were
> relatively larger-brained - and therefore superior - than the French,
> corrected the data for body size and other factors that ultimately put
> the French craniometrically ahead of the Germans."
>
> "1866 Larousse dictionary of entry on blacks stated that their lesser
> intelligence resulted from a smaller brain size."
You keep forgetting that EVERYONE who lived in 1866
was ignorant by the standards of our day. Or are you
going to argue that we would not consider someone who
did not know what caused tuburculous ignorant?
By no means was race the only thing people were
ignorant of, so your point proves nothing. You
don't have to go any farther than America to
read about all sorts of crazy notions and theories
regarding Blacks--and they weren't all left in
the 19th century, either.
>
> "1886 Edouard Drumont (1844–1917) anti-Semitic tract, "La France Juive",
> went through 114 editions in one year and paved the way for large-scale
> anti-Semitic propaganda. Drumont, too, contrasted the greedy, mercantile
> Jew with the heroic and trusting Aryan."
>
> Yes, they
> > had a bias in favor of their culture, but they
> > would accept educated citizens of color. They
> > weren't fixated on skin hue, the way some
> > cultures were back then.
>
> Ever read Edward Said's "Orientalism" my friend?
>
> The French Empire of the 19th Century was, in fact, a site of large
> scale immigration, expecially as industrialization grew in the second
> half of the centry. But the immigrants were not from the colonies, they
> were from Belgium, Spain and Italy primarily. And about half of these
> Europeans immigrated to Algeria, not European France. The French were
> extremely fixated on skin color, as a matter of fact.
No, sir, they were not. The distinguished
example of General Dumas proves you an
ignorant liar. And by no means was the
General the only person of color who was
allowed, by virtue of his own talents, to
rise very high in French society.`
>
> With that in mind, I
> > must say you strike me as a bit self-righteous
> > and generally uninformed.
>
> Name one thing I am misinformed on, you pompous ass.
Pompous ass, is it? Listen, I'll whittle you
down to size fast enough, or my name isn't Bill
Palmer.
We'll have a good
> go at it. I'm looking forward to it. "Self-righteous." Of course I
> am. I am the center of my universe.
Ha! I suspected that I was dealing with an
egocentric dunce, and that's the worst sort
of dunce there is.
How about you?
>
> Are you suggesting
> > that it is wrong to appreciate the art of
> > any colonial culture?
>
> France isn't (wasn't) a "colonial culture," genius. There's no such
> thing as a "colonial culture," as a matter of fact. 19th Century France
> was a +Colonizing+ culture.
How like a pedantic ass to pick over words
that way! Yes, I could have phrased things
a bit more precisely, but of course, you are
clawing at straws now, trying to divert
attention from your many crude fallacies,
such as begging the question and using
anecdotal evidence to try and prop yourself
up.
>
> If that is your point,
> > well, you had better stick with contemporary
> > art museums, because you won't find a whole
> > lot of "safe" art in major museums. a.g.b-p
>
> You seem concerned with 'safety' in art. Personally, I like the
> marginal and dangerous far and beyond the burgeois spectacle of 19th C.
> French painting.
I suspected that you were far too much the
ignorant cretin to appreciate real art, and
now you are confirming my worst suspicions
about you.
Thank God for the Impressonists attack on idealism.
Actually, I find some Impressionist art far less
interesting than Symbolist art done during the
same period. (See Google for my "Symbolism: One
Hundred Years of Neglect.")
>
> Take Delacroix for example. His Salon piece, "Dante and Virgil in Hell"
> was a political satire. But he hid that fact all his life, covering it
> up out of fear of retribution from that "grand culture" you cite. I
> can't blame him - he didn't want to suffer the consequeces.
I don't know about that, so I am not going
to emulate YOUR behavior and argue anyway.
I do know that many 19th century French
artists had the courage to flout the
conventions of the establishment, though.
alt.genius.bill-palmer
(Temporary office: upstairs at rec.arts.prose)
wil...@ix.netcom.com
>
> Erik
William Palmer
Well, what do you expect from people who chopped
the head off one of their own, who just happened
to one of the world's greatest scientists? That's
real gratitude for you. And they came close to
chopping off David's head too. And look at
Beaudelaire, one of the undisputed world's
greatest poets: his work was banned and he
almost starved. (Yes, I have a great deal
of respect for France and French culture, but
I do not hesitate to mention their failings.)
Further, they have neglected many other great
artists, such as Charles Filiger, Edgar Maxance,
and Alexandre Seon. Sad. a.g.b-p
Erik A. Mattila
Why? Your learning history from Reader's Digest has no bearing of my
grasp of French History.
For instance, in Germany and England it would
> have been impossible for a person of color to have been
> a high-ranking general in the military. I don't care
> if the person spoke perfect German or English and was
> far more accomplished than other candidates. His skin
> color would have kept him out in Germany, and in England
> would have relegated him to the special "native" divisions
> of the military. Yet, I am sure it will come as a
> surprise to you that General Dumas, father of
> Alexandre the elder, the author of many distinguished
> novels, was made a very high ranking officer in
> Napoleon's army. Dumas was of Carribean ancestry,
> and--I have seen his portraits--would have been
> called a Black or African American in the parlance
> of America today. And--I hasten to add--this
> was regular French military, not some special,
> segregrated, subordinate branch for "natives."
> So right there, General Dumas has stepped in and
> made a liar of you--and should you desire to
> quibble or argue, I will be willing to cite many
> references to futher expose your great ignorance.
A.Dumas' Grandfather was Marquis Antoine-Alexandre Davy de la
Pailleterie, who married the Black Hatian Slave Maire-Céssette Dumas.
When his son, Thomas-Alexandre, enlisted the Marquis forbade him using
"Davy de la Pailleterie" because he was half Black. So he took his
mother's name, Dumas. Thomas was a brilliant soldier, not doubt. His
last fight was in Egypt in 1798, and when he returned to France, after
imprisonment at Tarente under horrible circumstances, he was denied a
post in the new army and dismissed by the counsels from the military
service. He didn't serve with Napoleon in the 19th century at all.
>
> You see, the French, as a people, simply did not
> have the hang up about skin color that many
> European countries did. Yes, the French could
> be bigoted, but it was more a cultural bigotry.
> A person with dark skin who spoke exellent French
> and knew the ins and outs of French culture, would
> be much more acceptable to society than a white
> skinned "Vrenchman" who didn't know the language.
>
>>"The evils of the Jews do not stem from individuals but from the
>>fundamental nature of this people." [From Napoleon's Reflections, and
>>from speeches before the Council of State on April 30 and May 7, 1806]"
>
> Actually, he was less bigoted than most Europeans
> of that day. Napoleon proved that he was willing
> to work with Jewish people when it suited his
> purposes. He never showed any Nazi-like zeal
> to exterminate people simply because they happened
> to be Jewish. If you knew history better, you would
> realize that the French were just emerging from the
> rule of the monarchy at that time. Of course
> there was all sorts of ignorance and prejudice
> loose in the land, just there was in every other
> country in 1806, last I heard.
I am aware that the French Revolution was in 1792. I'm also aware tha
Bonaparte put-down the independence movent in Santa Domingo in 1802 and
reinstated slavery, which had been outlawed in France in 1793.
>
>>"By 1815, he performed his now infamous dissection of the South African
>>woman known as the "Hottentot Venus" to solve once and for all the
>>mysteries of the renowned genatalia. Cuvier always referred to her as
>>"Vénus Hottentotte" -- emphasized her sexuality."
>>
>>"1815 Henri-Marie Ducrotay de Blainville (1777-1850), professor at the
>>Muséum d'Histoire Naturelle in the Jardin du Roi, set out his purposes
>>in observing the "Hottentot Venus": "(1) to provide a detailed
>>comparison of this woman with the lowliest race of humans (the Negro)
>>and the highest type of apes (the orangutan); (2) to provide the most
>>complete possible description of the anomalies of her genitalia""
>>
>>"1828 Duchess Du Barry held a ball in Paris showcasing his very own
>>naked "Hottentot Venus" as his main attraction."
>
>
> Do you really think our readers do not realize
> that someone could present a rather good sized
> book here, if he or she decided to list all the
> recorded examples European ignorance, bigotry,
> and general foolishness from past times. You
> are talking about people who had no idea what
> a germ was, let alone a virus, for pity's sake.
> Exactly how much racial enlightenment do you
> expect?
You made the claim that 19th Century France was significantly less
racist than others. I think you are wrong. Remember, you reacted to my
simple response to your phrase ""worldbeaters" when it came to culture",
which was to point out how France had beat the shit it's colonial
cultures. The French record is as dark and ugly as any colonial power
in the 19th Century, perhaps worse in many cases.
>>"1855 Arthur Joseph de Gobineau (1816-1882) : a Frenchman in 1854 who
>>published "Essay on the Inequality of Human Races" in which he used
>>anthropology, linguistics and history to formulate a theory in which
>>race explained virtually everything in the human experience. The
>>decisive events of history are determined by the iron law of race, he
>>asserted, and human destiny is decreed by nature and expressed in race.
>> He saw the typical Aryan tall, blond-haired, blue-eyed, fair-skinned
>>were cultural people superior due to Social Darwin.
>
> You had racists in most countries in those days. As
> far as our own disagreement goes, you are begging the
> question too. I certainly did not either state or
> imply, "Out of the millions of 19th Century French,
> there were NO racists." That was not at all my
> point. My point was that, taken as a culture,
> the French were not as skin-culture obsessed as
> some other European cultures of the day.
Is that your best defense of your beloved French culture. That others
did bad things too. So what, you aren't making the claim of culture
champions for the others, are we? We're talking about France.
>>Also suggested these people to avoid cross-breed or race-mixing in order
>>to maintain survival. Suggested that the rise and fall of civilization
>>was in correlations to "Caucasian" blood."
>>
>>"1859 Pierre Paul Broca, (1824-1880): 1859, founded the Anthropological
>>Society formed the core of scientific racism;Attempted to quantify
>>differential worth. He advanced the science of cranial anthropometry to
>>new heights, by developing many new types of measuring instruments
>>(craniometers) and numerical indices. He was very interested in the
>>relation between anatomical features of the brain and mental
>>capabilities, such as intelligence.
>>
>>"When confronted with craniometric data that suggested that Germans were
>>relatively larger-brained - and therefore superior - than the French,
>>corrected the data for body size and other factors that ultimately put
>>the French craniometrically ahead of the Germans."
>>
>>"1866 Larousse dictionary of entry on blacks stated that their lesser
>>intelligence resulted from a smaller brain size."
>
> You keep forgetting that EVERYONE who lived in 1866
> was ignorant by the standards of our day.
On what basis are you claiming what I "keep forgetting." Do you
actually think that the "humanity" of people is a matter of timely
standards? Colonialists always dehumanize their victim cultures. I just
think you should get a grip on this when you make claims about "cultural
championships." It's sort of like arguing that the German Schutzstaffel
members were culture champs because of thier natty uniforms.
Or are you
> going to argue that we would not consider someone who
> did not know what caused tuburculous ignorant?
> By no means was race the only thing people were
> ignorant of, so your point proves nothing.
That's pure horseshit. In 1850 the French knew that Jews, Africans,
Asians were human beings. Are you claiming that they really believed
they were subhuman?
You
> don't have to go any farther than America to
> read about all sorts of crazy notions and theories
> regarding Blacks--and they weren't all left in
> the 19th century, either.
Right. And as everyone knows, it's just propaganda.
>>"1886 Edouard Drumont (1844–1917) anti-Semitic tract, "La France Juive",
>>went through 114 editions in one year and paved the way for large-scale
>>anti-Semitic propaganda. Drumont, too, contrasted the greedy, mercantile
>>Jew with the heroic and trusting Aryan."
>>
>>Yes, they
>>
>>>had a bias in favor of their culture, but they
>>>would accept educated citizens of color. They
>>>weren't fixated on skin hue, the way some
>>>cultures were back then.
>>
>>Ever read Edward Said's "Orientalism" my friend?
Is that a silent "no" I hear. I think you need to read this book. It's
very good, and you might change your mind about a few things.
>>The French Empire of the 19th Century was, in fact, a site of large
>>scale immigration, expecially as industrialization grew in the second
>>half of the centry. But the immigrants were not from the colonies, they
>>were from Belgium, Spain and Italy primarily. And about half of these
>>Europeans immigrated to Algeria, not European France. The French were
>>extremely fixated on skin color, as a matter of fact.
>
> No, sir, they were not. The distinguished
> example of General Dumas proves you an
> ignorant liar.
And it proves that you can't differentiate between the 18th and 19th
century. Or even count, for that matter.
And by no means was the
> General the only person of color who was
> allowed, by virtue of his own talents, to
> rise very high in French society.`
Who else? I'll bet those Africans fanning milk-skin nudes rose high in
19th French Society.
>
>>With that in mind, I
>>
>>>must say you strike me as a bit self-righteous
>>>and generally uninformed.
>>
>>Name one thing I am misinformed on, you pompous ass.
>
>
> Pompous ass, is it? Listen, I'll whittle you
> down to size fast enough, or my name isn't Bill
> Palmer.
>
> We'll have a good
>
>>go at it. I'm looking forward to it. "Self-righteous." Of course I
>>am. I am the center of my universe.
>
>
> Ha! I suspected that I was dealing with an
> egocentric dunce, and that's the worst sort
> of dunce there is.
Is that an example of your "whittling me down," Mr. Bill?
> How about you?
>
>>Are you suggesting
>>
>>>that it is wrong to appreciate the art of
>>>any colonial culture?
>>
>>France isn't (wasn't) a "colonial culture," genius. There's no such
>>thing as a "colonial culture," as a matter of fact. 19th Century France
>>was a +Colonizing+ culture.
>
> How like a pedantic ass to pick over words
> that way! Yes, I could have phrased things
> a bit more precisely, but of course, you are
> clawing at straws now, trying to divert
> attention from your many crude fallacies,
> such as begging the question and using
> anecdotal evidence to try and prop yourself
> up.
More "wittling"?
>>If that is your point,
>>
>>>well, you had better stick with contemporary
>>>art museums, because you won't find a whole
>>>lot of "safe" art in major museums. a.g.b-p
>>
>>You seem concerned with 'safety' in art. Personally, I like the
>>marginal and dangerous far and beyond the burgeois spectacle of 19th C.
>>French painting.
>
> I suspected that you were far too much the
> ignorant cretin to appreciate real art, and
> now you are confirming my worst suspicions
> about you.
"Real Art?" That's an ambitious claim.
> Thank God for the Impressonists attack on idealism.
>
> Actually, I find some Impressionist art far less
> interesting than Symbolist art done during the
> same period. (See Google for my "Symbolism: One
> Hundred Years of Neglect.")
No such animal on Google. But I don't know why you wrote that -
symbolist painting is idealism. Maybe something I said pushed a button.
>>Take Delacroix for example. His Salon piece, "Dante and Virgil in Hell"
>>was a political satire. But he hid that fact all his life, covering it
>>up out of fear of retribution from that "grand culture" you cite. I
>>can't blame him - he didn't want to suffer the consequeces.
>
> I don't know about that, so I am not going
> to emulate YOUR behavior and argue anyway.
> I do know that many 19th century French
> artists had the courage to flout the
> conventions of the establishment, though.
Political satire is not flouting the conventions.
Argument is an artform, by friend. You should try it sometime.
Erik
Erik A. Mattila
Very good, Bill. You show signs that you are not impervious to truth.
I'm glad I took the time to explain things to you.
Erik
John Rune
Palmer) wrote:
....
=>You had racists in most countries in those days.
....
I really _must_ nominate the previous statement as one of RAF's All
Time Top 10 One-Liners Ever. "in _those_ days" Now _that_ is comedic
genius. <g>
Peace!
C'ya,
Rune
Onyxson
> Political satire is not flouting the conventions.
>
> Argument is an artform, by friend. You should try it sometime.
>
> Erik
>
> >
> >
> > alt.genius.bill-palmer
> > (Temporary office: upstairs at rec.arts.prose)
> > wil...@ix.netcom.com
> > > > I don't know about that, so I am not going
> > to emulate YOUR behavior and argue anyway.
> > I do know that many 19th century French
> > artists had the courage to flout the
> > conventions of the establishment, though.
>
> >>Erik
He was not referring to Delacroix's political satire when saying
"I don't know about that, so I am not going
to emulate YOUR behavior and argue anyway. I do know that many 19th
century French artists had the courage to flout the conventions of the
establishment, though."
He was referencing the Impressionists (Monet, Degas, Caillebotte,
Pisarro), Romantics (Ingres, Pierre Puvis de Chavannes) and Symbolists
(Bernard, Redon) when saying that, who broke out against Classicism to
revolutionize artwork.
Richard
John, don't despair. I've seen artwork by quite a few good french
realist draftsmen in erotic comic books. Check out this newsgroup:
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.cartoons. They even include some
drawings of architecture using good old fashioned knowledge of
perspective. I've noticed that most of the erotic comic books with
really good artwork come from france. A few other good ones come from
Italy. The ones from America are usually crudely drawn and written.
The french ones are sophisticated and realistic as well as beautiful
and stylish. I like to download them to get examples of how to draw
women with simple line drawings in a beautiful way.
I've also noticed that even the french artists who don't make
realistic art still have a great sense of beauty, style, and
liveliness, which makes their art superior to American non-realistic
art, which is usually pretty ugly and childish looking.
If you like pop music, I recommend downloading mp3's of songs by
Alizee. She's a great new french singer. Her songs are so cool and
hip.
William Palmer
That's an excellent example of your being
a braying ass.
You either miss the point or PRETEND to miss the
point in the hope of misleading our readers. The
point was, if they were enlightened enough to have
a high-ranking general of color in the 18th century,
then it is logical to assume they would have been
even more enlightened in the next century. Further,
you deviously hint that General Dumas was imprisoned
and broken down because of race, although you are
careful not to state that directly. However, race
had nothing to do with the Dumas affair. He simply
went against Napoleon's wishes regarding military
tactics, and Napoleon treated him with the same
harshness he showed with other subordnates who got
on his wrong side.
>
> >
> > You see, the French, as a people, simply did not
> > have the hang up about skin color that many
> > European countries did. Yes, the French could
> > be bigoted, but it was more a cultural bigotry.
> > A person with dark skin who spoke exellent French
> > and knew the ins and outs of French culture, would
> > be much more acceptable to society than a white
> > skinned "Vrenchman" who didn't know the language.
> >
> >>"The evils of the Jews do not stem from individuals but from the
> >>fundamental nature of this people." [From Napoleon's Reflections, and
> >>from speeches before the Council of State on April 30 and May 7, 1806]"
> >
> > Actually, he was less bigoted than most Europeans
> > of that day. Napoleon proved that he was willing
> > to work with Jewish people when it suited his
> > purposes. He never showed any Nazi-like zeal
> > to exterminate people simply because they happened
> > to be Jewish. If you knew history better, you would
> > realize that the French were just emerging from the
> > rule of the monarchy at that time. Of course
> > there was all sorts of ignorance and prejudice
> > loose in the land, just there was in every other
> > country in 1806, last I heard.
>
> I am aware that the French Revolution was in 1792.
You were? Didn't see any sign of that, I must
allow.
I'm also aware tha
> Bonaparte put-down the independence movent in Santa Domingo in 1802 and
> reinstated slavery, which had been outlawed in France in 1793.
You are distorting what actually happened. Actually,
so many French soldiers had died of disease, that what
you refer to was more in vein of a forced conscription
for workers to assist in the military effort.
> >
> >>"By 1815, he performed his now infamous dissection of the South African
> >>woman known as the "Hottentot Venus" to solve once and for all the
> >>mysteries of the renowned genatalia. Cuvier always referred to her as
> >>"Vénus Hottentotte" -- emphasized her sexuality."
> >>
> >>"1815 Henri-Marie Ducrotay de Blainville (1777-1850), professor at the
> >>Muséum d'Histoire Naturelle in the Jardin du Roi, set out his purposes
> >>in observing the "Hottentot Venus": "(1) to provide a detailed
> >>comparison of this woman with the lowliest race of humans (the Negro)
> >>and the highest type of apes (the orangutan); (2) to provide the most
> >>complete possible description of the anomalies of her genitalia""
> >>
> >>"1828 Duchess Du Barry held a ball in Paris showcasing his very own
> >>naked "Hottentot Venus" as his main attraction."
> >
> >
> > Do you really think our readers do not realize
> > that someone could present a rather good sized
> > book here, if he or she decided to list all the
> > recorded examples European ignorance, bigotry,
> > and general foolishness from past times. You
> > are talking about people who had no idea what
> > a germ was, let alone a virus, for pity's sake.
> > Exactly how much racial enlightenment do you
> > expect?
>
> You made the claim that 19th Century France was significantly less
> racist than others. I think you are wrong.
Well, your nutty ancecdotal evidence certainly
is not helping to make your feeble case.
Remember, you reacted to my
> simple response to your phrase ""worldbeaters" when it came to culture",
> which was to point out how France had beat the shit it's colonial
> cultures.
Yes. I was saying that France was the leader in
art in that period, and you came along with your
politically correct twaddle about French colonies.
The French record is as dark and ugly as any colonial power
> in the 19th Century, perhaps worse in many cases.
>
> >>"1855 Arthur Joseph de Gobineau (1816-1882) : a Frenchman in 1854 who
> >>published "Essay on the Inequality of Human Races" in which he used
> >>anthropology, linguistics and history to formulate a theory in which
> >>race explained virtually everything in the human experience. The
> >>decisive events of history are determined by the iron law of race, he
> >>asserted, and human destiny is decreed by nature and expressed in race.
> >> He saw the typical Aryan tall, blond-haired, blue-eyed, fair-skinned
> >>were cultural people superior due to Social Darwin.
> >
> > You had racists in most countries in those days. As
> > far as our own disagreement goes, you are begging the
> > question too. I certainly did not either state or
> > imply, "Out of the millions of 19th Century French,
> > there were NO racists." That was not at all my
> > point. My point was that, taken as a culture,
> > the French were not as skin-culture obsessed as
> > some other European cultures of the day.
>
> Is that your best defense of your beloved French culture. That others
> did bad things too.
No, I was saying that people of color could
win acceptance in French society. In England,
the most dark skinned people could hope for
in those days was to be accpeted as a social
oddity, sort of like a trained seal.
Taken as a culture, they knew it far better than
the Germans and the English did. That was my
point.
> century. Or even count, for that matter.t
Too bad you can't grasp the fact that
things that happened in the late 18th
century might well affect matters in
the early 19th century.
> > same period. (See Google for my "Symbolism: A
> > Century of Neglect.")
>
> No such animal on Google.
I typed the tile wrong. It was "Symbolism: A Century
of Neglect." Try it that way.
Erik A. Mattila
>>>Actually, I find some Impressionist art far less
>>>interesting than Symbolist art done during the
>>>same period. (See Google for my "Symbolism: A
>>>Century of Neglect.")
>>
>>No such animal on Google.
>
>
> I typed the tile wrong. It was "Symbolism: A Century
> of Neglect." Try it that way.
Why don't you just provide the URL. Your second version is exactly the
same as your first version.
William Palmer
Either you are an absolute Google-incompetent or
you are lying through your teeth. I just did
a Google GROUPS search for "Symbolism: A Century
of Neglect" (without even using the quotation
marks) and I came up with 597 GEMS (Goggle
mentions) because of all the follow-ups and
discussions of the orignal article, posted
over five years ago in rec.arts.fine. Actually,
Google worked wonderfully well in that case,
because of the 597 GEMS the very first GEM was
the one with my original article. (Don't take
my word for it, let your fingers do the walking
to Google Groups search and click on the very first
GEM of the 597.) Actually, if I may say so, it
is an eassay that needs to be read by anyone who
is interested in the question of why Impressionism
more or less eclipsed Symbolism for about one
hundred years. In fact, maybe one of these
days I will polish that essay a bit and repost
it in rec.arts.fine. As a general rule, I
am not too big on reposts, because I think it
is the spontaneous element of writing for Usenet
that makes it such an exciting place for a writer
to hang out. I have no idea what I will write
tomorrow, because what I write tomorrow will
very likely be influenced by what I READ
tomorrow in posts by others. That's what
I call life in the thoughtstream...
alt.genius.bill-palmer
(Temporary publishing headquarters: upstairs
at rec.arts.prose)
wil...@ix.netcom.com
Erik A. Mattila
Go to Google Home
Advanced Search Preferences Language Tools Search Tips
Web
Images
Groups
Directory
News-New!
Your search - "Symbolism: A Century of Neglect" - did not match any
documents.
Suggestions:
- Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
- Try different keywords.
- Try more general keywords.Also, you can try Google Answers for expert
help with your search.
William Palmer
Horsefeathers! Many of those Bouguereau GEMS
demonstrate the wonderful work that Mani Deli and
others have done to try and lift Bourguereau from the
undeserved pit of near-obscurity where the neglect of
the art establishment (in France and elsewhere) had
left him languishing for so long. As far as I am
concerned, that is one of the wonderful things about
the net, that free speech is still a reality and things
and people worthy of publicity can get it. (However,
as a cautionary note it should be added that if
there is no substance to whoever or whatever is
being publicized, readers will catch on fast.)
In the Bourguereau case, the neglect was absolutely
unwarranted, though, so it is wonderful to see
people becoming more aware of this great painter.
Just to give another example of the way the art
establishment has a de facto way of dictating
tastes, I glanced through a Penguin Dictionary
of World Art (or something to that effect, I did
not buy the book) in a bookstore and I noticed
that though the volume in question was very thick
paperback, it did not even have an entry for
Fernand Khnopff! Yet, the pages, as I glanced
through them, seemed to abound with entries for
artists with far lesser talent and creative
genius than Khnopff possessed. I put the book
back on the shelf in disgust, and I didn't even
bother to try and look for entries on the other
unreasonably-neglected Symbolists. a.g.b-p
>
> Erik
chris
breaks it into 2 or more lines, you put it back together...
http://groups.google.ca/groups?q=Symbolism:+A+Century+of+Neglect&hl=en&lr=&i
e=UTF-8&selm=3lgaal%24g30%40ixnews2.ix.netcom.com&rnum=1
Erik - Perhaps you are ding your search from the Google home page, not the
groups page?
And now you two get back to arguing intelligently, & giving us something
worth thinking about :)
Chris
"Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@oco.net> wrote in message
news:3DD2AF4F...@oco.net...
Mani Deli
Palmer) wrote:
>Horsefeathers! Many of those Bouguereau GEMS
>demonstrate the wonderful work that Mani Deli and
>others have done to try and lift Bourguereau from the
>undeserved pit of near-obscurity where the neglect of
>the art establishment (in France and elsewhere) had
>left him languishing for so long.
B. is a kind of immortal zombie of modern art. He keeps popping up.
Book covers, post cards, puzzles, posters, etc.; (On stuff that sells)
and an occasional a well attended show. He is popular without a well
known name. His paintings haven't earned a Modern critic's word in his
favor. They don't need one.
The best of B. is in his amazing detail. Nobody, and this can only be
seen in the original. No one painted flesh like B. Not Rubens, Ingres,
David, Raphael, or any 19 cent. academician, etc..
Look at his masterly drawings or the preliminary studies for his
paintings (many are pure impressionism) Compare them to Picasso and
Matisse.
The student of modern art learns to rant about the awfulness of B. and
19th cent academic art by seeing a slide and listening to some utter
nonsense about academic evil and the lurking dangers of kitsch in
politically correct art history courses. Few can name ten academic
painters or have ever seen any of their work. About all they learn is
that it was evil and the Impressionists revolted against it and held
separate shows. Little known to artzy fartzies is that many academics
also took up Impressionism and exhibited it in the in the salons.
The present view of nineteenth cent. art history carefully avoids
mentioning about 98% of its artists. It is as if a history of the 20th
century contained one paragraph each about Hitler and Stalin and only
got into detail about America's triumphs over communism.
It is no wonder Picasso and Matisse hated B. By the way a load of
Academic paintings were found among Picasso's art collection. Dali
also owned a B. and admired the finest of 19th cent. technique.
...no skill no art!
Want to get away from the indecipherable imbecilities and absurd pretensions of the modern art establishment?
Check out my web page http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
Erik A. Mattila
> This is tiresome; here's the link, just make sure that if your browser
> breaks it into 2 or more lines, you put it back together...
>
> http://groups.google.ca/groups?q=Symbolism:+A+Century+of+Neglect&hl=en&lr=&i
> e=UTF-8&selm=3lgaal%24g30%40ixnews2.ix.netcom.com&rnum=1
>
> Erik - Perhaps you are ding your search from the Google home page, not the
> groups page?
Yep. The man said "search google," and I was expecting an essay on a web
site. But in the course of my endeavor, I did find a tribute page to
Palmer that is great:
http://www.cyberussr.com/hcunn/usenet/palmer.html
"Bill Palmer (wil...@ix.netcom.com) first made a name for himself in
some of the Russian newsgroups for lengthy lampoons (Some were not bad,
but didn't he have anything better to do?) and verbose
self-righteousness. See Misha Verbitsky's Palmer archive for examples of
the early Bill Palmer. What made Bill Palmer a truly distinguished
Usenet kook was his belief that Igor Chudov created the newsgroup
"alt.genius.bill-palmer" [hereafter a.g.b-p] in November 1996 as a
compliment, rather than as irony. For about six months, Palmer valiantly
stood his ground as the "focus person" of a.g.b-p, serving as an easy
target for every flame-warrior-wannabe in Usenet."
>
> And now you two get back to arguing intelligently, & giving us something
> worth thinking about :)
How about this:
Newsgroups: alt.genius.bill-palmer,alt.usenet.kooks,alt.fan.karl-malden.nose
Subject: Fidel says: lay off Bill Palmer!
From: ch...@granma.com (Ernesto Guevara)
Organization: Socialisto y Muerto
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 16:16:37 GMT
Che! Fidel asked me to tell you cretins to lay off Bill Palmer! So
what if he takes hundreds of lines to say absolutely nothing? When
Fidel gives a speech 6 hours non-stop, everyone in Cuba wants to
listen! The only exceptions are a few gusanos, maricones, and
black-marketeers. So which are you?
--Ernesto Guevara
Kewl, huh?
Just kidding,
Erik
John Ng
> ...the volume in question was very thick
> paperback, it did not even have an entry for
> Fernand Khnopff! Yet, the pages, as I glanced
> through them, seemed to abound with entries for
> artists with far lesser talent and creative
> genius than Khnopff possessed...
Simple answer... authors plagerize other books. In the case of
Bouguereau, because nothing is already written about him, there is no
way these authors can plagerize. Research and art-book-authors don't
mix.
John Ng
Richard
On Wed, 13 Nov 2002 18:00:56 -0500, Mani Deli <ma...@sympatico.ca>
wrote:
>It is no wonder Picasso and Matisse hated B. By the way a load of
>Academic paintings were found among Picasso's art collection. Dali
>also owned a B. and admired the finest of 19th cent. technique.
This is just more evidence that picasso's modern crap was just a con
game designed to crank out a bunch of quick, shitty paintings to make
more money, with art critics in cahoots, and perhaps being paid to
hype Picasso and whoever else was in on the con.
William Palmer
How clever. You scrounge around until you find two
flames of the (literally) many thousands written
about the World Champion of Flaming. Does this
mean that you consider rec.arts.fine a repository
for old flames and you are going to post the other
few thousand Bill Palmer flames written by notorious
spankards (flame war losers) of mine? Some of
the posters in rec.arts.fine know that as a hard
working writer/performance artist, I wear many
hats on the net, but I don't come to r.a.f to do
my flaming. I come here to discuss art, so I
resent your trying to provoke a flame fest that
is beneath the dignity of this newsgroup. I might
add that what you missed, in your inept Google
search, is the fact that the main thing I am
known for in Usenet is the fact that I have
written several hundred "stand alones," posts
entirely by me, and that some of them are among
the best known pieces of original writing in Usenet.
For instance, my autobiographical work-in-progress,
"Facts in the Case of Bill Palmer" has about 1,500
GEMS, likely far more than you do as a person.
As far as my writings on art, I wrote and
posted "Symbolism: A Century of Neglect,"
several years ago. That you were too much
the pedantic dunce to find it is your problem,
since I very clearly stated that it is found
easily by doing a Google GROUPS search.
(I might that essay has over 500 GEMS itself,
so it is scarcely an obscure piece of writing.)
Also, I wrote and posted my Bibliography of
Symbolism and that can be easily found in Google
too, though it is really about time for me to
repost that again for the benefit of those new
to the group. In addition to those works,
I wrote "Refuge in Art," about how I was
affected by a painting by Frank Kelly Freas,
the science fiction illustrator, though I
caution all readers in advance that my essay is
emotional and subjective. On top of that, I
also wrote the informal essay "The Great Humor
of Dali." That's in Google too. Therefore,
if you are going to set yourself up as an
expert on someone with 114,000 GEMS, you
should stop braying like a donkey over old
flames by flame-war losers and actually
read and study some of my better known
Usenet works. a.g.b-p
William Palmer
> chris wrote:
> > This is tiresome; here's the link, just make sure that if your browser
> > breaks it into 2 or more lines, you put it back together...
> >
> > http://groups.google.ca/groups?q=Symbolism:+A+Century+of+Neglect&hl=en&lr=&i
> > e=UTF-8&selm=3lgaal%24g30%40ixnews2.ix.netcom.com&rnum=1
> >
> > Erik - Perhaps you are ding your search from the Google home page, not the
> > groups page?
>
> Yep. The man said "search google," and I was expecting an essay on a web
> site. But in the course of my endeavor, I did find a tribute page to
> Palmer that is great:
> http://www.cyberussr.com/hcunn/usenet/palmer.html
> "Bill Palmer (wil...@ix.netcom.com) first made a name for himself in
> some of the Russian newsgroups
Ha! As long as you are posting ancient flames
about me, Erik, I did a few seconds checking
on YOU. You have a "whopping" 2,840 GEMS!
Gee, I had no idea I was arguing with a
net legend, someone who is almost a household
word in Usenet. Oh, yeah, didn't a
distinguished professor start a famous newsgroup
about you, alt.genius.erik-mattila or something?
the-funny-little-wilhelp-man
"Official Entertainer to the Net Kooks"
Erik A. Mattila
flatered that I was looking for your paper.
William Palmer wrote:
> "Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@oco.net> wrote in message news:<3DD30826...@oco.net>..
>
> How clever. You scrounge around until you find two
> flames of the (literally) many thousands written
> about the World Champion of Flaming. Does this
> mean that you consider rec.arts.fine a repository
> for old flames and you are going to post the other
> few thousand Bill Palmer flames written by notorious
> spankards (flame war losers) of mine?
It doesn't mean anything, Bill. I just found it amusing. You should be
flattered that I was looking for your essay (what I thought would be an
essay, that is.)
> As far as my writings on art, I wrote and
> posted "Symbolism: A Century of Neglect,"
> several years ago. That you were too much
> the pedantic dunce to find it is your problem,
> since I very clearly stated that it is found
> easily by doing a Google GROUPS search.
Really? Check your post:
Actually, I find some Impressionist art far less interesting than
Symbolist art done during the same period. (See Google for my
"Symbolism: A Century of Neglect.")
But if you want to think of me as a dunce, be my guest.
> (I might that essay has over 500 GEMS itself,
> so it is scarcely an obscure piece of writing.)
> Also, I wrote and posted my Bibliography of
> Symbolism and that can be easily found in Google
> too, though it is really about time for me to
> repost that again for the benefit of those new
> to the group. In addition to those works,
> I wrote "Refuge in Art," about how I was
> affected by a painting by Frank Kelly Freas,
> the science fiction illustrator, though I
> caution all readers in advance that my essay is
> emotional and subjective. On top of that, I
> also wrote the informal essay "The Great Humor
> of Dali." That's in Google too. Therefore,
> if you are going to set yourself up as an
> expert on someone with 114,000 GEMS, you
> should stop braying like a donkey over old
> flames by flame-war losers and actually
> read and study some of my better known
> Usenet works. a.g.b-p
Braying like a donkey? Come on, I was merely having a good laugh at
your expense. You need a hyde thickening agent, I think.
Your "essay" was pretty silly, I might add. In the first place, it's
not a terribly strong argument to claim that French Symbolists have been
neglected, considering the reputations of Gauguin, Matisse, Redon and so
on. I don't know where you studied art history, but it must have been a
dismal experience if you weren't taught about these artists. Of course
some are obscure - as many Impressionist painters are.
You are also very confused about what a "symbol" is, how it differs from
a "sign" and how art historians such as Panofsky use these terms. At
any rate, I found your "essay" to be weak, as one would expect by the
foolish parametric that Symbolists have somehow been neglected.
Erik
Erik A. Mattila
> Ha! As long as you are posting ancient flames
> about me, Erik, I did a few seconds checking
> on YOU. You have a "whopping" 2,840 GEMS!
> Gee, I had no idea I was arguing with a
> net legend, someone who is almost a household
> word in Usenet. Oh, yeah, didn't a
> distinguished professor start a famous newsgroup
> about you, alt.genius.erik-mattila or something?
Well, that's the difference between you and I. I wasn't doing "a check"
on you. I was trying to find your essay and stumbled across an amusing
reference.
Beyone that, I have no idea what "GEMS" are, so I can't say much about it.
Erik
William Palmer
GEM is "Google mention." Why not just say hits?
GEM is more helpful, since it is Google-specific
(and if you say GOOGLE hits, you are using an
unnecessary word). Of course, you can have
web GEMS and Usenet GEMS (the latter you get
by doing a Google GROUPS search) or you can
combine your figures, depending on what you
are trying to find out. a.g.b-p
>
> Erik
Dave Hillstrom
Fox) wrote:
>Erik, I've gotta hand it to you - going head-to-head against a
>garden-variety net kook like Mani or Alison is one thing - but trying to
>carry on a rational dialog with a major-league kook like WILLIAM PALMER is
>like publicly debating a professional 'anti-evolutionist' Christian. You
>dabble in it; he's a full-time professional. I commend your spirit.
>
>By the way, I looked up his 'Facts in the Case of Bill Palmer: Diane.' (OK,
>so I don't have enough to do today....) - boy, is he a terrible writer! No
>wonder he's had to make usenet his life.
i'm sorry, but bill palmer has actually been a bot for some years now.
i thought everyone knew that.
--
Dave Hillstrom mhm15x4 meow
"Quotes can't be forced. They just come to you, like diarrhea."
-Dave Hillstrom mhm15x4
http://www.flonk.org ICQ# 1598403
William Palmer
> On 15 Nov 2002 00:03:26 GMT, in misc.creativity, danf...@yahoo.com(Dan
> Fox) wrote:
>
> >Erik, I've gotta hand it to you - going head-to-head against a
> >garden-variety net kook like Mani or Alison is one thing - but trying to
> >carry on a rational dialog with a major-league kook like WILLIAM PALMER is
> >like publicly debating a professional 'anti-evolutionist' Christian. You
> >dabble in it; he's a full-time professional. I commend your spirit.
> >
> >By the way, I looked up his 'Facts in the Case of Bill Palmer: Diane.' (OK,
> >so I don't have enough to do today....) - boy, is he a terrible writer!
I doubt very much that you have even read it. When
you consider that there have been many thousands
of original works posted in Usenet, and you note
that "Facts in the Case of Bill Palmer" has
something like 1,500 GEMS, you realize that it is
about as popular as a Usenet work can get. I
recommend it to all who enjoy coherent, highly
original literature. (Notice I did not say
"great literature," since that is not for me to
decide. I know that it is, for most readers,
ENTERTAINING writing and that is what counts
in Usenet. But Fox is so full of beans he wouldn't
know a piece of good writing if it walked up and
smacked him in the face.)
No
> >wonder he's had to make usenet his life.
I don't see it as a case of having to make
Usenet my life. Rather, I would say it was
my good fortune to fall into the net.
>
> i'm sorry, but bill palmer has actually been a bot for some years now.
> i thought everyone knew that.
Dr. Chudov did a fine job, and I'm thankful to he here.
a.g.b-p
Ong Of teh Oopie Ants Ita
wrote:
>On 15 Nov 2002 00:03:26 GMT, in misc.creativity, danf...@yahoo.com(Dan
>Fox) wrote:
>
>>Erik, I've gotta hand it to you - going head-to-head against a
>>garden-variety net kook like Mani or Alison is one thing - but trying to
>>carry on a rational dialog with a major-league kook like WILLIAM PALMER is
>>like publicly debating a professional 'anti-evolutionist' Christian. You
>>dabble in it; he's a full-time professional. I commend your spirit.
>>
>>By the way, I looked up his 'Facts in the Case of Bill Palmer: Diane.' (OK,
>>so I don't have enough to do today....) - boy, is he a terrible writer! No
>>wonder he's had to make usenet his life.
>
>i'm sorry, but bill palmer has actually been a bot for some years now.
>i thought everyone knew that.
I thoughtt eveebody knew that bill palmer is my hubband. ;) now u no.
Neil Maxwell
Palmer) wrote:
> you note
>that "reference deleted to avoid inflating GEMS" has
>something like 1,500 GEMS
Out of curiousity, I looked it up, and was amused to note that, of the
first 4 pages of Google Groups hits, the author of all but 3 or 4 of
the GEMS was... are you ready? Bill Palmer. I'll admit I didn't
look any deeper, as I do have things to do just now. Still, it was
enlightening. He must be a prodigious poster and self-promoter.
> I
>recommend it to all who enjoy coherent, highly
>original literature
I didn't care much for the part I read, but different strokes and all
that.
Neil Maxwell - I don't speak for my employer
Dave Hillstrom
poopie, go to your room right this minute. and no dinner for you!